Gerald Gutierrez wrote:
>
> I learned of the HURD an year or two ago and have been passively following
> it since; back then it was low profile project which didn't seem to serve
> any significant purpose. Well, frankly, it still feels as if it doesn't.
>
> But I am interested in the HURD. It strikes me as the Right Way to build
> software. As a technically-minded individual I would be pleased if it
<snip>
>
> HURD is still in its early stages. This is an opportunity to shed a lot of
> cruft that current open source OS' have gathered, while building something
> that is new and that could be highly desirable and needed in the
> not-so-distant future. I think it is an achievable and rewarding goal.
>
> What do you HURD developers and users think?
(bear in mind this is coming from someone who hasn't tried hurd because
he's stuck on a win95 386/486 box with a defective and full hd...)
One of the things about Hurd is that (most of) the pieces aren't new.
Mounting filesystems isn't new. Connecting using ports isn't new
(although on the same machine may be). Transparent FTP isn't new.
Shadow Filesystems aren't new (I don't think). It's the way that goes
about it that's new. Only using ports to relay messages for
interprocess communication is (I think) new. Userlevel filesystem
translators are new. The minimalistic kernel is new. And because of
this there's no single major advantage that it can tote over the
competition, but it doesn't have to. Hurd is better, period. Hurd lays
the foundation for other apps to tote its superiority. Think
ApacheFS...
(note that some of the things aren't quite true, unless you take them in
the sense of new to mainstream OSs)
--
Adam Olsen, aka Rhamphoryncus
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GIT d- s+:--- a--- C+++ !U P++ !L !E W+++ N+
o+ K? w---(+) !O M+(-) V? PS++ PE-- Y-- PGP-
t-(++) 5++ X-(+) R++ tv b+ DI+ D+ G e-- h !r y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
