The lack of direction is annoying. Marcus and I had this long conversation on IRC about the Hurd, Hurd on Mach, Hurd on L4 and Hurd on whatever else, the future, the past and everything inbetween.
Right now Hurd on L4 seems to be dead as a stone, more so than Hurd on Mach. And it will require a total redesign, total rewrite of everything, and what not. People are confused where to spend their time and have become more so now that Hurd/L4 might not even be a viable choice. Should time be spent on the currently working Hurd/Mach, should it be spent on the non-existant Hurd/L4, or should it be spent on the Hurd/something-that-doesn't-even-exist-yet? Marcus answer was `that is up to each and one to decide'. This is completely inappropriate from someone who is a co-maintainer. Right now we have two projects that try to achive the same goal while being totally incomaptible with each other, and there is a chance that yet another alternative comes a long that is incompatible with both of the previous efforts. So I'm asking the maintainers (Roland, Thomas) what the heck is the direction of the Hurd is or should be. If it is the Hurd/Mach, then Hurd/L4 should be dropped completely, if it is Hurd/L4, then Hurd/Mach should be dropped compltely, or if it is Hurd/something-that-doesn't-even-exist. _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
