| |||||||||||||
New GNU Hurd, Mach, and MIG releasesNew GNU Hurd, Mach, and MIG releasesPosted Sep 29, 2013 15:12 UTC (Sun) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582)In reply to: New GNU Hurd, Mach, and MIG releases by el_presidente Parent article: New GNU Hurd, Mach, and MIG releases
Developers are users too. It needs to have a minimal level of usability, as well as offer a minimal level of excitement, to attract developers. I don't know whether it does but the record so far isn't good.
(Log in to post comments)
New GNU Hurd, Mach, and MIG releases Posted Sep 29, 2013 17:31 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] The big problem for HURD are changes in expectations. HURD 0.5 (and probably even HURD 0.2) is significantly more capable then, e.g. Linux 1.0.0. But over last two decades expectations of developers and users have changed. Today HURD is not not something someone will want to actually use.
New GNU Hurd, Mach, and MIG releases Posted Sep 30, 2013 4:58 UTC (Mon) by Kluge (guest, #2881) [Link]
Expectations are certainly one hurdle. The other is probably competition. MINIX3 and L4 are also out there, presumably competing for a limited number of microkernel enthusiasts.
New GNU Hurd, Mach, and MIG releases Posted Sep 30, 2013 6:42 UTC (Mon) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]
Well, Hurd runs on top of a microkernel (Mach) and had been ported to L4. Apparently that didn't work out. But one can be both a microkernel enthusiast and a Hurd enthusiast.
New GNU Hurd, Mach, and MIG releases Posted Sep 30, 2013 15:57 UTC (Mon) by Kluge (guest, #2881) [Link]
>But one can be both a microkernel enthusiast and a Hurd enthusiast.
Sure. My point was that as there are a number of FOSS monolithic kernels out there, anyone preferring to work on HURD will be a microkernel enthusiast. But HURD isn't the only FOSS microkernel-based OS out there, so there is presumably competition for those developers.
|
|||||||||||||