The only interesting thing about HURD is that RMS is the lead developer!
Actually, RMS isn't the Hurd's lead developer. He's just the head of GNU, and the Hurd is a GNU project. And yes, the Hurd does get extra exposure by being a GNU project.
I'm interested in the Hurd because it's a Free mutli-server. SawMill is also interesting.
If you can find me a POSIX-compliant multi-server written by a single person in less time than it's taking the Hurd to get finished, I'd be very interested to hear about it.
There are performance advantages of a microkernel that come from your ability to run multiple memory servers with different policies on a single machine, and hence have proper support for regular applications, as well as realtime applications such as multimedia.
Technology that is under development is never better for end-users than stable software. Those of us who run GNU/Hurd and are involved with the project want to help develop an architectually-superior Free OS.
Actually, microkernels have the potential to increase the performance of applications such as databases and multimedia.
A very good read that I recommend to anyone interested in operating systems is Towards Real Microkernels by Jochen Liedtke. It explains the advantages of microkernel-based systems, what is wrong with older microkernels like Mach, and why current second-generation microkernels are better.
Meanwhile, companies like Apple, and others, are doing the really interesting things.
I hope you don't mean Darwin. That's just Mach and FreeBSD running in the same address space, which completely wastes all the advantages of a microkernel. There's no interesting technology there.
The thing is, though, that they're still talking about it, and haven't been able to actually do anything with it.
Haven't been able to do anything with it? Buddy, I've got a GNU/Hurd box running at my university. It's not vapourware. And it's rapidly making progress.
don't expect me to get all hot and bothered because the design is different in some exciting but arcane way.
I don't call microkernel architecture "arcane." I'm not satisfied with the long-term potential of monolithic kernels, hence I support the Hurd.
Actually, IBM is getting all hot and bothered by this stuff. They're financing the development of SawMill, a multi-server version of Linux running on top of the L4 microkernel. This stuff is the future.
This isn't the right way to measure the "goodness" of a system. The Hurd has concepts that are actually innovative.
If you're going to say that the Hurd sucks because it doesn't support some piece of hardware or software, then *damn*, Linux really sucks... and it did even more so at version 0.2. Gee, what am I doing... where's a Windows box? Win 98 must obviously be superior to all these Free/Open Source systems, with all the hardware and software it supports.
People can use GNU/Linux. You don't use the kernel (as an end-user), you use your applications.
I think we've got a best-of-both worlds situation here: in the meantime, we've got a very good monolithic kernel (Linux), and we've got a nice multi-server in the works (Hurd), for when the time comes when monolithic kernels just can't cut it anymore.
And regarding your statement, "It doesn't matter if you are theorectially advanced.", that's a load of BS. If no one is innovating, technology stagnates. What we're seeing here is the price of innovation. And if Free/Open Source isn't willing to do this, then we'll deserve the criticism that we're just ripping off proprietary software.
When distinguishing the current Hurd with the planned port of the Hurd to L4, we often say Hurd/Mach, and Hurd/L4 (putting the higher layer before the lower layer, like with GNU/Linux).
Because of the Hurd's multi-server microkernel architecture. If we keep relying on monolithic kernels (Linux, *BSD) forever, we eventually won't be able to keep up with proprietary OSs, and the Free/Open Source software movement will die.
It does, however, probably mean that the stuff they're doing isn't really news.
There's a group of Free Software developers choosing to truly innovate. If that isn't news, there's something wrong with the Free and Open Source communities.
Does anyone here know why they let the partition size issue languish for so long?
The partition size is limited because the Hurd maps the entire disk partition into main memory, and the 32-bit architecture of current Intel processors limits the size of a virtual address space to 2^32 bytes, hence the limitation. Changing the Hurd to do things differently isn't exactly a one-weekend patch.
On another note, once we go the 64-bit processors, we'll see a much larger virtual address space (double it's current size 32 times), and hence a much higher cap on the partition size (assuming no fix).
On another note, does anyone know how HURD benchmarks against linux?
This really isn't the right question to ask: remember that the Hurd is at version 0.2, and that "Premature optimization is the root of all evil." No new Free/Open Source kernel is going to ship and be immediately as fast and full-featured as Linux... things just don't work that way.
What's important is that the Hurd represents new OS technology... and that's more important that any current lack of performance or drivers.
There's a difference. Linus wrote a monolithic Unix-like kernel. That's a *huge* accomplishment (I know I couldn't do it!), but Unix-like kernels are well-understood.
The Hurd, on the other hand, is a multi-server design. This is new stuff -- the only other major such system I know is QNX. Building multi-servers is something that most people have no experience with.
So, if you're going to complain that the Hurd is taking too long to implement, I ask you this: do you think it is the place of Free/Open Source developers to innovate (which will take a long time), or only to copy what Microsoft and other proprietary software companies do?
If I might add to what you've pointed out, RMS has explained that the motivation for continuing development of the Hurd is that it has the potential to be something much more powerful.
Which leads to what really bothers me about the Slashdot crowd's reaction to the Hurd. Lot's of people I know criticize Free/Open Source Software just rips stuff off, and doesn't innovate. Well, the Hurd is one of the most innovative Free Software projects around. These guys were talking about buiding a multi-server OS back at the beginning of the 90s.
Come on, once the Hurd is finished, GNU/Hurd will be years ahead of GNU/Linux, Windows NT, or Mac OSX. The only other OS I know of that's as theoretically-advanced as GNU/Hurd is QNX another multi-server.
This is cool stuff. Unfortunately, it seems that most people just want to complain, "Oh, does it have the drivers for XXXXX? No. Then it's useless." Grow up - the value of an operating system isn't defined by what hardware it runs on. That's much easier to change than the fundamental architecture of the system.
Actually, when distinguishing between implementations of the Hurd on different microkernels, we ususally say Hurd/Mach versus Hurd/L4. This is consistent with GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd, ie. HigherLayer/LowerLayer.
OSKit-Mach is just a superior implementation of Mach, so we'd still call it Hurd/Mach if we needed to make a distinction.
Real improvements to the Hurd will come with the eventual port to the microkernel which is much superior to Mach (and the answer to current anti-microkernel FUD).
So this PC is environmentally friendly. IMHO, that's a Good Thing, in fact a Very Good Thing. A higher cause than free technology.
However, I understand that the Crusoe chips use patented technology. How would someone more zealous than I react to this clash between environmental protection and technological freedom.
Would the consensus be simply that being environmentally friendly is a good thing, but that a more open design could be made even more environmentally friendly due to peer review?
Since if a program is available only for Windows, a Mac user would need to buy another computer to run it (costs around $1000-$2000 for a mid-range system), while a GNU/Linux user using a PC only can make his/her machine dual-boot (cost of Windows $329 (?), less if you're a pirate... arr, mateys! ). Since the GNU/Linux users have a feasible way to run the program, companies won't consider a port necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
Is BOCHS smart enough to let the host machine run the non-privledged instructions if the host happens to be an x86 chip?
No, Bochs is a pure interpreter. A less mature project that attempts to do this is Plex86, and a commercial alternative is VMWare.
Technology makes some good business models go bad and eliminates certain categories of jobs. It happened for farming...
Which is still the most important job in the world, and always will be. It takes a lot of decadence to forget that fact.
The only interesting thing about HURD is that RMS is the lead developer!
Actually, RMS isn't the Hurd's lead developer. He's just the head of GNU, and the Hurd is a GNU project. And yes, the Hurd does get extra exposure by being a GNU project.
I'm interested in the Hurd because it's a Free mutli-server. SawMill is also interesting.
If you can find me a POSIX-compliant multi-server written by a single person in less time than it's taking the Hurd to get finished, I'd be very interested to hear about it.
GNOME is part of the GNU Project, KDE isn't. If you look at the GNU coding standards, they'd like any GUI interface to a GNU app to be GTK.
Nothing against KDE, it's very good and I don't like it when people flame it, but GNOME is the "GNU-Brand" desktop.
Perfectly reasonable, since the Hurd isn't a kernel, it just sits between a microkernel and glibc.
GNOME and Hurd are both part of the GNU system. That would be like calling Mac OSX "Aqua/MacOSX/FreeBSD/Mach".
(Betcha' weren't expecting a serious answer, eh?) ;-)
There are performance advantages of a microkernel that come from your ability to run multiple memory servers with different policies on a single machine, and hence have proper support for regular applications, as well as realtime applications such as multimedia.
Technology that is under development is never better for end-users than stable software. Those of us who run GNU/Hurd and are involved with the project want to help develop an architectually-superior Free OS.
Actually, microkernels have the potential to increase the performance of applications such as databases and multimedia.
A very good read that I recommend to anyone interested in operating systems is Towards Real Microkernels by Jochen Liedtke. It explains the advantages of microkernel-based systems, what is wrong with older microkernels like Mach, and why current second-generation microkernels are better.
No, it's built on the Mach kernel.
This has nothing to do with the Hurd, and everything to do with the microkernel it's sitting on. At present, that microkernel is obsolete and slow.
Meanwhile, companies like Apple, and others, are doing the really interesting things.
I hope you don't mean Darwin. That's just Mach and FreeBSD running in the same address space, which completely wastes all the advantages of a microkernel. There's no interesting technology there.
The thing is, though, that they're still talking about it, and haven't been able to actually do anything with it.
Haven't been able to do anything with it? Buddy, I've got a GNU/Hurd box running at my university. It's not vapourware. And it's rapidly making progress.
don't expect me to get all hot and bothered because the design is different in some exciting but arcane way.
I don't call microkernel architecture "arcane." I'm not satisfied with the long-term potential of monolithic kernels, hence I support the Hurd.
Actually, IBM is getting all hot and bothered by this stuff. They're financing the development of SawMill, a multi-server version of Linux running on top of the L4 microkernel. This stuff is the future.
This isn't the right way to measure the "goodness" of a system. The Hurd has concepts that are actually innovative.
If you're going to say that the Hurd sucks because it doesn't support some piece of hardware or software, then *damn*, Linux really sucks... and it did even more so at version 0.2. Gee, what am I doing... where's a Windows box? Win 98 must obviously be superior to all these Free/Open Source systems, with all the hardware and software it supports.
People can use GNU/Linux. You don't use the kernel (as an end-user), you use your applications.
I think we've got a best-of-both worlds situation here: in the meantime, we've got a very good monolithic kernel (Linux), and we've got a nice multi-server in the works (Hurd), for when the time comes when monolithic kernels just can't cut it anymore.
And regarding your statement, "It doesn't matter if you are theorectially advanced.", that's a load of BS. If no one is innovating, technology stagnates. What we're seeing here is the price of innovation. And if Free/Open Source isn't willing to do this, then we'll deserve the criticism that we're just ripping off proprietary software.
When distinguishing the current Hurd with the planned port of the Hurd to L4, we often say Hurd/Mach, and Hurd/L4 (putting the higher layer before the lower layer, like with GNU/Linux).
Who cares?
Me.
And why?
Because of the Hurd's multi-server microkernel architecture. If we keep relying on monolithic kernels (Linux, *BSD) forever, we eventually won't be able to keep up with proprietary OSs, and the Free/Open Source software movement will die.
It does, however, probably mean that the stuff they're doing isn't really news.
There's a group of Free Software developers choosing to truly innovate. If that isn't news, there's something wrong with the Free and Open Source communities.
Does anyone here know why they let the partition size issue languish for so long?
The partition size is limited because the Hurd maps the entire disk partition into main memory, and the 32-bit architecture of current Intel processors limits the size of a virtual address space to 2^32 bytes, hence the limitation. Changing the Hurd to do things differently isn't exactly a one-weekend patch.
On another note, once we go the 64-bit processors, we'll see a much larger virtual address space (double it's current size 32 times), and hence a much higher cap on the partition size (assuming no fix).
On another note, does anyone know how HURD benchmarks against linux?
This really isn't the right question to ask: remember that the Hurd is at version 0.2, and that "Premature optimization is the root of all evil." No new Free/Open Source kernel is going to ship and be immediately as fast and full-featured as Linux... things just don't work that way.
What's important is that the Hurd represents new OS technology... and that's more important that any current lack of performance or drivers.
There's a difference. Linus wrote a monolithic Unix-like kernel. That's a *huge* accomplishment (I know I couldn't do it!), but Unix-like kernels are well-understood.
The Hurd, on the other hand, is a multi-server design. This is new stuff -- the only other major such system I know is QNX. Building multi-servers is something that most people have no experience with.
So, if you're going to complain that the Hurd is taking too long to implement, I ask you this: do you think it is the place of Free/Open Source developers to innovate (which will take a long time), or only to copy what Microsoft and other proprietary software companies do?
Right. Any software project that takes effort, breaks new ground, and has real academic value isn't worth it.
Microsoft should be thanking you for spreading this attitude among Free/Open Source developers.
Bang on the money.
If I might add to what you've pointed out, RMS has explained that the motivation for continuing development of the Hurd is that it has the potential to be something much more powerful.
Which leads to what really bothers me about the Slashdot crowd's reaction to the Hurd. Lot's of people I know criticize Free/Open Source Software just rips stuff off, and doesn't innovate. Well, the Hurd is one of the most innovative Free Software projects around. These guys were talking about buiding a multi-server OS back at the beginning of the 90s.
Come on, once the Hurd is finished, GNU/Hurd will be years ahead of GNU/Linux, Windows NT, or Mac OSX. The only other OS I know of that's as theoretically-advanced as GNU/Hurd is QNX another multi-server.
This is cool stuff. Unfortunately, it seems that most people just want to complain, "Oh, does it have the drivers for XXXXX? No. Then it's useless." Grow up - the value of an operating system isn't defined by what hardware it runs on. That's much easier to change than the fundamental architecture of the system.
Actually, when distinguishing between implementations of the Hurd on different microkernels, we ususally say Hurd/Mach versus Hurd/L4. This is consistent with GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd, ie. HigherLayer/LowerLayer.
OSKit-Mach is just a superior implementation of Mach, so we'd still call it Hurd/Mach if we needed to make a distinction.
Real improvements to the Hurd will come with the eventual port to the microkernel which is much superior to Mach (and the answer to current anti-microkernel FUD).
So this PC is environmentally friendly. IMHO, that's a Good Thing, in fact a Very Good Thing. A higher cause than free technology.
However, I understand that the Crusoe chips use patented technology. How would someone more zealous than I react to this clash between environmental protection and technological freedom.
Would the consensus be simply that being environmentally friendly is a good thing, but that a more open design could be made even more environmentally friendly due to peer review?
Open the Aqua sources, and Apple has no way to make you buy their hardware.
Since if a program is available only for Windows, a Mac user would need to buy another computer to run it (costs around $1000-$2000 for a mid-range system), while a GNU/Linux user using a PC only can make his/her machine dual-boot (cost of Windows $329 (?), less if you're a pirate... arr, mateys! ). Since the GNU/Linux users have a feasible way to run the program, companies won't consider a port necessary.