"Neal H. Walfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On the other hand, you completely devalue legacy support. I think > this is the hardest problem and central to the adoption of new > systems.
With hurdNg and coyotos I would gladly see legacy support de-valued (even jettisoned), I feel it is over-rated. I would rather see the useful legacy tools re-implemented for a new OS which offered new environments (as happened with UNIX and Macintosh, neither provided legacy support in the initial implementations). Attempting to maintain legacy support almost de-railed Windows Vista. Legacy support via virtualization (and data exchange via open-formats) seems a less exhausting approach. > In short, I think you need to define some goals, consider their > implications (in particular, what things are less important) and then > think about how these new techniques that you've pointed to will > facilitate those goals. A goal to support widespread adoption (at least within a niche) I would like to see fulfilled, once hurd.L4 or coyotos can host services, is for a scalable web-server implementation which offered an application environment comparable (preferably better) to ASP or PHP. A verifiably secure web-server would quickly supplant IIS and Apache and permit people to return to sharing their digital artifacts with a credible degree of confidence. nigwil _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
