> 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.
Yes. Again, it is technically superior. No one denounces that. Of course
you can write "better" software on a technically superior foundation. The
fact remains that acceptance of a product by more than a few hackers
requires merits on other grounds than "it's a better architecture". I
don't think anyone can denounce that either.
> Lets' face it: not many people care about what kernel they're using.
Imagine for a moment you're the investment relations head for Red Hat.
Would you so readily, publicly state the above? Sure they might not care
about what kernel they're using, but they care that they are using "Linux".
People with insight .. they can choose based on information. People without
insight .. they rely on hype and on what they hear, and what they hear is
"Linux", not Hurd.
Of course .. all this is said with the implicit assumption that Hurd
developers want Hurd to be of use to more people than themselves and their
fellow hackers. I would be extremely pleased if Hurd grew up to be media
oriented, showed its technical merits, showed itself to be the best
desktop OS and be chosen for specialized media applications just as Linux
is currently being chosen for network applications. Wouldn't you?
