[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: hurd does NOT need /hurd

On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 03:10:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 06:58:46PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Right now, the Debian GNU/Hurd port is not complete.
> > 
> > Part of making it complete is bringing the packages and the policy
> > together.  Certainly as long as there is a difference, it is not ready
> > to release.
> Just for some perspective, the thing that's stopping it from release
> is that it doesn't work (it's been a year since I last knew what was
> wrong, but missing partitioning tools, firewalling tools, an installer,
> and massive incompatible bin format changes come to mind; I've no idea
> how accurate they are as criticisms today though). 

We have partition tools (GNU parted), the installer is a big hack (but
I think some changes in the Debian infrastructure are needed to have a
good installer) and the TCP/IP stack is the biggest hack of the whole
system if you exclude Mach. We need to write a TCP/IP for the Hurd,
it's just that everybody is busy with other things.

I think the things that's stopping it from a release are the number of
packages ported, Marcus could correct me here if I'm right. There are
snapshot CDs of the system released every now and then however.

> Once you've got a
> system that *works*, that you can stick on the Internet and not worry
> too much about, that you can install, and so forth, you're done.

GNU/Hurd works pretty fine for a workstation, but a server running it
won't survive being slashdotted. Other than that I've heard that
somebody managed to run a webserver on GNU/Hurd with uptimes of couple
of weeks.

Jeroen Dekkers
Jabber ID: jdekkers@jabber.org  IRC ID: jeroen@openprojects
GNU supporter - http://www.gnu.org

Attachment: pgp1fcEjwqXMh.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: