Hi, On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 02:38:53PM +1200, Shams wrote:
> I read somewhere that instead of L4, Hurd could be using L4.Sec as the > microkernel? Is this still a possibility? Yes, L4.Sec is among the kernels that could be used for ngHurd. It should also be possible to port the existing Hurd implementation to L4.Sec or some similar variant (either picking up the Hurd/L4 work done so far, or starting a new attempt), though currently nobody is planning to do so AFAIK. > > rather an experimental/research subproject. > > Why another subproject, why not just develop/experiment with the > existing Hurd? The ideas proposed for ngHurd are not minor changes, but totally new concepts. While personally I do believe that most of these things could be implemented on top of the current Hurd/Mach code, experimenting with totally new concepts can be easier when starting from scratch. Of course, if some of the ideas turn out to work well, it's possible and desirable to implement them in the mainline Hurd also -- or even make ngHurd the mainline. > Btw who calls the shots at which microkernel Hurd is going to be using > and the development path for Hurd. Well, the original Hurd/L4 port, and the ngHurd concepts that sprang from it, are the brainchild of Marcus Brinkmann and Neal Walfield; so they are the ones pointing the direction here. As for the existing Hurd/Mach implementation, those people who presently work on it, are focussing on specific improvments rather then fundamental changes; so the question of switching to a new microkernel doesn't really arise currently. But if anyone starts working on a port of the existing codebase to a new microkernel again, there is nobody to dictate the direction to go. It's really up to individual developers -- if they consider it a worthwhile effort, they will join; otherwise, they will stick with Mach or ngHurd. > Is it people like RMS, Thomas, Roland or who else or is no one > incharge of this project? The role of these people is a bit hard to describe. RMS was never involved in Hurd development, except that he participated in the original design a bit I believe. Consequently, he has no power to make any decisions for the Hurd developers. Being the leader of the GNU project however, he is the one setting the goals for GNU as a whole and the Hurd as it's kernel. Thus he indirectly has some influence on the direction the Hurd takes. Thomas is the main architect of the original design, and did a large part of the implementation; but he is retired from the project now. He only gives advice from time to time, and he is not involved in any of the new developments like Hurd/L4 or ngHurd. Roland is the official Hurd maintainer, i.e. he ulitimately decides what goes into CVS HEAD of the mainline implementation. Aside from that however nowadays he also has more of an advisory role. He isn't involved in Hurd/L4 or ngHurd either. In general, nobody has the power to say what Hurd developers will work on. After all, this is a voluntary project. -antrik- _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
