[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Hurd/L4 active?

From: Shams
Subject: Re: Hurd/L4 active?
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 14:38:53 +1200


I read somewhere that instead of L4, Hurd could be using L4.Sec as the 
Is this still a possibility?

> rather an experimental/research subproject.

Why another subproject, why not just develop/experiment with the existing 

Btw who calls the shots at which microkernel Hurd is going to be using and 
the development
path for Hurd. Is it people like RMS, Thomas, Roland or who else or is no 
one incharge of this



<address@hidden> wrote in message 
> Hi,
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 07:21:53PM +1200, Shams wrote:
>> Is this project still active developed?
> The original Hurd/L4 project isn't developed anymore for quite a while
> now. There were some very fundamental problems with the original design.
>> Is the now the chosen microkernel for Hurd? If not then what kernel is
>> and what are the future development plans for Hurd.
>> I have also read about ngHurd, is this different code base then the
>> current Hurd.
> Since the death of the original Hurd/L4 port, this list has been used
> for discussions about a totally new design, often referred to as ngHurd.
> However, no code exists so far; and in fact it's still not clear what
> microkernel will be used for it, or how the design will look exactly.
>> If so then why can't we all just contribute to the same code base and
>> improve the existing Mach and Hurd and rather then forking another
>> Hurd project.
> This is not really meant as a Fork; rather an experimental/research
> subproject.
>> This will delay Hurd even more??
> Maybe, maybe not. Hard to tell. Some people are interested only in
> working on the existing (mostly working) codebase; some are interested
> only in the new ideas -- there is not that much conflict here I think.
> The main problem I see is that people can easily get the impression that
> the existing codebase is obsolete and it's not worthwhile to work on it
> -- which is totally wrong, and we should try to avoid such
> misconceptions as good as possible.
> On the other hand, the new ideas attract more interest in the Hurd in
> general, so it might actually be a net win even for the existing
> codebase...
> -antik- 

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]