Re: A proposed Roadmap

[olafBuddenhagen]

Hi,

On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 10:24:05PM -0600, Michael Heath wrote:
> On 9/6/07, address@hidden <address@hidden> wrote:

> > 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.

I did, and in mode detail in fact than on IRC. The reference was just
for Steven to know that I am one of those who already replied on IRC.

> 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.

No -- what you are describing is the current situation. GNU is the
common base of all GNU/Linux distributions.

Releasing an "official" Linux-based GNU distribution wouldn't form a
common base for other GNU/Linux distributions. Rather, it would be a
direct competitor.

> 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.

No, that's not what I am saying. I am saying that once people are stuck
with something medicore but working, they have little inclination to
switch to something better. Switching always means immediate work and
giving up things one is used to, and people are very reluctant to do so,
even if they know it would save work in the long run. There must be
extremely strong inclination for a switch.

There must be even stronger inclination for a switch from to something
that is only potentially better due to better design, but for the time
being very rough and incomplete.

Think of oskit-mach. (Alias gnuamch2.) At it's time, it was generally
meant to be a step forward; soon to replace the existing gnumach. It was
believed to solve many of the existing problems, having a cleaner code
base and a more promising approach to drivers. (Well, it seemed more
promising at that time...)

oskit-mach was mostly complete; only little effort would have been
necessary to make it work for most people. Yet, most people preferred
putting effort into improving gnumach1.

Why was that? Because gnumach1 was already working for most people, and
if it didn't, there was only little missing to make it work for any
particular person. Although the total amount of work to make oskit-mach
work would probably have been considerably less than the sum of all
fixes and improvements to make gnumach1 work for everyone, for any
single person, it was much easier to make gnumach1 work. The medicore
solution prevailed.

The same would happen with a Linux-based GNU system. All the effort
would go into providing specific workarounds and fixed to make Linux,
and the system based on Linux, work for this or that specific purpose,
rather than working on the Hurd, which having a better design, would
avoid many of these problems in the first place.

The major reason why the Hurd still exists, is that it is the GNU kernel
-- the missing piece to release a complete GNU system. The moment GNU
officially embraces Linux as it's kernel by releasing a Linux-based GNU
distribution, the Hurd becomes history.

> 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.

Windows is not free. We do not care about it becoming better.

Also, as it's not free, more interest doesn't lead to improvement.

But that's totally beside the point anyways.

-antrik-