Slashdot Mirror


Debian GNU/Hurd 2013 Released

jrepin writes "The GNU Hurd is the GNU project's replacement for the Unix kernel. It is a collection of servers that run on the Mach microkernel to implement file systems, network protocols, file access control, and other features that are implemented by the Unix kernel or similar kernels (such as Linux). The Debian GNU/Hurd team announces the release of Debian GNU/Hurd 2013. This is a snapshot of Debian 'sid' at the time of the Debian 'wheezy' release (May 2013), so it is mostly based on the same sources. Debian GNU/Hurd is currently available for the i386 architecture with more than 10,000 software packages available (more than 75% of the Debian archive)."

6 of 264 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Need Clarity by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux.

    Sorry, but this war has been fought, and your side lost. I'm not using GNU/Linux/x.org/XFCE anymore than others are using Windows/CrystalReports/Office/PhotoShop.

    Listing every single component of the system is stupid. Linux is the kernel, Linux is what gets recognized as the OS. There are a lot of programs that go into making the system usable - each one need not be referenced in the name.

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  2. Re:Need Clarity by slim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Listing every single component of the system is stupid. Linux is the kernel, Linux is what gets recognized as the OS. There are a lot of programs that go into making the system usable - each one need not be referenced in the name.

    Mmm, but why do you choose the kernel as the piece so important that you name your whole system after it?

    I'm forever seeing posts that say "Windows sucks and Linux rules, because in Linux I can do stuff like {insert neat adhoc bash script}". But you could run that script in a MacOS terminal, with Darwin replacing the Linux kernel. You could run it in Cygwin, with the combination of the Windows Kernel and the Cygwin compatibility libraries replacing the Linux kernel.

    Linux is great, but it's a thin layer compared to the collection of GNU (mostly) tools that *actually provide the interface people love*.

  3. Re:Need Clarity by mark-t · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The GNU project was a project to develop a free OS and tools.

    All works developed for the GNU project were released under the GNU license. Numerous other projects were released under the same license as well.

    Linux was a project to develop a free drop-in (and superior) replacement for Minix, and although released under the GNU license, and was distributed with GNU tools, it was never actually part of the GNU project, any more than AIX or HPUX would have become part of the GNU project by replacing their standard tools with GNU equivalents (I personally used an HPUX system at university which had all of the standard tools replaced with GNU ones, but that wouldn't suddenly change the name of that system to GNU/HPUX).

    The notion that without the GNU tools, a Linux distribution would not be usable, and therefore the GNU prefix should be applicable to Linux also ought to apply to Minix itself, which like Linux, was never part of the GNU project (and was released under a different license), but was practically unusable out of the box, and most users of it took the source code to the GNU tools, which was freely and readily available, and compiled them to run under Minix to create a usable system. Minux, starting from approximately v 3 onwards, actually started being distributed with the GNU tools to make it more fully functional out of the box, but nobody ever tries to call Minix GNU/Minix.

    Linux is Linux. GNU/Linux is just a name that people who were tired of waiting forever for Hurd wanted to call it so they feel like they had some closure.

  4. Re:Need Clarity by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One could argue that the OS is Debian (or Fedora or Ubuntu). All of which use the Linux kernel, and the GNU tools.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  5. Re:Need Clarity by slim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's entirely pragmatic of you, and that's fine.

    But say you wanted to try out an experimental device driver. In Linux it would be a kernel module. If it went wrong, it could potentially cause a kernel panic and halt your entire system. Or, since it has kernel privileges, it could just quietly spy on some element of your system and phone home with your confidential data without you knowing.

    On a microkernel, your experimental device driver would run in separate memory space to other components. If the experimental driver crashes out, the rest of the system keeps going. It can't spy on your other components, because its access is restricted.

    It may not address a need *you* have, but it may well be useful to others.

  6. Re:Need Clarity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because people like an easy, pronounceable, memorable label for things.

    It usually goes like:
    GNU: Do you spell it out, "gee en you"? Or is it "new" like the wildebeest? And what's with the recursive acronym (GNU's Not Unix)? Why do you geeks pick such awkward names?
    Linux: Only two possible pronunciations, both easy.

    Given a choice between technically correct and easy, most people will pick easy.