4 ms·
> Deader than disco. The real question is whether the project is deader than HURD.
by chipdart 2y ago
> Deader than disco.
The real question is whether the project is deader than HURD.
- ChocolateGod 2y agoeasy win, HURD was never alive in the first place to be dead
- boricj 2y agoGiven that HURD has a steady trickle of commits and an ongoing quarterly status update on their website, it's more alive than MINIX3 currently is.
- my123 2y agoHarder to say in practice than that, because Minix 3 has production deployments on the Intel (CS)ME, across hundreds of millions of machines, something that the Hurd never had
- boricj 2y agoTanenbaum published an open letter about this [1]. The gist of it is that Intel took MINIX3 to create the Intel Management Engine, but never contributed anything back. This was permitted by the BSD license, but all these deployments didn't actually help MINIX3 itself grow as a project. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20240920163544/https://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/intel/ https://web.archive.org/web/20240920163544/https://www.cs.vu...
- chipdart 2y ago> The gist of it is that Intel took MINIX3 to create the Intel Management Engine, but never contributed anything back. That's hardly relevant though. Either a project is usable and people use it, or a project is unusable and people don't care if it even exists.
- Rochus 2y ago> because Minix 3 has production deployments on the Intel (CS)ME Is there actually an official Intel document which confirms this? So far I only saw claims by third parties. Do we know which version of Minix was used, and which parts of it?
- bigfatkitten 2y agoThe real question is which is the less dead of HURD and OS/2. The latter also still has people (outside IBM) working on it. It appears to have changed hands a few times. https://www.arcanoae.com/arcaos/ https://www.arcanoae.com/arcaos/