Hi, On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:55:44PM +0530, arnuld uttre wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 10:45 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Where did you pull that "22 year" figure from?... The existing Hurd > > implementation is younger than that; Mach itself is older. > > Development of GNU system started in 1984, so somewhere around that > time Hurd discussion must have been started, that makes it 26 years. Actual Hurd development didn't start before 1990. Obviously there has been some discussions before regarding kernels -- but this is not relevant in establishing how old the Hurd is. Or would you measure the age of a child by the time when the parents first started thinking about getting one?... ;-) Anyways, the age is really irrelevant to the discussion. I only mentioned it because there seems to be some confusion :-) > Since 1984, there is no GNU system. In 2010, it still lacks a kernel, > like in 1984 Nah, it does have a kernel... It is still not quite ready for everyday use -- but the biggest problems we are experiencing have very little to do with the microkernel used. As I said, the research work done with Viengoos is interesting and important; but making the Hurd fit for everyday use, most of all requires bug fixing and optimization work -- like with any other system. Admittedly that's less exciting... ;-) But it has to be done anyways at some point, no matter what microkernel is employed. > and whatever we have today as Mach is far below (technically) the > current Linux kernel. The Hurd based on Mach is far behind in some regards, and far superior in others. I don't think it's terribly surprising that we are not superior in every regard, considering that we have a handful of volunteers, as opposed to thousands of paid developers... If you believe that using Viengoos will magically change that, I'm sorry to disappoint you ;-) > I don't see the point in following the development on Mach. The point is getting a complete, usable GNU system. Isn't that what you wanted?... -antrik-
