[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2009, 2011 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, #hurd, 2011-01-12.

[[!taglink open_issue_documentation]]

    <Pete-J> Hello i am just curious of the development of Hurd - what's the
      current mission on the microkernel i see projects like l4 and viengoos,
      will one of these projects replace Mach? or will you stick with Mach
    <Pete-J> as i understand is that Mach is a first generation microkernel
      that's very old in design and causes alot of issues
    <Pete-J> that's where l4 and viengoos comes in - they are trying to be the
      next generation Mach - am i correct?
    <neal> l4 is not a drop in replacement for Mach
    <neal> it doesn't actually do much resource management
    <neal> for instance, you still have to implement a memory manager
    <neal> this is where several issues are with Mach
    <neal> l4 doesn't address those issues; it punts to the operating system
    <Pete-J> and what about viengoos?
    <neal> it's unfinished
    <neal> and it implemented some untested ideas
    <neal> i.e., parts of viengoos were research
    <neal> there has not been a sufficient evaluation of those ideas to
      determine whether they are a good approach
    <Pete-J> meaning that viengoos is a research kernel that could aid Mach?
    <neal> I'm not sure I understand your question
    <Pete-J> Well is viengoos trying to be a replacement for Mach, or will
      viengoos be an experiment of new ideas that could be implemented in Mach?
    <Pete-J> i am sorry for my limited english
    <neal> viengoos was designed with a Hurd-like user-land in mind
    <neal> in that sense it was a Mach replacement
    <neal> (unlike L4)
    <neal> viengoos consisted of a few experiments
    <neal> one could implement them in mach
    <neal> but it would require exposing new interfaces
    <neal> in which case, I'm not sure you could call the result Mach
    <Pete-J> Well as i understand you develop two microkernels side by side,
      wouldnt it be more effective to investigate viengoos more and maybe move
      the focus to viengoos?
    <antrik> no
    <antrik> having something working all the time is crucial
    <antrik> it's very hard to motivate people to work on a project that might
      be useful, in a couple of years, perhaps...
    <Pete-J> Well Mach is meant to be replaced one day - i see no reason to
      keep on developing it just because it works at this moment
    <Pete-J> *if Mach is meant to be replaced
    <antrik> it's not at all clear that it will be replaced by something
      completely different. I for my part believe that modifying the existing
      Mach is a more promising approach
    <Pete-J> as i understand man power is something you need - and by spreading
      out the developers just makes the progress more slow
    <antrik> but even if it *were* to be replaced one day, it doesn't change
      the fact that we need it *now*
    <antrik> all software will be obsolete one day. doesn't mean it's not worth
      working on
    <antrik> the vast majority of work is not on the microkernel anyways, but
      on the system running on top of it
    <Pete-J> ahh i see
    <antrik> manpower is not something that comes from nowhere. again, having
      something working is crucial in a volunteer project like this
    <antrik> there are no fixed plans