[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Hurd status
From: |
Oz |
Subject: |
Re: Hurd status |
Date: |
Wed, 29 Dec 2010 06:05:38 -0600 |
ok thanks i understand better now
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 12:17 AM, <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 09:57:03AM -0600, Oz wrote:
>
>> why don't the hurd hackers take some short cuts and turn the gnu
>> kernel to a monolithic kernel and cut some corners like Linux instead
>> of trying to create the perfect kernel which will never reach a highly
>> usable status.
>
> That would be a pointless exercise. Several free (monolithic) kernels
> already exist; there is no need to create another one. The reason we
> still work on the Hurd is that we believe the architecture offers unique
> benefits. If we can't make it work as a microkernel system, there is no
> use in working on it at all.
>
> BTW, we are not trying to create a perfect kernel (well, most of us
> aren't :-) ) -- just something that is superior to current mainstream
> kernels in certain regards.
>
> -antrik-
>
>
- Viengoos still active?, Dok Sander, 2010/12/05
- Re: Viengoos still active?, Neal H. Walfield, 2010/12/05
- Re: Viengoos still active?, Oz, 2010/12/07
- Hurd status (was: Viengoos still active?), olafBuddenhagen, 2010/12/26
- Re: Hurd status (was: Viengoos still active?), Oz, 2010/12/26
- Re: Hurd status (was: Viengoos still active?), Bjartur Thorlacius, 2010/12/26
- Re: Hurd status (was: Viengoos still active?), William ML Leslie, 2010/12/26
- Re: Hurd status, olafBuddenhagen, 2010/12/28
- Re: Hurd status,
Oz <=
- Re: Hurd status, Parantapa Bhattacharya, 2010/12/30
- Re: Hurd status, Arne Babenhauserheide, 2010/12/30
- Re: Hurd status, Oz, 2010/12/31