1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
|
[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2010 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]]."]]"""]]
[[!tag open_issue_documentation]]
This should be integrated into [[/contributing]].
---
Every now and then, people show up who have an inward urge to contribute to the
GNU Hurd, but have some difficulties about how to do that.
For example, IRC, #hurd, 2010-10-06:
<rah> I find it difficult to find the will to contribute to the hurd while hurd != hurd-ng
<pochu> hurd-ng?
<pochu> ah, http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd/ng.html
<pochu> rah: you may want to work on achieving that then
<rah> pochu: I'm not in a position to do OS research
<antrik> rah: if you are not into OS research, why do you need it to be ngHurd? :-)
<rah> antrik: I don't want to work on software which I know is already obsolete
<tschwinge> rah: My position on that can be found here; you may want to think about it. http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2007-07/msg00111.html
<antrik> rah: the existing Hurd implementation is not any more obsolete than any other large software project
<antrik> there are always things that could be redone in a better way some time in the future
<antrik> but we have to start somewhere
<antrik> software development is a dynamic process
<antrik> trying to come up with a perfect design before you write any code will never lead anywhere, ever
<rah> antrik: of course, but when you know your start is wrong, have identified its problems, and are in the process of designing a second attempt, working on the first seems pointless
<antrik> rah: well, do you know all these things? because I do not
<antrik> what the experiments with new Hurd designs proved so far is that nobody is in a position to claim, "I have a better design"
<antrik> it's not hard to come up with a design that is better in some points -- but it's damn hard to come up with one that's not lacking in others
<antrik> the existing Hurd design is actually the only one which we *know* to work
<antrik> while research on improving the design is certainly beneficial, it's not like there is something new ready to replace the existing design at any moment
<antrik> and frankly, I'm more and more convinced that only iterative changes can ever result in any real improvement
<antrik> (and doing these changes requires a certain momentum, which we will never gain unless we actually have something usable first)
<LarstiQ> rah: afaik, not much is being done of designing another attempt
<rah> antrik: yes, I know all these things
|
