Re: Hurd Advocacy?
"deFreese, Barry" <Barry.deFreese@nike.com> writes:
> While I moderately understand your sentiment, in the fact that there is a
> lot of design and theory behind Hurd, I have to agree with Marco for one
> main reason. There is actually very little kernel development taking place
> in the Hurd itself. L4 is being developed by another group, GNUMach 1.x is
> dead, and very little if any work is being done on GNUMach 2.x. :-)
The port to L4 is top priority for most hackers. Because of that
GNUMach isn't just that important anymore, and that is really a good
thing!
Another issue is that the Hurd is microkernel independent (or will be,
depends on how you think of this). All work done for the Hurd will be
useful, despite of which microkernel will be used. If the 2GB limit
will be fixed it will will work on all microkernels, same for mozilla,
etc,etc.
--
Marco
Reply to: