diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'faq/how_many_developers')
| -rw-r--r-- | faq/how_many_developers/discussion.mdwn | 65 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 65 deletions
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 - - <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]] |