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. A
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature