On 8/28/05, Jose E. Marchesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This is not a bad thing per se if you guys don't feel like working on
> Mach anymore, but it would probably be good to communicate this clearly
> to people either way, as some still seem to be interested in hacking on
> it.
>
> Since at least one of the two GNU maintainers for the Hurd (Marcus) is
> primarily working on the l4 port, perhaps would be a good idea to
> think on getting separate GNU maintainers for GNU Mach and GNU Mig.
moreover,
On 8/28/05, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As for Mach, no, I don't have time to answer whatever unasked
> questions someone might implicate in Mach. I see L4 as the future,
> and don't see a great deal value in spending my energy on Mach.
Being this the situation (Mach hacking considered a waste of time),
Jose's idea of having separate mantainers for GNU Mach and GNU Mig
becomes IMHO something that should really be taken seriously into
discussion.
Some people is still wasting energies with the only microkernel able
to boot the Hurd at the moment.
Thanks,
Gianluca
--
It was a type of people I did not know, I found them very strange and
they did not inspire confidence at all. Later I learned that I had been
introduced to electronic engineers.
E. W. Dijkstra
_______________________________________________
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
