The flaws are real. I recall that at least in part of that discussion I thought that the flaws were not absolutely fatal, that the Hurd on GNU Mach could still be useful for some things.
Those flaws could also be fixed without rewritting everything, as was shown by several people including the people who actually wrote the Hurd. Sadly, nobody wishes to waste time working on something that will (not might, but will) be discarded. I don't recall what my conclusion was at the end of the discussion. Your conclusion was `work on both'. But it is clear that our best hope for making the Hurd really good is Hurd-NG. Anyone who think that Hurd-NG will not have as flaws just like the Hurd currently has should not write software. And as Olaf pointed out, nobody, not even Marcus, knows what Hurd-NG will look like, there is no goal, not even an idea behind it.
