From e579e2aa506a773d553c5d20b4a7ffa28b0dd4b3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Schwinge Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 09:10:29 +0200 Subject: IRC. --- faq/how_many_developers/discussion.mdwn | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'faq/how_many_developers/discussion.mdwn') diff --git a/faq/how_many_developers/discussion.mdwn b/faq/how_many_developers/discussion.mdwn index 9fc44f25..6ca47c9a 100644 --- a/faq/how_many_developers/discussion.mdwn +++ b/faq/how_many_developers/discussion.mdwn @@ -8,7 +8,48 @@ 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, 2011-07-09 +# 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 -- cgit v1.2.3