GNU/Hurd ?
 

Dear all,

don't we want to have a nice little chat about GNU/Hurd, maybe the system of the next generation ?

Has anybody installed-used it ? What are impressions-feelings ?

Devoted as I am to the GNU/FSF philosophy, I must confess i've never tried it yet. Presently Debian GNU/HURD seems to be the only usable version of this kernel.

it seems that the system is available since last year

http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd.html

i'm surprised that this has not yet become the only preoccupation of all seniors.

i'm surprised that this has not yet become the only preoccupation of all seniors.
Since *you* noticed that, then *you* better do something about it, right?
GNU/Hurd isn't a Linux distribution so this thread moves to /General.

I installed Debian GNU/HURD a few months ago. It's still not particularly mature and there were things notably not working. Nonetheless I read that about half (maybe more) of the Debian packages work on it. To be honest, in terms of features in the kernel, HURD is probably so far behind the Linux and various BSD kernels that it will probably never see particularly wide-spread use. By the time it catches up (such a thing is possible) people will probably be migrating to something newer and shinier. HURD has been "almost ready" since about the late 1980s ... I'll believe it when I see it.

It's a great idea but it seems to be in permanent beta. It doesn't have a huge base of developers to push it forward either as far as I can tell.

hurd is quite small and you dont need to "install" it(which is good) ... but on my first attempt shes asking why my net card does not fall on certain address ... i told hurd "hey ... things are not as interesting as before ... you are shelved ..."(ok , not really)

cool ...


.

as i see it, hurd is richard stallman's desperate attempt to get people away from the linux kernel. sure the guy must be pissed-off that most (nearly all) distros dont even feature the word "GNU" in them, instead they are called linux.

i wont call it a waste of time though. competition is healthy, but i dont want the gnu/hippie gang trying to shove hurd in my face all the time.

Criticize RMS as you have the right to do so. But consider that today maybe you and I wouldn't be using LQ.org or Linux if it weren't for RMS and his movement in the eighties and nineties for GNU and Free Software.

They laid the foundation. Linux would have remained an obscure university project without the underlying support of GNU.

I fail to understand why this generation of Linux users are so rabidly anti-RMS. Sure, he's had his fair share of controversy, but he is the guy who masterminded the concept of copyleft and stood up for the rights of Free Software users all these years and if today I am able to use Linux, it owe it to his movement which united all these talented programmers under one banner to produce this wonderful alternative to proprietary Unix.

Without the GNU movement, the Linux kernel could have easily been swallowed by some major corporation and it would probably be another proprietary Unix today. Don't underestimate the power of ideology.

The way Linus thinks about GNU, FSF, GPL and his own Linux system is very different from the way RMS and the FSF see it.

Here's a nice example from Groklaw about the different visions between Free software(RMS) and Open Software(linus) on the GPL:
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?m...465722#c465745

While I absolutaly don't agree with Linus on this, his posting style is still as entertaining as always.
The admin from Groklaw even had to apologize for editing one of his post for being to abusive...:
It's good example (and a funny read) to understand the moral differences between RMS/FSF and Linus (that is sadly dividing the "GNU" Linux world.


OT: As for Hurd, I'm already using it as a hobby for a long time. It's really not that bad, but still lacks features(only very few hardware is supported), stability and most of all, ...programmers.
I also doubt whether the need for a micro kernel still exists (for the desktop, that is).

Reviving an old topic
 

I switched to Linux because of Stallman's essays and other fun literature. When I finished reading "Free Software, Free Society," I switched to GNU/Linux, learned how to operate GCC and joined LQ all in one fell swoop. Plus, I signed up for the EFF, FSF, GNU, and my school's LUG newsletters within a week. I really wanted to get gNewSense, but I had to settle for Xubuntu.

But my opinion on Hurd is mixed. I mean, it's a great idea, but impractical now, thanks to the Linux kernel. As Stephen Fry said, "GNU and Linux are the twin pillars of Free Software (or something close to that)." Plus, I think Stallman would be very happy with the "free" version of the Linux kernel with all of the binary blobs removed.

I like where this post went, but I'm sort of sad that it didn't get any farther.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurd

In an earlier version of the wiki it said RMS admits that using the Mach microkernel to start with was perhaps the biggest mistake he has made.

....No....

Ah well..., that's only your biased opinion.
I personally do find this interesting (and re-joined the the hurd list a year ago).

Anyway, all previous (and old) comments aren't really up to date.
Debian GNU/Hurd works a lot better these days (mostly thanks to the porting of many linux 2 modules).

While debian is still using the old mach kernel (using linux modules), HurdNG isn't dead either.
If you're interested in that, join their l4-hurd list.

Just don't expect it be as good as Linux.

If your looking for a fun project that doesn't require the same professional programming skills as Linux and BSD, do give it a try.

EDIT: If you really want to help, many debian packages still need to be ported.
Having a working (and easy to install, preferable with a native installer) Debian GNU/Hurd system is IMHO the most urgent part.

What do you mean BIASED??? I simply answered the question as stated!! I don't want to "have a nice little chat about Gnu Hurd"--I have enough trouble just understanding Old Linux......;)