Re: design goals vs mechanisms

[ness]

Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> At Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:08:36 +0200,
> ness <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > Yes. That is right. I really don't have a problem with redesigning the 
> > Hurd's architecture. I see this is necessary. But I don't think whether 
> > refining the goals is a good idea.
>
>
> Fair enough.  Maybe it helps if you say what you think the goals are
> (irregardless of who defined them), either by reference or in your own
> words.
>
> I am asking because I simply don't have a normative document which
> states "The goals of the Hurd are (a), (b) and (c)" and which then
> says what (a), (b) and (c) are.  This is not a trick question.  I
> really don't know.
You have pushed me into sth. I didn't expect. You say you have this huge 
trea and there's no real list of goals?
I can only quote the Hurd web page:

  it's free software
  it's compatible
  it's built to survive
  it's scalable
  it's extensible
  it's stable

> Once we have some explanation of what the goals are (or should be), we
> can take a closer look at them.  Here is my prediction: In all
> likelihood they will _underspecify_ the system.  Ie, they don't tell
> us everything we need to know to actually design and implement the
> Hurd system.  To fill those gaps, we have to add something.  And I
> think that "refinement" is one of the things you can add without
> breaking with the spirit of the goals.  (Actually, there is a chance
> you didn't want to say "refining" but "redefining".  I would agree
> with that.  I would not want to redefine the goals of the Hurd, unless
> that is supported by the whole project).
>
> Thanks,
> Marcus
--
-ness-