Bits from the Debian GNU/Hurd porters [LWN.net]

Bits from the Debian GNU/Hurd porters

Posted Sep 15, 2008 19:38 UTC (Mon) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767)
In reply to: Bits from the Debian GNU/Hurd porters by vaib
Parent article: Bits from the Debian GNU/Hurd porters

I'm not sure why anyone *would* want to use or develop a dead OS that was going to be the next big thing in 1990, other than for personal educational purposes. Its one possibly attractive feature was being a Free microkernel posix-like OS. Or at least it was supposed to be the only serious one. But now there's Minix 3, which may not be the the talk of the town, but at least is breathing.

(Log in to post comments)

Can Minix3 run GNU?

Posted Sep 16, 2008 7:46 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

Hurd never had simply the academic goal to develop a microkernel. It had the practical goal to develop a microkernel for the Unix-like GNU operating system.

Minix3 exists, and that's probably great for enthusiasts of the microkernel architecture, but AFAIK it can't be used as the kernel for a Unix-like OS such as the GNU system. The Linux kernel can do this, as can the kernels of FreeBSD, NetBSD, and Solaris (but they're not microkernels, of course). The Hurd can already be used as the kernel for a GNU system, but it's capabilities are limited.

So Minix and Hurd have different goals.

Can Minix3 run GNU?

Posted Sep 16, 2008 16:19 UTC (Tue) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link]

"""
So Minix and Hurd have different goals.
"""

Perhaps. Insofar as Minix3 ( http://www.minix3.org/ ) actually and currently *has* goals. Minix3 is only loosely based upon the version 1 and 2 releases, which were, indeed, designed for educational use. The Minix3 project intends, and is making concrete progress towards, creating a usable, real world OS ala Linux designed around a microkernel. While I'm not a huge fan of Minix3 or of microkernels, Minix3 has a credibility which HURD currently lacks. I'm not sure what particular significance "running GNU" actually has in that context. It's a POSIX-like OS, runs X, and a growing list of officially supported applications ( http://www.minix3.org/software/ ).

Considering that most of the Minix 1 and 2 code is of little or no relevance in light of the new purpose of Minix3, what Minix3 has accomplished it has done in 3 years. What little HURD has accomplished has taken 18 years.

It looks to me like "stagnant vs vibrant" is a more significant difference between the two projects than are "different goals" or "running GNU". Who want's to work on something that is going nowhere, regardless of what its goals and aspirations might, at one time, have been?