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! "
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...
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.
@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.)
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.
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?
Well, I dunno. I'm not entirely sure of what HURD exactly is, just that its another OS based on GNU, but it sounds kinda sifty. If you don't feel like running it full time yet, well, maybe the FreeMWare came just in time. Oh, if anyone knows a site / feels like explaining what HURD is that'd rule.
If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit.
If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit.
jdube is who I am
Yup, it couldn't handle the stampede of slashdotters (sorry couldn't resist)
Jilles
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.
Whatever the "next Linux" may be, it'll have to be damn good to make me switch over :)
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."
There is nothing insulting about saying GNU/Linux. I have looked at all the GNU software I use and it makes sense to call it GNU/Linux. But if people want to call the system Linux, go ahead. I just fear people will forget about GNU and freedom if we all called it just Linux.
Please don't speak of GNU, GNU/Linux, or Debian in a derogatory manner.
Otherwise, I think we have reached an impasse.
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! -
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.
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.
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.
There are at least two major innovations of the FSF. First is a multi-language cross platform compiler. I know of no other that exists. The second is the copyleft and the GPL.
Calling a system GNU/Linux means that it is the GNU system based on a Linux kernal. I see no insult to that. What greater insult it there in calling a system GNU/Linux than just Linux? I would say it is just the opposite.
Can I ask to to back up some of your wild assumtions?
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!
>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.
Actually, you're missing the whole point to Hurd. Hurd is not in competition with Linux, any more than say, OpenBSD is in competition with Linux (which it is not, incidentally).
Linux is a general purpose kernel based on familiar and well understood technology that tries to be as many things as it can be without compromising any of its existing functionality. It is a monolithic kernel with a lot of modularity built in, but still old technology.
Hurd is something of a research project aimed at the Next Generation Kernel (or Next Generation Microkernel). Trying to create a viable operating system with as much modularity as possible. Once you have a stable microkernel, you can leave the system up and upgrade vast segments of the operating system that would force even Linux to reboot.
It is not aimed at displacing Linux any more than Linux is aimed at displacing Windows. Some might say that is Linux's purpose, but others have stated that Linux is simply trying to be the best operating system it can be, with World Domination as a secondary goal. Hurd is trying to be the best kernel it can be.
And here's an interesting point. There is nothing to say that the two groups can't use each other's code, because they're both under GPL. If the Hurd group is intelligent, they'll try to take advantage of the code base of Linux and not reinvent the wheel implementing functionality already present in Linux, especially for things like hardware support.
For that matter, the Linux people might decide after a certain point that they can't modularize anymore without going to a microkernel based setup. At which point they join the Hurd project, fork off the Hurd code base, or start from scratch using information gathered from Hurd's work. In any such case Hurd will have fufilled its purpose.
In short, I think Hurd is an important part of the future of Linux, as part of determining where Linux will go in the future.
They will use GNU for their operating system.
Alejo.
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!
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.
Linux isn't innovative
Its a reimplementation of UNIX.
So whats your point? Whats so important about innovation anyway?
I'll use whatever is available NOW (if it suits my needs) whether its innovative or not.
Gcc, gdb and other Gnu software and especially the GPL, where central in making Linux happen. Whether they were "innovative" or not (the GPL certainly was) is not the complete point.
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.
*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!
What is the point you are making? Notice that propietary programming languages aren't too successful either.
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.
He's on rogers, the have static ip's more or less. His uplink is also likely 47KB/s.
As opposed to propietary software?
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?
Point taken. But no one can reuse the code of either.
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
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.
I doubt the FSF are trying to conquer. In fact they *invented* open source/free software after everything turned propietary. And every Linux-based system uses GNU so they in fact have conquered the open source world as much as Linux has. So I don't think the FSF need to conquer the "open source world". They already have.
Hurd will hopefully provide a worthy successor to the great kernal Linux is.
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.
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.. :)
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.
OK, I'll concede that.
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.
I was very careful to say "after everything went propietary". They invented the term "free software".
Apache, Perl, Python, Sendmail, Tcl, and XFREE86 are just a few of the important projects that are unrelated to the FSF.
These are free software projects. Some of these sprang from the free software movement. Some of these sprang from the open source movement which came from the free software movement. Some of these just wanted a "you do whatever you want with this just keep my name on it" license.
Okay. I guess saying that the FSF invented free software is somewhat less than correct but it is close. I am sorry. No need to be hostile.
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"
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)
True, every Linux-based operating system uses some of the FSF's software; viz. the compiler. But some uses far less than you allege. Consider David Parsons's work, for example.
I will not claim that all Linux based systems use GNU but the vast majority do. All major distributions use vast amounts of GNU software. I am certain that your main system use a lot of GNU software.
Linux is hardly about the FSF, you know.
This depends on what you think Linux is about. The FSF is about free software (open source). I would say they are about similar things.
NFS works by having a process accepting commands through a socket, so you can do this (rather inelegantly) on most operating systems.
I am sorry. I will change it.
Ok..someone really needs to read this comment...it's uh...well....it's weird.
But I do give the FSF the credit for the Free Software and Open Source movements as we know them. If it wasn't for the FSF, none of this would be possible.
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.
> At 1134pm eastern on a Sat night? who makes the first "is it hosted by IIS" post? :)
The AC who posted the previous message must be faster than your thoughts
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
No, my main system is a Sparc running OpenBSD. Scant little FSF software there. Just the compiler. The rest is free.
Very well.
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.
I didn't mean to make a logical implication or any other implication. But if you want a syllogism, then very well.
Is that a fallacy? I hope not. I don't think so. Given that Linux is a subset of free software I think that it is valid. But I will not say and didn't mean to imply that Linux is about the FSF. But I repeat my question: What is Linux about? Linux is a kernal, it can't be about anything. So your fallacy is in implying that it could.
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 wouldn't say that. The BSD system is hardly viable for much more than serving by itself AFAIK. One of the FSF's most significant contributions was probably the GPL. Not to mention that gcc and bash is helpful for BSD as well.
-----
-----
"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...
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
I've never been a zealot for anything, but I understand it's a requirement to being a Real Geek (tm). Where do I sign up to be a HURD zealot? I know next to nothing about HURD, therefore I have all the qualifications!
Communication is only possible between equals
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?
So, the FSF is about all open source software (which you equate to free software)? Is that really true?
:)
Yes. Absolutely. Freedom to users is the entire reason for the FSF of being.
There's a lot of free software out there that the FSF doesn't seem to care to have anything to do with. Certainly there's a lot of free software that would very strongly prefer that the FSF have nothing to do with them.
You are confusing software with developers. The FSF's goal is for their to be more free software and more users of free software. Strategicly, projects that encourage less software or more users of propietary software is not in free software's best interest and the FSF is right for encouraging otherwise.
BTW: Software doesn't prefer anything
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.
oh come on.. hurd has only been talked about for what.. 12 years now? we wouldn't actually expect it to be.. STABLE or available would we?
"And how can this be? For he is the
Get it mentioned on slashdot.
Course, that stress-tests your ISP as well. May not be too usefull.
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
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.
That means BSD is good at being useful. GNU/Linux is good at giving users freedom.
If BSD had all the hype right now instead of GNU/Linux, wouldn't you think that Corel would be propietizing the entire operating system right now? Making incompatible changes for their software to work on it but no other version of BSD to give them a competitive advantage.
If I at some future point and time use a BSD-derived system, I have no guarentee that I will have source code, freedom to modify, or freedom to redistribute. With GNU and Linux, I have that freedom.
Copycenter is an interesting concept. Could be used for textbook examples. BTW, what is the difference between the BSD license and public domain?
People seem to forget that HURD is another idea that someone chose to implement in a different way. Linux, and BSD, are no different.
It would really be nice if people treated Operating Systems like members of a single sports team, instead of several different sports teams fighting for some kind of "Grand Champion"(tm) trophy that's going to ultimately conquer the Operating System universe.
Anyone who's been around long enough to see Operating Systems come and go knows that will never be the case.
So it would be really nice if someday, people would spend more time concentrating on the strengths and weaknesses of each Operating System instead of comparing each one to another trying to say, "well overall this one is better".
Of course YOU (the reader) thinks that, but not the person you may be addressing it to. Perhaps they like something different.
In other words, if you really want to make your point when writing something critical about an OS, please re-examine it to see if it just amounts to "my kernel is bigger than your kernel".
Perhaps if more people shared this viewpoint we could really start sharing code instead of competing for bragging rights to the overall best implementation.
-Erik-
Umm... you entirely neglect his point. I can only assume your just brainwashed into not seeing it, or knowingly neglecting it.
1. Very few customers demand "free software," the majority, individuals and organizations, demand open source software. Especially the type that allows them to manipulate it (I'm using the definition of open source as in open, not as in OSI's version, which the GPL still fails at). Customers wish to see the code, so that if the provider stops producing the product, or if the product is doing an extremely important task (think military projects, especially where safety comes in), they can go over it. Asking for free software is asking for software which cannot be charged for, and must be open source. Sure, people always want to get everything for nothing, but they wont demand it. Otherwise, we would have free food, free housing, free transportation. None of that has been demanded by the majority of the U.S. citizens, or even by the world.
2. Companies provide a product so they can be successful. If you look at companies in the "free software" world, they do not create more than a fraction of the product, and most of the time just manipulate slightly what already existed. They provide easy access, marketing channels, and some support. Oh, and even a pretty box (not always) if your lucky. For the rest of the world, customers demand software that fits a need, and it is highly desireable, though not always demanded, it is open source. Companies will create software to meet this demand and charge for it. If its open source, they may be selling the righ to use their code except in a competing product, i.e. internally. All parties are satisfied.
3. Developers working for the companies must be payed. I'm sorry, but this is not a Marxian society where individual is rewarded for their product, rather than selling a commodity called work. Here, we must sell. "Free software" demands that the worker's commodity be free - not as in "freedom" but as in it can't be charged for. The worker sells his commodity, the means he and his family survives on, for nothing. If he continues to do this, he will starve. The only solution that has been found is to work for a company that sells support, so that if customers have a problem they will pay for the programmer's commodity, paying for him to tackle a task, not for the code itself.
Your last lines are utter nonsense. You demand free software (and claim everyone else does too), which means you will accept nothing other than free software. When you demand free software, as in the broad way you have said it, you are demanding everything be free software. You cannot turn around and say you will write propietary software and tell us you should be paid for it. I must sell my commodity for nothing to please people, but all of a sudden when its your commodity you want us to pay?
Developers create free software most of the time on their own time. Not on the company's time. That is fine, not with the FSF, but fine with most sane people. Personally if I'm going to sell my commodity for nadda, than I'm going to make it free, as in freedom. I'd use the BSDL or the like (ie, Apache's tweak), because my commodity is already gone. The GPL asks me, and demands others, to give away my commodity and force the rest of the world to do the same. I'd rather not be under a tolitarium society where it is not the people that demand it, but a legal body. The GPL is far from freedom, as you put it in an earlier post.
As a matter of fact, with the customers demanding free software, the people can be wrong. The majority is often wrong, swayed by sweet talk or lies, or whatever. I believe under Napolean III, he gave the people of France the vote of whether to have the right to vote. They voted their rights away.
"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
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.
Larry Wall created patch as free software. After he lost interest in it, the FSF took over maintenance.
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
Emacs is actually the first thing they got running - how else would they create all the other software?? :-)
Hi!
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.
It is still free and now also protected by the GPL.
You cannot cage something that is free. Well, you can, but it won't like it and will eventually rebel. Stealing is semantics.
+&x
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.
Oh lordy. GNU Emacs is an imitation of um, Richard Stallman's original emacs...
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
The Matrix is going down for reboot now! Stopping reality: OK. The system is halted.
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.
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!
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?
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
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
Yea, thats why the microkernel based BeOS is so much faster than Linux? As is QNX and NextStep? The advantage of a Microkernel is two-fold.
A. Stability. Gets all the yucky drivers out of kernel space, plus the microkernel can restart any of the servers. There is a BeOS program that can restart the app server. Its fun to take down the servers one by one and watch the system not crash.
B. Speed. The whole concept of a server greatly enhances the speed of the computer. Most current CPUs are very parrallel and multiple threads enchance the performance of a system. It is so much easier to extensivly multi-thread the OS when you use a microkernel design. Any overhead associated with the server design is overshadowed by the performance benefits. Say I am making a GL app on BeOS on a dual proc machine. I call a function through the OpenGL kit, which calls the OpenGL server to execute the function, and immediatly returns. The GL server merrily goes on its way executing the call on one proc. Then my program could use the other proc to calculate more stuff, make another call, which the GL server would execute on the other proc, or whatever.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
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
http://www.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/exo/
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.