On Sat, May 24, 2008 12:02 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 09:42:32AM -0700, Martin Franco wrote: >> I've read that hurd is better designed than linux, but slower and way >> behind in resources, drivers, and stability. There is work on a port to >> the L4 microkernel which I think would speed it up, but years of >> optimization would be needed to make it competitive, I think. >> >> Does anyone think hurd might eventual become better than the linux or >> bsd >> kernels? I'm considering contributing to its development, running it >> inside a virtual machine at least until it supports all of my hardware. > > What a great question! Yes it would be nice to see Hurd finally get some > luv. > I noticed you never mentioned the core reason that makes Hurd different. > You do know about microkernels? I guess the answer to what you think is > better > depends on your take of the micro vs. mono - kernel debate. > > cs
Having had a cup of coffee with QNX, I think message-passing microkernels are Da' Bomb. Fast (no, REALLY fast!), distributed, wildly flexible. To strip down for an embedded version or OS on a floppy, uyou just choose which satellite modules not to bother to load. If QNX were OSS, I'd have been over there all these years. >From what I read here, and I offer this in all ignorance, it sounds like Hurd isn't finished. I tend not to think this is a problem with the team or the design (I like to be charitable). Working with the SDCS has taught me how hard it is to get substantive progress out of a volunteer, spare-time effort no matter how talenmted and dedicated the contributors. And Ialso remember how long it took Mozilla to get out ... but when I look at Firefox, it was worth the wait. -- Lan Barnes SCM Analyst Linux Guy Tcl/Tk Enthusiast Biodiesel Brewer -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
