I think the problem people face is: Why work on something that is already fundamentally obsolete or bad? Why not focus on the reimplementation you know has to come?
And because questions of what that reimplementation is and how people can help with it keep being answered with "I don't knows", "Don't you worry about that", or half answers, people aren't excited to help with anything. Other projects have a clear road map, clear set of design goals, and a clear structure on who is in charge of what - why doesn't the Hurd and associated projects? Road maps are important. I meet people every day who are absolutely convinced that the Hurd doesn't even exist, really - that there is no usable implementations of, that it doesn't boot, or do anything useful. Road maps can give people a clear idea of what your projects existing capabilities are, and also tell them whats going to come in the future and when it can be expected. Just my two cents, Michael Heath On 9/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 03:00:17AM +0200, Xavier Maillard wrote: > > Out of curiosity, what is this new microkernel name ? > > It doesn't even have got a name yet. Really, don't hold your breath. > Nobody -- including Marcus himself -- knows whether something will come > of it. There are good reasons why he hasn't announced it. It's an > experiment. > > If you want to work on the Hurd, work on Hurd/Mach -- which still is the > mainline implementation, and very likely will remain so for years to > come. Hurd/Mach is not going away any time soon, regardless of any > experiments with possible replacment microkernels. And even if one day > that changes, the work on the existing implementation isn't lost. These > experiments are not an excuse not to work on the Hurd as it is. > > -antrik- > > >
