>>> Gerald Gutierrez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01-Apr-00 7:44:07 AM
>>>
Firstly, please note that HURD is a kernel not an operating system.
The two things are very different indeed.
>From my perspective, it would be really, really cool if HURD grew up
to be
>a media OS, a platform tailored to supporting the generation and
>consumption of audio and video. Linux, *BSD, Solaris and the like
simply
>don't cut it. Windows is only marginally better with its DirectX
and
>associated technologies.
That's because at the centre of those OS are traditional monolithic
kernels. HURD is a microkernel and this is the advantage, it's a
technical point but it's important if you study kernel development.
>Being open source, it could enjoy the benefits of proper design
>and complement existing open source software, while riding the wave
of
>OSS popularity at the same time.
Another point, HURD is *free software* not "open source". There is a
difference: "free software" is better.
>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.
Once again, HURD is a kernel not an OS. Developing a media OS would
be easier with the HURD kernel than with a monolithic kernel (becuase
developing just about anything is a whole bunch easier with a
microkernel) but you'd have to do a whole bunch of other stuff as
well.
For example: a new windowing system (probably) certainly tou would
need to build the tools and the interfaces for the tools on top of the
kernel.
Nic Ferrier
