hurd/faq/which_microkernel: IRC, #hurd, 2011-01-12.

1 files changed, 64 insertions, 2 deletions

diff --git a/hurd/faq/which_microkernel.mdwn b/hurd/faq/which_microkernel.mdwn
index 10fd31b1..c5026afa 100644
--- a/hurd/faq/which_microkernel.mdwn
+++ b/hurd/faq/which_microkernel.mdwn
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]]
+[[!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
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ 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]]."]]"""]]
 
-[[!meta title="What happened to the L4/Coyotos/viengoos micro-kernels?"]]
+[[!meta title="What happened to the L4 / Coyotos / Viengoos microkernels?"]]
 
 L4 was promising but happened to not be suitable for implementing a general-purpose operating system on top of it. See [[history/port_to_l4]] for the historical details.
 
@@ -17,3 +17,65 @@ Coyotos is abandoned upstream
 Neal Walfield started working on a newly designed kernel called [[viengoos|microkernel/viengoos]]. Unfortunately, he currently lacks time and the projects it paused.
 
 In the meanwhile, people are thus continuing with [[microkernel/mach]].
+
+---
+
+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