Slashdot Mirror
Hurd: H2 CD Images
An anonymous submitter sends in: "The Debian GNU/Hurd team released a new Hurd CD Image. Snapshot images are produced at a four to eight week interval and the H2 images are the tenth of the series. The Hurd has grown from one CD image in August 2000 (A1) to four images in December 2001 (H2). These images are snapshots of a developing operating system, so suitable precautions must be taken when making an installation. Similar to other architectures, most important programs reside on CD 1, while the other ones contain less important packages. For the moment, Hurd doesn't support card sound and partition size is still limited to 1 GB. Hurd use the Debian packaging system (dpkg and apt as for Debian linux) , so it is simple to install and update packages."
yay for hurd! Now we have the choice between 20 window managers, 10 editors, and two kernels!
he said in the post that Hurd was not far away. This was ten years ago, and we're still waiting.
maybe if slashdot talks a litle bit more about it more ppl will join and code for it... maybe...
What ? Me, worry ?
Until Hurd is closer to Linux or BSD in partition size and overall capabilities, it isn't going to pick up much in the way of popularity.
What they have now is a rather "chicken and the egg" syndrome - it won't achieve popularity until more people start developing for it, and people won't care enough to develop for it until it's more popular.
However, the biggest drawback to Hurd is probably the fact that the people it might most appeal to (people who don't like linux or bsd style unix purists) are less likely to use it because they won't want to put up with the Hurd philosophy, when BSD is already there.
Who is going to use it? Linux has all the bells and whistles for people who love the GPL, and the BSD people who like pure unix and freedom (I know, what is pure unix anyway) are going to stick with *BSD.
I may be stupid, I'll concede that, but that link dosnt give any direct information as to what HURD is.
http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd.html
I have to question the person that marked this as informative when the link leads to a search result page with no results.
'Funny' may have been appropriate (vaporware) but certainly not 'informative'.
Rod Taylor
Forget about GNU for a second - what are the technical reasons why anyone would want to use Hurd?
Careful! Get the Hurd before the stampede!
*ducks*
Linux really doesn't impress me, but if I was into that whole GPL philosophy, it seems like Linux would be an easy choice over Hurd, which seems pretty far behind. Can a Hurd supporter give a couple of reasons why anyone would choose Hurd over Linux?
This is a repeat.
By the way, we all salut! the GNU guys, but come on, we got Linux already.
Why bother using this rubbish? 10 years ago, this was a good idea. Now that RMS has flipped his lid, who cares?
:-)
I don't give a Flying Pig (tm) about Free vs. free vs. Not-so-free vs. You-gotta-pay-for-it. The only thing that matters to me is whether it WORKS.
On the list of OS's that are usable and make the Hurd just another blip on the screen:
OS/2
Mac OS X
Solaris
HP-UX
AIX
Linux (all flavors)
IRIX
Mac OS 9
AmigaOS
BeOS
why bother with another one that can't even keep up with OS/2?
heh, here's one:
int proc_doulongvec_minmax(ctl_table *table, int write, struct file *filp,
void *buffer, size_t *lenp)
{
return -ENOSYS;
}
Where are you RMS?! The site is conspicuously deprived of the label "Gnu Hurd".
Need further proof? Look no farther than O'Reilly books. There best selling book "Unix in a Nutshell" is about real Unix, of which Unixware is perhaps the purest example. For better or worse, O'Reilly cancelled publication of its BSD nutshell book sometime ago.
Yes, *BSD is part of the Unix family tree, but it is the Cousin Eddy branch of the Unix world. Certainly not what historians would call "pure".
Check out It is free for non-commercial use. If nothing else, it will add some historical perspective to your repetoire, and introduce you to the rock-solid root branch of the Unix family tree.
Unfortunately, no-one can be told what the Hurd is. You have to see it for yourself.
I think variety is good. Keeps things interesting. But what bothers me about HURD is that they promote that it has all of the new things, but read the following:
> On the negative side, the support for character devices (like sound cards) and other hardware is mostly missing. Although the POSIX interface is provided, some additional interfaces like POSIX threads, shared memories or semaphores are still under development.
Ah, folks that is the heart of HURD, the advantage of handling shared memories, semaphores, clusters, etc. What the HURD developers should have done is focused on the hard stuff and then I think people would whine less.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
The GNU Hurd is the GNU project's replacement for the Unix kernel. The Hurd is a collection of servers that run on the Mach microkernel to implement file systems, network protocols, file access control, and other features that are implemented by the Unix kernel or similar kernels (such as Linux).
So - does anyone have a reference to the W5 for the MACH MICROKERNEL, including why it would be any better than the Linux Kernel..?
For them, linux was the beginning, and for them, it will be their end as well. Just as I wouldn't discuss religion with a fundie, I wouldn't bother to respond to a linux slashdolt.
Wouldn't crash the GNU HURD either.
cause its better.
No stupid, its funny because there's nothing there, even after 10 years of HURD "development."
haha! YHBT.
So in terms of 30 year old baggage, HURD is out there with Linux, BSD Lite, QNX and Darwin/MacOS X.
Me, I like the *ix way of thinking. If I dislike anything about GNU/Linux, BSD, etc these days, it's how far they're going away from the KISS principles that make *ix excellent.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
worked fine for me. why dont you try it again you complete dickhead.
Hmm, I've never heard of this card sound. Is this some sort of new audio technology. I guess that since linux doesn't support it either it's no wonder Hurd doesn't support it.............
:)
Okay, I'll shut up now
Does having a microkernel slow things down at all?
Microkernels attempt to give you a much more "UNIX-like" way of making a kernel: a lot of independent little "servers" that talk to each other and are somewhat isolated from each other. A bug in one kernel module will often not crash the whole system, and there is much less coupling between kernel components. Microkernels are not the most efficient way of achieving that kind of modularity, since the memory protection mechanisms they use are more costly than relying on compiler/language support together with dynamic loading, but given that people are going to continue to write lots of C code for the kernel, a microkernel may be the best compromise for achieving a modular, extensible kernel in the real world.
Well, it's good to see that both the Hurd and the Darwin projects are coming along. I'll certainly give this a try. Its hard for any new kernel architecture to replace something as mature, functional, and widely-used as Linux. But if something like the Hurd turns out to be significantly easier to extend and hack, it may well catch up quickly. Another path to acceptance is that people find that, despite having fewer drivers and less functionality, the functionality that something like the Hurd offers may be easier to configure and deliver to end users in prepackaged form (i.e., without "make menuconfig" and lots of obscure decisions).
I don't now anything about Hurd but one reason could be that some people (including myself) do care more about the underlying philosophy than if something "just works".
I think that KISS is no longer a part of the de facto Unix world. When you have hundreds of different ways of keeping things simple that have hundreds of simple kludges and workarounds to keep simply working together, the accumulated legacy cruft is, simply, no longer simple. It's a wonderful example of how incredible complex systems can emerge from the very simple behaviours of a few agents. Unfortunately, that makes it a royal pain in the ass sometimes.
I installed it on my system on its dedicated spare disk, boot it, run it and update the release from time to time.
It's not great as for device support but getting there. Drivers have always and will always be a problem for ANY OS (look at MacOS X and *BSD for living examples.) There are other features in the OS itself that make it forth a try.
If you guys are curious about it, you should definitely give it a try. Some compatibility layer is also provide for Linux drivers and apps. This needs work but what doesn't really.
The good thing is the upper layers which will provide POSIX compatibility for Unix developers to port their work. Pretty straightforward. The main reason why the distro has grown so largely in a small amount of time.
I read false assumptions and mistaken comments on this list about what is HURD. It's a kernel like Linux, and it's based on a microkernel architecture. Mach 4.0 happens to be this micro kernel but the architecture is not locked down so this can evolve if needs to be.
I read also people asking why does HURD exist at all. The answer is pretty simple: Why not? In the ten years it has existed, it should have died many times but it's still here. It's not a commercial OS like BeOS, some it doesn't need to generate streams of revenues to survive. It's just a bunch of code with ideas in it that are still pretty amazing today for it to still occupy developers to put efforts in it.
After all, we are living in a society that should encourage diversity and growth of new ideas (the US haven't being built with pioneers.) So, I am getting sick and tired of the moronic way of thinking in black & white (binary): Only two alternatives (Linux vs. Windoz) and no space for the others . And why is that? Why not letting people who enjoy using BSD and developing with HURD just do it without being hassled by the 2 main opponents?
Feeling grumpy because of the rain today.
PPA, the girl next door.
-- I feel better now. Thanks for asking.
This is a hot dog
Micro-Kernel Unix is NOT a new idea ... in fact m68kppc linux distro for the apples was in fact a mach kernel linux distro.
Security ... yeah ... because no one uses it for anything mission critical and no one has gone in to take a look at what all _can_ go wrong yet.
Linux, BSD, Other FreeOS's ... There's already a mass market out there of free operating systems the Hurd is only a GNU stunt to put GNU on yet another thing and managed to get enough people to work on it so that GNU can once and for all dump linux.
The only problem with dumping linux ... would be that without linux there wouldn't be ANY GNU hype ... sure people would know about it, but no one would care. It's linux that brought GNU to this level and I think that linux should be respected ... not yelled at because it doesn't have GNU in front of it. And why isn't it GNU Linux? Simple ... GNU wants hurd ... not linux ...
So HURD has CD-Images ... BFD ...
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
The only reason microkernels exist is limitations in existing protection mechanisms. There are only two levels, kernel and user, and each must be protected from the other. My question is this: what about something like the x86 segmentation mechanism? x86 segments have the cool property that a piece of code has the privelege level of the segment containing it. The nifty thing about that is that there are 4 privlege levels, so that you can have the kernel at the lowest level, less important stuff like the GUI at a higher level, and the app at the highest level. That way nothing can crash a more important component. I was wondering why this scheme hasn't been extend to paging. On every memory reference, the processor could check the privelege level of the page containing the currently executing code, and make sure that the target memory has an appropriate privlege level. This makes things even faster than a mono-kernel, since the only thing that is necessary to do a system call is a simple jump to the appropriate code (which would be dozens of times faster than a standard system call on x86). This shouldn't be any slower than the current way of doing things. The privlege of the current code would only have to be read whenever a page boundry was crossed, and would only reference memory during a TLB fault (which would have to reference memory anyway). The proc already does a protection check on the kernel/user bit on the page table entry anyway, so that scheme could be extended to multiple privlege levels without a slowdown. Am I missing something, or does an existing processor already do this?
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Oh well.
========================================
Death will come, and will have your eyes
-- Pavese
Now understand I know very little in the approach, but from what I gather, microkernal operating systems run all drivers as services. You can actually kill your keyboard, sound, disk access, etc. driver with a simple kill command. This also allows easy portabliity and scalability because all of your drivers are not IN the kernel code itself, but external programs.
So tell me, what advantages/disadvantages does this have over QNX? QNX may be closed source, but it is free for home use. I really would like to know how this stacks up against QNX, in which I was actually able to play Quake3, WITH SOUND! Oh, and QNX sets-up and configures everything on my system, AND WORKS, you cant get much better than that.
Something about HURD that doesn't make sense to me. One gigabyte partitions and FOUR distro cds. Now lets say each CD only uses 512megs. That is two gigabytes. Something here strike you as odd?
Anyways, I am really not an avid linux person, after attempting to install debian(video setup, ARGH!!), mandrake(VNC would stop the system from finishing boot), and darwin(ok, that was stupid to even try). Things like QNX and Windows 9x/2k just work. So Windows9x is unstable, at least I can get it installed with my eyes shut.
I think slashdot readers agree that not everything posted on slashdot is something everyone agrees with and I think A LOT of people aren't all for FSF or GNU ... why because they're politics don't match that of the other party.
Just tired of seeing EVERYONE who doesn't like GNU get bashed for it ... that's the joy of being an American ... not only can you _have_ your opinion, but you can voice it too. Not everyone has to agree with you though.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
It's best to avoid processor-specific functionality
in large architectural decisions if you want to be
portable. Besides, it's nicer for modern systems
to have components that are layered better than
a cake, so that if I have two very important parts,
I know that they can't crash each other
accidentaly.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Wow i must say microkernel really rocks, i mean this OS has been in development for 15 years ( yes it was started before linux) and it still doesn't support any sound cards? not one? none? Oh and that maximum partition size of 1 gig, well bowl me over, shit 1 gig that should be enough for any enterprise level systems right?
I mean the whole point of microkernel is that it should be easy to extend it with little frills like oh i donno SUPPORT FOR MORE THAN 1 GIG PER PARTITION! ok so maybe its not ready for the enterprise, but maybe it could fly on the desktop, oh wait after 15 years it still supports NO SOUND CARDS WHATSOEVER!
oh yes where can i sign up?!
ya with no support for any kind of sound card at all and a maximum partition size of a whoppering 1 gig it's obviusly better!
Are you new to Linux?
One more thing, einstein: clicking on the link doesn't tell you anything about the person that wrote the email or why some fucktard like you might think it's worth linking to.
This overhead pretty much killed microkernels during the 90's; at least on the x86 platforms.
It beats me why RMS is trying to beat a dead horse. The only reason that I can think of is that Linus isn't kowtowing to him, IMHO.
Personally, I'd rather see RMS spend the effort on something neat, rather than trying to reinvent a broken wheel.
Architecture. Using proper techniques a Microkernel can be nearly as fast as a Macrokernel. Microkernels tend to be simpler, more stable, and more easily made granular.
We should all use Hurd instead of Linux. Linux numbers disk partitions from 1 (/dev/hda1, /dev/hda2, ...), while GRUB, the Hurd bootloader, numbers partitions from 0. As any self-respecting computer scientist knows, it is more proper to index things beginning with 0. Therefore, Hurd is a superior operating system, and we should all immediately switch to Hurd.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
looks the same as any other unix, well except for the fact that it has super shitty video support...
Brilliant, no?
But I can imitate one:
Because it's new.
Because it's different.
Because it's a work in progress.
Because it's an adventure.
Because it's exciting.
Because it offers features monolithic kernels do not offer.
GPL Deconstructed
Gee, Hurd is using package tools developed originally for Linux (and C library work that was done for Linux, and compiler improvements that were driven by Linux users, and ...), so RMS should give credit where credit is due. It should be more properly called Linux/Hurd, or maybe just HurL.
I agree. Pity they think you're a troll.
most of the people here would have read about the differences between micro and monolithic kernels [almost a holy war in os design] . in reality it has been the case that the micokernel design has been very much an academicia exercise rather than a commercial one. though it might be due to various other reasons, it does show that there is some merit into 1) making things work for a particular case 2) once working, making it work for others RATHER than trying in one go to get a simpler solution.
i _do_ know that microkernels are much more than what i seem to think of them from the above:) yes the design and the philosophy is very different and surely interesting but practical ?....
i have taken advanced OS classes and i really do feel that the Mach though it had great ideas WAY beyond its time , was horribly complex and interwoven and so much so that anyone cringes on hearing a system based on the Mach:)
i think the Hurd is in a good position to prove us all wrong:) as its closely tied with the debian developers [who have done great work till now] and it has been slowly [very:)] progressing....
best of luck to them:)
vv
This question comes up every time Slashdot covers the Hurd. Why? Do people not pay attention? The answer's always the same: translators.
Microkernels like that used by Windows NT, you mean?
Beos.
Except free (as the spoken beer is...), and not quite hitting puberty yet...
I've scanned all the postings, and I haven't seen any other comparisons, but the descriptions from here and from the web page seem like about the same architecture...minus the extreme multi-threading and the integrated gui...
At any rate, it sure seems like this would be (yet another) great base to work from for re-building that OS that ain't no more...
Sig currently under construction. Mind the gap....
Dude, nice attempt to bait the GNU people.
You imply that people either love freedom or the GPL, but not both. Do we *really* have to have that conversation again here? Unless you're being paid by microsoft, this is just senseless infighting between two groups whose goals are almost totally in alignment.
It reminds me of a time some friends of mine wouldn't speak to each other. Why? They were both animal rights advocates- but one group thought that it was a good idea to argue that animal testing was ineffective, and the other team thought this was a bad idea because it implied that if testing worked, it would be a good idea. As a result, the movement splintered, while the research advocates ("animal rights opponents") spoke with a unified voice. The internal strategic debate ruined the overall message they were both trying to send.
The parallel to the BSD vs. GPL debate is striking. It is a fun and important debate to have, but ultimately the harm that comes from ubiquitous closed-source can't-build-on-it software, which satisfies the goals of neither camp, vastly overwhelms the importance of this philosophical discussion. It makes it seem like theologians arguing over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. If I was Microsoft's head evangelist, I'd be silently funding extremists on both sides trying to create bad political blood between these groups.
I'm not saying we shouldn't argue, obviously the issues need to be fleshed out. I'm just saying that these arguments ought to show respect for the other side (no more "we're more freedom-loving than you" namecalling), and that they ought to always be mindful of the context they are operating in - discussing the best way to create a body of free software in a world of proprietary de facto standards.
So I'm begging with all of you, show respect for your adversaries in this discussion. Acknowledge that the point of view held by the other side is understandable even if you believe that it's in error, but most importantly always make a special effort to identify the context of the discussion: that is, how can we best preserve freedom against those who would prefer all software to be proprietary?
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
All this guy did was copy an old usenet post, he put no effort into it whatsoever.
GNU carries 18 years of its own emotional baggage, and it was intended from the beginning to be a superset of Unix. This isn't the clean slate you're looking for.
yes a malaysian who posts on slashdot. good to see this. keep posting ok, i want to hear more from such a fine country? :D :D :D
kekekeke indeed!
So, you being a representative of these "x86 kernel hackers" (I assume that you believe yourself to be one), would you be so kind as to enlighten us about what the overhead of context switching really is? Believe me, most academics working in the field has a pretty good idea of what's going on. I just find statements like yours completely hillarious, and a testament to the ignorance and stupidity of people who find Linux kernel hacking to be 1337.
and this is why you got slashdot to -1, I'll probraly be slashdot to 0 for responding,
so moderator, u SUX
The basic premise behind a microkernel is that device drivers will be black box proprietary binary code from untrusted third parties, hence require clumsy run-time protection. This hypothesis has been invalidated in practice for proprietary systems, and doesn't even make sense in theory for free software systems.
There is no need whatsoever for expansive memory protection between modules at runtime. Modularity is great, but at development-time, not runtime. HURD doesn't give you any additional development-time modularity; if anything, it removes it. If you want development-time modularity, drop that stupid C language, and use a modular language, such as Modula-3 (SPIN-OS), SML (Fox, Express), or Erlang (standalone Erlang).
Microkernels were the latest hype in the 1980's for OS development. They've only ever been hype, and it's sad that GNU people waste their time with such a stupid concept, whereas there's so much more to OS design, including lots of proven concepts, that just await to be implemented in free software (who's gonna implement the lost features from Genera? from Eumel?)
-- Faré @ TUNES.org
Reflection & Cybernet
If you open yourself to the foo, You and foo become one.
Don't click on that. It's really a link to hurdse.cx!
MOD PARENT UP
Where are my mod points when I need them
MOD PARENT UP
GNU was never really finished -- if the HURD kernel is ever final, it will be the last piece. But when you clone a highly modular system like Unix, you end up with a lot of bits and pieces that are useful as separate products. So GNU's libraries, utilities, and (most of all) compilers developed a life all their own. Personally, I've never been impressed with the quality of GNU software, but it does have functionality that closed-source venders always seem to overlook. So GNU products are almost ubiquitous in the Unix world, and have a fair following on other platforms.
So time passes. It's 1991. People are still waiting for an alternative to paying fees to whoever owns Unix. (It changed hands several times.) One cheap alternative is minix a sort of toy Unix that sells for $100. But a certain Finnish grad student can't even afford even that much. He decides to write his own Unix kernel. He gives away copies to a few friends. Who give it to a few friends... All of a suddent, lots of people are using this kernel to run all the GNU software. Which means there's now a free alternative to Unix! Project GNU has succeeded! It's just not complete.
And since the final piece of the puzzle is a non-GNU program, that program ends up being the name for the whole conglomeration! Much to the disgust of Stallman. Maybe he's just testy because Torvalds doesn't like EMACS.
Hmm let us see, back in 1991 how many academics would have been basing their O/S research on such an unfashionable and underpowered device as the 386? It was mid 1995 before anyone outside Intel realised that they might be able to win the processor race with brute force application of cash. Back in 1991 the SPARC chip and the MIPS series were the hot devices and the smart money was betting on the just introduced Alpha. Even Microsoft was supporting 3 different architectures for NT.
The MACH kernel was designed even earlier when the first wave of RISC was just comming in with the ARM and the SPARC.
The microkernel concept was very closely bound to the then fashionable RISC idea. The academics working on microkernels would not be as old fashioned to consider the limitations of the i86 series when designing an O/S. After all the whole point of RISC is build you silicon to the demands of the compiler and adding the O/S to that list is not a big step.
As to whether the Hurd based on Mach will outdo Linux, I am skeptical. After all the whole point of a microkernel is you keep it small and tight. Let us assume for the sake of argument that the Hurd does start to show positive advantages, then what, do we all move to the Hurd? I very much think not.
The first obstacle to any move to the Hurd is the vast installed base of Linux. The second is that the increased overhead of added RMS is far greater than the reduced overhead of a microkernel.
So if Hurd starts to show major earth shattering performance advantages, someone somewhere will hack up MACH-Linux. After all the majority of the Linux code is the support, packaging, device drivers etc. The actual kernel is pretty small and actual dependencies on the kernel architecture relatively few. OK so not an insignificant undertaking, but compared to the overhead of managing RMS trivial, but then again so would be recoding the whole of Win2k using punch cards.
We don't need to wait for the Hurd to see whether the microkernel offers a real advantage. Just benchmark an Alpha running Linux against an Alpha running the Mach based Digital Unix. My guess is that there will be no real difference since the disparity between VMS and Digital Unix was never vast (except on highly UNIX specific benchmarks).
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Until Hurd is closer to Linux or BSD in partition size and overall capabilities, it isn't going to pick up much in the way of popularity.
What they have now is a rather "chicken and the egg" syndrome - it won't achieve popularity until more people start developing for it, and people won't care enough to develop for it until it's more popular.
However, the biggest drawback to Hurd is probably the fact that the people it might most appeal to (people who don't like linux or bsd style unix purists) are less likely to use it because they won't want to put up with the Hurd philosophy, when BSD is already there.
Who is going to use it? Linux has all the bells and whistles for people who love the GPL, and the BSD people who like pure unix and freedom (I know, what is pure unix anyway) are going to stick with *BSD.
Yeh Hurd is great.. unless you want sound or partitions large enough to actually install anything.. Even ms-dos could handle sound and greater than 1 gig partitions..
I think I'll stick with debian/linux and wait for Hurd to get a little bit more mature
Not just academics -- as you point out Windows NT was a significant development effort undertaken primarily due to the fact that OS/2 was/is x86-specific.
In addition, Motorola and IBM dumped millions (hundreds of millions?) into the PowerPC platform, including OS/2 on Mach. An enormous miscalcuation -- The Pentium Pro shipped, and they ended up selling a grand total of about 12 PPC PCs, excluding Macs.
Alpha was able to swim against the tide for a while, but even when CPU was in high demand, they never moved many units on the low end except in specialized markets.
(As for Mach-Linux, google for MkLinux.)
what do you expect from a muslim nation? In the entire arab world there isn't one democracy. Mostly it is a few super rich kings and dictators and millions of dirt poor uneducated peasants. And then when the people ask the king/dictator "why do we live in such utter filth and poverty why you are so rich and wealthy?" they simply reply with "well it's becuase the jews and americans are evil". Haha stupid muslims...
ya i know it's an asian country, but it's still Yet Another Muslim Shithole...
I glanced over the link you provided and wonder myself,
;-) and Hurd) are being
whether the synchronisation not automatically has to
be done when splitting $Application (including the OS)
onto multiple processing units?
Even think of 3D accelerating gfx cards; active ISDN
(I know few haven't been seen recently - mine is ISA-8).
What to do when it comes to 64-CPU systems? On a highly
loaded server with multiple multi-threaded server
processes even multi{ple,threaded} fs servers seem not
far away from reality.
The impact the report notes concentrates on the computer
architecture which is in use today, but slightly being
replaced by different approaches.
Remember, Linux is A current kernel for the GNU system,
whereas other kernels (Minix
designed yet.
My Karma isn't excellent, damn it! (And
Yeah, your right. There is no such thing as a civilized muslim. These 'people' (and I use the term loosely) are scum.
To all the westerners who have converted to islam: Wake up, it's not the peace-loving progressive religion its made out to be.
I've been modden down to -1 for simply responding to posts that do not comply with /. orthodoxy.
hrm, my post was meant to be sarcastic since whatis.com didnt have any information bout it, and to be made out as a STUPID N* is always a treat.
-
RMS Running For GNOME Board Of Directors
-
GNOME Foundation Elections - Final Candidate List
- Stallman Responds To GNOME Questionaire
- Gnome Preliminary Election Results In
How was that? I see plenty of comments both for and against RMS. Your problem is that you don't construct any kind of intelligent criticism, but instead throw trollish arguments out like this and expect to be praised for it.I don't feel like searching for GNU/BSD arguments, but I can assure you there's plenty of pro-BSD comments that got very high mods. Do the search yourself, I've already wasted enough time on your flamebait.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
lorrrr
lol
you'd be surprised how many malaysians have a real computer (all though a shit connection).
crap, almost any irc network that is large is infested with them. Take webmaster.com for instance. Mark the wonderfull owner has at least 2 servers or more in asia. WHy? the internet is NEW there. Not to mention they all go KKEKEKEKEKEKKEKEKEKE and make no damn sense and just flood the rooms and ask you "r u like seks?"
I'm glad to know that you find this amusing. Meanwhile, much of the really cutting edge research is happening in industry - not academia.
Perhaps this is because there are too many acedemics joking around, instead of getting real work done?
cp /dev/urandom > /dev/kmem works fool
>i thought last week it was BSD?
Who gives a flying fuck when you don't fucking know what BSD is in the first fucking place?
I'd be interested in trying HURD out, but I don't want to (a) reboot my machine between HURD and Linux use; (b) buy a new box (my UPS is out of sockets...)
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
i want the source code give me the source code
It seems like every time I turn around someone is finding a way to bitch, moan, and complain about something. The GPL buys don't like the BSD license. The BSD guys don't like the GPL. *BSD users don't like Linux and vice versa. Some people call a particular OS "GNU/Linux" while others just call it "Linux." Now we get to have the monolithic vs. microkernel debate....all over agein.
I've pretty much come to the conclusion that most disputes that persist are in fact sources of entertainment or diversion rather than legitimate issues of importance. People get bored and engage in a high-tech version of the dispute from Gulliver's travels where two groups were fighting over which end of an egg should be cracked.
Let me give you all a little piece of advice. Think for yourself, form your own conclusions. It is not necessary that anyone agree with you, or that you agree with anyone else. Everyone is going to do exactly what they damn well please, including you, so quit yer bitching. Or at least find something more productive to discuss.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for open debates of issues. Its just that when those debates drag on forever and nothing gets resolved then they aren't serving any productive purpose. Instead they create division where none need occur.
Another thing to remember is that people are going to disagree on things. That is normal and not something to pick a fight over. Anytime I see a group of people in perfect, or near perfect, agreement on something it is a sign that people aren't thinking for themselves. Of course on the other hand when there is a group where no one agrees it is often the case that they are all just trying to disagree for its own sake. Neither situation is a good one.
Think for yourself and expect others to do the same. Sometimes you'll find agreement with another person. Sometimes you won't. Just because the two of you see things differently doesn't mean that only one of you is right, or that either of you is right for that matter. You've got to call 'em like you see 'em. If everyone were to do that the world would be a better place.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
I've tried QNX for some time, as a trial, about a two years ago since ... its free downloadable ...
Under no condition did it EVER crash or act strangely, it's scary how stable it is. It even came with a GUI and Browser wich, at the time, was better then any other browser i knew. (Mozilla, Netscape, Opera)
If you're an OS interestee (a.k.a. freak) take a look, it's easy to install alas supports less hardware then linux. Don't know what it's like these days really
That's because everyone thinks they are smarter and can do it better.
Please show me the location where context switching and task switching overheads are published properly (and officially by Intel). Please also take into account the indirect overhead of cache flushes (TLB and Trace Cache), and the cost of reestablishing the cache working sets. Oh, and don't forget to include measurements for various typical application scenarios. Also make sure to include the costs using different context switching techinques. (Did you know that using the systenter/sysexit instructions saves you a few thousand cycles compared to software interrupts on a Pentium 4?)
It's usually good to read the doc before you get in over your head.
You can even find out such obscure things about the ghost irq on the older PICS. But you can't find out about the gate-addr-20 bit there, or how it came to be. That's a bit too obscure. If you ask nicely, I might explain it.
You didn't actually bother to read my previous post, did you?
I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to express. I in no way inteded that RedHat is the only significant "Linux Distro", or that there is a conspiracy against any other distributions.
My point is that there is no Operating System distribution that can accurately be called a "Linux Distribution". It would not be appropriate to call RedHat an "Apache Distribution" just because Apache httpd is on the media. Apache and Linux are just packages included on the disk to enhance the usefulness of the system. Linux is a kernel, RedHat is one of many distributions of the GNU system.
If your posted email address is accurate, then I can assume that you are a freshmaker who is already very aware of this issue. The only logical assumtion, if this isn't "gnus" to you, is that you neglected to read most of my post before responding.
Happy Gregorian New Year!
-castlan
Didn't Tanenbaum (SP?) and Torvalds already have this conversation of monolithic kernel vs. microkernel based OS's? I had mklinux installed on one of my PowerMacs. I never pushed it performance wise, but it looked like a nice, working linux box when I had it up and running.
You STILL haven't read any Intel documents, have you?
If you want to pretend you're at least kernel knowledgeable, you need to start there.
Good luck.
Feel free to believe so if that makes you happy. (Herregud for noen helvetes idioter der er rundt om her nå om dagen.)
You STILL haven't read any Intel documents, have you?
If you're referring to the Intel documents describing what the pure context switching costs (for some definition of "pure") in various application scenarios, I'm affraid the answer would be no. Give me a URL or an Order Number for these documents and I'll be happy to revoke my claim that these documents do not exist.
If you want to pretend you're at least kernel knowledgeable, you need to start there.
How brilliant. I would never have figured that I needed to actually read the processor specs before going about designing and implementing various kernels from scratch. Thank you very much. I must have been pretty lucky to get things right in the first place.
We understand that. Here's a hint - you have to read the full documentation too, the specs alone are insufficient.
And, most importantly, you have to understand both.
The truly funny thing is that you have no clue how silly you look, or keep digging yourself in deeper, by trying to look like you know something here.
Again, reading (and understanding) the doc (not just the specs) is required to really do efficient kernel programming.
That's in part what separates the really good hackers from the bad ones (*cough*).
URLs? Order numbers?
Jesus, man - if you can't even handle getting this from www.intel.com, then you really shouldn't be fooling around with CPU's in the first place. Let alone discussing it with an expert.
URLs? Order Numbers? I know of no documents on the Intel site answering the questions of my previous posts. You obviously seem to do, but I guess you never actually bothered to find out what the documentation provided there really is.
Oh well, I guess that sums it up.
I repeat: URLs? Order Numbers?
I repeat - you've shown that you can't possibly understand the answer.
Apparently not (which answer are you referring to, by the way). I do know, however, that I am not able to prove that the documents in question do not exist. You, on the other hand, is in the position that it should be relatively easy to disprove me. Just show me the documents and I'll be happy to announce that you were right in the first place.
You wrote:
u ation/compare/notwindriver.asp [microsoft.com], you'll see that they have the exact same type of article discussing Wind River. Gee, and it's even titled "Why Microsoft Windows XP Embedded and Not Wind River." Truly amazing. Sorry if I ruined your persecution complex. :)
Far be it from me to point at that you seem like a clueless, knee-jerk Linux zealot who loves to feel persecuted by Microsoft, but...
If you go to http://www.microsoft.com/windows/Embedded/xp/eval
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
---
You did not ruin my persecution complex. You just didn't read. Microsoft has attacked Wind River because they're a legitimate competitor in the embedded marketplace. They've attacked Linux even though Linux isn't a serious threat to my sister, let alone Windows. Pointing out that Microsoft has a white paper addressing both competitors completely misses the point.
Don't worry though, Slashdot has this new "Zoo" system I can use to filter out people who repeatedly miss the point.
Cheers
P.S. Your email @hotmail doesn't work.