Re: RMS Talk in NZ
Martin Schulze <joey@tapiola.Infodrom.North.DE> writes:
> David Maslen wrote:
> > The is a story on ./ at the moment with a writeup of a talk RMS gave
> > in NZ. http://cantua.canterbury.ac.nz/~mpt26/stuff/rms/
> > One thing that seems relevant to this list is that RMS reportedly said
> > using the MACH micro kernel was a mistake. Now does this mean it was a
> > mistake because the micro kernel concept is bad? Or because it
> > retarded developement of the hurd, and so linux took the free software
> > innertia?
> As far as I know rms I believe that he's referring to the long time he
> had to wait for the Mach micro kernel to appear. In the meantime Linux
> has gone much farer and even the Debian project was started. Waiting
> for the kernel to appear did hurt the Hurd project because people want
> to do anything, they want to use anything.
I can think of two answers to this. One, Linux nowadays uses the same
API as HURD (glibc2). The popularity of Linux means that a lot of
code will port trivially to HURD. Every developer using Glibc is a
developer not using Win32.
Two, writing GNU-quality code takes considerable skill. Linux may not
be GNU-quality, but the experience gained from Linux will help
developers "move up" to the HURD. As M$ well knows, it's better to be
second at doing something, because you learn from the first guys'
mistakes (and successes). Even more so in the world of Free Software;
you also learn and borrow from their code base.
And besides, you just gotta go with the microkernel. ;-)