On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:20 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 08:43:43PM +0200, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 10:25 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I think Marek's work is interesting on several levels. For one, Mach > > > was originally created by taking a BSD kernel, throwing out the UNIX > > > stuff, and implementing some generic primitives (IPC, external pager > > > interface) instead. Doing the same with a modern BSD kernel actually > > > seems the most pragmatic approach to getting a modern Mach... > > > > Hm, interesting. Do you think this can be adopted as a basis for a > > full-blown strategy of modernizing the Hurd and making it more > > interesting to ordinary users? >
> Not sure what you mean... > I mean, should we adopt the idea of taking a BSD kernel, throwing out UNIX stuff, and implementing generic primitives as a possible roadmap. Working in this direction we could possibly obtain a modern microkernel (as you've said), capable of running modern device drivers. Can we treat this as a plan to achieve success? > The second question is that the emulation of Hurd on a different > > platform may once prove to be less error-prone that the Hurd itself > > (correct me if I am wrong, please), so can we consider the possibility > > that at a definite moment more attention will belong to the emulation > > layer and it will become the *main* thing, instead of the Hurd? > > As I said, I do hope that seeing a partial Hurd environment do > interesting stuff, would make people get an appetite for the full-blown > Hurd. > > But if it doesn't -- if it turns out people are entirely happy running a > partial Hurd -- I wouldn't consider this a problem. It would just show > that perhaps a native Hurd is not really necessary... > > Keep in mind that I don't consider the Hurd an end to itself, but rather > the means to achieve certain goals. If it turns out that these goals can > be achieved while running on top of a traditional system, that's fine > with me. > That's clear; I see your position is a wise one: you stick to the idea itself rather than to some implementation of it. Note that a third variant is possible: If people indeed begin using a > Hurd layer on top of some other system on a wider scale, they will be > interested in enhancing that underlying system more and more to make the > Hurd layer run as well as possible; eventually resulting in something > that can be considered native as well -- only that it is created in an > evolutionary process starting from something existing, rather than > written from scratch. Perhaps this is indeed the smarter approach, in > view of today's free software world... > This indeed must be a clever idea. To your knowledge, are their any existing solutions that were achieved using this top-down approach (as massimo s. calls it)? I feel a bit tired to remember any... In any case, if people see the benefits of a partial Hurd environment, > we are in a much better position to argue the advantages of a system > following the Hurd design throughout -- there is nothing to loose here > really. > Aha, I see. Thanks for explanation :-) Regards, scolobb
