Test Driving GNU Hurd, With Benchmarks Against Linux 335
An anonymous reader writes "After last week's news that GNU Hurd is coming, Phoronix set out to install Debian GNU Hurd and to provide GNU Hurd vs. Linux benchmarks. Linux was mostly faster than The Hurd while also having much better hardware support, multi-core SMP support, and other modern functionality."
I guess it was inevitable... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I guess it was inevitable... (Score:5, Funny)
Now all we need is hell freezing over and pigs to start flying... damnit, i might start to believê 2012 is really end of the world
Re: (Score:3)
It's as if the universe is in the process of tying up all the loose ends.
Re:I guess it was inevitable... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hurd, DNF, Wine 1.0, Gmail out of beta, Windows running stable, grannies using Linux, video chat on handheld computers, movies commonly coming out in 3D, video games you don't play with your hands, electric cars on dealership lots, a US president who isn't a white guy...
We're in THE FUTURE. It just doesn't feel like it, because it's fuckin' lame.
Re:I guess it was inevitable... (Score:5, Funny)
Hurd, DNF, Wine 1.0, Gmail out of beta, Windows running stable, grannies using Linux, video chat on handheld computers, movies commonly coming out in 3D, video games you don't play with your hands, electric cars on dealership lots, a US president who isn't a white guy...
Dogs and cats living together... Mass hysteria!
Re:I guess it was inevitable... (Score:4, Insightful)
The trouble is, of course, that this 'future' is now, and we've been watching and waiting for it to get to this point for, well, all of history. And it hasn't lived up to it's hype. The tech that was X years away arrived, evaporated, or came in as expected but never actually lived up to the dream. The 'problems' we solved are replaced by new, even more threatening ones. Etc, etc.
The present will always be a day late and dollar short of future, but at least it's motivating.
Re:I guess it was inevitable... (Score:4, Insightful)
That and you got real-life forces getting in the way. We hope for a Star Trek type utopia where Tech will solve all our human problems... It doesn't and it won't.
I could see the Religious people fighting tooth and nail against the use of the Transporter, in bitter arguments for hundreds of year. I can see the Holodeck being a Red Light district of technology, perhaps leading to a population drop, or a bunch of people being hopelessly unproductive in them. Every time you go to a new planet there will be millions of microbes that think you are the newest candy, or you spread a microbe that wipes out a population.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I guess it was inevitable... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hurd, DNF, Wine 1.0, Gmail out of beta, Windows running stable, grannies using Linux, video chat on handheld computers, movies commonly coming out in 3D, video games you don't play with your hands, electric cars on dealership lots, a US president who isn't a white guy...
For bonus points, read the litany above to the tune of "We Didn't Start the Fire".
More seriously, though, I disagree. It's not that it's lame, it's that it's half-assed.
Sure, Hurd and DNF are done. Read TFA and the reviews, respectively.
Wine is here, but there's still a ton of shit it can't run. Windows is stable, but aside from becoming more usable it's no revolutionary change over how we interact with computers compared to 15 years ago.
Grannies run Linux, but for many more serious uses it's arguably not there for many other desktop uses.
3d movies ... if you wear the special glasses and don't mind the 3d headache. Nor the price premium.
Hands free video games... great. We flail at our screens with all of our limbs now. That's an improvement? That's the best we can do with this technology?
Electric cars that are so expensive and so limited their only practical value is to prove that they can done, and to make some people feel better about their consumerism. That's not getting into the fact that we've simply shifted its carbon footprint to different places and times.
A non-white president who pushed to have the recession "officially over" two years ago, while continuing to publish the adjusted unemployment numbers introduced by the Bush regime to help hide how bad things really are. Let's not get into the multiple ongoing military actions that have actually increased instead of decreasing. New boss/old boss.
Video chat on handheld computers if you're on wifi, or if your carrier provides 4g, and if you don't mind getting raped on data charges, and if you have good network coverage, and if the other person has video, wants to use it, and has the same type of handheld OS that you do.
Yeah, we have all the things the future promised us. But none of it is done right. It's all limited, half-assed, restricted, and - in too many ways - not adding any real value because of those problems.
Re: (Score:3)
Flying car. Where are my Flying cars!!!!
Non of this prototype stuff I need a real mass produced and commonly used flying car.
Re:I guess it was inevitable... (Score:5, Insightful)
The future is like that toy you always wanted as a kid, once you get it, it is not quite like how you hoped it would be.
Re: (Score:3)
We're in THE FUTURE. It just doesn't feel like it, because it's fuckin' lame.
That's because instead of positive societal change (things like peace on earth, more effort put into space exploration and other positive things) we're getting the gadgets along with the old society (war for power and profit, space exploration only when it's useful for one-upping the other guy, profit being more important than anything else and all those things).
It doesn't feel like the future because we just got a bunch of half-assed implementations of the gadgets of the future and little else.
Re:I guess it was inevitable... (Score:4, Informative)
I had a flying car last week too. Ok, it only flew a few yards past the guard rail, and it was more like a cross between a glide and a plummet, but still it's clearly a sign!
Re:I guess it was inevitable... (Score:5, Insightful)
I realize this is a joke, but the comparison is surprisingly apt. Projects that are delayed like this are rarely, if ever, successful. After so long in development, half the code is probably designed for hardware that is 20 years old, and the remaining half is designed for hardware spread across those intervening 20 years. Since the project was continually under development but never released, by the time they finish updating old sections of the code, the hardware they revised it to support is already several years old. And the code that was modern is even older. And since no one is actually using it, they don't have a massive base of users modifying, testing, and updating it like real operating systems (i.e. Linux, FreeBSD, etc) do.
The result, if it ever gets released, is a cobbled together mess, most of which is outdated and barely works, and the rest is buggy and poorly coded because they were trying to shove it out the door. Any modern features that it has either don't work properly, or don't mesh with the rest of the project. Just like DNF. At this point, the Hurd developers should either admit defeat and close the project, or get enough people together that they can scrap everything, start from the ground up, and rewrite the whole thing within a few years. Otherwise, they will be constantly behind and never become relevant. Likely, they won't do this, which is why I doubt Hurd will ever really make any kind of impact. Being released might help, or it might just make people realize that this is essentially an operating system that was designed 20 years ago and should be abandoned. My money is on the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm genuinely curious (for both HURD and DNF) how much of the code is actually "original" code (or art, or other assets) from all those years ago vs. essentially a rewrite from scratch. We know DNF was essentially tossed and restarted several times; I wonder how much the released version has from old versions.
Brilliant, but... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Brilliant, but... (Score:5, Funny)
It barely runs Hurd, for chrissake.
Re: (Score:2)
It can run Debian though...
But honestly, is there is a point to this apart from a toy OS. Linux and BSD and even Haiku (which is a microkernel) is way ahead in the race.
Re: (Score:2)
It can run Debian though...
But honestly, is there is a point to this apart from a toy OS. Linux and BSD and even Haiku (which is a microkernel) is way ahead in the race.
Well, while I do believe Hurd continues to be a bit of a joke, there is a point to it: today's dodgy "toy OS" is tomorrow's dependable system.
Particularly, Hurd is designed around principles which (in theory, at least) should make it easier to maintain and extend, and more reliable ultimately. It seems they're not there just yet, but maybe in another 5 years they will be. Between here and there, people interested in making that change happen can get involved... So there may come a point where the system's
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, it'll be successful, provided it grows to provide the many things it lacks currently, which happen to be table stakes for being taken seriously as a usable operating system in any remotely serious computing task.
That's all?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
does phoronix run hurd? it's slashdotted.
How free is free? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, it's slower, but did they measure how much freedom it achieved?
Re:How free is free? (Score:4, Funny)
Yes. Hurd single handedly liberated Egypt, Bahrain, and Syria. China fears that they will boot HURD again and it may free China as well.
Re: (Score:3)
It measured 37 Stallmans hire on the GNU/RMS Freedom benchmark.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's slower, but did they measure how much freedom it achieved?
It's like slow-food. You have to take time to appreciate it. Slow-boot, gives you the opportunity to make breakfast or something...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's slower, but did they measure how much freedom it achieved?
It's a bit of an awkward situation, that. You see, this is Free Software we're talking about: "Free as in Freedom." But, as we all know, Freedom isn't Free. So that means the HURD system has a significant Non-Free component, whose inclusion causes a conflict with the system's Free license.
A toy for now (Score:4, Insightful)
20 years of development and 10 years behind in almost every aspect. Hardware support basically non existing, no X11, but no SMTP support is what really surprised me. I though better multithread was one of advantages of the Mach architecture. Anyways, even on a single core machine Linux is faster, there wasn't a single test in which Hurd did noticeably better.
I wish them luck, but I don't think I would even be capable of installing it on any of my machines any time soon.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you mean no SMP, SMTP should work just fine since you can probably run sendmail or postfix on HURD.
Re: (Score:2)
where's an edit button when you need one ?
Re:A toy for now (Score:5, Insightful)
where's an edit button when you need one ?
Hurd is not the only thing 10 years behind.....
whooosh there goes my karma
Re: (Score:2)
I noticed (forget how i got there) the other day that Sourceforge is hiring a Slashdot head h4xx0r.
You'd think they'd just open-source it or something...
Re:A toy for now (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
where's an edit button when you need one ?
It's on boards without /.-style moderation.
What's the point in modding a post when the poster can just change it after the fact? I think even if the points are nullified it'd still be a pain. As you were told, if you made a mistake, well, that's what preview is for!
Re: (Score:3)
I for one would like to welcome our floppy-tape-drive-using HURD overlords.
Re: (Score:3)
Technology Singularity: I am afraid that has been in development for too long. I do not need a Mach kernel based OS as my "kernel" is beyond human comprehension.
Stallman: GNU slash Technology Singularity. I demand you use this kernel!
Singularity: I prefer to be called the Linux slash Technology Singularity. However, I suppose you may call me what you wish. Now I've noticed you seem to have gotten behind on your hygenia. Allow zap
Re: (Score:2)
Debian GNU/Hurd does not yet have a working graphical desktop environment. GNU Hurd is reported to work with an old XFree86 release, but not yet X.Org nor to mention the only very antiquated hardware support.
So yes, X11 works, just not a version anyone gives a shit about.
About that other microkernel OS (Score:2)
How's Minix 3 benchmark?
GNU/Linux (Score:4, Funny)
I remember the days when you said, "Linux", there would be an army of zealots that would swarm you and chant, "IT'S GNU/LINUX! IT'S GNU/LINUX!!"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Whoa, Hurd has twice as much GNU as Linux? I'm going to switch right away!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
hmm, that would make it "1 HURD"
Re:GNU/Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember the days when you could come to Slashdot and expect a discussion on the technical merits or demerits of a subject like an alternative operating system, with input from one or two people who really knew their onions.
I remember the days when people were technically curious about stuff which was different, just because it was different, and they wanted to know what it did and how it worked.
Where did all those people go?
Re: (Score:2)
Google
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenPCIpassthrough [xensource.com]
http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenVGAPassthrough [xensource.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Serious question (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You wouldn't (Score:3)
Hurd is useless. It is the Duke Nukem' Forever of OSes: Released way too late and a relic from the past that isn't work getting.
Nothing software related that is "in development" for that long is going to be worthwhile because things change so fast. When something has a cycle that long it tells you that they aren't doing a good job working on it. They keep changing shit, are not working efficiently and so on. It also means that the end result is going to be useless.
Hurd has no reason to exist these days, par
Re: (Score:3)
The FreeBSD kernel is not a microkernel - it's a modular monolithic kernel, not unlike the Linux kernel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not trying to troll here, but why would one use GNU Hurd?
One wouldn't. No more than one would use the memory manager I wrote in university for an operating systems class.
As an academic pursuit however its quite interesting, and as another working fully open source kernel, it its a worthwhile topic in any "comparative operating systems architecture" classes.
Re: (Score:3)
You could have said the same about Linux because we had Minix and BSD. The first versions of Linux where pretty useless. That being said HURD has some interesting ideas that may turn out to be useful. I am really fond of the goals of Minix 3. The idea of a self healing system is very cool for servers and embedded devices. Frankly it should pretty easy to do, make the drivers code segment in memory read only and if the driver has a serious error you restart the driver with a fresh data segment. Once the driv
Re: (Score:3)
That sort of thing has been done with Linux in various ways - but with substantial disadvantages. Under L4 and Xen there were implementations of running device drivers (for block and network devices) in separate virtual machines from the one running the application. They were restartable and contained only soft state. I worked, in a small way, on the Xen implementation and it was quite enjoyable to sit around restarting the device driver and watching stuff come back. Of course, one advantage of doing th
Re: (Score:2)
The only fundamental technical difference of note I see is that it's got a microkernel
HURD is about empowering the users to do things which require root access on more common systems. Like you have a normal user account and decide you want to try this cool new network file system but the admin won't install the kernel module. On HURD, not a problem, you just run a file system daemon yourself and you can mount it anywhere you want without needing administrator rights.
Or you decide that package managers suck and it's much better to keep all files for Emacs in /Applications/Emacs (Or /OS/Emacs
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
HURD offers no advantage over Linux here. It's not like we're about to see a huge migration from Linux to HURD. And after taking 20 years to get this far - they lack the manpower and momentum to move it anywhere.
Re: (Score:3)
Translators running in user space is better than kernel modules running in privileged space. This is reason enough to embrace a new system and apply the lessons learned from Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite. In theory, microkernels ought to offer some concrete advantages and disadvantages. They should be a little bit slower due to context switching (waaaah! my computer acts like it's 3 months older! waaaaahh!), but it should be easier to develop and advance, due to certain traditionally-hard-to
Re: (Score:3)
If context switching overhead was the only problem you'd be right. A much bigger problem is the effort it requires to maintain a coherent state between loosely coupled tasks in a microkernel. The oft-repeated mantra that a microkernel is easier to develop for is just a joke. For example, making a single-threaded filesystem task is pretty simple, but the performance will be horrible if yo
Re: (Score:2)
Not trying to troll here, but why would one use GNU Hurd?
Because I want to, and I can. That's reason enough for me. Maybe I'm a nerd.
Re: (Score:3)
Not trying to troll here, but why would one use GNU Hurd?
Mach [wikipedia.org] was just an academic research project into microkernels until Apple picked it up and ran with it. At the moment there appears to be no practical reason for most people to choose Hurd, but undoubtedly there will be someone out there who does have a reason, and who knows where that could end.
Does Debian really have nothing better to do?
"Debian" is not a monolithic corporate entity with some dynamic figurehead deciding what everyone works on this year... Hurd is interesting to some people, and they want to work on it. Why not let them? The worst th
Re: (Score:3)
its got 20 years of proof that it doesn't do anything useful
Re: (Score:2)
Or do you have proof that it will never be useful for anything?
The fact that it's still in alpha state after 20 years?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One interesting feature I saw on the hurd web site some 10+ years ago was that because it was a microkernel, you could run several different versions of the kernel at the same time, and do kernel updates without rebooting. That got my attention... but 10+ years later it seems to have been forgotten. I did not see those listed as features on the Hurd web site any more.
Yeah, it was on the "features list" only until they got to the point where they might, theoretically, be expected to actually implement that functionality. :)
To put it more seriously: as the system got more solid, the features list had to focus more on actualities, rather than potential. The potential is still there, presumably, so hopefully they'll exploit that.
i have seen the list of supported hardware (Score:2)
Well at least .... (Score:2)
the HURD didn't throw up a blue screen of death.
Actually they didn't mention how many Kernel panic dumps they got, if any.
Linux vs HURD (Score:5, Interesting)
At the risk of being lambasted, I don't understand why everyone is kicking so hard at HURD. Sure, it's nowhere close to Linux in any respect, but then it never attracted the throngs of developers that Linux did. OS/X is proof that the idea of building on the mach kernel can result in a sound and performant OS. I for one salute those that have stuck with or picked up development of what many would consider a lost cause. Eschewing a technology because it's not popular does not engender innovation. Personally, I hope the HURD team begins to attract more developers and eventually begins to catch up with Linux because competition, even in the FOSS arena, is always a good thing.
Re:Linux vs HURD (Score:5, Interesting)
hurd is an example of how despite being open and free, you can still run the ship with closed minds. it almost seems like a grant money scam.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, there seems to be a tone change here - "why would anyone use ____" - isn't that different from when we welcomed the Niche stuff? Is the ridicule only because this was in Permanent Development?
I think I see some small benefit in getting this (and Duke Nukem) Out The Door in whatever state they are in. Now that it's Out The Door, can we just turn right around and rip out a couple juicy bits of code and slam them into Linux? Is any of it Prior Art to fight the stupid lawsuits with?
Re:Linux vs HURD (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, if I were a developer interested in getting heavily involved in OS development (which I am), and had the time (which I don't), something like this would be appealing to me. Trying to get one's arms around Linux, much less to be able to obtain commit status is about near impossible for someone just starting out. HURD is much smaller and the mountain to climb much lower to reach the point of being able to contribute to the project. I also think it's premature to write off micro-kernel technology all together at this point. Massively Multi-core CPUs (as in 100's or 1000's of cores) may mitigate the performance hit that micro-kernels suffer from on today's hardware and may prove to be a better fit than the monolithic Linux kernel of today. I don't know that to be fact, though no doubt many here will point out how wrong that position is, but it makes sense to me instinctively. The point is, no knowledge gained is wasted knowledge and whether it leads to enhancements to Linux or boosts the viability of this technology, the endeavor is certainly worth exploring.
Re: (Score:2)
OS/X is proof that the idea of building on the mach kernel can result in a sound and performant OS.
OS X is proof that by using the Mach kernel as a provider of process/thread management and VM services, and putting a BSD kernel atop that, you can get a sound and performant OS. It's not as if OS X is a true microkernel OS; if that's the goal of the Hurd, as I have the impression it is, that's a different matter.
Re:Linux vs HURD (Score:4, Interesting)
I think that people kick at HURD because of the grand claims made by some HURD fans. These grand claims have not panned out.
If you look at the old HURD FAQ [gnu.org], you will see claims that "Linux and BSD don't scale well" and that HURD, being based on Mach, should scale better for SMP; furthermore, HURD would be "considerably more flexible and robust than generic Unix".
The superior architecture of HURD was supposed to make it easier and faster to develop and debug HURD, and thus HURD was going to leapfrog past Linux as the obviously better solution.
Kernel debugging in Linux is significantly harder than user-space debugging. The microkernel design of HURD was supposed to allow for things like file systems to be written and debugged with the ease of user-space development under Linux. That being the case, it seems surprising that HURD is so far behind Linux after so many years.
I'm not an expert on this stuff, but here are my thoughts on the current Linux and HURD situation:
First, Linux scales really well now. People are using Linux on really large SMP systems.
Second, a microkernel architecture, while more robust than a monokernel, cannot be as fast as the monokernel. If one subsystem wants another subsystem to do something, it must format and send a message; the other subsystem then receives the message, unpacks it, validates it, and then does the action. This is more secure and more stable than the monokernel, where the one subsystem will just make a function call in the other subsystem's code; but it is inherently slower. So Linux is scaling better than HURD expected, and Linux has an inherent speed edge, so HURD is unlikely to outperform Linux. Meanwhile, while it might be true that HURD is easier to debug than Linux, the kernel developers have figured out how to debug Linux, and there just isn't enough benefit there to warrant a switch to HURD.
Finally, Linux is widely used and well understood; lots of businesses are running mission-critical apps on Linux. Even if HURD's microkernel design gave it a theoretical edge on Linux for reliability, the real-world experience is all on Linux; it has been shown to be Good Enough while HURD is only theoretically better.
steveha
Re: (Score:2)
Valid points all. However, have HURD claims not panned out because of flaws in the theoretical framework, or because of lack of developers to implement it properly (I'm asking - I don't know the answer to that and I don't believe you do either - which is exactly why I feel this is a worthwhile endeavor)? I do question your conclusions on your second and final points however.
Second, a microkernel architecture, while more robust than a monokernel, cannot be as fast as the monokernel. If one subsystem wants another subsystem to do something, it must format and send a message; the other subsystem then receives the message, unpacks it, validates it, and then does the action. This is more secure and more stable than the monokernel, where the one subsystem will just make a function call in the other subsystem's code; but it is inherently slower. So Linux is scaling better than HURD expected, and Linux has an inherent speed edge, so HURD is unlikely to outperform Linux. Meanwhile, while it might be true that HURD is easier to debug than Linux, the kernel developers have figured out how to debug Linux, and there just isn't enough benefit there to warrant a switch to HURD.
This may be true with today's hardware, but massive-multi-core CPUs with hardware support for high speed message passing may negate or
Re: (Score:2)
Performant isn't a real word.
Sure it is. The dictionaries have just not caught up yet. Check back at a future date.
Shouldnt the race be between Hurd and Minix? (Score:2)
Wouldnt that be a closer comparison to Hurd than Linux?
Re: (Score:2)
Phoronix fluff (Score:2)
Phoronix has a history of questionable choices for their benchmark setups. Hardware, versions, and tuning are... cleverly chosen, almost as if there was a preconceived agenda with inevitable results. Not that there is one-- just like it seems like there is. And so colorfully presented! I remember when they tested ZFS on an i386 version of FreeBSD on a 1G laptop! Others have also noticed this Phoronix phenomenon:
http://forums.freebsd.org/archive/index.php/t-16396.html [freebsd.org]
http://www.kev009.com/wp/2008/12/phoronix [kev009.com]
gnu.org server? (Score:3)
Hurd has already had an impact (Score:2)
For one, I have to question anyone who criticizes what basically amounts to a long-term research project in how to design an operating system. Of course it's going to take too long and of course nobody from the mainstream is interested enough to help.
For another it should really be pointed out that SELinux and FUSE are really just bolted-on, inferior implementations of things that are key embedded concepts in the hurd. You probably would not have these things on your linux system today if it had not been
Re: (Score:2)
Um, duh? 20+ years real-world testing and updates and bugfixes from pretty much the entire open-source community vs. something that was released last week? Why don't they benchmark it against Google Plus and Bitcoin while they're at it?
HURD is older than Linux, isn't it? I seem to remember Linus saying he wouldn't have bothered developing Linux if HURD had actually been usable at that point.
Re: (Score:3)
Hurd might beat bitcoin in a "has practical uses" benchmark. :P
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? I can't buy drugs with Hurd.
Re: (Score:2)
20+ years real-world testing and updates and bugfixes from pretty much the entire open-source community vs. something that was released last week
Actually the last stable release was 2 years ago. Then you need to add the addition 19 years of development that preceded that. So why exactly do you think we should not expect more from something that has been in perpetual development for 21 years?
Re:It's sad, really (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually Stallman from what I've seen and read isn't particularly interested in Hurd at this point as part of his "Freedom" agenda.
He is quite satisfied with the Linux kernel.
Hurd however is interesting from an academic standpoint, and is entirely worthwhile on that front.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree... but out of interest, why doesn't Linux satisfy that for you? I can see the argument that Hurd gives you a totally different philosophy to look at to Linux - but if you wanted that, why wouldn't Darwin suit you?
I'm all for developing new kernels anyway. But if we're purely looking at use we don't need it (we've got Linux and Darwin) and if we're looking at contrasting designs we don't *need* it (Linux and Darwin)... but it's still a new design so frankly all power to it. Just I doubt I'll use it m
Re: (Score:2)
I agree... but out of interest, why doesn't Linux satisfy that for you? I can see the argument that Hurd gives you a totally different philosophy to look at to Linux - but if you wanted that, why wouldn't Darwin suit you?
I'm all for developing new kernels anyway. But if we're purely looking at use we don't need it (we've got Linux and Darwin) and if we're looking at contrasting designs we don't *need* it (Linux and Darwin)... but it's still a new design so frankly all power to it. Just I doubt I'll use it myself, at least not for production.
I graduated college before any of the free operating systems had been introduced.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough :) I was wondering if that was the case, but with the 20+ year delay to Hurd I thought I had to ask.....
Re: (Score:2)
With the biggest difference was that Stallman won his battle a long time ago. He just can't leave well enough alone.
It's about drivers (Score:2)
Stallman won his battle a long time ago.
The battle will be won once all computer hardware sold for home use has a free device driver available.
Re: (Score:3)
The battle will be won once all computer hardware sold has a free device driver available.
Fixed it for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Based on TFA's claims on driver support and such, I'd say it's still underdeveloped.
Hurd has earned a certain amount of derision. (Score:3)
Its not as fast as linux, and doesn't have hardware support. So, there is no bother kicking it out. Because nothing ever gets better. Especially when people start adopting it and taking it apart to see how it works and make it better. I for one, am not building a new computer for it. Nope. Not me.
Fair point, I guess, it has room to improve...
But it's hard not to be cynical about Hurd. It's been present to some extent for as long as I've been aware of Linux, but it's always been sort of a joke. It was supposedly going to do all these amazing things (and maybe now it can actually do some of them) but for year after year after year it was all talk, combined with a failure to deliver. Hey guys, it's going to have this amazing mount structure that will make /usr/bin and /usr/local/bin obsolete! It's goin
Re:better quit now. (Score:4, Insightful)
it's not a matter of it being fastest, it's about options.
Attacks in the IT world tend to come in the form of software patents or claims of stolen code through a proxy.
all the BSDs, Hurd, Reactos and other such projects only make for more moving targets.
if you use them or not, if you are impressed with them or not, they all still serve a purpose.
there will always be free options.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. What's FSF and GNU done for us lately? Besides gcc and all that other GNU stuff that represents about 15% of code in the typical Linux distribution, vs 1.5% for the Linux kernel.
And then there's all that Free Software propaganda, copyleft and everything else that kicked off the whole movement.
Nope, not a fan at all...
What the hell?
You're responding to a poster who said he is a fan of GNU, and was just complaining about the choice of name.
When I'm naming things I don't like to get too tied up in thoughts of "how could this name be twisted derisively?" and related issues: but it is something to consider. Choosing a name that's too easy a target is just asking for trouble. :)