GNU/Hurd Gets POSIX Threads

An anonymous reader writes "Neal Walfield announced the first release of RMGPT, which is (or rather, aspires to one day be) a complete, portable implementation of IEEE Std 1003.1-2001 threads also known as POSIX threads. With this new pthreads library, it will soon be possible to run complex software packages on the Hurd, including the GNOME and KDE desktops, the OpenOffice suite, and the Mozilla web browser. Find more information here, including the humorous meaning behind RMGPT, and insight into a future Hurd release..."

Comments

My apologies to RMS

[FreeLinux]

But, I don't see the point. In the beginning Hurd made sense but, it floundered for so long that it has been eclipsed by Linux and the BSDs.

Without being insulting, I'd just like to ask, what's the point of putting further effort into the Hurd, rather than concentrating on advancing Linux and or the BSDs?

Re:My apologies to RMS

[gmack]

And they wonder why more people Listen to Linus ...
Linus is not for free software? Then why the hell did he release his code under the GPL?

No. Non-Free software is NOT needed to devlelop Linux. Linus and the bitkeeper folks have gone our of their way to make sure that it's even easier to sumbit patches the old way than it was before. And as he has stated he is willing to consider a free tool instead of Bitkeeper should one become as good.

And if you read his book he explains that he in fact tried calling it GNU/Linux for a bit then gave up realising that even he can't fight what's become the defacto naming standard.

Linus has done more for free software than the GNU folks want to admit. How many people would even be using free software if not for Linux?
I wouldn't be.. "hey lets lose the useabillity battle but we can still win the war?"

The fact that stallman has been moved out of the spotlight is pretty much his own doing. Reporters tend not to like people who side track press confrences to argue over naming.

Linus on the other hand had to be coerced into having a book done and has a notable dislike for politics and correctness. I never see him grabbing the spotlight from someone else and demanding attention.

While the GNU folks were busy trying to fight the whole battle at once and having press confrence Linus managed to build a working kernel and kickstart the free software movement.

Yeah I run non free software from time to time.. no I don't like it. But I'd rather run one or 2 non free apps than be forced to use windows on my office desktop and run ENTIRELY non free software.

I'm all for the free software ideals and I know it will bring a better age of software if it manages to take over.

But seriously.. lets fight this one battle at a time and spend less time arguing views. Buisness seem to have an apathy for ideals.

Linus pragmatic approach has brought the entire movement into the public software and he deservs more respect than he has been getting from the GNU people.

necessary flame

[carpe_noctem]

ok but it had to be said....who the hell uses the hurd?

Mr. Hanky, is that you???

[jimkski]

Is it just me or does the GNU/HURD icon bear a startling resemblance to South Park's Mr. Hanky?

Re:The HURT

[DrXym]

Ironically, HURD was around even before Linux was started. I suspect the reason Linux took off and HURD didn't has a lot to do with the leadership and goals for each project. Linus realizing that if you write a practical kernel 'they will come' and so they did while HURD well, just languished and wallowed in microkernel correctness hell.

Ten years later and HURD still isn't practical (what's the big deal I wonder) while Linux can drive anything from palm devices to super computers and mainframes.

It's no wonder RMS is so bitter and twisted these days :)

Re:The HURT

[DrXym]

The thing is that HURD had a big head start over Linux. The fact that it never attracted developers is IMHO in no small part to the perceived political nature of the FSF and RMS.

Development is meant to be fun and Linus clearly put that and pragmatism ahead of the stupid pigheaded politics that the FSF (& RMS) is associated with.

Re:yay.

[Moog]

Yeah, and he had to write his own C compiler, C library, assembler, linker and text editor to do it, didn't he?

I don't think you understand the nature of OS

[PhysicsGenius]

You see, the only way for non-Windows to beat Windows is for every single person to create their own operating system with slightly different interpretations of the standards. Once this low-level heterogeneity exists, software companies will need to create slightly different versions of each of their products to sell to us (or we could each create our own IRC client, calendar app, webmail frontend, etc). This virtually guarantees our freedom as well as making us immune to virii and girlfriends.

I Think It Should be "GNU Hurd"

[Milican]

Since Hurd is a GNU package then it should not be GNU/Hurd. Instead we should use GNU Hurd. Since Linux is not a GNU package then it is referred to as GNU/Linux. For more details see the FAQ.

JOhn

Re:an excerpt

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi!

Please try to be constructive. It is inevitable that the site become slashdotted as you call it, as more and more people become aware of our project and wish to become involved. It can only be a matter of time before GNU/Linux is abandoned for an operating system that is truly Free.

Cheers,
GNU/Wolfgang

Re:Darwin and MkLinux?

[Arker]

You aren't the first to think that was odd. I've been interested in that question myself for awhile. I'm no authority, but I'll pass on what I've learned. First Matthias' post is fairly accurate with one major exception. He wrote:

Software enginiering. Even if you compile everything in the same address space, it makes sense to separate functionality. This way, you keep a nice design, but do not pay the performance price for context switches.

Right so far, although I'm sure that Linus, among others, disagrees with the notion that you can't do even nicer design in a monolithic kernel if you pay attention.

BTW, what Apple has done with Mach is basically the same way MS went with NT (yes I know this week they call it XP, but I don't feel any obligation to obey the dictates of their marketing department so I'll keep calling it NT thanks,) starting with a microkernel but then moving certain systems back into kernelspace for performance reasons.

Also separated address spaces do not reduce the chances of a kernel crash. Even if the BSD layer was in its own address space, a crash would still bring down the Mach kernel, as part of the BSD layer handles disks and so swap devices.

Here's where I think he's wrong. What he's describing here is how it works in Darwin (and NT) yes, but only because they moved those systems back into kernel space. But the way it works on a proper microkernel system (like the HURD) doesn't just run these things in a separate address space but at a different privilege level, so instead of crashing the kernel you simply crash a daemon and have to restart it. This does mean drawing the lines a little differently than they have, of course.

You wrote:

Darwin is Mach and the BSD kernel merged together. They both live in kernel space. So why are they using Mach? I dunno.

OK, my best guess is that it's simply a historical relic. When Jobs started work on NeXT, it was damn near universal opinion in CS that Microkernels were the way to go, so that's the way he had it done. NeXT, of course, went bankrupt, and was bought at fire-sale prices by Apple, which has now reworked that system into OS X. At no point along the way did it seem clear to the development team that there was any compelling reason to build a new core - the performance problems are minimised by violating the 'microkernel ethic' and moving the personality into kernel space, without actually rewriting the kernel from scratch. So there you go... probably not the way they would write the thing if they had to start over from scratch, but they don't, and it's good enough. Software development is like organic evolution in that way, even though people usually misquote 'survival of the fittest' what Darwin (as in Charles Darwin) actually said was 'survivor of the fit' - it doesn't matter if something's optimal, as long as it's good enough.