diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | community/weblogs/antrik/hurd-mission-statement.mdwn | 42 |
1 files changed, 42 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/community/weblogs/antrik/hurd-mission-statement.mdwn b/community/weblogs/antrik/hurd-mission-statement.mdwn new file mode 100644 index 00000000..8679e414 --- /dev/null +++ b/community/weblogs/antrik/hurd-mission-statement.mdwn @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ +For a while I have been thinking about the lack of a roadmap for the +Hurd; but now I realized that we lack something even more fundamental: a +simple mission statement -- i.e. saying where we want to go, rather +than how we want to get there. I think many of the problems we have are +directly or indirectly related to that. + +As we didn't have such a mission statement so far, the people currently +involved have vastly different ideas about the mission, which of course +makes it a bit hard to come up with a suitable one now. However, I +managed to come up with something that I believe is generic enough so +all contributors can subscribe to it: + +> *The mission of the Hurd project is: to create a general-purpose +> kernel suitable for the GNU operating system, which is viable for +> everyday use, and gives users and programs as much control over their +> computing environment as possible.* + +"Suitable for GNU" in the first part implies a number of things. I +explicitely mentioned "general-purpose", because this an important +feature that sets the Hurd apart from many other microkernel projects, +but isn't immediately obvious. + +I didn't mention that it must be entirely free software, as this should +be obvious to anyone familiar with GNU. + +Another thing I did not mention, because it's too controversial: how +much UNIX do we need? I think that being suitable for GNU requires a +pretty high degree of UNIX compatibility, and also that the default +environment looks to the user more or less like UNIX. However, some +people claimed in the past that GNU could do without UNIX -- the wording +used here doesn't totally preclude such views. + +The second part also leaves a lot of slack: I for my part still believe +that a Mach-based Hurd can be viable for everyday use; but those who +think that a microkernel change is required, should be happy with this +wording as well. + +The third part tries to express the major idea behind the Hurd design in +the most compact and generic way possible. + +What do you think? Is this a good mission statement? If so, it should go +on the Hurd web front page. |