Re: Hurd Advocacy?
> > [Farid Hajji]
> > including their amiga port? Actually, I personally think that one
> > way to refactor the Hurd would be to do some kind of NetBSD/L4
> > port (or partial port) first and then use as much as possible from
> > NetBSD's very clean architecture (MD vs. MI code, drivers, ...)
> > as framework for the Hurd/L4.
>
> [Daniel Sieger]
> I don't know how it is actually with the Hurd, but such a policy of
> clean architecture and preference of a correct implementation in
> contrast to a early release or fast implementation is something I really
> would like to see. IMHO, to state out this policy clearly and keeping it
> in mind while coding and making design decisions would be a nice step
> into the right direction. Just a small sentence like "It is developed
> with the goal of a clean design, architecture and correct implementation
> in mind" or something like that on the Hurd Web pages would be very
> fine, I think. But, of course, I'm actually not really in the position
> to judge to what extend you already do this, or how far away it is from
> reality. It might also have some positive effects on how the Hurd is
> actually seen in public and by interested people or developers. Just my 2c.
We'll discuss this on l4-hurd. We're way off topic already :)
--
Farid Hajji. http://www.farid-hajji.net/address.html
Reply to: