>Think about it; if half the kernel hackers
> > quit, would there be others to take their place right now? Would the above
> > mentioned people care?
>
>But the same could be said about any free software project. If Linus
>Torvalds, Alan Cox, and a few others had the building fall down around
>them at a trade show could Linux continue succesfully? Not in the form
>that it's in.
I disagree. There is enough momentum in the Linux arena, and enough people
already working on the kernel, that the loss of a number of key people will
not jeopardize the project. Enough people, technical or not, will demand
continuity and make it happen.
The same is not true of the Hurd. There is hardly any momentum at all.
There are only a handful of people engaged in it. If a building collapsed
on them, I'm uncertain how many people have enough interest to take over as
the lead, and be able to devote the time and have the expertise to justify
their position as the lead. If that building collapsed, and no one here
said anything, would anyone notice?
>When we get there we'll be able to
>continue making the Hurd do whatever's appropriate for us at the time and
>I don't beleive that making any serious plans now will help us get to
>that stage any sooner.
A "plan" is a vision of the goal plus the steps of progression to achieve
the goal. Without a plan there is no vision. Without a vision, a project
will endlessly wander with no progress.
But there is progress, so there is some manifestation of a vision
somewhere. I believe that it is currently "to produce a kernel and
associated components that are technically superior than anything else
currently available". It is a noble, idealistic vision. I just believe that
it is not enough. It is a vision to produce the best damn solution to an
unknown problem. But what exactly is the justification to allow the problem
to remain unknown?
