I think it could be the same story of how the name Linux took off the way
GNU/Linux didn't.
As far as I know (I haven't given it a try) Hurd doesn't (still) support
audio or USB.
I tried Debian GNU/Hurd in one computer I have and the GRUB didn't install.
This was the only issue.
In a virtual machine it works (KVM or VirtualBox) :-)
There's also Arch Hurd (unfortunately, it seems not much active these days):
http://web.archive.org/web/20131006165016/http://www.archhurd.org/
But surely, being a libre project that anyone can fork and improve if they
want to, it's superior design should have encouraged more development and
attention than Linux so that, over time, it could become more popular and
complete?
It may not be too hard to just try GNU/Hurd firsthand instead of relying on
nebulous statements like only marginally usable. Doesn't Debian have a
GNU/Hurd sub-distro ready to try?
From what I've heard, the Hurd is usable and stable (doesn't crash) now, but
still not as good as Linux for most users. Apparently is has special features
of some sort, but that's a low-level thing that would only be of interest to
a small number of people. It probably also doesn't have as
The GNU Hurd has a number of enticing features:
It's free software, so anybody can use, modify, and redistribute it under the
terms of the ?GNU General Public License (GPL).
It's compatible as it provides a familiar programming and user environment.
For all intents and purposes, the Hurd
Sounds fantastic. I wonder what's prevented it from taking off the way Linux
has?
Maybe the fact that it's not ready for real usage?
According to Wikipedia, it's not fully developed yet. The Hurd followed an
ambitious design which proved unexpectedly difficult to implement and has
only been marginally usable. (source)
11 matches
Mail list logo
