On 12/7/09 10:38 PM, Danny Piccirillo danny.picciri...@ubuntu.com wrote:
I think it would be cool, but are there any reasons against this?
I can think of two right off the top of my head: 1) it would consume large
quantities of engineering resources that could be better used on other
things;
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Lefty (石鏡 ) le...@shugendo.org wrote:
On 12/7/09 10:38 PM, Danny Piccirillo danny.picciri...@ubuntu.com wrote:
I think it would be cool, but are there any reasons against this?
2) the number of people who would derive even the slightest bit of
benefit from it
Subject: Re: Supporting a GNU Hurd port?
From: John Moser john.r.mo...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:07:44 -0500
you know the microkernel arguments, and they're actually
pretty considerable. The idea of a system that's easier to maintain
(face it, operating systems are huge now
There is another important and non-technical dimension that we should
consider as a community when we discuss the kernel, or its replacement.
Marketing. (Yes the word now officially appears on a developer mailing
list ;)
Two experiments:
1) Say the word Linux to an average (non-technical)
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Patrick Goetz pgo...@mail.utexas.edu wrote:
Subject: Re: Supporting a GNU Hurd port?
From: John Moser john.r.mo...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:07:44 -0500
you know the microkernel arguments, and they're actually
pretty considerable. The idea
On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 13:11 -0500, John Moser wrote:
This is actually a core part of my argument: Linux is working, the
fact that HURD or Minix Could be better
Given that Linux is *working*, which is what we want from a kernel,
don't you mean that HURD or Minix Could be *as good* ?
Scott
--
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Scott James Remnant sc...@ubuntu.com wrote:
On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 13:11 -0500, John Moser wrote:
This is actually a core part of my argument: Linux is working, the
fact that HURD or Minix Could be better
Given that Linux is *working*, which is what we want
On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 14:48 -0500, John Moser wrote:
Linux works, but if we believe (or verify... actually it's been
verified) that there are any cases where a driver can crash (i.e. disk
driver, net driver, both have been made buggy to demonstrate) and the
system can recover, with zero risk
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Scott James Remnant sc...@ubuntu.com wrote:
On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 14:48 -0500, John Moser wrote:
That's certainly how things are supposed to work. A lot of this kind of
robustness comes from the requirement to support SMP systems, and make
I'm not talking
: Supporting a GNU Hurd port?
From: John Moser john.r.mo...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:07:44 -0500
you know the microkernel arguments, and they're actually
pretty considerable. The idea of a system that's easier to maintain
(face it, operating systems are huge now; smaller chunks
I'd just like to add probably-not-even-two-cents-worth:
Whilst I personally can't see any immediately viable (read: in the next 10
years, if ever) work to use HURD (*shudder*) or MINIX, the OP might get some
satisfaction from Nexenta (http://www.nexenta.org). From what I've read
(project
On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 01:38 -0500, Danny Piccirillo wrote:
A GNU Hurd port may not be for most users, but i was wondering if we
had the resources to support such a port as Debian does, and if it
would be worth the effort. I think it would be cool, but are there any
reasons against this?
I'm not sure if this has been discussed on here before, but i started a
discussion on the forums a while ago:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1096370
and filed a bug on launchpad: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/343452
and someone created a blueprint:
Danny Piccirillo wrote:
I'm not sure if this has been discussed on here before, but i started a
discussion on the forums a while ago:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1096370
and filed a bug on launchpad: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/343452
and someone created a blueprint:
14 matches
Mail list logo
