[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: design goals vs mechanisms

From: Marcus Brinkmann
Subject: Re: design goals vs mechanisms
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 20:28:52 +0200
User-agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.7 (Sanjō) APEL/10.6 Emacs/21.4 (i386-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)

At Thu, 27 Oct 2005 20:18:27 +0200,
ness <address@hidden> wrote:
> 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

Note that this is not a list of goals, it's a list of claims.  But
they can be made goals of course.  However, note that the current
_design_ (not only the implementation) does not deliver three of
these: It is not scalable, it is not stable, and it is not built to
survive.  I mean the latter in this way: The Hurd's foundation is
currently not flexible enough to extend the system in arbitrary
directions.  For example, it can't support flexible security policies.

It is free software, it is compatible, and it is extensible.


reply via email to

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