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

Re: Confusion about where to go in Hurd

On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 07:11:49PM +0200, olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net wrote:
> Hi,
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 10:19:01AM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > 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
> Yes, it is a surprisingly on-the-spot description of the situation I'd
> say; except for one point: In your remarks, you seem to imply that there
> are actually several actively developed Hurd variants. This is not the
> case.

okay, thanks. you explanation makes sense and aligns with what I was
trying to express.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: