Slashdot Mirror


GNU Hurd To Develop SATA, USB, Audio Support

An anonymous reader writes "Hurd, the GNU micro-kernel project that was founded by Richard Stallman in 1983, may finally be catching up with Linux on the desktop... Plans were shared by its developers to finally bring in some modern functionality by working on support for Serial ATA drives, USB support, and sound cards. There are also ambitions to provide x86-64 CPU architecture support. GNU Hurd developers will be doing an unofficial Debian GNU/Hurd 'Wheezy' release this year but they hope for the Debian 'Jessie' release their micro-kernel in Debian will make it as part of some official CDs."

64 of 274 comments (clear)

  1. Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Finally, 2013 is the year of Hurd on the desktop!

    1. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      GNU/Slow down, first we need the year of GNU/Hurd on any GNU/hardware from this GNU/century...

    2. Re:Finally! by Kwpolska · · Score: 2

      s|GNU/Hurd|GNU Hurd| There should be no / here, as this is a 100% GNU project, not a 0.0000000000000001% GNU project, iike KDE/Python/Haskell/TeX/LibreOffice/Blender/Wine/Linux*. * the biggest packages and package groups on my system, in a random order.

    3. Re:Finally! by AchilleTalon · · Score: 3, Funny

      Just when everyone is dropping the desktop for the smartphone/tablet.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
  2. Absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Its fucking absurd that USB support and sound cards and SATA support is news in an operating system today.

    1. Re:Absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Any user oriented system in development (as HURD clearly is) has to add support for USB, sound cards and SATA at some point. That is no reason for ridicule.
      This particular project does development in an openly visible way, so you can see the daily progress. That is still no reason for ridicule.
      This particular project progresses ... "very" ... slowly. That may or may not be a reason for ridicule, depending on your character.

    2. Re:Absurd by smash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, but "some point" is usually fairly promptly. HURD has been in development for decades. USB has been out for over a decade. SATA has been out for about 8 years?

      They can't expect people to support/develop/test it if it won't run on anything.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    3. Re:Absurd by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Any user oriented system in development (as HURD clearly is) has to add support for USB, sound cards and SATA at some point. That is no reason for ridicule.

      Yes, and for a system that's been in development as long as HURD has, that point was over five years ago. The fact that they're only doing it now is very much a reason for ridicule.

    4. Re:Absurd by unixisc · · Score: 2

      Not only that, the question is - what is HURD targeted at? OpenBSD is pretty much targeted at routers, FreeBSD is pretty much targeted at servers, Linux is pretty much targeted at servers & embedded devices. While on paper, they've been 'targeted' at the desktop, that's not been the story for a while, although that may change w/ the Windows 8 fiascos. But it leaves the question - who does GNU expect to be the biggest adaptors of HURD? Servers? Desktops? Tablets? Networking gear? What exactly? And please spare us the official answer that it's targeted to be the ultimate platform for liberated software.

    5. Re:Absurd by macs4all · · Score: 2

      Any user oriented system in development (as HURD clearly is) has to add support for USB, sound cards and SATA at some point.

      Yes, and that "point" came about a decade ago.

      That is no reason for ridicule.

      Sure it is. If ANY other OS was just now adding support for those things, they would be laughed right off of Slashdot.

    6. Re:Absurd by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      They can't expect people to support/develop/test it if it won't run on anything.

      Perhaps they should pick a virtual machine runner (e.g. VirtualBox) and make sure the emulated hardware it presents is well-supported by hurd, and then get back to doing microkernel R&D.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    7. Re:Absurd by DrXym · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think it's fair game for ridicule. Hurd is the Duke Nuke'em Forever of kernels. It's incredible to think that it has been in development for 23 years. On the plus side the glacial pace of development, the lack of pragmatism, and the large dose of politics did have the positive benefit of motivating Linux into existence.

    8. Re:Absurd by cupantae · · Score: 2

      While on paper, they've been 'targeted' at the desktop, that's not been the story for a while, although that may change w/ the Windows 8 fiascos.

      Are you still talking about the HURD in that sentence? That's pretty funny. Ever since Linux became a viable kernel for the GNU system, the HURD has been targeted squarely at dreamers and unemployed kernel developers.

      --
      --
    9. Re:Absurd by loufoque · · Score: 2

      You realize that neither of these features are critical?
      The Hurd had much bigger issues to solve before implementing them.

    10. Re:Absurd by unixisc · · Score: 2

      I am talking about it from the POV of the HURD devs. As far as the market goes, Linux itself is a long way from becoming mainstream on the desktop, much less the BSDs and Minix. Forget about HURD.

    11. Re:Absurd by unixisc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Speaking of which, why is HURD being developed on a closed platform like the x86? Yeah, the x86 spec is fully published and all that, but it's Intel's IP, while x64 is AMD's. It's not like any company that feels like it can just pick up the databook and build an x86 compatible CPU - they would be running afoul of Intel's patents. And isn't GNU about 'protecting our freedoms', and shouldn't anyone w/ the money and resources be able to just take any databook and build a CPU compatible w/ the rest?

      So instead of creating one more OS for the already crowded market, why doesn't HURD use OpenRISC as the basis for its design? The hardware design for OpenRISC 1200 was released under the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), while the models and firmware were released under the GNU General Public License (GPL). So this sounds just perfect for building a complete libre system. Please don't tell me that the problem is w/ Verilog itself not being a GPLed software. Maybe the GNU guys can write something like GVerilog so that hardware simulations will be Libre.

      The other option - develop it on the Lemote computers that use the Loongson CPU, which RMS finds satisfactorily 'free'. Then further development of HURD can be done by the Chinese, maybe even the People's Liberation Army of Programmers (PLAP) and endorsed by the Beijing regime, and will be the official OS of all Chinese. HURD will then become the #1 OS in the world

  3. Why should I bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why should I bother to use this kernel? What benefit would it give me over using just the regular Linux kernel or *BSD?

    1. Re:Why should I bother? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why should I bother to use this kernel? What benefit would it give me over using just the regular Linux kernel or *BSD?

      Its name is a mutually recursive acronym!

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:Why should I bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's a microkernel, check Wikipedia.
      Basically you will get clearly slower performance, but possibly much more reliability/stability, security, and all the benefits that go with modularity.
      The point is that
      a) computers will get so fast that the performance hit doesn't matter in standard programs
      b) people hope to find ways of improving performance somewhat more into the direction of monolithic designs (=all the major platforms in use)
      c) some application areas simply put additional stability over performance, so if we had a working microkernel... (no, Minix isn't good enough)

      For now, best take it as a research project.

    3. Re:Why should I bother? by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Isn't one of the "benefits that go with modularity" supposed to be that it's easier to write new kinds of modules (say, to support new hardware)?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    4. Re:Why should I bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just to get things straight:
      XNU (the Darwin kernel) utilises modules and message passing (signals), which is indeed a feature first pioneered in microkernels (by design). The current WinNT kernels do the same, and also call themselves "hybrid". Linux is almost there with modules and IPC signals.
      All of this is, starting from a monolithic approach, 3% of the distance towards a microkernel (the 3% is arbitrarily thrown out, but you get the point: they are basically monolithic), and calling them "hybrid" is just trying to one-up everyone else.

      And yep, OSX is nicely geared towards realtime, while in raw performance usually Linux is on top.

      QNX is a real microkernel, but ad-hoc benchmarks ("real" benchmarks were never published) have shown its performance to be a fraction of modern operating systems. That's no problem though, as it has very low realtime latency, and that's what matters in its application area.
      One of the most promising current microkernels is Fiaso.OC, a L4 fork I've been dabbling a bit with. It reaches 5%-50% of the Linux performance throughput in some classical applications, but can be faster in certain realtime scenarios.

    5. Re:Why should I bother? by cheesybagel · · Score: 4, Informative
      You do not need to recompile a Linux kernel to use new device drivers either because it has loadable modules. But Linux is still monolithic.

      In a microkernel the device driver would be running as a lower priority process communicating with the rest of the operating system via message passing. Rather than running in the same CPU ring level of protection and potentially crashing the OS when you have a driver bug.

    6. Re:Why should I bother? by siride · · Score: 2

      I think I'm going to go with the documentation on XNU and the guy who just did a year of research on kernel memory allocation over some 7 digit Slashdot weirdo whose only reasoning is "marketing fluff".

  4. Really, who cares? by NReitzel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think Poor Richard has lived in an ivory tower far too long. Ideals are laudable, but the world moves on and reality trumps pedantry every time. Bill Gates didn't get to be, well, Bill Gates - by trumpeting Basic and DOS until people started saying, "Who?" He cut corners and compromised and, ahem, borrowed good ideas. It made him a gazillion dollars. And Richard, for all I agree with your ideals, and for better or worse, Bill Gates influenced the course of development of the personal computer more than you ever will.

    -- Norm Reitzel

    --

    Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.

    1. Re:Really, who cares? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think Poor Richard has lived in an ivory tower far too long.

      But hey, he may get lauded by Tanenbaum for staying with a microkernel design.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:Really, who cares? by ciotog · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually RMS has said that development of the Hurd stalled largely because of the introduction of Linux, but that there was enough work already put in to it that that they didn't want to cancel it altogether.
      http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd-and-linux.html

    3. Re:Really, who cares? by CRCulver · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think Poor Richard has lived in an ivory tower far too long.

      I hate to interrupt your Stallman bashing, but RMS isn't involved in Hurd development. He has been content to use Linux for many years now. Hurd development is driven mainly by other developers who are in it purely as a hobby, a way to play around with microkernel design, and they are not striving to reach a mass market.

    4. Re:Really, who cares? by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bill Gates didn't get to be, well, Bill Gates - by trumpeting Basic and DOS until people started saying, "Who?" He cut corners and compromised and, ahem, borrowed good ideas. It made him a gazillion dollars. And Richard, for all I agree with your ideals, and for better or worse, Bill Gates influenced the course of development of the personal computer more than you ever will.

      What a shallow comparison! There are people whose main motivation does not come from how much money they can make or how much power they can gain over others. RMS's motivation does not even remotely have anything to do with Bill Gates' motives or 'comparing of penis length' type rituals such as 'Who has had most influence on PCs?'

      People who are mainly motivated by power and greed tend to ridiculde and diminish the achievements of these people. But in the long run, their rantings doen't count. In two hundred years from now people will very likely still read the novels of Thomas Pynchon, but absolutely nobody will give a fuck about the iPhone 5. (Apple and Microsoft will probably not even exist any longer in 200 years. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that the free software movement will be alive and well in 200 years from now, even if it might have been outlawed by then.)

    5. Re:Really, who cares? by CRCulver · · Score: 2

      Yes. Hobbyists want to offer Debian Hurd in order to make it easy for more hobbyists to contribute to the project.

    6. Re:Really, who cares? by madprof · · Score: 2

      How can something that isn't there be a pile of shit? :)

  5. What? by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is this a joke? I had to look at the date again, I thought it was 2003 again for a bit.

  6. MINIX by chill · · Score: 4, Funny

    At this point, they may give Minix 3 a run for their money. Yee haw!

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  7. Not in Debian by KiloByte · · Score: 5, Informative

    they hope for the Debian 'Jessie' release their micro-kernel in Debian will make it as part of some official CDs.

    Sorry, but Hurd is being demoted to a second-class (ie, unofficial) port. The rules say that a port that fails to be included in two subsequent releases, gets moved to the debian-ports ghetto, with shining neighbours like hppa (long dead) or sh4 (never has been).

    In some ways, that's a pity -- like, improving other code by forcing removal of buffer overflows/asinine truncations related to PATH_MAX. In others, well, it's Hurd...

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    1. Re:Not in Debian by unixisc · · Score: 2

      Has Debian already decided to do that? The scenarios are different - the reason hppa is dead is that the PA RISC has been dead for years. That's different for HURD.

      Also, another question - is HURD going to be somewhat portable, if not as widely ported as Linux is? Will it be there on Alwinner, Loongson & other such CPUs?

  8. Duke Nukem is a Punk by Bob9113 · · Score: 5, Funny

    It is good that Hurd is a live project regardless of how much production use it sees. It explores kernel design theory; valuable work in itself.

    Still, I can't help a little ribbing.

    founded by Richard Stallman in 1983,

    Duke Nukem? Feh. Only took 15 years to go gold. Hurd is 30 and they just started working on sound cards.

  9. Misguided by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't believe it's wise to spend scarce resources trying to add support for every new johnny-come-lately PC technology that may or may not pan out in the end.

    Instead, it would be better to keep focused squarely on how to more perfectly isolate each functional element of the kernel from the other functional elements. There's always room for improvement in abstraction and isolation of intra-kernel services. This is what the Hurd needs to take the time to make sure they get right before they start adding random features.

    1. Re:Misguided by wvmarle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Being able to run on a somewhat modern computer (they all come with SATA drives and USB ports nowadays - no support for those two basic technologies means your kernel just won't work on any hardware that's not totally obsolete by now), and being able to actually use all the hardware in that computer, is a fairly important feature of a useable OS, imho.

    2. Re:Misguided by terjeber · · Score: 2

      Wooooosh!

  10. use by e**(i+pi)-1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why does anything always have to do with practicality or use. Tinkering with new or old operating systems can be compared with learning and messing with new or old math or physics. I guess that when developing some USB drivers for hurd, you learn more than improving a given drivers for linux. The later is like reading and understanding and improving on a paper which is "well known", the former like breaking new grounds.

  11. HURD not founded in 1983 by RMS by paroneayea · · Score: 5, Informative

    HURD wasn't started till much later, in 1990: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurd The operating system of GNU was started in 1983, work on the kernel wasn't till much later.

    --
    http://mediagoblin.org/
  12. Re:Wheezy? by Wyzard · · Score: 2

    I wonder why they picked that name since it is already what the Raspberry PI's version of Debian [Raspbian] is called.

    Because "wheezy" is the codename for the upcoming Debian release, for all architectures, not just a specific system like the Raspberry Pi.

  13. Re:Real artists ship. by Squiddie · · Score: 2, Funny

    He already did that. It's called emacs.

  14. freedom and respect by lkcl · · Score: 2, Insightful

    mr reizel: if you've ever sat down and thought out a set of principles, then decided to stick to them no matter what happens, then you will understand. forget that it's about "software freedom" for a moment: just sit down and think, "have i ever actually come up with some principles, and am i prepared to dedicate my life to those principles and ethics"?

    if the answer is "no" then for fuck's sake please stop criticising people who *have* decided that their principles are more important to them than any amount of money. because what you are saying is that we should not respect people who stick to their principles if there is money to be made. or obtained. or received. and i'm very alarmed that you clearly do not see that that's what you've said, otherwise you probably wouldn't have said it.

    there's a little-known story that the linux kernel was first conceived by a small group of individuals in a military environment. they sat down, just after the "Unix Wars" and when Windows 3.1 came out, and they went [in summary], "shit. if this continues, windows - which we can see is a pile of shit even without the NSA or GCHQ looking at it, because we know about things like virtual memory - is going to be taken up in our secure environments merely because it's $100 not $10,000 and then foreigners will be able to go for a stroll through any of our government files".

    [fast-forward btw to a recent complaint a few years back from a U.S. Senator about why the NSA punishes microsoft by not allowing windows to be installed on any of its office machines....]

    back to the story: one of the individuals, a norweigan major, was then tasked to go off and "groom" any individual that he could find who had the potential to create a full "Free" operating system. the person he found: Linus Torvalds. you should be able to work out the rest of the picture.

    now, i don't know if you're aware of this but many of the fears that that small group had have in fact already come true. i worked at NC3A (NATO Research) a few years ago: i was shocked to find that *every* single desktop system ran Windows NT (XP). which is absolutely insane - and that's in a military research environment. the reason: they were sold on a minor item - $USD 5m and MS "Office" licenses thrown in for free.

    and this was just around the time when that Sony BMG "root kit" was doing the rounds. U.S. Military staff, bored of staring at nothing, would put a CD into the computer, and a complete list of classified files on that machine would be shipped over the internet to a server run by Sony.

    i'm mentioning "military" because it should have obvious immediate ramifications where money should *not* be a deciding factor in the equation, but you can see clearly that it quite obviously has been, and the consequences of various Military instituations around the world *not* sticking to their principles - out of sheer ignorance or monetary over-ride - are very serious.

    but the point being made applies just as equally to everyone else in a *non* military environment: you really really cannot trust proprietary software. you've seen enough dilbert cartoons to know why.

    so that's the software freedom aspect dealt with. i'd best do the other bit in another post.

    1. Re:freedom and respect by turgid · · Score: 3, Funny

      back to the story: one of the individuals, a norweigan major, was then tasked to go off and "groom" any individual that he could find who had the potential to create a full "Free" operating system. the person he found: Linus Torvalds. you should be able to work out the rest of the picture.

      I used to work there too. This is complete and utter hogwash. We already had operating systems 50+ years ahead of even Solaris that we got from the Aliens in return for mending their crash-landed flying-saucers.

      And that was at RAF Fairford in 1980, running on a special secret version of the Motorola 68000. To this day all NATO supercomputers run this hyperkernel on a military-spec 68k emulator on the bare metal.

    2. Re:freedom and respect by bmo · · Score: 2
      there's a little-known story that the linux kernel was first conceived by a small group of individuals in a military environment.
      ...
      one of the individuals, a norweigan major, was then tasked to go off and "groom" any individual that he could find who had the potential to create a full "Free" operating system. the person he found: Linus Torvalds. you should be able to work out the rest of the picture.

      Wut.

      --
      BMO

  15. Re:Real artists ship. by gpierce11 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not only did Stallman write EMACS, but he also wrote parts of GCC, the debugger, and gmake. These are not negligible contributions.

  16. alternatives by lkcl · · Score: 2

    mr reizel: i did a prior post covering the software freedom aspect of what you wrote, but it's just as important to recognise that the linux kernel is a one-man show, effectively. if you don't like what mr linus has to say, then tough shit.

    the GNU/Hurd project is therefore a fall-back - a safety net, so to speak. unfortunately it deviates from even what FreeBSD does, in its layout and presentation at userspace level [because it uses RPC message-passing between kernel and userspace], so they've given themselves a bit more to chew than the handful of people involved in it could really handle. fortunately however there is plenty of device driver code kicking around that they can bootstrap themselves up from.

    they've achieved a hell of a lot. so please give them some encouragement - and preferably some money.

  17. Re:Please fix bugs in software people use by kthreadd · · Score: 2

    Sorry, but development time is a scarce resource. We have real problems to solve.

    I for one find missing support for SATA, USB and sound to be real problems.

  18. Re:Real artists ship. by CRCulver · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Stallman preaches benevolent communism, but he doesn't practice it. He prefers to be the one who talks, while OTHERS do the work. Ill never listen to anyone who chooses their job to be the easy one.

    Stallman is an eccentric personality who finds it difficult to relate to people and feels most comfortable around computers. I'd imagine that for him coding would be "the easy job", while taking on the role of public speaker and advocate for Free Software is probably a cross to bear rather than an escape from the hard work.

  19. Re:Real artists ship. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    You'd be surprised how often Stallman's name appears in a Man page for something REALLY useful in Linux. The only reason you don't hear about more recent projects from him is because a lot of the stuff he's written follows the UNIX ideology of giving people a lot of really small tools that can be combined in unique and useful ways.

    Granted none of the stuff his name appears on works outside of the terminal, but 50% of my day in Linux is spent in a terminal because I do embedded development. The guy's tools just work, which is great.

  20. HURD vs QNX by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 4, Informative

    I know that HURD has been the butt of our jokes for a while. Even if you get it to run, it's painfully slow. However, these problems are not inherent to the microkernel architecture, since QNX is lightning fast and is very much microkernel-based. The downfall of HURD was that the processes kept the CPU occupied with message passing rather than actually running programs. QNX figured out how to minimize these overheards. I can be done. RIM (now "Blackberry") bought QNX and closed the source code, which is sad, but it hasn't destroyed the sound rationalle for microkernels.

    1. Re:HURD vs QNX by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

      I know. QNX does a lot of things right. The company, though, is notorious for driving its customers and employees nuts. It's been sold twice, one to Harmon (car audio) and then to RIM (now Blackberry). The code went from closed source to open source to closed source to open source to closed source. During the latter part of the Harmon period, you could download the entire kernel source.

      The developer community was fed up by this. During the open source periods, there were QNX builds for many major open source products, like Firebird (what Firefox was first called) and GCC. Those are no longer maintained.

      The QNX kernel is only about 60K bytes on x86 platforms. All it does is message passing, CPU dispatching, memory management, and timers. There's also a built-in process called "proc", which is a few hundred K. All device drivers, file systems, and networking are in user space. One of the great things about having such a tiny kernel is that it can be fully debugged. It needs to be changed very rarely. It can be put in ROM and stay unchanged for the life of the machine. In many embedded applications, it is. If the Hurd kernel is much bigger than that, they're doing it wrong.

      You can still get QNX for free for non-commercial purposes. Few people do.

  21. Re:And when will Linux on the desktop catch up? by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Funny

    Catching up to the last in the race is no achievement.

    Wrong - catching up with the last in the race is a great achievement - you've just managed to bypass the rules of logic.

  22. Re:Real artists ship. by unixisc · · Score: 2

    Actually, he has abandoned HURD, declaring Linux to be the kernel for the FSF, and pushing Libre-Linux lately. The people doing HURD are doing it w/o him. But if they complete it, it will be the first GPL 3 OS ever created, and the FSF would have something to be thankful for. Of course, the fact that it was 20 years in the making is another story.

  23. And different artists shipped different things by tepples · · Score: 2

    But real work happens when you start shoveling dirt. Stallman preaches benevolent communism, but he doesn't practice it.

    Who shipped Emacs and GCC?

  24. GCC by Skiron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    RMS coded GCC by himself - it was only later others got on board:

    GCC history

    And. of course, if it wasn't for RMS and GCC. Linus would not have been able to get a 'free' compiler for his project.

    RMS is the seed of all of this. Don't knock him or his values. It is why we have a great 'free' OS (in all it's varieties) today.

    1. Re:GCC by Alomex · · Score: 2

      RMS coded GCC by himself - it was only later others got on board:

      Let's just keep in mind that the first few versions of gcc were no gems. In fact a very bright undergraduate could have written something better. I know because several of them did. Eventually when other people joined a lot of work went into making gcc a good compiler.

  25. Re:And when will Linux on the desktop catch up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Catching up to the last in the race is no achievement.

    Wrong - catching up with the last in the race is a great achievement - you've just managed to bypass the rules of logic.

    Or you're a whole lap ahead!

  26. Re:Real artists ship. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So if you're reading a guys post, and it shows that he created a Slashdot account in the 1990s, but since then, he hasn't been able to add even a basic amount of value to a modern thread, do you reply to him?

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  27. No kidding by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seriously, the Hurd guys either need to get with it, or just quit. It is stupid to have something this completely out of date and keep pretending like it'll be relevant. No, if you want your kernel to have any chance at relevance it needs to support modern features. Yes, that means SATA, x64, and so on. None of these are new things, by any stretch of the imagination.

    If they lack the resources or drive to get this kind of thing done in a timely fashion, then just let it go. There is no point to releasing a kernel 10+ years out of date (as the parent points out, SATA hit in 2003) particularly when there are plenty of options that ARE up to date.

  28. Re:Real artists ship. by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 2

    Never used emacs, but it may be more beneficial for that to have been a lesson to use version control instead of a lesson to not use emacs.

  29. Re:Real artists ship. by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You'd be surprised how often Stallman's name appears in a Man page for something REALLY useful in Linux. The only reason you don't hear about more recent projects from him is because a lot of the stuff he's written follows the UNIX ideology of giving people a lot of really small tools that can be combined in unique and useful ways.

    Granted none of the stuff his name appears on works outside of the terminal, but 50% of my day in Linux is spent in a terminal because I do embedded development. The guy's tools just work, which is great.

    Not directly, but many of them contain bindings for running in GUI frameworks. gdb is a good example.

  30. That word doesn't mean what you think it means by dbIII · · Score: 2

    Kernels are called monolithic even if they are made up of a collection of modules that are loaded as needed - it's an architecture description not a file description.

  31. "I'll do it when HURD is released, mom" by master_p · · Score: 4, Funny

    At first, my excuse was "I'll do it when we have a black president mom", believing that we will never have a black president.

    Then Obama came along, forcing me to change my line to "I'll do it when Duke Nukem Forever is released, mom".

    I was sure DNF was never going to be released. Then one day, I saw the headlines: "DNF is on stores". WTF? this too, after Obama?

    But now I got a 100% certain thing: "I'll do it mom, but when HURD is released!"

    Come on HURD devs, do not dissapoint us. Don't you ever dare finish it!