[[!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

    <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]]