On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 13:21 +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I just hate all this redesign crap, and I'm sure there would be more > > progress and easier progress if things were done incrementally. > > That's what has been happening over the last years. There exists an > implementation on top of Mach out of which lessons were learnt. Marcus, > Neal, and other people started to redesign various low-level things on > top of the L4 of the time (look at the `doc' directory in the > repository). Eventually, people started to implement it. Eventually, > it turned out that some of the decisions made were arguably flawed. And > this is where the Hurd on L4 is: trying to fix these flaws. > > I consider this to be incremental actually.
Ludovic: I understand why you say this, but self-delusion does not serve us. I am sure that many of the existing hurd mechanisms will move with only small change, but we are certainly discussing a complete rewrite of the foundation. It does not serve us to pretend otherwise. The question is whether it is worth it. I think the answer is yes. Anyone who has read Ford's work on improving Mach will understand that there is only so far that incremental change can take you in a given design. At some point, it is necessary to make a major change. The question for Hurd is: is now the time? This is something that, of course, I cannot answer. shap _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
