diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'news/2011-q2-ps.mdwn')
| -rw-r--r-- | news/2011-q2-ps.mdwn | 131 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 131 deletions
diff --git a/news/2011-q2-ps.mdwn b/news/2011-q2-ps.mdwn deleted file mode 100644 index 14578e83..00000000 --- a/news/2011-q2-ps.mdwn +++ /dev/null @@ -1,131 +0,0 @@ -[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 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]]."]]"""]] - -<!-- -[[!meta date="2011-07-19 23:42 UTC"]] ---> - -A quarter of the Hurd, Q2 of 2011, PS: *GNU Hurd Truths and Rumors*. -[[!if test="included()" then="""[[!toggle id=full_news -text="Details."]][[!toggleable id=full_news text="[[!paste id=full_news]]"]]""" -else=" -[[!paste id=full_news]]"]] - -[[!cut id="full_news" text=""" - -After our last *[[Quarter of the Hurd|2011-q2]]* has been picked up by a bunch -of news sites, blogs, and so on, discussions have been running all over the -net. While we are happy to see that there obviously is quite some interest in -the GNU Hurd, we also saw some rumors and outdated information flowing around. -In the following, we try to clear the situation up a bit. - - * *Debian wants to replace the Linux kernel with the GNU Hurd*. {X} - **Wrong**. We plan to get into Wheezy as an additional port besides - GNU/Linux and GNU/kFreeBSD -- but we don't know whether we will make it. - It depends on a lot of factors, a lot of work is still to be done. If you - want to help, please see our [[contributing]] page and the *to do* list - maintained on <http://wiki.debian.org/Debian_GNU/Hurd>. - - * *GNU Hurd developers want the Linux kernel to die*. {X} - **Wrong**. All of us are happy users of the Linux kernel, every - day, and GNU/Linux is the free operating system of choice, which - we're using ourselves (unless sitting in front of a GNU/Hurd - system). We work on the Hurd instead of Linux because of the - [[additional capabilities and clean design|advantages]] it - provides. - - * *Java support for GNU/Hurd is in the works*. (./) **True**. Jérémie - Koenig is working on making a versatile Java programming environment - available on the GNU/Hurd as part of his [[Google Summer of Code - project|user/jkoenig/java]], focussing on OpenJDK 7. Also, we already do - have support by the GCJ/ECJ platform, but this is not fully functional, and - Jérémie is improving that, too. - - * *GNU/Hurd has no support for X.org*. {X} **Wrong**. X.Org *does* work, - and has for a long time. (Anyone remember [1998's - XFree86](http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-support/hurd/hurd_video.c?rev=1.1&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup), - by chance?) It is correct however that not a lot of advanced drivers work, - due to missing DRM (Direct Rendering Manager) support. - -[[tschwinge]] thinks that the following one is a bit questionable... - - * *The GNU/Hurd only runs on legacy hardware*. {X} **Wrong**. The GNU/Hurd - is only tested on a few platforms, but it likely runs on modern processors. - If you want to see if it works for you, just test a - [[hurd/running/Live_CD]]. - -* *Hurd only supports legacy devices:* ½ Partly True: Currently most drivers are from Linux 2.0. For network cards, Linux 2.6+ drivers are available through DDE, though (needs manual setup for now). With a good amount of work, DDE also allows porting other classes of drivers to allow using the drivers from recent Linux releases — and push them into userspace. - -* *The Hurd has no SMP:* <u>✔ **True**</u>: Even though the **Hurd servers support SMP** and **GNU Mach has SMP support**. But the latter [[does_not_yet_have_drivers_for_nowadays_chipsets|faq/smp]], so the Hurd currently can’t take advantage of multiple cores. - -* *Developing a microkernel must be harder than developing a monolithic kernel, because the Hurd took so long:* ✘ **Wrong**: For the last decade, the Hurd had on average 5 hobby developers. That these developers managed to get the Hurd into a state where it actually gets not too far from the Linux kernel in performance — which has about 1000 developers, many of them full time — shows the efficiency of the Hurd’s design. - -* *Installation does not work:* ½ Partly True: Did you read the [[README|http://people.debian.org/~sthibault/hurd-i386/installer/cdimage/YES_REALLY_README.txt]] ([[file|http://xkcd.com/293/]])? Just like any beta piece of software, there are known pitfalls which you could easily avoid (or better, help to fix). You can also simply use the the [[preinstalled image|http://people.debian.org/~sthibault/hurd-i386/debian-hurd.img.tar.gz]]. - -* *The system is called GNU/GNU Hurd:* ✘ **Wrong**: The GNU userland (glibc, coreutils, …) and the GNU Hurd together form the GNU system. To avoid being mistaken for GNU/Linux, we normally use the name GNU/Hurd or GNU Hurd. The *correct* name is simply GNU. - -**Test results** - -The results of the test from Phoronix were quite good. We expected that the microkernel design of the Hurd would have a far more severe performance hit. - -Some possible explanations: - -* The tests were mostly CPU bound. -* IPCs [are no more such a problem on recent hardware][ipc]. - -And a non-explanation: - -* The emulation layer should rather make the context switches worse, so it’s likely not at play. - -[ipc]: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.51.16 - -"""]] - -<!-- - -slashdot - -and phoronix did some [performance tests of the Hurd][phorperf], -[phorperf]: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=debian_gnu_hurd&num=1 - ---- - -IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-08-24: - - < ArneBab> hurd related: I now think you were right, antrik: the hurd - rumors don’t belong into the news (tschwinge) - < antrik> ArneBab: you mean the postscriptum as a whole, or just the wild - rumours part?... - < ArneBab> the whole PS - < ArneBab> it should rather go into a blog post - < ArneBab> (in the wiki) - < antrik> hm... I don't think I agree - < ArneBab> why? - < antrik> apparently there is a number of people following the news now, - and apparently many of them misread some statements... it makes sense to - use the same channel for clarifying them I'd say - < ArneBab> hm, ok - < ArneBab> how would you select the part to include? - < antrik> roughly speaking, I'd include everything that actually relates to - the previous news that were misunderstood - < antrik> and drop all unrelated speculations that popped up - < antrik> BTW, it *might* be useful perhaps to actually update the original - news posting with the clarifications?... - < ArneBab> we can’t do that without breaking some peoples RSS feeds - < antrik> note that there is another aspect to consider: the fact that - several news sites picked it up is indeed genuine news by itself... - < ArneBab> that’s right, yes - < antrik> will it really break anything? from what I heard so far it just - means they will see the posting as new again, which would actually make - sense in this case... - < antrik> but I don't insist if you think it's too risky :-) - < antrik> just an idea - ---> |