Slashdot Mirror
RMS Says Hurd Could Be Loosed in 2002
Mark Cappel writes "According to PCWorld, RMS said in an interview in India that Hurd will see the light of day this year."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
The Hurd is finished?
The end must surely be nigh!
I am looking forward to running a Hurd system. "Hurd" is much easier to pronounce than "GhNU slash Linux" is. I think that Torvalds guy should give more consideration to how he names his creations, like the GNU guys do.
Oh, wait.
Has anyone else noticed those huge ads that seem to be randomly appearing in the middle of articles? I click reload and it disappears. Not that I've got anything against HP e-business infrastucture, but that's what banners are for.
Anyway, back on topic. RMS has been saying Hurd could be loosed every year since sliced bread was invented (which was 1984). But seriously, what does Hurd do that Mach doesn't? Or is this just RMS repeating the Symbolics episode?
Hey:
:-)
..., S-390...
;-)
Read carefully: "Linux is obsolete" said RMS
Come on Richard, read the Tannembaum vs Torvalds discussion about Microkernels.
And remember to port to IA-64, SPARC, Alpha,
Well, maybe the best part is that we can continue naming Linux (not GNU/Linux) to our operating systems now that Stallman have Hurd, excuse me, GNU/Hurd
how long has this Turd been in development? it sounds like a ploy so people will still remember Hurd even exists.
I used to follow HURD till about 3-4 years back than
lost all interest. There are some very special
features that you get with HURD, but now with UML
some of them are being fulfilled by Linux. I hope
the best for HURD, but I don't see it gaining much
mindshare in the near future.
RMS said in an interview in India that Hurd will see the light of day this year.
Emergency power to the sarcasm deflectors !
As we all know, by now, Apple's OS X is also based on the Mach microkernel. The foundation of OS X is Darwin. Darwin is Open Source and it runs under x86 PCs and of course Apple hardware. So my question is quite simply, how is Hurd different? Is the Darwin kernel architecture not OO-based? Does Hurd bring other advantages to it that Darwin doesn't already have?
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHA
Giggle
No, wait...HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Good one RMS! Oh man, you should be a fucking stand up with comedy like that!
The parent article number is pretty close to pi...
Random Question:
Since the Hurd runs on top of Mach, and so does MacOSX, would it be possible to run the Hurd alongside OSX at the same time?
The end is nigh!
"One of the reasons we are looking forward to having the GNU system finally available from the GNU Project is that it will be only free software," Stallman added.
Doesn't Debian only include Free (as in speech) software???
"In India there are a number of people who are capable of seeing free software as an ethical and social issue, whereas in many parts of the world very few people recognize the ethical and social issues, and they are more interested in the practical benefits of today's free software," Stallman said.
And err.. what are these social and ethical issues when they are more interested in the benefits of it... errr.. maybe me just tired.. can someone explain what he's saying there.. i'm lost....on this one....
thanks
Quoting the article: "Linux is a kernel, and now we have our kernel, which is an alternative to Linux, and they both work in the context of the overall GNU system, as the kernel alone won't run without the rest of the system ," he said.
Linux alone actually runs quite well, though not doing much of interest. But by adding only a few (non-GNU, I believe) tools to the kernel, it is quite capable as, for example, a router.
I read the following in the article:
"In India there are a number of people who are capable of seeing free software as an ethical and social issue, whereas in many parts of the world very few people recognize the ethical and social issues, and they are more interested in the practical benefits of today's free software," Stallman said.
I think it has nothing to do with India in specific. It has more to do with that getting people to pay software when they do not have the money is the issue.
Last time I checked Indian programmers want to be paid just as much as everyone else on this planet. It is just right now that Indian programmers are getting shafted and paid less than they rightfully deserve.
While the FSF does not preclude getting paid, it makes it DAMM difficult. If you look at the past Slashdot arcticles you can see a good business model is what makes sense. I would like the FSF to consider the fact that people have mortgages, children and college.
Sure there are companies that are doing ok. IE Redhat, but Redhat is one of the few. The rest are having problems as witnessed by the slashdot articles. Philosphical arguments are easy when you are feed, clothed and have a roof over your head.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
As someone who is not familiar with the HURD project (other then: it's a GPL'd Kernel?) can someone provide us with a brief list of some of the cool features/immediately noticable advantages HURD should provide? (This isn't intended as flamebait - I just seriously couldn't dig up much info in plain english)
"The GNU Hurd is the GNU project's replacement for the Unix kernel. The Hurd is a collection of servers..."
I don't understand how it can be a "collection of servers". This is from here a page off of the Hurd link in submission.
Help.
these guys will never realize when it just doesn't make sense to do a project. aren't they the ones who started that gnome desktop years after the kde desktop because they didn't like the licensing terms? now that gnome (or some of it anyway) will be heavily using the M$ .NET technologies. i guess as long as their code can be licensed GPL, it's ok. really guys, this HURD thing, i've been reading about it here on /. for a few years now, and i just looks like a the little project that wouldn't die. yeah, fresh ideas are a good thing and all, but my question to those HURD people would be, what exactly are the new/interesting features (stability , robustness, smp) that you'll be providing the "community"? and how do you plan to over come the challenges the "other" kernel guys have gone through in the last 10+ years?
to throw a little sarcasm in: who knows, maybe _they'll_ accept that pre-emptable kernel patch someone submits. and maybe _they'll_ never have a release 1.15.dont_use_this_tar_ball release. maybe they just won't use virtual memory at all. (did you see what happened to the 2.4 linux series with that one?)
Nothing, and I mean nothing brands RMS as a self-centered zealot more than his insistance on forging ahead with Hurd. How can anyone think it will possibly make a difference to real-world users?
I bet $150 Hurd will not be released this year..
Place your bets here!
Don't Tread on OpenSource
The GNU Project launched in 1984 to develop a Unix-like operating system to be offered as free software. By 1991, the Linux kernel was available, ahead of the GNU kernel, called the Hurd.
Oh yeah, the the Linux kernel was available in 1991, ahead of the Hurd kernel. I'd say eleven years and counting is "ahead". It's already been through dozens of revisions, spawned countless companies, aided a massive market bubble, and caused a giant, mutant penguin to terrorized Redmond, WA. I'd say it's "ahead".
The Gardener
--
I think that Torvalds guy should give more consideration to how he names his creations, like the GNU guys do.
*laugh* I can see three ways this statement could be taken, all of them collectively funny.
What I don't see is why anyone would mod it "flamebait"...
-- MarkusQ
The reason hurd will see the light of day is if the hurd port to a decent microkernel, L4ka, becomes the primary development focus...
yeah
i am damn excited. its good its cool whoooaaah,. hurd is coming, its gonna bash all compatition. Its been blessed by the pope of free software. beware penguins coz you will be trampled under the hooves!!
Do i care! or do you care.
Credit is all he wants. He is getting too much of it. People call him pope of Free software! and then he rants on in his interview that 'they' are forgotten.
It is rather that 'he' is forgotten not 'they'.
And i really think its not really gonna come out this year. Its been long since hurds coming out.
Do you need it, do i need it!! Long live the penguin!
And for gods sake somebody tell thay guy to stop playing around with recursive acronyms. English is not gcc. Recursion is somehting i better leave to my Box to figure out already i got enough hurds trampling my brain
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
Wheeee :) Now we'll have the "Hurd is better than Linux because" arguments, and the "Linux is better than Hurd" stuff too :) And we all know what Linus thinks of microkernels :)
*Sits back and watches the ensuing fun*
:)
Crikey. Don't post on level 2 when you're just too dumb/tired to understand what he's saying.
Quite simply : In the west, we only care about linux because it's cheap. In India, they care because it's Free as in Speech and they consider that a good thing.
Stop the brainwash
The Hurd...provides a rather complete and usable operating system today. It is not ready for production use, as there are still many bugs and missing features.
Complete. Usable. Not Ready. Buggy. Missing Features.
You are receiving this message because your browser supports Slashdot Sigs and you have Slashdot Sigs enabled.
Turd works just as well as a recursive acronym as Hurd, for saying exactly the same thing. That's the big downside of recursive acronyms: the first letter is kinda redundant...
If you think why MS is so ubiquitous, it is because
of their persistence. They will do whatever
possible to sell a software. If still they fail
they try again again and again. If they fail they
will find a way to force it down your throat.
That is what RMS is. He is persistence. If it
wasn't for his persistence, there wouldn't be a GNU
project. And detractors may say what they like but
Linux wouldn't exist without GNU (I don't agree to
GNU/Linux). People who can't see the benefit of
GNOME, must understand that it was GNOME which
forced QT to reduce restrictions in their license
so that you can trust that QT won't be taken away
in the future.
HURD is a unique product, although I don't agree
with the cathedral like way they produce it but
still will be one product which can compete with
Linux in the future. Its only a matter of time,
when the system is made more efficient.
In an attempt to answer all the 'why not just use Linux?' questions, have a look at the man's explanation of it.
... :-)
Basically, Linux wasn't around when Hurd was started, and they believe it is different enough to complete/compete despite the grand rise of Linux. (Remarkably honest & non-political notes by RMS)
Good luck to them - i hope it succeeds (we can't have Linux becoming a monopoly
He hath taken the shilling of Bitkeeper
What's the name?
According to tradition it's got to have a name. More X's, the better. Not three X's thou.
So my bet would be Hurdix. (No GNU, because there's no non-GNU hurd..)
fucktard is a tenderhearted description
Anyone ever see a hurd of three legged horses running a race ? They crash just as often.
good point .
_________________________________________________
Its a self solving problem. As IBM and Red Hat become the only companies that can make money from an open source business model the rest of the industry will wise up and quit trying to make money by selling what you can't sell, free software.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
You guys who complain about these ads all the time are fscking morons.
People who use euphemized-explitives are morons.
Does Hurd run .net? Does it compile C#? Does it emulate Cleartype? Does it use official Microsoft .dlls or does it rely on immitations?
As a programmer making fair wages with fair outgoings and a family I can't (or won't?) afford windows + office.
I do contribute to OS software and am happy to use Linux and Open Office along with Lilypond etc etc and all my other favourites.
So OS helps me, the guy with family to put through school.
Sam
blog.sam.liddicott.com
Right Here.
Best Slashdot Co
"RMS said in an interview in India that Hurd will see the light of day this year."
But RMS won't. He hasn't been out of his cave since 1986.
I think the point of this excersise is,(and was), to build a 100% free,(as in speech), os.
,When the linux kernel came along this got side tracked.I am glad Hurd is near completion as I will soon be able to work and play on a completely free os.
,"..less mature, and less feature rich proejct ..",which is free,(as in speech),than a feature filled os which is not 100% free.
"Welcome to the GNU Project web server, www.gnu.org. The GNU Project was launched in 1984 to develop a complete Unix-like operating system which is free software: the GNU system. (GNU is a recursive acronym for ``GNU's Not Unix''; it is pronounced "guh-NEW".) Variants of the GNU operating system, which use the kernel Linux, are now widely used; though these systems are often referred to as ``Linux'', they are more accurately called GNU/Linux systems. "
This was stallman's intention right from the begining
This is not about revenge.I will be very happy to use a
_________________________________________________
the kernel alone will run ?
... ...) ...) I hope
...
1) how will you compile it ? Not with GNU compiler collection I hope
2) how will you install it ? Not with the GNU bootloader I hope
3) What will it run ? Not a GNU shell I hope (bash, csh,
4) What desktop system will you run on it ? Not GNOME (GNU
nearly all components of the "linux" operating system are GNU, except the kernel itself
Just a thought
I installed this version of Debian Hurd (id=51) months ago and it is quite stable (I'd say more than windows95) so, because of its elegance, the few remaining minor problems should be fixed soon.
So, whoever called this vapourware should at least verify their sources : Hurd is no more confidential.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
So, they built a (arguably) better OS based on BSD license, and called it FreeBSD. Then it forked and we have NetBSD, OpenBSD, and FreeBSD.
Despite the great beauty of FreeBSD, and the vastly developed environment (countless ports that work flawlessly, providing users with easy to install and run applications), FreeBSD is not doing as well as Linux.
Why? Buzzword Bingo. It's hard enough to compete with Microsoft to get a persons attention, and convince them to try a new OS. And, when the average person looks for a "alternative" Linux is the most obvious choice. FreeBSD gets only a small fraction of that attention, even if it is technically equivalent (or better in some people's opinion).
IMHO, this is why HURD may fail. It's not because it won't be a good alternative, or because it will be technically inferior, because those will likely be untrue. Hurd will probably be competitive, but how will it get a market share?
Linux will make vast roads to having a real-time kernel, embedded, etc... (QNX like), long before Hurd is ready. So, add the lack of press, lack of interest, and slow development, I can't help but think it will not see much success. How can you not see it in a similar light to the BSDs, even if the licensing is different?
You really should read the article before you post. The same goes for you other fools who replied to this post.
The software industry is dead: development has become the equivalent of amateur radio, a hobby declining as its participants age and die. Who is going to use this thing?
The only way to gain market share is to make it cheaper. Maybe even give it away for free! ;-)
HURD's got a really cool design philosophy that I think really deserves seeing the light of day (or better yet the magnetic fields of my hard drive). While the last I checked it was still incredibly immature and most of the spec'd features weren't yet implemented, it has a lot of potential to do things that most other OS's don't (yes, even linux).
A brief summary (from the dingy recesses of my memory):
- services/processes can be remote or local, but they all look local from a users/programs point of view. Among other things, IPC type communications can span boxes all over the network with no complexities for the programmer.
- almost everything runs in userland that runs in kernel space is most other OSs. This leads to efficiencies (not having to trap into the kernel for as much), conceptual simplicity, and theoretically better security.
- translators for filesystems. Basically, this makes filesystems skinable by nonprivilaged users. One person can see a binary dump, another a SQL interface, and another some sort of html interface, but the data exists only once.
Anyway, I'm eager to try it out.
I like lots of people. That doesn't mean I go carting them around the galaxy with me. --Dr. Who
The quick form is:
1. All system services are processes in Mach, including any form of I/O and authentication, They may be switched in/out be the administrator at will.
2. Users may create their own services that are available to themselves or to others. EX. A user can write their own encrypted filesystem that works out of a single large file in their regular home directory. When they log in, they start up their EFS server, mount the filesystem to their own process and work in it. It is not visible to anyone but themselves, and is visible to their own programs as if it was just another directory. Sound fun?
3. Network services start at low/no authority and gain authority based on the ID/password provided by the requesting client. This really reduces the threat of network service attacks. No more root exploits in FTP or HTTP or other services. (In traditional services, the server has high authority and lowers it based on ID authentication)
If these aren't enough fun, read up to see more.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
RMS said in an interview in India that Hurd will see the light of day this year
...until they've reached an agreement to call it GNU/Hurd or GNhUrd.
"I would like the FSF to consider the fact that people have mortgages, children and college. "
.Should soup kitchens which feed the poor stop so that the poor man who runs a soup shop in the slums can have more business?
,teach him to fish and he can feed himself for a lifetime.
How is that a problem? YOU do not HAVE to write free software, no one is making you.
"Philosphical arguments are easy when you are feed, clothed and have a roof over your head"
So what are you saying? Are you saying that people who CAN and are in a postion to write free software should stop so that people in india or else where for that matter can write non free equivelents of what the fsf write presumebly on propritory expensive non free alternatives which would cost the Indians alot more
I would say that free software is more of a benifit to india than a hinderance because it gives indians tha ability to write and hence sell that ability to write software. If all os's and software development enviroments were propriatory the indians would not be able to afford to pay for them.I think your argument and your logic is silly and not well thought out, explain to me How
india would benifit more from there not being freesoftware in the world as oppossed to how it is benifting right now from freesoftware being available.
You can give a man a free meal and he will not be
hungry for a day
_________________________________________________
who cares?
Am I the only one suffering from Slashdot Grammar Syndrome (SGS)?
/. reader in the process who automatically swap lose/loose internally".
.sigs...but HEY! I'm still on topic!}
Upon seeing "could be Loosed" I read could be "Lost" or could "Lose", not "could be released" as the headline intended.
Needless to say I was expecting a "tale of woe" only to be greeted with "cheery" comments.
Then I thought: "Heh, They got it right, confusing thousands of
{No, I didn't read the article, but I did read the headline...sorta like responding to
My mistake. Win some, Loose some....
{g}
.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
RMS is not completing this with the hopes that it will conquer the OS market driving both Linux and Windows into the ground. (Debatable)
The FSF is responsible for nearly all of the Unix-like applications that are found in every distribution of Linux! Despite RMS's insistence the Operating System is still called "Linux."
Well, It's not linux! The kernel is linux, just try running the kernel without the GNU tools. Good luck.
Anyway, this isn't a flame, so I'll get to my point. RMS is completing the Hurd so he can have his complete GNU system. He needs the Hurd to complete the crackpot scheme he and his comunist chums hatched back in 1984 -- GNU.
The List of Grievances with Slashdot.
Unix-systems are similar enough that a switch from one to another is usually practical. Everything else is preference or application specific.
I agree that mind share is a big deal, and often trumps technical capability. The Hurd, though, is an interesting beast. It has some potential applications where Linux isn't as useful (currently). Like the BSD Jail, Linux will either add those capabilities or will not be as useful. Unlike Jail, some of the capabilities of Hurd come from the design of Hurd, so mimicing them under Linux will likely be awkward or impractical.
Either way, it should spur more evolution in modern Unix-style systems, so it's worth it for that reason alone.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
"FreeBSD is not doing as well as Linux. Why? Buzzword Bingo."
;)
No, it's down to hardware driver lack of support.
When I can't install FreeBSD on my Vaio but NetBSD works, I don't use FreeBSD.
When the Linux kernel recognises my dodgy eetherpro/100B("Sony") NIC, but the Hurd doesn't, I run Linux.
The fun question is: if the source is openly available for linux to support a given bit of kit, would someone want to take the code and use it gratuitously (munging licensing arrangements as need be) or do they want to preserve independence and duplicate effort? The latter has the advantage of providing alternatives but doubles the creating and debugging effort. Not to mention, I'm a lazy fellow as well.
More and more I think we're heading for a different singularity: modularity. "Kernel by Hurd, userspace by netbsd, hardware.networking by linux", you name it.
Now the Openness of Source more or less allows this, how about some cross-OS distributions?
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
First, probably most important too, Darwin is not a GPL product. It's licensed under the ASPL, which isn't really a open source license. Second, Darwin hasn't had x86 supported for very long, and is probably still not optimized for it.
Most obvious, HURD has been around way longer than darwin, so switching now would be kinda dumb.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
Since when did you become Slashdot's resident humour analyst, anyway? I don't think anyone cares how funny you rate a joke by the "MQR Standard."
Hi,
I am happy to see so much interest in the Hurd, even though most of the comments seem to be negative. Let me try to clear up some facts, that hopefully make it clearer what the Hurd is about.
The Hurd was started before Linux was started. So, the Hurd was not a knee-jerk reaction to Linux, GNU/Linux or whatever else. Linux steadily grew, and many people contributed to it, but few contributed to the Hurd. And everybody is happy that we have a very reliable and high-profile free operating system, GNU/Linux, today.
But there are still reasons to continue development of the Hurd. First, it is not, like Linux, an reinvention of Unix, it is a complete redesign. From scratch, essential system services were identified as independant from the rest of the system and put as a seperate program into user space. Care was taken not to force system code to the user. And care was taken to allow the user to replace system services with his own implementation, or extend the system by new services.
So the Hurd consists not of a single kernel, or a single microkernel plus a monolithic server (like Darwin), but it consists of a microkernel plus a dozen and more system servers, plus an independant number of user servers. The authentication model allows the servers and client applications to communicate without prior mutual trust. This design is what makes the Hurd technically enthralling and _completely_ different from any other free operating system kernel in existance. (There are some other systems build like that VSTa and sawmill for example, but they are much less developed than the Hurd).
The Hurd system has thus a mroe complex design than the Linux kernel, for example. Sure, the Linux kernel is not easy to understand. You have all the scheduling, memory management, the driver framework, the virtual file system layer. In the Hurd, you have all that plus a lot more. Many interfaces that are internal in the Linux kernel are external in the Hurd, and accessible by the user. So much more care had to be taken in the design of the Hurd, so it is much harder to get to usable results, because the design had to come before the implementation.
Also, the many concepts, and the new way to think about operating system services set forth consequently in the Hurd, make up a higher barrier to entry for new developers, who have to learn a lot more things before they can make significant contributions than in other software projects. I will not go into the technical advantages of this design here, because that would take too long, but there are many interesting things you can do (as an unprivileged user) in the Hurd you can't do in other systems (or can't do that easily and naturally, eg profitably).
But there are other reasons beside technical advantages that can draw your attention to the Hurd, and they are not related to naming GNU/Linux GNU/Linux. The Linux kernel consists of code from an unknown number of developers, and an equal number of copyright holders. This means two things: The license for the copyright, GPL version 2, can never, ever be changed anymore. Now, you might think of it as a great thing. But licenses need to be changed to adopt to new laws and new technical developments. Software will be used in areas it was never used before (like web services). So, sometimes it is important to update the license of a program, just as you update the software itself. The GPL version 3 is in preperation, and the Linux kernel will not be able to take advantage of its protection.
There is another problem with many copyright holders: Depending on the country you are in (definitely in the US), it becomes very difficult to defend the license in front of the court. I am not a lawyer, but Eben Moglen is, and he has told us before about the difficulties to enforce the GPL 2 on the Linux kernel. So far he has succeeded, but as the FSF is not the only party that has copyright on parts of the Linux kernel, it is much more difficult to enforce the license than, let's say, for gcc. Add to that the fact that Linus explicitely allowed binary-only modules, and you are in muddy water.
A complete operating system, of which the FSF is the only copyright holder, with the FSF's commitment to free software, is a huge strategic advantage for the upcoming battle against world's IP exploitation.
So, the Hurd does exists for two reasons: First, it does something that no other free software does, for which there is a real need. And, it cannot be done by building on other free software, for both technical and legal reasons.
For more information, please visit http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd.html, and checkt he FAQ and the introduction material in the Documentation section.
Thanks,
Marcus Brinkmann (marcus@gnu.org)
Ohh yeah, Red Hat HURD baby! Eaahhh Red Hat HURD man! Yeah Yeah Yeah
I applaud these guys, I saw the documentary Revolution OS and heard Stallman speak, and he is right! Everything should be free, including hookers!
Hurd is written in C++, while most UNICes in C. So, language-wise, Hurd is to Linux what KDE is to Gnome.
Another very important reason why Linux does better is that there is a lot of (mainly commercial) software that is distributed only as an RPM and which won't run at all under FreeBSD. Where I work we where running FreeBSD on all our unix boxes until recently. We decided to start using SAPdb as our database. It's GPL, but compiling it is hell but there is a perfectly working RPM distribution of it. So now were running Redhat on all boxes....
0x or or snor perron?!
a hurd of beowulf clusters?
It would be easier to say than gnu/linux and it might bring peace to the community. Think they'd go for it.
You don't read the story, that's why you get modded down.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
If you are really concerned about it you might try reading this thread. I really don't know enough about it to comment myself, other than to note that it was claimed to be a microkernel, but some have claimed that, like NT, it had so many non-microkernel performance hacks done to it that it really wasn't.
And I agree, it did (does, development is closed but you can still run it) run pretty nicely.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
You know the rest.
Hurd will see the light of day this year.
Which is more than can be said for most of the people reading this ....
I see through your clever ploy! No $150 for you! Now go away and don't post, 1 year!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Read my sig if you like, but I'll never see yours, thanks to Discussions, Viewing, Disable sigs...
That we will get to start making AC posts to the gist of "LINUX IS DYING!!!"
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms,
Isnt it GNU/Hurd!?
Liberty in your lifetime
I would have modded this troll up to "Insightful". I've always said that the Internet (and all that came with it: Linux, etc) are the new version of CB radio, and just a passing fad.
Just like Homer Simpson once said," The Internet... is that thing still around?"
Doesnt FreeBSD have quite good support for linux-binaries? i thought you could basically run anything compiled on a linux-system on freebsd with little or no performance-degration (sp?)? and last time i checked FreeBSD could install RPM aswell so i cant see any real reason for not using FreeBSD except of course SAP might only give support on RedHat-systems etc and not FreeBSD?
either way im running linux - just tested FreeBSD for awhile but didnt figure out for instance how to make MPlayer use _extremely_ well optimized drivers for my G-400 that are aviable as kernel modules for linux.
To begin with, by all accords, NetBSD & FreeBSD started about the same time. OpenBSD forked from NetBSD and not FreeBSD.
Now, HURD will not fail because there is no company behind HURD that needs to make money to stay in business so as long as there are Debian developers around, more than likely HURD will be around for a long time.
Personally, I don't think I will use HURD for the same reason that I don't use the Debian version of Linux (yes I know I didn't say GNU/Linux), and that is because I don't view an OS as a religion but as a way to get functionality out of hardware.
When was it, exactly, that Rich forgot that it's
about free software, not about developers being
recognized for creating free software. No one
should need to be lauded by their peers to find
a reason to contribute to the community. I
respect and thank all the people who have made
contributions to the free software community,
but no progammer (myself included) should feel
'devastated' because some -user- doesn't know
their program is separate from the kernel. That
just means they're doing their job excellently.
The people whose praise truly matters will be the
ones that take the time to find out who created
that great piece of functionality. I can't believe
anyone ever became a coder to be popular.
"A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself."
Only 5 years and 5 microkernels to late :-(
Got to agree here.
2 years ago I wanted to install OpenBSD on a number of Snort IDS systems on rack-mountable Compaq systems. I've used just about all flavors of Unix, use Linux on my desktop, but prefer *BSD for servers.
I look around for ISO images. No official OpenBSD ones available for free; you buy CDs to support OpenBSD. I need to do this *today*, and other installation methods are suboptimal (compared with booting off an install CD) in a heavily firewalled environment.
On to FreeBSD. Install crashes during the kernel boot. Some sort of driver issue.
On to Redhat. Works first time. We use RedHat.
Flash forward to last week. New job, new heavily-firewalled infrastructure, new IDS systems needed quickly to squash a worm problem. Compaq DL320 hardware available.
I want to go with OpenBSD, but once again I need to buy the CDs to get legitimate CDs, and I don't have time to mess with this. Make note to self to buy them anyways, to support OpenBSD's fine efforts.
On to FreeBSD: download ISOs, burn them and boot: works first time.
We're getting there.
Ok,I admit the linux kernel is under the gpl,(sorry if I gave thge impression that it was not), but I still feal that my point about Hurd is valid and that Hurd is not merly about revenge.My point was that Hurd was something which was intended to be developed and released regardless of linux right from the begining.When linux came about Hurd got sidelined and attention was focused else where I am glad to hear that Hurd is about to be released and I will be happy to install and use it.
_________________________________________________
I am aware of the licensing, blah blah blah, on the HURD, but can someone summarize the technical advantage of HURD or Linux or Darwin? Are there any comparisons between this kernel and other POSIX-standard OSes?
In short, aside from licensing and feeling good about themselves, why should one use this?
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
That's great, I'm always interested in something new. But my concern is that in all these comments and articles, I haven't heard (or should I say hurd) of any software, a windowing system? Can unix apps be compiled for HURD? What's the story on this?
T
The Linux-support somehow doesn't work with SAPdb. Had some problems with linux-java-binaries and other stuff as well. We can get it installed but that's about it; weird segfaults, race-conditions etc etc. SAP doesn't give any real support on the GPL SAPdb so that wasn't an issue:P By the way - the G400 has been replaced by the G450 which doesn't have a working TV-out in mplayer because matrox won't release the specs or something like that:(
0x or or snor perron?!
Personally, I just download the individual packages (surely your firewall doesn't block both HTTP and FTP?) and burn them for OpenBSD. If I have some cash on hand, I send a little to OpenBSD with a little note saying "I burned my own CD. Here's some cash because I'm not an arrogant jerk like Theo" :)
I prefer OpenBSD when security matters, FreeBSD when performance matters, and GNU/Linux when I want something well-rounded.
Not a typewriter
Correct use of the word "loose"! Rejoice!
hyacinthus.
The most important difference between the Hurd and Linux/*BSD is of course the design philosophy using a microkernel and making everything a userland task. But who benefits from that? Any fixed set of features (which is the case with usual Desktop systems and Servers) may also be implemented using a monolithic arcitecture, and would in fact be a bit more performant and would have a smaller memory footprint. (For example mounting ftp.)
The advantages of the Hurd's flexible design will make it the perfect OS for experimentation as well as for unsual needs. It's hard to add new features to Linux if you are the only one who uses it, and if you want to try a completely new concept Unix has never seen, the Hurd is the perfect place to try it out, as even the concept of a file system for example is implemented in userland and its easy to add a different way of doing things to a running system. If a specific feature turns out to be useful for a larger number of people, monolithic kernels will follow and implement it themselves if it is well research in an OS like the Hurd.
So I hope the Hurd will be a major factor of progress and innovation in the Unix world, even though it may not be used by the masses.
Need I say more?
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
/s/this year/1991/
And it's the same thing I've heard a million times before.
"Nobody's going to port apps to it..."
There's no (or very very little) work in porting apps to Hurd. It's a different KERNEL, not an entirely different operating system. It runs THE SAME GNU tools that linux runs -- the only difference is that the kernel is not the same.
Switching between hurd and linux should be as simple as changing between a 2.0 kernel and a 2.5 kernel. It's not an entirely new system.
All this ranting about how it's "too little too late..." What's wrong? Can't take the competition? We tolerate 2^n window managers and 3x^2 irc clients. What's wrong with Yet Another Kernel? Choice is a GOOD thing.
Pay attention to what's happening. Before five years have passed I'll bet you that we have "Linux" distributions that let you choose BSD/Linux/Hurd as your kernel as you install them. DebianHurd and DebianBSD are just the first steps towards this...
but pounding the GNU/Linux marking shows that they do want their credit
/. boards understand what the GPL means, then consider that in reference to GNU/Linux. Everyone of us (mostly) likely understand what the GNU/GPL part is talking about (again - that whole "Freedom" thing)... now consider your family, your coworkers, your neighbours - they just might have heard of Linux (*maybe*). They almost certainly not heard of "GNU/Linux" - and they most CERTAINLY dont understand the Freedom that RMS is talking about.
I dont think its the "peer respect" that FSF (RMS) is looking for when they 'pound' the "GNU/" moniker. I think, and Ive read RMS saying this, that to leave off the "GNU/" prevents people from learning about Free(dom) software and the Freedom that GPL/FSF/GNU provides.
When you consider that most everyone on
RMS demands the "GNU/Linux" moniker because it is this "Freedom" he is trying to spread, when the media skip it, they take the easy way out - not providing the public with the knowledge of the Concept of Freedom Software.
It isnt a "Im responsible, look at me, give me the credit" plea from RMS its the "Wait a minute, you have to tell people about the Freedom, and ethics of Sharing that has to be considered, that has given birth to GNU/Linux." Without this, GNU/Linux would not exist - it is a subtle but absolutely NON-TRIVIAL difference.
it's got to have a name. More X's, the better. Not three X's thou. So my bet would be Hurdix.
:O)
What about Xurdix?
The X and H look kinda similar, and this one would have TWO X's! So it's even better!
Who cares about a damn dirty hippy
Now, a month ago, a friend of a friend (who runs a small non-profit which helps the Third World) got a run-in with the same web-design firm. Basically, they tried to cram hosting down their throat when all they asked for was design. The scuffle got slightly interesting after we snarfed the site using wget, fixed a couple of syntax errors in their code, and put it on our own server. They responded with a couple of hissy e-mails, and then put back a mirror of our site on their server, in its original state (i.e. with syntax errors). Well, to make a long story short, while cleaning up in my old files, I happened upon this old SIRCAM mail, and now I am wondering how to place it for the most effect ;-) Interestingly enough, they seem to be reselling the services of another "non-profit", which is appopriately named after the mail program thanks to whose lack of security I got that mail in the first place...
So does this mean I won't be able to run Hurd with my NVidia video card (b/c of the non-OS drivers)?
I don't find it funny... not a bit. While I don't agree with Mr. Stallman in all aspects, he surely works hard and the result is that Linus could use GPL to make Linux free.
/. is pro-Linux? Just to pester us? Are we that important for you?
Ok, he's somewhat extreme at times, but this is what is expected from him. We need someone in this role.
Now, pal, if you're fed up with RMS, choose another OS unrelated to him. I'd suggest MS (no, this is wrong, the correct form is M$) or anyBSD -- these latter are not that cool guys, but they do a very cool system.
Why do you stay here, considering
"No official OpenBSD ones available for free; you buy CDs to support OpenBSD."
;)
;)
There is a boot floppy image in the regular tree. mkisofs takes a `-b' and `-c' parameter. You really *can* do the obvious thing - worked for me
(I suppose it helps if you have another machine capable of running mkisofs on which to perform the download, of course?
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
Quite wrong (rather completly actually). BSD license is NOT a safe haven for businesses to *share* commodity code. It does a company a disservice to add value that can be repackaged/modified/hidden by their competitor. BSD's failure is UNIX's failure. GPL licenese allows a company to add value knowing that a 3rd party cannot *ever* remove that value via repackage/modify/hide.
IMHO GPL is always the better license.
Any company that plans to make money entirly upon software sales is doomed to failure. 60-80% of software cost is maintenence. So the value position in software is to sell SUPPORT contracts. You can give/sell the software *at cost* and still make more on support -- even if the software is so perfect as to never need any support at all.
"I do have a problem with RMS's comments. He is saying things to people that are ludicrous. He is saying the West does not understand what he is trying to do, whereas India does. He does all of this from his "comfy" home. It reminds me when the Sun King's wife said "Why do they need bread when they can eat cake"."
,"He does all of this from his "comfy" home".Which is again untrue ,he said this in an interview in India.
No what he actualy said was this and there is a big difference in what he actualy said and what you say he said.
"In India there are a number of people who are capable of seeing free software as an ethical and social issue, whereas in many parts of the world very few people recognize the ethical and social issues, and they are more interested in the practical benefits of today's free software,"
Also you said
I agree with stallman I think The west is in general alot more interested in only the practical benefits of free software and tends to ignore the ethical and social issues assossiated with it.I think you are a bit confused .
_________________________________________________
Mod the parent up, it's one of the most informative posts I've ever seen on Slashdot
Businesses that use the software don't have any trouble making money from GPL software. It saves spending on other things. They hire programmers to build applications for internal use. Some of these will also be distributed, but most won't be. And most of the one's that are won't be of much interest to anyone except the business partners of the original business.
.. I admit I'm not sure about this. And I'm also not sure of the significance. KDE seems to have organized itself around the projects first, and not gotten support until after they had a working version, and Debian is still independant, then there's Linus...
Don't think of the "software house business". That is one that isn't well supported by the GPL. But software consultants are. And the consultants can do a sort of "software house business" on the side, largely as advertising. And non-computer businesses (both small and large) are. A part of the problem is that much of the way that we look at how things should operate is based on how they operated under a monopoly system, i.e., "I'm the only one who has the right to distribute this program which does this wonderful thing! So buy it from me now! (see attached list of resellers with attractive markups)". But that's not the kind of model that the GPL supports. Perhaps you can make it work. Red Hat seems to be able to, even all they can sell is the right to use their name. But not many will. It's the wrong model.
The GPL systems work best with the assumption that people (and businesses) do things largely for their own use, and that software can then be shared without much cost, so why not do so? You've already built it, your costs are sunk. And then you don't need to start your next project from ground zero. You have access to free compilers, editors, etc., and there's lots of code lying around, some of which you may be able to adapt to your own ends. And then you can share that back. If you are a consultant, this lets you work more cheaply at the cost of not being able to effectivly mass-market your result. (Or you can avoid using the pre-built code and just use the tools. Then with a bit of care you can even mass-market your work, but someone else will probably be able to create something roughly equivalent for a lot less work, so don't expect to make too much that way.)
The GPL system is really the antithesis of the star system. Most of the real stuff is done by small groups without the need for a lot of capital. Not only small companies can contribute, but even lone individuals can. Or they can join together into loosely structured teams. True, really large projects, like Mozilla, tend to need full time support staff. I understand that most of the work on Mozilla was by paid employees
.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I'm just asking.
sulli
RTFJ.
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community when recently IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Du to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
*BSD is dying
No argument.
In one case, the firewalls were so restrictive (and slow) that I had to burn the ISOs at home (on a Win98 Desktop) and carry them in.
2nd case the worm was rampaging, time was literally money, and bootable FreeBSD ISOs won out.
In a perfect world I would have the time and resources to plan everything and do it 'right.'
I don't want to get into a lame OpenBSD/Theo bashing thread. He's done spectacular work. Suffice to say that I know for a fact that OpenBSD has lost 'marketshare' due to restricting ISOs.
Marcus is one of the head HURD developers.
Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
Despite the great beauty of FreeBSD, and the vastly developed environment (countless ports that work flawlessly, providing users with easy to install and run applications), FreeBSD is not doing as well as Linux.
Why? Buzzword Bingo.
Close but no cigar. Despite what Mad Mundie et al say about the BSD licence, is it the case that it just is NOT all that commercially attractive?
The GPL is just a better licence. It's fairer to developers, and in a bizarre way, that makes it more attractive to commerce. Keeping the developers happy keeps the software coming.
GPL is also more resitant to forks, as anyone who wants to distribute has to publish source. Forks are bad, mmmkay?
And anyway, the GPL is practically a religion these days. You don't want to cross God, do you?
"I had to burn the ISOs at home"
;)
;)
Aside: If they have a restrictive firewall but let you bring your own software in through the front door, don't you think they have a slightly strange idea of security?
"lost 'marketshare' due to restricting ISOs."
In my case, they lost marketshare due to having portmapper started by default and yet claiming to be "the most secure BSD". OK so it might not be vulnerable *today* - but there's such a thing as asking for it.
WEll, just in case you wanted a "technical" reason for trying-not-to-slag OpenBSD, that is
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
FreeBSD is not doing well as Linux? Pardon? On whose planet?
Check the netcraft uptime list: http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html
Lots of FreeBSD hosts, hardly any Linux.
if the GPL says something is freely redistributable to use for whatever you can possibly want, then why is RMS running down the street chasing after linux screaming "It's GNU/Linux!", i don't see anywhere in the GPL where it says that you can't change the name . I think RMS acts very hypocritical when he demands linux be called gnu linux. Sure it uses the gnu tools, but there is no part of the gpl that says anything using gnu code must be called gnu something. Either put that in the gpl or stop your sad yapping. If it's supposed to be freely redistributable then let it go and be called whatever they want. sheesh.
You can still use a generic VGA driver, but it won't be accelerated unless you have native drivers.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
RMS makes a statement about *ethics*, and people respond by talking about money and business models.
Are we as a community incapable of making the distinction between money and ethics anymore?
Hooray for... something....
Is this thing on? Hello?
At this point, nobody cares about the Hurd anymore. It's going to be linux all the way. I'm sure RMS will throw another one of his hissy fits when he realizes this, but he'll just have to live with the facts: the Hurd came too late, and people will say linux rather than GNU/linux.
How would you write April 9th, 2002 in ISO 8601?
Hurd can be the New Technology that allows Linux to enter the server space....
LinuXP...?
Seriously though, it would a similar transition.
This is not a political statement. This is not legal advice. It's a frick'n Slasdot post. However: I'm Running For
Perhaps true...except for games. Games are not a "make money on support" area. They are hard, code-intensive, creatively challenging (if you care about good artwork and story) and are not ammenable to support. For SOME games you might be able to sell cheap and then make money on network play...something like a battle.net, but this is ONLY for games that are multiplayer (not all are or should be) AND liked by many.
Game companies are made or broken by software SALES, nothing else. You want games, you must pay for them or they just don't come.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Ah, I understand. You are right. To be true, HURD daemons communicate with processes and each other via a message passing mechanism (facilitated by Mach), and message passing is how some OO systems are modelled/implemented. I still think "client-server" is a better mental framework for how things work, but whatever.
I'm proud of my Northern Tibetian Heritage
Is the Hurd servers be ported to Linux?
Or what?
Do we really need more fragmentation?
rpm vs. deb, Gnome vs. KDE... and now Linux vs. HURD? All this is doing is making the free software platform more convoluted. Now you have to pick a kernel, and it has to be one that's compatible with the apps you're running, and the hardware you're running...
Linux is finally establishing itself as the 'Single Unix' panacea that the unix world has been trying to achieve for 20 years. Now the HURD comes out and they expect to fragment things again? No way.
With the exception of geeks who like to tinker with something obscure, HURD is going nowhere. Linux has won, and with good reason: solid engineering, liberal distribution terms, and a project leader who isn't an asshole. Let's focus on making the Linux platform better, not on fragmenting the free software world even further. The "I Can Do That Better" attitude is our biggest liability.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Keeping the developers happy keeps the software coming.
And paying the developers the money they need for food/beer/toys keeps them happy. Software doesn't magically 'come' from a magic thing called 'developers' over email.
And anyway, the GPL is practically a religion these days. You don't want to cross God, do you?
Check your definitions closer. When you offend a 'religion' you cross zealots, not 'God'.
Will Linus be forgotton over time?
If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
It does a company a disservice to add value that can be repackaged/modified/hidden by their competitor.
That's why they won't release the source.
Lots of people out there can only recognize the cute penguin and don't give a dam about what's a kernel or if it's a monolythic kernel or not.
The Hurd has this bizarre logo that doesn't really appeal to non-techies and will have a hard time seducing the girl friends of the geeks around the world causing a slow adoption of the kernel by people without a partner.
If Hurd wants to succeed in Japan for example, where "kawaiiiii" (means: sooooo cute) is a way of life, I urge RMS to hire a designer and work on this mascot symbol ASAP. And promise me, no more flowchart diagram please!
PPA, the girl next door.
-- I feel better now. Thanks for asking.
Release Early... Release Often...
So here's a guy who's been to about a hundred countries, lectures in French when he goes to France, regularly talks in person with influential people all over the world, and I'll bet that there are a significant group of people who not only have never been out of their own country but don't even have a passport, but find this joke funny.
Many GPL developers get paid. Many do not. I spoke about keeping them happy. And, seemingly, there are a lot of happy GPL developers out there. Dare I say more than BSD developers?
But I do take your point re zealots. GPL does seem to inspire a fair bit of that. Still, there are probably quite a few BSD zealots out there, and we need not talk about Micros~1.
Seriously -- VSTA has a much cleaner design than the HURD and far superior runtime speed. It's based on some rather different design decisions (favoring being Right over being backwards-compatible where the two conflicted strongly), but is just generally Good Stuff.
If the HURD increases interest in microkernel-based OSen, good for it -- I *like* my drivers running in userspace! (heckuvalot easier to write and debug that way, no? heck -- that means one can write a prototype driver in Python before putting together the final version in C; let's see 'yall do that in Linux!)
Admittedly, it's not nearly as close to being end-user-ready as the HURD, but for folks doing embedded systems work (or who want a cool OS to play with), it's seriously worth looking into.
I've tried to find this info myself, but since I don't really know what to look for, I've so far been unsuccessful.
Where can I find some good info on the advantages/disadvantages of various microkernels?
I've read many times that MACH is a rather slow/inefficient kernel.
But, I've never really read much on why this is so.
In addition, I've never read anything about other MK's out there (other than that QNX has one, etc).
I'd really appreciate some good online resources I can look up so I can educate myself on the matter.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
Seems strangely appropriate for a microkernel-based system :-).
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Am I the only one who got all teary-eyed reading that? I mean, we get wrapped up in September 11, the Israel / Palestine thing, AIDS, and all our own personal tragedies. And we forget that somewhere, there are forgotten developers toiling away, emotionally devastated and relegated to obscurity because people unfairly call their work by the wrong name.
Oh, the humanity.
-b
You can do HTTP installs of OpenBSD, and if your firewall blocks HTTP then you might as well just unplug your net connection.
ISO standard 8601 is what you're looking for.
I don't know about money - I expect there's a standard for that too, but the site I had bookmarked that listed a variety of standards seems to be down at the moment. Google provided the link above.
I always use YYYY-MM-DD now, since it is the standard format, and gosh darn it, it just makes sense.
Christopher
Mozilla
I see ONE Linux box on the list. Actually, it is the first time I've seen one up there in about 9 months!
Many (including me) believe that Debian is technically superior to other Linux Distributions. I wouldn't know about HURD having never seen it. However, your reasons for not using it certainly sound religious to me, therefore it would seem that you do view an OS as a religion contrary to your statement.
Actually He should have /stayed/in his cave and finished this /years/ ago instead of trying to be a demigod.
the latest installment of duke nukem is ready to roll. yawn.
-
RMS is the Linux Antichrist!
World HURD
BRAAAAAHHHAHAHAhahahahhhahha!
ISO dates are written like other quantities, with the most significant digits to the left. So April 9th, 2002 becomes 2002-04-09. Note the 04 and 09, ISO dates are fixed length. This makes arithmetic easy and also ensures that alpha sorts are date sorts. This really is the most natural and user-friendly date-format. For more info, you can see http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-time.html hth
"Turd"
Talk about wrong choice in potential buzzwords. If the first few "production" releases suck, everyone's going to be calling it GNU/Turd.
If only M$ had named Windows something like "Bliss", then we could call it "M$ Piss."
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Actually, yes.
The joke, I believe, is targetting Mr. Stallman's appearance, not his social behavior or his environment.
I've been to Canada several times, am I allowed to think this is funny?
I don't see the GPL as a problem for the HURD.
-- Don Inodoro
xBSD fell to the wayside because of its inferior "marketing", but its not because of "Buzzword Bingo".
A key to a sucessful open software effort is mindshare. That is what gets you driver X for your machine, and companies investing money to improve an aspect of the operating system.
xBSD, like Hurd, was around before Linux. But unlike Linux, it was not as open in terms of permitting changes to its kernel. This might have changed now , but I would guess that Linux had a 4 year head start in terms of openness of its development effort. This is what got Linux mindshare. xBSD license may also not be as attractive to some commercial developers, but I doubt this is what put xBSD in its more obscure status.
The key to a sucessful marketing effort its to get your product out there with a greater number of customers than your competition. This is what happened with Linux vs xBSD. If xBSD is to gain mindshare, it can only do it by being a demonstrably better product than Linux. This is usually a losing proposition in the marketing world.
As for myself, I went Linux over xBSD because I was certain Linux was going to "mutate" faster than the xBSD. At the time, it was more open, in terms of kernel developers and change process, so improvements were going to be incorporated more quickly than xBSD. I always knew that xBSD was better tested (it was deployed in the commercial environment years before Linux) and probably more secure. xBSD might be the better product if I was the owner of a webserver farm or some other internet based service. But since I am not the owner of such an enterprise, xBSD does not give me any feature which makes it better than Linux. It looks to be the case in the UNIX world. So unless Linux does something to kill its marketshare position, xBSD is always going to be an obscure, historical effort.
As for HURD, its a joke. Its performance will probably always be inferior to Linux and this is because of technical reasons. (Namely, that uKernels waste a lot of CPU time talking to itself every time it executes an operation, which results in a lot of context switches.) Don't get me wrong, I really like u-kernels from a design perspective. (It should allow for greater mutation than Linux.) But you have to work off its designed disadvantages with sharp, performance prioritized coding. MACH is a hippo of a u-kernel. HURD will have to replace it with something better before it can really move. (Wake me up when they replace MACH with L4, and L4 has a finished, working design.) HURD is technically inferior to Linux from a performance perspective, and its never going to get marketshare for that reason.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
Gimme a break. No one reading this far into the comments on this article are clueless as to RMS's activism. In fact, several years ago, I had an email conversation with him about whether the Hurd was ready. It's this kind of person - one who knows what he's about - that's reading this. Take yourself for instance.
Acts 17:28, "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being."
The fact is, most businesses gain value from software from *using* it, not selling it. So, they will always need people to build software for them, and they'll pay for it. But the only people who win when the software is proprietary are the *few* companies who sell it (and probably relatively few of the employees of those few compaines as well).
Ummm. When can't you install FreeBSD on your vaio?
What's stopping you, everybody else has done it why can't you?
oh that's right, no pretty installer oh
well
Stallman also speaks Spanish, and quite well.
And my roof is covered in flying pig shit.
"I can (well, almost) hear you asking yourselves "why?". Hurd will be out in a year (or two, or next month, who knows), and I've already got minix. This is a program for hackers by a hacker. I've enjouyed doing it, and somebody might enjoy looking at it and even modifying it for their own needs. It is still small enough to understand, use and modify, and I'm looking forward to any comments you might have."
:)
0 54 106.4647%40klaava.Helsinki.FI)
This was in 1991
(http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1991Oct5.
A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
Why can't people just write Microsoft? even MSFT is fine, but you look really immature writing M$, microsloth, Micros~1, winbloze, etc... GROW UP!
In the case of uptime, you have shown the BSD's to be running longer without reboot. However, that does not prove they are more widly excepted in any way.
According to your logic, no one at all is running Windows, so why bother even mentioning it? Problem is, you haven't proved that, you only proved FreeBSD users (and *BSD users in general) less likely to reboot. It does not naturally follow that there are more users overall.
I just need to correct your assertion that FreeBSD was the mother of the BSD families.
;)
It's not.
In the beginning was Berkeley Unix. Around 1990, Berkeley released Net/2, based on 4.3BSD. This became the base for the Jolitz' 386BSD. 386BSD was the original open-source BSD. Unfortunately, a lot of 386BSD users got frustrated by the slow release cycle, so two projects started independently at about the same time (1993?): FreeBSD and NetBSD.
FreeBSD and NetBSD had fairly different goals. FreeBSD wanted to continue what the Jolitz' started vis creating a Unix optimized for the inexpensive 386. NetBSD wanted to create a Unix that could run on anything, and also continue what the Jolitz' started vis creating a clean Unix that dumped a lot of the silly cruft that was introduced during midnight hacks at Berkeley.
Around 1994, Berkeley released 4.4BSD-Lite, a completely unencumbered version of their Unix (ie. no code owned by AT&T). This code was integrated into FreeBSD 2.0 and NetBSD 1.0.
So you see, 386BSD and 4.4BSD-Lite together form the base upon which the current FreeBSD and NetBSD projects were built.
It is really interesting to see Linux users of all people berating HURD for whatever perceived faults it has. This of course has come to be the expected response. For those of you berating HURD, do you realize what operating system you're a proponent of? A couple years ago if you said Linux someone thought you had sneezed. It is really ridiculous to sit back and spout off about why HURD will fail. If someone says the same of Linux you mod them down to -1 or piss your pants and curse their immortal soul. For supposedly intelligent and enlightened folk you're pretty stupid.
I see HURD as a pretty cool system, though I am bias as I'm a fan of micro-kernel designs by the virtue of being more configurable than monolithic kernels. If you don't like a component, you know what interfaces it uses so you can go and write your own to better suit your needs. You could write a scheduler and memory management system that was more specific to the needs of a web server or database or graphical workstation or what have you. That strikes me as particularly extensible and flexible, something which is a tenet of Free Software. HURD of course isn't perfect and could have gone with a faster MK like L4 but Mach was the big deal MK wise at the time so it was designed around it. It could be ported or rewirtten entirely for L4 which may actually happen if it hits real production quality. If it does see the light of day this year, a day on which much money will exchange hands, it will have a nice system to sit on top of it in the form of Debian HURD. It would give HURD a definite validity, as much at least as Debian has in the eyes of its users and proponents. Shit most people could use Debian on top of HURD and not know they weren't actually running Linux.
On the topic of the WindowsNT MK, it really is a micro-kernel design but with a few modifications to the implimentation in order to get better performance at the cost of modularity and in some cases stability. The NT Executive instead of passing everything through the kernel to the hardware the I/O manager talks directly to the hardware. The Executive Services are also running in kernel space rather than user space so a problem with them can lead to the kernel locking up. The source of most BSoDs in WinNT are these direct links to hardware and the device drivers running in kernel space. A fucked device driver leads to the entire system going down in some cases. I imagine Microsoft went this route with NT because it was originally designed to run on the 386 which was a slow bitch when it came to context switching, a Machier kernel would have just been too dog slow on it. It isn't so much a cheap hack as it is a decision to actually get a product out the door rather than wait for hardware to improve and propogate.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Place your bets:
Is it going to be vapourware or not ?
Bear in mind Hurd was going to be released "in a year or two" when Linux first came out.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
I should have added a link to the BSD family tree diagram.
I've been following the HURD kernel for a while; albeit quietly and I stopped when it seemed like it was just dead in the water that was sometime in August of last yr. I think that as of now (and because I'm not aware of anything else) the hurd kernel will only work on 32 bit archs. Therefore currently it's not really portable until the Microkernel Object Model is used for everything which last time I checked it wasn't. I think that I'll help with some documentation though.. If anyone has contrary to the above please let me know. HURD looks like it's gonna be fun.
It is arguably a stretch to call that "object-oriented" since OO has come to mean so many things besides data encapsulation (though in my view that's the most important OO feature, the part which allows you to replace the implementation at any time). But hey, it's certainly less of a stretch than Oracle calling 9i "unbreakable."
Be that as it may, RMS is totally out of touch with the computer industry. I read a discussion with him a year ago where he said he had never heard of a video game console. What's more, he's completely antisocial and his frantic activism for a cause that doesn't really matter all that much is basically loony.
I've heard of "wheel" from BSD, but how does it relate to GNU/Linux?
cpeterso
its has a great future, and always will....
unfortunately althought i like gnu/hurd better than linux, and i belive that its design is much superior than linux, i just believe that has lost the train.
RMS Could Be Loosed in 2002?
sreb.
doesn't hurd uses ext2 filesystem. well i guess we should call it gnu/hurd/ext2/blah, blah, blah,
IMHO GPL is always the better license.
Ever heard of using the right tool for the job? Maybe different people have different preferences as to what they would like others to be able to do with their code. Personally, I like using a modified BSD-style license for most of my programs. Still, I can certainly envision times when using the GPL would be much more desirable.
I would call a system like that degenerate. Because a system is really multiple pieces of software interoperating. With just one piece of software (Linux) running, you don't really have a system at all.
If you have a couple applications running...then you have a system but I would say it really isn't an operating system. An operating system has a programming library of some sort for code reuse, some sort of an interface, utilities to manipulate the file system (copy, delete, make directories) and in the case of Unix, utilities to manipulate text files. There is a lot more than this in a modern operating system. But of all the things that Linux needs to be a complete operating system, most of it is available as GNU software.
What sense is it to use Linux without GNU anyway? You're cutting your arm off...for what? GNU is freely available software with granted rights to use, copy, redistribute, and modify. You are also required to have access the source code by its license. In fact, thats the whole point of GNU's existance.
I say...enjoy it and don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
First, let me begin by stating that I have no direct experience with HURD, and know very little about its device driver handling.
From a purely logical standpoint, looking at how HURD positions itself internally, I don't think it would be too far-fetched to think that since the user-level has more access/control over the system than with the Linux kernel. It's quite possible that HURD may be providing the necessary hooks that can remove itself from the equation of kernel-integral drivers.
Just thinking outloud.
The cave is a state of mind my friend, a state of mind...
"oh that's right, no pretty installer oh"
Actuall, 80x25 is more than pretty enough for me.
If you want to do something useful, make the installer CD recognise its own DVD/CD device. *Then* I'll allow you to be sarcastic.
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
You have just proven rms' point. In fact, the entire discussion illustrates his point: very few understand the ethical and social aspects of free software. I think I have read two or three posters who have even made mention of such issues in a positive light, and the vast majority, like yours, mention exclusively negative (it won't "win" market share, whatever that means in a free software context -- namely nothing) or technical issues as to whether it will be able to do the poster's number one fun thing.
The Hurd pages lists the benefits of Hurd, and number one on the list is "It is free software".
If you don't understand why that is a benefit, maybe it's time to start to think a little deeper, guys?
Suggested jumping off point for deep thoughts: DMCA...snoopware...that's it...you can do it...just follow the dots...
Now that the last missing component of The GNU System will be released, we will finally get the "The GNU System" as originally described.
Will it then be okay to refer to LiGNuX as just plain "Linux"?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
If by "doesn't really matter all that much" you mean "is only the difference between freedom in the digital age and complete disenfranchisement", then yes, you're correct, he is out of touch. Ah well, at least we still have PlayStation 2...
Yeah, I find it fscking funny, man.
But I do have a passport and have left my country to see the world before now.
It's hard enough to compete with Microsoft to get a persons attention, and convince them to try a new OS.
Absolutely... it's not like some college student could ever drum up an amateur kernel in his dorm room that would ever hope to gain as much mind-share as Linux.
Oh, wait.
-Erik
And don't forget that for the longest time, the gnu.ai.mit.edu machines had no root password; anyone with an account could su to root. And of course, if you wanted an account there, all you had to do is apply for one. RMS doesn't believe in security...
Well, I'm excited. I signed up a few years ago to get the Hurd disto delivered by flying pigs, and I'm really looking forward to seeing just how exacty that delivery method works.
Will they fly overhead and drop it using a parachute?
Will they land at my door?
Come down my chimney?
I'm all a-flutter.
It will be called GNU because it is a complete GNU system. The UI is GNU, the file system utilities are GNU, the text utilities are GNU, the text editor is GNU, and kernal will be GNU.
Isn't it sad how a completely free operating system was developed because some people were concerned that you weren't getting all the rights you should with the software you use and all you do complain about the stupid shit.
Damn you. You trolls make me angry sometimes.
GRUB wasn't written for GNU, it was donated and improved... In this case G stands for "Grand". Unlike GRUB, GNU is not limited to x86, and was running on VAXen in early 1987. Linux was written on the 386, for the x86. Early Linux probably was mostly a Minix derived userland. Well, Minix was leveraging at least BASH from the GNU project, and Linus was inspired to fill the void bred from the Minix community with a Free replacement.
GNU is not defined by the excusive use of FSF software, or even the license of the software components being one of RMS's Copyleft styles. GNU is a reimplementation of Unix that is completely Free Software. Switching Sun tar with GNU tar does not make a GNU OS (no, not GNU/SunOS) but is another step towards the goal. Reimplementing Unix to be standards compliant could leverage existing Unix systems until GNU was done. Likewise, Linux was a standards inplementation of a POSIX kernel, which could then leverage the mostly complete GNU OS development toolchain and userland to make a complete system. This complete system was a short-circuited but complete match to the stated goals of the GNU Project. If GNU didn't feel that it could do better than a crude rewrite of a basic Unix kernel, then that would have been the official GNU system, and that would have been all she wrote. But by that time RMS had already dreamed up the geeky acronyms, and so was forced to complete the project so that the TLAs could live on.
Note that 386BSD used GCC just fine, but that alone doesn't make it GNU/BSD. The complete rewrite of BSD to be a Free Unix was already an established project, which could leverage the GNU's work, just like the GNU project could leverage Public Domain code. The goal of Linux was just an implementation of a POSIX kernel which maximally utilized the 80386's features. It did its job, and just happened to be a drop in replacement for the missing GNU kernel. The point is that GNU OS is an entire workstation system, Fre and functional. I highly doubt that RMS would consider a router using the Linux kernel to be GNU, whether it used GNU components or not. Just like OpenBeOS with a Berkely style license is not a BSD derivative.
Hey, why don't we make M$'s life even easier?
I love how GNU helps split and dilute any serious open source alternatives to M$. Just as Linux gains more momentum, acceptance and support than ever there goes RMS and lets his fucking ego get in the way.
Who the fuck needs HERD. It's the Linux dilutant M$ couldn't even dream up.
rms:rms. pompous asshole.
Actually, a good honest os should definitely not support every imaginable piece of hardware there is. winmodems anyone? why not as well plug the phone on your soundcard? dozen different svga chipsets all doing practically the same thing via a slightly different interface? oh why? then there are of course cdroms, soundcards, network etc most having their own braindamage. getting into habit of "fixing" broken hardware with crappy kludges (and screwing a clean working kernel as a side product) is definitely not a Good Thing.
Not trying to be too paranoid, but it seems from all his recent actions that RMS is a M$ FUD operative.
Divide, dilute, argue. That's really useful.
Microsoft COINTEL PRO in full swing.
RM$ is a M$ FUD agent. If you're getting afraid of Linux as a competitor what do you do? pay RM$ to beat on it. Either that or pay his shrink so the RM$ goes and unleashes his ego on the community.
Divide and conquer, and you're helping them, asshole.
Each time an AIDS maggot dies, I say another one bites the dust..
Yeeee hah!
So, since binary-only utilities and such are not allowed with GNU, there will be much less supported software, to say the least, then is possible with Unix. If the FSF just MUST stick to some politically correct position no matter what, then kiss your Sun boxen goodbye on it. Kiss a lot of very desireable hardware and software goodbye.
GNU has been through this already. They could replace an entire Unix userland, development toolkit, and (finally) reimplement Unix the way it was envisioned (e.g. w/o a user named "nobody" running insecure daemons, but rather with nobody - no system priviledges - running those daemons) after a complete reworking of "obsolete" computing paradymes (e.g. monolithic kernel). Now they are finally there, have everything in place, but wait! One of the multiple graphics hardware companies isn't going to make their drivers available to the FSF! Having developed GCC, gzip, emacs, GNU tar et al. When AT&T, Xenix/Novell/SCO, Solarix, IRIX, AIX, OSF/1 Digital TRU-ad nauseam wouldn't make their software components Free Software, and then functionally replacing them on their native platforms, looks insignicicant compared to the challenge of supporting a more progressive Matrox, ATI, or even one of the many older cards that have fully disclosed source code.
Even if supporting this card against nVidia's wishes is necessary, hacking it onto the HIRD would be easier than doing the equivalent on most other Unices - because the driver does not need direct "kernel" access or unwarranted privilege level. Just restart the Daemon, and continue where you left off. Being a microkernel system, even if maintaining the OS's freedom weren't of top priority, a standalone driver daemon could just use the standard ABIs and never have to share source. Now you have trolled in this thread fairly heavily, isn't it time you lookfor goats elsewhere?
So I wonder...did you, my shy critic, only notice the post because I noticed it first? That may help answer your question as to whether anyone cares about my opinion.
Stallman may appesar like your average tree hugging long haired hippie but beneath the hippie facade hides a ruthless man with an ego the size of Bill Gates. Scott McNealy and Larry Ellison combined.
When he speaks there is a barely conceladed hatred of Linux in his words.At best he views it as stop gap measure before his baby the HURD takes over the world. He hates Linux because its success was like a slap on the face for him. Even in his dakerst nitemares he couldnt imagine then an OS written by an unknown Finish stufdent would attractt thousands of opens source develpers while an OS developed by the father of free software slowly fades into obscurity
USA-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
Sigh...
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
Get a clue.
http://tuxedo.org/jargon/html/entry/micros1.html
micros~1
An abbreviation of the full name Microsoft resembling the rather bogus way Windows 9x's VFAT filesystem truncates long file names to fit in the MS-DOS 8+3 scheme (the real filename is stored elsewhere). If other files start with the same prefix, they'll be called micros~2 and so on, causing lots of problems with backups and other routine system-administration problems. During the US Antitrust trial against Microsoft the names Micros~1 and Micros~2 were suggested for the two companies that would exist after a break-up.
Does Hurd support pthreads? Any idea
The are also people who prefer not to see their code abused by commercial software programmers. If you contribute to GPLed code you ensure that you help the community. Contribute to BSD license and your code might end up stolen by parsitic programmers who never give back to the community.
Arguably better? Funny, in every respect FreeBSD is worse than linux
1) Hardware support
2) Commericial and free software(Linux is the only
one on which it is possible to compile most software projects out of cvs). Ever try compiling
something not out of ports on a BSD? Linux is the
development platform of choice. Ever wonder why?
3) Linux is multiplatform, supporting as many as
NetBSD, and usually being better on the same hardware. Linux is usually far superior on Sparcs,
Alphas, and PPC hardware. In short, it is unquestionably better than Free and Open as far as
running on other hardware goes.
4) Installing binary software. There is no equivalent of apt-get or rpm.
5) Diversity. With linux you get a much wider choice of what to install and use. With the BSD's
there is only the ONE TRUE WAY - the UFS filesystem or no other way, their security model or none.
6) Installation - All the linux distros are far better at providing an easy to configure and replicate install than any BSD.
7) Commercial and free support - even a single linux distro like Mandrake has better support than
FreeBSD can manage.
As for Marketing Buzz, you are speaking complete nonsense. Linux had no marketing until recently,
it was developed after FreeBSD, yet by word of mouth alone it eclipsed all the BSD's in popularity. And significantly, almost all linux users are experienced with unix, yet they chose to reject BSD in favour of linux. Perhaps you do not have the slightest clue what you are talking about.
Now, it may be that this is slowly turning around. I've seen a lot of interest in Citrix, server consolidation and centralisation in general. But I don't know if we'll ever be back to the old days in any real sense.
More's the pity, really. I liked it when the entire computing population of DU (or the vast majority, anyway) were on phoebe.cair.du.edu all at once, and one could simply finger one's friends, and talk to them, and life was good and pure and simple.
...as compiled by ESR, who is always on target and never sinks to the level of the typical Slashdot poster.
Wait a minute...is that the same ESR who holds stock in the company that owns Slashdot? The same guy that wrote _The Cathedral and the Bazaar_?
Could he possibly be biased against Microsoft? Is it possible that he is not the authoritative source of all software-related wisdom?
Writers imply. Readers infer.
Ramones? Try the Trashmen. Fuck it, I'll even provide the link to save you two minutes.
Writers imply. Readers infer.
If you really wanna get pissed with esr, try this unforgivable thing:
http://tuxedo.org/jargon/html/entry/W2K-bug.html
But so what? "Micros~1" is in the Jargon file (of which esr is the co-editor), and used fairly widely, is fun, and makes a valid, true point.
It is wittier and more truthful that the other one myself and others use widely "m$". Tho I find m$ a more useful abbreviation when in a hurry.
You guys seem to be humour-impaired (and satire-impaired). Take a chill pill guys.
Why? Buzzword Bingo. It's hard enough to compete with Microsoft to get a persons attention, and convince them to try a new OS. And, when the average person looks for a "alternative" Linux is the most obvious choice. FreeBSD gets only a small fraction of that attention, even if it is technically equivalent (or better in some people's opinion).
Actually, although "Buzzword Bingo" may be a part of it, Linux was actually just in the right place at the right time with the right people running the project.
The technical differences between Linux and the BSD variants aren't that great. They are both basicaly UNIX. Maybe Linux isn't in name, but in function it is well within expected variation of UNIX systems.
Could BSD replace Linux? Absolutely. Will it? I tend to doubt it. There is already a lot of work invested in getting Linux to where it is that would have to be redone for BSD.
Then there is the issues over GPL. No matter your feelings on the GPL, it may have some serious use. The power of the GPL vs other licenses was first shown to me in the Halloween documents under code forking. The basic conclusion (and ESR appears to agree) that using a license like the GPL makes code forking non advantageous, whereas the BSD scheme gets several subtly incompatible operating systems.
If I, as a developer make cool changes to BSD, I may be tempted to fork the code. I get better credit that way, and I can try to sell it (I don't morally see anything wrong with that).
On the other hand, with something under GPL, I can't close the code, so there is much less motivation to fork it.
If a company needs a change to something under the BSD license, they will change it, and perhaps sell it, trying to eke out a little extra profit. If they need something added to a GPL project, suddenly there is a large organization with resources to devote to development of the software. They can keep it inhouse, but why?
The GPL therefore leads to a larger developer base, simply because the GPL seems to inhibit code forking without prohibiting it (yes code CAN fork, but is much rarer under GPL software).
This larger developer base leads to better support, and a larger mind share. This leads to more developers choosing Linux using the GPL over BSD variants, which in turn increasees the Linux mindshare over BSD, repeating the cycle. This itself leads to the "buzzword bingo" you refrence.
Is BSD technically superior to Linux? I can't say for sure, but everyone I've ever talked to who has used and examined both seems to think so. Would I use BSD if I were running a business? Probably not. Linux has fewrer driver problems, the differences among the distributions is minimal, and the track record of Linux not having numerous subtly incompatible code forks is much better, making me more likely to use Linux. If support for my BSD variant dries up, (assuming it is an Open Source variant) I can always support it myself, but that's expensive. Support can also dry up for Linux, but which is more likely? A BSD variant falling into an unmaintained state, or Linux?
Linux has yet to truely fork. There are really only a couple of main stable kernel versions, and I expect 2.2 to go away before too long. The other versions usually get merged eventually into the main tree, so they aren't a big deal. Anyone who needs a stable mission critical system wouldn't think of running anything but a stable release, unless vital functionality was only provided by an alternative. BSD does not have his continuity of code, this is, I feel, one of the main reasons for Linux's rise.
The other main reason being Linus being the right person in the right place at the right time.
There is a civil war coming in the United States. Remember which side has most of the guns
First off,The whole question of universal freedom for software should be kept seperate from the whole argument that people who come from the west or well off areas are in some way precluded from having an opinion in certan matters and that there opinion is worth less because of the fact that they are living the so called good life.
,well that is a matter of opinion and that is another issue.
,(despite being impoverished),and this was in my opinion what rms was alluding to when he made the comment,"In India there are a number of people who are capable of seeing free software as an ethical and social issue".I think that the Indians are more than capable of grasping the ethical and social issues that free software highlights and deciding individualy how they want to live and deal with it.If indians decide that a concept is right or a concept is wrong ,it will not matter where that concept came from.
Rms believes all software should be free,(as in speech not nessecarily price),.Rms comes from the west and it could rightly and easily be said that the fact that he comes from this well off area makes it easy for him to have this point of view.But The question is not whether it is easy or not for him to have this point of view but rather do you agree with him or do you think he is wrong?
If rms was from india would it make what he says any more right or wrong ? What rms say's should
be the issue and not where he is from.If you agree or dissagree with him on the point that all software should be free
India has a rich philosophical and cultural tradition
_________________________________________________
RMS has a long painful history with names. Calling his stuff "free" brought all the freeloaders who wanted free-beer. GNU/Linux is kinda hard to say. Now we have a kernel that nobody's ever hurd of.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
BeOS never quite got to the stage where I would use it over a *nix system, Windows is by no stretch of the imagination more useful to me than it's predessorers and the hurd needs work. The apps I want to use run happily in a *nix environment, a not in a modern real time OS that an ordinary individual can afford.
OK, one is almost ready for release, and the other has been released. That is, one is around and the other one isn't. How can the one that is not "around" at all obviously have been around longer. Also, which is more important - licence or the ability to be able to actually get the code, work on it, improve it AND get valid improvements into the main release.
I suspect your post should read that development on HURD started long before Darwin was ever thought of.
I look around for ISO images. No official OpenBSD ones available for free; you buy CDs to support OpenBSD. I need to do this *today*
Download the boot imag,e put it on a floppy, and boot it. FTP install. OpenBSD running today. Then go to OpenBSD order page, and instead of ordering a CD, order a donation.
Not really, no. I noticed it because I browse through the comments at a threshold of -1, even though it might result in seeing ridiculous garbage like yours. So to reiterate, oh sultan of comedic genius, no. No one does care. Thanks for trying though, "shy critic" almost made me laugh. Almost.