On Sun, 21 Dec 2003, Oded Arbel wrote:
> ???????? ?¨???©???? 21 ???¦?????¨ 2003, 07:20, ? ???×?? ?¢?? ?????? Behdad Esfahbod:
> > On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Diego Iastrubni wrote:
> > > linux? what linux?
> > >
> > > in 5 years i would like to use the hurd! :)
> >
> > What does the hypothetical hurd has promised you to do that you
> > like to use it?Is it the name that is better than linux? IMHO
> > forget about hurd.It's simply dead. Who's gonna write all
> > these drivers again?The best is that they need porting every
> > driver from linux to so called hurd which may be simply an
> > implementation of linux's internal interface... as hirds...
>
> I do believe that the hurd can offer a much better user experience then linux,
> for the home user as well as the hobist (don't know about buisness servers).
> the more extensible nature of the hurd's architecture and the much better
> designed API (well it was designed, which is usually better then "evolved"
> which is what the Linux API did) will probably make integration of system
> components much better then it is in Linux.
>
> The current status in Linux is a disaster. installation of a new hardware
> piece is ten times more difficult then in any other competing OS, even taking
> into account all the neat scripts that people write in order to circumvent
> the shortcomings of the kernel. (yes, I know 2.6 is much better then how it
> used to be, but its still not good enough).
>
I have to disagree on this one. So far, installing hardware on Linux was
very straightforward, and many times kudzu or harddrake did the job for
me. Plus, since Mandrake 7.2 I never had to re-compile the kernel, except
UML kernels for kernel development. (and once, when it turned out I did
not really need it). Most other operating systems are either Windows,
where backwards compatibility is kept, (even if it's sub-optimal) and
where hardware vendors make sure to produce their own working drivers, or
operating systems that run on other architectures besides i386, where
dealing with hardware is much simpler because of less diversity and more
a-priori knowledge. (including for Linux that runs there).
Is the situation considerably better in x86-based BSD systems?
And what are you referring by "shortcomings of the kernel"? What is wrong
with the kernel, exactly?
> Unfortunatly as other people have mentioned - the HURD is seriously lacking in
> developers, especially driver writers. Linux is to blame for most of that.
KImageShop is seriously lacking in developers, and the GIMP is to blame
for most of that. Can you blame people for wanting to contribute to a
fully functional, full-fledged working system that to something that does
not work yet, and has not for countless years?
And besides, I think that even with the few developers it has, the Hurd
should have been able to produce something working by now. So, I'm
inclined to think there's something fishy about its development or
codebase.
> and at this stage HURD developers had best put all their efforts into porting
> Linux drivers to HURD as this is the fastest route to getting more people to
> install HURD, get more testing done and get more developers in the project.
>
Agreed.
> In 5 years I hope to be using HURD on my primary computer, but I really hope
> it won't take 5 years.
>
The Linux kernel works for me, and for what I have to do with my computer.
It also works for a great deal of many other people who enjoy using the
GNU/Linux operating system. So, I'm not eagerly waiting for the Hurd. If
it ever matures and become more usable than Linux, I may switch to it. But
for the time being, I'll take Linux anyday.
> Oh, and in 5 years I'd also like to see the current XFree86 scrapped in favor
> of a better performing, better looking, easier to configure alternative.
> Fresco would be neat, but I'd settle for Keith Richard's work or getting
> everything to run on XDirectFB.
>
X does has its deficincies, yes. But it also something that is there, and
works.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Home Page: http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/
Writing a BitKeeper replacement is probably easier at this point than getting
its license changed.
Matt Mackall on OFTC.net #offtopic.
================================================================To unsubscribe, send
mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
