5 ms·

Is it really alive? No SMP, no stable x64 port. No ARM port.

rekado 3y ago
See https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2023-06/msg00038.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2023-06/msg00038... > * APIC, SMP, and 64bit support was improved a lot: they now do boot a complete Debian system, but some bugs remain to be fixed.
cmrdporcupine 3y ago
Kinda wonder if the best approach for them at this point would be to target RISC-V and worry only really about running in a hypervisor, or very narrowly targeted open hardware, instead of futzing with implementing a pile of device drivers. Make it useful in that environment, and then go from there. Hell, wouldn't it be cool if there was an official GNU GPL'd RISC-V board, running GNU Hurd?
pengaru 3y ago
I used to idle in the hurd irc channel and there was definitely someone working on smp support, but it was just one person's pet project apparently. They seemed to have things working in an experimental setting, but I don't think anything landed upstream. It was clear there's a severe lack of manpower on the project. I think it'd have to be rewritten in rust or something hip to get new blood today.
- kjs3 3y ago
  Most microkernel junkies saw the limitation in Mach two decades ago and have moved on to things like seL4. Far more dynamic and innovative world.
- johnny22 3y ago
  Redox seems like it's a bit farther along than hurd in some repects https://www.redox-os.org/ https://www.redox-os.org/
  - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
    It's very cool, but the MIT license on that means it will never fit the niche (mainly ideological) that the Hurd was aiming at. I actually think GPL is key in long-term adoption and is part of at least the early part of Linux's success. To prevent fragmentation. To coax commercial entities to contribute. And to generally encourage community development, rather than forks (since forks require distributing source anyways). But others disagree, and these days Apache/MIT type licenses proliferate.
    - bpye 3y ago
      I'm not convinced that the license is the biggest motivator today for vendors getting code to upstream Linux. Look at LLVM - Sony has spent significant effort landing support for PlayStation targets there, the license doesn't require it, but it means they aren't chasing such a moving goalpost with some internal tree.
      - rany_ 3y ago
        When they don't get the code upstream, it's usually because they know the code doesn't pass the stringent requirements for upstreaming and don't want to get embarrassed during review. What you do get in that case is code dumps from those companies so someone interested at the very least does not have to reverse engineer the driver to rewrite it and get it accepted upstream.

See https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2023-06/msg00038.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2023-06/msg00038... > * APIC, SMP, and 64bit support was improved a lot: they now do boot a complete Debian system, but some bugs remain to be fixed.

cmrdporcupine 3y ago

Kinda wonder if the best approach for them at this point would be to target RISC-V and worry only really about running in a hypervisor, or very narrowly targeted open hardware, instead of futzing with implementing a pile of device drivers. Make it useful in that environment, and then go from there. Hell, wouldn't it be cool if there was an official GNU GPL'd RISC-V board, running GNU Hurd?

pengaru 3y ago

I used to idle in the hurd irc channel and there was definitely someone working on smp support, but it was just one person's pet project apparently. They seemed to have things working in an experimental setting, but I don't think anything landed upstream. It was clear there's a severe lack of manpower on the project. I think it'd have to be rewritten in rust or something hip to get new blood today.

kjs3 3y ago
Most microkernel junkies saw the limitation in Mach two decades ago and have moved on to things like seL4. Far more dynamic and innovative world.
johnny22 3y ago
Redox seems like it's a bit farther along than hurd in some repects https://www.redox-os.org/ https://www.redox-os.org/
- cmrdporcupine 3y ago
  It's very cool, but the MIT license on that means it will never fit the niche (mainly ideological) that the Hurd was aiming at. I actually think GPL is key in long-term adoption and is part of at least the early part of Linux's success. To prevent fragmentation. To coax commercial entities to contribute. And to generally encourage community development, rather than forks (since forks require distributing source anyways). But others disagree, and these days Apache/MIT type licenses proliferate.
  - bpye 3y ago
    I'm not convinced that the license is the biggest motivator today for vendors getting code to upstream Linux. Look at LLVM - Sony has spent significant effort landing support for PlayStation targets there, the license doesn't require it, but it means they aren't chasing such a moving goalpost with some internal tree.
    - rany_ 3y ago
      When they don't get the code upstream, it's usually because they know the code doesn't pass the stringent requirements for upstreaming and don't want to get embarrassed during review. What you do get in that case is code dumps from those companies so someone interested at the very least does not have to reverse engineer the driver to rewrite it and get it accepted upstream.