Slashdot Mirror
New GNU Hurd Kernel Released
Anonymous Coward writes "I don't know if there is much interest out there, but GNU Mach Kernel 1.3 was just released a couple days ago. (May 28)." Looking forward to that 2002 release...
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Has anybody hurd of any possible gold releases of the HURD and/or any existing Linux vendor support (RH, SuSe)?
I know I'm gonna get modded down for this, but I'd like to make my point anyway. How much fragmentation can the Open Source community take? I understand that most robust systems have some element of redundancy to them, but Linux, Minux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD. For example, right now I'm working on a Linux system that's probably 75% of the way to being an efficient competitor to Windows on the desktop. The other night, I saw a FreeBSD that was easily 60% of the way. I'd peg Hurd at probably 20% from reading the ChangeLogs; perhaps it could borrow some of the Linux utilities to help it along (that's what the community's about, right?) But in conclusion, even if we've got well over 320% of the development and peer review of Windows, at some point we're gonna want to take 100% and put it into one platform. Thank you.
GNU Mach is a reimplementation.
I have been fooling aroung with it for a couple years now. I have my little 1Gb Hurd partition which I occasionally boot up and experiment with. I must say that I have learned a lot by trying to compile programs under Hurd, and I actually succeded in patching Pth (Gnu Portable Threads) to get it to compile. It provides a rudimentary pthread compatibility lib while the main pthreads are still in development for inclusion into the c-library.
Even more fun is rolling your own OSKit-Mach microkernel and then running it on a serial debugger. It is fascinating to be able to single step through a running kernel, set breakpoints, view the source as it executes, look at the CPU registers, etc. I wholeheartedly recommend it to all the compsci students and future kernel hackers out there.
Clickety Click
TUNES
Are you looking for fun? It's based on Lisp - that the real fun!
Features of TUNES;
Review of other systems;
Less is more !
Sheesh, and they're on version 1.3? It just looks a little suspect to me when the size difference between version 1.1.3 and 1.2 is over a megabyte of compressed code.
What's that about commercial software being rushed out the door incomplete?
MACH is an old and flawed u-kernel implementation. Until HURD ports itself to a better one, HURD will always be slower than Linux and a more bug ridden OS. u-kernel OS implementations have proven to work with products like QNX, but HURD can only embarrass u-kernel advocates with its current foundation.
Its more annoying when advocates bitch and moan that "Linux is a 40 yr old design". So is about everything that is sucessful on the market. Do these guys really expects us to drop what works to what cannot work well in its current state? As is, HURD is an embarrassment to O/S purists. Its the "portable" O/S that can't even work well on ONE hardware architecture!
Its sad that HURD lacks interested, talented programmers, but its strategic stewardship is its downfall. Or the difference between a Torvalds and an RMS. I don't think HURD announcements deserve to be put on the front page of
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
Probably, but if you learn only one thing from /., it's that FUD is a lot more "insightful" and "interesting" than facts. I'm willing to bet *my* karma on that! (I agree that it's probably OpenFirmware that does it, not OS X's kernel).
The GPL makes software more like your mom. Free and open to all.
If you haven't provided and support or code to the project,I hardly see how you have a basis for mocking/complaining about the progression.
The issue here is that they aren't just making another version of a monolithic Uni*xy kernel, they are re-inventing much of the way the applications/kernel/u-kernel/hardware layers interact. It's not as easy a task as reverse engineering what already exists.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
NT's kernel32 is also a microkernel, though obviously not a *nix one. While Linus in particular has been pretty harsh on microkernel architectures, the vast majority of PCs out there run on them. I personally think the microkernel is the only way to go for closed-source kernels since a recompile is out of the question. I'm not sure what the advantage is with open-source though. Anyone care to tell me?
Jeremy
Newer hardware will boot from a FireWire or USB disk with either OSX or OS 9 installed. Hell, you can probably boot OS 8.1 off a FireWire disk (why would you want to is another question).
Having the MacOS X kernel perform this task is not only idiotic but impossible, if the OSX kernel is loaded, the machine has already selected a boot disk...
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?