Gerald Gutierrez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I realize that I'm talking to one of the "holders of the key", but why do
> you say that it is not so? The implicit assumption that I think exists here
> is that any change of direction will mean a rewrite, but that's not
> necessarily true.
That's bait and switch.
You started with a *particular* change of direction in mind, one that
was explicitly considered, and rejected, long long ago. Real-time OS
design requires very careful ground-up work, and the Hurd servers do
not have any interesting real-time properties. Adding them in would
not be easy; it would require significant new work. But if someone
actually wants to do the work, they are welcome to it. It's just not
my focus, and I my advice to other people is that there are more
important things for them to focus on too.
I objected by saying that the design is not as fluid right now as you
think it is. I suspect you don't have a good idea of the design or
what's already been accomplished at all. In your mind, things may be
quite fluid, but I think that's because you don't have a very solid
understanding of the current state of the code.
You are correct that there are some things which would not require a
rewrite. But that does not mean that anything can be done, or that
everything is a good idea.
You are trying to find a "niche" for the Hurd which will be different
from other systems; that maybe a useful task, but I don't think it's
terribly necessary. The Hurd will make possible many things that are
not currently possible; that's enough for me; it's also fun to work
on. I'm not out to conquer the world; I'm happy just to work on this
little piece of it.
Thomas
