At Tue, 25 Oct 2005 20:28:56 -0400, "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For the moment, I would say: the discussion that has been going on is > only useful if it leads to a concrete design that we can implement. What > makes *me* worried is that absolutely *nobody* has responded to my > suggestion about how to get to coding productively.
If you mean the suggestion: defining the goals to cut away design options, and then define interfaces, then I totally agree. The problem is that you have poked into a hornet nest with raising the question: "What is the goal of the Hurd?" From just a preliminary survey it turns out that: You get as many different answers as people you ask, and second: That some of the goals may be incompatible. Also, sometimes the wrong goals are stated due to lack of understanding of the issues. This is why I believe we first must have at least some understanding in the consequences of the various goals that can be defined. Your input has been tremendously helpful in this regard, IMHO. I am really very concerned with this question at this very moment, and trying to find a good answer. I don't want to give this a rushed response. I am also looking for input from anybody whom it may concern. Thanks, Marcus _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
