Re: GNU quality
David Maslen <email@example.com> writes:
> 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?
Yes, essentially. GNU products tend to be easier to build, install,
maintain, and extend than others I've used. Part of the reason is
surely that I have used so many GNU packages that I'm familiar with
their conventions, but I think there is also a special attitude that
goes into preparing a GNU distribution. I would summarize the
attitude as "This software will outlive me." It means the developer
invests effort in usability and extensibility in proportion to the
future trouble it will save people, with the assumption that the
package will be used by thousands of people over many years.
> 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.
Yes, I believe this is a design goal.
> 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?
It will take a while, but it will be good.
> Secondly, the microkernel.
This has been discussed at length elsewhere. I don't claim expertise;
I'm just attracted to the idea.