there is nothing innovative about hurd, not even the fact that it doesn't work and has taken years to get so unstable.
brucee On 1/19/06, erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Eirik Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > > | > | There is something to be said for microkernels > | they allow for a lot less headaches with kernel > | development, and it could drastically improve plan 9's > | portability, a key feature. > > "microkernels" cover a broad range. mach is > bigger than the plan 9 kernel. bigger than the linux kernel, even. > and linux is 90% device drivers. > > i hold out some hope for l4. > > | Also, the multi-server approach taken by the GNU/Hurd > | is innovative and well suited to SMP and distributed > | environments. > > what's innovative about the hurd? unless i'm missing something > plan9 fileservers are isomorphic with hurd daemons, conceptually. > the major difference being, in the hurd a server exports a random > interface, in plan9 a server exports a filesystem. > hurd isn't even an os. it needs a microkernel. > > However, the FSF has a role and the GNU > | project is (and should be) a side project for them. > | The real problem with it, though, is that C (like plan > | 9) was designed with portability as a major feature, > | and the GNU extensions in GCC aren't helping > | portability. It's kinda like microsoft's C#, they may > | be wonderful features, but you missed the whole point. >
