On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 05:52:49PM -0500, erik quanstrom wrote: > i don't see how you can blame hurd's vaporware status > on switching from mach to l4. that happened quite reciently. > they were coding for hurd in 1990.
Adding to the handwaving: Generally problems in hurd seem to be blamed on the kernel. They say mach just isn't any good so that didn't work out. I don't know if the l4 thing got anywhere and it seems that at least part of the crowd (hurd-ng) is now arguing about profound ideas at the moment without any code trying to figure out how to start a new(?) system without having ever ro start over again. (<-- that's all just hand-waving, though. ianahd) If I got the picture, there seems to be one running Hurd (http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/) and they're not happy with Mach and aren't continuing. Then there's a number of groups looking for the alternative. Maybe that's progress, but if the running mach version doesn't go forward and no new version reaches a running state, the usable Hurd will seem to be stuck in that state. -- <Murgatroyd> You know you've been playing Nethack too much when... <Murgatroyd> You look both ways down the corridor, start to sweat... then realise you're looking at your EMail address.
