On 24-Jul-02 13:52:56 Alfred M. Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: AMS> Emile van Bergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> That's not what is meant; if it were so, it would indeed seem >> redundant. There is no GNU version of Linux or the Hurd. GNU/X >> refers to the operating system 'GNU' running on top of/combined >> with X, X being Linux or the Hurd in most cases.
AMS> Maybe I'm just confused, what do you mean that there is no GNU AMS> version of the Hurd? The Hurd is an GNU project. I'm sure this will be clairified in the expected standard way. But I'd like to add a few words. The Hurd is and has been the official GNU core for a long time. It is an advanced design, in comparison to what was available when it was first made the GNU core project and even today it is. The very fact that way back when, even then it was inherently supportive of distributed computing. The Linux kernel project came along and it did cause a shift of developer resources towards Linux where it would have otherwise been directed towards the development of the Hurd. But nature has it way of balance, and in this case though Linux provided a distraction it also has allowed for a supprise. All this GNU software had been developed and built upon Linux, and all of it (with exception of a few programs - that just don't make a whole lot of since to port, as they are specific to the Linux kernel type of OS) is portable to the Hurd, if it hasn't already been ported (most if not all has). Everybody knows that the software industry is a very very competitive industry, where almost as soon as something comes out, there are clones. But here is a situation where so much has been done on one type of OS that is suddenly going to have a very friendly distributed computing core. So, I've been using the term "GNU complete" in reference to th GNU software, the Hurd core and anything else in the works established as GNU, such as dotGNU. There is more: People tend to be wondering about MS and what are they up to? This is a very valid concern as we all know MS's past and their inability to really change their ways, especially so quickly. So I'll tell you. MS intends to corner the autocoding market and the development part (CLI) of the chalkboard they call .net is the effort to establish Programming Language Concepts and Data Types standards. Of course upon this will be applied Autocoding tools and software engineering knowledgebases (or whatever you might call such). On the way there, establishing software that can run on any hardware via Virtual Execution System (or whatever whoever calls it) and as such MS is not concerned about mono and dotGNU efforts, but recognize them as... well helping to establish the standards. MS will continue holding and promoting as large a user base of there products as we all know they will and in any and every way they can, honest or ......... more likely not... Of course MS will come in at the right time with supposed patented autocoding software system.....And then everyone will be paying MS rent not only to develop but to use and sell what they (you and me) produce. Just kidding......... everybody knows autocoding is not possible, right? What title did Bill Gates give himself again? The Hurd Team: Don't worry, there is a solution, and you are part of it. Keep up the good work. --- Timothy Rue Email @ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web @ http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
