On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 18:10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 01:07:26AM -0500, R. Steven Rainwater wrote: > > Problems 2 through 7 are solved in my proposed road map by releasing > > an initial version of the GNU OS that uses a 100% Linux kernel. Over > > time, we would transition to a 100% GNU Hurd kernel. This allows us to > > immediately resume work on the GNU OS and we can release a working > > version of the entire GNU OS > > There is just no point in releasing the GNU system based on Linux, to > compete against the hundreds of existing GNU/Linux distributions. And > once it would be release with Linux, it would be virtually impossible to > switch -- nobody would dare to go from a limited but perfectly working > kernel to something rough and incomplete. There would be absolutely no > chance of moving over to Hurd unless it's almost perfect -- but that > won't ever happen, as with the GNU system already released with Linux, > there would be even less inclination for people to work on the Hurd.
I've thought about this more today and I still disagree with that view. IMHO of course and, if I'm wrong, it wouldn't be the first time. :) I think the reason there are not more programmers inclined to work on the Hurd or, more importantly to me, the GNU OS, is because there are no releases. The general perception in the outside world is that it's dead. I think a release of the GNU OS, with any kernel: Hurd, Linux, even a BSD kernel, would generate increased interest in the GNU OS and Hurd and cause more programmers to be inclined to work on it. No one expects early releases of an OS or a kernel to be production ready. What if Linux distros were not released until they were prefected? Fedora Core 1 sucked badly. Fedora Core 2 sucked less. The Fedora 7 running on my laptop today is mostly very nice but still sucks in a few areas. By making regular releases, though, there is a pereception that Fedora is always improving and a perception that it's an active project I might want to participate in. Imagine if RedHat had said, "There's no point in releasing Fedora Core 1. Let's keep working on it until it's better than Ubuntu and then release it." That would be silly. The problem is all those Linux distros are going to keep making releases and keep getting better. I think the longer we wait to release a GNU OS, the further behind we fall. Let's just jump out there and start competing! A GNU OS version 1 (or 0.1 or 0.01) is going to suck no matter what kernel we put in it, but at least we'll have made a start. And once people see that, I think it will bring lots of new people to help and the rate of improvement will increase. Reading about the history of the The GNU OS reminds me of a Doctor Who episode. It's been years since I saw it so I may have the story a little out of whack but it went something like this... A spaceliner became lost and crashed on an unpopulated planet. The surivors decided they must repair their spacecraft, launch it, and achieve their freedom. So they started working on the ship. When the doctor arrived on the planet, he discovered that generation upon generation of the descendents of the original crash survivors had worked on the spacecraft for thousands of years, trying to get it to the point it was ready to launch. As he watched them work, the doctor realized the engineers had replaced the idea of repairing the ship with the idea of perfecting the ship. It had been able to launch and leave the planet for a long time. But as long as the engineers saw any imperfection in its design, they kept everyone in dark and forced them to keep working on it, until the great day in distant future when they would launch the perfect spaceship. The doctor, of course, revealed the truth to the people. They overthrew the engineers and launched the ship. I think we need a Doctor Who of OS design to sort out the GNU project. Maybe a little work with the sonic screw driver is all the Hurd needs. :-) > That doesn't work. Mach also was tested for a long time with > single-server systems. The real problems showed only when people > actually tried building proper (multiserver) microkernel systems on top > of it. Understood. It seems that phase of my idea is simply not helpful or necessary, so it should be eliminated. -Steve
