From 1dfd4e282f8fc61f1b8047d0e333d61091691e4c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Samuel Thibault Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 13:58:06 +0100 Subject: , does not actually work either. 0- should, really --- faq/0-how_many_developers/discussion.mdwn | 65 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 65 insertions(+) create mode 100644 faq/0-how_many_developers/discussion.mdwn (limited to 'faq/0-how_many_developers') diff --git a/faq/0-how_many_developers/discussion.mdwn b/faq/0-how_many_developers/discussion.mdwn new file mode 100644 index 00000000..8e4c487a --- /dev/null +++ b/faq/0-how_many_developers/discussion.mdwn @@ -0,0 +1,65 @@ +[[!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 + + Since apparently Hurd's aim is a very stable and transparent + system ...why aren't there any companies backing it up? + silver_hook: it's not in a state yet where it would be + commercially interesting + silver_hook: and after some epic failures in the 90s, few + companies dare to invest in microkernel development... + Isn't MacOS X running on top of Mach? + yes, but it's not a true microkernel system + for one, it's single-server, which is boring + also it uses co-location, i.e. runs all the system code in the + kernel address space -- they are separated only formally + even NT is more of a microkernel system I think + Oh, OK, I'm not that knowledgeable about kernels to know + that. + well, now you know :-) + Yup, thanks :) + most people don't know this, so don't worry + I was just wondering that it might be potentially an ideal + server system, right? + 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 :-) + however, it still remains to be proven that true (multi-server) + microkernel operating systems actually work for general-purpose + applications... + antrik: I mean regarding hosting or virtual servers. + so far, they are only successful in the much simpler embedded + space + 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 + 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 + + 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 + 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 + the Hurd doesn't almost work for anyone + actually, you should probably reread the whole paper. it's + essentially an analysis why the Hurd failed compared to Linux + + +# [[open_issues/mission_statement]] -- cgit v1.2.3