path: root/faq/how_many_developers/discussion.mdwn
diff options
authorThomas Schwinge <>2011-07-18 09:10:29 +0200
committerThomas Schwinge <>2011-07-18 09:10:29 +0200
commite579e2aa506a773d553c5d20b4a7ffa28b0dd4b3 (patch)
tree8338046e379f767652fa9a437a99f72493023876 /faq/how_many_developers/discussion.mdwn
parent89f33677640b8a6ff0bb2b7b4cb2b6c24670bde9 (diff)
Diffstat (limited to 'faq/how_many_developers/discussion.mdwn')
1 files changed, 42 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/faq/how_many_developers/discussion.mdwn b/faq/how_many_developers/discussion.mdwn
index 9fc44f2..6ca47c9 100644
--- a/faq/how_many_developers/discussion.mdwn
+++ b/faq/how_many_developers/discussion.mdwn
@@ -8,7 +8,48 @@ 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, 2011-07-09
+# 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