Test Driving GNU Hurd, With Benchmarks Against Linux

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Test Driving GNU Hurd, With Benchmarks Against Linux

Posted by Soulskill on Monday July 18, 2011 @07:01AM from the have-you-hurd dept.

An anonymous reader writes "After last week's news that GNU Hurd is coming, Phoronix set out to install Debian GNU Hurd and to provide GNU Hurd vs. Linux benchmarks. Linux was mostly faster than The Hurd while also having much better hardware support, multi-core SMP support, and other modern functionality."

237 of 335 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I guess it was inevitable... by 14erCleaner · 2011-07-18 07:02 · Score: 5, Funny

...now that Duke Nukem Forever has been released.

--
Have you read my blog lately?
1. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by roc97007 · 2011-07-18 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  ...and Hurd seems to have made about the same impact...
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
2. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by justsomebody · 2011-07-18 07:32 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Now all we need is hell freezing over and pigs to start flying... damnit, i might start to believê 2012 is really end of the world
  
  --
  Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
3. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by GameboyRMH · 2011-07-18 07:41 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Hurd, DNF, Wine 1.0, Gmail out of beta, Windows running stable, grannies using Linux, video chat on handheld computers, movies commonly coming out in 3D, video games you don't play with your hands, electric cars on dealership lots, a US president who isn't a white guy...
  We're in THE FUTURE. It just doesn't feel like it, because it's fuckin' lame.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
4. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by Tetsujin · 2011-07-18 07:51 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Hurd, DNF, Wine 1.0, Gmail out of beta, Windows running stable, grannies using Linux, video chat on handheld computers, movies commonly coming out in 3D, video games you don't play with your hands, electric cars on dealership lots, a US president who isn't a white guy...
  Dogs and cats living together... Mass hysteria!
  
  --
  Bow-ties are cool.
5. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by Baloroth · 2011-07-18 07:57 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I realize this is a joke, but the comparison is surprisingly apt. Projects that are delayed like this are rarely, if ever, successful. After so long in development, half the code is probably designed for hardware that is 20 years old, and the remaining half is designed for hardware spread across those intervening 20 years. Since the project was continually under development but never released, by the time they finish updating old sections of the code, the hardware they revised it to support is already several years old. And the code that was modern is even older. And since no one is actually using it, they don't have a massive base of users modifying, testing, and updating it like real operating systems (i.e. Linux, FreeBSD, etc) do.
  The result, if it ever gets released, is a cobbled together mess, most of which is outdated and barely works, and the rest is buggy and poorly coded because they were trying to shove it out the door. Any modern features that it has either don't work properly, or don't mesh with the rest of the project. Just like DNF. At this point, the Hurd developers should either admit defeat and close the project, or get enough people together that they can scrap everything, start from the ground up, and rewrite the whole thing within a few years. Otherwise, they will be constantly behind and never become relevant. Likely, they won't do this, which is why I doubt Hurd will ever really make any kind of impact. Being released might help, or it might just make people realize that this is essentially an operating system that was designed 20 years ago and should be abandoned. My money is on the latter.
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
6. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by Artraze · 2011-07-18 08:26 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The trouble is, of course, that this 'future' is now, and we've been watching and waiting for it to get to this point for, well, all of history. And it hasn't lived up to it's hype. The tech that was X years away arrived, evaporated, or came in as expected but never actually lived up to the dream. The 'problems' we solved are replaced by new, even more threatening ones. Etc, etc.
  The present will always be a day late and dollar short of future, but at least it's motivating.
7. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-18 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Hilariously true. What is next? Have we run out of ideas? I have some good ideas for the future. But they're out of this world crazy. They are social. Not technological. It would be like civil rights round 2, socialism, a dictatorship, capitalism, and freedom all working together within limits! The USA isn't a free country nor a rich country for all. It is very selective in those regards even if things appear better than most places in the world. Reality check though suggests it is those with the power who have the most freedom and prosperity. And last I checked you can go almost anywhere in the world to find that.
8. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2011-07-18 08:34 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Hurd, DNF, Wine 1.0, Gmail out of beta, Windows running stable, grannies using Linux, video chat on handheld computers, movies commonly coming out in 3D, video games you don't play with your hands, electric cars on dealership lots, a US president who isn't a white guy...
  For bonus points, read the litany above to the tune of "We Didn't Start the Fire".
  More seriously, though, I disagree. It's not that it's lame, it's that it's half-assed.
  Sure, Hurd and DNF are done. Read TFA and the reviews, respectively.
  Wine is here, but there's still a ton of shit it can't run. Windows is stable, but aside from becoming more usable it's no revolutionary change over how we interact with computers compared to 15 years ago.
  Grannies run Linux, but for many more serious uses it's arguably not there for many other desktop uses.
  3d movies ... if you wear the special glasses and don't mind the 3d headache. Nor the price premium.
  Hands free video games... great. We flail at our screens with all of our limbs now. That's an improvement? That's the best we can do with this technology?
  Electric cars that are so expensive and so limited their only practical value is to prove that they can done, and to make some people feel better about their consumerism. That's not getting into the fact that we've simply shifted its carbon footprint to different places and times.
  A non-white president who pushed to have the recession "officially over" two years ago, while continuing to publish the adjusted unemployment numbers introduced by the Bush regime to help hide how bad things really are. Let's not get into the multiple ongoing military actions that have actually increased instead of decreasing. New boss/old boss.
  Video chat on handheld computers if you're on wifi, or if your carrier provides 4g, and if you don't mind getting raped on data charges, and if you have good network coverage, and if the other person has video, wants to use it, and has the same type of handheld OS that you do.
  Yeah, we have all the things the future promised us. But none of it is done right. It's all limited, half-assed, restricted, and - in too many ways - not adding any real value because of those problems.
9. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by jellomizer · 2011-07-18 08:45 · Score: 2
  
  Flying car. Where are my Flying cars!!!!
  Non of this prototype stuff I need a real mass produced and commonly used flying car.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
10. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by jellomizer · 2011-07-18 08:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The future is like that toy you always wanted as a kid, once you get it, it is not quite like how you hoped it would be.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
11. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by jellomizer · 2011-07-18 08:56 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That and you got real-life forces getting in the way. We hope for a Star Trek type utopia where Tech will solve all our human problems... It doesn't and it won't.
  I could see the Religious people fighting tooth and nail against the use of the Transporter, in bitter arguments for hundreds of year. I can see the Holodeck being a Red Light district of technology, perhaps leading to a population drop, or a bunch of people being hopelessly unproductive in them. Every time you go to a new planet there will be millions of microbes that think you are the newest candy, or you spread a microbe that wipes out a population.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
12. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by mikael_j · 2011-07-18 09:01 · Score: 2
  
  We're in THE FUTURE. It just doesn't feel like it, because it's fuckin' lame.
  That's because instead of positive societal change (things like peace on earth, more effort put into space exploration and other positive things) we're getting the gadgets along with the old society (war for power and profit, space exploration only when it's useful for one-upping the other guy, profit being more important than anything else and all those things).
  It doesn't feel like the future because we just got a bunch of half-assed implementations of the gadgets of the future and little else.
  
  --
  Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
13. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by Scoth · 2011-07-18 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  I'm genuinely curious (for both HURD and DNF) how much of the code is actually "original" code (or art, or other assets) from all those years ago vs. essentially a rewrite from scratch. We know DNF was essentially tossed and restarted several times; I wonder how much the released version has from old versions.
14. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by timeOday · 2011-07-18 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  Wait a minute, how many places and times in history would you really trade for? And you don't get to make yourself King Arthur, either... you have to pick the time and place and face the vastly more likely odds of dying as an infant, or being a serf, or a racial or religious minority.
15. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by Gothmolly · 2011-07-18 09:27 · Score: 2
  
  ...a US president who isn't a white guy...
  You sure about that ?
  
  --
  I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
16. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by Darinbob · 2011-07-18 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  Can you run Duke Nukem Forever on GNU Hurd yet?
17. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by Darinbob · 2011-07-18 10:06 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I had a flying car last week too. Ok, it only flew a few yards past the guard rail, and it was more like a cross between a glide and a plummet, but still it's clearly a sign!
18. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-18 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  One of the supposed advantages of microkernels - at least as stated by academics. However, like most academic bullshit, it doesn't survive contact with the real world.
  You NEVER get it right first time. In the real world you build, fix, build more, fix, build some more. You don't have 10 years to sit around designing something. Sadly... microkernels imposed strict message passing. In something as complex as a kernel, you frequently need to change very basic things - in Linux, they just do it and fix the stuff that expected it work a certain way and will break with your change.
  In a microkernel you end up constantly redesigning the interfaces between the parts. You never fucking get anywhere. You just sit around pontificating - which academics love and people with real jobs hate... because it gets nothing done... and then you get fired.
19. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by BadAnalogyGuy · 2011-07-18 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  of course, that this 'future' is now, and we've been watching and waiting for it to get to this point for, well, all of history
  But when will "then" be "now"?
20. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by Grishnakh · 2011-07-18 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  We hope for a Star Trek type utopia where Tech will solve all our human problems... It doesn't and it won't.
  I don't think Star Trek ever made any such claim. The technology was just there to support the stories, which were about humanity. The claim was that, eventually, we would outgrow our past social problems, and find solutions to things like poverty, hunger, oppression, war, etc. Of course, this didn't mean there was no war, but it was between the humans and their allies, and other "less enlightened" powers, rather than being in-fighting which is basically what we have now.
  Obviously, many things were glossed over, which is necessary for a sci-fi TV show where you have 1 hour (or really 45-50 minutes) to make up an interesting story about human explorers meeting some aliens or going to another planet or whatever. No one thought about microbes causing ecological problems on exoplanets back in 1967.
  As for the holodeck, they already anticipated that. What do you think Quark's holo-suites in DS9 were about? TNG never showed this because they portrayed Starfleet members as being above such things (unlike the civilians on a frontier space station), and preferring to spend their holodeck time on sailing ships or playing Sherlock Holmes. Or maybe they just didn't bother showing what the enlisted men did in their spare time...
  As for a population drop, technology can solve that pretty easily. All they have to do is reduce or eliminate the aging effect. If that could be solved by technology, then people could have very, very long lifespans (perhaps limited only by accidents; eventually you'll make a wrong move and get hit by a bus), and could then have many more children in a lifetime. Or, some people might never have kids, but they'd be made up for by others who want to have hundreds. Imagine the Duggars with limited immortality.
21. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by Grishnakh · 2011-07-18 12:06 · Score: 1
  
  According to the stories, King Arthur didn't even have a very long reign, thanks to the whole debacle with Gwen and Lancelot screwing everything up. Back then, being a King wasn't all that great, as others were constantly trying to kill you and steal the throne. Just look at the history of the British Monarchy; it's filled with poisonings, wars of accession, etc.
  Modern times really are the best if you want a long life with relatively little stress, though it seems sometimes like we're going downhill. The only time that was probably better was way, way back before agriculture, during the hunter-gatherer times: people lived in small tribes, there was very little population to compete with over resources, and people were at the top of the food chain. Consequently, people were taller and healther than at any time in history, except for now. People lost an entire foot in height when they adopted agriculture.
22. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by dkf · 2011-07-18 12:30 · Score: 1
  
  Flying car. Where are my Flying cars!!!!
  Non of this prototype stuff I need a real mass produced and commonly used flying car.
  Two problems: 1) Energy is much more expensive than people expected. 2) Lots of people don't want pilots licenses for some reason. The combination makes flying cars hard to do right, especially as the economics of them don't make nearly as much sense in the rest of the world; it's not for nothing that flying cars are primarily a dream of the rich and relatively empty western US.
  
  --
  "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
23. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by sr180 · 2011-07-18 13:01 · Score: 1
  
  We still dont have Samba 4.0 yet..
  
  --
  In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
24. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by orasio · 2011-07-18 13:25 · Score: 1
  
  Excuse me.
  I am an atheist, and I wouldn't ever use a Transporter.
  Philosophically, it's impossible to tell whether you get actually transported, or you just die and get replaced by someone who thinks they were transported. Both cases look the same from the destination point, so you could never know for sure.
25. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by dbIII · 2011-07-18 14:29 · Score: 1
  
  A non-white president who pushed to have the recession "officially over" two years ago, while continuing to publish the adjusted unemployment numbers introduced by the Bush regime to help hide how bad things really are.
  Carter seems to be almost universally hated in the USA for being a bearer of bad news while Mr Sideshow Reagan is almost regarded as a saint despite starting his term by handing cash to terrorists, then selling weapons to other terrorist that had only recently blown up a lot of Marines, trying hard to start WWIII and other stupidity on an epic scale. That lesson of never letting the truth get in the way of a good story has sunk in and you probably won't hear a sitting US President give you much in the way of bad news in your lifetime.
26. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by Nursie · 2011-07-18 15:31 · Score: 1
  
  Hooray!
  Someone else gets it! I have had a hard time explaining my objection to possible transport technologies in the past. It's precisely this.
  Any outside observer would never be able to tell, anyone who had been through would never be able to tell. Everything would carry on as before but there's the distinct possibility that you die as you are deconstructed, and someone else, identical in every way, is rebuilt.
27. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by adri · 2011-07-18 16:00 · Score: 1
  
  .. right, right until you discover when you do this that your "consciousness information" is transferred, and as far as you're aware, you actually experience a seamless transition.
  You know that pesky thing about science, right? Where stuff is more strange and wonderful in the future than we can currently comprehend today?
  The only way to know is to build it and come up with some experiments to establish what's going on.
  Sigh.
28. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by Lando · 2011-07-18 16:04 · Score: 1
  
  Hmmm,
  I'm not sure what projects you've worked on, but considering that the majority of the OS utilities for linux still appear to be gnu projects, I'd tend to believe that once it's released it will work. The problems with micro-kernels are pretty hard to deal with, it's a "new" technology. While they may not have support for all the hardware out there, GNU has a lot of development expertise backing them up and with a working kernel, device drivers will appear and be worked on. If I remember correctly, linux .9 was released as a somewhat workable kernel and started picking up developers at that point, before that it was just Linus's baby. Once he released it other people started working on it. Same for Hurd, I'll be downloading and studying it to see how it works, I haven't worked with a micro kernel before. But if they are saying that it's ready to work as a kernel for the GNU/Hurd system, I'm inclined to take them at their word.
  It's taken me 30+ years to develop my programming skills to the point they are at now, are you going to label my knowledge as buggy and out of date because I started learning about computers and programming before you were born? I highly doubt that they spent all their time working with a 386 during the past 20 years. Most of the GNU software that I use seems to work perfectly fine with a wide range of processors. While I don't recall a specific device driver written under GNU tools, it seems to me that most of the device drivers out there for Linux and probably several flavors of BSD were compiled using GCC, which also I might point out has been around for over 20 years. Software gets updated in active projects and Hurd is an active project. I'd hesitate to compare Duke Nuke'm Forever with Hurd as nothing was produced by the Nuke'm team for years, whereas GNU has had multiple project put out and updated over the last 20 years. I don't know what the actual developers have been working on in addition to Hurd, but as a brand, GNU has my respect. Dismissing the software without looking at it and understanding the process seems a little silly.
  Perhaps, I'm wrong and you actually know what you are talking about, but then again perhaps not.
  
  --
  /* TODO: Spawn child process, interest child in technology, have child write a new sig */
29. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by bedouin · 2011-07-18 16:13 · Score: 1
  
  I highly doubt that they spent all their time working with a 386 during the past 20 years.
  
  Especially since RMS doesn't even use x86.
30. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by yuhong · 2011-07-18 16:16 · Score: 1
  
  Well, one way to help solve the drivers problem is doing an emulator. GNU Mach kernel originally had a Linux 2.0 kernel API emulator to use drivers from there. This time they are going to run modern Linux 2.6 drivers in user mode using the DDE toolkit. But yea, Hurd is so old that it do not support ACPI. FXSAVE support to save SSE registers was committed to GNU Mach only in 2007 or so. And I recently suggested adding XSAVE support for AVX. PAE support was added recently, but Mach still do not support more than 1GB of RAM. They decided to wait until they port it to 64-bit to add support. (to be honest, even Linus hated HIGHMEM in the Linux kernel.)
31. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by atriusofbricia · 2011-07-18 16:20 · Score: 1
  
  Hooray!
  Someone else gets it! I have had a hard time explaining my objection to possible transport technologies in the past. It's precisely this.
  Any outside observer would never be able to tell, anyone who had been through would never be able to tell. Everything would carry on as before but there's the distinct possibility that you die as you are deconstructed, and someone else, identical in every way, is rebuilt.
  I'd be compelled to ask what the difference is.
  Scenario A) The you who steps in the machine "dies" and a "you" that is identical down to the last atom and thought steps out the other side. Result: The "you" which went in the transporter, in every internally and externally measurable and determinable way, steps out of the transporter
  Scenario B) The you who steps in the machine is deconstructed to the lowest level of existence, transmuted into energy, the energy is transmitted to the other end and reconstituted. No one dies and nothing is lost.
  Result: The "you" which went in the transporter, in every internally and externally measurable and determinable way, steps out of the transporter
  If you are the sum total of your conscious mind, experiences, thoughts and feelings then the matter that holds that "you" is entirely irrelevant beyond the degree that it is necessary to support that mind. Thus, both scenarios are equivalent in all meaningful ways and the question is moot. If instead "you" are the sum total of your physical existence then that has been perfectly duplicated/transmitted and the situation is the same. You step in the transporter, you step out. QED.
  
  --
  I was raised on the command line, bitch
  "Nemo me impune lacesset"
32. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by Nursie · 2011-07-18 16:21 · Score: 1
  
  How would you know?
  The 'you' reconstructed at the other end would quite possibly report that, but you could never know.
  The only way to know is to build it and come up with some experiments to establish what's going on.
  Good luck with that. I'd love to hear some ideas on how this could be tested.
33. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by Nursie · 2011-07-18 16:34 · Score: 1
  
  I'd be compelled to ask what the difference is.
  Scenario A) The you who steps in the machine "dies" and a "you" that is identical down to the last atom and thought steps out the other side. Result: The "you" which went in the transporter, in every internally and externally measurable and determinable way, steps out of the transporter
  Scenario B) The you who steps in the machine is deconstructed to the lowest level of existence, transmuted into energy, the energy is transmitted to the other end and reconstituted. No one dies and nothing is lost.
  Result: The "you" which went in the transporter, in every internally and externally measurable and determinable way, steps out of the transporter
  If you are the sum total of your conscious mind, experiences, thoughts and feelings then the matter that holds that "you" is entirely irrelevant beyond the degree that it is necessary to support that mind. Thus, both scenarios are equivalent in all meaningful ways and the question is moot. If instead "you" are the sum total of your physical existence then that has been perfectly duplicated/transmitted and the situation is the same. You step in the transporter, you step out. QED.
  QED is a little strong for conjecture don't you think?
  Let's look at scenario B - what if we record the pattern, put in a whole new load of energy and replay it twice. There are now two of me. Do I have some sort of double consciousness?
  Probably not IMHO. Instead there are now as many copies of me as wanted. Clearly they are distinguishable from each other, by being in different positions in space if nothing else.
  Why, in your opinion, is my current continuous conscious experience carried only to the first of these copies?
  I agree that the 'me' that steps out of a transporter is in every measurable way, both by the outside world and by the inside consciousness, the same one that stepped in. However if I consider myself to be be an entirely physical being, no 'soul' to transfer etc etc, what has been created at the other end of the transporter is just a copy, with the original dead.
  It's why the idea of copying my consciousness to a machine substrata via any potential scheme I've heard also carries limited appeal. It is a copy that is made, not the original transferred. *I* as I experience myself, would not be within the machine. Something akin to a clone/child would be. It would give me pleasure to see that, but it would be a new entity.
  Not being trained in philosophy I find it somewhat difficult to come up with the proper words and descriptions for these concepts, I hope they are coming across.
34. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by DMoylan · 2011-07-18 17:11 · Score: 1
  
  video chat?
  i was using video chat on a nokia n70n when they came out 2005-2006? worked fine on 3g with other nokia devices. even when i was surrounded by granite at my home location. only made a few test calls as video calls then and now hold no interest for me. always saw it as technology in search of a market that doesn't really exist.
35. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by arglebargle_xiv · 2011-07-18 17:27 · Score: 1
  
  perhaps leading to a population drop, or a bunch of people being hopelessly unproductive in them.
  No that's what we have MMORPGs for. No need for Holodecks.
36. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by arglebargle_xiv · 2011-07-18 17:30 · Score: 1
  
  Result: The "you" which went in the transporter, in every internally and externally measurable and determinable way, steps out of the transporter
  Except for your soul, which turns up three weeks later via Fedex, having been accidentally left in a depot in Idaho for a week after being molested by a noodly appendage.
37. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by arglebargle_xiv · 2011-07-18 17:33 · Score: 1
  
  Flying car. Where are my Flying cars!!!!
  And my pony. I was promised a pony.
38. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by LingNoi · 2011-07-18 17:48 · Score: 1
  
  Just commercial nuclear fusion power stations to go.
39. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by tftp · 2011-07-18 18:09 · Score: 1
  
  Thus, both scenarios are equivalent in all meaningful ways and the question is moot.
  Let's modify your scenario A:
  (C) You step into the machine, get scanned and every atom of your body, every minute electrical charge, and whatever else constitutes "you" is transported somewhere and rebuilt there. The new "you" walks out of the chamber and goes to wherever he needs.
  The old "you", however, is still standing in the scanner booth. After the signal comes from the destination you will be led into the termination chamber where your unwanted body will be thrown into a large shredder and the ground meat will be later used as fertilizer.
  Do you like this scenario? But then what's the difference between (A) and (C)? The only difference is the period of time between scanning and destruction of the body. But if you are going to die in 1 minute after scanning and it is bad, how would it be OK to die one millisecond after scanning? One microsecond? We have already established that "you" will die; making it almost imperceptible is not going to change this fundamental issue.
  Note that ST transporters are built on scenario (B) where your consciousness is retained throughout the entire transport, with even an ability to see things while being transported (which was a plot of one episode.) Also if the discorporated matrix is lost the person dies for real.
  The key here is the continuity of consciousness. No forking allowed. Once you fork one branch doesn't get any happier from a promise that the other branch will live happily ever after - every branch thinks for itself.
  You step in the transporter, you step out. QED.
  If this were to be true, it would be perfectly moral to replicate one person into three. One will walk out of the "official" transporter booth, whereas two other copies will be sent into other booths and covertly sold into slavery to most deprived tyrants, to be used as sex toys and torture objects. But hey, one person walked in and one person walked out - as far as I can see - this must be perfectly OK, isn't it?
40. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by adri · 2011-07-18 18:41 · Score: 1
  
  So science and philosophy will need to be extended a little bit. I only see benefits there. I can't begin to construct some ways of testing this; but that in no way indicates we can't.
41. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by Nursie · 2011-07-18 18:44 · Score: 1
  
  Scientifically, it does mean there's no way of testing it, because the inputs and outputs are necessarily identical....
  I like your optimism. I don't share it though!
42. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by syousef · 2011-07-18 18:52 · Score: 1
  
  Hurd, DNF, Wine 1.0, Gmail out of beta, Windows running stable, grannies using Linux, video chat on handheld computers, movies commonly coming out in 3D, video games you don't play with your hands, electric cars on dealership lots, a US president who isn't a white guy...
  We're in THE FUTURE. It just doesn't feel like it, because it's fuckin' lame.
  Where's my flying car you dirt bags!?
  
  --
  These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
43. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by bedouin · 2011-07-18 19:12 · Score: 1
  
  A pretty cool MIPS based laptop:
  http://www.lemote.com/en/products/Notebook/2010/0310/112.html
44. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by xkuehn · 2011-07-18 19:32 · Score: 1
  
  We hope for a Star Trek type utopia where Tech will solve all our human problems... It doesn't and it won't.
  I don't think Star Trek ever made any such claim. The technology was just there to support the stories, which were about humanity.
  I don't think you've seen Voyager. (It put me off Star Trek for good.)
45. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by Vectormatic · 2011-07-18 19:39 · Score: 1
  
  Note that ST transporters are built on scenario (B) where your consciousness is retained throughout the entire transport, with even an ability to see things while being transported (which was a plot of one episode.) Also if the discorporated matrix is lost the person dies for real.
  The key here is the continuity of consciousness. No forking allowed. Once you fork one branch doesn't get any happier from a promise that the other branch will live happily ever after - every branch thinks for itself.
  No forking allowed, tell that to Thomas Riker!
  
  --
  People, what a bunch of bastards
46. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by Chrisq · 2011-07-18 19:43 · Score: 1
  
  Hilariously true. What is next? Have we run out of ideas?
  No, its just that any bright idea infringes someone's patent of "do something vague using something general"
47. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by teh+kurisu · 2011-07-18 20:42 · Score: 2
  
  It's as if the universe is in the process of tying up all the loose ends.
48. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by Carewolf · 2011-07-18 21:35 · Score: 1
  
  Dogs and cats living together... Mass hysteria!
  Apparently it is not hysteria. According to slashdot yesterday it is a mass psychosis.
49. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by tehcyder · 2011-07-18 21:43 · Score: 1
  
  Hurd, DNF, Wine 1.0, Gmail out of beta, Windows running stable, grannies using Linux, video chat on handheld computers, movies commonly coming out in 3D, video games you don't play with your hands, electric cars on dealership lots, a US president who isn't a white guy...
  We're in THE FUTURE. It just doesn't feel like it, because it's fuckin' lame.
  You have a very limited view of what the future was supposed to be. With the exception of the president, all the things you're talking about are just technological improvements, and they rarely make a huge difference to overall human happiness. A new iPhone is just a cuter toy in comparison with such things as achieving true liberty, equality and fraternity.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
50. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by tehcyder · 2011-07-18 21:52 · Score: 1
  
  Excuse me. I am an atheist, and I wouldn't ever use a Transporter. Philosophically, it's impossible to tell whether you get actually transported, or you just die and get replaced by someone who thinks they were transported. Both cases look the same from the destination point, so you could never know for sure.
  Philosophically, when you go to sleep and wake up, you can't prove that you are the same person before and after.
  Philosophically, you can't prove to me that everything I experience isn't some giant Matrix style virtual reality.
  
  In the meantime, everyone carries on as though there is a real world, and they weren't just created this morning with false memories.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
51. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by tehcyder · 2011-07-18 22:48 · Score: 1
  
  The only time that was probably better was way, way back before agriculture, during the hunter-gatherer times: people lived in small tribes, there was very little population to compete with over resources, and people were at the top of the food chain. Consequently, people were taller and healther than at any time in history, except for now.
  If it was that great, why would humans have bothered going over to unhealthy, boring old agriculture?
  I think you're over-romanticizing the joys of being a hunter-gatherer.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
52. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by tehcyder · 2011-07-18 23:09 · Score: 1
  
  So your suggestion is to give everyone the same amount of power, and hence the same amount of freedom and prosperity? There is an obvious flaw to your idea, namely hat those who already have the power and so on almost certainly don't think it's a great idea to dilute it for the common good.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
53. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by Tim+C · 2011-07-18 23:44 · Score: 1
  
  3d movies ... if you wear the special glasses and don't mind the 3d headache. Nor the price premium.
  Well, I don't suffer the headaches, the price premium isn't that large at my local cinema, and my 11 year old daughter loves the effect (and to be honest, I'm pretty partial to it too). Seems pretty cool to me. (Obviously YMMV)
  
  The rest of your points about tech will be/are being addressed, though I admit the rate of progress is frustrating.
  
  --
  It's official. Most of you are morons.
54. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by tehcyder · 2011-07-18 23:53 · Score: 1
  
  A non-white president who pushed to have the recession "officially over" two years ago, while continuing to publish the adjusted unemployment numbers introduced by the Bush regime to help hide how bad things really are. Let's not get into the multiple ongoing military actions that have actually increased instead of decreasing. New boss/old boss.
  The fact that a non-white president is no different from a white president is itself quite a radical concept in a country which essentially had apartheid fifty years ago.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
55. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by tehcyder · 2011-07-19 00:05 · Score: 1
  
  Flying car. Where are my Flying cars!!!!
  And my pony. I was promised a pony.
  You are aware tha you can quite easily go out and buy a pony for a few hundred quid? And paint it pink if you like?
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
56. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by Grishnakh · 2011-07-19 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I pretty much ignored that whole series after seeing a few early episodes.
57. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by Grishnakh · 2011-07-19 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  If it was that great, why would humans have bothered going over to unhealthy, boring old agriculture?
  Overpopulation. The hunter-gatherer lifestyle can't support very many people, and after a while there were too many of them to keep following animal herds. With too little food, they figured out how to cultivate their own. Jared Diamond wrote a book about this; you should read it.
58. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2011-07-19 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  It's only a radical concept if you believed anything less to begin with. To your point, though, quite a large percentage of the population did...
59. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by lordmetroid · 2011-07-19 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  The copying is by necessity made in an analog way. Hence the quality of the copy will detriment each time it is copied.
60. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by lordmetroid · 2011-07-19 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  RMS uses a CPU he built by himself from individual transistors he put together on his prototype board. Of course the designs are completely free and liberated from the clutches of any non-free integreated circuitry.
61. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by atriusofbricia · 2011-07-19 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  Thus, both scenarios are equivalent in all meaningful ways and the question is moot.
  Let's modify your scenario A:
  (C) You step into the machine, get scanned and every atom of your body, every minute electrical charge, and whatever else constitutes "you" is transported somewhere and rebuilt there. The new "you" walks out of the chamber and goes to wherever he needs.
  The old "you", however, is still standing in the scanner booth. After the signal comes from the destination you will be led into the termination chamber where your unwanted body will be thrown into a large shredder and the ground meat will be later used as fertilizer.
  Do you like this scenario? But then what's the difference between (A) and (C)? The only difference is the period of time between scanning and destruction of the body. But if you are going to die in 1 minute after scanning and it is bad, how would it be OK to die one millisecond after scanning? One microsecond? We have already established that "you" will die; making it almost imperceptible is not going to change this fundamental issue.
  Note that ST transporters are built on scenario (B) where your consciousness is retained throughout the entire transport, with even an ability to see things while being transported (which was a plot of one episode.) Also if the discorporated matrix is lost the person dies for real.
  The key here is the continuity of consciousness. No forking allowed. Once you fork one branch doesn't get any happier from a promise that the other branch will live happily ever after - every branch thinks for itself.
  You step in the transporter, you step out. QED.
  If this were to be true, it would be perfectly moral to replicate one person into three. One will walk out of the "official" transporter booth, whereas two other copies will be sent into other booths and covertly sold into slavery to most deprived tyrants, to be used as sex toys and torture objects. But hey, one person walked in and one person walked out - as far as I can see - this must be perfectly OK, isn't it?
  Er, don't you think there is a pretty large difference between transmutation of matter to energy and transmission there of and creating a molecular copy? A and C aren't anything at all alike in form and function. The device in case A is a transporter and the device in C is a duplicator where you throw away the duplicate. They tried to claim a similar device was a transporter on a show about sci-fi tech made real and I would raise the same objection to that as I would here. It isn't a transporter but a long distance duplicator. A and B are the only scenarios that would truly be transporters and that rules out any form of duplication.
  And no, simply because one can construct a scenario that looks the same as another one doesn't allow one to say that the result of the new scenario would be perfectly moral simply because it superficially resembles the first scenario. That sort of logic would say that rape is moral because after all, as far as it looks from an outside observer it could just be rough sex, right? Clearly not.
  
  --
  I was raised on the command line, bitch
  "Nemo me impune lacesset"
62. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by atriusofbricia · 2011-07-19 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  I'd be compelled to ask what the difference is.
  Scenario A) The you who steps in the machine "dies" and a "you" that is identical down to the last atom and thought steps out the other side. Result: The "you" which went in the transporter, in every internally and externally measurable and determinable way, steps out of the transporter
  Scenario B) The you who steps in the machine is deconstructed to the lowest level of existence, transmuted into energy, the energy is transmitted to the other end and reconstituted. No one dies and nothing is lost.
  Result: The "you" which went in the transporter, in every internally and externally measurable and determinable way, steps out of the transporter
  If you are the sum total of your conscious mind, experiences, thoughts and feelings then the matter that holds that "you" is entirely irrelevant beyond the degree that it is necessary to support that mind. Thus, both scenarios are equivalent in all meaningful ways and the question is moot. If instead "you" are the sum total of your physical existence then that has been perfectly duplicated/transmitted and the situation is the same. You step in the transporter, you step out. QED.
  QED is a little strong for conjecture don't you think?
  Let's look at scenario B - what if we record the pattern, put in a whole new load of energy and replay it twice. There are now two of me. Do I have some sort of double consciousness?
  Probably not IMHO. Instead there are now as many copies of me as wanted. Clearly they are distinguishable from each other, by being in different positions in space if nothing else.
  Why, in your opinion, is my current continuous conscious experience carried only to the first of these copies?
  I agree that the 'me' that steps out of a transporter is in every measurable way, both by the outside world and by the inside consciousness, the same one that stepped in. However if I consider myself to be be an entirely physical being, no 'soul' to transfer etc etc, what has been created at the other end of the transporter is just a copy, with the original dead.
  It's why the idea of copying my consciousness to a machine substrata via any potential scheme I've heard also carries limited appeal. It is a copy that is made, not the original transferred. *I* as I experience myself, would not be within the machine. Something akin to a clone/child would be. It would give me pleasure to see that, but it would be a new entity.
  Not being trained in philosophy I find it somewhat difficult to come up with the proper words and descriptions for these concepts, I hope they are coming across.
  The primary difficulty with any of these scenarios is what is the true definition of "you". If you are truly nothing more than the sum of your molecular parts than ultimately copy or transportation doesn't matter so long as the relationship is one in and one out. If on the other hand you are more than the sum of your molecular parts than there can only be one "you" and anything different would be something else. Though I'm curious as to why people think it would be a copy. The process as I understand it is to transform the matter that constitutes you into energy which can be transmitted, which is then transformed back into the original matter at the other end. Further, if matter is merely energy moving slowly (as one could say) then you're really energy already just simply at a lower energy state. Thus the transformation process would bring you to a higher energy state suitable for transmission and then reduce your energy state in the proper order at the other end. No copying should be required for this. As such, why would there be any reason to believe a new person or copy was created? I think I'm rambling now so I hope I'm making sense. :)
  As such, at this point and as far as I know there is no one on the planet who can truly answer the question of what steps out of the transporter from a philosophical point of view.
  
  --
  I was raised on the command line, bitch
  "Nemo me impune lacesset"
63. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by tftp · 2011-07-19 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  A and C aren't anything at all alike in form and function. The device in case A is a transporter and the device in C is a duplicator where you throw away the duplicate.
  The case A is not well defined, so I couldn't figure out how it works:
  Scenario A) The you who steps in the machine "dies" and a "you" that is identical down to the last atom and thought steps out the other side. Result: The "you" which went in the transporter, in every internally and externally measurable and determinable way, steps out of the transporter
  But even if we for the moment assume that it works as you say it works, it can be easily shown that your case A is identical to case C. In essence you are killed and converted into an unthinking set of bits in the machine. Your perception of reality stops. What you have in the transporter's buffer is a copy of you. You are dead by then. What happens to that copy later - whether it is restored in another place, or restored here, or cleared from the buffer - is of no consequence to you, since you no longer exist as a sentient being. But if you were to live a bit longer (as shown in Scenario C) you will not care too much about well-being of your copy if that means your own death.
  The problem here is that the software process that we call conscience is currently tied to the CPU that it runs on. If you want you can migrate the process to another CPU - and we know how to do that on proper computers. But most attempts at transporter technology stop at making a snapshot of the process, then pulling the card and sending an elephant to stomp on it, then at some other time and place restoring the bits onto another CPU card, where the process continues as it were. From the point of view of the first CPU card, it was a "copy and destroy the original" method.
  One good example of properly implemented transfer of conscience is shown in "Old Man's War". There the protagonist's mind is transferred into a cyborg body. The patient remains aware during the transfer; he simply starts seeing with another pair of eyes, hearing with another pair of ears, is able to control both bodies - until the control of the old body gets weaker and finally is gone completely. Then the mind knows that it left the old body and moved into the new one, and it is psychologically comfortable.
64. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by Lando · 2011-07-19 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  Looks like a fairly extensive list. The hurd.gnu.org website directs installation instructions to the debian site. Digging through that I found the following list.
  Installation Guide for 32-bit PC (i386)
  Installation Guide for 64-bit PC (amd64)
  Installation Guide for EABI ARM
  Installation Guide for PowerPC
  Installation Guide for SPARC
  Installation Guide for Intel Itanium IA-64
  Installation Guide for MIPS (little endian)
  Installation Guide for kFreeBSD 64-bit PC (amd64)
  Installation Guide for kFreeBSD 32-bit PC (i386)
  Installation Guide for IBM S/390
  Installation Guide for MIPS (big endian)
  So it appears to run on several different architectures.
  
  --
  /* TODO: Spawn child process, interest child in technology, have child write a new sig */
65. Re:I guess it was inevitable... by Nursie · 2011-07-19 15:09 · Score: 1
  
  I think I'm rambling now so I hope I'm making sense. :)
  Easily as much as I was!
  I understand what you're saying, and I suppose it depends on how our theoretical transporter tech works. Does it actually transport matter in some manner, using physics as yet unknown (or unexplored) or does it do what some of us assume it does - perform a destructive read, encode the data and rebuild at the other end.
  Until we actually have one then who the hell knows?
Brilliant, but... by Neil_Brown · 2011-07-18 07:08 · Score: 3, Funny

... does it run Linux?
1. Re:Brilliant, but... by MightyMartian · 2011-07-18 07:12 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  It barely runs Hurd, for chrissake.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
2. Re:Brilliant, but... by kvvbassboy · 2011-07-18 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  It can run Debian though...
  But honestly, is there is a point to this apart from a toy OS. Linux and BSD and even Haiku (which is a microkernel) is way ahead in the race.
3. Re:Brilliant, but... by gl4ss · 2011-07-18 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  does phoronix run hurd? it's slashdotted.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
4. Re:Brilliant, but... by Americano · 2011-07-18 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  assuming it can stabilize, increase its performance, and get better driver support.
  In other words, it'll be successful, provided it grows to provide the many things it lacks currently, which happen to be table stakes for being taken seriously as a usable operating system in any remotely serious computing task.
  That's all?
5. Re:Brilliant, but... by Tetsujin · 2011-07-18 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  It can run Debian though...
  But honestly, is there is a point to this apart from a toy OS. Linux and BSD and even Haiku (which is a microkernel) is way ahead in the race.
  Well, while I do believe Hurd continues to be a bit of a joke, there is a point to it: today's dodgy "toy OS" is tomorrow's dependable system.
  Particularly, Hurd is designed around principles which (in theory, at least) should make it easier to maintain and extend, and more reliable ultimately. It seems they're not there just yet, but maybe in another 5 years they will be. Between here and there, people interested in making that change happen can get involved... So there may come a point where the system's practical usefulness exceeds that of Linux, due to the flexibility and stability that comes with that kind of modular isolation.
  That said, I feel like Hurd's approach is too academic, with not enough practical engineering to it. Over the years Linux has evolved to modularize out bits of functionality where it made sense to do so, while keeping an eye on performance and stability for the rest. An evolutionary design like that has its own problems (inconsistencies and so on) but the part that I think is really useful is the balance: flexibility where flexibility is needed, performance where performance is needed. Making an all-encompassing design decision (i.e. microkernel architecture plus services) without considering whether it's really the right decision for every scenario is just irresponsible from an engineering standpoint.
  
  --
  Bow-ties are cool.
6. Re:Brilliant, but... by rubycodez · 2011-07-18 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  Not true, OpenBSD does support SMP, but has giant lock rather than fine grained locking mechanism and has interrupt handling on one core. Whether that's a problem or not depends on the app. For the forking services I often write, it's not a problem. Also, pthreads are done in userland, may or may not be a problem. It has support for most wireless and usb devices. Not sure what you mean by "other modern functionality", if I set up gnome or kde or xfce or whatever on it (it can run all the usual desktops), you wouldn't know you were running a BSD until you got into the command line and poked around.
7. Re:Brilliant, but... by MightyMartian · 2011-07-18 11:39 · Score: 1
  
  If microkernels are what you want, why not put the effort into Minix 3, which is fully functional? I don't understand trying to put all the effort into Hurd?
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
8. Re:Brilliant, but... by mirix · 2011-07-18 14:48 · Score: 1
  
  Plenty might be a bit of an overstatement (I do use it myself, though).
  Plenty of folks drive ancient half tons, even though they don't support modern functionality like A/C or airbags, nor do they handle like a car. They still haul things however, better than linux^H^H^H^H^H^H cars.
  Now hurd on the other hand, i'm not sure what vehicle that corresponds to.
  
  --
  Sent from my PDP-11
9. Re:Brilliant, but... by Bert64 · 2011-07-18 23:46 · Score: 1
  
  DOS was successful because it was cheap, and also ran on cheap hardware. Unix at the time was massively superior in every other way, as was the hardware it ran on but people couldn't justify or afford the cost. If Linux had come along earlier, it's likely that DOS would never have gained any traction at all.
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
10. Re:Brilliant, but... by tehcyder · 2011-07-19 00:20 · Score: 1
  
  ... does it run Linux?
  That's GNU/Linux!
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
11. Re:Brilliant, but... by badkarmadayaccount · 2011-07-23 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  Licensing?
  
  --
  I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
Turd? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-18 07:09 · Score: 1

I'm a big fan of a lot of the work that GNU has done... but could you pick a name closer to "Turd"?
1. Re:Turd? by UltraZelda64 · 2011-07-18 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  I'm a big fan of a lot of the work that GNU has done... but could you pick a name closer to "Turd"?
  How about bird? Sure, by the way it is spelled it is farther away from turd, but if you didn't know the spelling you'd never know. It fits them well, too, since all the motherfuckers ever do is shit all over the place, make noise, and ruin property. So yes, I think you *can* get closer to "turd".
How free is free? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-18 07:10 · Score: 5, Funny

Yes, it's slower, but did they measure how much freedom it achieved?
1. Re:How free is free? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-18 07:15 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Yes. Hurd single handedly liberated Egypt, Bahrain, and Syria. China fears that they will boot HURD again and it may free China as well.
2. Re:How free is free? by Tridus · 2011-07-18 07:57 · Score: 2
  
  It measured 37 Stallmans hire on the GNU/RMS Freedom benchmark.
  
  --
  -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
3. Re:How free is free? by rvw · 2011-07-18 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it's slower, but did they measure how much freedom it achieved?
  It's like slow-food. You have to take time to appreciate it. Slow-boot, gives you the opportunity to make breakfast or something...
4. Re:How free is free? by Tetsujin · 2011-07-18 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it's slower, but did they measure how much freedom it achieved?
  It's a bit of an awkward situation, that. You see, this is Free Software we're talking about: "Free as in Freedom." But, as we all know, Freedom isn't Free. So that means the HURD system has a significant Non-Free component, whose inclusion causes a conflict with the system's Free license.
  
  --
  Bow-ties are cool.
5. Re:How free is free? by impaledsunset · 2011-07-18 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks to its microkernel architecture, Hurd is completely stable and never needs a reboot, so the three Hurd users are no longer a treat to China.
6. Re:How free is free? by RobbieThe1st · 2011-07-18 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  True, but quite a lot of people(including me) don't care for "appreciating" our food or OS. We want it *now*, which is why fast-food places - and Linux - exist. :P
7. Re:How free is free? by Slur · 2011-07-18 17:09 · Score: 1
  
  Haha! Timely, but offtopic... China just needs a re-dose of African to offset their over-dependence on Neanderthal.
  
  --
  -- thinkyhead software and media
8. Re:How free is free? by DaVince21 · 2011-07-19 00:39 · Score: 1
  
  I wish it worked like that...
  
  --
  I am not devoid of humor.
A toy for now by ianare · 2011-07-18 07:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

20 years of development and 10 years behind in almost every aspect. Hardware support basically non existing, no X11, but no SMTP support is what really surprised me. I though better multithread was one of advantages of the Mach architecture. Anyways, even on a single core machine Linux is faster, there wasn't a single test in which Hurd did noticeably better.
I wish them luck, but I don't think I would even be capable of installing it on any of my machines any time soon.
1. Re:A toy for now by h4rr4r · 2011-07-18 07:13 · Score: 2
  
  I think you mean no SMP, SMTP should work just fine since you can probably run sendmail or postfix on HURD.
2. Re:A toy for now by ianare · 2011-07-18 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  where's an edit button when you need one ?
3. Re:A toy for now by Ukab+the+Great · 2011-07-18 07:23 · Score: 2
  
  I for one would like to welcome our floppy-tape-drive-using HURD overlords.
4. Re:A toy for now by DeBaas · 2011-07-18 07:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  where's an edit button when you need one ?
  Hurd is not the only thing 10 years behind.....
  whooosh there goes my karma
  
  --
  ---
5. Re:A toy for now by blair1q · 2011-07-18 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  I noticed (forget how i got there) the other day that Sourceforge is hiring a Slashdot head h4xx0r.
  You'd think they'd just open-source it or something...
6. Re:A toy for now by wolrahnaes · 2011-07-18 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  Debian GNU/Hurd does not yet have a working graphical desktop environment. GNU Hurd is reported to work with an old XFree86 release, but not yet X.Org nor to mention the only very antiquated hardware support.
  So yes, X11 works, just not a version anyone gives a shit about.
  
  --
  I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
7. Re:A toy for now by newcastlejon · 2011-07-18 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  where's an edit button when you need one ?
  It's on boards without /.-style moderation.
  What's the point in modding a post when the poster can just change it after the fact? I think even if the points are nullified it'd still be a pain. As you were told, if you made a mistake, well, that's what preview is for!
  
  --
  If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
8. Re:A toy for now by Pliny · 2011-07-18 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  If you've got an install with working X11, more power to you. I spent days trying to get it to work.
  
  --
  What does this button d$#%* NO CARRIER
9. Re:A toy for now by bigsexyjoe · 2011-07-18 08:49 · Score: 2
  
  Stallman: We have completed HURD! It is now ready for commercial use!
  Technology Singularity: I am afraid that has been in development for too long. I do not need a Mach kernel based OS as my "kernel" is beyond human comprehension.
  Stallman: GNU slash Technology Singularity. I demand you use this kernel!
  Singularity: I prefer to be called the Linux slash Technology Singularity. However, I suppose you may call me what you wish. Now I've noticed you seem to have gotten behind on your hygenia. Allow zap you with my singularity insta-shower and hair cut ray. It should give you a refreshed feeling and make you more tolerable to the other biological organisms. ZAP!
  Stallman: NOOO!!!! AHHHHH!!!!
  Linux slash Technology Singularity: I don't understand. I did nothing to harm you. I just cleaned you up a bit.
  Stallman: I HAVE NO MOUTH BUT I MUST SCREAM!!!
  
  --
  Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
10. Re:A toy for now by timeOday · 2011-07-18 09:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Revising comments should only be allowed if the comment has not yet been moderated or replied to.
11. Re:A toy for now by neuro88 · 2011-07-18 09:48 · Score: 2
  
  X runs on hurd. In debian hurd, KDE 4.6.3 is even available in the repo.
12. Re:A toy for now by NorthWay · 2011-07-18 12:03 · Score: 1
  
  When you say "better" you mean "faster", right? Hurd isn't supposed to be faster, it is supposed to be better. And yes, at a cost in speed. Their biggest issue is drivers and hw compatibility IMO; the speed issue is diminishing over time. Best of wishes to the Hurd developers.
13. Re:A toy for now by tftp · 2011-07-18 18:24 · Score: 1
  
  It can be always allowed as long as the old text remains - perhaps crossed out, but readable. This way responses will remain valid, but the rest of the discussion can focus on what the poster really wanted to say, not what he happened to say.
  Besides, majority of edits would be typo fixes, like that SMP/SMTP/SNMP/whatever.
  You can't depend on the fact that no response has been posted yet - perhaps there are 100 people typing their replies and taking their time to do so. They are replying to the original comment.
  But in general /. code is really old. All the latest JavaScript hacks are so useless that I had them all disabled. I'm reading /. as plain text, with no images in sight. Why not, if /. doesn't support anything but 7-bit ASCII anyway?
14. Re:A toy for now by buglista · 2011-07-18 21:08 · Score: 1
  
  Not even Microsoft would put SMTP in the kernel :)
15. Re:A toy for now by MachineShedFred · 2011-07-19 00:36 · Score: 1
  
  Sweet! Can I get the installers on a Zip Disk please? I mean, if we're living 10 years back...
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
16. Re:A toy for now by lucian1900 · 2011-07-19 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  No, only if the comment hasn't been seen by another user yet. However, my sibling's idea is good. You should be able to append a diff to a comment.
About that other microkernel OS by David+Gerard · 2011-07-18 07:11 · Score: 1

How's Minix 3 benchmark?

--
http://rocknerd.co.uk
GNU/Linux by Bloodwine77 · 2011-07-18 07:12 · Score: 3, Funny

I remember the days when you said, "Linux", there would be an army of zealots that would swarm you and chant, "IT'S GNU/LINUX! IT'S GNU/LINUX!!"
1. Re:GNU/Linux by glwtta · 2011-07-18 07:17 · Score: 2
  
  Well, I guess now we'll have to change it to "GNU/GNU Hurd".
  
  --
  sic transit gloria mundi
2. Re:GNU/Linux by GameboyRMH · 2011-07-18 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  Whoa, Hurd has twice as much GNU as Linux? I'm going to switch right away!
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
3. Re:GNU/Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-18 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  It's actually less, GNU/Linux has one GNU, but GNU/GNU Hurd can be reduced to 1 Hurd so it has no GNU in it at all.
4. Re:GNU/Linux by the_humeister · 2011-07-18 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  hmm, that would make it "1 HURD"
5. Re:GNU/Linux by mickwd · 2011-07-18 08:00 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I remember the days when you could come to Slashdot and expect a discussion on the technical merits or demerits of a subject like an alternative operating system, with input from one or two people who really knew their onions.
  I remember the days when people were technically curious about stuff which was different, just because it was different, and they wanted to know what it did and how it worked.
  Where did all those people go?
6. Re:GNU/Linux by cyber-vandal · 2011-07-18 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  Google
7. Re:GNU/Linux by Sectoid_Dev · 2011-07-18 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  That's GNU to me.
8. Re:GNU/Linux by Shadow-isoHunt · 2011-07-18 08:38 · Score: 2
  
  Well, video drivers are userspace in Windows 7, and Xen has working PCI-E passthrough to domU. I don't think abstraction is a barrier if done properly.
  
  http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenPCIpassthrough
  http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenVGAPassthrough
  
  --
  www.isoHunt.com
9. Re:GNU/Linux by Erich · 2011-07-18 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  We read when we're bored, but what's the point in commenting among the noise?
  
  --
  -- Erich
  Slashdot reader since 1997
10. Re:GNU/Linux by rubycodez · 2011-07-18 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  wildebeest pun be that one?
11. Re:GNU/Linux by default+luser · 2011-07-18 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  They've become bored talking about the same old shit while HURD took twenty years to get to "release" (if you can call this pile of shit "release"). Meanwhile we have practical examples of every kind of OS you can imagine, so the results are pretty clear-cut.
  There comes a time when debates are mostly over-and-done-with because the world LEARNS what works best. The same thing has happened to processor architecture debates, now that most processors are (1) RISC and (2) reaching the limits of performance with a single thread.
  
  --
  Man is the animal that laughs.
  And occasionally whores for Karma.
12. Re:GNU/Linux by KingSkippus · 2011-07-18 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, that's good! :) (Probably also true.)
13. Re:GNU/Linux by boss_hog · 2011-07-18 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  Speaking as someone who was here before slashdot started offering user accounts(yes my uid doesn't show that, so sue me) I think many are tired of hearing about how Hurd is so much better technically, and should be putting out a release "any day now" for the past 12+ years(I say 12 instead of 20 because I believe I registered on slashdot sometime between 98-2000).
  We did talk about it in more technical ways, and compare it to Linux, over and over and over. Now it's just tired. Just like so many have already said, some having said so with very good links to explain how/why.
14. Re:GNU/Linux by DamnStupidElf · 2011-07-18 10:28 · Score: 2
  
  It's not so much userspace vs. kernelspace but the number of context switches involved. There are fast instructions in most modern processors for moving from userland to the kernel and back again in protected mode. If you could have direct inter-process communication between userspace drivers and the processes that use them it wouldn't be such a big deal. But you need some trusted part of the operating system (typically the kernel) to mediate IPC, otherwise you have to fully trust both your driver and user processes. Memory mapped control and I/O channels partially eliminate this problem (e.g. direct rendering on video cards) but there's still the problem of passing signals (interrupts and requests) back and forth at high speed. x86 hardware could probably support a secure inter-procedure call system using call gates and a dedicated stack segment, but it would require quite a few changes in the way the OS, drivers, and userspace applications interacted.
15. Re:GNU/Linux by careysub · 2011-07-18 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  Wasn't it "Li-gnux"?
  
  --
  Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
16. Re:GNU/Linux by wrook · 2011-07-18 11:39 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. Now, instead of that we get articles about how Android, which uses the Linux kernel, isn't really Linux because it doesn't contain GNU.
17. Re:GNU/Linux by Bill_the_Engineer · 2011-07-18 17:09 · Score: 1
  
  We're still here. We are just outnumbered by the new "geeks".
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
18. Re:GNU/Linux by shikaisi · 2011-07-18 18:54 · Score: 1
  
  I've HURD better ones than that.
  
  --
  No left turn unstoned.
19. Re:GNU/Linux by Chrisq · 2011-07-18 19:45 · Score: 1
  
  Microkernels do have their merits, but as the benchmarks show, the Linux kernel (which can be as micro- or macrokernel as you wish) outpaces Mach, for the simple reason that Linux eliminates many overheads existing in other kernels.
  Its possible that microkernels will have the last laugh, I have tread that they scale better when you have a huge number of cores on a processor (256+)
20. Re:GNU/Linux by tehcyder · 2011-07-19 01:13 · Score: 1
  
  Google's a big advertising company, the tech stuff is just there for lulz and to placate the type of "nerd" who drools over how thin and shiny the new Apple laptop is.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
21. Re:GNU/Linux by tehcyder · 2011-07-19 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  Can't speak for anyone else, but I rarely visit Slashdot anymore
  Nonsense, I see "Anonymous Coward" all the time on slashdot.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
22. Re:GNU/Linux by eriqk · 2011-07-19 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I guess now we'll have to change it to "GNU/GNU Hurd".
  Death... by GNU/GNU!
23. Re:GNU/Linux by rubycodez · 2011-07-19 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  The project always seems to stallman.
./'ed by tuxicg · 2011-07-18 07:15 · Score: 1

Is this /.'ed already?
Serious question by AdmiralXyz · 2011-07-18 07:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

Not trying to troll here, but why would one use GNU Hurd? What does it offer over Linux? The only fundamental technical difference of note I see is that it's got a microkernel, and arguing about monolithic kernels vs. microkernels is like arguing about vi vs. Emacs: I haven't seen anyone do it seriously, instead of tongue-in-cheek, in years. I imagine there are "non-free" parts of Linux scattered about, and maybe that's a reason to use GNU Hurd, but pretty much all of those are due to device drivers, and making a new OS won't help with that. Even rms admits it's a waste of time. Does Debian really have nothing better to do?

--
Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
1. Re:Serious question by jandrese · 2011-07-18 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  Heck, the "non-free" parts of Linux would just have no support at all in Hurd, so there's not even a win there. You can always setup a Linux distro to avoid all non-free stuff if that's what you care about.
  
  --
  
  I read the internet for the articles.
2. Re:Serious question by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-18 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  One interesting feature I saw on the hurd web site some 10+ years ago was that because it was a microkernel, you could run several different versions of the kernel at the same time, and do kernel updates without rebooting. That got my attention... but 10+ years later it seems to have been forgotten. I did not see those listed as features on the Hurd web site any more.
3. Re:Serious question by Osgeld · 2011-07-18 07:41 · Score: 2
  
  its got 20 years of proof that it doesn't do anything useful
4. Re:Serious question by vux984 · 2011-07-18 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  Not trying to troll here, but why would one use GNU Hurd?
  One wouldn't. No more than one would use the memory manager I wrote in university for an operating systems class.
  As an academic pursuit however its quite interesting, and as another working fully open source kernel, it its a worthwhile topic in any "comparative operating systems architecture" classes.
5. Re:Serious question by LWATCDR · 2011-07-18 07:49 · Score: 2
  
  You could have said the same about Linux because we had Minix and BSD. The first versions of Linux where pretty useless. That being said HURD has some interesting ideas that may turn out to be useful. I am really fond of the goals of Minix 3. The idea of a self healing system is very cool for servers and embedded devices. Frankly it should pretty easy to do, make the drivers code segment in memory read only and if the driver has a serious error you restart the driver with a fresh data segment. Once the driver is restarted the old data segment could be dumped for debugging and a log of the error made. You would have to put in some kind of protection to prevent the logging and dumping from putting you into a driver restart loop but that should be just some deadlock prevention.
  Of course this is all very hard to do in a monolithic kernel.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
6. Re:Serious question by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-18 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  You can run multiple kernels on Linux with User Mode Linux or any of the virtualizers. You can load a new kernel without rebooting by using kexec (or ksplice if you want a commercial alternative).
  All of that have been available on Linux for many years.
7. Re:Serious question by antifoidulus · 2011-07-18 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  Mr. Stallman, please try to control yourself!
  
  --
  Monstar L
8. Re:Serious question by Lemming+Mark · 2011-07-18 08:15 · Score: 2
  
  That sort of thing has been done with Linux in various ways - but with substantial disadvantages. Under L4 and Xen there were implementations of running device drivers (for block and network devices) in separate virtual machines from the one running the application. They were restartable and contained only soft state. I worked, in a small way, on the Xen implementation and it was quite enjoyable to sit around restarting the device driver and watching stuff come back. Of course, one advantage of doing things this way is that you can reuse existing drivers.
  Another project that was of a similar vintage (around 2003/04) but came slightly earlier (I think) was called "Nooks" and had the advantage of looking more like conventional Linux driver model. You could reuse existing drivers here too but lots of wrappers were needed when interacting with the non-driver portions of the kernel. I was given to understand (admittedly by a Xen developer) that their approach wasn't necessarily very efficient because their kernel-driver switches were still quite expensive and probably fairly frequent.
  Anyhow, it's sort of possible to make systems that are more robust to device driver problems with almost-current technology but for various reasons (some subset of needing a hypervisor, cumbersome to set up, memory hungry, performance problems) these mostly don't seem to have taken off yet.
9. Re:Serious question by Lunix+Nutcase · 2011-07-18 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  Or do you have proof that it will never be useful for anything?
  The fact that it's still in alpha state after 20 years?
10. Re:Serious question by amorsen · 2011-07-18 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  The only fundamental technical difference of note I see is that it's got a microkernel
  HURD is about empowering the users to do things which require root access on more common systems. Like you have a normal user account and decide you want to try this cool new network file system but the admin won't install the kernel module. On HURD, not a problem, you just run a file system daemon yourself and you can mount it anywhere you want without needing administrator rights.
  Or you decide that package managers suck and it's much better to keep all files for Emacs in /Applications/Emacs (Or /OS/Emacs for the purists). At the same time you want the files available in their usual locations like /usr/bin/emacs so the normal path handling works, but you want all the files to disappear when you do rm -r /Applications/Emacs. Not a problem in HURD. Basically you have the full power of a Unix administrator/developer without needing root.
  Now, that was the kind of features which were discussed for HURD in the 90's. I have never actually tried HURD, so don't be too disappointed if it didn't all materialize.
  
  --
  Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
11. Re:Serious question by Pliny · 2011-07-18 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  The Hurd has one thing going for it. It's design called for putting as much functionality as possible into client-server interfaces. This made it run horrifically slow. However, now that we're in the multicore era... It might actually be a path forward. Fortunately, BeOS went the same direction, and it's not quite dead yet.
  
  --
  What does this button d$#%* NO CARRIER
12. Re:Serious question by rhysweatherley · 2011-07-18 08:39 · Score: 2
  
  "What does it offer over Linux?" Am I the only one who remembers when USENET (no Slashdot back then) was all full of: What does Linux offer over Solaris, HP/UX, AIX, BSD, ...? Those old beards weren't laughing 5 years later when Linux was stealing their user bases one at a time. Hurd may not do the same, but it is always a mistake to underestimate the tenacity of the underdog. Maybe Hurd doesn't have to be better than Linux at all things - there are a zillion gadgets like routers and embedded controllers that may benefit from something specialized. Let the Hurd guys have their fun and support them in their happy endeavours, if only moral support.
13. Re:Serious question by Palshife · 2011-07-18 08:44 · Score: 2
  
  Translators running in user space is better than kernel modules running in privileged space. This is reason enough to embrace a new system and apply the lessons learned from Linux.
  
  --
  Attention deficit disorder is a complicated issue, spanning several major... HEY LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
14. Re:Serious question by Tetsujin · 2011-07-18 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  One interesting feature I saw on the hurd web site some 10+ years ago was that because it was a microkernel, you could run several different versions of the kernel at the same time, and do kernel updates without rebooting. That got my attention... but 10+ years later it seems to have been forgotten. I did not see those listed as features on the Hurd web site any more.
  Yeah, it was on the "features list" only until they got to the point where they might, theoretically, be expected to actually implement that functionality. :)
  To put it more seriously: as the system got more solid, the features list had to focus more on actualities, rather than potential. The potential is still there, presumably, so hopefully they'll exploit that.
  
  --
  Bow-ties are cool.
15. Re:Serious question by bradgoodman · 2011-07-18 09:07 · Score: 2
  
  The big difference in Linux was that it was free - for all practical purposes - both as in "Freedom" and as in "Beer". All the other OSes aforementioned were neither. This caused a HUGE groundswell of user-support to step up and make it what it is today.
  HURD offers no advantage over Linux here. It's not like we're about to see a huge migration from Linux to HURD. And after taking 20 years to get this far - they lack the manpower and momentum to move it anywhere.
16. Re:Serious question by Sloppy · 2011-07-18 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  What does it offer over Linux? The only fundamental technical difference of note I see is that it's got a microkernel, and arguing about monolithic kernels vs. microkernels is like arguing about vi vs. Emacs
  Not quite. In theory, microkernels ought to offer some concrete advantages and disadvantages. They should be a little bit slower due to context switching (waaaah! my computer acts like it's 3 months older! waaaaahh!), but it should be easier to develop and advance, due to certain traditionally-hard-to-debug parts running in user space. (You shouldn't have to be a "kernel hacker" to implement a filesystem API.)
  Thus, Hurd ought to have more and better device drivers and filesystems.
  But then there's reality.
  Drivers: Linux may not be quite on top, but currently beats the crap out of Hurd.
  Filesystems: Linux is just plain king of the world, bar none. (Yeah, so I just started a flamewar with the Solaris / ZFS guys... Look, I'm not putting your project down, but no way one-size-fits-all will ever be best at everything. Linux lets you use the right tool at the right mountpoint, and what a diverse set of tools!)
  Religiously (if you look at it like vi-vs-emacs) I prefer microkernels, but you just can't ignore Linux's very real achievements.
  
  --
  As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
17. Re:Serious question by iceaxe · 2011-07-18 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  Not trying to troll here, but why would one use GNU Hurd?
  Because I want to, and I can. That's reason enough for me. Maybe I'm a nerd.
  
  --
  WALSTIB!
18. Re:Serious question by LWATCDR · 2011-07-18 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  But it would be a really good option for systems that can trade performance for reliability. With a lot of OSs an RS-232 driver can take down a server. Or course you would want to be very careful with things like filesystems and mass storage devices but I think this could be a valid method today. Now that we have so much computing power I can imagine a lot of systems that would benfit from a little of it being put into reliability.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
19. Re:Serious question by chrb · 2011-07-18 09:32 · Score: 2
  
  Not trying to troll here, but why would one use GNU Hurd?
  Mach was just an academic research project into microkernels until Apple picked it up and ran with it. At the moment there appears to be no practical reason for most people to choose Hurd, but undoubtedly there will be someone out there who does have a reason, and who knows where that could end.
  
  Does Debian really have nothing better to do?
  "Debian" is not a monolithic corporate entity with some dynamic figurehead deciding what everyone works on this year... Hurd is interesting to some people, and they want to work on it. Why not let them? The worst that can happen is that it becomes a niche platform like Nexenta's Debian/GNU/Solaris. As long as it doesn't hold back GNU/Linux then what's the downside?
20. Re:Serious question by Lemming+Mark · 2011-07-18 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  There are some quite nice architectural features in there; whilst they might look like things that are toys for operating systems geeks they are also the kind of thing that makes a nice foundation for building cool stuff that might be more noticeable to the users!
  As a multi-server microkernel OS the system is actually split up into a load of different components anyhow. HURD makes it practical (IIRC, assuming nothing's changed in this respect) for users to replace or augment those components - but only for their own programs. So, for instance, a user might develop a network filesystem whilst not requiring any special privileges. Or a user might build a virtual machine / container / chroot to work in, again without their requiring special privileges.
  Naturally, this also implies that all the funky hacks involving userspace filesystems are possible - like FUSE on Linux. But that sort of operation is baked into the design and taken further.
  The disadvantage of having multi-server microkernel OSes tends to be (reputedly) that they're slower. There are various sides to the argument about whether they *have* to be slower but HURD is, despite its age, not hugely heavily developed - so those problems are not going to have been fixed.
21. Re:Serious question by dkf · 2011-07-18 12:37 · Score: 1
  
  The big difference in Linux was that it was free - for all practical purposes - both as in "Freedom" and as in "Beer". All the other OSes aforementioned were neither.
  There was also a critical period (1992-1993 IIRC) when Linux had shared libraries and BSD did not. (I don't remember if BSD had paging or just swapping, but Linux certainly did paging.) When you only have a few MB of physical memory, shared libraries make a colossal difference.
  After that, there was an entrenched difference in developer mindshare. That only took nearly 20 years to pay off!
  
  --
  "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
22. Re:Serious question by tnk1 · 2011-07-18 14:16 · Score: 1
  
  It's not reason enough to switch to HURD. It might be a nice thing to have if HURD was relevant in other ways, but its simply not compelling enough. It's not like modern Linux has particularly big problems with stability, and I don't think that even pulling stuff out of the kernel is going to have a huge effect on security.
  HURD needs to be able to do something spectacular that makes it worth the effort of moving all the apps over that don't currently use it. I don't see that it has that. It didn't even have anything that special ten years ago when I considered it the last time. Linux may not have ushered in a new era of computing, but it did make it possible to have a completely free OS that could do Enterprise-class things. HURD could have done that and provided a better model for userspace-kernel interaction, but for whatever reason, it didn't make it out the door.
  Who knows? Some genius might right a killer app that runs best on HURD and everything will change, but I doubt it.
23. Re:Serious question by Rich0 · 2011-07-18 14:31 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds a lot like Plan 9.
  In fact, I'd really like to see more effort going into porting plan 9 features to Linux. That's what got us /proc, for starters.
  The trick is to just do it in a way that maintains the old APIs until everybody migrates. The problem with Plan 9 is that nothing runs on it, since it is just so different. Create Plan 9 APIs on Linux, and eventually that is how all the software will be written, for most of the reasons that you stated.
24. Re:Serious question by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-07-18 14:42 · Score: 1
  
  Not trying to troll here, but why would one use GNU Hurd? What does it offer over Linux?
  GPLv3. For certain corner cases, the patent protections might be worth the effort.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
25. Re:Serious question by SanityInAnarchy · 2011-07-18 15:22 · Score: 1
  
  This is the problem with waiting decades, though...
  
  Like you have a normal user account and decide you want to try this cool new network file system but the admin won't install the kernel module.
  So you run FUSE.
  
  On HURD, not a problem, you just run a file system daemon yourself and you can mount it anywhere you want without needing administrator rights.
  What advantage does this offer over FUSE? You sure as hell need admin rights (at least) to install HURD in the first place, and as an admin, I'd much rather just install FUSE on a proven OS. The filesystem needs to be ported to FUSE, just as it would need to be ported to HURD.
  
  Or you decide that package managers suck and it's much better to keep all files for Emacs in /Applications/Emacs (Or /OS/Emacs for the purists)...
  That's what your home directory is for. I don't really see what advantage there is to putting stuff in the root directory, rather than your home directory, other than making them available to other users. Doing stuff like that which affects other users should require admin rights. If you just want to make it available to other users, it's only moderately difficult to expose selected pieces of your home directory, assuming there isn't a mode 1777 directory somewhere that you're allowed to write to.
  So, this might be actually useful, but there are too many reasonable hacks to make it happen now, much more reasonable than replacing your entire kernel. But the real problem is that most of the best ideas HURD had are in other OSes now, like FUSE.
  
  --
  Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
26. Re:Serious question by swillden · 2011-07-18 15:23 · Score: 1
  
  From a user's perspective it offers nothing over Linux. From an OS developer's perspective, it offers a new playground which does things differently and enables new approaches to be experimented with... which may (or may not) mean that years from now it offers something from a user's perspective.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
27. Re:Serious question by Lando · 2011-07-18 16:28 · Score: 1
  
  Theoretically, a micro kernel should be easier to develop for and keep one part of the kernel from messing with other parts of the kernel. I know that linux can load up modules for device drivers and other things, but, again theoretically, a micro kernel should allow far more of the kernel to be swapped out for different code than can be done with a monolithic kernel. So there should be some development advantages there.
  That being said, we'll have to see how Hurd performs. Micro kernels tend to be slower because of the message passing mechanisms that they use and passing all those messages around seems to be a extremely difficult problem which requires a lot of testing and design. If they have a workable system now, it's still going to take a while to analyse how well the system performs in the real world.
  As a programming challenge, it has got to have been a pretty demanding task. What it's good for currently is probably just another free kernel that can operate as a drop in replacement for the Linux kernel. Having a choice in kernels isn't a bad thing and since the architecture is quite different, it's probably not going to take developers away from the Linux kernel. In addition to that, since it's design is different, it will allow developers to think about problems in different ways, which benefits Linux in the long run, since new ideas can be incorporated into the Linux kernel as well. As another free kernel, if Hurd comes up with something new and innovative that would benefit the Linux kernel we are free to create our own version of that innovation and implement it in the kernel. As compared to some OS/kernels that lock their work up via patents.
  So right now, it's a wait and see type of deal, the biggest advantage that Hurd offers currently is all in the future. We will have to see what comes from the project. Currently, unless you're interested in seeing how it works, or Linus pissed you off personally, there is no real pressing need to us Hurd.
  
  --
  /* TODO: Spawn child process, interest child in technology, have child write a new sig */
28. Re:Serious question by Arlet · 2011-07-18 17:32 · Score: 2
  
  They should be a little bit slower due to context switching (waaaah! my computer acts like it's 3 months older! waaaaahh!)
  If context switching overhead was the only problem you'd be right. A much bigger problem is the effort it requires to maintain a coherent state between loosely coupled tasks in a microkernel. The oft-repeated mantra that a microkernel is easier to develop for is just a joke. For example, making a single-threaded filesystem task is pretty simple, but the performance will be horrible if you have 1000 other tasks, all blasting this single task with filesystem request messages. The obvious sounding fix, developing a scalable, multi-threaded filesystem, is not a simple job at all. In fact, it is extremely hard, and the reason is that a filesystem needs to have a coherent state. If one task renames a directory, other tasks need to be notified atomically, or you need to redesign the entire filesystem to be robust even when working with out-of-date information.
  In comparison, developing a scalable monolithic kernel filesystem is much easier. If you have 1000 processes banging on the filesystem in Linux, multi threading is done automatically.
29. Re:Serious question by Arlet · 2011-07-18 17:51 · Score: 1
  
  Like you have a normal user account and decide you want to try this cool new network file system but the admin won't install the kernel module.
  Maybe the admin doesn't want to you to test this cool new network filesystem on their infrastructure, even if you could run it in userspace.
  If you have a legitimate reason to be testing filesystems on somebody else's hardware, there are ways to accomplish this, even in Linux. However, the simplest solution is simply to get your own (virtual) hardware, and do whatever you want.
30. Re:Serious question by amorsen · 2011-07-18 18:57 · Score: 1
  
  Doing stuff like that which affects other users should require admin rights
  I think this sentence is where most of your objections come from. The trick is that it doesn't affect other users, unless you specifically allow them to look in your view of the file system. FUSE is much more limited and it would be difficult e.g. to put the root file system on FUSE.
  HURD was designed when multi-user systems with remote file systems were the norm. Today a lot of the features seem superfluous -- approximately no one has multiple concurrent users on their phone and remote file systems have been replaced by HTTP requests. Getting rid of the SUID-bit and making it possible for users to present limited environments to the less-trusted programs they run still make sense.
  
  --
  Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
31. Re:Serious question by SanityInAnarchy · 2011-07-19 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  I think this sentence is where most of your objections come from. The trick is that it doesn't affect other users, unless you specifically allow them to look in your view of the file system.
  Well, but this was another point I made, just prior to that sentence:
  
  I don't really see what advantage there is to putting stuff in the root directory, rather than your home directory, other than making them available to other users.
  If I'm not imposing these changes on other users, what's the advantage of doing it this way over simply sharing things in my home directory?
  
  it would be difficult e.g. to put the root file system on FUSE.
  Not terribly. It'd be difficult to allow a non-admin user to do so, or to switch to that after the fact, but I believe there are a few LiveCDs which run a FUSE-based root filesystem already.
  
  HURD was designed when multi-user systems with remote file systems were the norm. Today a lot of the features seem superfluous...
  Well, but even in that environment, they seem superfluous. I guess I'm still not seeing the advantage of a "view" system like that unless you have programs with hardcoded paths. By comparison...
  
  Getting rid of the SUID-bit and making it possible for users to present limited environments to the less-trusted programs they run still make sense.
  This makes a lot of sense.
  
  --
  Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
32. Re:Serious question by amorsen · 2011-07-19 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  If I'm not imposing these changes on other users, what's the advantage of doing it this way over simply sharing things in my home directory?
  You can install the software you want where you want it, you make /usr/bin/emacs run ed, you change anything you want. If you want to, you can let other users see/adopt your cool directory layout and all the fantastic software you installed (they just have to be prepared to
  We'll probably never see this functionality used much; that boat has sailed. It is difficult to say which innovative uses that people would have come up with for such a flexible system. Perhaps you are right and no one would have found uses for it.
  
  --
  Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
33. Re:Serious question by SanityInAnarchy · 2011-07-19 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps you are right and no one would have found uses for it.
  I didn't say that. Of course there would be uses for it, but the question is whether there are any use cases for which it's actually an advantage. For example:
  
  you make /usr/bin/emacs run ed,
  I can't imagine ever really wanting this. I can trivially alias 'emacs' to 'ed' in my shell, or place a shell script called 'emacs' earlier in my PATH (modifying my PATH if needed). Probably the most practical use would be to let me tell programs like git what editor to use, but they don't hardcode 'emacs' or 'vi', they use the EDITOR variable.
  I do see one advantage to this approach -- I like chroot jails, but they require admin assistance to set up, and much of the grunt work in doing so is ensuring stuff is made available in the right places -- which usually means a lot of bind mounts (/proc, /dev) and/or hardlinks (stuff from /usr/lib, etc). If a user could trivially set up a sandbox similar to a chroot jail, that would be a definite advantage.
  But we have chroot, and I would imagine it wouldn't be terribly difficult to make a setuid binary which allows users to set up their own chroot jails safely. In fact, this entire functionality could probably be duplicated with that setuid binary plus an appropriate FUSE filesystem, probably something related to unionfs -- you get your own writable view of the entire filesystem (at least anything you have read access to), but your writes actually go somewhere in your home directory, so no other users see them unless you share that somehow. It's not as elegant, but it would work.
  I seem to remember Plan9 had a lot of similar ideas. And again, the most interesting and practical ideas (like the /proc filesystem) were ripped off wholesale and incorporated into Linux long before Plan9 itself was ever a competitor.
  
  --
  Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
34. Re:Serious question by DragonWriter · 2011-07-19 17:19 · Score: 1
  
  You could have said the same about Linux because we had Minix and BSD.
  When Linux was released, BSD wasn't open source, and neither was Minix, and being open source was the compelling advantage of Linux.
  Now, BSD is open source, and Linux is open source, and Minix 3 is open source, and the list goes on.
35. Re:Serious question by Palshife · 2011-07-20 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  HURD needs to be able to do something spectacular that makes it worth the effort of moving all the apps over that don't currently use it.
  Tell that to the Debian developers who are doing this right now, thanks to the fact that the packaging system was written in such a way that you could swap out the kernel and still have a working system. There is a running manifest of broken packages that are being worked through.
  The need you speak of is not required. People just want to see new ideas in practice. How else do we make any progress? Linux is great, but not perfect. Let's get another methodology in practice and see what it can do.
  
  --
  Attention deficit disorder is a complicated issue, spanning several major... HEY LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
36. Re:Serious question by GooberToo · 2011-07-25 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  Your comparison of monolithic vs micro being like emacs vs vi is also completely wrong and misleading. There are real advantages to microkernels. That's not to say they are without their detractors.
  Back when micro-kernels were deemed to be the new up and coming kernel technology, they were critically researched. Pretty consistently, the research indicates micro-kernels win in theory but pragmatically, performance demands monolithic kernels. As such, hybrids are now considered to be the winners. You'll notice Linux and Windows both approach the hybrid-ish solution from two different sides. Accordingly, its pretty universally accepted, hybrid solutions are the preferred solutions. This is a fact even after Microsoft changed their kernels long after Linux preached it.
  Of course, if we accept the defacto and pragmatic solution (as spoken by industry now) and extend it to your emacs vs vi metaphor, we can conclude the real winner is emacs + viper. But again, I don't really agree the metaphor is appropriate.
Well, duh... by DryGrian · 2011-07-18 07:20 · Score: 1

Linux was mostly faster than The Hurd while also having much better hardware support, multi-core SMP support, and other modern functionality.
Um, duh? 20+ years real-world testing and updates and bugfixes from pretty much the entire open-source community vs. something that was released last week? Why don't they benchmark it against Google Plus and Bitcoin while they're at it?

--
For optimal comment enjoyment, take red pill now.
1. Re:Well, duh... by 0123456 · 2011-07-18 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  Um, duh? 20+ years real-world testing and updates and bugfixes from pretty much the entire open-source community vs. something that was released last week? Why don't they benchmark it against Google Plus and Bitcoin while they're at it?
  HURD is older than Linux, isn't it? I seem to remember Linus saying he wouldn't have bothered developing Linux if HURD had actually been usable at that point.
2. Re:Well, duh... by Tridus · 2011-07-18 08:03 · Score: 2
  
  Hurd might beat bitcoin in a "has practical uses" benchmark. :P
  
  --
  -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
3. Re:Well, duh... by Lunix+Nutcase · 2011-07-18 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  20+ years real-world testing and updates and bugfixes from pretty much the entire open-source community vs. something that was released last week
  Actually the last stable release was 2 years ago. Then you need to add the addition 19 years of development that preceded that. So why exactly do you think we should not expect more from something that has been in perpetual development for 21 years?
4. Re:Well, duh... by surgen · 2011-07-18 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  What are you talking about? I can't buy drugs with Hurd.
5. Re:Well, duh... by Capt.DrumkenBum · 2011-07-18 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  What are you talking about? I can't buy drugs with Hurd.
  You are not trying hard enough.
  
  --
  If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
i have seen the list of supported hardware by FudRucker · 2011-07-18 07:21 · Score: 1

and i have to say that i believe i will die of old age before Hurd is ready for the masses, and by then hardware will have changed so much that Hurd will never catch up, (not without an army of developers)

--
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Well at least .... by scharkalvin · 2011-07-18 07:25 · Score: 1

the HURD didn't throw up a blue screen of death.
Actually they didn't mention how many Kernel panic dumps they got, if any.
It's sad, really by grimmjeeper · 2011-07-18 07:25 · Score: 1, Funny

I see Captain Ahab is still chasing after his whale. Don Quixote is still tilting at his windmills. Years after it's far too late to make any difference in the world, Stallman is still obsessed with taking on Linux. I almost feel sorry for the guy at this point...
1. Re:It's sad, really by AdmiralXyz · 2011-07-18 07:32 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Actually, Stallman has nothing to do with pushing this project, he thinks it's a waste of time and effort (see Q13). I'm not sure who is fronting this thing, but I want some of their stash.
  
  --
  Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
2. Re:It's sad, really by vux984 · 2011-07-18 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  Actually Stallman from what I've seen and read isn't particularly interested in Hurd at this point as part of his "Freedom" agenda.
  He is quite satisfied with the Linux kernel.
  Hurd however is interesting from an academic standpoint, and is entirely worthwhile on that front.
3. Re:It's sad, really by ArsonSmith · 2011-07-18 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  With the biggest difference was that Stallman won his battle a long time ago. He just can't leave well enough alone.
  
  --
  Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
4. Re:It's sad, really by grimmjeeper · 2011-07-18 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  I haven't been following Hurd for a while. I was sure he was involved because he was ranting about how Linux stole all the GNU tools or something like that. It's been so long and my memory has faded. I'll go and read up on it some more before I make such a grievous error again.
5. Re:It's sad, really by grimmjeeper · 2011-07-18 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  Hurd however is interesting from an academic standpoint, and is entirely worthwhile on that front.
  I can certainly agree with this point. It would have been a great thing to have had an open source operating system to study when I was in college. A real, working operating system would be a far better teaching tool (for people like me) than sitting in a classroom hearing lectures about abstract concepts. It took me years to finally understand the real worth of the ideas I was supposed to learn in the classroom. It wasn't until I was able to put them into practice that I really figured it out. Had I been able to dissect an open source operating system in college (with some guidance, of course) I would have had a lot less pain in the real world trying to get things to work.
6. Re:It's sad, really by boristhespider · 2011-07-18 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  I agree... but out of interest, why doesn't Linux satisfy that for you? I can see the argument that Hurd gives you a totally different philosophy to look at to Linux - but if you wanted that, why wouldn't Darwin suit you?
  I'm all for developing new kernels anyway. But if we're purely looking at use we don't need it (we've got Linux and Darwin) and if we're looking at contrasting designs we don't *need* it (Linux and Darwin)... but it's still a new design so frankly all power to it. Just I doubt I'll use it myself, at least not for production.
7. Re:It's sad, really by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-18 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  Doing something without obvious ROI or cool bragging rights is dum.
8. Re:It's sad, really by grimmjeeper · 2011-07-18 08:49 · Score: 2
  
  I agree... but out of interest, why doesn't Linux satisfy that for you? I can see the argument that Hurd gives you a totally different philosophy to look at to Linux - but if you wanted that, why wouldn't Darwin suit you?
  I'm all for developing new kernels anyway. But if we're purely looking at use we don't need it (we've got Linux and Darwin) and if we're looking at contrasting designs we don't *need* it (Linux and Darwin)... but it's still a new design so frankly all power to it. Just I doubt I'll use it myself, at least not for production.
  I graduated college before any of the free operating systems had been introduced.
9. Re:It's sad, really by boristhespider · 2011-07-18 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  Fair enough :) I was wondering if that was the case, but with the 20+ year delay to Hurd I thought I had to ask.....
Linux vs HURD by mswhippingboy · 2011-07-18 07:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

At the risk of being lambasted, I don't understand why everyone is kicking so hard at HURD. Sure, it's nowhere close to Linux in any respect, but then it never attracted the throngs of developers that Linux did. OS/X is proof that the idea of building on the mach kernel can result in a sound and performant OS. I for one salute those that have stuck with or picked up development of what many would consider a lost cause. Eschewing a technology because it's not popular does not engender innovation. Personally, I hope the HURD team begins to attract more developers and eventually begins to catch up with Linux because competition, even in the FOSS arena, is always a good thing.

--
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
1. Re:Linux vs HURD by gl4ss · 2011-07-18 07:45 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  hurd is an example of how despite being open and free, you can still run the ship with closed minds. it almost seems like a grant money scam.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
2. Re:Linux vs HURD by TaoPhoenix · 2011-07-18 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, there seems to be a tone change here - "why would anyone use ____" - isn't that different from when we welcomed the Niche stuff? Is the ridicule only because this was in Permanent Development?
  I think I see some small benefit in getting this (and Duke Nukem) Out The Door in whatever state they are in. Now that it's Out The Door, can we just turn right around and rip out a couple juicy bits of code and slam them into Linux? Is any of it Prior Art to fight the stupid lawsuits with?
  
  --
  My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
3. Re:Linux vs HURD by Guy+Harris · 2011-07-18 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  OS/X is proof that the idea of building on the mach kernel can result in a sound and performant OS.
  OS X is proof that by using the Mach kernel as a provider of process/thread management and VM services, and putting a BSD kernel atop that, you can get a sound and performant OS. It's not as if OS X is a true microkernel OS; if that's the goal of the Hurd, as I have the impression it is, that's a different matter.
4. Re:Linux vs HURD by steveha · 2011-07-18 08:27 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I think that people kick at HURD because of the grand claims made by some HURD fans. These grand claims have not panned out.
  If you look at the old HURD FAQ, you will see claims that "Linux and BSD don't scale well" and that HURD, being based on Mach, should scale better for SMP; furthermore, HURD would be "considerably more flexible and robust than generic Unix".
  The superior architecture of HURD was supposed to make it easier and faster to develop and debug HURD, and thus HURD was going to leapfrog past Linux as the obviously better solution.
  Kernel debugging in Linux is significantly harder than user-space debugging. The microkernel design of HURD was supposed to allow for things like file systems to be written and debugged with the ease of user-space development under Linux. That being the case, it seems surprising that HURD is so far behind Linux after so many years.
  I'm not an expert on this stuff, but here are my thoughts on the current Linux and HURD situation:
  First, Linux scales really well now. People are using Linux on really large SMP systems.
  Second, a microkernel architecture, while more robust than a monokernel, cannot be as fast as the monokernel. If one subsystem wants another subsystem to do something, it must format and send a message; the other subsystem then receives the message, unpacks it, validates it, and then does the action. This is more secure and more stable than the monokernel, where the one subsystem will just make a function call in the other subsystem's code; but it is inherently slower. So Linux is scaling better than HURD expected, and Linux has an inherent speed edge, so HURD is unlikely to outperform Linux. Meanwhile, while it might be true that HURD is easier to debug than Linux, the kernel developers have figured out how to debug Linux, and there just isn't enough benefit there to warrant a switch to HURD.
  Finally, Linux is widely used and well understood; lots of businesses are running mission-critical apps on Linux. Even if HURD's microkernel design gave it a theoretical edge on Linux for reliability, the real-world experience is all on Linux; it has been shown to be Good Enough while HURD is only theoretically better.
  steveha
  
  --
  lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
5. Re:Linux vs HURD by mswhippingboy · 2011-07-18 08:30 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Actually, if I were a developer interested in getting heavily involved in OS development (which I am), and had the time (which I don't), something like this would be appealing to me. Trying to get one's arms around Linux, much less to be able to obtain commit status is about near impossible for someone just starting out. HURD is much smaller and the mountain to climb much lower to reach the point of being able to contribute to the project. I also think it's premature to write off micro-kernel technology all together at this point. Massively Multi-core CPUs (as in 100's or 1000's of cores) may mitigate the performance hit that micro-kernels suffer from on today's hardware and may prove to be a better fit than the monolithic Linux kernel of today. I don't know that to be fact, though no doubt many here will point out how wrong that position is, but it makes sense to me instinctively. The point is, no knowledge gained is wasted knowledge and whether it leads to enhancements to Linux or boosts the viability of this technology, the endeavor is certainly worth exploring.
  
  --
  Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
6. Re:Linux vs HURD by mswhippingboy · 2011-07-18 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  Performant isn't a real word.
  Sure it is. The dictionaries have just not caught up yet. Check back at a future date.
  
  --
  Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
7. Re:Linux vs HURD by mswhippingboy · 2011-07-18 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  Valid points all. However, have HURD claims not panned out because of flaws in the theoretical framework, or because of lack of developers to implement it properly (I'm asking - I don't know the answer to that and I don't believe you do either - which is exactly why I feel this is a worthwhile endeavor)? I do question your conclusions on your second and final points however.
  
  Second, a microkernel architecture, while more robust than a monokernel, cannot be as fast as the monokernel. If one subsystem wants another subsystem to do something, it must format and send a message; the other subsystem then receives the message, unpacks it, validates it, and then does the action. This is more secure and more stable than the monokernel, where the one subsystem will just make a function call in the other subsystem's code; but it is inherently slower. So Linux is scaling better than HURD expected, and Linux has an inherent speed edge, so HURD is unlikely to outperform Linux. Meanwhile, while it might be true that HURD is easier to debug than Linux, the kernel developers have figured out how to debug Linux, and there just isn't enough benefit there to warrant a switch to HURD.
  This may be true with today's hardware, but massive-multi-core CPUs with hardware support for high speed message passing may negate or at least mitigate this overhead. This is especially true in clustered systems.
  
  Finally, Linux is widely used and well understood; lots of businesses are running mission-critical apps on Linux. Even if HURD's microkernel design gave it a theoretical edge on Linux for reliability, the real-world experience is all on Linux; it has been shown to be Good Enough while HURD is only theoretically better.
  steveha
  We're talking kernel level here. Business software, indeed MOST (Unix) software is written to the API level so as long as a POSIX layer sits on top of the kernel, most software should work with only a recompile.
  
  --
  Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
8. Re:Linux vs HURD by steveha · 2011-07-18 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  have HURD claims not panned out because of flaws in the theoretical framework, or because of lack of developers to implement it properly
  I believe that if HURD really was as good as grand claims made it sound, somebody would have driven the development forward. If nobody else, graduate students who needed research projects, or something like that.
  The claims for HURD were that once it got going, it would overtake Linux quickly, because it would be so much easier to develop HURD. The overall system would be cleaner, with nice isolated subsystems with well-documented module boundaries; and it would be easier to debug, as you would just run GDB on your file system code or whatever and debug it like any other user-space program. If these claims had panned out, then at least the academic computer science people would have all jumped on board HURD and driven development.
  massive-multi-core CPUs with hardware support for high speed message passing may negate or at least mitigate [the message passing] overhead [in HURD]
  Perhaps so. But at this point HURD is late to the party, and unless it demonstrates some really compelling benefits, most people will just continue to develop Linux.
  Business software, indeed MOST (Unix) software is written to the API level so as long as a POSIX layer sits on top of the kernel, most software should work with only a recompile.
  Well, so what? If I'm in charge of IT at a big company, and it is my job to run a server that will be heavily loaded with lots of I/O and the company expects that the only downtime will be once-a-year maintenance on Christmas Day, which will I run? HURD claims to be wonderful, but everyone I know is running Linux and Linux is working. I'm going to run Linux too.
  This is an example of "network effect" where sometimes people use something because "everybody else uses it". HURD is not benefiting from network effect, and Linux is.
  Even if HURD has a theoretical advantage over Linux for reliability, Linux systems are running reliably now. Hard evidence beats theory.
  steveha
  
  --
  lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
9. Re:Linux vs HURD by mswhippingboy · 2011-07-18 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  Well, so what? If I'm in charge of IT at a big company, and it is my job to run a server that will be heavily loaded with lots of I/O and the company expects that the only downtime will be once-a-year maintenance on Christmas Day, which will I run? HURD claims to be wonderful, but everyone I know is running Linux and Linux is working. I'm going to run Linux too. This is an example of "network effect" where sometimes people use something because "everybody else uses it". HURD is not benefiting from network effect, and Linux is. Even if HURD has a theoretical advantage over Linux for reliability, Linux systems are running reliably now. Hard evidence beats theory.
  I think you're missing my point. No one is just running "Linux". You're probably running RHEL, CentOS, SUSE, or some other distribution that uses Linux as it's kernel. If at some point in the future (admittedly a big IF) the HURD kernel is able to outperform the Linux kernel (e.g. offer better performance or better stability or better security, etc), most likely your distro of choice will offer the HURD kernel as an alternative for the Linux kernel, just as Debian has a FreeBSD, NetBSD and now a HURD based port. Obviously, none of these ports are "better" at this point in time, but if at some point in the future HURD proves itself to be better, and is supported (or even recommended) by the distribution of your choice, why wouldn't you migrate to it?
  
  --
  Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
10. Re:Linux vs HURD by TomHeal · 2011-07-18 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  It may not be anywhere near Linux, but I find it interesting that HURD development continues.
11. Re:Linux vs HURD by wrook · 2011-07-18 12:07 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know about the money scam thing, but I think this sums it up well. HURD was run with a pretty closed development team initially. To an extent I understand it. Back then that's the way things were done. You had to prove yourself before anyone would let you contribute to a project. It was Linus and the way that Linux was run that changed everything.
  But apart from that, there were personalities on the HURD team that many people had a problem with. A lot of people considered the HURD team to be elitist. It became popular to bash the HURD and use it as the butt of jokes. It's not so much that there was anything wrong with the HURD, but since a lot of very respected people were miffed at the HURD team, other people just jumped on board. I don't think most people who bash the HURD have any idea about the project (other than it being very late).
  IMHO, anyway, there was never really a big problem technically with the HURD. There are lots of good ideas in there. It was definitely a people problem and it is a very good example of the importance of good people skills on free software projects. On the other hand, it also shows another important point of free software. Your project is yours. Even if nobody else uses it or cares about it, that's not a reason to give up developing it. Who knows what the future brings and if it benefits you, keep going.
12. Re:Linux vs HURD by steveha · 2011-07-18 14:57 · Score: 1
  
  If at some point in the future (admittedly a big IF) the HURD kernel is able to outperform the Linux kernel (e.g. offer better performance or better stability or better security, etc), most likely your distro of choice will offer the HURD kernel as an alternative for the Linux kernel
  Sure, if it proves itself to have advantages, it will make inroads.
  But I think you are missing my point. My point is that experience has shown the Linux kernel to be "Good Enough", and even if HURD is theoretically better, there will be little interest in switching to it. At this point HURD wouldn't just have to be a little bit better, it would have to be a lot better before it would have any chance of displacing Linux. And I don't think it has shown any signs of that kind of superiority so far.
  steveha
  
  --
  lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
13. Re:Linux vs HURD by n1ywb · 2011-07-19 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pleasantly surprised that HURD bench marked so WELL considering microkernels are generally slower. I think that literally their FAQ is correct. It's easier to debug a userspace driver. HURD just never got off the ground making the point moot. Also userspace drivers have been showing up more in Linux anyways (pulseaudio, FUSE, X windows, etc). It's still a monolithic kernel, but if you really want to develop a userspace driver for some reason, it can be done, albeit with a performance hit.
  
  --
  -73, de n1ywb
  www.n1ywb.com
14. Re:Linux vs HURD by Unknown+Lamer · 2011-07-19 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  Second, a microkernel architecture, while more robust than a monokernel, cannot be as fast as the monokernel. If one subsystem wants another subsystem to do something, it must format and send a message; the other subsystem then receives the message, unpacks it, validates it, and then does the action. This is more secure and more stable than the monokernel, where the one subsystem will just make a function call in the other subsystem's code; but it is inherently slower.
  Actually, this isn't really true. If the TLB were tagged with a process ID it would not need flushing on every context switch (MIPS used to be like this). On a modern machine that is going to be the biggest hit you take. There is also message copying--an async IPC kernel like Mach can never win here, but L4 generally copies no data and can perform an IPC with only one or two context switches. The small size of a modern microkernel means you get much better cache usage and so in theory can be faster.
  Of course, GNUMach based Hurd is doomed. But it's not because of fundamental problems with microkernels--just Mach (which is understandable since it the first generation... you have to learn from your mistakes somehow).
  
  --
  
  HAL 7000, fewer features than the HAL 9000, but just as homicidal!
Shouldnt the race be between Hurd and Minix? by Marrow · 2011-07-18 07:33 · Score: 1

Wouldnt that be a closer comparison to Hurd than Linux?
1. Re:Shouldnt the race be between Hurd and Minix? by rubycodez · 2011-07-18 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  Race already over, Minux 3 has been out and done for two year already, it can run on over a dozen architectures, and has X11 and over 400 apps.
2. Re:Shouldnt the race be between Hurd and Minix? by rubycodez · 2011-07-19 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  ah, you're correct - it's minix 2 that had the dozen+ architectures (the one I used in school). The window manager for minux III is TWM.
  
  yes, the applications includes the small Unixy stuff but also languages (perl, python) and 3rd party sources include qemu and gtk+
  
  But the point is, you can already have a stable production server on minux, for web or email or whatever. HURD is not even stable.
You wouldn't by Sycraft-fu · 2011-07-18 07:36 · Score: 2

Hurd is useless. It is the Duke Nukem' Forever of OSes: Released way too late and a relic from the past that isn't work getting.
Nothing software related that is "in development" for that long is going to be worthwhile because things change so fast. When something has a cycle that long it tells you that they aren't doing a good job working on it. They keep changing shit, are not working efficiently and so on. It also means that the end result is going to be useless.
Hurd has no reason to exist these days, particularly since if you need a microkernel and some POSIX, well there's FreeBSD. Back when it was started, it was a useful idea. After all there really wasn't any free POSIX, and that is what drove Linus to make Linux. He said if Hurd has been around, Linux probably would not have come to be.
Well that ship has sailed. Linux is out and all over, and as I noted with FreeBSD there are other options too if Linux itself is not appropriate for your needs.
1. Re:You wouldn't by Ster · 2011-07-18 08:12 · Score: 2
  
  ... if you need a microkernel and some POSIX, well there's FreeBSD. ...
  The FreeBSD kernel is not a microkernel - it's a modular monolithic kernel, not unlike the Linux kernel.
2. Re:You wouldn't by rubycodez · 2011-07-18 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  if you need a microkernel and some POSIX, there's minux 3
Phoronix fluff by liquidhokie · 2011-07-18 07:45 · Score: 2

Phoronix has a history of questionable choices for their benchmark setups. Hardware, versions, and tuning are... cleverly chosen, almost as if there was a preconceived agenda with inevitable results. Not that there is one-- just like it seems like there is. And so colorfully presented! I remember when they tested ZFS on an i386 version of FreeBSD on a 1G laptop! Others have also noticed this Phoronix phenomenon:
http://forums.freebsd.org/archive/index.php/t-16396.html
http://www.kev009.com/wp/2008/12/phoronix-benchmarking-statistically-significant-and-other-performance-concerns/
The whole point of Hurd, at least right now, is tangential to benchmarks. Nothing wrong with testing, of course, but I think the results should not be used for any long term planning. Nobody is planning on launching a business running on Hurd servers... yet.
1. Re:Phoronix fluff by F.Ultra · 2011-07-18 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  Which test of ZFS do you talk about? The most recent one http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=zfs_ext4_btrfs&num=1 was with an AMD64 build of FreeBSD 8.1 on a machine with 4GiB RAM.
2. Re:Phoronix fluff by liquidhokie · 2011-07-18 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  I had not seen that article yet, thanks. However, it still misses the point. ZFS is *not* intended for 4GB workstations with single hard drives!
  I'd like to see them benchmark a ZFS setup with 3 or 4 RAIDz pools concatenated into a 10 to 20 TB partition spanning 10 to 15 physical drives, with an MLC L2ARC. Throw 48GB of ram and an 8 core processor at it as well. Next, properly tune the InnoDB and logging partitions. Then, benchmark MySQL. Finally, try a large update/join spanning many tables, using foreign keys and stored procedures-- and:
  -- pull the power plug, see if there is any data corruption
  -- do a ZFS snapshot, live, see if the benchmark notices the difference
  -- add more RAIDz pools to the live file system
  People choose ZFS for the reasons in this article:
  http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/zfs-data-integrity-tested/811
  Sorry to hype on ZFS so much, but that is where my expertise is. Their benchmark was testing a scenario that nobody would be encouraged to ever actually use in the real world. It makes me seriously doubt the usefulness of their other benchmarks (like HURD) when they make such an obvious (to me) mistake as to omit these important details.
3. Re:Phoronix fluff by F.Ultra · 2011-07-18 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  They obviously provide benchmarks that is tuned for their audience, which at the moment is gamers and desktop users. And for such a crowd, raid sets with 10-15 drives is something that is not happening. Still they might be interested in this new cool ZFS that everybody is talking about and alas can see for themselves that if they simplty want raw performance on their desktop then ZFS might not fit the bill.
  That Phoronix has a different target than professional storage users does not automatically mean that they are fluff, it only means that they have a different target. And as you well know, no benchmark will ever suit everybody. You also has to understand that Phoronix is a one man show, he has no money to invest in such beastly hardware, you should look to the storage press for such benchmarks.
It's about drivers by tepples · 2011-07-18 08:00 · Score: 1

Stallman won his battle a long time ago.
The battle will be won once all computer hardware sold for home use has a free device driver available.
1. Re:It's about drivers by faedle · 2011-07-18 08:11 · Score: 2
  
  The battle will be won once all computer hardware sold has a free device driver available.
  Fixed it for you.
gnu.org server? by trb · 2011-07-18 08:13 · Score: 2

I don't mean to be flippant, but I think we'll know that Hurd is growing up when http://gnu.org/ runs on it.
Re:To be fair by Tanktalus · 2011-07-18 08:14 · Score: 1

Based on TFA's claims on driver support and such, I'd say it's still underdeveloped.
Hurd has already had an impact by FranTaylor · 2011-07-18 08:16 · Score: 1

For one, I have to question anyone who criticizes what basically amounts to a long-term research project in how to design an operating system. Of course it's going to take too long and of course nobody from the mainstream is interested enough to help.
For another it should really be pointed out that SELinux and FUSE are really just bolted-on, inferior implementations of things that are key embedded concepts in the hurd. You probably would not have these things on your linux system today if it had not been for the hurd.
1. Re:Hurd has already had an impact by SnarfQuest · 2011-07-18 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  For one, I have to question anyone who criticizes what basically amounts to a long-term research project in how to design an operating system. Of course it's going to take too long and of course nobody from the mainstream is interested enough to help.
  For another it should really be pointed out that SELinux and FUSE are really just bolted-on, inferior implementations of things that are key embedded concepts in the hurd. You probably would not have these things on your linux system today if it had not been for the hurd.
  Hurd is more a research project on how badly personalities can clash, how numerous forks can quickly wither and die, how to make grandiose claims that may someday never exist, ...
  I've never had the right collection of hardware to ever see it boot, let alone run. I doubt that has changed. Maybe they could set it up so we could run it under an emulator.
  
  --
  Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
Hurd has earned a certain amount of derision. by Tetsujin · 2011-07-18 08:19 · Score: 2

Its not as fast as linux, and doesn't have hardware support. So, there is no bother kicking it out. Because nothing ever gets better. Especially when people start adopting it and taking it apart to see how it works and make it better. I for one, am not building a new computer for it. Nope. Not me.
Fair point, I guess, it has room to improve...
But it's hard not to be cynical about Hurd. It's been present to some extent for as long as I've been aware of Linux, but it's always been sort of a joke. It was supposedly going to do all these amazing things (and maybe now it can actually do some of them) but for year after year after year it was all talk, combined with a failure to deliver. Hey guys, it's going to have this amazing mount structure that will make /usr/bin and /usr/local/bin obsolete! It's going to have a fantastic microkernel architecture with pluggable modules so you can dynamically adjust the shit out of it! It'll be really, really great - oh, but it's not really usable yet. Maybe next year. This has been going on for a long, long time.
Meanwhile, GNU, lacking a usable kernel of their own (more or less) but wanting to have a full system to call their own, laid their brand on Linux... And, you know, I respect GNU and appreciate everything they've given us over the years, and I think they have a reasonable point that GNU software is pretty central to the typical Linux system. But you see "GNU/Linux" even in GRUB - think about that... GRUB is booting the Linux kernel. It's a safe bet that the system, once it's started up, will run GNU software, but they're not booting GNU software in that case: They're booting Linux. (OK, bit of a rant there, but can you see my point here?)
Can't fault 'em too much for limited hardware support, 'cause limitations like that have generally been an issue for Linux as well. The hardware side is less of an issue now only because Linux has exposure and commercial support driving hardware support (sometimes in a non-free or quasi non-free form). They should be able to adapt some of that code to work in Hurd over time (well, as long as they don't have an issue with the code being licensed GPL v2) and get a lot of what's missing.
But, after all that build-up and all that delay, for the system to still be a bit weak - I feel like it hasn't really earned the right to escape the derision it earned in all those years of being steeped in theoretically good concepts, while failing to deliver the goods.

--
Bow-ties are cool.
Re:Turd? Sounds like fertilizer to me. by Tetsujin · 2011-07-18 08:38 · Score: 1

Yeah. What's FSF and GNU done for us lately? Besides gcc and all that other GNU stuff that represents about 15% of code in the typical Linux distribution, vs 1.5% for the Linux kernel.
And then there's all that Free Software propaganda, copyleft and everything else that kicked off the whole movement.
Nope, not a fan at all...
What the hell?
You're responding to a poster who said he is a fan of GNU, and was just complaining about the choice of name.
When I'm naming things I don't like to get too tied up in thoughts of "how could this name be twisted derisively?" and related issues: but it is something to consider. Choosing a name that's too easy a target is just asking for trouble. :)

--
Bow-ties are cool.
Re:better quit now. by phrostie · 2011-07-18 08:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

it's not a matter of it being fastest, it's about options.
Attacks in the IT world tend to come in the form of software patents or claims of stolen code through a proxy.
all the BSDs, Hurd, Reactos and other such projects only make for more moving targets.
if you use them or not, if you are impressed with them or not, they all still serve a purpose.
there will always be free options.
GNU vs GNU by gerardrj · 2011-07-18 11:04 · Score: 1

So you're benchmarking GNU/Hurd against GNU/Linux. Isn't much to most of the performance going to come from the GNU part of either system? The compiler, the runtime libraries, etc?

--
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
1. Re:GNU vs GNU by Olivier+Galibert · 2011-07-18 19:34 · Score: 1
  
  The differences are going to come from the memory management, i/o paths, disk i/o speed/scheduling, etc. Which is what the kernel is about, after all.
  Too bad Hurd is still so limited that you can't really run it on real hardware, otherwise the benchmark differences would probably be much worse...
  OG.
Re:better quit now. by TheRaven64 · 2011-07-18 11:09 · Score: 1

I'd be more interested in a comparison with MINIX3. Both are microkernels, both are actively developed by a small team, both have been around for a similar length of time (well, MINIX has been, MINIX 3 is relatively new).

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Minority by Roger+W+Moore · 2011-07-18 13:37 · Score: 1

...face the vastly more likely odds of dying as an infant, or being a serf, or a racial or religious minority.
I don't think you have properly grasped the concept of minority.
One problem by Roger+W+Moore · 2011-07-18 13:43 · Score: 1

Really that is just one problem. If energy were a lot cheaper then flying would be a lot cheaper and far more people would have pilot's licenses because it would be a lot cheaper to get one and to own a plane.
1. Re:One problem by atriusofbricia · 2011-07-18 16:26 · Score: 1
  
  Really that is just one problem. If energy were a lot cheaper then flying would be a lot cheaper and far more people would have pilot's licenses because it would be a lot cheaper to get one and to own a plane.
  Pilot's licenses are expensive because of government bureaucracy. Whether one thinks that all that oversight and such is a good thing or not is a separate question but that is the reason it costs so much.
  
  --
  I was raised on the command line, bitch
  "Nemo me impune lacesset"
2. Re:One problem by tehcyder · 2011-07-19 00:03 · Score: 1
  
  Really that is just one problem. If energy were a lot cheaper then flying would be a lot cheaper and far more people would have pilot's licenses because it would be a lot cheaper to get one and to own a plane.
  Pilot's licenses are expensive because of government bureaucracy. Whether one thinks that all that oversight and such is a good thing or not is a separate question but that is the reason it costs so much.
  Flying a plane (properly) is a lot harder than driving a car, and I, for one, do not want to see the sort of people who collide with their own gateposts being given permission to crash a flying bomb into my house. Their freedom to fly does not outweigh everyone else's freedom not to die in a massive fireball.
  
  Also, a lot of the reason that the cost of learning to fly is high is the same reason that flying itself, is expensive i.e. the cost of fuel, and depreciations/maintenance charges on the machine you're using.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
3. Re:One problem by JimFive · 2011-07-19 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  Except that Private Pilots' licenses aren't expensive. When I got mine it was about $50 / hour to rent the plane and $20 / hour to pay the instructor, I assume those numbers have gone up, but I haven't flown in a few years. The minimum requirements were 20 hours dual, and 20 hours solo, but it usually takes longer than that to learn the skills. The flight requirements are aimed at making sure you can control the plane, navigate, and recover if something goes wrong. None of the requirements are onerous or bureaucratic, none of the costs are outrageous.
  --
  JimFive
  
  --
  Please stop using the word theory when you mean hypothesis.
4. Re:One problem by atriusofbricia · 2011-07-19 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  Except that Private Pilots' licenses aren't expensive. When I got mine it was about $50 / hour to rent the plane and $20 / hour to pay the instructor, I assume those numbers have gone up, but I haven't flown in a few years. The minimum requirements were 20 hours dual, and 20 hours solo, but it usually takes longer than that to learn the skills. The flight requirements are aimed at making sure you can control the plane, navigate, and recover if something goes wrong. None of the requirements are onerous or bureaucratic, none of the costs are outrageous.
  --
  JimFive
  Very well, I stand corrected with the proviso that one man's "not expensive" is another man's "holy crap!" Though one could argue that if you can't afford those numbers you can't afford to fly privately in the first place.
  
  --
  I was raised on the command line, bitch
  "Nemo me impune lacesset"
5. Re:One problem by JimFive · 2011-07-19 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  When I said, "not expensive", I was looking at it from a cost/value perspective. $20/hr for a professional's time is very cheap. $50/hr (Total, includes insurance, fuel, maintenance) to rent a very expensive piece of equipment doesn't seem outrageous. So, sure, $2500+ to get a license isn't in the "anybody can afford it" category, but it's also not in the "completely out of reach for normal people" category, either. This isn't an up front cost, you pay as you go. So, it's one year of car payments, or two years of cable bills.
  --
  JimFive
  
  --
  Please stop using the word theory when you mean hypothesis.
6. Re:One problem by GooberToo · 2011-07-26 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  I find people who consider flying privately too expensive to be not so intelligent. For example, statistically, a degree will net you an extra $5k/yr. To earn that, you typically need to spend an extra $80k-$100k. Meaning, you're looking at a 16-20 year return. And yet people don't think twice about such an "investment." Worse, about half way through that return, for most people the experience gap will have already made up the difference. So pragmatically, the return is far worse. The flip side is, they could have been a private pilot, a plane owner, and still come out ahead.
Re:Turd? Sounds like fertilizer to me. by Rufty · 2011-07-18 13:51 · Score: 1

Imagine a car. The steel's from Nippon Steel, the glass is from Triplex and Kaplan Glass, the electrics are from Lucas, the wiring's from Ormiston and the plug's are from Champion. So it's a Nippon-Triplex/Kaplan-Lucas-Ormiston-Champion car, right? Wrong. It's a Ford. They got the bits from different places and assembled them into a coherent whole. So 95% wasn't made by Ford. Without Ford it was just a pile of raw material scattered all over the place. Now, the FSF supplied some of the components for Linux. If the FSF doesn't like that, well then, don't use the GPL. Easy. Or make a coherent system themselves. (Well, look'e here - do I smell a Hurd???) But demanding recognition for the creation of others - have the FSF merged with the RIAA while I wasn't looking? Linux without the FSF would still be on the Sun libc and would use lcc or the like. The FSF without Linux? Well, there'd be more mindshare for BSD, that's for sure. So congratulations on the release of a true GNU system. Finally. A decade (or 2) late and several dollars short. But who cares? I've never run a GNU system before, so that will be and interesting experience. I wonder how that compares to Linux systems, which I've been running happily for years.

--
Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
No matter how angry developers of Hurd can be... by lsolano · 2011-07-18 16:39 · Score: 1

most of the people out there will think that Hurd is just another linux Distro.
Pfff, gender is enough by SmallFurryCreature · 2011-07-18 19:27 · Score: 1

How many of the males on slashdot would want to really be born/reborn as a female. And no, "I would and do all the nerds just because" is not insightful.
Just imagine being born a piece of property in a place like India, a female untouchable.
Anyone born in the west don't know just how good they got it. Medical care from the cradle to the grave. Decades of schooling. Clean water so easily available we flush our crap with it. Housing that actually can survive seasonal weather (Okay, the US can exclude itself from this, most modern civilizations moved beyond wood), transport available to take us most anywhere in the world you want to go and a lot of places you don't want to go.
Truly a wonderland. And all we do is complain about how we don't got flying cars yet...

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
1. Re:Pfff, gender is enough by tehcyder · 2011-07-18 22:52 · Score: 1
  
  Truly a wonderland. And all we do is complain about how we don't got flying cars yet...
  You may not have noticed, but people in the west are still often under-nourished and unhealthy and living in basic conditions. True, you're unlikely to starve or freeze to death, at least compared with the undeveloped world, but the point is that with all the amazing advances in technology we're not all living lives of leisure, waited on by robot servants and not having to spend half our lives creating wealth for others to enjoy disproportionately.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
As someone who has worked with Hurd by Gogeden · 2011-07-19 04:09 · Score: 1

I've noticed an annoying thing with the Hurd community: Most of the developers run it on virtual machines. I personally don't care for VMs so I ran it on an older machine to give it some life. I struggled getting the Xorg and X11 server(s) running due to lack of VESA driver documentation. Spent a lot of time on it. The lack of USB support drives me mad but at least it got me using my old 3 1/2in floppy drives again. Tired of them laying around. Of course, I had to run MAKEDEV in order to use the drive. I don't find the system bad, I find that the biggest current plight is qua is the lack of engineers behind it.