>>> Gerald Gutierrez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01-Apr-00 8:21:15 PM
>>>
>I understand there's a general feeling that the Hurd is superior,
and I
>agree in the technical context. But what role do you all forsee the
Hurd
>taking in the current (and the new) world? Will it fill a new space
or will
>it displace something?
I'm not using HURD in a live environment yet but as soon as it's
stable enough I will move from GNU/Linux to GNU/HURD. Why? Because
it's a better kernel.
The superiority of the kernel architecture means that better, faster,
smarter software can be built on top of it... and that means that HURD
will probably displace many current kernels.
Lets' face it: not many people care about what kernel they're using.
Using LINUX is not about using a Kernel written by a Finn, it's about
using free software. If Debian or RedHat suddenly switched to using
the HURD instead of Linux *most* people wouldn't care (though some
would of course).
It's about a good system, that's what all "open source" software is
about. The HURD has the potential to be just about the best. If it
meets that potential it will rule.
If it's a new space, then great, I'd like to hear
>For example, I know about all the ways FreeBSD is
>better than Linux, but I chose not to change because I'm just more
>comfortable with it.
But that's more than the kernel - it's the whole operating system.
The only time this preference comes into play with a kernel is if
you're a hacker or an admin installing a lot of machines. Other wise
for most people the kernel is just there (and mostly they wouldn't
know what one was if it it mooned them).
>I want to see the Hurd thrive but just like many
>other technically better things, chances are that it will not if
it's only
>merit is its techical superiority.
Kernels are different. In the open source world it's easy for one
particular component to change, if hacking HURD is easier and better
than anything else people will use it.
Nic Ferrier
