GNU Hurd 0.6 Released Brings Clean-Ups & Fixes

[phoronix]

Phoronix: GNU Hurd 0.6 Released Brings Clean-Ups & Fixes

Version 0.6 of GNU Hurd was released today. Before getting too excited about GNU Hurd, it's still bound to x86 32-bit and doesn't offer any compelling new features...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=GNU-Hurd-0.6-Released

[Azpegath]

Is there anywhere I can find like a good recap of where GNU Hurd is today? Even though a kernel "needed" feature list perhaps can't be summarized like the OpenGL3/4 list in Mesa, there must still be some sort of roadmap for Hurd where it is deemed usable and feature-enough (it's never complete I guess).

[Azpegath]

... this also makes me think of

[uid313]

Why is there no interest in MkLinux or L4Linux?

[ArneBab]

Is there anywhere I can find like a good recap of where GNU Hurd is today? Even though a kernel "needed" feature list perhaps can't be summarized like the OpenGL3/4 list in Mesa, there must still be some sort of roadmap for Hurd where it is deemed usable and feature-enough (it's never complete I guess).

Yepp: http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd/status.html

It builds itself, it serves websites, it?s pretty fast under KVM and can run on real hardware. Debian GNU Hurd provides over 75% of the Debian packages.

Missing: Sound and USB.

Regarding ?nothing interesting? from the article: http://draketo.de/light/english/free...es-of-the-hurd ?Technical Advantages of the Hurd?

[r_a_trip]

Why is there no interest in MkLinux or L4Linux?

I read a few years back that porting the server architecture on the Mach based HURD kernel to L4 was too difficult because of heavy Mach-isms in the interfaces. So the lowlevel userland system is kind of locked into Mach. (Found a 2015 entry on the subject: https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hi...crokernel.html)

What I don't get is why they keep on plodding along with Mach. The Gnu project was able to build a fairly complete unix userland. A microkernel to go with it shouldn't be this much of a problem. Why not use all the experience gained with the various previous experiments and use that for a new microkernel and aim for getting it up and running and augmenting it as it goes.

[ArneBab]

A pretty interesting development I saw in the past few years is that the systemd developers have been bolting features onto Linux which the Hurd already provided 15 years ago. Examples: socket-activation provides on-demand startup like passive translators, but as crude hack piggybacked on dbus which can only be used by dbus-aware programs while passive translators can be used by any program which can access the filesystem, calling priviledged programs via systemd provides jailed priviledge escalation like adding capabilities at runtime, but as crude hack piggybacked on dbus and specialized services.

That means, there is a need for the features of the Hurd, but instead of just using the Hurd, where they are cleanly integrated, these features are bolted onto a system where they do not fit and suffer from bad performance due to requiring lots of unnecessary cruft to circumvent limitations of the base system

[ArneBab]

I read a few years back that porting the server architecture on the Mach based HURD kernel to L4 was too difficult because of heavy Mach-isms in the interfaces. So the lowlevel userland system is kind of locked into Mach. (Found a 2015 entry on the subject: https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hi...crokernel.html)

What I don't get is why they keep on plodding along with Mach. The Gnu project was able to build a fairly complete unix userland. A microkernel to go with it shouldn't be this much of a problem. Why not use all the experience gained with the various previous experiments and use that for a new microkernel and aim for getting it up and running and augmenting it as it goes.

They tried several other microkernels. L4 was too minimal (did not provide required features), CoyotOS wanted to lock-in users (mismatch in features and requirements), Viengoos did not get into production state, and Mach worked pretty well, because the advances in Hardware lessened many of its shortcomings (for example IPCs aren?t as much of a bottleneck nowadays as they were when L4 was tested, so Mach fares better).

In short: Mach is good enough, and porting to anything else does not yield enough advantages to warrant tying up lots of developer time which could better be spent on adding features which block its practical usage.

The current state of the Hurd was reached by a handful of developers coding in their spare time, and getting back to feature parity after porting to L4 or something else would take too long to be practical. Also OSX proved that Mach is no blocking impediment for general usage.

[ArneBab]

there must still be some sort of roadmap for Hurd where it is deemed usable and feature-enough (it's never complete I guess).

A good approximation of a long-term roadmap are the GSoC project ideas: http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/com...ect_ideas.html

This is not a list of requirements for being usable, though: Those are “sound” and “usb”.

[blackiwid]

I tried it once. I dont get that they dont get more serious. Is there to less money to earn or whats the problem. I get that desktop is difficult but for servers it should not be that difficult to get there more serious.

It should not be that hard to get it to freebsd level, there are more GPL developers than bsd guys but they all work on linux it seems to 99.9999%.

are there only people that want to work on the mainstream os dominates all (except the small gallican village called desktop for a few more years)