The Hurd

Eneko Lacunza eneko.lacunza at
Mon Mar 18 19:21:56 UTC 2002

Hi Jeroen, 
> > 	I knew all those things. The thing is that I only see that you somewhat
> > "hate" Linus/Linux for some reason. I don't agree in any ways with you
> > in that point.
> I don't hate Linux, but I don't like it either. I just say my opinion,
> most of the time based on facts and things I see. If something is
> wrong you're welcome to correct me. This is still different from the
> things at least some Linux developers do, attacking us on things which
> aren't true.
> Sometimes the Hurd is blamed for a lot of things it can't really do
> much about. For example that it hasn't many developers. Explainging
> why everybody is developing Linux instead of the Hurd isn't easy, most
> of it is just historicial. That doesn't make me hating Linux. 

	Good, I understand why you're so defensive in this thread. I don't use
the Hurd, but neither do I attack it. I like linux, but I don't think
it's time to (dis)like the Hurd.

> > 	Don't you see that the GNU system has been greatly helped by Linux?
> > Linux helped it with more testing, more popularity, more developers...
> I'm not sure that wouldn't have happened without Linux.

	Once again, we can't know it. We know what happened, anyways.

> > 	Maybe, even if Linus noticed the Hurd, he would have started Linux
> > anyway. It would have been legitimate, so please stop with this issue.
> I'm not sure. He could have worked more closely with GNU if he had
> noticed that they were already developping an operating system.

	Of course: he could. It's just a possibility. Please let's stop
wondering 8)

> > 	The fact is, that promises of a superior design are not enough. Things
> > must be proved, then people, MAYBE would change.
> Yes, but it's not easy to prove. However, we are on the way.

	Yes, and I understand. Linux is still needing to prove. Don't you see
that both have the same problem? The difference is that Linux "arrived"
sooner 8)

> > > > 	This is not the point in this discussion. It's not Linux's fault that
> > > > the Hurd a redesign and not a reimplementation.
> > > No, but it made it easier for Linux to get developers and users in a
> > > short time. The developers the Hurd needs for about 10 years. The Hurd
> > > finally gets them.
> > 	And what? This is (maybe) a sad thing, but I think that Linux has done
> > an excelent work.
> Not really. And then I'm just talking about the code, i.e. design and
> implementation. Not about what it made possible or other social things
> or so.

	Good. I think there's no possible discussion on the design part: it is
a true clone, and it is what was intended, no more.

	I think there has been done a good work in it's implementation. All
things can be done better, but the constraints must be seen.

> A monolithic kernel doesn't have well-defined and stable
> interfaces. Then the modules have to change everything. Of course you

	Well, it depends on the quality of the code / modularization. But,
generally, yes.

> can add it to this, but in the end you'll end up with a multi-server
> system running in kernel space. :)

	Yes, isn't it funny? 8)


Eneko Lacunza

  # Por un mundo con conocimiento libre #
Apoya el Software Libre - No a las patentes de software - -

More information about the Discussion mailing list