Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GNU Hurd 0.5, GNU Mach 1.4 Released

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • GNU Hurd 0.5, GNU Mach 1.4 Released

    Phoronix: GNU Hurd 0.5, GNU Mach 1.4 Released

    In celebration of the GNU project's 30th birthday, GNU Hurd 0.5 has been released along with GNU MIG 1.4 and GNU Mach 1.4...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTQ3MTk

  • #2
    fantastic

    fantastic project after 30 years continue not done

    Comment


    • #3
      Unbelievable! Where do this guys get the motivation to continue to develop this non-sense?
      GNU still lives in the 80s, with all its GUILE and APL crap which nobody will ever use.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Andrecorreia View Post
        fantastic project after 30 years continue not done
        GNU itself is celebrating its 30th birthday. Hurd has been around for 23 years. At what point do you consider it done?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by DanL View Post
          GNU itself is celebrating its 30th birthday. Hurd has been around for 23 years. At what point do you consider it done?
          When it will usable like free bsd for example....

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by pandev92 View Post
            When it will usable like free bsd for example....

            Did you try Debian GNU/Hurd ?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
              It's dead people. Bury it and be done with it. It's a failure. Accept it. Move on.
              the biggest problem I think is driver support, but maybe I am wrong here.
              But there are some features, that are not there in linux, really nice features. So the question is is that a design thing or why is linux not doing that.

              So you could say after 30 years linux cant do stuff that hurd can do, so its a failure
              Of course thats a bit of a joke, but bsd has the wrong lisence and is basicly completly patented as far as I know? So its no alternative.

              I mean the advanteges I refer to to make really true that "everything is a file" even if its a ftp server or something. Yes with mounting u can do something closely, but thats not the same.
              The only programm that could do something similar yet (a link to a ftp file as example) is also another old gnu project emacs with org-mode can do something like that. a Text-link to a ssh file even with su rights or somethign like that.

              So it seems linux is able to do that, but only with old gnu-power ^^ but of course emacs is dead also right? ^^

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
                the biggest problem I think is driver support, but maybe I am wrong here.
                But there are some features, that are not there in linux, really nice features. So the question is is that a design thing or why is linux not doing that.

                So you could say after 30 years linux cant do stuff that hurd can do, so its a failure
                Of course thats a bit of a joke, but bsd has the wrong lisence and is basicly completly patented as far as I know? So its no alternative.

                I mean the advanteges I refer to to make really true that "everything is a file" even if its a ftp server or something. Yes with mounting u can do something closely, but thats not the same.
                The only programm that could do something similar yet (a link to a ftp file as example) is also another old gnu project emacs with org-mode can do something like that. a Text-link to a ssh file even with su rights or somethign like that.

                So it seems linux is able to do that, but only with old gnu-power ^^ but of course emacs is dead also right? ^^
                I don't really see the point, here. Linux is GPL, just as Hurd. If the only point is to bring the "everything is a file" idea closer to reality, then do it in Linux, instead of wasting efforts duplicating the work of everything else. I believe such a feature could be achieved as a build time switch, not even disturbing everyone else's way. Even if they don't want to work with Linux people because of whatever reason, they could as well fork it, because, again, the license is GPLv2 or above, used in every GNU project.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
                  I don't really see the point, here. Linux is GPL, just as Hurd. If the only point is to bring the "everything is a file" idea closer to reality, then do it in Linux, instead of wasting efforts duplicating the work of everything else. I believe such a feature could be achieved as a build time switch, not even disturbing everyone else's way. Even if they don't want to work with Linux people because of whatever reason, they could as well fork it, because, again, the license is GPLv2 or above, used in every GNU project.
                  But this modularity is basicly the point of a micro-kernel. So think of you have 1000 different types of things, in a micro kernel as far as I understand it, you have for every mini-thing a seperate "driver" or prozess.

                  Like I said it should also be possible, but I think its more difficult to it there, a monolyth kernel is not so good in such stuff.

                  There is ftpfs as example in hurd you have a server for everything this servers talk to each other and you can pipe most stuff from one to another.


                  Like I said I am no expert on that, and I do not develop any os ^^. I think in the long run it could be the better aproach I know it sounds strange, but look what else did get replaces, now its the x server from one evolutional replace another x11 X11R6 -> Xorg, now its wayland. That took also 30 years or so? 40?

                  Why should that not happen one time with linux. a microkernel is more modular, and more modularity is better, its sometimes harder to get there, but if you optimised finaly everything else where will you optimise then.

                  But yes it can take another 30 years maybe till a new system will be the main operation system. But bsds userbase is also 1/100 of the linux user base but still its around and kicking. So why not having such small thing for geeks around that in the long run will be mainstream maybe.


                  I am also a bit pissed about gpl2 shit, what we have with android nsa-spyware hurts me, its in reallity the biggest crap availible, even windows on tablets/phones is faster/more efficient, and also the apple stuff.

                  And btw why have arm systems no bios or efi or even better coreboot on them. I hate the flashing process. its computers why are they not so open like other computers, but ok thats OT now.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
                    But this modularity is basicly the point of a micro-kernel. So think of you have 1000 different types of things, in a micro kernel as far as I understand it, you have for every mini-thing a seperate "driver" or prozess.
                    Yes, that's the idea of the micro kernel. But again, they could match their own Mach kernel with a FreeBSD forked (the fork would be to use it under the GPL, since that's one of the hard requirements of the project) monolithic server to have features, so they could have an usable OS from the beginning and then slowly modularize into smaller servers. IIRC, Darwin (OS X open source infrastructure, including the kernel) uses such kind of hybrid. I think they used Mach and then switched to something called L4 as microkernel (I didn't look up for what L4 actually is, so it might be just the same thing but as a version or something like that), and FreeBSD modified kernel as a server for the microkernel.

                    Like I said it should also be possible, but I think its more difficult to it there, a monolyth kernel is not so good in such stuff.
                    I don't know why you say this. I don't actually see how those features relate to each other. A microkernel is probably worse when you try to convince people to follow a specific rule, like exposing everything as a file, since they can just write servers without even looking at such rules, as long as they find the API they need to follow. Or did you mean the flexibility on switching behaviors?

                    There is ftpfs as example in hurd you have a server for everything this servers talk to each other and you can pipe most stuff from one to another.
                    I don't understand this part.

                    Why should that not happen one time with linux. a microkernel is more modular, and more modularity is better, its sometimes harder to get there, but if you optimised finaly everything else where will you optimise then.
                    Optimization and microkernels aren't really hand in hand, you know? A microkernel, by its own architecture, implies a lot of extra calls and inter-process communication. It's its nature. It's focus is simply not speed, but reliability and security. Your system will probably be a lot more stable using a microkernel, but an optimized microkernel + optimized servers will always be slower than an optimized monolithic kernel providing the exact same features (and you could limit to that exact same features by compiling it with only those you need). For uptime critical applications, go with the micro kernel. For time critical, a monolithic kernel might be wiser.

                    But yes it can take another 30 years maybe till a new system will be the main operation system. But bsds userbase is also 1/100 of the linux user base but still its around and kicking. So why not having such small thing for geeks around that in the long run will be mainstream maybe.
                    The small thing for geeks, yeah, I like to try new things, too. I just don't see a real niche, since AFAIK the main reason for Hurd is not having a microkernel, but allowing to have a fully free OS, and Linux + GNU userland already provides such an OS. As a toy OS, there are a lot, and another one will not hurt anybody

                    I am also a bit pissed about gpl2 shit, what we have with android nsa-spyware hurts me, its in reallity the biggest crap availible, even windows on tablets/phones is faster/more efficient, and also the apple stuff.
                    What's the problem with GPL2? Android's specific thingies aren't GPL, IIRC, but MIT. You can't close up GPL2 software, since it's copyleft. Performance and licensing aren't correlated, or if they are, I haven't seen any proof.

                    And btw why have arm systems no bios or efi or even better coreboot on them. I hate the flashing process. its computers why are they not so open like other computers, but ok thats OT now.
                    Yes, that's really off topic, as nobody was discussing anything related, and I have no idea why they are so closed and all of that. The flashing process, AFAIK, has nothing to do with them having a BIOS, but with them storing the OS in an EEPROM. This could be done even if using a fully open stack.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      13. Joeboy: "Are you still at all optimistic about HURD, or would you agree that
                      that ship has sailed?"

                      RMS: "I am not very optimistic about the GNU HURD. It makes some progress,
                      but to be really superior it would require solving a lot of deep
                      problems. However, mainly what I think about the HURD is that
                      finishing it is not crucial.

                      When we started the HURD, it was for a simple reason. The GNU system
                      needed a kernel, and no usable free kernel existed. We set out to
                      write one.

                      That problem does not exist today. Linux works ok as a kernel.

                      The main shortcoming of Linux is at the level of device support. The
                      obstacle there isn't a lack of ability among Linux developers, but
                      rather the use of devices whose specs are secret.

                      Finishing the HURD would not advance us at all in supporting these
                      devices. The work that is needed is at the driver and firmware level.
                      That's why our high priority task list includes items relating to free
                      drivers, but not the HURD.

                      That's also why fsf.org has hardware resource pages. Your help in
                      updating them would strengthen us in this important battle.

                      Sure, it would be nice to see a GNU kernel succeed -- but there are
                      many successful GNU packages, so having one more is not crucial."

                      Source: http://blog.reddit.com/2010/07/rms-ama.html


                      Even Stallman sounded ready to move on, and that interview was given 3 years ago.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by doom_Oo7 View Post
                        Did you try Debian GNU/Hurd ?
                        Yes, and doesn't start on my apu hehehe

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
                          the biggest problem I think is driver support, but maybe I am wrong here.
                          But there are some features, that are not there in linux, really nice features. So the question is is that a design thing or why is linux not doing that.

                          So you could say after 30 years linux cant do stuff that hurd can do, so its a failure
                          Mostly, I think it comes down to one killer feature - Linux can actually boot on modern hardware, not just in a VM. Unlike Hurd, which considers SATA support a novelty, doesn't support large disks, multi-core processors, or (being 32-bit only) more than a couple of GB of memory.

                          Seriously, some of those features might sound nice, but well... what's the value of all that wonderful theory and purity of design, if can't actually do anything useful?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
                            Optimization and microkernels aren't really hand in hand, you know? A microkernel, by its own architecture, implies a lot of extra calls and inter-process communication. It's its nature. It's focus is simply not speed, but reliability and security. Your system will probably be a lot more stable using a microkernel, but an optimized microkernel + optimized servers will always be slower than an optimized monolithic kernel providing the exact same features (and you could limit to that exact same features by compiling it with only those you need). For uptime critical applications, go with the micro kernel. For time critical, a monolithic kernel might be wiser.
                            if thats true that performance and reliability is the only thing that matters, why do we talk about the very slow btrfs file system and not use the faster ext4 filesystems forever, why will every mainstream distro switch in the next 3 years to btrfs?

                            Because pure speed doesnt matter that much anymore. Developer Time and bug-freeness matters, and a micro-kernel is better for that, and features matters again, I seen things a few years ago in hurd that today dont exist in linux really great stuff, not something nobody would want. something like "ln -s ssh://server//bla.txt local-bla.txt" (replace that with ftp or something else).

                            Why is something so usefull and obvious that u want to have such stuff not implemented in linux? Maybe you can say me different reason than the microkernel structure why its not there, but still its not there.


                            and that something like that works has to do with modularity and a microkernel is more mudular, so u could make maybe a monolyth kernel also more micro-ish or make something hybrid out of linux, but the only thing why linux is good is because it is the projekt with most developer years invested ever. (I am talking about the kernel)

                            So lets think X-org would have the same amount of developers the last 10 years than linux had, would we also now talk that the X11 design is perfekt or something different makes no sense because we worked good enough around the problems with the design?
                            Last edited by blackiwid; 09-29-2013, 07:54 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
                              the biggest problem I think is driver support, but maybe I am wrong here.
                              No, is simply not done..... and mostly likely like never be.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X