GNU quality
John Tobey <jtobey@channel1.com> writes:
> 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. ;-)
Would you care to elaborate. GNU quality code. Is this why the GNU
tools seem to be ported to every platform? Because the quality has
gone into planning them in such a way as this is possible without
nasty platform dependant hacks?
If so does that mean that for HURD to be GNU quality, it isn't enough
to get it going on a i386 now, because it has to work on any/all
architectures in the future. More assumption, but wouldn't this mean
an eternity of planning, and probably enough changes while your
planning, that you need to plan again when you've finished?
Secondly, the microkernel. My understanding is that it's a good thing
because the micro kernel becomes a generic layer to talk to the
hardware and everything else sits on top. This is more flexible if you
want something else to sit on top. I've also heard it isn't as
efficient as a purpose built kernel.
--
Binary Bar - Australia's first free access internet bar/cafe/gallery.
243 Brunswick Street, Fitzroy, Melbourne, Australia. 3pm - 1am
http://www.binary.net.au/
Reply to: