[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Tue, 31 Jan 2006 20:02:39 -0500
On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 01:21 +0100, address@hidden wrote:
> > In fact, I strongly agree with Olaf: Anybody who wants to help with
> > design issues should make sure they understand the Hurd on Mach well
> > enough to see the strengths and weaknesses.
> Now this surprises me. When I suggested a while back to point "idling"
> Hurd/L4 developers to take a look at Hurd/Mach, you were strongly
> against it. Am I missing something, or did you change your opinion on
I don't recollect that particular conversation, but maybe my
understanding at the time was that you meant "look at" to mean actively
developing it instead of (or in addition to?) contributing here. There
is a wide diversity of what "look at" can mean, and some of them I find
useful for anybody who wants to help, while others I find useful only if
specific needs exist. Maybe it was just a misunderstanding.
This has, from my point of view, nothing to do with the time scale,
although in each individual case it very well might. I think it is only
natural that, if you expect to be able to help redesigning the Hurd, you
should know what the Hurd is.