path: root/faq/how_many_developers/discussion.mdwn
diff options
authorSamuel Thibault <>2013-03-17 13:44:52 +0100
committerSamuel Thibault <>2013-03-17 13:44:52 +0100
commitc60c722ef7ca212431f0f914aa5925d10e7c323e (patch)
tree9a9da71196107ee7e5188f1e2cb327123517166c /faq/how_many_developers/discussion.mdwn
parentb43ea6ca9b24067ee5d4775383a09c46233119df (diff)
merge back old-stuff into plain pages. Reorder items
Diffstat (limited to 'faq/how_many_developers/discussion.mdwn')
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 65 deletions
diff --git a/faq/how_many_developers/discussion.mdwn b/faq/how_many_developers/discussion.mdwn
deleted file mode 100644
index 8e4c487..0000000
--- a/faq/how_many_developers/discussion.mdwn
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,65 +0,0 @@
-[[!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]]