path: root/faq/how_many_developers/discussion.mdwn
diff options
authorThomas Schwinge <>2013-04-13 10:36:54 +0200
committerThomas Schwinge <>2013-04-13 11:11:01 +0200
commit38cfa89677eabc85fc23e31e24cee85fb1ecfa54 (patch)
tree45822eb14eb11bdf7e96f0b8f3c5c7f0b9f81b88 /faq/how_many_developers/discussion.mdwn
parentd8ba0864d2cc74397960060b79a8c9154bb16d34 (diff)
Rework FAQ machinery to be based on tags instead of filenames.
Diffstat (limited to 'faq/how_many_developers/discussion.mdwn')
1 files changed, 65 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/faq/how_many_developers/discussion.mdwn b/faq/how_many_developers/discussion.mdwn
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8e4c487
--- /dev/null
+++ b/faq/how_many_developers/discussion.mdwn
@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2011, 2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]]
+[[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable
+id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
+document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
+any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant
+Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license
+is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation
+# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-05-22
+ <silver_hook> Since apparently Hurd's aim is a very stable and transparent
+ system ...why aren't there any companies backing it up?
+ <antrik> silver_hook: it's not in a state yet where it would be
+ commercially interesting
+ <antrik> silver_hook: and after some epic failures in the 90s, few
+ companies dare to invest in microkernel development...
+ <silver_hook> Isn't MacOS X running on top of Mach?
+ <antrik> yes, but it's not a true microkernel system
+ <antrik> for one, it's single-server, which is boring
+ <antrik> also it uses co-location, i.e. runs all the system code in the
+ kernel address space -- they are separated only formally
+ <antrik> even NT is more of a microkernel system I think
+ <silver_hook> Oh, OK, I'm not that knowledgeable about kernels to know
+ that.
+ <antrik> well, now you know :-)
+ <silver_hook> Yup, thanks :)
+ <antrik> most people don't know this, so don't worry
+ <silver_hook> I was just wondering that it might be potentially an ideal
+ server system, right?
+ <antrik> well, *potentially* it might be an ideal general-purpose system,
+ which includes server use... though personally I think the advantages of
+ the architecture are more visible in desktop use, as servers tend to be
+ rather streamlined, with little need for individualisation :-)
+ <antrik> however, it still remains to be proven that true (multi-server)
+ microkernel operating systems actually work for general-purpose
+ applications...
+ <silver_hook> antrik: I mean regarding hosting or virtual servers.
+ <antrik> so far, they are only successful in the much simpler embedded
+ space
+ <antrik> well, yes, the Hurd architecture in theory allows very much
+ flexibility regarding virtual environments... I once blogged about
+ that. not sure whether server applications really require that
+ flexibility though. I think most people are pretty happy with the various
+ virtualisation/container solutions available in Linux. again, the
+ flexibility is more relevant in the desktop space IMHO
+ <antrik> dosn't mean it wouldn't be useful for servers too... just not as
+ much of a selling point I fear :-)
+# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-07-09
+ <antrik> gnu_srs1: regarding your question why people aren't interested in
+ workin on Hurd: Eric Raymond explains it pretty well in his famous
+ "Cathedral and Bazaar" paper
+ <antrik> people are more likely to work on something that *almost* works
+ for them, and where they only have to fill in a few missing bits
+ <antrik> the Hurd doesn't almost work for anyone
+ <antrik> actually, you should probably reread the whole paper. it's
+ essentially an analysis why the Hurd failed compared to Linux
+# [[open_issues/mission_statement]]