On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 15:56 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > A problem here is that programs aren't and shouldn't be written > solely for the Hurd. > > They should! What would the point be of the GNU system if they aren't? > This is a GNU project after all, and the goal is to produce a concise > system, the GNU system. Not a bunch of programs that can run on any > platform out there. The only thing one should worry about is > portability across architectures, but across systems it is pointless.
As a practical matter, I think that the truth will be a compromise. The test will be: For the applications that we want to port, can we port them with acceptable engineering cost. For example, I would be willing to remove gets() from the C library, even though that is incompatible. The EROS project has insufficient experience with these issues. Marc Seaborn made a significant advance with PLASH, because he demonstrated that the file system interface isn't completely fatal (which we had previously believed). shap _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
