At Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:08:36 +0200, ness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes. That is right. I really don't have a problem with redesigning the > Hurd's architecture. I see this is necessary. But I don't think whether > refining the goals is a good idea.
Fair enough. Maybe it helps if you say what you think the goals are (irregardless of who defined them), either by reference or in your own words. I am asking because I simply don't have a normative document which states "The goals of the Hurd are (a), (b) and (c)" and which then says what (a), (b) and (c) are. This is not a trick question. I really don't know. Once we have some explanation of what the goals are (or should be), we can take a closer look at them. Here is my prediction: In all likelihood they will _underspecify_ the system. Ie, they don't tell us everything we need to know to actually design and implement the Hurd system. To fill those gaps, we have to add something. And I think that "refinement" is one of the things you can add without breaking with the spirit of the goals. (Actually, there is a chance you didn't want to say "refining" but "redefining". I would agree with that. I would not want to redefine the goals of the Hurd, unless that is supported by the whole project). Thanks, Marcus _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
