If according to them the kernel is just an "essential, but tiny part of a complete operating system", then how come they haven't been able to produce one of their own in over 30 years?
They built a functional userland, but Hurd is still dogshit after all this time.
Until that changes, GNU/Linux is more "Linux" than it is "GNU".
If according to them the kernel is just an "essential, but tiny part of a complete operating system"...
Oliver Wright
Other urls found in this thread:
fuchsia.googlesource.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Jonathan Hill
Both GNU and Linux are great and there is no need to squabble.
Robert Sullivan
give me muh credit
Owen Ross
Because microkernels are hard.
Landon Lewis
Both GNU and Linux are bloated garbage and there is no need to use them.
Brayden Gray
writing kernel requires long-ass time
Jayden Long
Because Linux exists. They don't really need hurd if they can just deblob the Linux kernel.
Had Linux not come around, Hurd would have likely gotten a lot farther than it has. Hell, Linus himself even implied this sort of thing in the first linux message.
>I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones.
>I can (well, almost) hear you asking yourselves "why?". Hurd will be out in a year (or two, or next month, who knows), and I've already got minix.
GNU was working on stuff before Linux existed, but when Linux's popularity exploded and it got developed incredibly fast, GNU just kinda rolled with it and ditched HURD, attaching the userland they were creating for it to the Linux kernel and creating what we have today.
Brody Mitchell
>microkernel (or exokernel if you don't want to be obsolete on release)
>POSIX compliance
choose one
Adrian Martin
Just imagine if
A) Linux hadn't come around
or
B) HURD had never been attempted
we could be living in a land run by microkernels, which are vastly superior to monolithic kernels (at this point. don't meme at me with "but ipc is terrible with microkernels!" this is just not true anymore. All the issues with microkernels do not exist in current gen microkernels)
Eli Harris
>and yet none of them are usable
Jaxon Sanders
Well we do have Fuchsia coming up
fuchsia.googlesource.com
en.wikipedia.org
>Fuchsia is a capability-based operating system currently being developed by Google
>is based on a new microkernel called "Zircon", derived from "Little Kernel", a small operating system intended for embedded systems, which was developed by Travis Geiselbrecht, a creator of the NewOS kernel used by Haiku OS.
Chase Adams
stop the divide and conquer and lets support each other on a desktop workstation to rival the real enemies that are applel and microshit
Lucas Sanders
Because the FSF doesn't work on software to the same degree that it use to. I don't think they have enough developers. All there projects besides GCC are dead in the water or have been taken over by other organizations.
Jaxon Carter
10 dollarydoos say it's going to be a privacy nightmare
Ryan Davis
Easy - once there was Linux there was no need to reinvent Linux. Making a Linux clone just for the sake of name would be crazy even for GNU people. (Yeah, they're still working on Hurd but that's different - it's different architecture, probably more shitty and more difficult to implement.)
Austin Lee
explain "capabilities" to kernel newbie
Benjamin Phillips
>then how come they haven't been able to produce one of their own
There's no need for it, since there's already the Linux kernel.
Ayden Morales
This. The FSF is a fucking joke these days.
Blake Price
I'm not really clear on it, but this is what the link says:
>Capability-based security is a concept in the design of secure computing systems, one of the existing security models. A capability (known in some systems as a key) is a communicable, unforgeable token of authority. It refers to a value that references an object along with an associated set of access rights. A user program on a capability-based operating system must use a capability to access an object. Capability-based security refers to the principle of designing user programs such that they directly share capabilities with each other according to the principle of least privilege, and to the operating system infrastructure necessary to make such transactions efficient and secure. Capability-based security is to be contrasted with an approach that uses hierarchical protection domains.
See if you can make heads or tails of this
Aaron Perez
The kernel has the combined engineering efforts of the entire human species behind it. There's no stopping this train.
Ryder Turner
you mean driver collection