Remove *all* the html viewers, and you still can do everything else with KDE - except view help and browse the web
you could just say that if you remove all the HTML viewers, you can no longer view HTML pages.:) That should make perfect sense, even to the lay person.
When it comes to CLONING, the zealots aren't necessarily opposed to how the cells to clone were gotten (embryonic, etc.) - but rather that cloning itself is wrong. Personally, I don't know where I stand on cloning. I've yet to see a good reason for it...
I don't think that any issues at all will be raised in using fat-derived stem cells for medical uses (surgery, etc.)
So, why don't you report it to Symantec's AVRC (anti-virus research center)?!? There's a convenient step-by-step form online to fill out. If you've truly discovered a new one, they'll be able to help you, I imagine.
An email box that automatically ages the files effectively archiving them. Some of my mail folders/files are huge now and it takes too long to append them when new mail arrives.
you could switch to using the Maildir format instead of the typical single-file 'mbox' format. Maildir is popularly used by the qmail MTA as well as courier-imap. I run all my email servers in this matter and I've noticed significant speed improvements in mailboxes that have many messages.
Maildir maintains three directories, of which 2 are significant: cur and new. Any new messages delivered into the Maildir mailbox is placed in the "new" directory, once its been read, its moved into the "cur" directory. Each message is its own file, so no speed penalty is invoked for appending messages to mailboxes with many messages. Of course, all these different directories and such are transparent to the end-user, Maildir capable MUAs (for console users) and of course Maildir capable IMAP/POP systems are freely available (qmail does SMTP+sendmail wrapping and includes a basic POP3 daemon; courier-imap does IMAPv4 amongst other things; all the apps lend themselves to be used in an SSL via stunnel environment)
Reading through the comments here, it appears to me to be more of a problem with MSIE... I do 98% of my browsing in Mozilla (usually a recent nightly; currently its build 2002041805, aka 1.0RC1) and only switch over to IE if a site requires it or if I'm doing browser compatibility testing for a site I'm launching.
I'm on a G3 iMac (400MHz + 512MB RAM) and I'm pretty happy. Some of the newer OS X apps seem a bit sluggish, but the ones that aren't doing anything too fancy (BBEdit, etc.) seem perfectly fine.
I also have XFree86 loaded (XonX) and I use the OroborOSX window manager. I prefer xterm over Terminal.app and I've recently gotten SciTE, a kick-ass "proof-of-concept" editor for Scintilla, a general purpose coding editor (does autocompletion, call tips, etc. for languages like PHP, Python, et al). This is what's used in Komodo and since I can't get Komodo for OS X, I'm using SciTE in the meantime.
In short, even with a 400MHz G3, I'm getting along just fine. Mozilla is perfectly responsive, Quicktime movies play w/o problems, Flash sites also work without any noticeable delays... compared to Win98/Win2K running in VMware on a dual-proc (I know, VMware doesn't do SMP) 450MHz PIII with 256MB RAM, I'd say my iMac is quite a bit snappier. I imagine that if I ran at a lower resolution (say 800x600) like many, many web designers do (such as the one I live with), Aqua would be even more snappy, as it would have less to do.
Even so, I'm looking forward to getting a new iMac w/ a G4 proc, to take advantage of those Altivec enhancements and the oh-so-sweet flat panel display:)
Disclaimer: I in no way, shape, or form condone nor judge anything having to do with child pornography AND IANAL.
OK, now that that's out of the way... I was reading through the legalese and noticed this interesting tidbit:
The argument that virtual child pornography whets pedophiles' appetites and encourages them to engage in illegal conduct is unavailing because the mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 566, absent some showing of a direct connection between the speech and imminent illegal conduct, see, e.g., Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (per curiam).
To me this jumped out as very closely addressing what the RIAA likes to claim to those companies and individuals that produce software and/or advertise software with MP3 ripping / CD burning capabilities. "Rip. Mix. Burn." by Apple comes to mind.
Yes? No? As I prefaced, IANAL! Seems to me, though, from a plane english point of view, what's being said here is that just by providing the means (or idea) to conduct illegal activites (ripping an MP3 and uploading to friends or burning a CD copy and giving it to friends), that doesn't make the product or the message illegal. The link between the product and the illegal activity is not tight enough, it appears to me.
Yep, and when you tell a client that Flash might be a good feature in their website, most will still bitch and moan about how some people won't be able to view Flash, etc. Not only that, but Flash does something that cannot (easily) be accomplished WITHOUT a plugin (SVG still needs a plugin in most browsers; DHTML doesn't *quite* achieve Flash animation). JP2 is just an 'improvement' if you will... hence the comparison to.PNG, it is a valid comparison.
There isn't really any market (at all) out there for upgrading a Mac's motherboard. CPU upgrades can be done, but even that voids any warranties and all that.
I don't want to be a nay-sayer in any way, but I predict that this will catch on about as quickly as PNGs replacing GIFs. Most professional quality sites still use GIFs instead of PNG, even though tools such as Adobe's Imageready and Macromedia's Fireworks have supported the PNG format alongside GIFs for a while now AND most major browsers support PNGs natively (which wasn't the case not too long ago, with IE4, I believe).
Until the.jp2 format doesn't require a plugin for 99% of the browsers out there, it won't be widely used, IMHO. Of course, I could be wrong and the.jp2 format might not even be meant for wide-spread adoption, and mainly for particular niche uses (such as viewing hubble images or replacing the need for lossless TIFFs).
As far as point 3 goes, probably not. Most upgradeable Macs (read G4 towers) use PC components, so the cost would be the same. There are some components that don't just work in both environments, but they've come a long way with that.
500MHz PII? PIII? (I don't think P4s came out that low..) I have a 266MHz PII Dell laptop and a 366MHz tangerine iBook (G3) and the iBook is significantly faster, even though I have Linux (Mandrake 8.1) installed on the Dell. I'd say its faster than the 100MHz difference would indicate. (let's not even discuss win2k in VMware)
Also, I have a 400MHz G3 iMac and a 450MHz G3 iMac and compared to my 700MHz Athlon (running Linux) they are significantly faster. The MHz myth isn't just marketing BS - look at what Athlon's doing. The last few reviews of their chips have indicated that they are being CONSERVATIVE with their '1800+', '2200+',etc. markings, which means that an Athlon running at a real 1.6GHz (or whatever it actually is) is running faster than P4s clocked OVER 2.2GHz.
The ars technica comparison of the G4 v. P4 architecture is very, very enlightening. At one point they say quite clearly: because of the P4's inordinately long pipeline, compared to the G4's, it practically has to be clocked at twice the MHz just to keep branch mis-predicts from slowing it to a crawl.
If a DNA strand can divide and replicate in seconds (or less) and that strand has billions of CGAT pairs on it, and this is what DNA based computing is trying to harness, then quite literally, billions of calculations or more can be computed in a fraction of the time it takes a serial processor. I'm far from an expert, but I think you're quite missing the point of DNA and Quantum based computing. These forms of computing *break* the typical way processing takes place, which allows them to compute at orders of magnitude faster than traditional computing devices.
Millions of dollars is being spent researching a pipe-dream. It may or may not end up being possible, but the theory is definitely rock-solid else the grants would never have been approved. You're attacking the theory of these types of computing devices (particularly in your bit about DNA) and that's really not up for discussion. What's up for discussion is simply if it will ever end up working they way its intended.
So, lemme guess... you're still in college, right? No? Well, you're not in any industry/business where you have to interact with other clients or businesses, right? Let me put it to you simply: I am the technology lead for a small company that provides Internet tech and other applications to customers, usually accessible via a web browser. Now, I could not run any MS product because I dislike Microsoft's policies and EULAs, OR I could successfully do my work which includes testing user interfaces on IE, amongst other things, as well as troubleshooting problems that clients have with accessing network resources from their Windows desktops.
Any I'm a hypocrite? If so, then let me label you as clueless! </rant>
I think where this (DNA computing) and quantum computing may come into their own is in massively parallel systems. Imagine being faced with a task that would take a single processor working in serial millions of years. Imagine how much faster it would be if you could take a O(2^n) problem and throw n processors at it. Not very feasible with silicon, but what about DNA or QC? That, I believe, is the magic here... by their very composition, these types of computing allow massively parallel processing to occur. One chemical reaction that takes place in a fraction of a second could be equivalent to a single processor going through quadrillions of calculations or a farm of serial processors going through trillions of calculations each. The possibilities are intoxicating!
I recently wanted to get into programming for the Palm handheld devices (using OS 3.5), so I set out to program the same application in C, C++, and Java. What I discovered was that with the tools available to me (GNU toolchain), the only language that seemed to fit the bill was C. Between C and C++ (converting my C code into a full OO implementation) my.prc size doubled (approximately). The execution of the code was also noticeably slower than the C equivalent. This on an application that was *quite* simple (basic nslookup functionality), with no integration with the built-in Palm apps (calendar, etc.) After completing the C++ port of the app, I decided not to try the Java port since it would inevitably be slower and possibly larger than its C++ counterpart (even if it was compiled for the Dragonball processor).
At a recent conference in town, I had the opportunity to talk with someone from a local software engineering firm that had also done some experimental development on the Palm, targetting Java. They reported the results that I had feared: slow execution and unacceptably large.prc sizes.
I think Java on handhelds has potential, but until either the processors get more oomph or the executable (byte-compiled or otherwise) for Java becomes a bit more optimized, I think developers wanting to build in significant functionality to their apps will still use C, the embedded world's darling language.
It seems to me that the amount of preparation that went into constructing the long strands and each of the truth sets is extensive. For this type of computing to become useful, it would appear to me that this construction of the parts necessary to carry out the computation would need significant work. I am very, very hopeful that DNA based computing as well as quantum molecular based computing will begin to make rapid gains in the very near future. The potential to astronomically increase the available computing power is there, I've read all the theories. It just needs to be made to happen:)
Just imagine... quantum computing devices become common, as do DNA based computing devices - each in their own niche, possibly (neither device may be promising as a 'general computing' device, but used in conjunction they may complement each other) and the article previously posted about table-top fusion from the collapse of bubbles provides us with practically limitless and clean energy to drive the energy needs of all our computing devices. I can't wait:)
Add to that the possibilities for human augmentation by cybernetic implants and I feel that the day of Gibson's Neuromancer may be soon approaching. As the geek I am, I can't wait:)
Not to disagree entirely with your post, or to offend you in any way, but what exactly makes you think that the gov't. wouldn't just go for the lowest bid as well? Its well known that they don't *have* to, but neither do corporations. The incentive to go with the lowest bid is still the same on either side of the fence. Fixed budget means that the less is spent on the security personnel, the more gets spent on the administrators. Over the past 6-8 months I've gotten a bit jaded, so I have to say: if you're not linin' your pockets, you're not livin' the dream. Unfortunate, but true.
Sorry, didn't mean to imply that US retailers operating in Canada are immune to Canadian laws. I was more talking about online retailers. If you order something from ThinkGeek, will they add the levy because their item is being shipped to Canada? That's my point... I don't think that's the case. Even if that were to happen across the board (unlikely) you'd have people going to the US to pick up their electronics/media and then bringing 'em back to Canada. You can't sniff out an MP3 player as easily as tobacco!
LOL - indeed. Yeah, I'd have to agree with what you're saying about encapsulation being the important bit about OO. I'm also not sure if what they're doing is more or less OO than just data encapsulation, there really isn't enough info to go on and an actual Hurd developer (how many are there even?:)) probably won't stumble upon this thread:)
As I responded to an earlier comment, Hurd's main page does make reference to the fact that Hurd's structure is OO, though it is implemented in OO. I'm not sure if they're using strictly procedural C or if they're possibly using obj-c or a similar type of OO layering on top of C. Dunno - not enough detail on the site and it isn't really relevant, I guess. My original comment simply referred to the fact that the structure is OO.
As for the multi-server environment, is that meant to increase security? If its only to increase customizability, I don't entirely understand it since both OS X's Mach kernel as well as Linux' monolithic kernel are highly customizable, right? Is Hurd trying to do something that is truly revolutionary and hasn't been done or can't be done with existing technology or is it simply a project that was started in 1984 and has yet to produce anything and has evolved every few years to embody the most recent 'new things'?
I don't mean to flame or upset anyone, I'm just truly curious. What differentiates Hurd from other academic research kernels/OSs?
Gotcha, OK - that makes sense. Decent innovation, but is the OS X architecture simply a 'choice' that was made or is the Mach microkernel that was brought over from NeXT fitted for a single-server architecture exclusively? i.e. is Hurd revolutionary or simply 'different'?
Actually, I don't think that's actually the case. The C++ standard has been set for a little bit now and these recent travails have been on since 2.96 and 3.0 have been released (within the last 4-6 months I think). But, I could be wrong. I haven't managed to get another version of GCC installed, so if a project doesn't like the system's version (be it Mandrake 8.1, RedHat 7.1 or Mac OS X) then I won't be experiencing that application until it gets compatible or I get compatible, whichever happens first:)
This seems to me to be a common occurence on projects that fall into the 'development without a goal/point' category. Maybe they should figure out a goal/point to their project, then get a sponsor, and then complete it in some tractable amount of time. Otherwise, its an academic endeavor just like any other kernel used in all those OS classes across the world purely for academic purposes. Not to knock on GNU or RMS, of course, but for crying out loud - get a plan together, guys. I know they're capable of great things, its just so difficult to see if we're ever going to get there!
To give you an idea of where the OO comment came from, here ya go (from Hurd's main page):
Unlike other popular kernel software, the Hurd has an object-oriented structure that allows it to evolve without compromising its design. This structure will help the Hurd undergo major redesign and modifications without having to be entirely rewritten.
So, Hurd isn't implemented in an OO language (unless they're layering something like obj-c on top of C), but it purports to be OO structured which is why I asked about the OO bit.
Slashdot Mirror
I think instead of saying:
you could just say that if you remove all the HTML viewers, you can no longer view HTML pages. :) That should make perfect sense, even to the lay person.
When it comes to CLONING, the zealots aren't necessarily opposed to how the cells to clone were gotten (embryonic, etc.) - but rather that cloning itself is wrong. Personally, I don't know where I stand on cloning. I've yet to see a good reason for it ...
I don't think that any issues at all will be raised in using fat-derived stem cells for medical uses (surgery, etc.)
Sorry, I'm not usually in a win32 environment (Linux/OS X usually) so I wouldn't be much help. Maybe someone else, though ..
So, why don't you report it to Symantec's AVRC (anti-virus research center)?!? There's a convenient step-by-step form online to fill out. If you've truly discovered a new one, they'll be able to help you, I imagine.
For your second point:
you could switch to using the Maildir format instead of the typical single-file 'mbox' format. Maildir is popularly used by the qmail MTA as well as courier-imap. I run all my email servers in this matter and I've noticed significant speed improvements in mailboxes that have many messages.
Maildir maintains three directories, of which 2 are significant: cur and new. Any new messages delivered into the Maildir mailbox is placed in the "new" directory, once its been read, its moved into the "cur" directory. Each message is its own file, so no speed penalty is invoked for appending messages to mailboxes with many messages. Of course, all these different directories and such are transparent to the end-user, Maildir capable MUAs (for console users) and of course Maildir capable IMAP/POP systems are freely available (qmail does SMTP+sendmail wrapping and includes a basic POP3 daemon; courier-imap does IMAPv4 amongst other things; all the apps lend themselves to be used in an SSL via stunnel environment)
Just a thought ... :)
Reading through the comments here, it appears to me to be more of a problem with MSIE ... I do 98% of my browsing in Mozilla (usually a recent nightly; currently its build 2002041805, aka 1.0RC1) and only switch over to IE if a site requires it or if I'm doing browser compatibility testing for a site I'm launching.
I'm on a G3 iMac (400MHz + 512MB RAM) and I'm pretty happy. Some of the newer OS X apps seem a bit sluggish, but the ones that aren't doing anything too fancy (BBEdit, etc.) seem perfectly fine.
I also have XFree86 loaded (XonX) and I use the OroborOSX window manager. I prefer xterm over Terminal.app and I've recently gotten SciTE, a kick-ass "proof-of-concept" editor for Scintilla, a general purpose coding editor (does autocompletion, call tips, etc. for languages like PHP, Python, et al). This is what's used in Komodo and since I can't get Komodo for OS X, I'm using SciTE in the meantime.
In short, even with a 400MHz G3, I'm getting along just fine. Mozilla is perfectly responsive, Quicktime movies play w/o problems, Flash sites also work without any noticeable delays ... compared to Win98/Win2K running in VMware on a dual-proc (I know, VMware doesn't do SMP) 450MHz PIII with 256MB RAM, I'd say my iMac is quite a bit snappier. I imagine that if I ran at a lower resolution (say 800x600) like many, many web designers do (such as the one I live with), Aqua would be even more snappy, as it would have less to do.
Even so, I'm looking forward to getting a new iMac w/ a G4 proc, to take advantage of those Altivec enhancements and the oh-so-sweet flat panel display :)
Disclaimer: I in no way, shape, or form condone nor judge anything having to do with child pornography AND IANAL.
OK, now that that's out of the way ... I was reading through the legalese and noticed this interesting tidbit:
To me this jumped out as very closely addressing what the RIAA likes to claim to those companies and individuals that produce software and/or advertise software with MP3 ripping / CD burning capabilities. "Rip. Mix. Burn." by Apple comes to mind.
Yes? No? As I prefaced, IANAL! Seems to me, though, from a plane english point of view, what's being said here is that just by providing the means (or idea) to conduct illegal activites (ripping an MP3 and uploading to friends or burning a CD copy and giving it to friends), that doesn't make the product or the message illegal. The link between the product and the illegal activity is not tight enough, it appears to me.
What do you folks think?
Yep, and when you tell a client that Flash might be a good feature in their website, most will still bitch and moan about how some people won't be able to view Flash, etc. Not only that, but Flash does something that cannot (easily) be accomplished WITHOUT a plugin (SVG still needs a plugin in most browsers; DHTML doesn't *quite* achieve Flash animation). JP2 is just an 'improvement' if you will ... hence the comparison to .PNG, it is a valid comparison.
There isn't really any market (at all) out there for upgrading a Mac's motherboard. CPU upgrades can be done, but even that voids any warranties and all that.
I don't want to be a nay-sayer in any way, but I predict that this will catch on about as quickly as PNGs replacing GIFs. Most professional quality sites still use GIFs instead of PNG, even though tools such as Adobe's Imageready and Macromedia's Fireworks have supported the PNG format alongside GIFs for a while now AND most major browsers support PNGs natively (which wasn't the case not too long ago, with IE4, I believe).
.jp2 format doesn't require a plugin for 99% of the browsers out there, it won't be widely used, IMHO. Of course, I could be wrong and the .jp2 format might not even be meant for wide-spread adoption, and mainly for particular niche uses (such as viewing hubble images or replacing the need for lossless TIFFs).
Until the
Just my $0.02.
As far as point 3 goes, probably not. Most upgradeable Macs (read G4 towers) use PC components, so the cost would be the same. There are some components that don't just work in both environments, but they've come a long way with that.
500MHz PII? PIII? (I don't think P4s came out that low ..) I have a 266MHz PII Dell laptop and a 366MHz tangerine iBook (G3) and the iBook is significantly faster, even though I have Linux (Mandrake 8.1) installed on the Dell. I'd say its faster than the 100MHz difference would indicate. (let's not even discuss win2k in VMware)
Also, I have a 400MHz G3 iMac and a 450MHz G3 iMac and compared to my 700MHz Athlon (running Linux) they are significantly faster. The MHz myth isn't just marketing BS - look at what Athlon's doing. The last few reviews of their chips have indicated that they are being CONSERVATIVE with their '1800+', '2200+',etc. markings, which means that an Athlon running at a real 1.6GHz (or whatever it actually is) is running faster than P4s clocked OVER 2.2GHz.
The ars technica comparison of the G4 v. P4 architecture is very, very enlightening. At one point they say quite clearly: because of the P4's inordinately long pipeline, compared to the G4's, it practically has to be clocked at twice the MHz just to keep branch mis-predicts from slowing it to a crawl.
Just my $0.02
If a DNA strand can divide and replicate in seconds (or less) and that strand has billions of CGAT pairs on it, and this is what DNA based computing is trying to harness, then quite literally, billions of calculations or more can be computed in a fraction of the time it takes a serial processor. I'm far from an expert, but I think you're quite missing the point of DNA and Quantum based computing. These forms of computing *break* the typical way processing takes place, which allows them to compute at orders of magnitude faster than traditional computing devices.
Millions of dollars is being spent researching a pipe-dream. It may or may not end up being possible, but the theory is definitely rock-solid else the grants would never have been approved. You're attacking the theory of these types of computing devices (particularly in your bit about DNA) and that's really not up for discussion. What's up for discussion is simply if it will ever end up working they way its intended.
So, lemme guess ... you're still in college, right? No? Well, you're not in any industry/business where you have to interact with other clients or businesses, right? Let me put it to you simply: I am the technology lead for a small company that provides Internet tech and other applications to customers, usually accessible via a web browser. Now, I could not run any MS product because I dislike Microsoft's policies and EULAs, OR I could successfully do my work which includes testing user interfaces on IE, amongst other things, as well as troubleshooting problems that clients have with accessing network resources from their Windows desktops.
Any I'm a hypocrite? If so, then let me label you as clueless!
</rant>
I think where this (DNA computing) and quantum computing may come into their own is in massively parallel systems. Imagine being faced with a task that would take a single processor working in serial millions of years. Imagine how much faster it would be if you could take a O(2^n) problem and throw n processors at it. Not very feasible with silicon, but what about DNA or QC? That, I believe, is the magic here ... by their very composition, these types of computing allow massively parallel processing to occur. One chemical reaction that takes place in a fraction of a second could be equivalent to a single processor going through quadrillions of calculations or a farm of serial processors going through trillions of calculations each. The possibilities are intoxicating!
I recently wanted to get into programming for the Palm handheld devices (using OS 3.5), so I set out to program the same application in C, C++, and Java. What I discovered was that with the tools available to me (GNU toolchain), the only language that seemed to fit the bill was C. Between C and C++ (converting my C code into a full OO implementation) my .prc size doubled (approximately). The execution of the code was also noticeably slower than the C equivalent. This on an application that was *quite* simple (basic nslookup functionality), with no integration with the built-in Palm apps (calendar, etc.) After completing the C++ port of the app, I decided not to try the Java port since it would inevitably be slower and possibly larger than its C++ counterpart (even if it was compiled for the Dragonball processor).
.prc sizes.
At a recent conference in town, I had the opportunity to talk with someone from a local software engineering firm that had also done some experimental development on the Palm, targetting Java. They reported the results that I had feared: slow execution and unacceptably large
I think Java on handhelds has potential, but until either the processors get more oomph or the executable (byte-compiled or otherwise) for Java becomes a bit more optimized, I think developers wanting to build in significant functionality to their apps will still use C, the embedded world's darling language.
It seems to me that the amount of preparation that went into constructing the long strands and each of the truth sets is extensive. For this type of computing to become useful, it would appear to me that this construction of the parts necessary to carry out the computation would need significant work. I am very, very hopeful that DNA based computing as well as quantum molecular based computing will begin to make rapid gains in the very near future. The potential to astronomically increase the available computing power is there, I've read all the theories. It just needs to be made to happen :)
... quantum computing devices become common, as do DNA based computing devices - each in their own niche, possibly (neither device may be promising as a 'general computing' device, but used in conjunction they may complement each other) and the article previously posted about table-top fusion from the collapse of bubbles provides us with practically limitless and clean energy to drive the energy needs of all our computing devices. I can't wait :)
:)
Just imagine
Add to that the possibilities for human augmentation by cybernetic implants and I feel that the day of Gibson's Neuromancer may be soon approaching. As the geek I am, I can't wait
Not to disagree entirely with your post, or to offend you in any way, but what exactly makes you think that the gov't. wouldn't just go for the lowest bid as well? Its well known that they don't *have* to, but neither do corporations. The incentive to go with the lowest bid is still the same on either side of the fence. Fixed budget means that the less is spent on the security personnel, the more gets spent on the administrators. Over the past 6-8 months I've gotten a bit jaded, so I have to say: if you're not linin' your pockets, you're not livin' the dream. Unfortunate, but true.
Sorry, didn't mean to imply that US retailers operating in Canada are immune to Canadian laws. I was more talking about online retailers. If you order something from ThinkGeek, will they add the levy because their item is being shipped to Canada? That's my point ... I don't think that's the case. Even if that were to happen across the board (unlikely) you'd have people going to the US to pick up their electronics/media and then bringing 'em back to Canada. You can't sniff out an MP3 player as easily as tobacco!
LOL - indeed. Yeah, I'd have to agree with what you're saying about encapsulation being the important bit about OO. I'm also not sure if what they're doing is more or less OO than just data encapsulation, there really isn't enough info to go on and an actual Hurd developer (how many are there even? :)) probably won't stumble upon this thread :)
As I responded to an earlier comment, Hurd's main page does make reference to the fact that Hurd's structure is OO, though it is implemented in OO. I'm not sure if they're using strictly procedural C or if they're possibly using obj-c or a similar type of OO layering on top of C. Dunno - not enough detail on the site and it isn't really relevant, I guess. My original comment simply referred to the fact that the structure is OO.
As for the multi-server environment, is that meant to increase security? If its only to increase customizability, I don't entirely understand it since both OS X's Mach kernel as well as Linux' monolithic kernel are highly customizable, right? Is Hurd trying to do something that is truly revolutionary and hasn't been done or can't be done with existing technology or is it simply a project that was started in 1984 and has yet to produce anything and has evolved every few years to embody the most recent 'new things'?
I don't mean to flame or upset anyone, I'm just truly curious. What differentiates Hurd from other academic research kernels/OSs?
Gotcha, OK - that makes sense. Decent innovation, but is the OS X architecture simply a 'choice' that was made or is the Mach microkernel that was brought over from NeXT fitted for a single-server architecture exclusively? i.e. is Hurd revolutionary or simply 'different'?
Actually, I don't think that's actually the case. The C++ standard has been set for a little bit now and these recent travails have been on since 2.96 and 3.0 have been released (within the last 4-6 months I think). But, I could be wrong. I haven't managed to get another version of GCC installed, so if a project doesn't like the system's version (be it Mandrake 8.1, RedHat 7.1 or Mac OS X) then I won't be experiencing that application until it gets compatible or I get compatible, whichever happens first :)
This seems to me to be a common occurence on projects that fall into the 'development without a goal/point' category. Maybe they should figure out a goal/point to their project, then get a sponsor, and then complete it in some tractable amount of time. Otherwise, its an academic endeavor just like any other kernel used in all those OS classes across the world purely for academic purposes. Not to knock on GNU or RMS, of course, but for crying out loud - get a plan together, guys. I know they're capable of great things, its just so difficult to see if we're ever going to get there!
To give you an idea of where the OO comment came from, here ya go (from Hurd's main page):
So, Hurd isn't implemented in an OO language (unless they're layering something like obj-c on top of C), but it purports to be OO structured which is why I asked about the OO bit.