8 ms·

Strongly doubt it. The developers have adamantly focused on improving the standard Hurd/Mach over pursuing other microkernels or even compatibility layers on mo

Strongly doubt it. The developers have adamantly focused on improving the standard Hurd/Mach over pursuing other microkernels or even compatibility layers on monolithic Unixes. Given how ridiculously little manpower they have, it's only the most practical. Not to mention the fact that rump kernel integration is very slowly but steadily picking up: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2015-10/index.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2015-10/index.ht... Of course, if all else fails, you can just go with the "write a Mach kernel module for Linux" route and make Linux cannibalize itself. The Darling (OS X compatibility layer for Linux) developer has done some work on this for his project, and it's one I might try to pick up for the Hurd if things advance too slowly, or simply as a research curiosity after I'm done with other projects.

techdragon 11y ago
the desperate need for a decent "can run as a desktop" userland suite of services for the L4 family of microkernels might actually help get them more manpower working on the project. Other than that yeah sticking to what they know does make sense.
nickpsecurity 11y ago
"Given how ridiculously little manpower they have, it's only the most practical." I disagree given how many microkernel projects by tiny teams have been started or finished before they got to even 0.7. Especially the 2-3 person project that was MINIX 3. I think GenodeOS started as a few people's L4 work, too. Maybe what they're doing is fundamentally wrong and they should do it different while leveraging existing work. Just a thought.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  MINIX 3, 2-3 people? You're kidding, it's far more than that. Especially given how many students AST supervises at the Vrije Universiteit. EDIT: Also, version names in of themselves don't mean much. Hurd is at 0.7 yet capable of running multiple folds more Unix software than MINIX at 3.3.x.
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    I was going by Tannenbaum's claim about the original work. "we've only been at it for a bit over a year with three people" By now, probably a lot more. I'm only talking about original architecture and implementation that possessed the reliability features.
    - carussell 11y ago
      Another notable difference between Hurd and MINIX is that Tanenbaum got millions of funding from the EU to improve MINIX. Having the organizational backing of a research university helps, too.
      - nickpsecurity 11y ago
        Hey, millions of dollars can always help. It will be in my HOWTO for successful FOSS if I ever write one. :) I think the simple architecture is their main benefit, though. They only put in complexity where the most benefit. Then they reused NetBSD's work. A common cheat.
        carussell 11y ago
        The units of measure there are Euro, even, so after the conversion to USD, we're talking about even larger numbers. Not an order of magnitude in difference, though.
      - gaius 11y ago
        How is that a difference? Stallman has goten millions from the MacArthur Foundation, Takeda Foundation, etc etc. Neither project is short of funding.
        nickpsecurity 11y ago
        It's not except in terms of features they can produce and bugs they can eliminate. The research I did in response to vezzy-fnord's comment shows that Hurd ignored a proven codebase (4.4BSD) in favor of trying to build on Mach, a problematic microkernel. The Hurd author admitted the first part. They continue down the path that didn't work while Minix 3 adopted a better microkernel architecture built on their proven codebase. So, their stuff is predictably in better shape.
orionblastar 11y ago
IIRC Darling uses GNUStep and CLANG to try and run OSX binaries. https://www.darlinghq.org/ https://www.darlinghq.org/ http://www.darlinghq.org/project-status http://www.darlinghq.org/project-status I tried it out before in a Lubuntu virtual machine and had to install CLANG and other stuff to compile it with GNUStep and it is very limited in what it can run. I linked to the project status page because some of the links on the main page are 404 errors. Here it is on Github if people want to help out: https://github.com/darlinghq/darling https://github.com/darlinghq/darling Here are the build requirements: http://www.darlinghq.org/build-instructions http://www.darlinghq.org/build-instructions

techdragon 11y ago

the desperate need for a decent "can run as a desktop" userland suite of services for the L4 family of microkernels might actually help get them more manpower working on the project. Other than that yeah sticking to what they know does make sense.

nickpsecurity 11y ago

"Given how ridiculously little manpower they have, it's only the most practical." I disagree given how many microkernel projects by tiny teams have been started or finished before they got to even 0.7. Especially the 2-3 person project that was MINIX 3. I think GenodeOS started as a few people's L4 work, too. Maybe what they're doing is fundamentally wrong and they should do it different while leveraging existing work. Just a thought.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
MINIX 3, 2-3 people? You're kidding, it's far more than that. Especially given how many students AST supervises at the Vrije Universiteit. EDIT: Also, version names in of themselves don't mean much. Hurd is at 0.7 yet capable of running multiple folds more Unix software than MINIX at 3.3.x.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  I was going by Tannenbaum's claim about the original work. "we've only been at it for a bit over a year with three people" By now, probably a lot more. I'm only talking about original architecture and implementation that possessed the reliability features.
  - carussell 11y ago
    Another notable difference between Hurd and MINIX is that Tanenbaum got millions of funding from the EU to improve MINIX. Having the organizational backing of a research university helps, too.
    - nickpsecurity 11y ago
      Hey, millions of dollars can always help. It will be in my HOWTO for successful FOSS if I ever write one. :) I think the simple architecture is their main benefit, though. They only put in complexity where the most benefit. Then they reused NetBSD's work. A common cheat.
      - carussell 11y ago
        The units of measure there are Euro, even, so after the conversion to USD, we're talking about even larger numbers. Not an order of magnitude in difference, though.
    - gaius 11y ago
      How is that a difference? Stallman has goten millions from the MacArthur Foundation, Takeda Foundation, etc etc. Neither project is short of funding.
      - nickpsecurity 11y ago
        It's not except in terms of features they can produce and bugs they can eliminate. The research I did in response to vezzy-fnord's comment shows that Hurd ignored a proven codebase (4.4BSD) in favor of trying to build on Mach, a problematic microkernel. The Hurd author admitted the first part. They continue down the path that didn't work while Minix 3 adopted a better microkernel architecture built on their proven codebase. So, their stuff is predictably in better shape.

orionblastar 11y ago

IIRC Darling uses GNUStep and CLANG to try and run OSX binaries. https://www.darlinghq.org/ https://www.darlinghq.org/ http://www.darlinghq.org/project-status http://www.darlinghq.org/project-status I tried it out before in a Lubuntu virtual machine and had to install CLANG and other stuff to compile it with GNUStep and it is very limited in what it can run. I linked to the project status page because some of the links on the main page are 404 errors. Here it is on Github if people want to help out: https://github.com/darlinghq/darling https://github.com/darlinghq/darling Here are the build requirements: http://www.darlinghq.org/build-instructions http://www.darlinghq.org/build-instructions