True. Yet every speech RMS gives on GNU and free software he brings up
the kernel history, and explains that it's still not working yet.
To me, I would suggest the following be discussed in their entirety as
primary topics:
1) Is it worth completing the HURD? If not, do we abandon it and go
monolithic?
2) Once our kernel is complete (or abandoned), what will our GNU
Distribution be called?
3) What is our time frame for completion?
If I could attend, I'd be happy to present on all of these. They are
the overall state of GNU in everybody's eyes.
I can't tell you how many people I've discussed the GNU project, its
inception, RMS's goals, etc., and I get to the point where the kernel
was begun in 1991 and it still isn't finished. Most everybody
immediately turns their head or averts their eyes as if to say "Does not
sound like a good project. It's how many years later and their
core-most feature still isn't working? Scary."
The kernel should be re-evaluated into a very, very high priority for
GNU's reputation and the completion of RMS's original goals.
And, FWIW, I think you'll find the FSF doesn't list the kernel as a high
priority any longer because it's failed so many times and RMS has
essentially given up on it because nobody seems to be able to make it
work properly.
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
On 06/02/2012 03:29 AM, Neal H. Walfield wrote:
At Fri, 01 Jun 2012 12:42:13 -0400,
Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
Well, it's not a joke, Neal. And I'm not to be harsh or mean. But GNU
is incomplete without the HURD. Linux works, but it's not GNU. It's
GNU plus Linux, or GNU/Linux.
The FSF doesn't employ anyone to work on the Hurd. Thus, work on the
Hurd is completely driven by volunteers in their free time. Although
there are some people who actively work on the Hurd, there are not
enough to realize your vision in the very near future. This lack of
volunteers suggests that there are not a lot of people who share your
vision. Indeed, even the FSF does not include the Hurd on their list
of high-priority projects.
Neal
