From c60c722ef7ca212431f0f914aa5925d10e7c323e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Samuel Thibault Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 13:44:52 +0100 Subject: merge back old-stuff into plain pages. Reorder items --- faq/how_many_developers/discussion.mdwn | 65 --------------------------------- 1 file changed, 65 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 faq/how_many_developers/discussion.mdwn (limited to 'faq/how_many_developers/discussion.mdwn') diff --git a/faq/how_many_developers/discussion.mdwn b/faq/how_many_developers/discussion.mdwn deleted file mode 100644 index 8e4c487a..00000000 --- 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 -License|/fdl]]."]]"""]] - - -# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-05-22 - - Since apparently Hurd's aim is a very stable and transparent - system ...why aren't there any companies backing it up? - silver_hook: it's not in a state yet where it would be - commercially interesting - silver_hook: and after some epic failures in the 90s, few - companies dare to invest in microkernel development... - Isn't MacOS X running on top of Mach? - yes, but it's not a true microkernel system - for one, it's single-server, which is boring - also it uses co-location, i.e. runs all the system code in the - kernel address space -- they are separated only formally - even NT is more of a microkernel system I think - Oh, OK, I'm not that knowledgeable about kernels to know - that. - well, now you know :-) - Yup, thanks :) - most people don't know this, so don't worry - I was just wondering that it might be potentially an ideal - server system, right? - 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 :-) - however, it still remains to be proven that true (multi-server) - microkernel operating systems actually work for general-purpose - applications... - antrik: I mean regarding hosting or virtual servers. - so far, they are only successful in the much simpler embedded - space - 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 - 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 - - 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 - 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 - the Hurd doesn't almost work for anyone - actually, you should probably reread the whole paper. it's - essentially an analysis why the Hurd failed compared to Linux - - -# [[open_issues/mission_statement]] -- cgit v1.2.3