> 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.
It depends on what the people doing the work think is the most profitable way to spend time. There were people excited about work on L4; if that is no longer true, then what? There were such people, I am/was one of those people. My personal feeling is that L4 is cool, but Mach is simply more feasible to get to a point where it would be useful and decent. Right now it seems that there is a revived interest in Mach (bunch of crazy Spanish speaking people, you know who you are), and a declining interest in L4 which has been redirected at `yet another microkernel'. Thanks Thomas, and nice to see you around! _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
