[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Changing from L4 to something else...

From: Alfred M\. Szmidt
Subject: Re: Changing from L4 to something else...
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 18:58:38 +0200

   Regrettably, Alfred has asked you a question out of context and
   without regard to fact. Nobody has proposed switching Hurd to
   EROS. As "the EROS guy" I would be inclined to advise strongly
   *against* such a plan.

Once again Jonathan you are on purpose misquoting me, nor was it out
of context.  Please, please! learn to read, I wrote that people are
_thinking_ about changing the kernel to something else, like EROS.  It
is a huge difference from purposing an actual change.  Nor was it I
who initiate the discussion with RMS, I was CCed and clarified why one

   Here is a more complete sense of what is going on over in l4-hurd
   land.  My suggestion is to let the group sort it out, and try not
   to let yourself be trapped by Alfred (or anyone else) into issuing
   opinions based on partial and misleading information.

And once again you continue your attacks at me, why can you not stop
that?  You continue your defamnation of me, just cut it out! I'm
getting sick and tired of your mud throwing.

    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.

   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?

   > I am against it--to keep changing platforms means never getting
   > it done.

   I agree. But the reality is that no feasible platform has been
   selected, and there is a bigger issue to consider: until Hurd
   figures out where it is going, it has absolutely no chance of
   getting there. Hurd must first determine the objectives and then
   choose the appropriate tools for the job.

The Hurd on Mach is feasible, it has always been feasible.  It works,
it works well right now, and one can fix it where it is broken.

reply via email to

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