On 10/27/05, Alfred M. Szmidt <address@hidden> wrote:
2. Hurd can try to establish a forward looking vision that makes
sense from where we stand now in 2005.
Which will delay the release of the GNU system until 2030.
Yeah, possibly. I won't comment on this, because I don't fully understand all of the Hurd yet either. I think we should look forward, but we should be doing a cost-benefit analysis at the same time and base some of our decisions off of it. I can't speak for Alfred, but I think that's what he really wants. I think Alfred wishes to remain practical. Not that I think anyone else here is impractical, but I think a cost-benefit analysis is a practical way to determine if the project can be done in a reasonable amount of time with whatever goals we decide.
The realistic choices today would be L4.sec (the L4 successor) or
Coyotos (the EROS successor). Both remain works in progress, but
both will complete fairly soon, and at least one of these groups
has demonstrated that it is willing to collaborate effectively and
usefully with the Hurd team.
That was said about L4, L4.X2, now it is said about
L4.sec, and
Coyotos. What if tomorrow it is decided that Coyotos/EROS and L4.sec
are bad solutions? L4.sec isn't even out yet, how do you know that it
will meet whatever goals are set today?
It would suck if they decided not to cooperate. In that case, though, why can't we fork the code into a GNU project? Those projects, AFAIK, are open source. I know this sounds like overhead we don't want, but we already have GNU Mach, which is already maintained by GNU.
--
William M. Grim
Student, Souther Illinois University at Edwardsville
Unix Network Administrator, SIUE, CS. Dept.