Slashdot Mirror
First Program Executed on L4 Port of GNU/HURD
wikinerd writes "The GNU Project was working on a new OS kernel called HURD from 1990, using the GNU Mach microkernel. However, when HURD-Mach was able to run a GUI and a browser, the developers decided to start from scratch and port the project to the high-performance L4 microkernel. As a result development was slowed by years, but now HURD developer Marcus Brinkmann made a historic step and finished the process initialization code, which enabled him to execute the first software on HURD-L4. He says: 'We can now easily explore and develop the system in any way we want. The dinner is prepared!'"
The HURD kernel is often joked about, but I for one does hope that it will eventually become a viable alternative to the Linux kernel. Competition is seldom a bad thing, especially not among free software projects.
.: Max Romantschuk
would it make any sense for Apple to look at L4?
Given the fact that some features in OS X took Apple over 12 years to get into a shipping product (development on Copland started in 89), and given the fact that for years Apple had suffered with a horribly buggy, non standards compliant, limited system that was the Classic Mac OS, and given the fact that Darwin with the Mach kernel is an excellent open source unix system, and given the fact that huge amounts of time and money were spent getting OS 9 and Carbon libraries to run on it, and given the fact that OS X is now arguably the best OS out there and is earning heaps of praise from geeks, luddites, and just about every other type of user, and given the fact that OS X represents the most compelling reason to switch to Apple computers in years, and given the fact that in just a few years the OS has amassed a compartively huge following of developers and applications...
Given all those facts...
Whould it make sense for Apple to now completely rewrite it DOWN TO THE KERNEL LEVEL!!!
I really hope I don't have to answer that.
How fast is GNU/HURD compared to GNU/Linux? How about non-GNU/Linux?
Microkernel systems are always slightly slower because of the message passing overhead but they can be much more secure and stable because all of the device drivers are run in user space. Contrast it with systems such as Windows and Linux where drivers are in kernel space and it is impossible to have a stable or secure system with poor drivers, and in fact most of the problems with Windows and Linux crashing is caused by buggy drivers running in kernel space. When the drivers are just user processes like in HURD then a faulty driver can't crash the system and if it goes berserk it'll just get terminated just like a buggy browser or text editor without affecting the stability of th entire system.
While there are many "dying" projects out there (remember the "Windows replacements OS" hype?), HURD has always had the most of critique, mainly because it embodied the very promise of a GNU system to many people in its days.
But putting the whole history aside, you could see HURD as an exercise in OS development following the route of the more progressive design theories. You might be able to imagine how this pulls the interest of a small group of developers over a longer time, despite of the fact that development is going slowly.
You know how Free Software has the ability to evolve and persist aside from political influences, well, here is your new schoolbook example.
"We can confirm that Debian does *not* ship the version with the trojan horse. Our version predates it." [CA-2002-28]
Please think it through, Dilbert is right. How can you not support the BSA's actions ?
The BSA is making sure copyrights are respected (i.e. the law). Now the only way we are going to get reasonable copyright laws is when people realize that current terms are unacceptable. If people think that they can get away with copyright infringement they wont put as much effort into voicing their opinion regarding how much they think current laws sucks.
In other words people are now saying: "yes, copyright sucks but it doesn't affect me, I can get all the software/music/videos I want (not need) through [P2P du jour], and I can get away scott-free".
Moreover the BSA supports Linux. Yes it does.
It is when companies and individuals realize how much money their have to give to BSA members like Microsoft, Adobe, Apple and others and what little return they get that they'll take a long hard look at Linux and all the excellent Free applications out there.
There is no need for a vast majority of people to give their money to run Windows or Photoshop. They can get all the software they need and more and stay on the right side of the law.
The GPL, BSD license and the like all use the underlying copyright laws. If copyright laws are not enforced then those licenses are worthless as well.
Dilbert is supporting the BSA and so should you. The worse the BSA treats the consumer, the more strongarmed its tactics are, the more audits it conducts, the better for Free software.
Unless you think you have a right to freely access all the copyrighted works in the world?
Remember Novell's legal actions against the BSA?
BSA protects the rights of their members, they just protect the rights of some members more than those of other members.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
5% overhead for running a system that has all the features in reliability alone has got to be well worth it.
When you think about it, a system running 5% slower than today's system is only one month behind on Moore's curve. (2x performance in 18 months is 5%/month system speed increase). Wait an extra month to buy your next machine and you can have the same performance on a far sounder foundation. (Of course this assumes you're doing your conversion sometime after Hurd L4 actually runs the things you need).
Oh, I definitely never intended to imply that the HURD is stupid, not at all.
:-) And they are, from what I can see, treading very new ground, and that's always slow.
I was speaking specifcally about stopping development on the current Linux and starting over, which I think would be very dumb. Usually, rewriting a big software project from the ground up kills it. Mozilla, for instance, ceased to be a viable commercial force because of its rewrite; Microsoft ate it alive. Firefox is doing pretty well now, but no commercial entity could have made that mistake and survived, if selling browsers was its major source of revenue.
There's a huge amount of embecded knowledge on how PC hardware works buried in the Linux code, and rewriting that whole thing from scratch would be a gargantuan project. They've been working on it for, what, 11 years now? A total rewrite would take at least 3 or 4, during which all forward progress would stop. Just not a very good idea.
But I think it's great that the HURD is finally moving, at least a little bit. I will admit, I was a bit shocked that after roughly 15 years, they're just now able to load a program. But, hey, it's not like I needed it done last week or anything.
Reiterating: the more OSes, the better. I just don't think they should start over on Linux itself.
I think his point is that:
1. Yes - if your filesystem code crashes, you could end up with a dirty filesystem.
2. Yes - if your hard drive code crashes, you could end up with a dirty hard drive.
But:
3. No - if your webcam driver crashes, you won't end up with a dirty hard drive.
Right now with linux, if a kernel-level driver of any kind panics, the whole thing goes down the tubes.
Certainly a little compartmentalization can't possibly hurt. It won't fix every problem, but it does prevent a small problem in a non-essential driver from taking down the whole system.
As you point out, it will still be critical for some pieces of code to just work without bugs at all. However, the amount of that code can be reduced in a microkernel design.
Also - I don't think TWAIN is windows-specific. I seem to recall using TWAIN on a Mac many a year ago...
I would agree with you except for the fact that you're treating the FSF/GNU as a corporation that has to develop products for customers. They don't. As RMS has said himself, if there's a free, but unfinished or imperfect solution out there, he'll take it over a non-free, proprietary solution any day of the week. I think while they try to make sure the software is completely useful to everyone, listen to feature requests and bug reports, etc., that is not their primary objective. The primary objective is to make something that works that anyone can modify and use.
So, with your wood chisel analogy, let's modify it a bit. You can buy a wood chisel that is sharp and such, but you are only allowed to use it on certain types of wood, must stand in a certain position when operating it, and are not allowed to give it to your friend to let them borrow it. These are the terms of using the proprietary wood chisel. Now, online there are specifications and instructions on how to build your own chisel. If you disagree with the way they've done something, you can modify the instructions as you see fit to improve it provided you tell the web site of your modifications incase others want to do it. You can even take the chisel you made with their instructions and sell it for a profit, as long as you also provide instructions on how you built it. So, if your freedom isn't worth enough for you to be able to do stuff like that, and you'd rather buy a different chisel for each job because some company tells you that you must, then you'd be the one buying proprietary, non-free software.
Probably not a great example either, but it's hard to put the concepts into words and compare them to any other such relationship. I guess my whole point is that to them, freedom is the most important aspect of all. If they can provide their users or customers with freedom, they have achieved their main objective. I think the success of GNU/HURD is irrelevent. If GNU uses it, and it works for them and finally gives them a 100% free operating system to release to the public, it's a success.
Um, Dilbert is a comic strip. It is meant to be funny and it attacks some areas of interest to a specific niche of readers. If you think you can address other issues in a funny way, by all means write another comic strip!
Now, to pick apart his list of things he says are never addressed in Dilbert...
Is this guy serious? Hello, Elbonia???? He has clearly not read much of the strip.
Oh yeah, those are really funny topics that the average geek encounters on a day-to-day basis.... HELLLO, Dilbert takes place in a cube-farm! There is no union in the average cube-farm environment, and when there is interaction it usually leads to a feeling that I would describe as PRO union-busting.
Again, he must not read the strip. Alice's character is there, I think, to humorously depict a woman's experience in a male bastion. Also, I think that they address planned obsolescence sufficently.
Jeese... again, just not funny material here. Also, not something that most cube-dwellers will run into except in the newspaper.
Man, alive, this is not a "blue-collar" strip. Again, if this guy wants to make a new strip that targets a different audience, he is welcome to. I don't feel that it is a valid criticism to blame a comic strip, or even any other piece of literary or artistic work, for targeting the wrong audience. Try to restrict yourself to commenting on the content provided. Man, he only has three frames a day! I imagine this guy gets his panties in a bunch over Garfield because none of the characters has ever developed feline AIDS.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.