[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Confusion about where to go in Hurd

Hi folks... thanks for a very informative discussion!

On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 01:33:12PM +0200, Anders Breindahl wrote:
> On 200707252117, Michael Casadevall wrote:

[... discussion of mach, hurd, hurd{ng,/ng} and the state of
developement ...]

so this is my extremely noob-ish interpretation of the state of
GNU/Hurd(GH)... And there is no sleight intended to anyone involved,
just my attempts to wrap my head around the current state of affairs
in soundbite format ;)

There are a series of branches of GH that are independently pursuing
the same goal: a completely GNU OS. There exists lots of crosstalk
between those branches of GH such that none of them are particularly
ahead or behind the others, just different with different ideas of the
path towards the same goal. Possibly even, they have different ideas
of what that goal is though nominally it is the same. 

Some of these branches continue to pursue work in directions that are
largely considered to be dead-ends, though the work completed in those
directions is expected to be at least informative of other future work
in other directions, if not downright portable to that future
work. Other branches are pursuing what are considered potentially more
successful directions of the development and at this time look to be
the future of GH. 

But as has been shown in the past, the direction taken may not end in
success (which iteration of new (micro)kernel are we at now? 3 or 4?
trix/BSD 4.4-lite -> mach -> l4 -> other?) so the other, less likely branches
continue as they are already functional (for some definitions of
functional) and may in the future continue to be useful. 

is that a reasonable bird's-eye view? if not, kindly please correct me



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: