On Fri, 2003-08-15 at 15:27, Barry deFreese wrote: > Mark L. Kahnt wrote: > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >I would have to point out that the Hurd isn't presented as being today > >absolutely ready and totally polished to outshine all other operating > >systems available or even merely theoretically proposed. It is still > >under development, although to a thoroughly designed concept, which > >can't be said about many other o/ses (including that Microsoft stuff.) > >However, because it is under development, there are certain things that > >haven't as yet been completed, such as an installation procedure as > >complete as boot-floppies. Don't view it as being beta software - some > >parts may be that far along, while others are working to be alpha, and > >some fortunately have become effectively complete. > > > > > Mark, > > Not to be argumentative but then why does www.gnu.org say the following: > > *it exists* > The Hurd is real software that works Right Now. It is not a research > project or a proposal. You don't have to wait at all before you can > start using and developing it. > > Wouldn't that imply to the user that it is usable, not necessarily > alpha/beta? I'm not tryint to troll, start a flame, or downplay the > Hurd. In fact, I would like to see the Hurd prosper as an alternative > OS but I think it suffers from image problems. > > -- > Barry deFreese > Debian 3.0r1 "Woody" > Registered Linux "Newbie" #302256 - Debian Developer Wannabe > > "Programming today is a race between software engineers striving > to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe > trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is > winning." Rich Cook. > > >
I'm going to refer back to an email I sent back on 1 June to you (Barry) when we were discussing the state of the Hurd: "it exists The Hurd is real software that works Right Now. It is not a research project or a proposal. You don't have to wait at all before you can start using and developing it. "- I'll leave you to assess whether what you get now constitutes "works Right Now". I wouldn't use it for a production system yet, or even as the system on which I did development work, but testing code being targeted to or ported to it, it seems to be "getting by". I know that I wouldn't use it on a headless server, as I honestly don't know if it is reliable enough to be able to log in via telnet whenever desired. I know that while ssh is *somewhat* on the system, it isn't secure because the key used isn't built with random numbers drawn from entropy." In retrospect, the reference to logging in via telnet isn't really expressing the point I wanted to make - I don't get the impression from what I hear thus far that the Hurd is ready to be a production server, maintained remotely by telnet or ssh. I am not personally ready to dedicate a box to the Hurd to invest the sort of time needed to realise its strengths, and file bug reports on its weaknesses. I am left with the impression that there is too much comfort waiting for someone else to patch what has been noted repeatedly as problem aspects, such as the infamous 2GB partition size limit. When such points are left to linger, the impression to a new investigator of possibly exploring the Hurd, based on the write-up quoted on the gnu.org website, is that when confronted with problems like the lingering 2 GB limit, doubt arises regarding many of the other statements. A similar consideration, as I mentioned in the 1 June email, and later in discussions via email with Kent West was Kent's encounter with mounting partitions. I understand that there is a mount script, but it reportedly hangs the system. The write-ups from various Hurd sites, however, imply that to the user, the common system usage should "seem" like a common POSIX interface (the parts dealing with command line utilities.) While the mount script is probably meant to do that for file system translators, it apparently has been left seriously unfixed at least with respect to the most commonly encountered file systems on GPL'd operating systems. So does "it exists" ring true to me? Aspects do, but not a complete core system that I can trust as a functional information processing engine, as the statement leads one to believe. When the core is done (kernel, basic servers and translators to provide a reliable server - be that web, print, file, database or whatever) that could be left running on its own and trusted and secure, I'd agree with the statement from a user's perspective. It is past being a research project, but it isn't quite what I understand to be ready for a beta release candidate of a distribution. From the perspective of a codebase to work on and a vision being reached to, it exists. From a user-ready distribution perspective, not this week. This fits with the entry before it on the list - "its stable". It's conceptual design is stable, but the binaries aren't necessarily resulting in a system that runs with the level of stability comparable to the BSDs or Linux in comparable breadths of configurations. With some attention to core aspects, both of those could change - essentially focussing on getting a kernel, a core set of translators and servers, and the appropriate aspects of the GNU software suite to provide a functional system that can host its own development and administration (most of which I understand now exists,) a viable base for assembling a distribution, or at least a reliably operational, installable o/s on which the distribution can be ported as necessary. Otherwise, the Hurd is limited to being an "aside" in the broader mindset, comparable to BeOS, OS/2 and RSX-11, with respect to the other free operating systems (Linux, the BSDs.) That would be squandering the effort already put into the project. -- Mark L. Kahnt, FLMI/M, ALHC, HIA, AIAA, ACS, MHP ML Kahnt New Markets Consulting Tel: (613) 531-8684 / (613) 539-0935 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part