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.
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 !
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"
I bet $150 Hurd will not be released this year..
Place your bets here!
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Does Hurd bring other advantages to it that Darwin doesn't already have? Well, yes! The big difference is that Hurd is named by a pair of mutually recursive acronyms. Darwin isn't. So there you go!
Hurd is (currently) built on top of Mach and provides the major operating system services you'd expect in a POSIX-like kernel. Mach is a microkernel and doesn't provide any (well, doesn't provide many) of this kind of thing itself. It acts as a kind of supporting frame for the processes that do the real work.
KMSMA (WWBD?)
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.
<speculation>
RMS will interpret the GPL for Hurd as allowing only GPL apps and device drivers. So even if Hurd gets to be big there would never be an Oracle/Hurd etc.
Or in other words Hurd will never be as big a Linux
</speculation>
DWR is Ajax for Java
Hurd is a completely ground-up new design. It's not a Unix or Unix-like kernel, though it does provide those services.
KMSMA (WWBD?)
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
Yes, unlike Darwin, Hurd is Free, not just source-avaliable.
It'll be interesting to see how Hurd performs against Linux once it's more mature. I strongly suspect that Linux will kick Hurd's arse performance wise, but that remains to be seen. Another Free operating system is of course always welcome.. :)
Blaming GW Bush for the Iraq war is like blaming Ronald McDonald for the poor quality of food.
RMS will interpret the GPL for Hurd as allowing only GPL apps and device drivers.
For your information, Hurd is a microkernel with device drivers as user-space applications, ie. they are not linked into the kernel as in Linux. Since no linking takes place, the GPL does not apply and you can have as many closed-source drivers as you like. GPL does not apply to stand-alone applications if they do not link with GPL code.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
"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.
>Um, no, not even the FSF are _that_ pedantic. GNU uses Xfree86 which is non-GNU free software.
:).
it's only a matter of time
The HURD is a Hird of Unix Replacing Daemons. Clearer?
What's a Hird? Hurd of Interfaces Representing Depth. There, all clear now?
Seriously, the HURD is a microkernel system. Instead of having a (relatively) big kernel that provides all the necessary services, a microkernel system has a very minimal kernel and provides most of the services a kernel usually provides by way of userspace daemons (the Hird of Unix Replacing Daemons) instead.
Academic CS guys have been saying microkernels are the way of the future for years now. Mac OS10 runs on the Mach microkernel. Windows NT was supposed to be a microkernel, although by the time it actually made it to the light of day so much had been stuffed back into the kernel for performance reasons it really isn't one.
The number one drawbacks to microkernels, as the above might lead you to guess, is performance. On a single processor system expect a microkernel to lag significantly performancewise in comparison to a monolithic kernel with equal optimisations. That's a result of the fact that so many things we think of as system services are user processes instead, and of the communication overhead involved (message passing between components is used extensively, and this is not the fastest way to handle things on a uniprocessor system.)
Why do I say "on a uniprocessor system?" Well, some of that overhead becomes unavoidable anyway when you move to a multiprocessor system, and a microkernel is inherently multithreaded, so it's quite friendly to multiprocessor systems. So as multiprocessor systems become more common the performance gap may drop.
Currently the HURD is a collection of servers that run on top of the GNU Mach microkernel. Does that sentence make more sense for you now? I hope so.
The GNU Mach microkernel is something of a performance dog, but at this point the HURD is still at a development only stage anyway so it doesn't much matter. It will probably be moved to an L4 microkernel instead before it's used in production machines. The L4 family gives much improved performance. Still slower than a highly tuned monolithic kernel like Linux, particularly on uniprocessor systems, but much closer.
So if microkernels are slower, why use them at all? Well, they have the potential to bring an entire new world of flexibility to computing. Imagine having different "personalities" - different collections of "kernel service" daemons, so that your box can run Linux, BSD, Solaris, VMS, or even Windows sessions, on the fly. Imagine being able to switch between them, or run different ones simultaneously, without having "root" privileges and without affecting other users. This is just one of the many interesting things that could be done on a microkernel system but not on a monolithic one. Another one is a system where any user can do all sorts of things that normally require root access, except for mess up other users.
None of the pre-existing systems seem to have ever really taken advantage of microkernel design - rather they just use a microkernel to emulate a single monolithic kernel (usually BSD.) However, there are some pretty incredible microkernel only tricks out there waiting to be done, and the HURD developers plan on finally doing them.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
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?
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.
"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
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)
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?
Being compiled with GCC doesn't make it a GNU application. I suspect that the majority of Linux systems use LILO, not GRUB. There are plenty on non-GNU shells, I personally use zsh as my shell of preference. I suspect very few routers run X, never mind a desktop system.
The Hurd is really just like WINE except that it pretends to be a monolithic UNIX system instead of pretending to be a Win32 system. The HURD is currently ported only to Gnumach, but this may change. Darwin refers to both the Berkley UNIX translation layer and the underlying microkernel.
Imagine the ugliness of moving parts of XFree into the kernel. WinNT/XP and Darwin move parts of the video subsystem into the kernel for performance reasons. NT set out to be a true microkernel, and perhapse NeXT started with this goal as well. The HURD doesn't move any of the server code into the kernel. The HURD on Gnumach follows a clean microkernel/sever seperation. Mach is a beast of a microkernel, but in essence the system is a much more pure microkernel. Your video driver goes beserk (supposedly the cuase of most NT/XP bluescreens nowadays) and all you have to do is restart the video server. Maybe you have a watchdog server running to restart essential servers that go kaput.
Of course, there's also the liscence issue for liscence bigots. You can get Darwin's source, but IIRC, you can't redistribute changes you make. I think everyone here will gree that this is less of a Good Thing than GPL or BSD liscenced kernel code.
As for me, I'm a design bigot. Gnumach is more of the Right Way to do Mach, but it's still the beast that is Mach. Bonus points for being a microkernel, but Linux is still more elegant (as are the *BSD kernels). UNIX monolithic kernels do a pretty good job of providng a minimum numberof orthogonal services and primitives that can be well tested and well understood. This is one principle of good design. Mach has over 100 system calls implementing all kinds of non-orthogonal services and primitives. Darwin refers to Mach and the BSD userland personality tranlator designed for Mach. HURD is just the userspace POSIX translator that was supposedly designed to be microkernel agnostic, so you could easily port it to a different microkernel and have HURD running on QNX or RtLinux, or even a monolithic *BSD or Linux kernel. There are efforts to port the HURD to the L4 microkernel. They've discovered that the HURD as presently implemented is highly dependant on certain aspects of Mach. They're debating rewriting the HURD from scratch becase of all of the Mach dependancies. It looks like they'll try and port the HURD to a "Virtual Kernel" and then have a thin library that gets linked in to wrap the VK calls and translate for the actual kernel (and perhapse a few userland servers, depending on exactly how the VK and actual microkernel break up kernel and server functionality.)
If the L4-HURD people suceed, you might actually see the HURD outperform *BSD, Linux, et. al. Microkernels have inherently worse agregate throughput due to the increased coontext switching. However, some L4 implementations cheat and put several tasks in the same address space and simply change the read-write permissions on memory pages instead of actually switching contexts (and flushing the TLB) between tasks. This is called lazy context switching and may actually allow L4 to outperform all of the kernels that use conventional context switching. Of course, the monolithic kernels could also use lazy context switchng, but they are harder to modify. I have a copy of L4 on my machine that is only 49,847 bytes large. About half of that has tobe machine-specific code, so often times it's easier to rewrite L4 from scratch when "porting" to another architecture. After all, there's probably more than 50k of object code that changes between releases of the Linux kernel.
People get confused and claim that Darwin is something of a NetBSD kernel or FreeBSD kernel merged with mach. The kernel has a userland personality that translates Berkley UNIX (BSD) systm calls to mach system calls. There's not really any NetBSD or FreeBSD code in the kernel as far as I know. The kerel is basically the NeXT kernel and BSD 4.3 personality server ported from m68k to PPC and an update to BSD 4.4 personality.
The NetBSD and FreeBSD connection comes from the userland utilities. Originally, most of the userland utilities were ported from NetBSD, but now Apple has snagged one of the main FreeBSD developers, so the userland is becomming more like FreeBSD.
Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
We have currently compiled 2000 source packages from Debian, which result in 4000 binary packages (or 3 and a half CD full) of software for the GNU/Hurd system.
You can install the Debian GNU/Hurd just as you install Debian GNU/Linux (with more edges, I suppose). As the standard windowing system you get XFree86 of course (and I use Window Maker as the wm on my GNU/Hurd system).
Thanks,
Marcus Brinkmann
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.
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.
Sigh...
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.