Re: about GNU Hurd

[jemarch]

   I think the problem people face is: Why work on something that is already
   fundamentally obsolete or bad? Why not focus on the reimplementation you
   know has to come?

   And because questions of what that reimplementation is and how people can
   help with it keep being answered with "I don't knows", "Don't you worry
   about that", or half answers, people aren't excited to help with anything.

   Other projects have a clear road map, clear set of design goals, and a clear
   structure on who is in charge of what - why doesn't the Hurd and associated
   projects?

   Road maps are important. I meet people every day who are absolutely
   convinced that the Hurd doesn't even exist, really - that there is no usable
   implementations of, that it doesn't boot, or do anything useful. Road maps
   can give people a clear idea of what your projects existing capabilities
   are, and also tell them whats going to come in the future and when it can be
   expected.

100000% agreed.

If we are sure we need HURD-NG, it is no-sense to work in Hurd on
gnumach anymore. To ask people to work in Hurd on gnumach is then to
ask hackers to work in something that wont be useful.

If we are sure we need HURD-NG, lets call it HURD, stop the
development of the current Hurd on gnumach, write new webpages, make a
new development group able to help Marcus, and replace the current
project. Having people working in the current Hurd project waiting for
rumours about the new microkernel doesnt seems very logic to me.