GNU Hurd Begins Supporting Sound, Still Working On 64-bit & USB Support (phoronix.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GNU Hurd Begins Supporting Sound, Still Working On 64-bit & USB Support (phoronix.com)

Posted by ryuzaki0 on Sunday January 31, 2016 @04:22AM from the pretty-soon-big-and-fancy-like-gnu dept.

An anonymous reader writes: GNU developer Samuel Thibault presented at this weekend's FOSDEM conference about the current state of GNU Hurd. He shared that over the past year they've started working on experimental sound support as their big new feature. They also have x86 64-bit support to the point that the kernel can boot, but not much beyond that stage yet. USB and other functionality remains a work-in-progress. Those curious about this GNU kernel project can find more details via the presentation media.

312 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

In future news by c++ · 2016-01-31 04:27 · Score: 4, Funny

We're proud to announce that GNU Hurd can now save and load files.
1. Re: In future news by orlanz · 2016-01-31 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  A billion trillion years from now, Hurd will be the only sentient being left. As the rest moved onto a higher plane of existence.
2. Re:In future news by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 07:37 · Score: 0
  
  *Unix System 7 file system on hard drives. Also, 5 1/4" floppy disks.
3. Re:In future news by jfdavis668 · 2016-01-31 07:54 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/1508/
4. Re:In future news by jfdavis668 · 2016-01-31 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  HURD AC," said Man, "How may entropy be reversed? The HURD AC said, "/hurd/ext2fs.static: hd1s1: Gratuitous error."
5. Re:In future news by BarbaraHudson · 2016-01-31 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  That anybody is still following the HURD is what's news. The herd has moved elsewhere.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
6. Re:In future news by roc97007 · 2016-01-31 12:44 · Score: 1
  
  They're skipping over 8 inch disks?
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
7. Re:In future news by unixisc · 2016-01-31 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  Last I had read, they were still agonizing over which microkernel to use. Did they come to a decision?
8. Re:In future news by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 14:02 · Score: 0
  
  It's fard kifaya - it has to be done, but someone has to do it.
9. Re:In future news by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 19:10 · Score: 0
  
  You are so edgy. Really. Very edgy. That's cool.
10. Re:In future news by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 23:29 · Score: 0
  
  Microkernel is good for simple processors and central processing ("real" embedded, realtime etc.). The message passing design benefit cancels itself with more complex/parallel designs, also optimization/locking/atomicity/granularity becomes harder with the microkernel architecture.
11. Re:In future news by unixisc · 2016-02-01 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  Features available in OSs that EXIST - QNX, Minix, L4, Chorus and a few others
What's the point by mwvdlee · 2016-01-31 04:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

What's the point of continuing with Hurd?
I mean, apart from making make laugh whenever they have "news".

--
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
1. Re:What's the point by HouseOfMisterE · 2016-01-31 04:32 · Score: 2
  
  Hurd probably does make make laugh!
2. Re:What's the point by thegarbz · 2016-01-31 04:33 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  This is an interesting question. It's one thing if the HURD was making progress but based on this kind of news it would seem that technology is actually being developed faster than the kernel.
3. Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 04:33 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  It's rude to answer your own question.
4. Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 04:34 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The microkernel architecture makes it quite cool.
5. Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  Well what's the point of stopping? Developers do what they like, and some like Hurd-duur-duur....
6. Re:What's the point by ArchieBunker · 2016-01-31 04:36 · Score: 2
  
  Its like trying to talk someone out of a cult they are following.
  
  --
  Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
7. Re:What's the point by short · 2016-01-31 04:38 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Thanks to the microkernel architecture you will no longer have to reboot system just to get rid of that stale lock on an accidentally removed USB disk or unmountable --bind mount in /proc/mounts due to non-existing user/usecount or due to some crashed driver locking up your PCI device etc. I could transparently restart crashed ntfs.sys emulated under Linux in 2003 while Linux kernel still can't do that with its native filesystems.
8. Re:What's the point by c++ · 2016-01-31 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks to the microkernel architecture you will no longer have to reboot system just to get rid of that stale lock on an accidentally removed USB disk or unmountable --bind mount in /proc/mounts due to non-existing user/usecount or due to some crashed driver locking up your PCI device etc. I could transparently restart crashed ntfs.sys emulated under Linux in 2003 while Linux kernel still can't do that with its native filesystems.
  Or, you could just reboot that 1 redundant VM
9. Re:What's the point by Lisandro · 2016-01-31 04:46 · Score: 2
  
  What's the point of continuing with Hurd?
  A long time ago you could've asked the same question about Linux. Just because it is not useful right now (or might never be...) doesn't mean it is not worth working on.
  I'd much love to have a production-ready, open source microkernel OS to toy with.
10. Re: What's the point by bill_mcgonigle · 2016-01-31 04:47 · Score: 2
  
  "news"
  Properly called "gnus".
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
11. Re:What's the point by short · 2016-01-31 04:48 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  VMs are a poor man's a workaround of missing microkernel features. Do you mount all your filesystems just via a VM? And if you do then all the user programs have to run inside that VM. And so restarting the VM is as painful as restarting the whole machine. What's the point of such VM then?
12. Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 04:49 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  This.. more user mode. Less privlidged mode.
  I look forward to the day we can dump the 2MLOC behemoth of crap the Linux kernel is.
13. Re:What's the point by Dog-Cow · 2016-01-31 04:51 · Score: 0
  
  You can dump it today. In fact, you should.
14. Re: What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 04:52 · Score: 0
  
  agreed, the more innovative fronts the better! I've been a happy user of linux since 97 and i still appreciate and use openbsd, netbsd, freebsd etc... the massive advancements we have had in the last 15 years are due to the same spirit that keeps hurd going...NOT the entenched do the minimum innovation to MAX profits attitude by OS corporations.
  That said, is there some way to accelerate hurd, are they taking too much of a clean room/slate approach to code such that they build everything from scratch?
15. Re: What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 04:53 · Score: 0
  
  Windows is here waiting for you, with billions of supported apps at your fingertips.
16. Re:What's the point by Anne+Thwacks · 2016-01-31 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  I think we need to wait till the year 2047 to answer the question, or maybe the year 4095. By 4096, all sorts of things will probably crash and burn, and we wont need to worry.
  
  --
  Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
17. Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 05:02 · Score: 0
  
  One day some big companies (like, e.g. Microsoft) might become desperate and sue the living daylight out of Linux to get patent royalties, or find other means of subverting or paralyzing Linux development.
  If that ever happens, Hurd could be turned into a working FOSS replacement in reasonably short time.
18. Re:What's the point by dissy · 2016-01-31 05:08 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  What's the point of continuing with Hurd?
  For the same reason anyone does something they enjoy for fun and recreation, namely so we don't become hollow and joyless, reserved to asking on forums why other people do things they enjoy :P
  I note you both read slashdot and posted to slashdot today, as well as aren't out working to do something "useful".
  Don't you think it a tad off to spend your free time doing things you enjoy at the same time as questioning other people doing the same?
19. Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 05:09 · Score: 0
  
  Who ever imagine you would ever need 12 bits to count the year? That means you wont even be able to do it on my PDP8!
20. Re:What's the point by rssrss · 2016-01-31 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  "you will no longer have to reboot system just to get rid of that stale lock on an accidentally removed USB disk or unmountable --bind mount in /proc/mounts due to non-existing user/usecount or due to some crashed driver locking up your PCI device etc."
  Before or after my 115th birthday?
  
  --
  In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
21. Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, you need to actually support USB in the first place before you can suffer from problems relating to it.
22. Re:What's the point by Lunix+Nutcase · 2016-01-31 05:23 · Score: 2
  
  Ok. So by which century will Hurd be usable enough that I can take advantage of the features? And don't say "now" because not having sound support or full workinf x86_64 support does not make a usable kernel.
23. Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 05:24 · Score: 0
  
  You can take your tin foil hat off, it isn't 2003 anymore.
24. Re:What's the point by Lunix+Nutcase · 2016-01-31 05:27 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  You already have one. It's called Minix 3. It can be used today and even has full sound support and USB support since many years ago. The Hurd is just a one-man wankfest at this point.
25. Re:What's the point by short · 2016-01-31 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  You have to reboot that box about each two weeks: Fedora kernel Bug 1183791 (it is probably not specific to Fedora)
26. Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 05:32 · Score: 0
  
  Andy? Is that you?
27. Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 05:33 · Score: 0
  
  What's the point of continuing with Hurd?
  Even a 'failed' experiment can yield useful results. Some concepts or techniques from Hurd may end being reused in Linux or some other OS at some point.
28. Re:What's the point by short · 2016-01-31 05:37 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  The sooner you will write that the sooner you will get it. That's all what Free software guarantees you and I find it superior to anything else.
29. Re:What's the point by Lisandro · 2016-01-31 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  Hardly production ready though. Does Minix support modern filesystems, aka ext3/ext4? M3 didn't last time i checked, but that was a while ago.
30. Re:What's the point by drinkypoo · 2016-01-31 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  We know what microkernels are good for. What we don't know is what the Hurd is good for. Development is moving so slow that it is forever trying to keep up with the calendar.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
31. Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 06:01 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  I really am not interested in using a kernel whose primary claim to fame is "we crash a lot, but when we do you don't need to reboot to recover!". Seems to me that's kind of missing the point. Why did your driver crash to start with? Try coding things better so that unexpected states do not cause the system to lock or crash and you will not need to worry about it. It's kind of like they're trying to sell canoes made out of cardboard, but throwing in unlimited duct tape at no extra charge.
32. Re:What's the point by mwvdlee · 2016-01-31 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  Today I worked on an addon for a popular open source javascript-based code editor, added some minor features to one of my open source projects and added a bunch of much needed unittests to another of my open source projects.
  I also took a few minutes to read some Slashdot posts and make a few comments.
  Amazingly, both can be done in a single day!
  
  --
  Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
33. Re: What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 06:16 · Score: 0
  
  I'm writing a kernel too.
  It can only boot on one arm SOC.
  No USB, no sound, not even multi-process yet..
  What's the point you ask....
  Maybe it's a fun project!?
  Not everything everyone codes needs a market share!?
  Where has gnu ever recommended Hurd as a replacement kernel for your desktop?
  Ffs!
34. Re:What's the point by jones_supa · 2016-01-31 06:23 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  FOSS is not a garden party or cake sale where anyone can volunteer just like that. Features that seem relatively simple to the end user can hide tens or hundreds of thousands of lines of code behind them.
35. Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 06:25 · Score: 0
  
  Hardly production ready though.
  It's a hell of a lot closer than Hurd.
36. Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 06:29 · Score: 0
  
  It is probably a project to study the concept of operating systems. Just like Minix was once an operating system for students only or just like how Linux was started as a hobby project by a student who wanted to learn more about operating systems.
  Hurd is at the moment nothing more than the code of a work in progress where everyone is free to look at the code and to offer a helping hand when they want to and are able to. If you want to learn about compilers and operating systems, Hurd is an interesting project to practice your skills.
37. Re: What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 06:38 · Score: 0
  
  Careful of the dyslexic anti-gun crowd will be banning GNU.
38. Re:What's the point by Chris+Mattern · 2016-01-31 06:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Odd. Linux has sound, full 64-bit support, is free (as in both speech and beer), and I didn't have to write any of it.
  I'm having trouble seeing HURD as being superior to that.
39. Re:What's the point by phantomfive · 2016-01-31 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  Why not? People are making it for free. There's actually a wiki devoted to OSes, and there are quite a lot of them. Working on a kernel is fun.
  
  These are the advantages and challenges of the GNU kernel. If you want to understand why people like the Hurd kernel, I would suggest reading that.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
40. Re:What's the point by Chris+Mattern · 2016-01-31 06:43 · Score: 2
  
  What's the point of such VM then?
  How about it works, and does all the things I need, while microkernels don't. "Poor man's a workaround" beats "missing" any day of the week.
41. Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 06:51 · Score: 0
  
  No systemd?
42. Re:What's the point by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2016-01-31 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  This is the best answer to the question. In fact, it is probably the only good answer to this particular question.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
43. Re:What's the point by rochrist · 2016-01-31 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  You think that will happen before the heat death of the universe?
44. Re:What's the point by rochrist · 2016-01-31 07:04 · Score: 2
  
  The difference is, Linux became useful in a couple of years. Hurd has been in development since fucking 1983! 32 freaking years.
45. Re:What's the point by rochrist · 2016-01-31 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  Must be slow learners.
46. Re:What's the point by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2016-01-31 07:06 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, but the fact that no one calls it "GNU/Linux" really sticks in RMS' craw...
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
47. Re:What's the point by Lunix+Nutcase · 2016-01-31 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, yes the old, tried and true "Fix it yourself, bum" response.
48. Re: What's the point by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2016-01-31 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  Careful of the dyslexic anti-gun crowd will be banning GNU.
  Yeah, those darn SWJs...
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
49. Re:What's the point by Nemyst · 2016-01-31 07:10 · Score: 2
  
  The sooner you will write that the sooner you will get it. That's all what Free software guarantees you and I find it superior to anything else.
  So because it fulfills a need that's not actually there, never.
50. Re:What's the point by segin · 2016-01-31 07:11 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, you can most certainly mount ext4 under Minix, just use ext4fuse since Minix 3 now supports FUSE.
  Hell, Minix 3 already sports some binary compatibility with NetBSD...
51. Re:What's the point by dissy · 2016-01-31 07:13 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Today I worked on an addon for a popular open source javascript-based code editor, added some minor features to one of my open source projects and added a bunch of much needed unittests to another of my open source projects.
  I also took a few minutes to read some Slashdot posts and make a few comments.
  Amazingly, both can be done in a single day!
  Indeed! Just as the Hurd team can play on Hurd and contribute to other more useful projects :}
  And I apologize for the accusation as well, it's just that the vast majority of people who question others free time activities have a high likelihood of both demanding productivity from others while not living to the same standard themselves.
  I suppose it was mostly the fact I quite literally formed the thought "I wonder which of the top three posts will ask 'what is the point?'" as I clicked the article to open the comments, and there this was right at the top in spot 1 with that exact phrase and already modded up to max.
  But I am pleasantly surprised for you shattering that expectation.
52. Re:What's the point by short · 2016-01-31 07:13 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  HURD can become a non-crashing OS one day, Linux with its current architecture cannot. Everything has its pros and cons, pick your poison.
53. Re:What's the point by ClickOnThis · 2016-01-31 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  I think we need to wait till the year 2047 to answer the question, or maybe the year 4095.
  Or maybe 2059.
  
  --
  If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
54. Re:What's the point by Lunix+Nutcase · 2016-01-31 07:15 · Score: 0
  
  It's decades further along than Hurd is.
55. Re:What's the point by Dog-Cow · 2016-01-31 07:20 · Score: 0
  
  Architecture does not prevent bugs. You should probably go back to using an Apple II, as modern technology is well beyond your ability to comprehend.
56. Re: What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  I know people really like to poke fun, but I don't think it really keeps RMS up at night. He ASKS for it to be called GNULinux, but people who disagree always seem to be the ones throwing a hissy fit. Then they throw another hissy fit when others say Android, and not Linux.
57. Re: What's the point by Guy+Harris · 2016-01-31 07:24 · Score: 2
  
  If you want a microkernel architecture, then why not OS X or at least Darwin?
  Because neither Darwin nor OS X have a microkernel architecture.
58. Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 07:28 · Score: 0
  
  You might want to start up debian hurd in a virtual box and take a look around. It's pretty much indistinguishable from normal debian. There are still drivers to be written and performance optimizations to be made, but it's already a stable, useful system.
59. Re: What's the point by serviscope_minor · 2016-01-31 07:30 · Score: 2
  
  You mean Mach. That's the microkernel underlying both OSX and Hurd. OSX basically sticks one massive process on top of that for unix services. Hurd actually goes the full microkernel style. It's a research system which means unlike OSX its hardware support is poor but it can do interesting things from an OS perspective.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
60. Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 07:30 · Score: 0
  
  It's a hobby project for people who like doing stuff "right" at any cost. Which is fine and no doubt great fun to work on, but just don't expect anything useful anytime soon.
61. Re:What's the point by drolli · 2016-01-31 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  I don't work on it, but if i would work in researching micro kernel OSes, I could imagine that a OS which is running (forget about USB or sound, for most purposes in OS research it is fine to run in an emulator) is a good base to start.
62. Re:What's the point by Lunix+Nutcase · 2016-01-31 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  That's great and all, but if one can't actually use it it's rather useless to try to impress us with theoretical capabilities that will take countless more decades to actually happen.
63. Re:What's the point by EmeraldBot · 2016-01-31 07:52 · Score: 2
  
  I really am not interested in using a kernel whose primary claim to fame is "we crash a lot, but when we do you don't need to reboot to recover!". Seems to me that's kind of missing the point. Why did your driver crash to start with? Try coding things better so that unexpected states do not cause the system to lock or crash and you will not need to worry about it. It's kind of like they're trying to sell canoes made out of cardboard, but throwing in unlimited duct tape at no extra charge.
  Because you inevitably will experience that driver crash, and the reason can often be quite difficult to find, especially in today's environments. Trying to issue a bug fix for every little problem is like playing whack-a-mole, and all these bug fixes start to conflict with each other at some point, and then eventually somenody throws the whole hairball out in its entirety and makes a new one. The real programmer's way of solving this is to simply make the problems impossible to begin with, and while micro kernels can't quite eliminate every possible problem with crashing drivers, they can mitigate whole kernel panics into mildly inconvenient pauses. And that is very powerful indeed...
  To be clear, microkernels do have some disadvantages, but for mission critical and embedded devices, they would be a fantastic option. Unfortunatly, while it has proven itself very well with an excellent track record, QNX is the only true microkernel system out there, and it's not open source (or free, for that matter).
  
  --
  "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
64. Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 08:20 · Score: 0
  
  No, I need it! Make no mistake, Microsoft has been continuously destroying Linux through a rather wide and sordid range of attacks such as systemd, releasing some of their own projects as "Open Source" and then allowing them to wallow so as to create "bad air" in relation to FOSS.
  Make no mistake, Microsoft executives hold regular meetings where the agenda is: 1) How to make more money, 2) How to drive customers away from Linux.
65. Re:What's the point by ooloorie · 2016-01-31 08:20 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Thanks to the microkernel architecture you will no longer have to reboot system just to get rid of that stale lock on an accidentally removed USB disk or unmountable
  There is an implicit false dichotomy there, namely "ancient design monolithic kernel" and "ancient-style microkernel". There are many other choices.
  
  I could transparently restart crashed ntfs.sys emulated under Linux in 2003 while Linux kernel still can't do that with its native filesystems.
  Actually, since NTFS under Linux runs in user space, yes you can. In fact, for many kernel services (USB, file systems, networking, etc.), the kernel can call upon separate servers to handle those services. And that's another problem with microkernels: their design focuses not on what users need and the question of how to best provide that, but rather on a mechanism.
66. Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 08:37 · Score: 0
  
  It's big and professional, unlike Linux. That's the point.
67. Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 09:27 · Score: 0
  
  Unfortunately Minix has switched to inferior clang and other BSDcrap
68. Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 09:31 · Score: 0
  
  javascript-based code editor
  Can it load a 2Mb file?
69. Re:What's the point by Threni · 2016-01-31 09:55 · Score: 0
  
  LOL! "This OS is much better than the one you're using; at least, it will be when it exists". I don't want to write an OS; I want to use one.
70. Re:What's the point by exomondo · 2016-01-31 10:01 · Score: 2
  
  What's the point of continuing with Hurd?
  Well the FSF doesn't really have an operating system kernel representative of the Free Software ideology. The closest thing is the Linux kernel which Linus has clearly said simply uses the GPLv2 for tit-for-tat contributions because it is a good license, not because Linux is a free software project. Of course it also doesn't do copyright assignment to the FSF and also is not GPLv3 and is unlikely to migrate to further revisions of the GPL in future.
  As the FSF evolves the Linux kernel's position on free software does not evolve with them so to evangelize free software the FSF really needs an operating system representative of their ideals, that is what GNU Hurd is.
71. Re:What's the point by 101percent · 2016-01-31 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  One guy continued a kernel "Just For Fun". Seems like a valid enough answer.
72. Re: What's the point by kenh · 2016-01-31 10:08 · Score: 2
  
  Make no mistake, Microsoft executives hold regular meetings where the agenda is: 1) How to make more money, 2) How to drive customers away from Linux.
  Make no mistake, Microsoft executives hold regular meetings where the agenda is: 1) How to make more money, 2) How to drive customers towards Microsoft products.
  FTFY
  Linux is not an industry juggernaut threatening to overtake Microsoft market share... Just curious, has Linux share of the desktop market exceeded the current (2016) market share of Microsoft Vista?
  
  --
  Ken
73. Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 10:29 · Score: 0
  
  HURD can become a non-crashing OS one day, Linux with its current architecture cannot. Everything has its pros and cons, pick your poison.
  Dude it's 2016 and it's only just getting support for sound, it still doesn't support USB! When that "one day" comes that it is a non-crashing OS it wont matter because it will be completely obsolete and useless anyway. Its the same thing with Free Software, sure it sounds like a great idea but by and large it cant deliver anything decent, where is the free software phone? (no, while AOSP is free software Android (and Replicant) phones are not free software) or the free software tablet? I love the idea of free software but it has to be more than a good idea, it has to produce something that is at least as decent as its competitors but its just a mess of cobbled together half-assed functionality that usually incorporates a bunch of proprietary binaries to make the hardware work anyway.
  We have all heard RMS' anecdote about the printer driver that inspired the free software movement yet that issue is still not on the way to being solved because instead of starting at the bottom (free/open hardware with free drivers) he started in the middle (a free os atop proprietary drivers and hardware). So every time we see new devices like phones, smartphones, tablets, wearables, VR, AR, etc they are proprietary and years later we see a cobbled-together half-assed me-too attempt to create a free software version that is garbage and sits atop a proprietary underlying system anyway.
74. Re:What's the point by 101percent · 2016-01-31 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  He's not asking you to call it "Stallmanix", Mr. Torvalds.
75. Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 10:37 · Score: 0
  
  Wow. Even my dad can finish a renovation project quicker than that!
76. Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 10:39 · Score: 0
  
  That's pretty hilarious, from an end user perspective Linux is so bad that not even Microsoft's most monumental fuckups (Windows Me, Windows Vista, Windows 8) resulted in increased usage share for Linux and the apologists still blame Microsoft conspiracies.
77. Re:What's the point by 101percent · 2016-01-31 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  Tell this to any decent CS department.
78. Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 10:55 · Score: 0
  
  Whether the 2 million lines are in kernel space or user space is irrelevant.
  You seem to not have any clue what the true differences between kernel architectures are.
  Hint: It is not LOC.
79. Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 10:57 · Score: 0
  
  Your comment perfectly summarizes what so many companies and individuals find wrong with FOSS.
  I'm a very long-time programmer, and I've worked on various FOSS projects and had many discussions with other developers, and I can say with confidence that the FOSS idiots (which is what you appear to be, assuming you're not trying to impersonate one) are a major hurdle to the further support and adoption of Linux.
  So enjoy your purity and your walled environment, and rest assured that you'll never be burdened by Linux being a serious desktop competitor.
80. Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 11:05 · Score: 0
  
  "still blame Microsoft conspiracies"
  Actually I wasn't blaming Microsoft for Linux's failings, they stand on their own.
  Microsoft is dangerous, don't think they'll "play nice" by any measure...ever.
81. Re:What's the point by Marginal+Coward · 2016-01-31 11:06 · Score: 1
  
  Before or after my 115th birthday?
  I'm not sure when they'll succeed in getting USB going in GNU HURD, but I predict it will eventually become a killer feature of Windows 95.
82. Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 11:15 · Score: 0
  
  The point of continuing with Hurd is that it's a toy OS that can be used to experiment with kernel design. Linux is far too big and complicated in the interests of getting stuff done to be as good for experimenting in.
83. Re:What's the point by batkiwi · 2016-01-31 11:34 · Score: 2
  
  Adding to your comments, you won't have this issue in HURD due to the lack of USB removable device support, so that stale lock wouldn't exist to begin with.
84. Re: What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 11:41 · Score: 0
  
  Egocentric much? Never is a long time.
85. Re:What's the point by BarbaraHudson · 2016-01-31 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  No, you won't. This is one user, who admits doing weird things in his scripts. He fixed his problem.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
86. Re:What's the point by BarbaraHudson · 2016-01-31 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  You think we'll still be using linux a few centuries from now, when HURD might be usable? Even Linus foresees the day something else replaces linux.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
87. Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 12:21 · Score: 0
  
  Because multiprocess/multithreaded queued event architectures never lock solid due to starvation or race conditions.
88. Re:What's the point by BarbaraHudson · 2016-01-31 12:21 · Score: 1
  
  I think you mis-spelled "centuries." :-)
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
89. Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 12:21 · Score: 0
  
  Are you kidding me? The point of considering HURD is that HURD is not likely able to implement systemd for the next 100 years. Decades of trouble-free computing ahead!
90. Re:What's the point by BarbaraHudson · 2016-01-31 12:24 · Score: 1
  
  ... or to help determine the limits of OCD among gnu fans :-)
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
91. Re:What's the point by Pseudonym · 2016-01-31 13:09 · Score: 1
  
  There is an implicit false dichotomy there, namely "ancient design monolithic kernel" and "ancient-style microkernel".
  But in the choice between Linux or BSD on the one hand, and Hurd on the other, that is the choice we're being asked to accept. Well, unless the L4 or Viengoos variants of Hurd come good.
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
92. Re:What's the point by Pseudonym · 2016-01-31 13:12 · Score: 1
  
  It is probably a project to study the concept of operating systems.
  You'd expect more papers to have come out of it, were that the case.
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
93. Re: What's the point by unixisc · 2016-01-31 13:20 · Score: 2
  
  OS X does use Mach, but not in the way that any microkernel platform would. As for HURD, did they finally conclude which microkernel they wanted to use? They tried out a few, and then it's unclear which one they settled for. While Mach 3.x was a first generation microkernel, there have been a lot of developments in microkernel theory that are not there in Mach 3. In fact, a major downside of Mach 3 is that it is resource intensive, and that reputation has spread to microkernels in general, even though it's not true about other microkernels like QNX or Minix.
94. Re:What's the point by unixisc · 2016-01-31 13:28 · Score: 1
  
  The microkernel architecture makes it quite cool.
  For that, why not go to Minix, which is FOSS under a BSD license, and is well documented, since AST's book is the documentation of the OS. It's a good learning platform, and has some neat features, like a 'reincarnation server' that lowers the priority of hung drivers until they are effectively killed, and restart them again.
  Last I hurd, HURD is still based on Mach 3, which was a first generation microkernel, but a lot of developments have happened in microkernel concepts that have not made it to Mach.
95. Re: What's the point by unixisc · 2016-01-31 13:29 · Score: 1
  
  GP wants a microkernel OS
96. Re:What's the point by unixisc · 2016-01-31 13:37 · Score: 1
  
  What exactly is crap about NetBSD's toolchain?
97. Re:What's the point by unixisc · 2016-01-31 13:41 · Score: 1
  
  Minix is STILL primarily an OS for teaching OS concepts. And far more advanced than HURD. If you want to use it in a production environment, such an embedded systems, it's currently being developed for the Beaglebone. If one wants, one could try porting it to Raspberry Pi, Arduino, et al.
  There is no reason, other than religious (extreme devotion to the GPL) to prefer HURD to Minix.
98. Re: What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 13:44 · Score: 0
  
  Damn, how dare they try and be profitable! Scoundrels!
  Amusingly enough, the 10-year old Vista is neck-and-neck with Linux as of November 2015 at 1.0% and 1.03% respectively:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems
  Sorry. I don't think Microsoft is going to get the chariots out of storage over that, but keep sharpening your pointy sticks anyway!
99. Re:What's the point by unixisc · 2016-01-31 13:49 · Score: 2
  
  While this is true, RMS had abandoned HURD a long time ago, and instead took Linux, stripped it of any 'non-free' components, branded it 'libre-Linux' and promotes THAT. There are a few distros that the FSF does endorse - like Trisquel, gNewSense, and a few others that seem primarily localized for Latin America.
  If I'm not mistaken, they wasted a lot of time in determining an ideal microkernel. What I don't get is why they didn't just fork Minix, which was there, put their fork under GPL3, and then make THAT the basis of their efforts? They could have combined it w/ systemd and emacs, and gotten their ultimate GNU system.
100. Re:What's the point by short · 2016-01-31 14:18 · Score: 0
  
  I still have no idea what a phone could be good for except for some emergency call once a year. Free software gets written when someone needs the functionality. Nobody really needs some beeping gadget. And you could talk the same in 1995 - look what MS-Windows 95 can do and Linux still does not even have Plug&Play! That Free software is a complete useless crap!
101. Re:What's the point by exomondo · 2016-01-31 14:23 · Score: 1
  
  While this is true, RMS had abandoned HURD a long time ago, and instead took Linux, stripped it of any 'non-free' components, branded it 'libre-Linux' and promotes THAT.
  Evidently that was pretty short-sighted - not to say I wouldn't have made the same decision in his place - with Tivoization and the myriad of companies using Linux in SaaS solutions but not actually distributing it. Your proposal re: minix is an interesting one but I wonder if a more practical solution (albiet without the microkernel aspect) would be to create a GPLv3 fork of Linux itself, features from the mainline could be merged in and the onus would be on the developers to create innovative and compelling features that Linux users want that would drive them to use the GPLv3 fork. Competition drives innovation and the GPLv3 camp could leverage the work of the GPLv2 camp.
102. Re:What's the point by short · 2016-01-31 14:23 · Score: 1
  
  I am the Fedora user. And I haven't seen the problem fixed, just since that time I replaced/reconfigured my RAID and I no longer have the problem reproducible, hopefully.
103. Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 14:28 · Score: 0
  
  What's the point of continuing with Hurd?
  I mean, apart from making make laugh whenever they have "news".
  Per gnu.org "GNU's own kernel, The Hurd, was started in 1990 (before Linux was started). Volunteers continue developing the Hurd because it is an interesting technical project."
104. Re:What's the point by unixisc · 2016-01-31 14:37 · Score: 1
  
  I'd really love to move around in circles like yours, where a phone is of no use. In every tech job I had, my bosses or colleagues would frequently call me, whenever they were not emailing me. In service jobs that I've had, I have to be on the phone all the time.
  And I do frequently get on the phone w/ relatives.
105. Re:What's the point by unixisc · 2016-01-31 14:41 · Score: 1
  
  Given the advances that have come around in Linux and FreeBSD, isn't the 'ancient design monolithic kernel' an outdated description? A lot has changed - be it the shells, the file systems, the networking stack and so on. And if one wants a modern microkernel, one can go w/ QNX, if one is not hung up on FOSS, or one can go w/ Minix 3, which has at least come some distance.
106. Re:What's the point by unixisc · 2016-01-31 14:47 · Score: 1
  
  Does GPL v2 allow one to fork a project under its license to a new project under GPL v3? I thought that the 2 licenses were not compatible.
107. Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 14:50 · Score: 0
  
  Well QNX gets around the microkernel performance issue by doing blocking calls, basically undermining the whole point of having a multi-tasking kernel. It's a poorly documented waste of space. I've been using it for 2 years now and the job would have been so much simpler using a proper embedded RTOS, or if it had implemented posix compliance in any sane way. I'm hoping it goes the way of the dodo, which appears to be highly likely given the hardware support is abysmal and the user base is close to non-existent.
108. Re:What's the point by unixisc · 2016-01-31 14:58 · Score: 0
  
  I thought that the question is a valid one - what exactly is the rationale for continuing this project?
  FOSS OS? We already have a few - Linux (some hundred distros), BSD (some tens of distros), Minix, Haiku and probably a few others that I don't know of or recall.
  Microkernel OS? QNX is there. FOSS Microkernel OS? Minix is there. Oh, you mean GPL licensed microkernel? I get it.
  GPL OS? Linux is already there. Oh, but Linux doesn't give GNU its due credit? Also, its license hasn't become GPL 3, like gcc, emacs, samba, et al? Ok, I get it.
  In short, the only reason for this project to continue is political/religious: to massage the egos of people in the FSF. Although RMS has really given up on this project, some people remain obsessed by it. Which would make sense had they chosen to, say, take Minix, which is a Unix-like microkernel OS, fork it under GPL 3, put those HURD servers on top of it, and brand the combination HURD. That would save them quite a bit of time, since Minix has some of that support in place already, and they could then leverage that work, and focus on integrating HURD into Minix.
109. Re:What's the point by unixisc · 2016-01-31 14:59 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, Minix is a better toy for that, since it comes w/ complete documentation in the form of a text book on operating systems
110. Re:What's the point by exomondo · 2016-01-31 15:05 · Score: 1
  
  Actually you're right, the license for Linux does not include the "or later" version clause so moving to a more restricted license like the GPLv3 isn't possible without the consent of all (or almost all) copyright holders...which is not practical for Linux.
111. Re: What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 15:50 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think you heard the man he said APPS!
112. Re: What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 16:06 · Score: 0
  
  One of these days you'll find about containers and it will blow your mind.
113. Re:What's the point by ooloorie · 2016-01-31 17:02 · Score: 1
  
  that is the choice we're being asked to accept
  Not really. As far as practical operating systems go, Hurd doesn't make the cut. So the only "choice" we might be making is about principles of operating system designs and implementation, and the Hurd is as obsolete in that regard as Linux.
114. Re:What's the point by silentcoder · 2016-01-31 21:16 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think anybody claimed it could, but what is claimed is that a microkernel that works well can remove crashes. That's actually entirely feasible. Drivers will still have bugs, and still crash - but if drivers are in user space, it's possible to ensure that driver crashes never cause system crashes. The only way the system itself could crash is if the kernel were to crash - and because that is so small, the risk surface is incredibly tiny. With such a small risk surface, it's entirely possible to get stable enough and close enough to bug-free that no user would ever experience a system crash.
  Of course, your apps are an entirely different matter - but a lot of app crashes are actually driver lock-ups and crashes so even they will appear much more stable.
  The problem with microkernels is the extreme complexity of managing all those threads and the communications between them. Getting that stable is extremely hard (and that's exactly why HURD is still useless and true microkernel OS's are so rare) - whether the difficulty of doing so means that this risk surface outweighs that of a monolithic kernel is a debateable point. Most academics say no, most real-world engineers have said "yes" (or it's close counterpart: "not worth the effort").
  But the GP was perfectly accurate to say it *could* become a crash-free OS one-day. It's entirely within the realm of possibility.
  
  --
  Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
115. Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 23:12 · Score: 0
  
  Microkernels (the pure ones) are also less powerful in parallelization and also require more cross-talk and message passing between components, making the design more complex and slower in practice. Security or features/performance. Choose one, not all.
116. Re:What's the point by bingoUV · 2016-01-31 23:37 · Score: 1
  
  The bug filer does not "want to discuss how I created such system state."
  How can you ever see the problem fixed? Of epistemological necessity, such a bug can never be confirmed to be fixed. If it stops bothering people, it can be closed.
  
  --
  Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
117. Re:What's the point by short · 2016-02-01 00:16 · Score: 1
  
  I am the bug filer. I had the Bug reproducible locally but I could not provide reproducer. If kernel developers provided me some patch adding debug printks I would send them back the debug output so they can track it down. But I do not remember anyone would ever deal with any kernel bug I filed.
118. Re:What's the point by TheRaven64 · 2016-02-01 00:33 · Score: 1
  
  MINIX is far more capable these days than HURD, is a more modern microkernel design, and is more permissively licensed. The only reasons for continuing to work on HURD are that you really like the particular filesystem namespace arrangement of servers that they use, or that you are fanatical about GPLv3.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
119. Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-01 00:41 · Score: 0
  
  Hardly production ready though.
  A pretty odd statement to make in defense of Hurd.
120. Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-01 01:37 · Score: 0
  
  For when Google, Oracle and Redhat turn the Linux kernel into a useless pile of "open source" skeletal code around a shitload of proprietary bin blobs and undocumented APIs.
121. Re:What's the point by PostPhil · 2016-02-01 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  Geek Freudian slip?
  It sounds like you've been typing make;make install one too many times.
122. Re:What's the point by KGIII · 2016-02-01 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  I'm too lazy to scroll back up or hit parent and scroll back down... Yes... I'm that lazy.
  That said, I have no idea who you're replying to. However, "If you want to understand..." They probably do not. I'm just playing the odds here but odds are, at best, they're pretending to want to understand. They might even be fooling themselves into believing they want to understand.
  However, if they wanted to understand - they'd already have looked at HURD, Minix, QNX, BSD, Linux, Mach, and even Windows. They'd already know about the differences and benefits. They'd at least have a rough idea of some of the challenges. They might even have download 'em all (that they could) and given them a try in a VM or maybe even on bare metal. They'll have simply highlighted a word and searched. Probably Minix or even Hurd would have been fine choices but they all get you to the same spot eventually.[snip]
  I'll skip the novella. In short, I settled on Linux. If they want to understand then there are many choices to get that understanding. I, a layman, can understand enough to know that I don't want to understand. I tried 'em all in a VM or on bare metal. I considered each and made my choices. I went with documentation, ecosystem, quantities, and resources. I could have gone with security, stability, and a more complete understanding. I went with an official Ubuntu flavor (Lubuntu) but left myself options. Why? I wanted to understand. I'm guessing that the person you replied to doesn't actually want to understand.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
123. Re:What's the point by KGIII · 2016-02-01 02:34 · Score: 2
  
  Oddly, I have that tab open right this very minute. It has been open for days - I keep downloading a distro every once in a while and trying them in a VM.
  It's odd to see it brought up but not entirely unknown.
  http://www.gnu.org/distros/fre...
  That's the "official" link - as far as I know. All of those should be free software by FSF beliefs. Every bit of code in them should have source available. There should be zero closed binaries or the likes. So far? Meh... I've found some interesting ideas with great potential.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
124. Re:What's the point by bingoUV · 2016-02-01 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  While my bugs have also never received attention at redhat, you still haven't explained how this particular bug could ever be confirmed to be fixed.
  
  --
  Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
125. Re:What's the point by slashdot_commentator · 2016-02-01 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  Well, unless the L4 or Viengoos variants of Hurd come good.
  Wow, you are easily almost a decade behind on the HURD soap opera. In academia, HURD has always been a brand name picked up by every semi-ambitious PhD candidate for work on their masters/doctoral thesis on computing. Viengoos was a microkernel addressing security issues with IPC which the author dreamt would be used to replace the MACH microkernel. Once he got his doctorate & real job, he left Viengoos behind. There's no management behind the HURD curtain to pick up where he left off. HURD is the Dread Pirate Roberts of OS platforms.
  Ironically, there is an open source L4 variant that has been getting buzz a year or few ago called SeL4. The big deal about that was the math geeks have been able to conclude that its design is theoretically "secure" of all the IPC problems with previous L4 microkernels. But L4 is nothing like the MACH u-kernel, which is a decrepit dinosaur of 1980s u-kernel design. HURD would have to be significantly rewritten to take advantage of SeL4. More likely, someone would just write a MACH emulation layer on top of SeL4 to get the whole HURD thing to work. It then would be pointless since the legacy HURD code never really worked in itself, and it wouldn't be taking advantage of SeL4's design. That's why HURD is a huge, hoary joke in the computing industry.
  The industry has long moved past 1980's u-kernel theory, to hypervisors and "modern" u-kernel implementations. Only the clueless that follow it like WWE wrestling don't realize that its a fake.
  
  --
  There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
126. Re:What's the point by short · 2016-02-01 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  I do not see this Bug would be fixed and I never said that. Why do you think it is fixed?
127. Re:What's the point by slashdot_commentator · 2016-02-01 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  That's linux desktop. Linux as a server platform pretty much owns the world.
  And don't forget the Windows 10 fuckup; not that its fucked up in execution of computing tasks. Win10 has become such a bloated "Big Brother" nightmare, it may be the final straw that permanently drives me to a linux desktop. Thank god for Steam. But I have an oddball computing perspective, since I believe the future of computing platforms will be driven from subscription cloud services, maybe a bit before the self-driving car.
  
  --
  There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
128. Re:What's the point by CauseBy · 2016-02-01 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  What's the point? To avoid systemd, of course.
129. Re:What's the point by BarbaraHudson · 2016-02-01 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  If others can't reproduce it, it's not a verified bug, same as if others can't reproduce cold fusion, it's not cold fusion.
  You are also free to add your own printk functions in the source and recompile - it's not that hard for a c programmer.
  It's like when a patient goes to a doctor and says "It hurts every time I do this." If after all sorts of tests, there's no sign of anything wrong, the doctor would say "Then don't do that."
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
130. Re:What's the point by short · 2016-02-01 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  I do not know where to put the printks off the top of my head as I am not a kernel developer. I provide similar debugging services for GDB where I know the codebase thoroughly. I could read+learn the kernel sources to find out where to put the printks but that does not scale, life is too short to know very every line of system sources, that is what developers specialization is there for.
  The problem happens due to my scripts running nightly regression testing of various toolchain components in various (chrooted) operating system variants/versions. Currently I "do not do that" as you suggest because of that bug. Therefore users hit+bugreport those regressions. Formerly I was fixing the regressions before any user could hit them, that was a so-called proactive solution. Yes, I could code the scripts some other way (such as using KVM instead of chroot) but that would be a workaround, the scripts are not buggy, the kernel is. I can provide the scripts but there are many of them and setting up the whole system for them is not easy, it was done ad hoc: 1 2 3 4
131. Re:What's the point by phantomfive · 2016-02-01 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  The question was "what is the point of continuing working on Hurd?" not "why should I use Hurd?"
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
132. Re:What's the point by unixisc · 2016-02-01 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  The reason I thought so was that if it was possible to fork Linux into a GPL v3, then the FSF would have applied GPL3 to Linux-libre
133. Re:What's the point by BarbaraHudson · 2016-02-01 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  Look at the good side - having users report regressions makes them more involved. Sure, they'll be cheesed off when they hit a snag, but that's the only path to get them to be grateful when it's fixed :-)
  "It's not a bug when you can feature it" :-p
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
134. Re:What's the point by unixisc · 2016-02-01 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, hypervisors are NOT microkernels. In microkernels, device drivers, for instance, run in userspace. In hypervisors, device drivers run below the VM, in kernel space.
135. Re:What's the point by unixisc · 2016-02-01 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  All of them would be SUBSETS of more fully featured distros. Most of them are Ubuntu based, but they'd lack things that one would find in other Ubuntu based distros, such as Mint. And I wonder how many more hardware devices would fall off their support list due to the lack of a liberated driver? Is that something that the VM can test?
136. Re: What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-01 08:43 · Score: 0
  
  Linux has far more apps and runs on more hardware than any three Windows versions combined.
137. Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-01 08:48 · Score: 0
  
  PCI? What is this? 1995?
  When my nvidia driver crashes, I don't have to reboot and have never any of the other issues you are whining about
  Plus, I can use my 64 bit CPU
138. Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-01 10:15 · Score: 0
  
  Linux has had plug and play for at least 20 years.
  I can't even remember the last time I plugged something in that didn't automatically get detected and drivers installed.
139. Re:What's the point by exomondo · 2016-02-01 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah that's a good point. I still think that Hurd is a good investment for the FSF because while Linux happened to be in step with the FSF's views at the time this is changing and will continue to change as the computing world evolves. For example the FSF sees Tivoization as bad yet the operating systems it endorses have Linux at their core, a project that sees Tivoization as a good thing. It's a little difficult to believe the FSF is really committed to this stance if they just use Linux because it's easier and aren't putting effort into a project that aligns with their views.
140. Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-01 10:21 · Score: 0
  
  Desktop is dying.
  Linux owns every other computing market, often by a wide-margin. From little embedded devices to servers, supercomputer clusters, even in space and on Mars, Linux is king.
  Compared to all that, the desktop is a insignificant player.
141. Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-01 10:26 · Score: 0
  
  Free software gets written when someone needs the functionality.
  That is the point! It is always playing catch-up with the real innovators. Look at the ubiquity of smartphones and tablets, all the while you have the free software community still trying to make a decent free software laptop a reality. People need smartphones and tablets but they have good non-free products already, nobody needs a half-assed free software attempt that comes a decade later. Fantastic new technologies like modern VR and AR systems don't come from free software, it's always the non-free people that come up with that and then once it's proven in the market you get the free software community banging on about how it's non-free and there needs to be a free version.
142. Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-01 10:29 · Score: 0
  
  What GNU components are in the Linux kernel?
  Linux is only a kernel and nothing else. I don't see what due credit GNU gets in that.
143. Re:What's the point by Pseudonym · 2016-02-01 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, you are easily almost a decade behind on the HURD soap opera.
  Only Perl 6 rivals Hurd when it comes to how far behind you can be on the story.
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
144. Re:What's the point by KGIII · 2016-02-01 12:56 · Score: 1
  
  As far as I know, no. In theory? Yes, absolutely. If you had the specs, you could virtualize any hardware (I think?) and then test against it. As you do not have the specs, well... Of course, with that information - we'd probably have the liberated drivers.
  That said, I've tried some of them on bare metal. So far, mostly so good. I've had good luck with sound and /working/ video. (I did not say optimized. I did not say fully feature compliant. I do get video that is watchable/usable.) In all of those specific instances (but not in others), I have used a desktop. I can't speak to hardware support other than that in older desktops - about three years old was/is my latest test-bed until someone comes and picks them up from me. (I think I found a home for them. A good home. They're only a few years old, have all the peripherals, SSDs, 8 to 16 GB of RAM, etc... I actually had to find someone to take them.)
  So, I can't say that they'll work on a laptop and that you'll have wireless, support for the cell modem, or even touchpad support. I simply do not know and would not swear to it. I also don't know but you might be able to achieve the same thing, during the install of an official Ubuntu flavor, by unticking the box to enable third-party/closed software and drivers.
  Why don't I know that? I am not a crazy zealot. I don't use Linux because of any idealism. I don't even, normally, read the code unless there's a problem. Even if there is a problem, I'm probably not the one you *want* to have reading that code. I will... I'll even "help out" if you want. I repeat, you probably don't want me to do so (but it's nice that I offered).
  I just so happen to be able to check. I just went and plugged in a Belkin-something-or-other wifi dongle. It works in gNewSense. Note: The dongle is not the same as is in a laptop. Yes I carry a dongle. No, I am not making any claims other than that one worked, in that one distro, at that one time.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
145. Re:What's the point by bingoUV · 2016-02-01 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think it is fixed. On the contrary, i am telling you that this bug is impossible to be fixed. This is because verifying is part of bug fixing, which you haven't made possible.
  
  --
  Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
146. Re:What's the point by KGIII · 2016-02-01 13:53 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, they definitely don't actually want to understand that. They might claim to want an answer and they might even think they want to understand but they're just fooling themselves. It's not always a bad thing. However, I fully expect they do not actually want to understand. Hell, I'd even wager on it.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
147. Re:What's the point by phantomfive · 2016-02-01 14:01 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe you're right. Maybe I need to do better at understanding people.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
148. Re:What's the point by KGIII · 2016-02-01 16:31 · Score: 1
  
  That, my friend, is something we can all learn to be a bit better at. I'd submit that anyone who thinks they're an expert on that would be sorely mistaken and that includes the ones with doctoral degrees. But no, I'm guessing that YOU want to understand why they're working on HURD (and I expect you *DO* understand it just fine). I'm also guessing that if you didn't know, you'd go find out if you wanted to know.
  The person who says, "I don't understand why those people all vote for $party" does not actually want to know why - and will wander off if you actually try to tell 'em. Hell, they'll repeat that same thing in three days, in a new thread, and pretend you didn't answer 'em the first time. ;-) They don't seem too interested in actually understanding.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
149. Re: What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-01 18:29 · Score: 0
  
  Yup. I was a big VM guy, had worked on VMware, xen, kvm, qemu, bochs even plex86 and others.
  Today, containers rule the world and VMs are dead to me.
  It's gotten so bad that I know open stack shops that are going Docker and moving away from supporting open stack.
150. Re:What's the point by short · 2016-02-01 19:00 · Score: 1
  
  I can verify that. I have already 148 lines of /proc/mounts here again (so it happens even with my current PC setup). Sure I cannot verify it for 100% ("evidence of absence").
151. Re:What's the point by bingoUV · 2016-02-01 19:23 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, so you can fix it. But you understandably don't want to get into that kind of code, so let us assume you won't fix it.
  Others cannot fix it because you haven't made possible one of the most important steps of fixing something - verifying, for them.
  
  --
  Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
152. Re:What's the point by short · 2016-02-01 19:34 · Score: 1
  
  That's a normal state of Bug that it cannot by verified by author of the fix. I have made tons of such bugfixes. In Red Hat Bugzilla such Bugs have keyword "OtherQA".
153. Re:What's the point by bingoUV · 2016-02-02 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  In those cases the bug is not completely filed - it just luckily reminds the developer of a mistake made in the code. If it doesn't remind, it cannot be fixed. Even when it does remind, it appears that the bug is fixed but actually an unfiled bug is fixed which the developer recognized from the filed "bug report" and looking at related code.
  
  --
  Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
154. Re:What's the point by short · 2016-02-02 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry I am not going to lose more time in this thread but do you understand the customer then verifies the bug really got fixed? When it crashed 1000 times before the fix and not crashed 1000 times after the fix do you still insist the package maintainer fixed an unrelated bug? After all even if it was an unrelated bug it fixed the problem of the customer which is all what matters. With all the messy code in use it is usually difficult to say what is a related and unrelated bug in the code as some code usually depends on wrong results from some other code. We do not live in a world of mathematically 100% proven programs, we are too far from that.
155. Re:What's the point by bingoUV · 2016-02-02 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  It is not unrelated.
  
  --
  Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
156. Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 23:45 · Score: 0
  
  RMS founded GNU project in 1983. Development on the Hurd began in 1990 after previous unsuccessful attempts with other kernels.
What a pointless waste of time. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 04:31 · Score: 0

PC hardware is a fast moving target. The fact that they are not even having a somewhat finalized USB support at shows that developers are unable to catch up.
Hurd seems to be the longest running gag in GNU history.
1. Re:What a pointless waste of time. by jones_supa · 2016-01-31 04:43 · Score: 2
  
  True. Even Linux is already having a lot of problems with keeping up with functionality.
2. Re:What a pointless waste of time. by unixisc · 2016-01-31 13:53 · Score: 1
  
  There is no reason that HURD couldn't have come up w/ a stable base for x86, and then considered x64. Actually, given their goal of running only libre software - presumably software that is GPL 3 or AGPL 3, chances are that they'd not use x11 either. Probably come up w/ something of their own - like maybe a GNUstep based UX. Or just live and work in emacs
Why does anyone care about GNU Hurd? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 04:32 · Score: 0

Why is GNU developing their own kernel? Despite the running joke about Duke Nukem Forever, Hurd is far worse. It's been in development for decades and, apparently, is only now getting sound support and booting on x86_64 systems. It's totally irrelevant because of Linux, and it's been that way for at least the past 15 years. Give up on Hurd and embrace that Linux has taken the place of what Hurd was supposed to be. There's lots of useful GNU software, but Hurd should be abandoned. It's been 26 years. Hurd should be taken out back and shot. Move on and focus on developing useful software for Linux.
1. Re:Why does anyone care about GNU Hurd? by rasmusbr · 2016-01-31 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  Someone cares about it for some reason. I don't think anyone, even the developers themselves, are claiming that Hurd will be useful in and of itself.
  If you ask me I suspect it's a long lead-up to a joke about playing DNF on Hurd...
2. Re:Why does anyone care about GNU Hurd? by unixisc · 2016-01-31 13:54 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, that's exactly what RMS did eons ago. That project is no longer his, and I wonder whether it's even a GNU project any more. It's probably just some hobbyists who found a bit of time to tinker w/ it, and got a bit of sound working, and some level of USB support.
3. Re:Why does anyone care about GNU Hurd? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 22:38 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe this is a sign: the microkernel design is now done and they want to start building a "real" usable OS based on it. Or maybe it means the want to experiment the design by building some functionality. But yes, building free software OS with all bells/whistles needs serious manpower.
Experimental audio support by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 04:35 · Score: 0

Does that include Sound Blaster for IBM's MicroChannel Architecture?
1. Re:Experimental audio support by Opportunist · 2016-01-31 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe next version. Maybe.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
2. Re:Experimental audio support by Lunix+Nutcase · 2016-01-31 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  Whoa slow down bro! That's like a decade too advanced for Hurd.
3. Re:Experimental audio support by Waffle+Iron · 2016-01-31 05:55 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Does that include Sound Blaster for IBM's MicroChannel Architecture?
  No, currently it only supports setting the bit that puts a positive pulse on the PC speaker. Work is in progress on support for resetting that bit, so in the meantime it's a maximum of one click sound per session.
  The cool part, though, is that with the microkernel architecture, this is all managed via userspace code!
4. Re: Experimental audio support by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 07:00 · Score: 0
  
  LOL!!! You guys are assholes. Funny assholes though. If i was him I'd take my Hurd and go home. Create some Hurd/Systemd fuckfest and curse the lot of ya.
5. Re:Experimental audio support by mbadolato · 2016-01-31 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  Does that include Sound Blaster for IBM's MicroChannel Architecture?
  Yes, the support is still spotty. Dr. Sbaitso announces himself quite nicely but the talking parrot still has trouble laughing, unfortunately. This is expected to be fixed by 2021.
6. Re:Experimental audio support by unixisc · 2016-01-31 13:55 · Score: 1
  
  Also, it's proprietary. HURD's next goal would be to add ISA and EISA support
don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 04:39 · Score: 1

Given the behavior of PulseAudio and how I've had to disable it to get TOSLINK to work, plain old Linux is also still working on supporting sound. :P
64-bit support? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 04:42 · Score: 0

Wooo Hooo!
Welcome to 1995!
1. Re:64-bit support? by sunderland56 · 2016-01-31 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  So, let's be clear on this: their source code quality is SO crappy, that they can't recompile the 32-bit files in 64-bit and have them work.
  The kernel can boot, so they've done all the ugly assembly bits; the fact that the rest won't run right means that the code implicitly assumes that pointers are 32 bit. Wonderful. What a great advance in technology. I'm sure that once they've worked through this issue, the rest of the code is 100% clean and bug free.
2. Re:64-bit support? by PPH · 2016-01-31 14:35 · Score: 1
  
  64 bit, 65 bit. Whatever it takes.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
Open software by 110010001000 · 2016-01-31 04:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

These days Open/Free software is more important than ever. With closed kernels and binary blobs you have no idea what kind of code is running on your system. It would be nice to have a true Open kernel running on true Open hardware.
1. Re:Open software by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 05:22 · Score: 0
  
  Another big problem is the fab. The fab can always modify your design to include backdoors in the chips powering your hardware. The AMD guy who had a talk at CCC regarding chip building specifically pointed this out.
  So until we have the tech for a power user joe to fab his own chip at home, you'll always be at the mercy of the questionable supply chain for your open hardware.
2. Re:Open software by 110010001000 · 2016-01-31 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  You miss the point: the point is that the code can be audited, not that it is bug free. How many intentional backdoors are there in YOUR closed code systems? Who knows? Just ask Juniper or Cisco admins.
3. Re:Open software by short · 2016-01-31 05:24 · Score: 2
  
  You can run Linux-libre for the OS part, that is much easier target than GNU Hurd.
4. Re:Open software by Lunix+Nutcase · 2016-01-31 05:29 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  The fact that something *can* be audited is meaningless if no one actually *is* constantly auditing it.
5. Re:Open software by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 05:47 · Score: 0
  
  This. People seem to always think that there is some kind of hacker community browsing the code for vulnerabilities in their spare time. In reality that is very boring and unrewarding work.
6. Re:Open software by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 05:50 · Score: 0
  
  You miss the point: the point is that the code can be audited, not that it is bug free. How many intentional backdoors are there in YOUR closed code systems? Who knows? Just ask Juniper or Cisco admins.
  No, YOU missed the point.
  Because YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS RUNNING ON YOUR SYSTEM - even though it was open source.
7. Re:Open software by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 06:10 · Score: 0
  
  You miss the point: the point is that the code can be audited, not that it is bug free. How many intentional backdoors are there in YOUR closed code systems? Who knows? Just ask Juniper or Cisco admins.
  So, how many lines of Hurd have you audited, Mr. 110010001000?
  LOL Yeah, I thought so.
8. Re:Open software by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 06:17 · Score: 0
  
  How the fuck is it meaningless to be able to look at the source code yourself?
  That's like saying free speech is meaningless because you don't really have anything controversial or offensive you want to say right now.
9. Re:Open software by wjcofkc · 2016-01-31 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  Open kernel. Absolutely. Open hardware...? Dunno. I honestly think for that to happen we will need to print our own hardware. A team of Open Source engineers specializing in CPU design, designing and printing CPUs. Mass storage so on an so forth. Then we buy and sell to each other, perhaps even at cost. Meanwhile we as many people as are willing will through money into funds that can then be disbursed. I really do believe open hardware would need such a scheme. Of course, we will also need to print our printing machines. Us geeks are already losing our grip on being able to build our own computers. That sounds like quite a ways off. It will truly be a geek hardware hacking Renaissance by the time it is possible. Did I just describe something very close to Anarchy?
  
  --
  Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
10. Re:Open software by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 06:57 · Score: 0
  
  Of course it is being audited.... by the crackers looking for holes.
  But, then of course, once a compromise is discovered it is that much easier for hackers to figure out where the problem lies and fix it quickly. Any number of security-minded or affected developers from any one of dozens of companies can find, fix, and contribute a patch for the whole world.
  Contrast that to closed source--where only developers from one company can try to find and fix the problem, and only do so when they choose to--while every user of the software remains vulnerable at their mercy to fix it.
11. Re:Open software by Lunix+Nutcase · 2016-01-31 07:39 · Score: 2
  
  Couldn't be bothered to read my entire sentence? Unless domain experts are constantly auditing he code it means very little that Joe Average can browse the code.
12. Re:Open software by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 07:40 · Score: 0
  
  Which you still don't know what the fuck is running on your system because it will take you 20 years to figure out the source code. I bet you haven't read every line of source of the software that you run now. Dumbass says what.
13. Re:Open software by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 07:44 · Score: 0
  
  How many intentional backdoors are in YOUR open code systems? Who knows? Just ask all the contributors.
14. Re:Open software by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 07:45 · Score: 0
  
  I'm sick and tired hearing this ridiculous argument.
  OpenSSL...
15. Re:Open software by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 08:06 · Score: 0
  
  Can't figure out if that is sarcasm or what. But it may be boring but it is definitely not unrewarding for the hacker who can use it to infiltrate your system.
16. Re:Open software by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 08:43 · Score: 0
  
  You can pay to access and review Windows' source code, it just costs a ton.
17. Re:Open software by jiriw · 2016-01-31 09:42 · Score: 0
  
  Unless domain experts are constantly auditing
  I read this fallacy every time when someone wants to downplay the importance of open source code... every ... single ... time! Actually to the point of becoming quite nauseated by it.
  It's simply not true. (First part of famous quote here:) Given enough eyeballs...
  First of all there are the software designers/programmers that actually lay out the structure and write the code. Unless they are 'in to the conspiracy' do you think any of them just write code and then 'throw it into the world and let it be'? There is quite a chance they'll notice when someone is tampering with their work. And for the distribution chain to the 'end user' we have MD5. Only one person has to notice a discrepancy there and make a fuzz about it.
  Then, when a project becomes more widely used, there will be domain experts looking at the sources, either because they are curious about it because they are working on something similar or there are financial incentives to do so (paid-for support... open source doesn't mean there is no way to earn money with it).
  And then, there is the problem for the 'attacker' of leaving an actual trail that can lead back to them, which is orders of magnitudes more likely to happen when the source is hosted openly on well-known OSS support websites, than when it's 'securely' stored on some supposedly air-gapped secret server at big company Y. 'Everyone' (if the OSS website opts in for full disclosure) can even use source-code forensics on the style of code underlying the exploit, if necessary and check commit logs and all kinds of secondary resources for traces of how the exploit came to be. Try that in a corporate setting.
  Only thing closed source has over OSS is security by obscurity. And that's the proverbial worst security of all.
  And this is fact: Unless 'the' closed-source software creator has a very generous 'eyeballs here please, we pay you big $$$, oh and here is the source tyvm with proper NDA of course', no-one but, maybe, that creator itself will notice when something is wrong....
  Until some security expert/bughunter finally binary-fuzzes a backdoor/major exploit into action (which, on the chance of over-repeating my point, is a lot harder to do with assembly only information vs. full sources), resulting in big scandalous news posts on tech websites where all 'nerds' can oooh and ahhh over it... either that or the exploit will be sold on to the highest bidder in 'chussiastan' where it will remain hidden until security researcher X notices weird processes on or strange network packets flowing into their honey pots. All in all a much more tedious process.
18. Re:Open software by 101percent · 2016-01-31 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  Transparency and accountability keeps people honest. History has proven this.
19. Re:Open software by 101percent · 2016-01-31 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  You must have not been a geek in the 70s-80s.
20. Re:Open software by unixisc · 2016-01-31 14:01 · Score: 0
  
  These days Open/Free software is more important than ever. With closed kernels and binary blobs you have no idea what kind of code is running on your system. It would be nice to have a true Open kernel running on true Open hardware.
  Then why not just take Minix 3, fork it under GPL 3, then add systemd and emacs to the package, and call it HURD? It will be a pure liberated software, and all those adulterated binary blobs would have to run in userspace anyway. If they're allowed to run at all
21. Re:Open software by unixisc · 2016-01-31 14:04 · Score: 1
  
  Fabs can't add things to a design w/o consulting and the approval of the designers.
22. Re:Open software by unixisc · 2016-01-31 14:06 · Score: 1
  
  Any guy who knows VHDL/Verilog and can afford an FPGA could go ahead and create his own CPU w/ no backdoors
23. Re:Open software by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 18:52 · Score: 0
  
  There's a difference between, "go ahead and find something if you want" and "this is our intellectual property so bugger off". It doesn't matter if nobody actually bothers to read code in practice, the point is about whether the general public has *authority* to get it done. The public are always forbidden to do this for closed source software. This is a guarantee.
24. Re:Open software by KGIII · 2016-02-01 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  There was an interesting and budding community in those times. I'm not sure how much they can accomplish with today's tech and expectations. A good and powerful general purpose computer is hard to make and that's got an added complexity matter where size is concerned. Given enough time, tools, and documentation - I can probably make an x86 CPU. It's just going to be slow because it's the size of a table top.
  If there were a good, realistic, open hardware initiative - I'd be throwing money at them. (And I have some money to throw.) I've yet to find one that has both good goals and realistic odds. I've sent off a few donations here and there but I've never found one which I got behind with any fervor. I don't even ask for anything directly in return. If there were full-blown, open hardware, desktops with modern architecture and speeds - I'd be interested.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
25. Re:Open software by KGIII · 2016-02-01 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  You can do it for free (sort of). Just use the Shared Source Initiative program. Microsoft has had it for years. As in, they've had it for years and years now.
  If you want to access Windows source code, sign up, give them a reason (I've personally used, "Because I want to see it."), and read the code. You don't even need to pay for it. It's entirely free. I don't believe you can get all the source, however. Well, not unless you've got a good reason (by their view of good) can you access everything. You don't just tick a box and they'll send you the complete source, ready to compile, and their tool chain. It's a bit more complicated than that but you can read (not edit, reuse, transfer, or own) the source and you can audit it.
  That said, I've been telling people about this program for years now. I've even used this program. I'm kind of surprised that it's not more known. All those people bitched about not being able to see the source. Microsoft set it up so that they can read the source (albeit with an NDA and not editing that source) and nobody appears to take the time and effort to do so.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
26. Re:Open software by cant_get_a_good_nick · 2016-02-01 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  There's a guy that tried hard to make a toaster all by himself. went to elements, tried to get to a toaster. He didn't quite get there all by himself. he needed to cut a few corners.
  So, a many order of magnitude more complicated object such as a network attached computer.... this argument is interesting in theory. But it's irrelevant in real life. You'll never get a useful machine that you know all that's happening to it.
27. Re:Open software by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-01 10:32 · Score: 0
  
  ... there is some kind of hacker community browsing the code for vulnerabilities FOR WORK, even.
  >In reality that is very boring and unrewarding work.
  Not for hackers.
28. Re:Open software by david_thornley · 2016-02-01 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  Open Source/Free software has one very large edge over Open Source/Free hardware. There are essentially no manufacturing costs for software. I can burn a DVD for someone else easily enough, while if I have a hardware design and one copy for myself it could be extremely expensive to make one for someone else.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
29. Re:Open software by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 05:30 · Score: 0
  
  I did read your entire sentence, and it means A LOT that Joe Average (or his whiz friend, or one of the other millions of eyeballs and cheetos-stained fingers) can browse and change the code.
Who Uses It? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 04:47 · Score: 0

Seriously, Who the fuck uses GNU Hurd and why?
1. Re:Who Uses It? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 05:18 · Score: 0
  
  Seriously, Who the fuck uses GNU Hurd and why?
  Probably Richard Stallman, who is more concerned with some sort of imaginary "freedom" than a computer that works and is actually useful.
2. Re:Who Uses It? by Lunix+Nutcase · 2016-01-31 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  Nah, even he's wiped his hands of it years ago. Hurd is just a one-man wankfest at this point.
3. Re:Who Uses It? by drinkypoo · 2016-01-31 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  Nah, even he's wiped his hands of it years ago. Hurd is just a one-man wankfest at this point.
  Hasn't some schizophrenic nutter developed his own OS more useful than the Hurd in ASM already, starting after the Hurd? I mean, he has a leg up because he's more than one person, but still
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
4. Re:Who Uses It? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 06:01 · Score: 0
  
  >> Seriously, Who the fuck uses GNU Hurd and why?
  > Probably Richard Stallman, who is more concerned with some sort of imaginary "freedom" than a computer that works and is actually useful.
  I'm in doubt if he's saner than we both, but just in case you forgot, his lunatic ideas made Linux possible. Which in turn made a lot of things currently possible, from internet pipes to satellites and spaceships to lab equipment (of course, thanks to the work of lots of people, Linus and RMS being just two of them).
  When we think about it, a lot of things are useful because of RMS... and this while some megacorps are/have been actively blocking free software from wherever they can and effectively trying to stop computers from working (so that everyone need to buy a new one, duh).
5. Re:Who Uses It? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 09:35 · Score: 0
  
  You would have to rewrite everything in Holy-C, meanwhile HURD already runs most of the software in the debian repos.
6. Re:Who Uses It? by unixisc · 2016-01-31 14:08 · Score: 1
  
  Nah, even he's wiped his hands of it years ago. Hurd is just a one-man wankfest at this point.
  He used to promote gNewSense on his Lemote Yeedong, which was a Loongson CPU based laptop that he had. After it got stolen in Argentina, he went w/ a thinkpad, but I'm not sure whether he still uses the same distro, or a different one
7. Re:Who Uses It? by unixisc · 2016-01-31 14:11 · Score: 1
  
  No, even if the GPL had never happened, one of 2 things would have: either Linux would have come out under another license, such as MIT, or whenever BSD was released under BSDL, the world would have gone w/ that one instead. Or one more option - the world might have used Minix instead.
8. Re:Who Uses It? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 14:39 · Score: 0
  
  >> I'm in doubt if he's saner than we both, but just in case you forgot, his lunatic ideas made Linux possible. Which in turn made a lot of things currently possible, from internet pipes to satellites and spaceships to lab equipment (of course, thanks to the work of lots of people, Linus and RMS being just two of them).
  When we think about it, a lot of things are useful because of RMS....
  So RMS single-handedly created the information age! Holy crap!
  That's worst revisionist history than Apple gets up to.
9. Re:Who Uses It? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-01 05:05 · Score: 0
  
  STFU RMS invented modern computing!!!11
10. Re:Who Uses It? by unixisc · 2016-02-01 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  Are you talking about MinuetOS?
Many kinds of freedom by jones_supa · 2016-01-31 04:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

In a way Hurd is not free software because it does not allow me to freely unleash all potential of my PC. I am restricted with digital handcuffs.
1. Re:Many kinds of freedom by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 05:16 · Score: 0
  
  GNU = slavery
2. Re:Many kinds of freedom by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 05:20 · Score: 0
  
  Bingo. For many people working on this project, I believe "communist" may not be a pejorative, but the best description of their political outlook. They believe they've liberated people from shackles, but the end result is that people are standing in line for software. The waiting time for a working OS is probably comparable to the waiting time for a car in the USSR.
  As you might imagine, they have a rebuttal to this argument--essentially categorizing our argument as "utilitarianism" and rejecting that on some philosophical grounds as somehow inferior to their moral philosophy. IMHO, whatever logic they use is just there to serve their belief. The empirical evidence is in: this manner of developing software doesn't deliver goods in a timely manner, and most people regard the delivery as prerequisite for any kind of freedom at all.
3. Re:Many kinds of freedom by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  In a way Hurd is not free software because it does not allow me to freely unleash all potential of my PC. I am restricted with digital handcuffs.
  Except that that's not at all what freedom means. You may as well say that the rm command isn't free software because it doesn't allow you to render 3D fractals.
4. Re:Many kinds of freedom by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 05:58 · Score: 0
  
  Ignorance is Strength
5. Re:Many kinds of freedom by jones_supa · 2016-01-31 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  It does not make sense for the rm command to render 3D fractals.
  I mean, what if I had a car into which I put a "free" operating system. Then I suddenly couldn't switch to the highest gear, and the high beam lights wouldn't work, and the stereo would randomly not power up properly. Surely it does make sense for my car to do those things? Surely using this "free" OS would limit my freedom of using the car in the way that I want, and in the way that it is originally designed?
6. Re:Many kinds of freedom by pr0nbot · 2016-01-31 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  I was wondering the other day what the limits of tolerance should be in Western society. I concluded that the only thing we mustn't tolerate is attempts to replace tolerance with intolerance. In other words, sort of political GPL: you have the freedom to do anything you want, except take that freedom away from others. As an example, after the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt, the democratically elected government set about using its mandate to dismantle democracy ("one person, one vote - one time"), and so had to be ousted by force.
  I see the GPL in the same light. Freedom isn't free, its price is eternal vigilance. The GPL says, you're free to do anything you like with this code except remove that freedom from any users of the code.
  I don't know whether it's less successful at delivering software than "free, do whatever" code; I suspect that if it is, then both are dwarfed by proprietary software. My point being, if there must be only one model of software development, by that metric we should ditch free software altogether. I'm happy with a variety of models, and would probably choose GPL for anything substantial I wrote in my spare time.
7. Re:Many kinds of freedom by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 07:21 · Score: 0
  
  GNU = slavery
  Ignorance is Strength
  And War is Peace?
  Enough with the GNUspeak. ;-P
8. Re:Many kinds of freedom by serviscope_minor · 2016-01-31 07:39 · Score: 0
  
  In a way Hurd is not free software because it does not allow me to freely unleash all potential of my PC
  Yeah sure, if you arbitrarily change the meaning of words from how everyone else understands them then of course sheep flargle and antipode and place mat vicissitude, duh!
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
9. Re:Many kinds of freedom by jones_supa · 2016-01-31 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  Of course I changed the meaning, but I don't see it being a problem. "Many kinds of freedom" as I wrote the topic, that's my point. Freedom to use every hardware component to their fullest potential. Freedom to choose from a large selection of applications. Those things certainly make me more free, and are important practical values.
10. Re:Many kinds of freedom by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 09:44 · Score: 0
  
  Fools will keep wasting time in their car while GNU people instantaneously teleport using HURD translators.
11. Re:Many kinds of freedom by 101percent · 2016-01-31 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  Having control over other people is not a Freedom; it's power. Power is what must first be justified, and also be accountable and regulated, and abolished if it cannot legitimize itself.
12. Re:Many kinds of freedom by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  Communism is not central planned economy. USSR was central planned economy, a group of 'democratically' elected 'wise' men who decided what should be produced and in what quantities instead of relying on a free market.
  
  Communism is the political/economic idea that the means of production can not or should not be owned.
  Working on a free software project like Hurd has nothing to do with either central planned economy nor communism. It is just the free will of a few individuals who want to spend their free time on a complex project that probably will never be finished in their lifetime. Not because there is a ministry of software that orders them to do this, not because there is a demand for it from the free market, but just because they want to do it. There are many projects like Hurd, for example those guys who write an OS in assembler, the guys who try to create an open source Windows, the guys who try to keep BEOS alive, etc, etc, etc...
  There is nothing wrong with this. They might just do it as a hobby, they might be ideologists, it doesn't matter because we still live in a free society.
13. Re: Many kinds of freedom by bestweasel · 2016-01-31 14:12 · Score: 1
  
  You're wrong about Egypt. The government was replaced in a military coup because the power of those who used to rule and own the country was threatened by Morsi.
14. Re:Many kinds of freedom by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 14:57 · Score: 0
  
  Your idea of freedom boils down to: I have more choices and more capabilities so therefore I have more freedom. I cannot agree that having more choices implies having more freedom. I believe that it's possible to have many options to choose at any time while also losing freedom when you actually make certain choices.
  For me, freedom is not about having more choices but instead, freedom is all about self-control and voluntary sharing. It is an inherent law that whoever controls the software/drivers/firmware to a computer also controls the computer. The control to proprietary firmware belongs to the owner of the firmware so therefore, hardware owners who make use of the proprietary firmware cannot control their own hardware without the permission of the firmware owners. Users actually choose to exchange their own self-control in exchange of a computing life subservient to the will of one (or more) software masters; this means users choose to exchange their own right to freedom to live a computing life subject to the rule of other people. These are digital handcuffs that exist simply because firmware owners ask their users to accept the handcuffs.
  I believe that if I own some hardware that requires proprietary firmware, I would be more free if I remove that firmware. The digital handcuffs associated with the firmware would have no binding over me as I would not be installing it at all. Now this does imply that the hardware is practically dead weight without a proper firmware. So what can I do about this situation? The long term fix to the situation is to commission the development of a free firmware/driver/software replacement. This is something that's inherently expensive as it requires the time of one or more experts to perform their expert work - software doesn't just pop up in one week, it has to be developed over time. The next best hope is to find and buy computer hardware where the manufacturer/distributor is actively friendly towards the user community: either by working with the community to develop free software or even shouldering the development burden themselves. The next hope after that is to buy hardware where there are free firmware/drivers by the community who have already taken the initiative to do that hard work without the assistance of the manufacturer/distributor. After this, there is no hope of living in freedom if you're not willing to commission the development of a free software replacement to proprietary firmware.
15. Re:Many kinds of freedom by KGIII · 2016-02-01 03:26 · Score: 2
  
  Well, to continue with your car analogy... You'd probably be placing the blame emphasis on the wrong parties.
  If those things didn't work - can you fix them?
  If those things didn't work - why was that?
  Was it because of improper documentation?
  Was it because they had proprietary lock-out?
  Was it because they were prevented access due to legal mechanisms?
  Was it just because the OS sucked?
  I mean, there are lots of reasons that such behavior could be happening. It may not be entirely the fault of the OS authors. I'd also suggest that there's a whole lot of blame for the installer of that OS (you, in this case). You should have read the documentation and seen that those features were not yet supported. You shouldn't have installed the OS if you weren't willing to accept those faults/limitations. You also should have made backups! ;-)
  But, the big question is - why weren't those things supported? Nothing in the GPL would mean those couldn't be supported. At least, I can't think of any reason that the license of the free software would prevent those things from working. If they're not working, it's probably due to something other than the license. At the very least, you might want to read the documentation *before* installing.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
16. Re:Many kinds of freedom by KGIII · 2016-02-01 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  ... of course sheep flargle and antipode and place mat vicissitude, duh!
  I am not alone in this Universe!!! So far, I recommend garbanzo beans as a treatment. Shistikitabootily is the smoking jacket but damned hard scrape and mitten.
  Pink and purple garbanzo beans fester in my scrotum, not entirely unlike fuchsia!
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
17. Re:Many kinds of freedom by jones_supa · 2016-02-01 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  It takes too much of my time.
18. Re:Many kinds of freedom by KGIII · 2016-02-01 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe... Is it less time to skip the documentation, do the install, and go right to the help files? I find the answer would probably be no except I'm (also, usually) in the latter camp.
  It's not easy to admit that I've installed software, for example, that turned out to not actually do what I was hoping it would do. I've then spent hours trying to find that feature in that software, only to not find it. Sure, sure... I'd looked at the page(s) about the software but, you know, who actually writes down everything the software does? I mean, they just list the more common features - right? Man pages are obviously not manly.
  In my defense, I sometimes read the documentation before installing... Well, I have...
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
19. Re:Many kinds of freedom by david_thornley · 2016-02-01 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  You are free to use Hurd to run any application you like with whatever hardware you like. You just have to extend it some, either by writing the software yourself, hiring somebody or somebodies to do it for you, or otherwise inducing other people to do it. Nobody can legally stop you. Nobody's likely to even try. That's what freedom is. I'm free to try to become a Major League Baseball player, too, even though I'm unlikely to succeed. I'm free to publish what I like, but the New York Times doesn't actually have to print what I write.
  There are practical considerations that may make it more desirable to run a Linux distro, Mac OSX, or Microsoft Windows on your machine, but (assuming you acquire the software legally) you're perfectly free to make that choice.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
20. Re:Many kinds of freedom by jones_supa · 2016-02-01 19:15 · Score: 1
  
  You are free to use Hurd to run any application you like with whatever hardware you like. You just have to extend it some, either by writing the software yourself, hiring somebody or somebodies to do it for you, or otherwise inducing other people to do it. Nobody can legally stop you.
  Why on earth? It would require investing millions of dollars and years of time. Do you have any sense about what is practical and what is not? I can run Windows 10 right now, and it works perfectly.
21. Re:Many kinds of freedom by david_thornley · 2016-02-02 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  This is not an argument about practicality. This is an argument about freedom. You claimed that Hurd was less free because it didn't support your old Commodore 64 floppy drive. However, you have all the freedom you could want to make it read those disks. From a practical point of view, it would be really stupid to modify it to do that, but there's no loss in freedom.
  I'm also going to object to your characterization of Windows 10 as working perfectly. It doesn't support easy software installation with sudo apt-get from the Ubuntu archives (or installing from RPM repositories; I'm not all that fussy). That may not bother you, but I want to have a nice powerful computer that will do that. If it does everything you want, that's fine, but we don't have the same desires.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Because of systemd we need Hurd! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 05:18 · Score: 0

As many have noticed systemd is a cancer eating away at what we call Linux.
Soon all of the functions of "Linux" will be replaced by the metastases of systemd. Then RedHat will change the name of Linux to "systemd".
Then we will want Hurd to be around, so we all have somewhere to flee to, that has not been touched by Lennart Poettering.
Someone feels similarly about the donkey: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lennart_Poettering&oldid=702603378
1. Re:Because of systemd we need Hurd! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 05:29 · Score: 0
  
  Systemd bitching is so 2015... find something else. Maybe pulseaudio?
  BTW Wiki article must be you, just got changed again today. Good jarb!
It's important for a tech ecosystem by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 05:25 · Score: 1

The more different operating systems we have out there, the better for all of us. New technological breakthroughs we never anticipated could happen. It's important to aim for a diverse tech ecosystem, and to support it. I am glad people are still working on GNU/Hurd, Minux, and hope OpenIndiana continues. If we can one day run GNU/Hurd with the ease we run a Linux distro, how would that harm us? Linus Torvalds worked on the Linux kernel just for fun, he didn't really think it would go anywhere.
1. Re:It's important for a tech ecosystem by ledow · 2016-01-31 05:32 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I agree.
  But they have to be usable.
  Technically, FreeDOS had USB before GNU Hurd.
  And 64-bit.
  And that had to emulate a Microsoft piece of software not that much older than itself too, to the point that all DOS programs (even things like BIOS Flashing utilities) still work.
  GNU Hurd is just a dead-end. An intellectual project of little practical use. It's like pushing for MINIX or similar. Yes, alternative OS are all good. But only if they are vaguely in the same decades as the machines you can buy today.
2. Re:It's important for a tech ecosystem by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 05:43 · Score: 0
  
  Except that Linux did go somewhere -- within a few years of it's inception.
  HURD is decades old at this point, and doesn't even support decades-old hardware like USB.
3. Re:It's important for a tech ecosystem by jones_supa · 2016-01-31 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  Linux started to skyrocket when large companies like Red Hat, HP, IBM and Novell picked it up.
  Here's the secret: when you have a big of team full-time engineers working on something, the speed of development will quickly accelerate to completely new levels. :)
4. Re:It's important for a tech ecosystem by rochrist · 2016-01-31 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  Eh. Red Hat didn't 'pick it up', it was the reason the company was formed, and the were very small at first and not exactly shooting the moon with their own development efforts. They didn't even have create their Linux distribution until the end of 1994. HP, IBM and Novell didn't go anywhere near it for years. It was a highly usable system before any of them got involved.
5. Re:It's important for a tech ecosystem by serviscope_minor · 2016-01-31 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  GNU Hurd is just a dead-end. An intellectual project of little practical use.
  Yeah and? This is "news for nerds", not "news for practical businessmen".
  Articles on hurd == news for nerds
  Pretty much by definition.
  Also, it's not of no practical use. It may never be a mainstream OS, but features of microkernels as they have proven useful have slowly been working their way into monolithic kernels. Like modules, userspace drivers, user space graphics, users space sound mixing and etc. Research projects serve well to show the way for the more mainstream stuff.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
6. Re:It's important for a tech ecosystem by unixisc · 2016-01-31 14:13 · Score: 1
  
  FreeDOS has 64-bit? How? Did FreeDOS break the 640kB limit that MS DOS always had?
7. Re:It's important for a tech ecosystem by unixisc · 2016-01-31 14:15 · Score: 1
  
  Part of the reason was that Linux wasn't corporate hostile the way the FSF was and is.
8. Re:It's important for a tech ecosystem by ledow · 2016-01-31 20:10 · Score: 1
  
  Can't tell if trolling or not, but DOS had no such limit. Even Doom required 2Mb of RAM in its tech specs, IIRC. And Windows 3.0.
  And there's two parts anyway - 64-bit processor instruction support,and 64-bit memory access.
9. Re:It's important for a tech ecosystem by unixisc · 2016-02-01 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  MS DOS ALWAYS had a limit of 640kB. Where do you think Gates' quote, "640k is all we'll ever need" come from? It comes from the fact that MS-DOS was a 16 bit OS. Did FreeDOS somehow become 32 or 64 bit?
10. Re:It's important for a tech ecosystem by jfdavis668 · 2016-02-01 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, the 640K limit came from the 20 bit external address bus of the Intel 8086/8088 processor. That gives 1 megabyte of address space. 640K to RAM, 384K to address hardware such as video, keyboard, clock, etc. MS-DOS was built to run on that hardware design.
11. Re:It's important for a tech ecosystem by david_thornley · 2016-02-01 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  Linux is pretty much useless, unless you have some other software to run with it. The normal practice is to use the Linux kernel with the Gnu userland, which means using lots of FSF software. Until LLVM got popular, people normally used a lot of straight Gnu development tools, such as emacs, gcc, gdb, gprof, etc. If the FSF or Gnu project is corporate hostile, then almost all non-Android Linux systems are.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
12. Re:It's important for a tech ecosystem by unixisc · 2016-02-01 11:47 · Score: 1
  
  Right, but does FreeDOS use all 32 bit or 64 bit addresses of the current Intel architecture?
13. Re:It's important for a tech ecosystem by unixisc · 2016-02-01 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  Linux's biggest use has been in the non GNU ecosystem. Namely Android, but also other embedded systems
14. Re:It's important for a tech ecosystem by jfdavis668 · 2016-02-02 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  The base OS does not use 32 or 64 bit addresses. Like MS-DOS, you can run programs and utilities in a DOS extender which allows access to 32 bit code and addresses. When a processor is running in 64bit mode, it cannot access or run 16 bit software. So there is no way to build a 64 bit DOS extender which can return operation to a 16 bit OS.
Steve Jobs by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 06:12 · Score: 0

The greatest salesman in history.
1. Re:Steve Jobs by ClickOnThis · 2016-01-31 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  The greatest salesman in history.
  Heresy!!!
  
  --
  If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
We have sound! by Chris+Mattern · 2016-01-31 06:38 · Score: 1

Hopefully one of the days we'll support that Internet thing I hear is all the rage with the kids these days.
Systemd Help by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 06:41 · Score: 0

I need help getting my bash scripts to insert messages into the system log on systemd systems.
In the past you could echo messages, then there was logger. What now? Do I have to write an application in order to do something as simple as adding a log entry?
Help would truly be appreciated.
Hurd has been forked... by postmortem · 2016-01-31 06:49 · Score: 0

And fork is more successful, called Turd.
Wow by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2016-01-31 07:01 · Score: 1

He shared that over the past year they've started working on experimental sound support as their big new feature.
Truly, we live in the future.

--
#DeleteChrome
1. Re:Wow by KGIII · 2016-02-01 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  Imagine, you've been working on this since 1990 - nearly 26 years, and you finally figured out how to make a system beep. That must have been very thrilling. That moment, that point, where it recompiled, was installed, and finally went "BEEP" must have been one of the most exciting moments in their lives. All for want of a Spice Girls' track...
  *BEEP*
  Imagine the look on their face when that beep finally beeped. For better or worse, I bet they were thrilled. I wonder how many times they tried before realizing the speaker wasn't plugged into the right port? I also wonder who they told first?
  *BEEP!*
  The BEEP HURD 'round the world! I imagine it was quite thrilling. Eureka was cried, champagne was opened, dancing and merriment were had by all. Someone's mom even splurged and let someone have an extra juice box as a family danced merrily while singing the joys of the eternal beep. Pure, unadulterated, bliss - for someone.
  And if that's not how it didn't happen, fuck you! That's how I'm picturing it in my head and how I'm always going to picture it. Someday, there will be a documentary made and it will be complete with a recreation of the event. It will lack a certain something, a certain essence, but it will be all we have as we strive in vain to live vicariously through the joys of others.
  *BEEP!!!* Excitement, indeed.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
great news!!! by FudRucker · 2016-01-31 07:54 · Score: 1

by the time they have support for my hardware it will be obsolete, worn out and thrown in to the recycle bin

--
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Hurd? by jshackney · 2016-01-31 07:55 · Score: 1

By the time Hurd hits the streets, we're going to need a 128-bit version. I wonder if there'll be a Duke Nukem port?
1. Re:Hurd? by unixisc · 2016-01-31 14:18 · Score: 1
  
  Given the magnitude involved, I doubt we'll ever need anything even close to 64 bit. Although 32 bit is easily inadequate
Woo by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 08:01 · Score: 0

Straight outta 1995.
1. Re:Woo by saccade.com · 2016-01-31 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, they've been promising Hurd since the '80s.
Sound? by PPH · 2016-01-31 08:47 · Score: 1

There's a guy that can help you with sound support. While he's at it, he could replace your Hurd kernel with his new init system.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
1. Re:Sound? by unixisc · 2016-01-31 14:28 · Score: 1
  
  That's what I thought. Wouldn't a combination of systemd and emacs make not just HURD, but even Linux redundant? The only thing keeping Linux going is the need for x11/Wayland and software like Firefox or Chromium.
1995 all over by Barbarian · 2016-01-31 09:10 · Score: 4, Funny

I do recall, in the early days of slashdot that the GNU/Hurd enthusiasts were proclaiming how silly people were to be wasting time on Linux, when Hurd was just around the corner. I was in high school then. It's great to hear that audio works, maybe one of my grandchildren one day will be able to actually use it for video.
1. Re:1995 all over by romiz · 2016-01-31 18:43 · Score: 1
  
  "I doubt Linux will be here to stay, and maybe Hurd is the wave of the future (and maybe not), but at the very least it's an interesting project."
  
  Linus Torvalds, 1992
2. Re:1995 all over by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 22:05 · Score: 0
  
  It was just around the corner before everyone left to work on Linux instead.
3. Re:1995 all over by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 23:04 · Score: 0
  
  I remember OpenBSD from 2000. I basically selected the HW based on SW support (3Com, not RealTek, etc., bugs in almost all "uncommon" drivers). Things have changed and we often forget how easy the HW selection is now for the end user and how long it will take for Hurd to reach the level of BSD driver support back then.
4. Re:1995 all over by null+etc. · 2016-02-01 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  You mean GNU/Linux. You have to be careful, Stallman's just around the corner.
You know... by 101percent · 2016-01-31 10:10 · Score: 1

You know who else never finished their kernel? Apple. Losers, yup.
Heartbleed by tepples · 2016-01-31 12:46 · Score: 1

Then, when a project becomes more widely used, there will be domain experts looking at the sources
How long did it take for Heartbleed to become public?
1. Re:Heartbleed by EmeraldBot · 2016-01-31 14:26 · Score: 0
  
  Then, when a project becomes more widely used, there will be domain experts looking at the sources
  How long did it take for Heartbleed to become public?
  It took 2 years. It took Microsoft 20 to uncover this little gem. Furthermore, Microsoft's products have always had many, many times the amount of security flaws than the open source equivalents had. By your reasoning, private companies are far worse, then.
  Or maybe, we can accept that the world of software is complex. That we are not perfect. That we are mere mortals, not gods. That maybe, once every now and then, we all make a mistake that just so happens to be so perfectly subtle that we don't notice it for a really long time. By all means, if you never ever make a mistake, feel free to go ahead and show us all how flawed we are.
  
  --
  "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
2. Re:Heartbleed by KGIII · 2016-02-01 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  I am a bit too lazy this morning but I seem to recall that people were dancing with glee to point out that IE had fewer vulnerabilities /listed/ than Firefox. Taken as a whole, I get more security patches and updates for Linux than I've gotten on any Windows system.
  I point that out not to be negative but to politely disagree. The volume of issues isn't even really important. What's important is that they can be fixed by anyone who has the time and skills to understand the problems and fix them. You get that with open source.
  So, your statement about Microsoft's products always having more security flaws may not be accurate. Even if it were, it'd be unimportant - to me. The number isn't really all that important. That you *can* do something about a problem is what's important to me. (Also, sorry if this doesn't come off as a spittle-flecked rant about one licensing preference. I'm just not that kind of guy.)
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
3. Re:Heartbleed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-01 11:01 · Score: 0
  
  Let me point out something important that is often unstated: Heartbleed WAS found and became public AT ALL.
4. Re:Heartbleed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 05:27 · Score: 0
  
  I'm curious as to how you're measuring how many security patches you get. Your package manager updates ALL the software running on your Linux installation (and those are not all security issues), Windows Update only updates the system and a few drivers. Also, Microsoft bundles a bunch of fixes together. How many hundreds of security issues were fixed in total in Windows XP's SP1, SP2 and SP3 patches?
  Anecdotes...
5. Re:Heartbleed by KGIII · 2016-02-02 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  I'm guesstimating and considering only installed software that came with my distro in my guess. I'm not actually counting, god no. The assertion is, by no means, substantiated or qualified with numbers. Well, no... There are some numbers and I'll even link to them as I go along. Those numbers paint the picture a bit "better" than they could be but you seem like you think that would be worse. I'm going to politely disagree. I'm also going to write a small novel for you.
  No, really... I'm going to write a small novel for you. I have time and motivation. It's just for you but maybe someone else can take something from it. Mostly, however, it's just for you. I mean, yeah, I find it amusing that you'd think I might not know how my package manager works. I'd also find it amusing that you think this is in doubt. I even find it more amusing that you think that this is a bad thing. It's not - and I'll do my best to show you why. The way reality is, it's awesome when someone writes a security patch for you. The more the merrier! (Sort of... Within reason...) You're not going to get 100% secure/bug-free code. Getting that code maintained and fixed is awesome, and I am grateful for it.
  But, I count the OS as a whole. Unless we want to just count the security flaws in the Windows kernel itself (number I have looked at to prove a point successfully) against Linux as just the kernel (which is unrealistic as nobody uses just the kernel) then Linux clearly gets more security updates and notices than Windows ever did.
  Yes, if you want to count IE against Windows, I'm going to include Firefox with Linux. If you want to count Outlook then I'm going to count Thunderbird and LibreOffice. I'm okay with that and it's less relevant than people seem to think.
  Are you using a computer? You're using an insecure device. Treat it that way and mitigate the security issues based on the goals you have and the risks you're willing to take to reach them. Security is a process, not an application. The greatest security appliance your computer can have is in the seat. Know that, beyond all doubt, you're using an insecure device to read this - regardless of OS. You can minimize the risks, you can not eliminate them.
  So, yes... I count the whole OS and not just the kernel - unless you want to count just the kernel in Windows? I do not count stuff that I've installed. Just the default. I get the mailing list announcements and the subsequent discussions and can enumerate just those pretty easily. I do, sort of, keep track of them and there are a lot of them. The OS, alone and without any additional software other than the default installed with the OS, gets a bunch of updates - and often. That's not even counting the software in the repositories. That's just counting what is installed by default, when installing the OS, and comparing that same to Windows.
  Yes, I'm quite familiar with the update mechanism. I've got scads of VMs that I can spin up, with nothing but the OS installed, to show this. I've even got MSDN licenses that are still valid so I can spin up a default Windows install (or ten) and do a direct, and actual, accounting if you're willing to compensate me for my time. If you wait, I'll probably do it on my own just to have the numbers. I can assure you that Linux will get far more security updates - and that's a good thing. Even if you want to go with *just* the kernel, the kernel will get far more updates (that include security fixes) than Windows will but that's just stupid because the kernels are useless on their own.
  The important thing to take from this, if nothing else, is that it's insignificant. Those numbers, even if they appear to point to Windows, are rather meaningless if you're going to stop and think about it. It's GOOD that they're getting fixed. Take a LTS build from the year 8.1 came out and count the security updates, in total, for it between then and now. Do the same thing with a Windows box. Count only what is installed by default. Count only similar software if you want. Remove LibreO
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
Hurd is the kernel component of GNU Emacs by dmoen · 2016-01-31 12:57 · Score: 1

Seriously, if you google "GNU Guix", you'll see that system startup scripts will be written in Lisp, the package manager will use Lisp to describe packages. Also, I note that the microkernel architecture will allow code that is traditionally part of the kernel to run in user mode and be written in Lisp.
It looks to me that they are building a new system that combines the best aspects of Unix and the legendary Lisp Machine. Which would be kind of cool.

--
I have written a truly remarkable program which this sig is too small to contain.
1. Re:Hurd is the kernel component of GNU Emacs by unixisc · 2016-01-31 13:17 · Score: 2
  
  Can't they rewrite systemd in lisp, put it under emacs and then have their entire OS? Speaking of which, why are they bothering w/ 64-bit support at all? Since the only app that would run in HURD would be emacs, they might as well just make emacs the front end of the OS, instead of bothering about bash/csh/ksh/ et al
2. Re:Hurd is the kernel component of GNU Emacs by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 13:43 · Score: 0, Informative
  
  Hurd is not a kernel program - it is the name of a platform that is made up of many little programs. Hurd's purpose is to replace the traditional Unix kernel. The idea of Hurd is that any user program compiled for Unix can easily work inside Hurd. The name of the kernel that runs underneath Hurd is called GNU Mach. GNU Mach is a microkernel and is very mature for the i686 architecture while x64 architecture is currently in development.
  Now you say, why don't they replace Systemd in Lisp? Well Systemd is an OS management system. Hurd has no need for such a system that supervises the OS to segregate concerns and route system access. The microkernel/multi-server approach of GNU Mach/Hurd inherently means that such a supervisor is completely superfluous.
3. Re:Hurd is the kernel component of GNU Emacs by arglebargle_xiv · 2016-01-31 22:59 · Score: 1
  
  Since the only app that would run in HURD would be emacs, they might as well just make emacs the front end of the OS, instead of bothering about bash/csh/ksh/ et al
  That's not quite correct, I have it on good authority that when HURD is finally ready it will also be running Xanadu.
Just an observation... by roc97007 · 2016-01-31 13:04 · Score: 2

Scanning through the discussion, it looks like conversations relating to HURD get ugly fast. Obviously there are strong feelings at work here.
I view the whole thing somewhat with nostalgia, as I was babysitting Vaxen running BSD when I first heard of HURD. Regardless of its merits or lack of same, it seems to be on track for the world's record for slowest development of any currently developed OS. Kinda the Duke Nukem Forever of operating systems.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
1. Re:Just an observation... by sunderland56 · 2016-01-31 15:18 · Score: 1
  
  Kinda the Duke Nukem Forever of operating systems.
  Well now that's just rude. Duke Nukem Forever did eventually get released.
2. Re:Just an observation... by roc97007 · 2016-02-01 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  Kinda the Duke Nukem Forever of operating systems.
  Well now that's just rude. Duke Nukem Forever did eventually get released.
  There is that.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
HURD of systemd by unixisc · 2016-01-31 13:57 · Score: 0

What's it about HURD that won't be able to support systemd? Also, does systemd come strictly under GPL 2 or is it available for GPL 3 as well? In fact, wouldn't systemd make HURD redundant? Or is systemd something that could run on top of HURD?
1. Re: HURD of systemd by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 16:29 · Score: 0
  
  Yes.
Followed by IPv4 by unixisc · 2016-01-31 14:17 · Score: 1

The next thing HURD will support will be IPv4. When they find out that there are no public addresses they can use, the next version will add support for NAT.
QNX by unixisc · 2016-01-31 15:05 · Score: 1

Both Blackberry OS and Cisco's IOS are based on QNX. Even if it does go the way of the dodo, its derivative OSs will still be around
In more future news by invictusvoyd · 2016-01-31 16:58 · Score: 1

Do not thaw the meat. The sauce is not ready .
Can't use IOKit by FithisUX · 2016-01-31 21:49 · Score: 1

and it is a shame. But, can they just use ReactOS USB driver and contribute together?
Sound in 2016, yay! by luis_a_espinal · 2016-02-01 00:21 · Score: 1

GNU Hurd Begins Supporting Sound
Yeah, but.... can it draw sounds?
Function Keys by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-01 07:48 · Score: 0

GNU Hurd is advancing at a dizzying rate! After the astounding achievement of supporting the keyboard function keys last year, now the devs announce they are working on 64-bit and USB support!
Mouse support though, is beyond the pale. "We don't even want to think about that yet. Just talking about it gives me the vapours!" said a developer inside the hothouse of Hurd development.