Talk:GNU Hurd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the GNU Hurd article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Move to "HURD"?

The word "hurd" also means a part of a fibrous plant (the other part being called "bast"). I think therefore that the OS kernel should be put at HURD, since it's an acronym. -phma

More like a backronym -- like Perl, in all official documentation it is spelt "Hurd" not "HURD". The FAQ says that HURD is incorrect, but they won't take their tongue out of their cheek long enough to tell us why. In case you didn't know, "gnu" is another name for wildebeest, so you can probably guess the etymology. The biology usage should be dealt with in the standard way. -- Tim Starling 01:47 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Update release date?

The article mentions that rms was planning on releasing GNU OS before the end of 2002. I guess this should be updated

Why? if he indeed was planning for a 2002 relase but failed why is that not good information to put there? or have i misunderstood something that you said? Did you perhaps mean that he also planned a 2003 and 2004 release but also failed there? --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 11:42, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)
Alfred M. Szmidt, the maintainer of the GNU system, has announced GNU 0.3 for March. Moreover, note there are some 0.x "releases" on ftp.gnu.org. --sdschulze 12:09, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
somehow an anually repeated "it'll be released later this year" enters my mind, but I am not sure if this was really Hurd. If so, something like this should be put into the article, because this is some kind of running gag in geek circles. --Deelkar 07:20, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Maybe a link to vaporware would be appropriate. I actually came to this page from that one.

[edit] Move page?

I suggest this page be moved, see Talk:GNU/Hurd --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 14:00, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)

If it is moved, I think a disambiguation page should be placed here with "Hurd_(plant)" and "GNU Hurd". Markvs 01:57, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Link?

Hi, I have written an interesting article about Hurd on Wikinerds. It is already linked from Wikinews. If you believe it should be also linked from the Wikipedia article, please feel free to add a link. If you think it shouldn't be linked from Wikipedia, raise your objections now because I will add the link myself after a week or so. NSK 06:04, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see no problem. Unfortunately, your link had been removed without any comment. I have re-added it. Please answer here before removing it again. This article has made numerous news site and has always been considered as very interesting. --ManuelMenal 00:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Mac OS X's kernel (XNU) is not a microkernel (the article says it is) - it was based on Mach 2.5, not Mach 3.0

[edit] Confusing statement

“Being built on top of a Microkernel the Hurd inherits the architecture of these systems. This implies that the drivers for the hardware will have to work in the Microkernel space, and probably they will have to be compiled inside.” …what? Sounds like a confusion of microkernels and monolithic kernels, but might be trying to say something sensible in an unclear way. -Ahruman 11:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

deleted. i see no sense in either sentence. whomever can come back and be clearer if they were trying to say something WP:notable and sensible. AND/OR hash it out here on the talk page. - Lentower 12:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vaporware?

No troll, please.

HURD is well known for it abysmally long development time. Should I add [[category:vaporware]] (real question)?
David Latapie (✒ | @) 20:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

« Vaporware (or vapourware) is a term applied to software or hardware which is announced by a developer well in advance of release, but which then fails to emerge ».
As the GNU Hurd has had three releases so far, it's not a vaporware. It may some common characteristics — like deception — but it's not the same thing. Manuel Menal 08:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Deception is a strong word. The delay is probably due to overenthusiasm and not anticipating how hard the remaining work will be. Both are common problems in software development. Lentower 11:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradictory

At the end of "development history", it is claimed "there is no focus on L4 any more". However a little further up, and also in the next section it is also claimed that work "efforts are under way to port the Hurd to the more modern L4 microkernel". The Hurd/L4 article says something different again. --130.102.0.178 06:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I've fixed this, so I removed the tag. Let us know if it's still contradictory. Gronky 11:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] commented discussion moved here

In the article, there was this:

<!-- Really. OS X and *Step do not and never did use Mach as any sort of microkernel. --> <!-- Don't they? I think running some FreeBSD potions and I/O Kit at the same time as Mach doesn't really effect Mach as such. -->

These conversations should be had here on the Talk page. Gronky 11:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We need to improve the information layout

The article was recently found to be contradictary, and I think I know how that happened. Some development decisions are discussed in "development history", and others are discussed in the "architecture" section. This happens because those topics overlap. It can be fixed by choosing two non-overlapping section topics. So all the Mach/L4/Coyotos stuff should be in one section and only one section. If it has to be mentioned in another section, that section should step back from the details, maybe by just noting that the underlying microkernel changed a few times. Gronky 13:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've moved stuff around so that each topic is in one place. I might have introduced other inconsistencies while doing so, but I think this puts the article in the right direction at least. Gronky 13:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relevent url

Don't have time to write up nicely right now :) http://www.coyotos.org/docs/ukernel/spec.html#frontmatter-2.2

—Hobart 17:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition MAKES NO SENSE

How can the "GNU" have a kernel? It's like saying its a kernel for the GPL? What does it run on? Brain cells? Really. Is it a clustering kernel for multiple PC's so they run as one, or what? Please clarify! People come here looking for answers, not cryptic clues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tunasashimi (talk • contribs) 09:07 22 April, 2007 (UTC)

And it is not a cryptic clue: it is exactly what it means. What you call "GNU" is the GNU project, I guess. The aim of the GNU project is to create a free operating system for anyone: and this operating system is called by the FSF: GNU. Today almost all GNU operating systems use the Linux kernel, thus being GNU/Linux systems. But Linux is not the official GNU kernel, while Hurd/insert_microkernel_here should be, at least in theory. --Cyclopia 07:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Wheras in practice its apparently even incompatible with the latest version of thier own bloody C library! ( http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2007/05/msg00116.html ) Plugwash 18:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] citation of Linus Torvalds

I beleave that this citation has it's place somewhere in the article--80.201.79.196 10:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

“ In short, just say NO TO DRUGS and maybe you won't end up like the Hurd people. ”
Can you provide a reference where you found the quote? --Android Mouse 03:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Speaking for myself, I first saw that quote in some Hurd docs I was reading. --Gwern (contribs) 04:06 7 June 2007 (GMT)
The quote can be found here. I don't think it should be included in the article, though. Manuel Menal 08:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Given Linus's history and position as developer of a rival kernel, it would be a bit like quoting the President of Burger King on the quality of Macdonald's products. --Tony Sidaway 20:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm against including this quote because it's irrelevant and stupid, but your argument is not valid, however it's a perfectly nice example of an ad hominem argument. Congrats! -- AdrianTM (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Conflict of interest is a perfectly valid argument against inclusion. The statement that Linus is developer of a kernel in no way reflects badly on him, but does prejudice his opinion of rival kernels. --Tony Sidaway 21:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I cook good steak does that impede me to judge a steak that I eat into a restaurant? Does that prejudice my opinion of other cooks? And what's the competition about, if Hurd gets more users Linus is not going to "sell" Linux anymore, it's laughable. -- AdrianTM (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this discussion is getting ridiculous. Let's leave it there. --Tony Sidaway 22:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree, but have to apologize for the tone (sorry, I've been cranky today) -- AdrianTM (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
You can call it conflict of interest, if you want to characterize it that way, but it could be equally characterized as a witty quote from the fellow, who, with his Usenet buddies, got so tired of waiting for GNU Hurd (and FreeBSD) to get to a released/usable state that he went and wrote a little thing called the Linux kernel. I think that's a very relevant and interesting quote; where else in the article do you get a sense of the low esteem GNU Hurd is held in by a portion of the FLOSS world? --Gwern (contribs) 05:29 25 January 2008 (GMT)
Linus avowedly wrote the Linux kernel as a hobby[1]--he already had Andrew Tannenbaum's minix kernel. I agree that HURD is regarded as, at best, an embarrassing irrelevancy due to its high promises and poor delivery, but there are probably other ways of illustrating this than by quoting a flippant remark by the developer of a rival kernel. --Tony Sidaway 11:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I've redone Slrubenstein's removal of a large section on Torvalds. It isn't appropriate to dwell at length on the opinion of a single person (who moreover is not, in fact, associated with the GNU project in any way, though that isn't the point here in my opinion.) --Tony Sidaway 20:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Linus Torvalds is "a single person" in the same way that Richard Stallman and Andrew Tanenbaum are each "a single person". They're all individuals whose high profile and respected opinions on the topics of their expertise are worthy of consideration. Stallman's picture is the first image in the Linux article and Tanenbaum's critical comments are given appropriate treatment there - there's even a MINIX section that discusses his work. Given Torvalds' stature and his occasional statements that he wouldn't have written Linux if the GNU kernel had existed at the time, I think his comments are appropriate for this article. Factwhen did a nice job (over the course of 11 edits, occasionally reconsidering the text) of summarizing Torvalds' comments, managing to get them down to exactly one sentence and giving Stallman the last word (in fact, more words than Torvalds). Factwhen's Motivation section is entirely appropriate and should be restored ASAP. RossPatterson (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that "not 100% free" makes much sense, or I guess it depends on how you define "freedom", Linux is covered by GPL v2 license and that's a "free software license" as it was promoted by Free Software Foundation itself. Firmware and binary only drivers are not part of the kernel (and BTW, Linus talked many times against binary only drivers). -- AdrianTM (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree there. With the Linux kernel being free this is a non-issue. There are good arguments for a HURD-style kernel but they're primarily technical and (increasingly as Linux thrives and BSD is now free of the infamous advertising clause and thus free too) academic. --Tony Sidaway 20:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: Motivation section

Ross Patterson says:

Factwhen's Motivation section is entirely appropriate and should be restored ASAP.[2]

I've looked at that section. In its last version, it reads as follows:

Linus Torvalds has been at times a prominent deprecator of Hurd, citing the lack of progress on the project. In response, Stallman has asserted that the lack of intellectual property issues and legal liability offered by Hurd will attract a sufficient audience to justify the investment of effort involved.[3]

Trouble is, I've read that cited article and Stallman says nothing of the sort. In fact he only mentions HURD in passing ("In 1992, the GNU system was complete except for the kernel. (Our own kernel project, started in 1990, was going slowly.) In February 1992, Linus Torvalds changed the license of Linux, making it free software.")

Notice here that Stallman actually says that the Linux kernel is free software. He elaborates: "The kernel Linux filled the last major gap in GNU; the combination, GNU/Linux, was the first free operating system that could run on a PC" though he also laments that "But this achievement is precarious. There are hundreds of GNU/Linux distros, and nearly all include some non-free software."

We cannot include a section in the article that misrepresents its source so grossly. --Tony Sidaway 21:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, Factwhen is a banned user. banned means they cannot edit Wikipedia. period. If this article can be improved on I am sure plenty of other editors (like Tony) have good ideas about how to do it. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
As Ross has reinserted the "Motivation" section, I've called a RFC to get some other views on this. --Tony Sidaway 22:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Ross has apparently decided that it doesn't hold up, and removed it. I've closed the RfC. --Tony 07:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1Gb limit

At one time Hurd had a limit of 1Gb per disk partition. I understand that this was due to an early design decision which connected the partition size to the address size of a 32 bit processor (yes, I know that would be 4Gb). This limitation seems to have been removed. It would be interesting to include some information on this story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.201.253 (talk) 22:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hurd as a Kernel?

Kernels don't need kernels. They are kernels. Damncrackmonkey (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)