GNU Hurd 1.0

[zeroth]

Creating yet another OS kernel is such a waste. They could be helping Linux. Why? just why? Because RMS want's his *own*

Hurd is misguiding programmers to work on things that have already been done when they could be innovating. and for what? Because RMS want's his *credit* he keeps whining about.

credit is nothign more than fuel for someones worthless pride. That will not help FOSS, it will hold it back.

what a waste

[crow2icedearth]

GNU hurd was the missing part, that GNU project needed to make there own GNU UNIX. when linus wrote the linux kernel he basically finished what the GNU project needed to launch a working unix like os. Programmers around the world help recode GNU tools to work with the linux kernel. That is how gnu/linux was born.

It doesn't even make since for the GNU to help linux. They were never part of linux and never wanted to be. RMS is a god , with out his visions we would never have FSF or most of the GNU tools that makes linux run. I also do agree that RMS
a*S**** . I can see both sides to the story of RMS.

[zeroth]

GNU hurd was the missing part, that GNU project needed to make there own GNU UNIX. when linus wrote the linux kernel he basically finished what the GNU project needed to launch a working unix like os. Programmers around the world help recode GNU tools to work with the linux kernel. That is how gnu/linux was born.
GNU didn't need to make its OWN, it needed to make one thats FREE for the world to use. We achieved that. its time to move on.

It doesn't even make since for the GNU to help linux. They were never part of linux and never wanted to be.
Free Open Source Software exists to benifit humanity. there is no competition in FOSS software because there is no profit. It makes perfect sense for GNU to help Linux. FOSS is FOSS, it doesn't matter *who* made it, it belongs to humanity, anybody has access to the sourcecode unless they violate that rule.

RMS is a god
Words cannot express how moronic that statement is.

[Seph64]

RMS is a god

Watch it with that statement, because God might send over some Angels of Death and perhaps a few plagues to do away with Stallman and his Free Software Foundation. :p

Stallman is not a god, a prophet, perhaps, but a god? NO.

[Icarus]

Stallman is not a god, a prophet, perhaps, but a god? NO.
I prefer "raving lunatic"
He's the type of person that takes a good idea and blows it so far out of proportion that it becomes a joke and can not be taken seriously by anyone other than "raving lunatic's".

/me adds 2 cents to the penny jar

[paj12]

It should be pointed out that the article (http://humorix.org/articles/2006/06/hurd/) you're talking about is satire. The HURD is still in development and probably will continue to be for a long time. Development on the HURD should get a boost, however, since it has been accepted to the Google Summer of Code (http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/whatsnew.html).

The HURD fulfills the same function as the Linux kernel, but that's where the similarities end. The HURD is a collection of servers that run on top of a microkernel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microkernel). In this respect, the HURD is closer to Minix (http://www.minix3.org/) than it is to Linux. This has a couple of advantages: it keeps only a bare minimum of code running in kernel mode, so it's more secure; and it can restart individual servers when they crash without taking down the whole machine, so it's more reliable.

For more information about why a microkernel architecture is preferable to what we currently have with Linux, check out this article (http://www.computer.org/portal/site/computer/menuitem.5d61c1d591162e4b0ef1bd108bcd45f3/index.jsp?&pName=computer_level1_article&TheCat=1005&path=computer/homepage/0506&file=cover1.xml&xsl=article.xsl&) by Andrew Tannenbaum.

[crow2icedearth]

GNU didn't need to make its OWN, it needed to make one thats FREE for the world to use. We achieved that. its time to move on.

i agree with that statement. its been done with the linux kernel. There is no point to make hurd now a days.

[crow2icedearth]

GNU hurd was the missing part, that GNU project needed to make there own GNU UNIX.

i should rephrase that. what i meant to say is the GNU project needed a kernel to make the gnu/system work. When linus developed the linux kernel we had a complete unix like operation system. which was packaged as gnu/linux .

sorry if i made it sound like the GNU project needed to create there own kernel. we just needed one that would work. and linus provided a free kernel for that.

[crow2icedearth]

well RMS might not be a god , but he is one of the main reasons we have linux today !!!.

prefer "raving lunatic"

i totally agree.

[zeroth]

It should be pointed out that the article (http://humorix.org/articles/2006/06/hurd/) you're talking about is satire.
I had considered that, and I wasn't quite sure how they could build a kernel off of emacs .... heh.

it keeps only a bare minimum of code running in kernel mode, so it's more secure; and it can restart individual servers when they crash without taking down the whole machine, so it's more reliable.
Sounds like BSD. however, never used BSD (maybe someday)
Thanks for settign me straight.

He's the type of person that takes a good idea and blows it so far out of proportion that it becomes a joke and can not be taken seriously by anyone other than "raving lunatic's".
I agree. Unfortuanately, I feel the same way about Linux sometimes. As soon as the word "Linux" comes out of my mouth they (if they know what it is) roll their eyes and flip me the bird real inconspiculously.

[je_fro]

Hurd is a microkernel, which is supposed to be better and faster than a monolithic kernel like Linux. There's lots of argument about that, but I think Hurd is probably technically better than linux....I'll run it if they ever get decent nvidia drivers :D

[paj12]

i agree with that statement. its been done with the linux kernel. There is no point to make hurd now a days.
Your trolling is about thirty years late. There has been more than one UNIX kernel ever since BSD forked Bell Labs' UNIX. The HURD is simply another alternative in a sea of UNIX-like kernels.

Why is there so much hatred towards the HURD? People don't honestly believe there should be only one UNIX-like kernel, do they? The people who develop HURD aren't actively sabotaging Linux, they're just trying to develop an alternative that people can choose if they want. You remember choice, don't you? It's the reason Free Software exists, so people can choose something other than serfdom at the hands of proprietary software vendors.

I think the HURD is good for Free Software, especially if all the good things we've heard about microkernels actually pan out. It'll be interesting to have another choice.

[hard candy]

[QUOTE=Stallman is not a god, a prophet, perhaps, but a god? NO.[/QUOTE]

I thought he was "non-prophet"?

[zeroth]

Your trolling is about thirty years late. There has been more than one UNIX kernel ever since BSD forked Bell Labs' UNIX. The HURD is simply another alternative in a sea of UNIX-like kernels.

Why is there so much hatred towards the HURD? People don't honestly believe there should be only one UNIX-like kernel, do they? The people who develop HURD aren't actively sabotaging Linux, they're just trying to develop an alternative that people can choose if they want. You remember choice, don't you? It's the reason Free Software exists, so people can choose something other than serfdom at the hands of proprietary software vendors.

I think the HURD is good for Free Software, especially if all the good things we've heard about microkernels actually pan out. It'll be interesting to have another choice.

This is one of those "Chicken and Egg" debates.

You say: There are lots of kernels, and I like the choices.

I say: The total amount of expertise on every kernel when focused on just one or two would drastically increase their functionality and stability at a much faster rate.

Neither of us are wrong.

[paj12]

I say: The total amount of expertise on every kernel when focused on just one or two would drastically increase their functionality and stability at a much faster rate.
When an improvement is made to one Free Software kernel, all Free Software kernels benefit because the source code is there for all to learn from and possibly incorporate into their project of choice.

I thought he was "non-prophet"?
No. He's for "phree as in phreedom".

[zeroth]

When an improvement is made to one Free Software kernel, all Free Software kernels benefit because the source code is there for all to learn from and possibly incorporate into their project of choice.

Thats a great point.

No, thats a really great point...

edit:

however, the hurd is just reinventing the wheel, they aren't working on anything *new*

:-)

[je_fro]

however, the hurd is just reinventing the wheel, they aren't working on anything *new*

You obviously don't know anything about hurd.
/me unsubscribes...

[zeroth]

You obviously don't know anything about hurd.
/me unsubscribes...


Does that really surprise you? Theres little to no discussion about Hurd. Everywhere I look its Linux, Windows, BSD, Mac, and even the occasional Solaris. I've known of VAX/VMS, Unix, Minix, etc for many many years.

It was only until this year that I've ever even heard of HURD.

edit: I suppose thats because it hasn't been produced to a stable level yet.

[JThundley]

It's not stable, and it also doesn't get a lot of press because they haven't hit exciting landmarks. They really are doing new and innovative stuff though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnu_hurd#Architecture

[zeroth]

They really are doing new and innovative stuff


well thats good to hear. I still don't quite understand the principles behind it, but it sounds interesting. I take it there are no existing microkernels?

[paj12]

well thats good to hear. I still don't quite understand the principles behind it, but it sounds interesting. I take it there are no existing microkernels?
There are many microkernels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microkernel#Examples). Unfortunately, a microkernel architecture has never gained much traction in the personal computer industry, that's why you've never heard of them.

The basic principle is to improve security by running as little code in kernel mode as possible. The kernel schedules CPU time and manages memory and that's about it. Everything else: device drivers, file systems, and the networking stack, are run as processes in userspace. This has the dual benefit of making the system more secure (since userspace code has fewer privleges than kernel code) and making the system more robust (since a process in userspace can be easily restarted if it crashes without taking down the whole system).