>> 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.
That depends on what you percieve as a "purpose".
Most all of us have some stated, or unstated, agenda, and purpose.
//snip//
>> 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.
Well, no.
QNX uses a minimalistic kernel approach.
The QNX kernel is a whopping 80 kilobytes.
It handles little besides message passing, and scheduling.
( unless I'm severely misinformed )
Hurd is the only free system I know of, based on a micro-kernel design.
THAT is what's got my interest.
( OK. WindowsNT is also a microkernel, but it ACTS like a monolithic )
Linux is becoming heavily bloated, though it is still my system of choice.
( personally, I'ld wet my pants for a linux micro-kernel )
With a micro, you can impliment media stuff in user space,
or not, as YOU see fit.
My bitch with both Linux, and Windows, is "as you choose".
With both of those, "features" are taking precedence over function and
reliability, and compatibility.
And, of course, both seek to be the McDonalds of OS's at the expense of
almost everything else.
Windows supports multi-media.
Fine.
Windows will never be used in anti-lock braking systems, or on a martian
lander.
Linux has incorporated bi-directional printer support into the kernel.
Of what use is this in anti-lock brakes, or engine management systems ?
Of what use is this on a space probe of any kind ?
As a result, PLIP on Linux is slowed by a factor of 10 at least.
( not quite so much, maybe a factor of 7 when PLIP networked to an older
Linux box without bi-directional kernel support )
Some improvement !
How compatible is linux 2.2.x with ANY linux 2.0.x ?
Why does Linux need kernel support for radio tuner cards ?
Why does Linus feel a need to pump out "new" kernels as fast as possible ?
Remember, Xerox refused to support a hardware device named for a rodent.
It was technicly supperior. The rest is history ( how many of us have no mouse ? )
A system based on a true micro-kernel is technicly supperior for reasons far
too numerous to mention.
If it isn't limited by design, or politics ( minix comes to mind ),
the rest will come as we choose, each in its own time.
Now, as a result of these opinions, some will hate me, and some will love me.
Most, won't care.
Regardless, I'll be reporting when I solve that cursed SCSI problem .....
Cheers.
--
Cowboy
HERE LIES LESTER MOORE
SHOT 4 TIMES WITH A .44
NO LES
NO MOORE
-- tombstone, in Tombstone, AZ
