Slashdot Mirror
GNU/Hurd Delayed To Fix Disk Size, Serial I/O Limitations
gregger writes "This Infoworld article indicates that the GNU/Hurd is still waiting to stampede. Evidently they have to switch from the GNU Mach implementation they're using now to OSKit's Mach which will help them support faster serial I/O and larger hard discs. Currently GNU/Hurd will only support somewhere between 1 to 2 GB partitions."
GNU *is* GNU/Linux. Except for this tiny itty-bitty kernel that some guy wrote, which we only took 19 years to get around to doing.
-RMS
I'm shocked! SHOCKED!
I hope it will be able to run the new Mosaic software. Have you guys seen that? It's like Gopher but with you can add pictures, change the font size, etc.
OSKit/HURD?
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
The release of a production version of the free GNU operating system (OS) has been delayed beyond the end of the year, as the current development version of the system does not support large disk partitions and high speed serial I/O (input-output), according to Richard Stallman
is it just me, or does it sound like they had it all ready to ship, date planned and everything, and then someone pointed out that it was lacking some major I/O features/performance, and the developers collectively slapped their foreheads and went "oh shit, yeah, we kinda forgot about that one."
like, all this took them by surprise? sucks to forget to implement a couple crucial features, eh?
GNU/Hurd. 19 years in the making, and worth every minute of it.
Finally the world will have a politically correct OS that works just like other Unices have for decades.
Does anyone here know why they let the partition size issue languish for so long? Hell, I've had files larger than 1GB (and not porn! go figure). Hard disks have been at the 10 GB mark for years, where it really doesnt' make sense to have 10 partitions. I wish richard luck. On another note, does anyone know how HURD benchmarks against linux?
Photos.
Is harder than most people seem to think it is.
That being said, I think the Hurd is pretty much a solution in search of a problem. Who cares? And why? The FreeBSD kernel does everything Hurd purports to want to be able to do, and is more mature, stable, and feature-complete. The same could probably be said of the Linux kernel.
Does that mean the Hurd guys should stop what they're doing? Of course not. Writing operating systems is fun.
It does, however, probably mean that the stuff they're doing isn't really news.
GNU was intended to solve the problem of their not being a free unixlike OS. Now there are like 50 but still no GNU. Maybe they should refocus on providing a great userland?
Never overestimate the end user. -jeramy b. smith
My home directory (which only contains material back to '98, all else is archived on QIC, which I can't even read any more) is already 6GB, and that's just mail and documents -- all of my images and sound files are stored elsewhere.
No wonder I don't use Hurd.
I think the Hurd is a nice, interesting CS project, but there isn't enough of a pragmatic influence amongst its developers ranks to make it actually useful to anyone.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
What kind of systems are they using for development that they just noticed the inability to read current large partitioning schemes and interact with them? This dosen't do much to encourage me to try HURD and hope it will support much of my newfangled hardware.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd.html
GNU HURD is a slimmer re-write of the UNIX kernel that is completely OOP.
Here's a cut and paste from the homepage:
The Hurd is not the most advanced kernel known to the planet (yet), but it does have a number of enticing features:
it's free software
Anybody can use, modify, and redistribute it under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL).
it's compatible
The Hurd provides a familiar programming and user environment. For all intents and purposes, the Hurd is a modern Unix-like kernel. The Hurd uses the GNU C Library, whose development closely tracks standards such as ANSI/ISO, BSD, POSIX, Single Unix, SVID, and X/Open.
it's built to survive
Unlike other popular kernel software, the Hurd has an object-oriented structure that allows it to evolve without compromising its design. This structure will help the Hurd undergo major redesign and modifications without having to be entirely rewritten.
it's scalable
The Hurd implementation is aggressively multithreaded so that it runs efficiently on both single processors and symmetric multiprocessors. The Hurd interfaces are designed to allow transparent network clusters (collectives), although this feature has not yet been implemented.
it's extensible
The Hurd is an attractive platform for learning how to become a kernel hacker or for implementing new ideas in kernel technology. Every part of the system is designed to be modified and extended.
it's stable
It is possible to develop and test new Hurd kernel components without rebooting the machine (not even accidentally). Running your own kernel components doesn't interfere with other users, and so no special system privileges are required. The mechanism for kernel extensions is secure by design: it is impossible to impose your changes upon other users unless they authorize them or you are the system administrator.
it exists
The Hurd is real software that works Right Now. It is not a research project or a proposal. You don't have to wait at all before you can start using and developing it.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
Now if they were switching to L4, that would be cool. But it would be a research effort.
And why does anyone, at this late date, care much about high-speed serial line support?
I actually watched Stallman speak in Montreal recently. One interesting tidbit was that he still seems dumbfounded about the fact that the Linux kernel beat them into production even though one of the advantages of microkernel is supposed to be ease of design and the fact that mach had half of the work done already.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Kudos to RMS for fighting the good fight, but he's already contributed significantly to Linux. I really don't think it'll go farther than that.
This sig no verb.
It's being built so that GNU weenies will finally be able to claim a 100% PURE GNU OPERATING SYSTEM. This will gain them fame, fortune, and, their primary objective:
Mad hoes.
Yes. You see, the GNU HURD project is just a front. These guys are just looking for a little lovin'. I, for one, will be downloading and running HURD 1.0 as soon as it's released, to support the libidos of these great, visionary men.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
No, Stallman is pushing this thing because its modular and relies on the Mach microkernel and the Flux OSKit library, in stark contrast to Linux's monolithic kernel design. Not to say monolithic kernels are bad, but microkernels do have their advantages, and both GNU/Hurd and GNU/Linux will each have their respective pros and cons.
"The lesson to be learned is not to take the comments on slashdot too literally." --Vinnie Falco, BearShare
Given all the comments I've been reading it's seems to me like this is nothing more than Vaporware.
Maybe not. But right now it's clearly meant to be Hurd and not seen. ;-)
---
Information wants...you to shut your pie hole.
I'd assume that they're working on the HURD because they think that it's interesting, fun, and/or a good learning experience. Not all Free Software development has to take place with the goal of taking over the world. A lot of it, as ESR points out, is done to satisfy the interests of the individual authors. That's why there are a million projects on Freshmeat that are essentially clones of the same basic project- mp3 player frontends, database systems to catalog CD collections, etc. Individual programmers write them for their own personal reasons and then provide them for anyone else who wants a copy.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
I want a new slashdot poll:
Which long awaited project will be the first to become reality?
a) Duke Nukem Forever
b) SMP for OpenBSD
c) GNU/Hurd
d) The second coming of Jeebus
Trolling is a art,
The biggest issue is that Stallman is an idealist. Torvalds just wanted a working Unix-line OS.
A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
Well, if you want to start that arguement.
Linux has nothing to do with Gnu. If you wanted to, you could make an OS using the Linux kernel & the BSD tools.
So, it's now the distros (e.g. RedHat) that are supposed to start throwing GNU in there. Of course, that would cause some user confusion when they go searching for this "GNU Linux" kernel.
Where does it end? What percentage of an OS's software has to come from a certain source that it must be included in all titles? Shall we call it RedHat Linux/GNU/XFree86/KDE ? Hey, the Gnu tools are replacable... XFree86 doesn't have any real competition, and so it more important than GNU.
What's that you say? rms is just a vain blowhard that will suck up publicity where ever he can get some? I'm sure he would disagree with that completely, and then go and complain about bitkeeper some more.
Man am I glad BSDs are better. In fact, rms thinks so too. Why else would he run FreeBSD on his server?
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
according to the article:
if you get a moderate size disk you have to divide it into smaller partitions, which is a nuisance.
I'm sorry, but I have an 80gig drive. If I need between 40 to 80 partitions (between 1 and 2 gigs each), it's not just a nuisance.
To solve the serial port problem, the GNU project is switching from the GNU Mach to the OSKit Mach, a Mach based on the OSKit for OS development from the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, Utah. "That version of Mach is supposed to get high speed serial line support, although it apparently isn't there in it yet," Stallman said. Before the GNU project could switch to the OSKit Mach, it had to rewrite the terminal support in the Hurd to support virtual consoles.
By the time these guys switch to the new kernel, test all modules, etc., etc. they will have to update it again for new speed improvements and HD sizes.
Linus was right that Microkernels tend to be overdesigned, give up speed, and are less practical than monolithic. This is the living proof.
And compiled high level language programs by definition can't be as fast as assembly language. But at some point we all decided that ease of programming and maintainance was more important.
As processors get faster and faster the time it takes to do the context switch will become less and less important.
# (/.);;
- : float -> float -> float =
Given the common whining rhetoric complaining that they don't get enough credit for providing most of the "unix" utilities in Linux (while they do deserve credit, whining about it is not the answer), you'd think they'd be in a bigger hurry to do it themselves and do it "right". After all, Linus took what they claimed to want to do all those years ago, and did it himself in a lot less time and a lot more successfully (at least so far). That's not a ringing endorsement of the gnu/fsf ideology....
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Unlike other popular kernel software, the Hurd has an object-oriented structure that allows it to evolve without compromising its design. This structure will help the Hurd undergo major redesign and modifications without having to be entirely rewritten.
And you guys are wondering why it's taken 19 years???
when me and richard m. stallman (the m stands for 'merryweather', did you know that?) started GNU/hurd back in 1908, we were out to replace the closed-internals of the international business machines (ibm) automatic punch card tabulator, which was at use at the time in the department of the census (where me and rich were summer interns). those machines had a 2mm steel case sealed with canadian metric square screws (wherever you call them, please don't correct me). since nobody had any metric screwdrivers at the time, much less square ones, we had no access to the internal cogs and wheels of the tabulator. we definitely did not want to punch through the casing, because that would void our warranty and service contract, and we would have to contract ibm to build us a second tabulator (which cost nearly 200 american dollars, and took 7 months to assemble).
when it (frequently) broke down, we had to call an ibm machinist to come open the case for us and oil the flywheel or unjam the transverse flying arm on the card-feeder. as you can imagine, this seemed hardly the ideal solution, because usually all it needed was a little bit of work that me and rich could easily perform (even through we were not trained calculating machine operators).
long story short, we starting working on the GNU/hurd tabulator. the centerpiece to our system was the pipelined card loader, which could load the next punchcard while the calculating engine was stilll churning on the previous card. we had also designed the system so that you could have dual loading mechanisms, so that one would always be running if the other jammed. rich always insisted that we should publish the blueprints for our machine, so that other people in our tabulation club could also build similar machines, and help us with the design. to me the whole idea sounded a bit bolshevik, but richard seemed intent to follow through with it, and i didn't mind so much. honestly, i didn't believe he would ever be able to publish anything, given that his handwriting was quite terrible (although he was working on a new type of typewriter, the electro-macs so that he would be somewhat more legible).
5 years later, when i was conscripted to join the great war in europe, we had a nearly complete tabulator in hand. we had solved nearly all the problems of page clipping and bending that were present in our earlier builds, and our machine could run at a rate of well over 70 cards per minute (compared to the ibm's 42). however, we never completed the loader fully, and the latest model i saw could only hold 3 cards on the loading queue, making it much less than useful (however promising).
i've lost contact with rich during the war years. i had always assumed he's been killed in action. anyway, i'm glad to see he's still going strong with our GNU/hurd tabulator, and wish him well on it. hopefully it will be done before my great grandkids graduate college.
*shrug* You and I may like speed... but for the average user microkernels offer more advantages.
You and I are running servers and gaming systems; we want pure performance, and don't mind rebooting a couple of times or recompiling a kernel to change hardware or upgrade drivers. In contrast, my mom has trouble right-clicking My Computer and choosing Properties to get a driver list. For her, a layered driver system that can dynamically load and unload drivers as needed and layer itself against instability is a MAJOR plus, even if it's not for me.
Just because I favor speed over robustness doesn't mean either is intrinsically better - it just means my needs run that way. And, being a programmer, chances are that my needs represent a very tiny fraction of the computer users out there.
They better make sure that Hurd supports hard drives up to 20 terabytes or so, since that'll be about the average size by the time Hurd ever gets done.
sig:
See the "..for smart people" banners Wired runs here? Look elsewhere guys.
I wish that fewer people would be so damned hardline pragmatic. It's worth putting time into stuff that could be cool and to try to do things in ways that are nice. Maybe it'll fail, but it's worth the attempt, even if it only serves as an example of what doesn't work.
HURD is the kernel designed by the FSF, the people who made all of the GNU tools you and I use on Linux. It is architecturally different than all other Unix kernels in existence. Older Unix kernels are all monolithic kernels (ie, they are in a single file, vmlinuz on Linux). HURD runs servers that communicate with each other to do the functions that the single Linux kernel does. Go to the HURD website and read one of the technical docs, they are very helpful.
Slashdot is a waste of time. I enjoy wasting time.
I think you might be confusing yourself.
A monolithic kernel has no fewer layers than a modern microkernel OS. Say you want to write to a file. You make a system call, which goes through the system call interface layer, which then goes to the read() system call implementation, which then goes to the disk subsystem, which then goes to the disk driver.
"But microkernel OSes have to copy stuff around between subsystems", I hear you say. Well that's true under Linux too. At the very least you have to copy the data from user space to kernel space. Compare this with a modern microkernel system where the data is copied straight between your user space and the disk server's user space. Same number of layers, same amount of copying.
Having said, that I agree with you that Mach can't possibly be as fast as, say, Linux, which is why I carefully said this applied to "modern" microkernel systems, such as QNX. So my hopes aren't high for the Hurd, at least in its current incarnation. However, modern microkernel systems which run as fast as modern monolithic kernel systems are here today and they work.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
"when me and richard m. stallman (the m stands for 'merryweather', did you know that?) started GNU/hurd back in 1908, we were out to replace the closed-internals of the international business machines (ibm) automatic punch card tabulator..."
You forgot to add that you were both wearing onions on your belts, which was the fashion at the time.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Microkernels are much more stable than monolithic kernels. For example, Solaris uses a monolithic kernel, NT uses a microkernel. Which one runs longer? See? - that's the advantage of microkernels.
What GNU/Mach/OSKit/HURD will be is a unix-like OS with all the famed stability of NT. I can hardly wait. It'll probably ship real soon now, just like they've been promising for the last 20 years.
Note to RMS - if you don't put Mach in the name, you're denying them their due credit. Seriously. I refuse to type GNU/Linux ever again until I see Mach/HURD on every FSF website.
The best reason for HURD: "Because they want it that way."
No one should have to justify what they want to build to you or anyone. Free software is not about the GPL. It's about freedoms. If these people want to build the most paradigmatically pure kernel ever conceived of, I think that's great.
If they want to turn an architecturally useful chunk of marble into a useless statue of some kid named David. That's great too.
When I enter a bunch of keywords into freshmeat and pick over the results, I occasionally ask myself, "What was this guy thinking?" Others with that same list ask that same question, but about different projects. It's the fact that we are free to combine conceptual purity, modifiability, stability, speed, and dozens of other engineering trade-offs in exactly the manner that we think is "right" that makes picking through Freshmeat like picking through a box of Dark Chocolates.
Oddly, the same rule applies. If you don't like a particular chocolate, don't eat it; don't whine about it; just pick a different one
I wish Mr. Stallman the fewest alpha particles and the best of luck in his noble pursuit.
well the debian framework is poised to be bolted on around it.
so you'll have all the apps, functionality of a solid, if slightly sluggish linux distro.
in theory the more elgant design should bring performance increases,
and the superirio code maintainability won't need Bitkeeper to submit patches for it.
in theory.
'There is a Light that never goes out.'
You and I are running servers and gaming systems; we want pure performance, and don't mind rebooting a couple of times or recompiling a kernel to change hardware or upgrade drivers. In contrast, my mom has trouble right-clicking My Computer and choosing Properties to get a driver list. For her, a layered driver system that can dynamically load and unload drivers as needed and layer itself against instability is a MAJOR plus, even if it's not for me.
Linux can dynamically load and unload drivers with ease. It's been able to do this since the 2.0.x kernels, IIRC. Hell you can compile modules and install them without updating the kernel tree in many cases. And kernel OOPSes in the stable trees have been few and far between, to say the least.
Yes, microkernels are nifty but there isn't a whole hell of a lot one can do that a modular monolithic kernel can't. I hear there's even work to make the networking stack itself a module. Yer mom isn't going to notice any difference between a microkernel and the hybrid kernel that Linux offers.
There are plenty of other microkernels in use very sucessfully. WinNT/2k/XP, Mac OS X, MkLinux, Minix, just to name a few!
Don't make such wide-ranging judgements based off of one case. You're counting your chickens before they are hatched.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
The Linux kernel is running out of steam--the software development is becoming more and more unmanageable (see the BitKeeper debates), and drivers and new functionality often take years to appear in stable, up-to-date form in the kernel.
Those are the kinds of problems microkernels were supposed to address. I have no idea whether the GNU/Hurd does or does not address them, and even if it does, it is 15 year old technology. But I do know that Linux isn't addressing them right now, and that's a problem.
I suspect that what will actually happen is that in a couple of years, there will be a severely hacked Linux kernel fork that keeps driver and file system compatibility at the source level for a while but otherwise goes its own way.
What's the next big headline, 'Flying Cars That Turn Into Briefcases Not Available Yet'?
Bang on the money.
If I might add to what you've pointed out, RMS has explained that the motivation for continuing development of the Hurd is that it has the potential to be something much more powerful.
Which leads to what really bothers me about the Slashdot crowd's reaction to the Hurd. Lot's of people I know criticize Free/Open Source Software just rips stuff off, and doesn't innovate. Well, the Hurd is one of the most innovative Free Software projects around. These guys were talking about buiding a multi-server OS back at the beginning of the 90s.
Come on, once the Hurd is finished, GNU/Hurd will be years ahead of GNU/Linux, Windows NT, or Mac OSX. The only other OS I know of that's as theoretically-advanced as GNU/Hurd is QNX another multi-server.
This is cool stuff. Unfortunately, it seems that most people just want to complain, "Oh, does it have the drivers for XXXXX? No. Then it's useless." Grow up - the value of an operating system isn't defined by what hardware it runs on. That's much easier to change than the fundamental architecture of the system.
#define sig "Every social system runs on the people's belief in it."
Not true, friend. There are alternatives even to the GNU C library for those who object to RMS's politics.
And whether or not one uses the GNU C compiler is irrelevant. Code compiled with GCC is not part of the GNU project, nor it is required to be licensed with the GNU license. If you prefer, though, you can use Intel's C compiler, or Metrowerks's, or whichever compiler will work with your target architecture.
And you're mistaken about one more thing. The reason people drop the "GNU/" part of the name "GNU/Linux" is because "Linux," as has been pointed out again and again here by a persistent AC, is a registered trademark. Calling anything "GNU/Linux" without Linus Torvald's permission is infringement, and it's illegal. The name of the operating system is "Linux," and unless Torvalds says otherwise, that's the end of that.
I write in my journal
Right. Any software project that takes effort, breaks new ground, and has real academic value isn't worth it.
Microsoft should be thanking you for spreading this attitude among Free/Open Source developers.
#define sig "Every social system runs on the people's belief in it."
microkernels were the rage. HURD answered the call and started work. Now, almost 20 years later, MIT pulls the rug out with exokernels. So will we wait until 2020 to get a working model of that too?
God bless HURD for trying to advance the state of the art and improve upon the dated UNIX model, but sheesh! I wish HURD were ready for prime time. I really do. But a working model with caveats (Linux, OSX, *BSD) will always be better than a better model that's mostly theoretical in the real world.
That said, no one's paying the HURD developers. If it gos their nads, have at it. RMS needs to relax and realize that it is little more than a research experiment and not the second coming.
- I don't need to go outside, my CRT tan'll do me just fine.
Try:
MkLinux and
Mac OS X
Of course, both are somewhat more successful than the HURD...
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Linux kernel has taken off in a very short time (about 10 years).
Try two years maybe less. Seriously. People were doing real work in a Linux environment running the version 0.99.x kernels which were release in 1993. Linux ran X, vi, emacs, and the GNU tools. For a lot of acedemics on a limited budget this was more then enough.
People can use GNU/Linux. You don't use the kernel (as an end-user), you use your applications.
I think we've got a best-of-both worlds situation here: in the meantime, we've got a very good monolithic kernel (Linux), and we've got a nice multi-server in the works (Hurd), for when the time comes when monolithic kernels just can't cut it anymore.
And regarding your statement, "It doesn't matter if you are theorectially advanced.", that's a load of BS. If no one is innovating, technology stagnates. What we're seeing here is the price of innovation. And if Free/Open Source isn't willing to do this, then we'll deserve the criticism that we're just ripping off proprietary software.
#define sig "Every social system runs on the people's belief in it."
The thing is, though, that they're still talking about it, and haven't been able to actually do anything with it.
Haven't been able to do anything with it? Buddy, I've got a GNU/Hurd box running at my university. It's not vapourware. And it's rapidly making progress.
don't expect me to get all hot and bothered because the design is different in some exciting but arcane way.
I don't call microkernel architecture "arcane." I'm not satisfied with the long-term potential of monolithic kernels, hence I support the Hurd.
Actually, IBM is getting all hot and bothered by this stuff. They're financing the development of SawMill, a multi-server version of Linux running on top of the L4 microkernel. This stuff is the future.
#define sig "Every social system runs on the people's belief in it."
I think everyone here is being pretty unfair to Hurd and RMS's efforts. Hurd can easily do all kinds of stuff you'll never get Linux to be able to do, like allow unpriviliged users to mount filesystems in their home directories without causing problems for security, allowing ordinary users to hack the kernel without breaking security and so on.
All of this has been a major advancement in computer science, and they simply haven't needed things like large partitions that of course would be needed for widespread acceptance. I simply don't see it as a big deal that they've taken so long to add the features needed for an end-user, because they had to take a long time to write the architectural underpinnings that are miles beyond Linux.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
So Torvalds, who has exclusive control over the name "Linux," as used to describe computer operating system software, initially granted permission for the use of the name "GNU/Linux," but he and Stallman had different ideas of how that variation on the "Linux" trademark was to be used. In this interview, Torvalds makes it clear that he does not approve of the use of the mark "GNU/Linux" to describe "'every' Linux system." Consequently, the name "GNU/Linux" is an infringement on Torvalds's trademark.
If you want to call the operating system "Foonix," you're free to do so. You can call it whatever you want-- to the extent that you don't violate anybody's copyright. But you can't dilute or otherwise distort the trademark "Linux" without permission, which Torvalds explicitly denied in that interview.
Thanks for pointing out that article. It makes the issue even more crystal-clear to me.
I write in my journal
You're totally misinterpretting Mr. Stallman's beliefs about naming.
The free operating environment he has been trying to create for 20 years is called GNU. This encompases a kernel, userland, system libraries, compilers, etc. It's a whole, big lot of work. They started out with the editors, a C library, and a compiler so they could write the rest, and they went very far. GNU userlands started to supplant the traditional ones on most UNIX machines because GNU applications were full featured and matured quickly (try the BSD userland sometime, you'll start to notice missing options quickly), and because they were open and free.
But their kernel, the Hurd, lagged in development. Linus took the amazing GNU userland and added his Linux kernel. The GNU/Linux system was born, a fusion of the GNU userland and the Linux kernel. Mr. Stallman believes than Linus deserves much credit for bringing a free kernel into the world (remember, it was released when BSD was dealing with much legal ramblings), and that's why it's listed as a part of the name (and not just included in the name "GNU").
A modular layer deep in the kernel which can be swapped at will is not really relevant to it. You could ask why XFree86 is not in the name of GNU/Linux, and you'll be told it's because only the GNU and Linux parts were designed towards the goal of a free system. XFree86 is just a reference version of X11R6 which runs on x86 (and other) hardware. The same can be said of Mach, it's just a reference implementation of some software.
GNU is the only operating environment designed to be free as in freedom from the very start, which is why Mr. Stallman asks that you properly credit the GNU contributors for their many man-centuries of effort.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
So, replacement for gcc, replacement for libc(bsd/other libc's mentioned), replacement for all other standard unix utilities.
As a side note several other OS projects use the GNU compiler to create their binaries. Should the be called GNU/Projects as well, even though they use few if any other GNU components? And I thought GNU and the FSF was about freedom....
------ 24.5% slashdot pure
Come on, once the Hurd is finished, GNU/Hurd will be years ahead of GNU/Linux, Windows NT, or Mac OSX
And all of those operating systems will be years ahead of themselves....
I live in a giant bucket.
[this space intentionally left blank]
> in theory the more elgant design should bring performance increases,
:(
Stupid need-for-portability, making everything slow
#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cordes ,
It's taken me a few years to understand RMS' perspective on the issue. But just because I can understand it does not make it right.
From his viewpoint, linux was merely dropped into The GNU System. But from the perspective of the rest of the world, Linus made an OS and a the Linux distributions added a bunch of userland stuff from different projects, GNU being a major supplier.
To use an analogy, Linus built an internal combustion engine, then his friends when to the local AutoParts and built a car. The name of the completed vehicle is not AutoParts/Linux.
If you take a look from any perspective but Mr. Stallman's, a heck of a lot of GNU was adjusted to fit the Linux kernel. Linux was not adjusted to fit GNU. Just browse through the glibc ChangeLog for proof.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
You're totally misinterpretting Mr. Stallman's beliefs about naming.
Probably.
A modular layer deep in the kernel which can be swapped at will is not really relevant to it.
"Swapped at will?" Not to put to fine a point on it, but this is in an article about the Hurd being delayed an indeterminate amount of time due to just such a swap.
You could ask why XFree86 is not in the name of GNU/Linux, and you'll be told it's because only the GNU and Linux parts were designed towards the goal of a free system.
1) I really don't believe those were the only parts developed towards the goal of a free system, so I suspect I must be misinterpreting your point, and 2) I would suspect I would really be told that you can have a perfectly reasonable Gnu/Linux system without XFree86. The GNU/Linux FAQ seems to imply it's really a matter of giving credit for effort, and not a matter of the philospohical goals.
GNU is the only operating environment designed to be free as in freedom from the very start, which is why Mr. Stallman asks that you properly credit the GNU contributors for their many man-centuries of effort.
Doesn't follow. Mach sure seems like it's free (and thus Hurd can use it), and it seems necessary to enabling the Hurd to exist. I still don't see why the efforts of the developers deserve any less credit for their man-years of effort towards making Hurd possible.
I'm not trying to be arbitrary here; I don't know all the issues, and I didn't know about the planned port to a different microkernel, but it seems like the current Hurd owes a lot of credit to the existence of Mach, in a way simliar to the way Linux-based OSes owes a huge amount of credit to the existence of GNU.
HURD is not the operating system choice of "hackers" or slashdotters. Hackers want to run computer applications (reliably and speedily). That is not what HURD is about. Its the utopian platform for computer science geeks; people who want to go beyond the current paradigm of UNIX, classic sequential computing, etc. . By abstracting the ukernel to a couple of critical operations (time slicing, memory allocation, and IPC), and moving every other operation to user mode, you have a tool that can be used to implement new concepts in computer operating systems.
Its not an alternative to Linux. Its an orange to Linux's apple. It will suck as an alternative to Linux. It will run slower than Linux (especially if they stick with Mach). It will not run more stablely than Linux (given its increased complexity). It may be a better platform for multiple CPU configurations, be we won't know that for sure until its ukernel design is complete, and an implementation of HURD actually proves it to be faster. Very few people will want to port useful packages to HURD; they'll go to Linux for reliability and performance. HURD's purpose is not a platform to run applications. Its a platform for computer science research.
That is the reason why I do not wish death on HURD and rejoice when there is good news for it. It does not really compete with Linux for mindshare. If it proves to be a superior platform for MP processing, only then will it have a mundane use.
I have massive contempt for its project management. Its currently looking like the OS that will never get released. And it does not deserve a serious look until it gets a quality ukernel, like L4 (which itself is unfinished). MACH will not cut it, or its UKS(?) version.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
At this rate, the OpenBEOS team will have the entire OS rewritten before the hurd kenel gets to version 1.0 :).
I have to think that the Hurd is a case of following the fashion rather than evaluating the microkernel technology on its merits.
There are lots of folk out there who will blather on at great length about the merits of kernel design for absolutely no other reason than they think it makes them look clever.
I have not done anything at the O/S level since writing one ten years ago (unless you count the Web as an O/S). At that time Mach was flavor of the month because OSF and Next had used it as the basis of their operating system and Cutler had used a lot of the concepts of Mach to design his follow on operating system to VMS. Then Rashid joined Cutler at Microsoft in a very high profile move.
So yes microkernels were flavor of the month ten years ago. However the reason why they were flavor of the month had more to do with the politics and problems at the time.
OSF was trying to build a kernel quickly to compete with System V. Microsoft was building Windows NT to get to market as fast as possible. Microkernels were touted as the equivalent of RISC in CPUs, a design that allowed for shorter development time and hence faster to market.
Microsoft had another issue, they wanted to be able to emulate other O/S. In particular Posix so they could sell in the federal market. They also wanted to be able to migrate VMS to run on WNT at a later date as a subsystem. This is actually in the works now and will take place when HP transitions from Alpha to Itanium on the high end server line. One of the reasons Microsoft was keen to do this is that Cutler and his principal staff had left Dec after Dec cancelled the Prism project, Cutler's objective stated at the time was to make Dec have to pay for the O/S they could have had for free. At the time Dec was bigger than Microsoft.
There are advantages to microkernels, but the NT design has not been pure microkernel for some time. In order to get acceptable performance on early hardware they had to allow the display drivers to run in kernel mode.
The problem that I think will prevent HURD ever working is that to build a real O/S you have to really understand the reasons behind the principles you follow and break them when necessary. RMS is unfortunately a prisoner of many dogmatic beliefs which once fixed he simply will not abandon regardless of the evidence.
Linus may or may not have known what he was doing when he had the argument with Andy Tannenbaum, but he made the right decision. Andy has written a lot of good books that are widely used as text books, I don't know if people like Cutler, Rashid, Hoare and Co would rate him as being in the front rank. It is the same situation in most fields, everyone has heard of Bruce Schneier, fewer have heard of Ron Rivest and only people in the field tend to know names like Paul Kocher (SSL 3.0, the one that works), Butler Lampson (ACLS, lotsa stuff), Clark (end to end principle), Bellovin (firewalls), Schiller (IETF Security Area director).
Oftopic: Mark Goldston, CEO of United Online (Juno/blue light) is a clueless dweeb, he just tried to tell Mark Haynes on CNBC that cable modem router boxes are not a threat to his business as few people can afford them... Not only are WiFi cable routers $100 at frys they will be built into the cable modems soon. So either he is uninformed (unlikely) or another lying CEO.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
How many commenting would have never noticed any delay had they not read it here?
Regardless of any negativity being expressed here towards the efforts of the Hurd Developers or the goal, this is a project that needs to be done.
I have no doubt that had Linux not come along, there would have been more man power and efforts put into the Hurd these past years.
Of course Linux was a distraction for many, yet it was also NOT a distructive distraction. Alot of GNU and GPL software has been developed and put into use. Enough So that, as we all know, MS has taken notice and has even launched a competitive campagin against not just Open Sourse, Linux and GNU, but with a focus on the GPL.
What software there has been made to run on Linux, can and probably already has been ported to run on the Hurd....(except for a few packages that just don't make sence to port as they deal with monolithic kernel issuse that don't exist in the Hurd). The count of software packages ported is in the thousands.
Even the drivers written for Linux are usable on the Hurd.
All of that porting and compatability was/is alot of work for which the Hurd Development team has done. So there has been energies going into alot more than just the hurd core.
Perhaps the really good part of all this is that MS probably doesn't have a clue as to what to expect of developer who will develop applications for the Hurd, to take advantage of the hurd. And it should be understood that the hurd opens the door up a lot more for development innovations.
So what will you have when the Hurd is officially publicly released... production version...??
You will have what appears to be no or very little different than using Linux. On the surface. But under the hood.... It's a more versatile, stable and in sum of.... overall more powerful in ability to bring about advancements.
There are quite a few other OS's being developed today, under the open source idea. And there is nothing about the Hurd that says you cannot attach a personal choice smart user space interface OS to the Hurd. Integrating it to benefit from the security of the Hurd, the GNU number crunching software already written, etc... thru the IPC of the Hurd....
I like the idea of plugging my personal Smart Interface OS into a hurd system for such benefits. A 3" CD, a smart card, or some yet to be developed re-writable device I can take with me.
I'm sure I will get flamed on /. for this one, but since 98% of the comments are along the lines of "down with RMS", I have to say this.
At some point you have to decide if you are going to go along with the pithy flames or do real research. It's not popular, but it reveals the truth. If not, go to the next comment, this isn't for you.
From a proctical standpoint, I understand the "Linux" side of the argument. However, people make that argument with statemnt like... "Don't do drugs, you'll end up like the Hurd peopl" - LT. RMS makes his argument respectfully on the GNU website and encourages people to use GNU/Linux. On the GNU site, he says the easiest and best way to start using free software is to go get a GNU/Linux distro. Personally, I respect people who make their arguments with facts instead of one-liners. If you buy things because they sound like a good quick answer, then you start going for things like "trusted computing".
Finally, since this is a discussion of the HURD kernel: I think people should find this interesting. The GNU tools we are already familiar with are going to get a microkernel. Merit arguments aside, there are a lot of people who choose/like microkernels (apple, *BSD). Also, it's a kernel project that offers a ton of work to be done. After all, 1GB partitions is a sign that there is a long way to go. Entry level kernel hacking on a system that has a LONG way to go is easier than "even though you've never kernel hacked, figure out how to save a few cycles with this kernel module that has been working for five years". Also, keep in mind, the HURD has one major advantage over the Linux kernel. There is not a one man bottle neck.
Personally, I like the linux kernel and use several Gentoo systems, and some OpenBSD. But I always welcome another choice in software and look forward to seeing the HURD in a more usable state.
There is a fine line between picking your battles and cowardice
http://unmoldable.com W:"No one of consequence" I:"I must know" W:"Get used to disappointment"