[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Aw: Re: Reviewing Hurd-on-L4 (and considering its future?)

From: Nala Ginrut
Subject: Re: Aw: Re: Reviewing Hurd-on-L4 (and considering its future?)
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 17:45:41 +0800
User-agent: mu4e 1.1.0; emacs 25.1.1

Hi all!
I'm glad to see there's still people interested in keeping improving
Hurd with L4 family.

Personally, I don't think "free OS kernel" is still the key reason why Hurd
exists today. Because it is one of the free OS kernel of GNU OS now
(with less users), it's the true fact. In this context, RMS is right and
reasonable, if we just want to do more contribution to respect people's
freedom, it's better to contribute to other urgent project.

The key reason to me is "a better free OS kernel". Linux is very
successful, and I use it everyday. I'm interested in Hurd not because
Linux is not free enough, but because I want to see a better free OS
kernel. Is Linux perfect? Of course no. Is it possible to provide better
features in the current Linux architecture? I don't think so. For such
reason, why not give microkernel another chance?

Personally, I'm interested in seL4. Because it's formal verified, which
is proved to be safe in math.

I think if we start yet Hurd-on-L4, it should be rewritten from
scratch. And the aim is not to replace Linux or Hurd, but yet another
alternative to free kernel.


Arne Babenhauserheide writes:

>> Betreff: Re: Reviewing Hurd-on-L4 (and considering its future?)
>>  Forwarding my two replies sent directly to Paul and RMS to the list.
> When reading the reply by RMS, keep in mind that he is argumenting about 
> utility for the goal of ridding the world of the requirement to run 
> proprietary software - for any task.
> While I see the Hurd as great progress towards improving the Free Software 
> solutions by making it much easier to hack low-level components, this does 
> not replace existing proprietary lock-in. So in this, judging from existing 
> information without taking unproven assumptions, RMS is right, because we did 
> not demonstrate yet that it is easier to develop drivers on the Hurd than on 
> Linux.
> Widespread use of the Hurd might bring growth to low-level free software 
> development similar to how LLVM pushed language development (to name a pain 
> point) and how FUSE pushed filesystem development, but it also might not.
> I personally think that the Hurd provides a much stronger foundation for a 
> free software desktop than Linux. I already described that in detail on
>     Some technical advantages of the Hurd
> http://www.draketo.de/light/english/free-software/some-technical-advantages-of-the-hurd
> Best wishes,
> Arne Babenhauserheide
>> -----[ Begin original email ]------------- Original Message --------
>> From: Richard Stallman <address@hidden>
>> Sent: Tue, Jun 19, 2012 06:21 PM
>> To: Rick C. Hodgin <address@hidden>
>> CC:
>> Subject: Re: Replacement for the HURD
>>   With either Linux or the HURD (as the HURD stands today) we cannot ever
>>   get there. We cannot ever get to where we have a truly free operating
>>   system (kernel and up), even if we have the outward appearance and
>>   illusion of it.
>> I don't think that follows. Both Linux and Hurd _are_ free kernels.
>> The problem is that we lack free drivers and firmware for many peripherals.
>> Replacing the free code of Linux with some other free code won't get
>> us the drivers or the firmware. That requires writing drivers and firmware.
>> I simply don't see how replacing the free code of Linux with other free code
>> would make progress along that dimension.
>>   I realized at that time how easily I could write a competitor to
>>   Blender, or a 3D CAD system. I even looked into it a little bit, but
>>   saw how many CAD programs there were out there and thought I could not
>>   write one sufficiently better than what's available to make it worth the
>>   amount of time it would require.
>> The existing free CAD programs have a license incompatibility with GPLv3,
>> so it would be very useful to write a replacement. However, one of them
>> is trying to eliminate its license incompatibility, and that helping
>> that project do so would be very useful.

GNU Powered it
GPL Protected it
GOD Blessed it
HFG - NalaGinrut
Fingerprint F53B 4C56 95B5 E4D5 6093 4324 8469 6772 846A 0058

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

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