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 agree.
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.
I feel pretty dumb reading that. How can we say we want something
new but we do not know what we really want. How can this end in
something really useful or even end at all ? As we said here at
my work place: no need, no action.
Xavier
--
http://www.gnu.org
http://www.april.org
http://www.lolica.org
