Slashdot Mirror
GNU/Hurd Web Server Online
Ross Vandegrift writes "Jeff Baily sent an email to the Hurd development list today announcing he has put up a GNU/Hurd webserver. Not much content there, but the fact that it is up is incredible alone. Keep up the good work Hurd! "
Oh, Linux can certainly run *on* a microkernel--think of mklinux. It just doesn't run *as* a microkernel. Monokernels can be implemented on top of multikernels, and vice versa. Think of MVS hosting CMS. Think of RSX hosting RT11 hosting RSTS. That doesn't make it fast. It's very tricky to get performance out of the layering situation. Henry Massolin should go teach the W2K people how to get real work done.
What would happen to free software if Richard Stallmen died?
Don't diss message passing and microkernels until you've tried it. Sure NT sucks, but it would suck even it it was monolithic. (ie. 9x sucks, but has no relation to Linux, even though they are both monolithic, no?) Try programming for BeOS. Messaging is blazingly fast, and the microkernel design speeds up the OS instead of slowing it down.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Linux as an OS certainly won't last forever, but in the long run Linus just might be remembered not for writing an OS but for creating a whole new kind of development process, one that isn't going away.
The whole idea of 'release early, release often', invite patches from everybody, and huge-team development was actually pretty different from the way even gnu worked at the time.
This is essentially a myth. In The Cathedral and the Bazaar, ESR argues the merits of a "bazaar" model by contrasting it with a "cathedral" model of closed software development. The examples of "bazaar" development he presents are Linux and fetchmail to represent the "bazaar," and his example of a "cathedral" project is.... Emacs.
How's that again? Emacs is not an open source project? It does not invite patches from everybody? It does not incorporate contributions from an army of individual hackers? It has not made all its bugs shallow by offering its source code to millions of eyeballs?
The plain weirdness of this comparison still leaves me puzzled. What is it supposed to mean, in a paper whose thesis is the fundamental superiority of open source over closed source? That Emacs is essentially a closed-source project? That it has more in common with NT than it does with vi? These notions are absurd, but it is hard to draw a different conclusion.
The truth is that these development models are quantitatively different, but not qualitatively different. While Linux development is more frenetic than that of FSF mainstays like Emacs or GCC, nightly snapshots and frequent releases are only modest differences in style. They are essentially personality differences; even GNU and BSD projects include nightly snapshots, after all. They don't constitute a sea change in software design.
While no one invented the open source software ethic, it appears likely that Richard Stallman will get more credit than any other individual, which is IMHO as it should be. Many, many people created projects, but Stallman created the movement. More people became conscious of free software and open source as a philosophy through Project GNU than through any other source, Linux included. Linus didn't create the development process; Stallman did.
You seem to imply that microkernel scales better than a monolithic kernel. Yet Solaris, which scales quite nicely up to 64 CPUs, has a monolithic kernel with loadable modules, just like Linux.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
When slashdot descends,
Experimental box is
A smoking crater.
Rogers @Home isn't upload-limited everywhere.. everybody living around me who has cable has no limitations on upload whatsoever.. Could be because I'm in Canada, but still...
one could be a kernel and one could be a compiler. That would be much more different. Hell, one could be an orange.
The default config if you have a lancity on Rogers is usually as such. I know people in BC and ON who both have the exact same 47KB/s uplink limit -- but yes, service does differ as per locality.
Interesting! The FAQ claims 1 million hits or so, so maybe it's out of date. Boosting traffic by 3.5 million hits, my.
Still doesn't need a quad OC-12, though. Guaranteed.
More likely, its the shitty @home connection.
Anybody who hasn't done serious work on both monokernels and multikernels has no place to talk. And those of us who have realize that it's a much longer story than fits here. Suffice it to say that most posters to this thread are on crack. Do the work. Then talk about it. Sheesh.
@Home does use DHCP, but they always serve you the same IP. The only reason they use DHCP is that *in case* they have to change your IP (major network reconfiguration -not happened yet) they can do so painlessly.
:)
I have a dual boot machine (Linux and Win98). I am not using DHCP for Linux, it's all hard coded. Works just fine
Linux won't really die because there will always be legacy code. Perhaps not as restrictive as 16-bit DOS, but certainly portions of source code will be ported to any new kind of system. It may not be 100% Linux, but I'm sure that we'll see parts of Linux for years after it's "declared dead."
Here in BC, (and probably elsewhere too), Rogers has a clause in the @Home license that really makes me uneasy.
I'm just pulling figures out of my a**, but after the first gigabyte of transfer per month they may charge you with $1.00 CDN/100 kBytes. I've never heard of it being enforced, but I know they could send me a bill for several thousand dollars on a fairly quiet month. Ulp!
(If anyone can verify this and come up with some proper figures, I'd be much obliged. I can't find my bill anywhere. Secondly, this could probably be thrown out since it hasn't been enforced, but IANAL.)
Try liquidising about 400 magic mushrooms, and mixing the resulting gunk with four litres of coca cola just below boiling point. Let the mixture cool, strain the remaining solids out, and allow the liquid to crystallise. Eat the crystals.
Ah so the hurd is like a unix with the best features of AmigaOS thrown in.
Erm, a point about version numbering:
Under standard OS releases, version 1.0 is a fully stable version which has been rigorously tested and for which there are no known issues (some projects have chosen to violate this definition, for one reason or another). If this was a 1.0 release, then it probably would have been under heavy testing for some time. Right now HURD is still in heavy developement, and will continue to be for some time to come.
As another poster pointed out, Linux pre-1.0 was very stable and reliable.
You don't understand. A server in this case is not a stand alone program (inetd). It is what you probably think of as a module (but is much more powerful).
The apps server is (i think) the part of the OS that handles any communication between any user space programs and the traditional OS functions.
FreeBSD. What's that? Oh, that's that lame ass OS with all the loser coders working on it. Oh yeah, that fag Tom Christiansen uses it too. 'nough said.
Just run snmpd and MRTG the interface its on, unless its on a hub/switch of course.
Amen, brother. These MicroKernel zealots are some dumb fucks. They need to get their heads out of Andy Tanenbaum's ass. Didn't they see what happened when Andy tried to fuck with Linus? Linus ripped hima good ol' Finnish asshole.
HURD is not "much like the Linux kernel." It is a microkernel; Linux is a monolithic kernel. How much more different could you get? You could make it closed source, put it in a big box and let people pay to use it. I'd rather prefer it being at least a bit like Linux in that way... =:-) CU, Ventilator
--- If OS were buildings, then the first woodpecker to come around would erase 95 % of civilization.
most of the time its at least intelligible, if not intellgent, what is this supposed to mean?
It seems the advantages of HURD over Linux or FreeBSD, such as they are, are expandability and scalability rather than functionality. I wonder how attractive HURD will be, however, once Linux and FreeBSD have completely multi-threaded, modularized kernels.....
Moreover, granted that the FSF goal is to get everyone using their software, I wonder if HURD has anything to convince people, and most importantly industry, to switch.
It also seems as if it will take a year or two for HURD to be stable; in a year or two, FreeBSD and Linux are going to be so far ahead in hardware support, stability, and in functionality that HURD would seem to be useless.
In sum, HURD seems to be a failed attempt of the FSF to totally conquer the Open Source world, an attempt doomed from the start. In truth, they are about five-ten years too late.
Stallman wrote everything that is in use today. He is God's gift to computing. Get down on your knees (you're probably there anyway because you're blowing your father) and beg forgiveness for slandering The Honorable Stallman.
No, he's right. Perl is but a minor annoyance. Larry and those other dumb fucks have no clue on how to make a real language. It's too late in the game for them to admit that they were goofing around with Perl.
Well, those of you who guessed that it was a surprise for me to see my name and my hurd box on Slashdot were right... =) FYI: The OS itself doesn't appear to have given out, but the IP stack is less than happy. It's no longer willing to take incoming or outgoing requests. I'll reset it later today. For those who are wondering the web server on it, I'm running swshttpd - http://freshmeat.net/appindex/1999/08/02/933599238 .html The apache compile kills the OS during `./configure'. If you have other questions, feel free to email me: jbailey999@hotmail.com (If you email me there, I'll give my real address, that's where I collect spam and stuff). Tks, Jeff Bailey
Yup, it couldn't handle the stampede of slashdotters (sorry couldn't resist)
Jilles
Wow, now lets see if it can stand up to the /. effect. Though the story was posted only 8 minutes ago and it already seems pretty slow.
here's the dump from netcrafts query page :
Sorry, couldn't determine what the server was for host hurd.zugzug.com on port 80.
interesting to see that netcraft couldnt determine the server.
Yes and no, I think it's kindof funny that a simple announcement to bug-hurd of my web server was enough to get it posted. I intended for this web server to be a simple demonstration of a web server that did a `ps -ax' and a vmstat on request. However, in general, I think that people ought to design their web servers to deal with the /. effect. There's certainly been enough articles on the topic! Tks, Jeff Bailey
HURD isn't linux.
Whatever the "next Linux" may be, it'll have to be damn good to make me switch over :)
you're just happy because you had a reason to get second post.
It uses Linux code. I agree that It should be called GNU/Linux/Hurd. It's only fair.
"We've all put so much effort and time and code into Linux, are we supposed to just dump it as soon as HURD becomes usable?"
Erm.. no, use it or not as you please. Did you really need someone to tell you that?
What does the FSF have to do with money? I thought they specifically said that they are not involved with the issue of whether software was free of charge or not.
If you don't already know this, propietary software isn't the same as commercial software. And ask how the people at Red Hat feed their children.
You are seeing software as a product to be sold. I see software as knowledge to be learned and experimented with. Yet scientists all over the world are being hired and are feeding thier children. At no point does a scientist say, "Let me propietize my discoveries and forbid anyone sharinng this information."
BSD has plenty of advantages over Linux-based operating systems. The most important one is a coherent distribution. So far, we haven't seen that from any of the Linuxes. Still, it's probably only a matter of time. I used to have so much hope for Slackware.
It's sort of dynamic. Rogers @home actually assigns the IP addresses to you. They give you the OPTION of using DHCP, but it always gives the same address. Besides, I still think this is incredibly funny.. =) Tks, Jeff Bailey
Yeah, that's why Andy's dumb ass is insignificant these days. That'll teach that dumb fuck to go up against Linus.
As one who enjoys using UNIX but misses the lack of certain software which is available only for Doze/MacOS (i.e. Adobe anything), I have been closely watching the evolution of MacOS X. As a Mac, it is subject to the availability of the software I wish to use, and as UNIX, well, it's UNIX; 'nuff said.
/. readers will. However, I've gotten spoiled by using an open source OS, and I hesitate to go back to a closed one. One thing I have read, though, is that OS X is Mach-based. If I could run GNU Hurd alongside OS X, both atop Mach, I wonder if some of my closed-source misgivings would be alleviated?
So I intend to take OS X for a test drive when it is released, as I hope many
If only Macs weren't so expensive, I think they would be on the virge of being one killer platform. As far as getting people to jump ship from elsewhere, they offer gobs of backward compatibility: Linux/x86 & Windoze both run on Virtual PC, Old Mac apps run on OS X, all this fantastic software being developed openly for Linux and the BSDs could be compiled and run natively on OS X and/or HURD. Of course, much of this software is X based - that means the X Window System would have to be hacked in, maybe some combination of XFree for the libraries and a commercial X Server for Macintosh for integration with the Mac desktop? I'm just throwing this out there - if the Mac OS were running an X Server, would Hurd and OS X be able to share the Mac desktop? How about file system integration? Would one have to resort to NFS, or could filesystems be shared in a more close-knit and high performing fashion?
So does anyone care to comment on how feasible it would be to run OS X and Hurd atop Mach simultaneously?
/. peeve #274: The word is neither "walla" nor "whala", it's voila. Phonics is a tool of the devil.
Why the fuck should I have to go work for Redhat just to feed my children? Don't be a loon! My company sells software. I'm not evil. I'm practical. 99.98% of the companies out there are evil by the FSF's standards. They tell us we should go flip hamburgers. Well, fuck that noise. I didn't go to college to throw away my skills. I'm doing what I'm good at, and I'm being paid for it. We can't all work at Redhat. Please get a grip on reality!
Oh it must have been Bruce's henchmen who moderated this down. Buncha morons with no sense of humor.
I fyou read the debates between Andrew Tanenbaum and Linus Torvalds, when Linus was developing Linux with the community, you will see that Linux does not have a microkernel. A microkernel seperates the kernel level services, system calls, interrupt handlers, etc... from the managment systems, like memory managers, file system managers, and drivers a like. To say anything with Linux and Microkernels in the same sentence, one should always include "does not have", or "is easier to implement", etc... There is a big debate because the Linux kernel is so huge because of all the modules that need to be loaded. A microkernel system would be much leaner, I do not know about faster. My time with Minux was short ( a semester ) and my performance tests comparing Minux and Linux would not be fair
- Kill Yourself, spare us all! -
oh great, a gook is posting here. This site has gone downhill.
in Dumont, NJ, earlier this year, the "Nice man From D.A.R.E." (Ptl. Longo) pleaded guilty to Child Molesting. He beat the rap on "official misconduct" because he wasn't wearing his uniform at the time. He also managed to avoid jail time. According to Thomas Sowell, Dare Has zero impact on Drug use. Hmm..... So what is the intent of that program, anyway? And should we spend tax money to grant pedophiles access to young boys?
Why should we even *want* to work at Redhat? It's too late to get rich (post-IPO), and they're just putting out crappy Winix-ware. It's incoherent. Look at what happened to Rasterman, dude, and think hard before you kiss Redhat's ass.
Binary compatability is eventually intended, but there's still a few things in the glibc that need doing for this to happen. Tks, Jeff Bailey
Great. We now have a certified kook polluting slashdot again. How many -1's does it take to kill his IP?
If Stallman actually wrote an operating system, then Al Gore invented the Internet. Come on guys, give credit where it's due instead of just feeding an undeserved myth.
I've used MacOS X. It's a great system. Lean but stylish, just as you'd expect from an Apple/BSD fusion. And I believe that the BSD parts are still open sourced.
If you expect a new O/S paradigm, don't look to someone commercial or political.
Yeah. Actually that stands for LSD:
Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds
Actually, someone misheard it as "Lucy's getting high with Linus":
-----------------------------Me used to be a angry young man
Me hiding me head in the sand
You gave me the word
I finally HURD
I'm doing the best that I can.
-- You are in a twisty maze of passages, all alike.
Some Linuces will die. Others will prosper. At $200/share, Redhat has a good chance of being one of the winners. But most of the Linuces will kick the bucket. That's ok. Progress continues.
Because there's no reason for Perens to get the moderation points just for his name -- which is what is happening. People with karma over 50 should only be allowed to post anonymously.
The real war is, and has always been, between Microsoft and Unix. Your so-called "Linux/Windows" war is merely putting new names on old matters.
Your company can sell all the software you want. I just ask it to be free (as in free speech). If you don't, I will buy my software elsewhere.
Also you assume (college == get a good job).
If you can make a living fliping hamburgers than why not? My plan is to get my degree and do exactly that. Or perhaps some other job. But I will still have my free time and perhaps I will do something I love other than making a superfluous amount of money.
If you don't like don't use it.
They have nothing against you.
You have no God given right to FSF code or any other code, just as the FSF has no God given right to your code.
Also, your notion of "free" is clearly just the product of the FSF's lies. That's not free. It's viral. It's restricted. It's infective. It's trying to hurt people. It is *NOT* trying to help people.
Sorry, that was a mistake, i meant gpl OS
THB
The FSF thinks they can apply copyright law to include things they didn't even write. Guess what? They're full of shit. I use FSF libraries in closed source code, and nobody knows the difference. I violate nothing.
neither are necessary for an OS. GNU tools (compiler, basic shell utils etc etc) are more than sufficient.
So I should write my code so you can use it in your proprietary products?
Ha ha, I don't think so... If that is the case I want to get paid for it.
See the problem? The GPL is largely responsible for the success of Linux.
no. eros is a rather kewl new OS being developed. refer to previous /. stories or search on google.
BSD filled a void for an open sourced OS, and Linux filled one for an open source operating system You said it yourself...Linux has no advantages over BSD, yet for some reason people are using Linux. Believe me, the HURD actually has some advantages, unlike Linux, and thus will become popular once it's stable.
A compiler is necessary for an OS? Tell that to Sun. The only FSFware I ever use is the compiler. The rest of what you want is available from elsewhere, and better. Still, I expect Richard to start crowing about my GNU/Irix operating system any day now.
If you expect to be paid for it, then you aren't writing free software. Free software has no restrictions. This "free for noncommercial use" or "free for nonclosed use" or "free for nonpaid use" or "free for viral use only" is nothing like free. If you write someting beautiful, give it away. Just fucking give it away. Hypocrites!
Mr. Perens, you are absolutely right.
:) :) :)
Someday we will all be using FreeBSD, the Open Source successor(and predecessor) of Linux.
Linux is indeed not forever. A new day will dawn.
Don't you mean "neither is", not "neither are"? Or are you trying to say something else?
Currently, there are zero completely GPL'd operating systems. Even Debian ships an OS with non-GPL'd software. And the Redhat OS is so filled with non-FSF stuff that you have to hunt to find it. Now, maybe you can make a decrepit useless operating system with only GPL'd software on it, but nobody ever will. Or are you suggesting that everyone is going to reinvent the wheel to rewrite the free software that's already out there just so they can slap the GPL on it? I doubt it. I sincerely doubt it.
If the FSF is using HURD for their kernel, what will they use for their operating system? Debian Linux?
I'm sure glad that Berkeley didn't have your shitty/greedy attitude. Otherwise we'd all be using X.25 instead of TCP/IP.
Moderate this up, he has a real point.
You run GNU/Irix? Kewl! I run GNU/NT myself. It's always complaining about being turned into a newt. :-)
This is one the reasons free software/open source is so much more like knowledge. Didn't Isaac say that he could reach new heights by standing on the shoulders of giants... Let me see that happen with propietary software :)
:)
plug:
I wrote about this very thing in The Rise and Fall of OS Empires. It was also a subtle argument against BeOS
/plug
Hey! That's interesting. I had not heard of Exokernels before. Anything that increases web server performance by half an order of magnitued is a Good Thing.
Read more about XOK and ExOS at http://www.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/exo/ as the man said.
Hi!
Most microkernel architectures (Flux, soon GNU Mach) use the OS Kit, which contains basically linux 2.2.x hardware device drivers. marcus@gnu.org
They will use GNU for their operating system.
Alejo.
What do you mean "they will use GNU as their OS"? Even the Linux OSes have plenty of nonFSFware in them. Read the manpage for rsh lately? It's hardly "GNU". Neither is openssh. I don't think you can make an operating system using only the stuff the FSF owns.
DOS and Linux were very different, while Hurd and Linux are very similar.
;-)
I think you need to learn a little more about the Hurd before making a statement like that. Start by reading some of the other posts on this thread
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
Good catch, man! This just goes to show that free software is what's ultimately successful, not crippleware with strings attached.
That's the way I think it will go.
I may end up developing propietary software. But that will not prevent me from writing free software. It will also not prevent me from demanding free software. Many people must develop propietary software. There is nothing wrong with that. The revolution has only begun.
> *But* Linux still has many more years of development behind it than HURD. It's better not to think in terms of years but in manhours, where Linux is far ahead. But note also that most Linux development goes into hardware device drivers, which can be reused either unchanged or with little modifications in GNU Mach directly or in OSKit. marcus@gnu.org
The only FSFware I ever use is the compiler.
That is hard to beleive. GNU is so pervasive in "Linux" operating system that it makes more sense to call it GNU/Linux. Besides, Linux is a kernal, the rest is mostly GNU.
Take a look at http://www.gnu.org/software sometime. I counted well over a hundred commonly used software packages there sometime in just the GNU section. Including GNU Bash, GNU Window Maker, GNU Emacs, GNU elvis, GNOME, glibc, etc. Are you sure you don't use any of these or other software on the GNU software map?
GNU is a complete system except for the kernal. That doesn't mean added software makes it not GNU.
OK, fine. FSF sucks, GPL sucks harder.
So why don't you open up Visual C++ on your NT box or some other compilers on the platform of your choice and use them instead?
The software is only meant to be used by those who find the licensing acceptable.
Hi Bruce, I think it is enough room for two or three OS's to be used, especially with different specialisations (embedded systems, distributed systems etc). Anyway, code reuse already happens: The linux hardware drivers are used in GNU Mach for the Hurd and also in the OS Kit. Every Linux developer is also a Hurd developer. The only important thing is that we keep code reusable and stay compatible on multiple levels (binary compatibility, source compatibility, protocol compatibility etc). Marcus Brinkmann (brinkmd@debian.org)
*But* Linux still has many more years of development behind it than HURD.
Actually, that's not quite true. In fact, I think that the Hurd has been around longer than Linux. The problem as I understand it is that it's an experimental design, and they keep deciding to throw out or rewrite parts of the system, whereas Linux is based on the well-known Unix kernels. Recently there seems to be a significant amount of forward progress, and I wouldn't be surprised if things get a lot better over the next year. Or they might not
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
Any POSIX conformant system will have essentially the same API. By that way of thinking, OpenMVS, OpenVMS, Solaris, AIX, Irix, Tru64 Unix, BSD, Linux, and yes, even the crippled NT subsystem seems quite similar. If the Hurd attempts to conform to the POSIX spec, then it would seem very similar to Linux or Solaris or BSD, which also make the same attempt. write(2) and read(2) et alia are pretty much the same everywhere. MS-DOS, on the other hand, seems quite different, because it is not standards conforming.
Of course, to someone hacking on the kernel source code, you, Daniel, are completely correct. A regular Unix kernel hacker will look for a long time for bdevsw in something running on top of a microkernel and never find it.
It's really a matter of perspective.
Hi Bruce,
I think it is enough room for two or three OS's to be used,
especially with different specialisations (embedded systems, distributed systems etc).
Anyway, code reuse already happens: The linux hardware drivers are used in GNU Mach for the Hurd and also in the OS Kit.
Every Linux developer is also a Hurd developer.
The only important thing is that we keep code reusable and stay compatible on multiple levels (binary compatibility, source compatibility, protocol compatibility etc).
Marcus Brinkmann (brinkmd@debian.org)
Um, no. You assume that the GPL has teeth. It doesn't. Ignore it. It's never been ruled about by a judge, so it has NO LEGAL STANDING. Really, if you care about free software, you should ignore the GPL. If you don't believe in it, you ignore it because you know it's bullshit. If you do believe in it, you ignore it because you hope a judge will make a ruling. Otherwise, nothing matters.
Linux has some advantages over BSD :
i) GPL'd source code.
ii) More visible development model.
iii) The GNU tools. THe BSD versions of the little things, like ls, cd, grep etc. suck compared to the GNU versions, due to the GNU extra options.
GLibc 2 has versioned symbols, so no difficult upgrades anymore. Marcus Brinkmann
Hi, a kernel upgrade will probably be easier with a microkernel than with linux, but it is not interesting, as the kernel hardly contains anything. The big stuff is in the userspace servers, which can be replaced at run time, except some critical ones like the root fs, proc, auth, ... But it is possible (but is it feasible?) to replace even those at run time.
You say the Linux has years more devel time than the Hurd. So what? WinNT also has years more devel time than the Hurd. And BSD has years more devel time than either WinNT or Linux. Why does that matter?
100.00000000000000000000% flamebait! Moderate the parent down to Gehenna. That's all lies and propaganda. SUFFER NOT THE TROLL TO LIVE.
Yes, I'm quite sure I don't use any of those. Why should I? There are better alternatives to all of them, except for the compiler. And you have a funny idea about what's the FSF's and what isn't.
Yeah. I'm sure we're going to head back away from SysV, and back to that crufty, ancient BSD crap.
I wonder who the dumbass is here ... The Hurd is based on GNU Mach, which uses the Linux hardware device drivers, quite a few Megs of code. So saying they have nothing in common is simply wrong. Also on tha appplication and interface side, there are a lot of commonalities. Marcus
He's on rogers, the have static ip's more or less. His uplink is also likely 47KB/s.
Fucking trolls! Why is it that when we burn the flamebait, it still regenerates? BSD is the product of twenty years of continual refinement and solid engineering. SysV is the product of an abortus thrown over the wall from the smart people (Bell Labs research) into the corporate sector. Get a clue.
The "crufty, ancient BSD crap" that gave Unix TCP/IP, printing, virtual memory, a decent shell,...
Aside from which, Linux is not SysV; it is a strange hybrid of BSD, SysV, and quirks exhibited by past Unix flavors.
The major problem with gcc is its embrace-and-extend philosophy. The FSF never did care about standards. Why? Same reason as Microsoft. Plenty of evil to go around.
You are stealing the work of programmers, who freely gave you access to their code.
All of these PROGRAMMERS, coders just like you, wished you to follow the terms of the GPL.
Specifically that you only use the software in the way that they indicated and that you make the source code freely available.
If you couldn't abide by these terms, why didn't you use something else?
How would you feel if I treated your work the same way?
At 1134pm eastern on a Sat night? who makes the first "is it hosted by IIS" post?
Matt
You cannot steal something that is free. If you can steal something, it is not free. Therefore, GPL'd software is not free.
The "terms" are a legal fiction. Find a judge, or shut up.
Is it actually hosted on the Hird? If so then the hurd cannot handle geting slashdotted. But then again only a mainframe or starfire box could really withstand that.
--Shemnon
uhh, sure.
heres what I got out of it:
:/= That's a crooked smile guy with a goatee
:/=0 Which appears to be a fat man with a crooked smile and a goatee.
1|? Well, in binary, you can have a 1 or a what? A zero of course, so we have this so far:
57| Well this is, ah, fuck it, i don't know, i'm just trying to get my karma up from -4 by posting stuff, it's not working
And don't forget the editor of the gods.
someone was jonesin' for a thesis topic. From what I gather after sifting through everything on the exo site, this is an entirely unuseable paradigm in the Real World.
/dev/* (or add group permissions as appropriate)
Raw performance isn't the holy grail of kernels--I certainly won't sacrafice useability to the point that this would require. Do you really want to have to handle your own disk caching, resources, etc in each app you create? If you're running a server which requires it, customize the kernel, not the app.
If device problems are bugging you on your home machine, chmod 777
What's that? you're run a production exokernel server and there's a reason you don't want X to do Y? Well, tough titties--the app you're running was coded greedily.
endokernels forever.
This is the official GNU Hurd site. Short summary: It's a microkernel, which means it's harder to develop and possibly slower, but more versatile in what it can do. Think a kernel that's nothing but modules.
Windows 2000: Designed for the Internet. The Internet: Designed for UNIX.
LanCity Modems have an internal ip used for managment purposes - u can find out the ip when u do a tcpdump -i ethwhatever - and watch for snmp traps ... snmp v1 - public community works for me
He is right though dumbass. Linux and HURD have nothing in common, though the goals might be the same.
Since he's on rogers, his uplink is more or less fixed.. Doesn't matter anyway though, far more traffic goes by which could be classified under quake/half-life/whatever servers and warez.. :)
What's GNU Patch? I thought Larry Wall invented patch. Is GNU Patch the free rewrite?
wake up and find out that you are the eyes of the world.
Good point, perhaps I should reinstall MP/M or CP/M on my system...
Little Brother, watching the watchers
Naw, traffic is managed through QOS, most likely using ONAdvantage. Therefore one user can't use all the traffic on a segment himself -- unless of course, no one else is trying to do anything.
Most rogers users (his MSO) have lancity modems and they have a fixed uplink of around 47KB/s (well, backbone and local problems aside).
Only in theory. A "working" kernel took many, many years to come out. They finally have most of the really big bugs hammered out. A few more down and I imagine they'll start to flush out the features.
Uhh -- I haven't heard much about UnixWare lately. Apologies to all the folks at SCO, Novell, and AT+T.
(Doesn't Solaris and UnixWare have a somewhat common source base?)
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
You may have a point there.
Maybe it would be more pure to "Just fucking give it away."
Maybe it might even be more ethical (by some definitions).
But I for one am definately NOT going to just GIVE it away.
This is not my intention or motivation and I don't really care what anybody thinks about it.
And as the programmer I am the only one who can decide what the appropriate use for the software is.
What sounds more communist to you, your insistence that I "Just fucking give it away?" Or my (perhaps selfish) insistence that my software only be used in a way that I approve of?
No one has a right to anyone else's code.
If you don't like the license don't use the software.
No one has a right to someone else's code? I don't think comrade Stallman would agree.
If you haven't given it away, it's not free, and you're lying if you say it is.
So, you're not making your software available for altruism or for fame. Why then are you doing so? What are your motives, sir?
Mmh, I thought it's monolithic
like Linux.
Frank
It's nice to see another OS (kernel) design is still being worked on - people seem to get so caught up in the Linux/Windows war that they forget that there are several other designs that offer benefits of their own.
I'll certainly give a full HURD distro (say, Debian HURD) a good try should it ever make near-completion.
1 0\/\/n j00!!!!
1 276 ms 28 ms 27 ms aggro-80.lvcm.com [24.234.80.1]
2 25 ms 30 ms 22 ms edge.lvcm.com [24.234.0.1]
3 217 ms 70 ms 22 ms H4-0-0.irv-lvg100.gw.eni.net [207.168.88.1]
4 40 ms 42 ms 42 ms noname.eni [155.229.120.157]
5 239 ms 29 ms 49 ms bb3.mae-w.home.net [198.32.200.47]
6 42 ms 42 ms 356 ms c1-pos3-3.snfcca1.home.net [24.7.66.45]
7 332 ms 57 ms 55 ms c1-pos4-0.sttlwa1.home.net [24.7.66.1]
8 54 ms 62 ms 317 ms bb1-pos2-0.rdc1.bc.home.net [24.7.72.174]
9 265 ms 66 ms 65 ms 10.0.186.114
10 * * * Request timed out.
11 * * * Request timed out.
I think he was refering to programmer-years of development.
:-)).
Even if Linux is younger, by having more people developing it, using it and giving feedback, the end result is that Linux is much more mature at this stage.
That may change if the developers and users get tired of Linux (or from the companies that step in the development process
Gerardo
Gerry -- #include "ea!.h"
If the subject was "first post", then could you read it?
--
Man is most nearly himself when he achieves the seriousness of a child at play.
****Gfx Scrollbar Special case hit!!*****
This is just my personal preference and obviously other people might feel differently, but I think I have every RIGHT to put my conditions on the software I write. It doesn't really matter what my reasoning is.
People will use whatever license they feel most comfortable with and if they feel the GPL restricts them they will vote with their feet for other licenses.
To quote Linus:
"The only thing the copyright forbids (and I feel this is eminently reasonable) is that other people start making money off it, and don't make source available etc... This may not be a question of logic, but I'd feel very bad if someone could just sell my work for money, when I made it available expressly so that people could play around with a personal project. I think most people see my point."
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/ap pa.html (The famous "Linux is obsolete" debate near the end)
NFS works by having a process accepting commands through a socket, so you can do this (rather inelegantly) on most operating systems.
Of course you're right. Just please don't pretend that something with strings on it is free.
Get your slurs straight, dumbass.
By posting this, I shall undoubtedly be subjected to the wrath of the many vocal zealots who make up a majority of the HURD community, but the server appears to be slashdotted. :-)
(Score: -1, Troll)
They're not charging for your work. They're charging for their own. This is just part of the FSF's web of deceipt. They claim that it's ok the charge for GPL'd software. What an ingenuous little lie!
Ok..someone really needs to read this comment...it's uh...well....it's weird.
More importantly, you have a logical fallacy. Just because the Linux kernel is free software, and just because the FSF is about free software, does not mean that Linux is about the FSF, nor vice versa. Aristotle would not be pleased. :-(
Periodically, someone comments that warnings should be sent to admins of systems whose systems are linked to from here, just in case the load is too much. But linking to a system running an experimental operating system should probably fall somewhere under premeditated assault.. ;-)
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
Your point about speed is completely specious, I'm afraid.
The ability of the PentiumII/III architecture to parallelize certain tasks (via having multiple execution units; the Pentium could do this in a limited way, and all modern chips such as SPARC or Alpha or PPC also do this) does not mean your processor can run multiple tasks at once.
Let me quantify that a bit better: each process (and processes and threads are very close to the same on all Unices, but running NT won't help you in this case) requires its own complete context, consisting of register values on the processor and page tables maintained by the OS. Since the processor only has one set of registers and only one program counter, it can only be executing one thread of instructions at a time. It can parallelize only in a very small local area around the PC. This speeds up execution of the current instruction thread, since you can get other things done (i.e. evaluate other non-dependent instructions) while waiting for a particularly slow instruction to finish. But it doesn't speed up multiple threads.
In fact, context switches (required to switch threads) are very expensive. You have to save out all the register values, load new ones, and bring up new page tables. In addition, unless the two threads happen to be working on the same chunk of memory, all the cache data will have to be thrown out (a significant slowdown).
I'm not arguing that Be is not fast, I know it is. And I'm sure it's possible to take excellent advantage of SMP with microkernels. But there's no way to do single-processor threading on your typical processor (of course you are free to build yourself a processor capable of whatever you want). Period. Sorry.
True, but the FreeBSD Portal FS requires that you be root to use it. Under the Hurd, any user can set up translators.
Might this not be more/equal-parts due to the connection? A cable modem is not a T1. I have used 3/4 of my work T1 over cable, but as someone who serves pages off cable, I can say that availability wise, it's NO T1. Also with bandwidth throttling (I do about 70-120k in and about 40K out), well, you can see the problems. Might not just be Hurd (GNU/Hurd...for RMS). By the way, if anyone knows where to get management tools for Nortel LanCity cablemodems, I can't find it. I wanna be able to MRTG it.
Chris
I like music
Most companies would pay to have dedicated web servers run many times faster than they do now - who cares if you can't run emacs on it??
What's so surprising about the /. effect on a Saturday night? Ignoring the billions of people for whom it is not Saturday night as I post this, do you really think that most of the /. community isn't online right now? :)
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
I say, is that really neccessary? Linux is one system, HURD another, Windows a third...let's just accept that fact and quit acting like pre-pubescent "/-rad d00dz" -Nericus (My password is no longer working, go fig)
Unix isn't just a "mindset" - it is an OS invented by Bell Labs. You can still purachse the source code. Linux is a reimplmentation of the core functionality of this OS.
Everyone seems to be forgetting that the Hurd set of user-level servers runs on the Mach kernel. The real credit here should go to the (long disbanded) Mach project team at CMU -- they did all the heavy lifting.
-----
-----
"A man is judged by his every word." -RW Emerson
"They misunderestimated me." -GW Bush
I'll answer a few of the questions raised by various posts on this discussion. (I subscribe to the debian-hurd, help-hurd and bug-hurd mailing lists, and I've tried the Hurd on several occasions, so I more or less know what I'm talking about.)
Of course, the TCP stack crashed minutes after the site being slashdotted. This isn't really an issue: Hurd is still highly experimental, and its TCP stack (which is merely a copy of the routines from Linux - but done in some haste, I think) is mostly used to make it possible to use the box remotely (the Mach console is a pain for one thing, and X requires some patches to work on Hurd). The interesting thing, however, is that whereas the translator handling the TCP stack crashed (the ``pfinet'' translator), the system didn't. That is, in fact, the whole point about the microkernel architecture.
The last distribution of the complete GNU system was 0.2 and it is now completely obsolete. The next distribution, Debian GNU/Hurd 0.3 potato, should come out together with the corresponding GNU/Linux distribution, and share some packages with it (the non-binary packages; binary compatibility between Hurd and Linux is a goal for the future and shouldn't be too hard to achieve, but it's not there yet).
The system now works quite well, and is able to run nearly everything, but it's still far from stable, and miles from being optimized. Filesystem demons are the most important thing to finish, and they are now almost completely stable. More advanced translators like the nfs clients or the ftpfs (allows you to mount ftp directories) are there more to show the power of the translator paradigm than as actual working systems, and they're quite unstable. But, once again, the whole point is that if a filesystem (other than your root filesystem) crashes, the system will typically continue to function correctly anyway.
The Hurd shares the same libc with Linux, so porting from Linux to Hurd is typically trivial. The major source or problems is that some programs make wrong assumptions about system limits, that are not true on the Hurd. For example OPEN_MAX is 256 on Linux, and is 2So the Hurd certainly won't be ready before a couple more years. But you shouldn't conclude that it never will ``catch up'' with Linux, either. For one thing, most changes made to the hardware drivers of Linux are incorporated verbatim in the GNU-Mach microkernel, so the Hurd team doesn't have to worry (excessively) about all that. Adding filesystems to the Hurd is much easier than on Linux, and debugging them even more so, so there it's also not too much of a worry that the Hurd development team is so small. The problem of the TCP stack remains, and while it should be possible to take some parts from Linux, it will probably be a long time before the Hurd has the same networking capabilities as Linux...
Yeah, whatever. Fuck the lawyers.
Simple common sense suggests that a microkernel with as much hardware support as linux would hardly require less source code than the linux kernel, if you include the sources for drivers that don't go into the microkernel. You can distribute a linux kernel with little hardware support by removing some drivers, as you can have a microkernel with that support.
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
I can just imagine him surfing the net, reading Slashdot.. He sees a story about him appear at the top of the main page. He has two seconds to say "Oh NO!".
Suddenly, his net connection is hosed for the next week.
------
If a tree falls on an anonymous coward yelling 'first post' in the forest, does anybody hear?
Hahahahahahha this whole thread and it's replys is so funny!
Someone care to explain what herd is for all of us who don't know much about alternative OS's? It would this story make a lot more sense.
It fails gracefully, specifically you can't even attach a named pipe to a loopback device to begin with.
This is because pipes cannot be seek()ed.
You are completely clueless. Whereas Mach 2.5 was still a monolithic kernel, it's successor, Mach 3.0, has been implemented as a microkernel.
Oops, can't even spell the dang thing right : )
Get it mentioned on slashdot.
Course, that stress-tests your ISP as well. May not be too usefull.
I always thought the past tense of seek was sought. Or did you mean lseek64()d? :-)
Everyone seems to be ticked that this server is going slow... I think that's fair. It's still in beta (I'm pretty sure), and even it weren't, it would be a very low version, somewhere around 1.0. Show me a box running linux kernel 1.0 that can withstand the slashdot effect. Hmpf. Aaron
Who is clueless??? Mach has ALWAYS been a Microkernel. If you don't know what you are talking about don't respond...
Actually, the Hurd is a Herd of Unix-Replacing Daemons, so he wasn't that far off.
It really depend on how many system calls your program does. Having worked at a creating a binary compatible layer above Mach, initial timings on system calls 20-100x slower. Alot of research have gone into optimizing it, so it may be much better now, but it is definitely hard to speed up a microkernel to the speed of a monolithic kernel.
No, it's a HIRD of unix-replacing daemons. Dolt.
Um, because the 'FSFware' is free and Microsoft costs money?
> Linux has no advantages over BSD, yet for some reason people are using Linux
Um, it supports my hardware and BSD doesn't.. isn't that an 'advantage'?
A slight violation of the @Home acceptable use... Running a server...and getting slashdoted will definitely get their attention...
Emacs development is very closed compared to e.g. the Linux kernel. The pre-tester lists are invitation only, and doesn't contain discussion. Test releases are rare, and placed in execute-only directories on secret ftp sites. There are, to my knowledge, no real developer lists, instead RMS send private mail to people whose help or input he want on particular issues. There are no access to the development code outside an even smaller group than the pre-testers.
Contrast this with XEmacs development, where the development discussion is public, there are frequent development releases, and anonymous CVS access to the latest sources.
ESR has been involved with Emacs development, and his characterization is quite on the mark. The Emacs distribution itself is a one man project, however, a community (or bazaar) exsists around the various Emacs Lisp packages.
These daemons do all work, and make the system look like a POSIXesque system. The daemons are (theoretically) easier to mix and match then a big monolithic kernel's functions. They also could potentially perform better in an SMP environment (since there's lots of seperate processes).
The other big thing in the HURD is file translators -- these are programs that are run when a file is opened, read, written to, whatever. So, for instance, you could have a file translator that creates virtual directories or makes a transparent ftp connection (so that, for instance, the file /ftp/ftp.cdrom.com/pub/README would transparently retrieve a file).
You can read much more at the HURD's website.
Some persons are bashing Hurd for not standing up to being Slashdotted.
I'd like to remind everyone that resisting being Slashdotted does not require a good processor or a good operating system or a lot of memory (that is, unless you are building pages dynamically in a wrong (eg. cgi) way), just a good network connection.
This box could run any operating system on a fast processor with a lot of memory and the results would be the same if it had the same bandwitdh.
So don't bash Hurd merely because this box was Slashdotted.
For those who don't know, Hurd is GNU's kernel. I won't tell you here all the reasons why you should be interested on it, though.
Alejo
Uh, diamonds are forever
According to Thomas Bushnell, BSG, the primary architect of the Hurd, ```Hurd' stands for `Hird of Unix-Replacing Daemons'. And, then, `Hird' stands for `Hurd of Interfaces Representing Depth'. We have here, to my knowledge, the first software to be named by a pair of mutually recursive acronyms.''
It seems that no operating system is safe from the dreaded Slashdot effect.
You should never take life too seriously - You'll never get out of it alive.
If you have a bit of time left, read Open Sources. It contains (among others) an interesting article by Richard Stallman and lists up the controversy around monolithic/micro kernels back in the days when Linux was still a very small project. A well-known computer science professor tried to convince everybody else that 'Linux is obsolete' (appendix A).
It's my understanding that while the Hurd is aiming for Posix compatibility, and going to use glibc as the standard library, they're going to be much more modular and abstracted (read: cool but possibly slow) under the hood.
.signature be randomly generated by a program without using ugly named pipe hacks, you could "cd file.tar.gz" without ugly virtual filesystem libraries, you could implement albods more easily... I can't imagine all the possibilities, but it's fun to try.
The neatest things I've heard of:
The whole system is basically cooperating servers running atop the GNU Mach microkernel:
the idea that every user can build up his own system on top. So, if you want to operate, start compatible servers. It's after all your decision, much like it is your personal decision if you use one desktop system (like Gnome) or Xlib, Athena etc programs together. Latter don't interoperate well (drag n drop etc). As they run in user space, you can tweak the system to your liking, even as a user.
But there are still some servers that are the base of the Hurd system. Those are the auth, proc, init and password server at least. You don't need to register your process with the proc server (and it won't show up in the output of "ps" if you don't do so), but that the only thing that will give you access to the features of the proc server. Same with auth. If you don use auth, your tasks will have little to none privilegdes.
Better yet, filesystem support comes from servers, which I believe means that users can have files or filesystems (limited to user permissions) that live off their own servers. Every mounted filesystem is just another new filesystem server added to the pool. No need to make smbmount suid root or put every smb share with the user option into fstab, for instance; any user process would be able to mount arbitrary smb shares in their own directories and make them viewable without being able to circument security. Cooler yet, in theory you could make
Superficially you'd think there's an element of jealousy there because Stallman almost wrote an OS then someone else got most of the limelight by writing the kernel... but that just doesn't feel like the case.
There's appropriate mailing lists you can hunt down for deep info, but you can follow the Cliff's Notes of the Debian Hurd work at the debian-hurd Kernel Cousin page.
That or maybe it's psilosybin.
I got this with Visual Route on Win 98:
- ---------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- ------ ---------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- ----- ... | 243 | -x---- | (private use) | ... | | | | | | | |- ---------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -----
Report for hurd.zugzug.com [24.113.102.239]
Analysis: IP packets are being lost past network "(private use)" at hop 14. There is insufficient cached information to determine the next network at hop 15. Connections to HTTP port 80 are being rejected.
-------------------------------------------------
| Hop | Err | IP Address | Node Name | Location | ms | Graph | Network |
-------------------------------------------------
| 0 | | 63.24.97.204 | 1Cust204.tnt4.santa-barbara.ca.da.uu.net | Santa Barbara, CA, USA | | | UUNET Technologies, Inc. |
| 1 | | 206.115.156.33 | tnt4.santa-barbara.ca.da.uu.net | Santa Barbara, CA, USA | 168 | -x--- | UUNET Dial-Up Networks |
| 2 | | 206.115.177.241 | - | ?Fairfax, VA 22031 | 194 | --x-- | UUNET Dial-Up Networks |
| 3 | | 137.39.40.5 | Fddi0-0.HR2.LAX1.ALTER.NET | Los Angeles, CA, USA | 191 | -x---- | UUNET Technologies, Inc. |
| 4 | | 146.188.248.186 | 102.ATM3-0.XR1.LAX4.ALTER.NET | Los Angeles, CA, USA | 198 | --x--- | UUNET PIPEX |
| 5 | | 152.63.112.182 | 193.at-2-1-0.TR1.LAX9.ALTER.NET | Los Angeles, CA, USA | 203 | --x-- | UUNET Technologies, Inc. |
| 6 | | 152.63.5.102 | 131.at-5-0-0.TR1.SAC1.ALTER.NET | - | 210 | -x-- | UUNET Technologies, Inc. |
| 7 | | 152.63.51.25 | 197.ATM6-0.XR1.SJC1.ALTER.NET | San Jose, CA, USA | 176 | x---- | UUNET Technologies, Inc. |
| 8 | | 146.188.148.249 | 193.ATM11-0-0.BR1.SJC1.ALTER.NET | San Jose, CA, USA | 192 | x---- | UUNET PIPEX |
| 9 | 2 | 137.39.91.14 | - | ?Fairfax, VA 22031 | 214 | -x- | UUNET Technologies, Inc. |
| 10 | 2 | 24.7.72.29 | c1-pos9-3.snjsca1.home.net | - | 195 | -x | @Home Network |
| 11 | 1 | 24.7.66.37 | c1-pos3-1.snfcca1.home.net | - | 191 | x---- | @Home Network |
| 12 | 1 | 24.7.66.9 | c1-pos4-2.sttlwa1.home.net | - | 223 | -x- | @Home Network |
| 13 | | 24.7.73.18 | bb1-pos2-1.rdc1.bc.home.net | - | 226 | x-- | @Home Network |
| 14 | | 10.0.186.2 | - |
|
| ? | | 24.113.102.239 | hurd.zugzug.com | ?--- | | | Rogers@Home Cordova |
-------------------------------------------------
Being hosted on a cable modem might be the problem...
Ouch, the guy is on @Home, where every customer's gateway is on the same /24 subnet with a host number of 1. So, his IP is 24.113.102.239, and his gateway is 24.113.102.1. It is a valid IP, and it isn't returning pings -- there went the entire subnet of @Home customers. :-/
:)
So, ironically, while most of the discussion here regards the OS on hurd.zugzug.com, a more apt topic would be the OS on the gateway.
Well, I think that's the point. It is. Er, it was.
Seriously though - I love that poem.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Actually, in MkLinux, it looked like the microkernel was unnecessary overhead, and I/O abstraction and bottleneck that slowed it down.
:)
But perhaps if it were designed to use a microkernel from the start, it would look very different.
Either way, there have been variants of Linux that have run under Mach, so there certainly is a microkernel Linux of some sort or another out there. And, since NT is supposed to run under a microkernel too, I think this is just an implementation buzzword until it's done correctly.
We'll see what the HURD will bring, I've learned to expect great things from the FSF, that hopefully will be made useful for mere mortals by the rest of the community.
---
pb Reply or e-mail rather than vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU STUPID FUCKING MORON ASSHOLE BITCH ASSED MOTHERFUCKING FAGGOT-QUEER-HOMO-GAY-COCKSUCKING-QUEER!
That's what I've been saying all along, but no one has listened to me...NO ON AT ALL! W0W D00D 1 R L33T!!!
W0W D00D U R NOT L33T.
3AT MY P00P LA/\/\AH!!
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I was amused that a Hurd system (the first public webserver?) got slashdotted as well, but when I couldn't connect to it I noticed something even funnier: the connection is an @Home Cable Modem!! Ah, to slashdot an experimental OS connected via a cable modem, thats just mean. :) I wonder what @Home thinks about this one..
I hope you gave them a little heads-up before putting this up.
Something like "It's nice you've got this experimental new server thingy going, 'cause in ten minutes we're going to bury you."
Or just "Hi, we run Slashdot. Brace yourselves."
--
Mike Hoye
Shouldn't it truely be called a GNU/Linux/BSD/Hurd system given that significant Linux and BSD programs and utilities will be used?
You'd hate to be a neighbor of his on the same loop. "Hey Jeff, my cable connection just hit a brick wall, how's yours doing?"....
Davo -- Free speech, free software, AND free beer.
great signature, I'll keep it onananonymous
great signature, I'll keep it
onananonymous
This is precisely the power of open-source. Closed-source software generally has little legacy; when the company that produced it goes under, or merely cancels the product, it dies. On the other hand, open-source software doesn't get buried and forgotten based on the failure of other business efforts or the whim of some project manager. Tools, libraries, even individual routines, get stripped out, cleaned off, and reused.
HURD may or may not be successful. But one interesting thing about its architecture is that it will be much easier to "strip for parts" than the Linux kernel. So after both Linux and HURD are long gone, the latter may wind up with the most impact even if it doesn't achieve Linux's popularity.
Except that @Home doesn't use very dynamic addresses too often.
I'm on @Home, and in the 8 months I've been with them, my IP has changed only once.
It's against their TOS to have a server up (but everyone does, and they usually let it slide except when it's hurting performance badly). I think this case would qualify as such. Will he get a warning, or cut off for good, I wonder?
------
If a tree falls on an anonymous coward yelling 'first post' in the forest, does anybody hear?
Wow, you aren't an ignorant flamebaiting troll.. Microkernels are not all that 'slow'. In fact, the design can be more memory efficient. And more memory, well, means an increase in system performance when you're dicing up data.
So while you're looking for processes to kill to keep the ISP (ha, yea like you're an ISP) going fast, try the really early ones.. like init, or the kernel daemons. The system really doesn't need them! They're just needed at boot and right after!
I've always envied the "old-timers" who brag about running Linux since 1991. You know -- the people who wax nostalgic about downloading and compiling the 0.9 kernel.
Now, thanks to Hurd, I have a chance to get in on the ground floor. Maybe in 5 years, you'll read a post from me griping about the glibc9 to glibc10 conversion.
Thanks, guys!
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
Boys 'n' Grrls, from my two solid day perusal of the Thoughts of Chairman Stallman (not a slur: this guy's been the cat's pajamas for providing my ideas about computing for the last three years, yet he was saying it for more than a decade before that) on the FSF website, it's not how fast that HURD gets up but that the goal of GNU freeware will be to have freely available stuff, starting with a freely available operating system that is released under the GPL, and that redundancy is A-OK.
So regardless of Linus and Alan Cox getting hit by Big Rocks From Space or disappearing in a big black van with Microsoft blacked out on the side, GNU/HURD will be more technically proficient from a design standpoint than the GNU/Linux kernal.
Now, I'm pretty proud that my VCR doesn't blink 12:00, but aside from that my limit was reached by DOS batch files. My needs are currently very well satisfied by GNU/Linux (all hail the conquering penguin!), but I think competition is a healthy thing (ie I like switching between GNOME and KDE and think VMWare letting me run different OS's simultaneously on the same machine may be more important than any other program released this year).
This is Good News, people. Choice Is Good!
Because Bruce Perens wrote it.
I am having a difficult time believing that Hurd will ever amount to anything. If it is ever to gain a place as a widly used OS, it will have to have major advantages over linux. Linux is several years ahead of Hurd in both stability and features, and i see little reason to believe that this won't contiune. A new OS will only find success if it fills a void, and i see no void for it. Windows filled a void for a GUI for cheap hardware, BSD filled a void for an open sourced OS, and Linux filled one for an open source operating system. If Hurd has something that will make it much better than Linux, then it has a chance, but if not there will be no compelling reason to switch, and it will never be of any real use. I think that RMS and the rest of the FSF should put their egos aside and work on the development of the kernel that is stable and functional. If there is some major advantage to using hurd, please enlighten me.
Now it's dead as a doornail.
For those of you not familiar with the boyfriend of the writer of "Frankenstein", Mr. Percy Bysse Shelley (sp?) wrote a poem about the futility of all temporal efforts at earthly permanence in his poem "Ozmandias", where the narrator finds the base of an immense statue with an inscription of "Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair", yet the only thing to be seen are the endless tracks of sand.
Even though one day GNU/Linux will be as extinct as Minoan Linear A (a language never yet successfully translated in modern times), it was here and it has made and will continue to make (for at least the near future) the world a better place than "Microzmandias" ever did.
May the penguin continue to evolve and promulgate worthy successors!
Look at the longevity of IBM mainframe OSs and unix itself.
I think most people are overlooking the fact that HURD has been brewing for years now...during which, MIT has done some cool research into exokernels, which could boost performance signifancantly on existing hardware.
put a link to slashdot on the yahoo home page. bye bye slashdot.
I dunno. Although it's always a good thing for another M$ competitor to enter the market, and certainly cool to see a microkernel in action, what next? We've all put so much effort and time and code into Linux, are we supposed to just dump it as soon as HURD becomes usable? Where can it fit in in all of this?
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
Starve them, they seek not to discus with reason, but mutilate the threading system...
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
He's hitting his heel on the table brothers. The hurd will bury you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Besides the connection, he will also get a chance to really put that new Hurd server through a stress test.
--
grappler
Vidi, Vici, Veni
The OS is there to control access to the hardware, _and_ to be as fast as possible. I cannot possibly see the point in an OS that has slowness designed into it. Sorry, but an ISP (like any other business) has no extra cycles to burn just to make it a bit easier for Hurd hackers to debug their stuff. It's also going to be benchmarketed to death by Microsoft, if it ever raises above the treshold to be noticed.
HURD is older then linux
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
In FreeBSD, you can have a process back a filesystem. It is called Portal FS. It is really cool.
FreeBSD has alot of cool filesystems, check them all out. Union FS rocks.
Lucky for him, @HOME uses dynamic IP addresses. He can simply restart, and not update his new address with zugzug.com, and all will be well, except of course for the next person who gets his IP address.
Sig goes here
This migth seem like a stupid question, but would I have to recompile everything if I'm about to change to the Hurd-kernel? (Is it enough to recompile all my SRPM-packages??)??? Shit Happens, Learn to live with it.
Well, if you're into Unix-on-Intel benchmarks, UnixWare 7 is still fastest and most scalable overall according to any benchmark. I'm quite sure that a carefully tuned and properly recompiled Linux kernel will do as well in some respects (if not better) on a 1-CPU system, however add a couple of CPU's (or boxen - check out NonStop Clustering) and you've blown the competition away.
l
l
l
:)
Real life isn't always about what benchmark you've used. However, this system is tailored to Intel hardware, while Solaris isn't (and never will be). The Solaris way of doing things may be more to your taste, however Sun will not optimize its performance on Intel hardware, for obvious reasons. I'm sure that it is a very stable system, but it will never be a particularly swift one.
And while we're at it, check these out:
http://www.sco.com/press/releases/1999/6886.htm
http://www.sco.com/press/releases/1998/6836.htm
http://www.sco.com/press/releases/1998/6822.htm
Particularly the last one.
I don't really find the second one (SPEC_int/fp to measure cluster scalability) very applicable to a large server environment, but what the hell - if anyone prefers NSC over Beowulf/Mosix to do physics research, they probably deserve it
>The drawbacks? Mach is _really_ slow -- the message passing just ain't fast.
mklinux is a version of linux originally developed with a team from Apple to run on PowerMacs. It ran on the Mach 3.0 kernel, with linux on top. There's another version of linux for the PPC, called LinuxPPC, which is a monolithic kernel.
Here you can read an article that states that the Mach based version was about 3.5% slower than the monolithic version. 3.5% is not a significant measure by any means.
(The original article seems to be down, which is why I linked to the cached google page.)
> NT was/is based on a microkernel design
I have nothing concrete to back this up, but I remember reading that NT being a microkernel design is a myth. NT, as I understood, was based on VMS.
At a certain point in the past, MacOSX Server was rated the fastest web server running on a PC on the market (with a tweaked version of Apache on it) and MacOSX Server is a Mach based system.
Also, one can build completely different operating systems off the same base with alot of the drudge work already done.
So, in summary: if you're a general user or even an app developer, you'll never really care. If you need strong specialization in your operating system for a given task (I'm an embedded man) then HURD is a very very cool thing.
--
Insanity Takes Its Toll. Please Have Exact Change
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
I was wondering recently if there are any HURD servers out there connected to the net doing real production work - serving web pages, an FTP site, a news or mail server, CVS serving, or anything else. Does anyone know of one? Is anyone willing to subject theirs to the /. effect? The original release of the HURD was a long time ago - 0.2 was released in June of 1997. I would expect that by now there would be a usable production system. I don't intend this as a slam against GNU/FSF/Stallman or the HURD developers. I am just wondering how much momentum the HURD has, and whether people are using it.
Cheers
Eric Geyer
You wrote:
"Everything you use today replaced something before it." While I'm not sure if you specificly meant in the computer field or in general, if you mean the latter I have to prove you wrong. The essential design for the toothpick has remained essentialy unchanged since it began.
If you DO mean in the computer field, all I can ask is, anybody else here still use either an abacus or a slide-rule?
Little Brother, watching the watchers
There is an end to Perl. Some day, we'll be using something else. That something will most likely be Open Source, there's no going back on that one, and it will probably be compatible on some level with what we had before. You won't have to listen to my arrogance anymore. I will have to find a real job. But the point I want to make is that Perl is not forever.
Thanks
!Bruce
Upload 500Megs of p0rn. Announce URL. Wait.
/. of course. ;-)
Tried this myself 4 years ago on my first own fixed net connection. After a few hours the lines were glowing white hot.
After all, this is what the internet has been invented for: Email and p0rn. And
Whatever you say, troll.
> It's a microkernel, which means it's harder to develop and possibly slower, but more versatile in what it can do. Think a kernel that's nothing but modules.
this is wrong. since it's developed in user space, a crash in one (non-critical) part of the hurd won't affect the rest of the system. this means you can develop the hurd without having to continually reboot the machine. thus it is easier to debug for the hurd than for any monolithic kernel.
plus you get some other goodies, like the sub-hurd (a hurd running inside another). if you crash the sub-hurd, you just come back to the main hurd instead of rebooting.
And what did we learn from Chorus? Think, now.
Did he run over your dog? Rape your sister? Pour sugar in your gas tank? Why are you so bitter?
Would the microkernel architecture of HURD make it possible to do a running-upgrade of (most of) the kernel? It would at least seem to be possible, if the modules are designed with this in mind.
Any thoughts?
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.