Re: about GNU Hurd

[Michael Heath]

How is it that you tell me that GNU Mach is not fundamentally obsolete, and then go on (in the next few e-mails you sent out) to say that Linux already does everything Mach+Hurd do, and more, without suffering from the same problems? It seems to me that is the definition of being obsolete.

However:
Just because Linux is capable of surpassing a Hurd based system in its current (or even forseeable) capabilities, does not necessarily mean that Linux does this in the best way, or that it will continue to surpass potential future capabilities of the Hurd. Arguing against innovation because the status quo 'does everything we need' kills progress.

You say "Becuase nobody knows anything about it, not even the person(s) trying to do the reimplementation", but that is exactly the point of my comments. Until we sort exactly what it is that we're trying to do, we'll never get any good work done.

Michael Heath

On 9/3/07, Alfred M. Szmidt <address@hidden> wrote:

   I think the problem people face is: Why work on something that is
   already fundamentally obsolete or bad?

GNU Mach is not fundamentally obsolete or bad, I really do not
understand where people get this idea from.  Yes, it has bugs and
flaws, but then by the same account, Emacs is fundamentally broken and
we should stop working on it because it lacks mult-threading.

   Why not focus on the reimplementation you know has to come?

Becuase nobody knows anything about it, not even the person(s) trying
to do the reimplementation.