Marcus Brinkmann wrote some excellent comments... I'll just add my own brief notes.
>>>>> Michael Bacarella writes: MB> Is the idea to follow the Linux model (many distributions) or MB> something more like the FreeBSD model (one distribution)? I'm aiming for both. There are some relatively simple technology changes we can make to the Debian packaging tools that will allow people to create several different distributions drawn from the same pool of Debian packages. This will allow us to share our work whenever possible (even with Debian GNU/Linux developers), without the need for labour-intensive forks. MB> To achieve the level of diversity that Linux has, "Value Adding" MB> could be highly encouraged. "GNU HURD for Mission Critical MB> Servers" would be offered by someone other than GNU because it's MB> more of a niche package as well as "GNU HURD for the Desktop!" or MB> whatever. I follow your thinking, but the Hurd is designed to be scalable to all these platforms (simply by making changes to the implementation of the underlying microkernel, which is currently GNU Mach). The difference between `Mission Critical' and `Desktop' OSes is purely a marketing ploy designed by people who want to sell the same product at a higher price to corporate customers. It's a ploy that takes advantage of the fact that most consumers don't bother to understand what they're buying before they sign the bill. Things like GNOME are proving that it is reasonable to have your Mission Critical OS be the same one as your Desktop OS. GNU will go even further in this direction, by saying that it is also possible to have your R&D OS be the same as your Desktop and Mission Critical OS. MB> It is much too early to be discussing something like this but we MB> should probably give thought to this soon before it starts to MB> "fragment" like Linux did. When you use the word `Linux' in this context, I can't tell if you mean the GNU/Linux OS, or the Linux kernel. Depending on how optimistic you are, it can be argued that neither of these projects have `fragmented' in any sense of the word. If there are variants, it is because there are clear benefits and disadvantages to each variant. The end goal for all people is still basically to merge each variant with its parent, producing a more stable system. *BSD, on the other hand is what I would call `fragmented'. I don't see it anybody actually trying to unite those projects, and the benefits and disadvantages to each project are very, very vague (and mostly political). MB> Oh, also. I'm pretty sure we want to discourage proprietary MB> software running on the HURD (ie, linking to HURD's MB> libraries). Will the HURD be 100% GPL or will some parts of it be MB> Lesser GPL? The Hurd is GPLed. However, the Hurd's libraries are only useful for developing your own kernel servers; most programs only depend on glibc, which is LGPLed. -- Gordon Matzigkeit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> //\ I'm a FIG (http://www.fig.org/) Committed to freedom and diversity \// I use GNU (http://www.gnu.org/)
