4 ms·
The OP's post was sort of dumb, but he has a more general point: there is a danger that the people who get involved will see it as a purely technical exercise,
by forkandwait 17y ago
The OP's post was sort of dumb, but he has a more general point: there is a danger that the people who get involved will see it as a purely technical exercise, ignore the user component, and quite possibly magnify complexity when they should be choking complexity down as far as possible. We don't need a concept car (Gnu Hurd), we need a Datsun B210 (Linux).
- tree_of_item 17y agoNeither GNU Hurd nor Linux have focused on the user component very much.
- forkandwait 17y agoLinux distributions (Redhat and Ubuntu especially) have very much focused on being user friendly, even if their idealized users are more sophisticated than those of other consumer OS makers. Re Hurd -- umm, I was setting up a contrast...
- blasdel 17y agouser ≠ grandma Linux was written by someone who wanted to use a kernel that took advantage of the MMU in his new 386. One did not exist, and he couldn't practically fork Minix because of draconian licensing issues, so he wrote his own for himself to use. Linux was written by and for a user. Hurd, on the other hand, was designed for several orthogonal ideological reasons, and never really written. There was never a user within sight of it, including its creators.