Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GNU Hurd 0.6 Released Brings Clean-Ups & Fixes

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

  • ArneBab
    replied
    Originally posted by TiberiusDuval View Post
    How Hurd project is managed. There may be pretty small number of FreeBSD developers when compared to GPL teams, but project is strictly managed and have established standards. Mob of 10 000 does not overcome disciplined force of 1000....
    There are about 6 people who know each other and communicate via chat and email.

    With a handful of people there is no need for elaborate management (that would only bring more overhead).

    If you want to improve the force of the Hurd, just join and code - or talk to a friend who doesn?t yet contribute to the Hurd and convince him or her to join and code.

    If you find any area which is lacking, improve it. It isn?t neglected because nobody cares: It is neglected because nobody took it as current main project.

    Leave a comment:


  • TiberiusDuval
    replied
    Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
    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)
    How Hurd project is managed. There may be pretty small number of FreeBSD developers when compared to GPL teams, but project is strictly managed and have established standards. Mob of 10 000 does not overcome disciplined force of 1000....

    Leave a comment:


  • ArneBab
    replied
    The Hurd developers took the article pretty positive: “02:57:07< antrik> ArneBab: I think the "doesn't offer any compelling new features" was specifically about the new release. which, quite frankly, seems a pretty fair asessment of what is written in the official announcement...
    of course there are stability and performance improvements, which are probably quite noticable -- but the original release announcement doesn't clearly say this either. so without insider knowledge, how was anyone supposed to know that?
    I wouldn't say this article is very negative. I'd consider it mostly neutral.”
    Last edited by ArneBab; 19 April 2015, 06:22 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ArneBab
    replied
    Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
    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.
    Currently there is no money to earn at all (so all Hurd devs work in their spare time).

    For servers, even a drop of 5% in performance costs millions (and to get to more than 90% of the performance of Linux requires lots of hard work), so it needs a compelling application which only works on the Hurd. And to develop that and bring it to market, someone needs to invest heavily into making it real.

    In short: It?s hard to get into the high-end market, so it?s hard to get money.

    What I don?t understand is why there are no hosters who offer managed hurd-on-kvm with SSH access for interested hackers. That wouldn?t be a huge market, but it would be a niche. And for a managed server with SSH access, missing USB and sound aren?t a problem. It could even be profitable for a hoster, given the existing interest in the Hurd. The technical advantages article is one of the most accessed on my site, so it is clear that there is interest. And if it isn?t profitable right away, it could be a strategical asset: Bind future customers.

    Leave a comment:


  • blackiwid
    replied
    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)

    Leave a comment:


  • ArneBab
    replied
    Originally posted by Azpegath View Post
    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”.
    Last edited by ArneBab; 16 April 2015, 06:23 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ArneBab
    replied
    Originally posted by r_a_trip View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ArneBab
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • r_a_trip
    replied
    Originally posted by uid313 View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ArneBab
    replied
    Originally posted by Azpegath View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X