[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: design goals vs mechanisms

From: Alfred M\. Szmidt
Subject: Re: design goals vs mechanisms
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 19:27:08 +0200

   Nope.  I mean what I said, and not the opposite of what I said.  This
   is usually true, unless I make a mistake.  In this case, I didn't.

Actually you you are mistaken.

   I do not dig into the internals of the FSF, so maybe my impression
   was wrong.  But I definitely remember that I saw something, maybe a
   quote or an announcement, which indicated that Linux was going to
   be the official GNU kernel.  This was in spring 2001.

Your claim makes no sense, if the Hurd was so darn broken in 2001,
then I fail to see how 150 commits later (in 2002) it was so fixed
that one could make a release of it.  You know that doesn't make any
sense right?

And I do not recall any such statment from RMS about ditching the
Hurd, only `our difficulties to debugin asynchrounus multithreaded

In other words, what you say happened, didn't happen.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]