GNU Hurd 0.5, GNU Mach 1.4, GNU MIG 1.4 Released

jrepin writes "Which day could be better suited for publishing a set of Hurd package releases than the GNU project's 30th birthday? These new releases bundle bug fixes and enhancements done since the last releases more than a decade ago; really too many (both years and improvements) to list them individually, 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)."

Comments

I might not be here for Hurd 1.0

[Freshly Exhumed]

30 years for Hurd 0.5, so 1.0 will be available in 2043?

Re:I might not be here for Hurd 1.0

[MrEricSir]

GNU is 30 years old, but Hurd is "only" 23. It started while the first Bush was still president rather than Reagan.

Re:I might not be here for Hurd 1.0

[Lunix Nutcase]

And in 2063, Steam for Hurd!!!

Re:I might not be here for Hurd 1.0

[Freshly Exhumed]

So they'll complete Hurd 1.0 just in time for the 2038 bug! That gives them 23 more years to go completely 64-bit by then.

Re:I might not be here for Hurd 1.0

[iggymanz]

wrong. the initial failed attempt at HURD started in 1986 with a BSD 4.4 like kernel. The project is thus 27 years old. still not stable, not suitable for any production use, and only runs on i386, it is a failure

Re:I might not be here for Hurd 1.0

[krkhan]

Just in time for Chrome 2147483647.

Re:I might not be here for Hurd 1.0

[ArchieBunker]

The people in charge of that are so out of touch they should be committed in a mental hospital. It wasn't that long ago they finally supported partitions bigger than 2GB, yes two GigaBytes. Think about that fact while you also learn that RMS uses an old terminal or some such nonsense along with a script to gather Google searches and email the text to him. He lacks a graphical interface.

Re:I might not be here for Hurd 1.0

[phantomfive]

My understanding is the people who are doing it now are mainly doing it for fun, because they like kernel programming. there is no longer a pressing urgent need for a free kernel. And if they come up with some good ideas, they will be copied into more mainstream kernels.

Re:I might not be here for Hurd 1.0

[NJRoadfan]

Think of "1.0" as an asymptote. It'll approach 1.0 but never actually reach it.

Re:I might not be here for Hurd 1.0

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Think about that fact while you also learn that RMS uses an old terminal or some such nonsense along with a script to gather Google searches and email the text to him.

If you think about it, it's a fairly effective way of avoiding getting hacked (or at least minimizing the attack surface).

Re:I might not be here for Hurd 1.0

[aix tom]

Yea. Actually, from a non-linier, non subjective point of view it is more like a big ball of wibbily wobbly timey wimey...stuff

Re:I might not be here for Hurd 1.0

[TheRaven64]

And they've been using it to explore some quite interesting ideas in kernel design. The fine-grained compartmentalism that a microkernel provides (at the expense of some performance) is starting to look more attractive in a world where computers run in very hostile environments and yet even a 50% slower kernel would have a negligible impact on user-perceived performance (or battery life).

Re:I might not be here for Hurd 1.0

[fatphil]

The funny thing is that for some kernels, it's perfectly true. I know the kernel I run on this workstation here gives about 99.5% of the cycles to the userspace programs that I launch. Yet playing very briefly with a windows 8 system a few months back (it survived about 20 minutes between arrival at the office and having linux put on it), the kernel and hundreds of intimately-bound-I-don't-know-what-the-fuck-they-do-or-why-I-would-ever-want-them daemons were taking up between 5% and 10% of the CPU constantly. The former I would happily accept a 50% increase in overhead to, I'm perfectly happy only having 99.25% to myself. But the latter would have ground to a halt if there were any more impediments to interprocess communication.

Re:I might not be here for Hurd 1.0

[serviscope_minor]

The people in charge of that are so out of touch they should be committed in a mental hospital.

Well, aren't you so high and mighty and important shitting on someone else's personal project.

That's all hurd is: it's a small hobby project by a very small number of programmers.

It's not for you, it's for them. Being "in touch" with you is not a requirement.

Oh and by the way, I've no idea what your hobbies are, but I'm sure they suck and you're crap and should be in a mental hospital.

Think about that fact while you also learn that RMS uses an old terminal or some such nonsense along with a script to gather Google searches and email the text to him. He lacks a graphical interface.

Firstly, I already knew that.

Secondly, so what? That's his choice. You know he does that on GNU/Linux, right?

On a MIPS laptop which doesn't even run hurd? You know that too, right?

Proposal:

[pseudofrog]

Fork a BSD variant, license it under the GPL, package it with GNU stuff, call it Hurd 1.0.

Re:Proposal:

[Boronx]

Mac users?

Re:Proposal:

[Anonymous Coward]

Fork a BSD variant, license it under the GPL, package it with GNU stuff, call it Hurd 1.0.

Just in case you (or anyone else who reads this) is really so ignorant of copyright law, it should be said that forking code that isn't your own does not suddenly turn you from a licensee into a licensor. You can't take a BSD operating system, remove the BSD license, and attach the GPL for at least two reasons: 1) the BSD license forbids distributing sources (or binaries) without a copy of the license (which is the BSD license itself), and 2) you are not the copyright owner of any part of the BSD operating system you took, so you simply have no authority to (re)license it. You are automatically the copyright owner of whatever you create, including any patches or additions to the BSD operating system, and you can license your own stuff however you wish -- you can even distribute your own stuff alongside the BSD operating system using whatever terms you like for your own stuff which isn't necessarily allowed by the GPL because liberal licenses are awesome like that -- but you certainly never have any right to relicense anything that isn't yours.

Re:The longest kernel development history...

[deviated_prevert]

...of a kernel that doesn't actually work. Except on Stallman's PC.

Stallman does not possess such devices he runs and developed emacs on a unix VM inside his brain! After realizing that all unix passwords and attempts to hide source code in a binary were useless. The concept of a conceptual computer without passwords and accessed only by obscure command macros written in C exploded from his mind and POOF we had emacs. This was then enhanced by interpreting the commands in binary form but it only worked for those who spoke with a lisp. Then all this went out the Windows when a stiff DOSe of source code was obscured by means of non standard compilers and suddenly word and data processing binaries could easily be obfuscated by hiding the source.

Others tried to change this situation by judiciously applying rubber to source code and the resulting LateXT could be stretched into a usable FLEXable shape, at least until a Bison shat on the source. Stallman HURD about this change in how binaries were now being used and created and GNU for certain that he would have to come out of his brain and actually become the Kernel in charge of parsing things at the source. Because he still insists upon compiling source only in his brain before creating binaries the resulting OS kernel has been extremely slow to take shape because debugging it has given him nightmares whenever he actually sleeps in fact the that the sleep command causes instant dreams that bring him back to the Bill Gates rants he witnessed at computer club meetings in the 1970's.

Re:Not a replacement for Unix kernel

[Jeremy Erwin]

I'm looking forward to the Alpha port, though I'm also hearing good things about Itanium.

Re:Understatement of the year

[NJRoadfan]

You knew it was bad when Duke Nukem Forever actually made it to stores.

Re:When you do this as a hobby

[Guy Harris]

things tend to go slow. Real slow. If you want things now, now, now, pay the man/men. It is free, as in someone-else-will-do-it, so you get what you, that's right, didn't pay for.

Fortunately, eventually people found this hobby project worth paying for, although I think it proved its worth before the big money started pouring in.

There are, of course, some other hobby projects that also manage to support a little more hardware than the Hurd does without huge amounts of money poured into them.

Re:Stalling...

[Bitmanhome]

Does anyone know why this project is stalling so much?

Cuz it's run by a Stall-man?