That's a very good point. I'm too used to looking at things from the single-processor PC / workstation point of view. The Hurd, conceptually at least, should scale across multiple processors more easily and maybe more efficiently than Linux will be possible of. Multiple processors for Linux must be a nightmare to code considering marshaling of all components within the kernel, unless it's kept simplified and less efficient.
Either way, both Hurd and Linux will eventually scale to multiple processors much better than Win NT/2000, which have inherent limitations, forcing things like the 4 processor limit on NT.
There'll always be another service which is free. Someone will soon come up with another similar, maybe compatible, sharing concept which will in effect be a free version of Napster. I'm not speaking of Gnutella because that's a different concept. Since the dawn of time (somewhere in the 1980's when computers became popular) there have been free services to compete with the ones which charge. I remember the good-old days of loggin onto BBS's before there was a public internet to download stuff on a 1200 baud modem for free. MS charges a bundle for a somewhat stable OS, while there's free competitive software which just about matches up (and will surpass it soon).
I think some other responses missed the point of your question.
The Hurd:
- Very small kernel with minimal functionality
- Lots of small "servers" (I prefer the term modules)
- The kernel can be easily replaced, without affecting anything else
- The servers can be very specialized, so only those that are needed need to take up resources
- If theres a problem with a low-level component, like the file system server, only that one component needs to be replaced
- The kernel has to do a lot of marshalling between the servers, as well as for all of the objects and threads created by apps
- The modularized, organized architecture makes it inherently slower
Linux:
- Larger, far more robust kernel
- Low-level needs, like file-system and some networking support, are build into the kernel
- All modularity starts at a higher level, like web support services, etc.
- A kernel change means a recompile of all low-level services; example: you enhance a certain part of the kernel for your own purposes; someone else updates core functionality in the kernel; you'd have to get that other changed code and compile it yourself, hoping that they didn't break your stuff (this is the main benefit of being object-oriented from the ground up).
- Compiling all core services together and not creating interfaces between them, letting them directly affect each other, is inherently faster (MUCH faster)
Overall, each of course has its practical uses, each with trade-offs. Personally, on a workstation I like to have the fastest, most efficient kernel possible, like Linux. But if I was working on something more specialized or experimental, like a robot or mobile computer, I'd prefer the modularity.
Companies paying big bucks for ASP developers doesn't say much. Its popularity certainly doesn't mean it's the best choice. Many in management choose ASP because: 1) It's a Microsoft so-called "technology" and they use their products for almost everything else; 2) It's based on Visual Basic which either they already use or can easily find developers who know it. Adding ASP to one's resume is a fine thing, as adding anything else, but I strongly suggest that no one make it their only Web scripting / programming experience. Let's not forget that Microsoft "technologies" and their acronyms change on a frequent basis, much quicker than other languages. And I don't consider most of their changes to be evolutionary, as other laguages move on, but re-writes. E.g. developing current VB6 apps in VB7 will require major re-writing. You'll never want to do that for your web scripts if you don't have to.
Slashdot Mirror
Either way, both Hurd and Linux will eventually scale to multiple processors much better than Win NT/2000, which have inherent limitations, forcing things like the 4 processor limit on NT.
There'll always be another service which is free. Someone will soon come up with another similar, maybe compatible, sharing concept which will in effect be a free version of Napster. I'm not speaking of Gnutella because that's a different concept. Since the dawn of time (somewhere in the 1980's when computers became popular) there have been free services to compete with the ones which charge. I remember the good-old days of loggin onto BBS's before there was a public internet to download stuff on a 1200 baud modem for free. MS charges a bundle for a somewhat stable OS, while there's free competitive software which just about matches up (and will surpass it soon).
I think some other responses missed the point of your question. The Hurd: - Very small kernel with minimal functionality - Lots of small "servers" (I prefer the term modules) - The kernel can be easily replaced, without affecting anything else - The servers can be very specialized, so only those that are needed need to take up resources - If theres a problem with a low-level component, like the file system server, only that one component needs to be replaced - The kernel has to do a lot of marshalling between the servers, as well as for all of the objects and threads created by apps - The modularized, organized architecture makes it inherently slower Linux: - Larger, far more robust kernel - Low-level needs, like file-system and some networking support, are build into the kernel - All modularity starts at a higher level, like web support services, etc. - A kernel change means a recompile of all low-level services; example: you enhance a certain part of the kernel for your own purposes; someone else updates core functionality in the kernel; you'd have to get that other changed code and compile it yourself, hoping that they didn't break your stuff (this is the main benefit of being object-oriented from the ground up). - Compiling all core services together and not creating interfaces between them, letting them directly affect each other, is inherently faster (MUCH faster) Overall, each of course has its practical uses, each with trade-offs. Personally, on a workstation I like to have the fastest, most efficient kernel possible, like Linux. But if I was working on something more specialized or experimental, like a robot or mobile computer, I'd prefer the modularity.
Companies paying big bucks for ASP developers doesn't say much. Its popularity certainly doesn't mean it's the best choice. Many in management choose ASP because: 1) It's a Microsoft so-called "technology" and they use their products for almost everything else; 2) It's based on Visual Basic which either they already use or can easily find developers who know it. Adding ASP to one's resume is a fine thing, as adding anything else, but I strongly suggest that no one make it their only Web scripting / programming experience. Let's not forget that Microsoft "technologies" and their acronyms change on a frequent basis, much quicker than other languages. And I don't consider most of their changes to be evolutionary, as other laguages move on, but re-writes. E.g. developing current VB6 apps in VB7 will require major re-writing. You'll never want to do that for your web scripts if you don't have to.