Re: [OT]: Hurd microkernel portability.

On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 12:56:14PM +0600, Cherry George Mathew wrote: > But seriously, there's lots of us out there looking forward to a stable, > fast and efficient release of the GNU/Hurd. Press on, and good luck. > I'll see if I can marshall the resources to contribute in some humble > way. The

Re: [OT]: Hurd microkernel portability.

> Ah, you meant "Desktop/Server OS?". Well... ;-) > I meant "_The_ Desktop/Server OS !". :-) But seriously, there's lots of us out there looking forward to a stable, fast and efficient release of the GNU/Hurd. Press on, and good luck. I'll see if I can marshall the resources to contribute in som

Re: Unionfs

On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 07:06:09PM +0100, Moritz Schulte wrote: > Have fun/Happy hacking. I was just playing around with it a bit and glancing over the code; when compiling, I got the messages: gcc -o unionfs main.o node.o lnode.o ulfs.o options.o \ ncache.o netfs.o lib.o -lnetfs -lfshelp -lioh

GRUB 0.93 is released

I'm happy to announce the release of GRUB 0.93. This is the fourth of our prereleases leading up to GRUB 1.0. We encourage you to try it, as we have done a lot of bugfixes and feature enhancement since the previous release. The source and binary distributions are available from ftp://alpha.gnu.org

Re: [OT]: Hurd microkernel portability.

> > > It tickles to me read things like, "netbsd, the most portable OS in > > > the world", and stuff like that. > > Anything wrong with that? > GNU/Hurd ultimately needs to be 'THE OS'. We can't compromise on that, > can we ?? Why? GNU/Hurd is a great system, and it would be even better if more pe

Re: [OT]: Hurd microkernel portability.

Possibly you want to fix your mailer to appreciate `Reply-to' headers. On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 02:21:46AM +0600, Cherry George Mathew wrote: > start_possible_flame() > > GNU/Hurd ultimately needs to be 'THE OS'. We can't compromise on that, > can we ?? > > end_possible_flame(). I don't know wha

Re: [OT]: Hurd microkernel portability.

> > I'm not sure what you mean with `ripping up the libc library once > again'. > Quoting Neal below: > meet its requirements. In the Hurd, the primary users of ports are > libports and glibc. Sorry for the confusion. > Thank

Unionfs

Hello, after not doing any work on my former shadowfs implementation anymore for many months, I started working on a new implementation (`unionfs') few weeks ago. It is quite uncomplete at the moment and has not few problems. Compared with my former implementation, this one uses a completely n

Re: [OT]: Hurd microkernel portability.

On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 09:37:20PM +0600, Cherry George Mathew wrote: > Sorry to barge into the filesystems discussion, but I'm wondering > whether the hurd team has decided on what level exactly to bind the hurd > to a microkernel ? The last I heard of this on the l4-hurd list was a > discussion a

[OT]: Hurd microkernel portability.

Hello, Sorry to barge into the filesystems discussion, but I'm wondering whether the hurd team has decided on what level exactly to bind the hurd to a microkernel ? The last I heard of this on the l4-hurd list was a discussion about ripping up the libc library once again, I think by Farid Hajji or

Re: 2nd attemt at reviving the filesystem limit discussion.

Nicola Girardi wrote: If I remember correctly, a guy showed up and offered to write an ext3 server in a way so that it would not suffer that limit and maybe allow ACLs, then he went to the background. It would be nice if he could show up once more and tell us if he's doing any progress. I'm sti