On Fri, 2003-08-15 at 15:27, Barry deFreese wrote:
> Mark L. Kahnt wrote:
>
> >mdxi@collapsar.net
> >
> >I would have to point out that the Hurd isn't presented as being today
> >absolutely ready and totally polished to outshine all other operating
> >systems available or even merely theoretically proposed. It is still
> >under development, although to a thoroughly designed concept, which
> >can't be said about many other o/ses (including that Microsoft stuff.)
> >However, because it is under development, there are certain things that
> >haven't as yet been completed, such as an installation procedure as
> >complete as boot-floppies. Don't view it as being beta software - some
> >parts may be that far along, while others are working to be alpha, and
> >some fortunately have become effectively complete.
> >
> >
> Mark,
>
> Not to be argumentative but then why does www.gnu.org say the following:
>
> *it exists*
> The Hurd is real software that works Right Now. It is not a research
> project or a proposal. You don't have to wait at all before you can
> start using and developing it.
>
> Wouldn't that imply to the user that it is usable, not necessarily
> alpha/beta? I'm not tryint to troll, start a flame, or downplay the
> Hurd. In fact, I would like to see the Hurd prosper as an alternative
> OS but I think it suffers from image problems.
>
> --
> Barry deFreese
> Debian 3.0r1 "Woody"
> Registered Linux "Newbie" #302256 - Debian Developer Wannabe
>
> "Programming today is a race between software engineers striving
> to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe
> trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is
> winning." Rich Cook.
>
>
>
I'm going to refer back to an email I sent back on 1 June to you (Barry)
when we were discussing the state of the Hurd:
"it exists
The Hurd is real software that works Right Now. It is not a
research project or a proposal. You don't have to wait at all
before you can start using and developing it.
"- I'll leave you to assess whether what you get now constitutes "works
Right Now". I wouldn't use it for a production system yet, or even as
the system on which I did development work, but testing code being
targeted to or ported to it, it seems to be "getting by". I know that I
wouldn't use it on a headless server, as I honestly don't know if it is
reliable enough to be able to log in via telnet whenever desired. I know
that while ssh is *somewhat* on the system, it isn't secure because the
key used isn't built with random numbers drawn from entropy."
In retrospect, the reference to logging in via telnet isn't really
expressing the point I wanted to make - I don't get the impression from
what I hear thus far that the Hurd is ready to be a production server,
maintained remotely by telnet or ssh.
I am not personally ready to dedicate a box to the Hurd to invest the
sort of time needed to realise its strengths, and file bug reports on
its weaknesses. I am left with the impression that there is too much
comfort waiting for someone else to patch what has been noted repeatedly
as problem aspects, such as the infamous 2GB partition size limit. When
such points are left to linger, the impression to a new investigator of
possibly exploring the Hurd, based on the write-up quoted on the gnu.org
website, is that when confronted with problems like the lingering 2 GB
limit, doubt arises regarding many of the other statements.
A similar consideration, as I mentioned in the 1 June email, and later
in discussions via email with Kent West was Kent's encounter with
mounting partitions. I understand that there is a mount script, but it
reportedly hangs the system. The write-ups from various Hurd sites,
however, imply that to the user, the common system usage should "seem"
like a common POSIX interface (the parts dealing with command line
utilities.) While the mount script is probably meant to do that for file
system translators, it apparently has been left seriously unfixed at
least with respect to the most commonly encountered file systems on
GPL'd operating systems.
So does "it exists" ring true to me? Aspects do, but not a complete core
system that I can trust as a functional information processing engine,
as the statement leads one to believe. When the core is done (kernel,
basic servers and translators to provide a reliable server - be that
web, print, file, database or whatever) that could be left running on
its own and trusted and secure, I'd agree with the statement from a
user's perspective. It is past being a research project, but it isn't
quite what I understand to be ready for a beta release candidate of a
distribution. From the perspective of a codebase to work on and a vision
being reached to, it exists. From a user-ready distribution perspective,
not this week.
This fits with the entry before it on the list - "its stable". It's
conceptual design is stable, but the binaries aren't necessarily
resulting in a system that runs with the level of stability comparable
to the BSDs or Linux in comparable breadths of configurations. With some
attention to core aspects, both of those could change - essentially
focussing on getting a kernel, a core set of translators and servers,
and the appropriate aspects of the GNU software suite to provide a
functional system that can host its own development and administration
(most of which I understand now exists,) a viable base for assembling a
distribution, or at least a reliably operational, installable o/s on
which the distribution can be ported as necessary.
Otherwise, the Hurd is limited to being an "aside" in the broader
mindset, comparable to BeOS, OS/2 and RSX-11, with respect to the other
free operating systems (Linux, the BSDs.) That would be squandering the
effort already put into the project.
--
Mark L. Kahnt, FLMI/M, ALHC, HIA, AIAA, ACS, MHP
ML Kahnt New Markets Consulting
Tel: (613) 531-8684 / (613) 539-0935
Email: kahnt@hosehead.dyndns.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part