Re: Hurd [was:M$ licenses Unix]
On Thursday 22 May 2003 06:18, Tom Scott wrote:
> Barry deFreese wrote:
> > Mark L. Kahnt wrote:
> >> I'm hoping that between questions you ask and ideas you spark, maybe it
> >> is just one or two outstanding epiphanies (not the new browser being
> >> developed on gecko) that break the logjam on the Hurd and prove my fears
> >> wrong about its current condition. I wonder if they do need outside eyes
> >> and some fresh curiosity to inspire the next big step.
> >
> > It's kind of a curious group. I'm still confused quite a bit. I'll be
> > the first to admit that I know very little about OS design (which is one
> > of the reasons I'm tryin to get involved in the Hurd in the first place.
> > But, they are working off of a kernel that seems to get little to no
> > development while waiting for L4. Which from outside eyes almost seems
> > to be being developed in a vacuum? The Cathedral?? :-)
>
> Fresh curiosity plus old tricks might get something going. enjoying the
> fruits of his ill-gotten gains, bill convinced Yuri Gurevich, the creator
> of ASMs, to move from Ann Arbor to Redmond. why not see if some of yuri's
> students are interested in the model?: http://www.eecs.umich.edu/gasm
In the introduction the term "natural abstraction" was used. It started the
wheels turning in my head and I could read no further. Are there
abstractions in nature? I thought nature was the uncontrived - the
unabstract. I'll ponder the question as I compile a kernel - I'll need make
mrproper for this one - and 'M' on all the config options - and an old
Pentium with not much memory.
>
> Back somewhere in this thread someone mentioned that hurd was (supposed to
> be) microkernel neutral. could someone explain that?
>
> -- TT
--
Mike M.
Reply to: