On 9/6/07, address@hidden <address@hidden
> wrote:Hi,
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 01:07:26AM -0500, R. Steven Rainwater wrote:
> Problems 2 through 7 are solved in my proposed road map by releasing
> an initial version of the GNU OS that uses a 100% Linux kernel. Over
> time, we would transition to a 100% GNU Hurd kernel. This allows us to
> immediately resume work on the GNU OS and we can release a working
> version of the entire GNU OS very soon, perhaps within a year. My idea
> for the kernel transition is to go through several phases that would
> allow work to focus on specific tasks, each of which would move us
> closer to a 100% GNU Hurd kernel, while maintaining a completely
> usable GNU OS at each point in the transition.
As I already said on IRC, this suggestion is totally out of the question
IMHO.
First, please remember that a good number of people subscribed to this list and replying to discussion on it are not in whatever IRC channel you're talking about. If there is a relevant discussion or opinion, write it/re-write it here, don't just talk about it like the matter is settled and done without ever talking about the matter.
There is just no point in releasing the GNU system based on Linux, to
compete against the hundreds of existing GNU/Linux distributions. And
once it would be release with Linux, it would be virtually impossible to
switch -- nobody would dare to go from a limited but perfectly working
kernel to something rough and incomplete. There would be absolutely no
chance of moving over to Hurd unless it's almost perfect -- but that
won't ever happen, as with the GNU system already released with Linux,
there would be even less inclination for people to work on the Hurd.
If you notice, you call these operating systems GNU/Linux. Why? Because they are theoretically _based on the GNU operating system_. GNU would not be competing with these things, it is what all of these things have in COMMON. Providing a consistent base operating system would allow for greater compatibility and continued innovation in the GNU operating system.
I don't understand your argument about how "there would be absolutely no chance of moving over to the Hurd unless it's almost perfect". You're basically saying people shouldn't use software that works well because it discourages interest in software that doesn't. How about GNU vs Windows? Using your same logic, one could argue that no one should switch to GNU, because then there will be less interest in Windows and the problems in that system will take longer to fix.
And, even if we do switch, why would it discourage interest in the Hurd? The vast majority of GNU based systems already run Linux as the kernel, and yet we're still here, working on the Hurd, discussing it. If anything, a stable, complete GNU system would provoke more interest in the Hurd+a mirokernel, as it would be seen as a 'next generation' kernel, rather than the poorly written, poorly maintained weird project that so many people see it as now.
The GNU system would be totally irrelevant as just yet another GNU/Linux
distribution, and the Hurd would be marginalised even more -- a perfect
loss-loss situation.
No; see above. A stable GNU system could be a powerful, standardized base for GNU software distributions.
Really, there is absolutely no point in releasing the GNU system with
Linux as the kernel. It would bring no good at all.
> This leads us to Phase 2, where we do something similar to the L4Linux
> project; we create a single server Linux running on top of the
> selected GNU microkernel. Once stable enough, this goes into the GNU
> OS distro where it can be used heavily by real users. This sort of
> real world use should help improve the microkernel and identify any
> bugs.
That doesn't work. Mach also was tested for a long time with
single-server systems. The real problems showed only when people
actually tried building proper (multiserver) microkernel systems on top
of it.
-antrik-