Thanks, Steven. I've included my replies/responses inline with quotations from your plan:
On 9/5/07, R. Steven Rainwater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [...] Here are the Problems I See: > > 0. There is no roadmap or plan of how the GNU OS will proceed > 1. There is no clear chain of command for GNU OS or GNU Hurd > 2. GNU OS is stalled waiting for a kernel > 3. Without GNU OS releases, the entire project loses visibility and > interest > 4. GNU Microkernel needs improvement/completion/replacement > 5. GNU Hurd Servers need improvement/completion/replacement > 6. GNU Hurd needs modern Linux driver compatibility > 7. GNU Hurd needs native own drivers I agree entirely with your list of problems. [...] > Solving problems zero and one should be the first priority. Solving the roadmap and the organizational problems are the critical thing we need for success; creating a roadmap is probably going to be easier than creating a good organizational development structure, as we lack enough skilled people that would be good at the task. We have plenty of smart people working on the Hurd already and there > appear to be many others who would work on it if they understood the > plan and knew their effort would be useful. So it should not be hard to > solve problem one by finding someone here who can coordinate a project > like this. There has been wide disagreement against that kind of statement. While yes, there are a lot of intelligent people potentially able to help, the consensus seems to be that it needs to be someone already involved and intimately familiar with the Hurd+Mach to work on that. Problems 2 through 7 are solved in my proposed road map by releasing an > initial version of the GNU OS that uses a 100% Linux kernel. The more I think about this idea, the more I like it. I suggested it in another thread, infact, before reading your comments here. I think its important to get a complete, releasable operating system, and thats not possible with the current kernel, and may not be possible for a very long time. Over time, > we would transition to a 100% GNU Hurd kernel. Once again, I agree. While Linux would fill a temporary void, I feel that the Hurd and a micorkernel are/could be better in a variety of ways. It just needs lots of work and improvement between now and then. Phase 1: Linux kernel + Linux drivers > > Phase 2: GNU microkernel (single server) + Linux + Linux drivers > > Phase 3: GNU microkernel (multiple server) + GNU Hurd Servers + Linux > drivers > > Phase 4: GNU microkernel + GNU Hurd + GNU drivers Here is really where I start to disagree with you. Phase 1 is fine, and is just what we've discussed - using the Linux kernel. However, while projects like L4Linux do have some advantages over conventional linux systems, it really isn't a 'stepping stone' along the way for moving from Linux to Hurd+microkernel. It wouldn't do much good. I'm not sure what the point of Phase 2 would be. Phase 3 and 4 are logical, but I'm confused about your distinction between Linux Drivers and GNU drivers. GNU Mach already uses a lot of (old) Linux kernel driver code; this doesn't mean that its 'compatible with linux drivers', and it would be impossible to make it completely compatible with all Linux drivers. If we do spend the time to port driver code from Linux to Hurd+microkernel, why do we need to replace that, assuming it works well? I don't think theres a big distinction between Linux Drivers and GNU drivers in this sense. Yes, drivers need to be created, but the goal should be to make drivers that work WELL, whether they do that by using Linux code or not, and not to make an exclusively GNU driver. The beauty of this is plan, as I see it, is that it would allow work to > resume on the GNU OS right away and should lead to a working distro that > can be installed, used, and improved. GNU OS improvements can continue > as the kernel evolves from 100% Linux to 100% Hurd. And the fact that > the FSF is making regular releases of a complete working OS should > result in greatly increased visibility, increased interest, and more > programmers volunteering. I agree entirely. Your roadmap is a general, broad one I can mostly agree with for the GNU Operating system releases. However, I think the main complaints about a missing roadmap in the other threads have been referring to one specific to the particulars of continued development on the Hurd+microkernel. That being said, I like your ideas, plan, and I interested on seeing what other people think about using Linux as the official GNU kernel while the Hurd is improved. Michael Heath
