> Hurd is not a kernel, mach is the uKernel over which hurd runs, and > debian is in top of hurd, :). I have it for trial. Console is OK, > but with X I experienced file system corruption. In general it's OK, > but I wouldn't trust it reliably. That's just my opinion though. > Remember the whole hurd is under unstable, and what's not under > unstable is under experimental. So for sure for reliable server it's > NOT good enough. Besides mach is pretty picky about hardware > compatibility, :( But it works, and it's what matters to me (I just > want to be ready for the time hurd gets into a more reliable state, > and it gets more packages in, besides more drivers since most are > missing). Maybe more usage from others could help get it more > stable, > > :). Hurd guys are to change the uKernel from mach to L4, and now > : they > > are thinking about coyotos and another new version of L4 uKernels. > So all this makes hurd a bit far from what I'd like it to be, but > again, it's usable, specially if you want a trial system plus if you > want to contribute a bit as well, :)
Ok. But.......why using hurd with mach kernel instead of linux? It's for your trial ok, but supposing hurd became stable, why use it instead of linux? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]