GNU Hurd

What do you think of it? It seems pretty interesting. Microkernels clearly are superior to monolithic kernels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd

GNU/Turd is the longest running vaporware known to humanity. Even Duke Nukem Forever can't compare to GNU.

>>1
Hurd isn't a microkernel, Hurd is GNU's multiserver kernel replacement. GNU's microkernel is called GNU Mach.

>>2
Hurd isn't vaporware because you can actually see and use it today. It's not finished but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Their mistake is that they are shitty programmers and instead of fixing the Mach problems they bloated it again but I believe that they will be able to finish Hurd, sooner or later

>>3

Hurd isn't vaporware because you can actually see and use it today. It's not finished but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Duke Nukem Forever wasn't a vaporware, you could actually see it has 3d engine, some code and assets. It was not finished but that doesn't mean it haven't existed.

>>5

you could actually see it has 3d engine, some code and assets

I could not, nor I could run it nor I could see its process

>>6

that is because it is proprietary.

>>4
Mach's system is quite mature and doesn't need any work done to it. One of Hurd's major problems is that the Hurd programmers found it unexpectedly difficult to debug multiserver programs within the context of Hurd. It turns out that theres quite a lot of infrastructure that you need to manage that simply doesn't exist within the context in a macrokernel and that debugging that network of servers is complex work.

>>8

Mach's system is quite mature and doesn't need any work done to it

I dissagree, while the idea was nice the implemetation was not as good and some others stuff had been deprecated by newer better ideas. Some rt mach implemetations had even 2x times faster RPC while keeping most of the features.
Bad features like renaming port rights made them to use inferior data structures inside the kernel.

One of Hurd's major problems is that the Hurd programmers found it unexpectedly difficult to debug multiserver programs within the context of Hurd

Mach had some really nice facilities for debugging, I have no idea why they were not able to debug these programs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd#Development_history

According to Thomas Bushnell, the initial Hurd architect, their early plan was to adapt the 4.4BSD-Lite kernel and, in hindsight, "It is now perfectly obvious to me that this would have succeeded splendidly and the world would be a very different place today".[9]

>>9

I dissagree, while the idea was nice the implemetation was not as good and some others stuff had been deprecated by newer better ideas

GNU Mach is complete for its purpose as a Microkernel. In that regard, there is no work needed for Mach. GNU Mach's design is outdated given the state of art in microkernel technology, that doesn't mean that Mach is no longer fit for its purpose. Now it's quite possible to update GNU Mach to match the state of art but I wouldn't bother with that. I'd prefer to fork a modern microkernel to Hurd or otherwise update Hurd to work with a modern microkernel.

I have no idea why they were not able to debug these programs

Last that I remember, Mach's network of multi-threaded servers provide plenty of opportunities for race conditions and deadlocks.

hurd my anus

>>11
I agree then, I want in the future to make a modern mach-like microkernel

did you know??????????

hurd rhymes with turd!!!!!!!!!!!

>>13
Good luck with that. I'd much prefer to get DDE Linux driver server working properly with the full set of Linux drivers.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTU5OTI