Re: Again: (self)hosted Plan9? Was: [9fans] extending xen to allowdriver development in Plan 9 - Plan9

This is a discussion on Re: Again: (self)hosted Plan9? Was: [9fans] extending xen to allowdriver development in Plan 9 - Plan9 ; i don't see how you can blame hurd's vaporware status on switching from mach to l4. that happened quite reciently. they were coding for hurd in 1990. - erik On Wed Dec 6 17:39:26 EST 2006, litestar@gmail.com wrote: > How ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Re: Again: (self)hosted Plan9? Was: [9fans] extending xen to allowdriver development in Plan 9

  1. Re: Again: (self)hosted Plan9? Was: [9fans] extending xen to allowdriver development in Plan 9

    i don't see how you can blame hurd's vaporware status
    on switching from mach to l4. that happened quite reciently.
    they were coding for hurd in 1990.

    - erik

    On Wed Dec 6 17:39:26 EST 2006, litestar@gmail.com wrote:
    > How about two teams that are going in different directions & never
    > getting anything done?
    > They didn't even finsh HURD/Mach, now they're looking into HURD/L4. I
    > like L4 for alot of things, but they didn't even finish the first one
    > really...
    >
    > On 12/6/06, erik quanstrom wrote:
    >
    > > funny, nether gcc nor emacs took that long. so it's not an
    > > inherent property of stallman's direction. so it must be
    > > something else ... like maybe the design, or lack there of?
    > >
    > > - erik


  2. Re: Again: (self)hosted Plan9? Was: [9fans] extending xen to allowdriver development in Plan 9

    On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 05:52:49PM -0500, erik quanstrom wrote:
    > i don't see how you can blame hurd's vaporware status
    > on switching from mach to l4. that happened quite reciently.
    > they were coding for hurd in 1990.


    Adding to the handwaving:

    Generally problems in hurd seem to be blamed on the kernel. They say
    mach just isn't any good so that didn't work out. I don't know if the l4
    thing got anywhere and it seems that at least part of the crowd
    (hurd-ng) is now arguing about profound ideas at the moment without any
    code trying to figure out how to start a new(?) system without having
    ever ro start over again. (<-- that's all just hand-waving, though. ianahd)

    If I got the picture, there seems to be one running Hurd
    (http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/) and they're not happy with Mach and
    aren't continuing. Then there's a number of groups looking for the
    alternative. Maybe that's progress, but if the running mach version
    doesn't go forward and no new version reaches a running state, the
    usable Hurd will seem to be stuck in that state.

    --
    You know you've been playing Nethack too much when...
    You look both ways down the corridor, start to sweat... then
    realise you're looking at your EMail address.

  3. Re: Again: (self)hosted Plan9? Was: [9fans] extending xen to allowdriver development in Plan 9

    The last thing I heard of the L4 port was that they had recently been
    able to load an executable without a kernel panic. Not really the
    progress you'd hope for (esp. considering that there are a bunch of
    robust OSs based upon L4, such as L4Linux & TUD:OS).

    The Wikipedia article says that there was further discussion as to
    wether or not they should switch to the later L4 spec, or the Coyotos
    kernel.

    The 0.2 Hurd/Mach does have some nice live CDs out there currently,
    although they aren't of much use considering Hurd's 'feature set'.

    On 2/8/07, Harri Haataja wrote:
    > On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 05:52:49PM -0500, erik quanstrom wrote:
    > > i don't see how you can blame hurd's vaporware status
    > > on switching from mach to l4. that happened quite reciently.
    > > they were coding for hurd in 1990.

    >
    > Adding to the handwaving:
    >
    > Generally problems in hurd seem to be blamed on the kernel. They say
    > mach just isn't any good so that didn't work out. I don't know if the l4
    > thing got anywhere and it seems that at least part of the crowd
    > (hurd-ng) is now arguing about profound ideas at the moment without any
    > code trying to figure out how to start a new(?) system without having
    > ever ro start over again. (<-- that's all just hand-waving, though. ianahd)
    >
    > If I got the picture, there seems to be one running Hurd
    > (http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/) and they're not happy with Mach and
    > aren't continuing. Then there's a number of groups looking for the
    > alternative. Maybe that's progress, but if the running mach version
    > doesn't go forward and no new version reaches a running state, the
    > usable Hurd will seem to be stuck in that state.
    >
    > --
    > You know you've been playing Nethack too much when...
    > You look both ways down the corridor, start to sweat... then
    > realise you're looking at your EMail address.
    >



    --
    If work and leisure are soon to be subordinated to this one utopian
    principle -- absolute busyness -- then utopia and melancholy will come
    to coincide: an age without conflict will dawn, perpetually busy --
    and without consciousness.

    -- GŁnter Grass

+ Reply to Thread