Re: A proposed Roadmap

[Sprink]

> There is just no point in releasing the GNU system based on Linux, to
> compete against the hundreds of existing GNU/Linux distributions.

 

Coming from someone who is not yet a real developer, but a long time GNU/Linux user, and free software supporter, I strongly disagree.  I think having a GNU/Linux distro who's goal is specifically for developing the hurd would have way more advantages than any other option. One of those advantages being the distributions goal, to work towards developing the real GNU OS. Me and I assume many others would be more encouraged to use this distro on a daily basis knowing it's goal is to develop the hurd and a real GNU OS than using any other Linux distro out there, regardless of its current shape, strictly because of its goal.  I've tried installing and running the the hurd at home, which seemed almost impossible, I know if I could have at least got it up and running, I would be helpful to the project, as I am technical enough to submit good bug reports, fix minor (easy) bugs, and be a additional user (supporter) of the GNU OS and the Hurd.
 

> And
> once it would be release with Linux, it would be virtually impossible to
> switch -- nobody would dare to go from a limited but perfectly working
> kernel to something rough and incomplete. There would be absolutely no
> chance of moving over to Hurd unless it's almost perfect -- but that
> won't ever happen, as with the GNU system already released with Linux,
> there would be even less inclination for people to work on the Hurd.

I don't agree with this either. When I first made the switch from Windows to Linux,Linux was not perfect, in fact, Windows worked a lot better for me. I had way more problems with Linux than windows, but that didn't stop me, because I was looking at the long run, and it felt good to know I was supporting free software, and I knew what the underlying goals and philosophy were that I was supporting just by using the software. I knew what the GNU License was, I knew what proprietary software was, I knew enough to know I would prefer to support GNU/Linux over windows, regardless if windows worked better for me. I knew if enough people used it, and supported it, it would improve, and we would have the best of both worlds (Software and Freedom). People would not use a GNU/Linux distro designed to be a road for the hurd to develop on unless they planned to use the hurd when it was released for testing in the distribution. There for, I see no reason for people to hesitate to use the Hurd over Linux, since it was their intentions for using the distribution in the first place.

> The GNU system would be totally irrelevant as just yet another GNU/Linux
> distribution, and the Hurd would be marginalised even more -- a perfect
> loss-loss situation.

It wouldn't be just another GNU/Linux distro, it would be a distribution aimed at developing the hurd and the GNU OS. That would be its main goal. People like me, and many others, who want to support the hurd, would choose to run this distribution, test it, talk about it, submit bugs, keep it active, and people who don't plan to use the hurd in the future, would not. There would be no users of this distribution who don't want to use linux instead of the hurd. I think just getting people involved in wanting to support the hurd, is a advantage in itself. Get people excited about the hurd and the GNU OS.
 

On 9/7/07, Michael Heath < address@hidden> wrote:

On 9/6/07, address@hidden <address@hidden > wrote:

Hi,

On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 01:07:26AM -0500, R. Steven Rainwater wrote:

> Problems 2 through 7 are solved in my proposed road map by releasing
> an initial version of the GNU OS that uses a 100% Linux kernel. Over
> time, we would transition to a 100% GNU Hurd kernel. This allows us to
> immediately resume work on the GNU OS and we can release a working
> version of the entire GNU OS very soon, perhaps within a year. My idea
> for the kernel transition is to go through several phases that would
> allow work to focus on specific tasks, each of which would move us
> closer to a 100% GNU Hurd kernel, while maintaining a completely
> usable GNU OS at each point in the transition.

As I already said on IRC, this suggestion is totally out of the question
IMHO.

First, please remember that a good number of people subscribed to this list and replying to discussion on it are not in whatever IRC channel you're talking about. If there is a relevant discussion or opinion, write it/re-write it here, don't just talk about it like the matter is settled and done without ever talking about the matter.

There is just no point in releasing the GNU system based on Linux, to
compete against the hundreds of existing GNU/Linux distributions. And
once it would be release with Linux, it would be virtually impossible to
switch -- nobody would dare to go from a limited but perfectly working
kernel to something rough and incomplete. There would be absolutely no
chance of moving over to Hurd unless it's almost perfect -- but that
won't ever happen, as with the GNU system already released with Linux,
there would be even less inclination for people to work on the Hurd.

If you notice, you call these operating systems GNU/Linux. Why? Because they are theoretically _based on the GNU operating system_. GNU would not be competing with these things, it is what all of these things have in COMMON. Providing a consistent base operating system would allow for greater compatibility and continued innovation in the GNU operating system.

I don't understand your argument about how "there would be absolutely no chance of moving over to the Hurd unless it's almost perfect". You're basically saying people shouldn't use software that works well because it discourages interest in software that doesn't. How about GNU vs Windows? Using your same logic, one could argue that no one should switch to GNU, because then there will be less interest in Windows and the problems in that system will take longer to fix.

And, even if we do switch, why would it discourage interest in the Hurd? The vast majority of GNU based systems already run Linux as the kernel, and yet we're still here, working on the Hurd, discussing it. If anything, a stable, complete GNU system would provoke more interest in the Hurd+a mirokernel, as it would be seen as a 'next generation' kernel, rather than the poorly written, poorly maintained weird project that so many people see it as now.

The GNU system would be totally irrelevant as just yet another GNU/Linux
distribution, and the Hurd would be marginalised even more -- a perfect
loss-loss situation.

No; see above. A stable GNU system could be a powerful, standardized base for GNU software distributions.

Really, there is absolutely no point in releasing the GNU system with
Linux as the kernel. It would bring no good at all.

> This leads us to Phase 2, where we do something similar to the L4Linux
> project; we create a single server Linux running on top of the
> selected GNU microkernel. Once stable enough, this goes into the GNU
> OS distro where it can be used heavily by real users. This sort of
> real world use should help improve the microkernel and identify any
> bugs.

That doesn't work. Mach also was tested for a long time with
single-server systems. The real problems showed only when people
actually tried building proper (multiserver) microkernel systems on top
of it.

-antrik-