> Of course, I don't speak for Roland or Thomas. But as far as I > know, the direction of the Hurd has not changed at all. The > Hurd-on-L4 efforts are an evaluation of a new design. Until such > a design emerges as a viable alternative, there is nothing to > decide.
That's the point. Until that evaluation reaches something concrete and _feasible_, I don't see the need to stop Mach/Hurd development, IMHO both projects can work and follow its own way. I agree partially on the first bit, but I disagree that both projects can work at the same time. For the simple reason that Hurd/Mach and Hurd/L4 (or whatever) are two completely different systems, investing time in something that _will_ be ditched isn't something people want to do lightly. Remeber, it isn't a simple matter of migrating code from A to B. If it was, then all would be so much nicer. _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
