6 ms·

Innocent question: what happened to GNU? Lotsa good tools available, but as Minix spawned Linux which has a good chunk of the world, GNU as an OS seems but a le

Innocent question: what happened to GNU? Lotsa good tools available, but as Minix spawned Linux which has a good chunk of the world, GNU as an OS seems but a legend.

AlexeyBrin 13y ago
They have a working kernel, HURD, you can play with it using a Debian release: http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/ http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/
jdreaver 13y ago
Their OS is called GNU Hurd. [1] Apparently, they are still making progress, but it must be hard to catch up with Linux. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Apparently, they are still making progress, but it must be hard to catch up with Linux. Its probably hard with far fewer active developers, and even harder with the amount of Hurd's development effort that's gone into a series of dead-end efforts to replace the kernel.
- acuozzo 13y ago
  s/\<OS\>/kernel
  - jdreaver 13y ago
    That's what I thought, but the Wikipedia article states: "GNU Hurd (usually referred to as the Hurd) is a computer operating system using the GNU Mach kernel designed as a replacement for Unix..." So it looks like GNU Mach is the kernel.
- sweettea 13y ago
  Especially hard to catch up with Linux when Linux began development in 1991 and Hurd began in 1983. Linux is only -8 years ahead of Hurd in development, you'd think Hurd could have caught up by now.
  - pjmlp 13y ago
    Well, it is only so, given the amount of money and resources IBM, Intel and friends put into Linux. How far would be Linux without those investments?
    - Touche 13y ago
      Why did they invest in Linux instead of Hurd?
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      Linux was well ahead of where Hurd was at the time (and, in fact, ahead of where Hurd is now in terms of practical usability) when Linux attracted those investments (which mostly occurred after 2.0 in the mid 1990s when Linux was 5 or so years old and Hurd over a dozen years old.) Kind of ironic, in retrospect, is Linus's original comp.os.minix posting announcing the project, saying on part, "I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones."
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        There's been definite progress with HURD recently. I'm not sure mid-90's Linux is still more usable than HURD (though I'm certainly not sure of the converse, either).
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        > I'm not sure mid-90's Linux is still more usable than HURD Mid-90s Linux was more usable on then-current hardware than the Hurd is on now-current hardware, though I suspect that mid-90s Linux would be less usable now (on current hardware) than the Hurd.
- agumonkey 13y ago
  speaking of progress http://lwn.net/Articles/554992/ http://lwn.net/Articles/554992/ first comments include slides and videos of gnu hm 2011 and 2013
randomknowledge 13y ago
I would consider that a success. The free software ecosystem has grown much larger then any one project or organization.
noselasd 13y ago
Most of the base stuff used with linux comes from GNU. glibc, gcc, bash, and many the base tools - which is why many insist on calling it GNU/Linux
kunai 13y ago
Well, GNU has traditionally been awful at systems programming. They worked for more than a decade on the HURD kernel even after gcc and coreutils were long completed. Eventually, Linus got tired of waiting and created his own operating system using the GNU utils (I so wished he had used the 386BSD tools instead), and HURD pretty much just went away. The mailing lists are full of spam and progress is at a crawl. It's awful. If you want progress, just use Linux.
- jsymolon 13y ago
  > (I so wished he had used the 386BSD tools instead), I'm curious to the difference between the two. Do you have an example ?
  - EdiX 13y ago
    They are a smaller code base, commands take less options, do less things. It's closer to the original UNIX userland. A minority of people prefers this characteristics, history suggests that the majority just enjoys the added features: the GNU userland was widespread before Linux existed, people today install (parts of) the GNU userland on Mac OS X using fink/macports/homebrew.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  "(I so wished he had used the 386BSD tools instead)" My understanding of the timeline is that 386BSD was not available when Linus started work.
  - jff 13y ago
    In fact, I think he may have once said that if 386BSD had been available at the time, he wouldn't have bothered doing Linux, or at least making it into what it is now.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      That does ring a bell, though I've no idea the source.
mixmastamyk 13y ago
It's everywhere on Linux, and a even few other places... quite successful. Building the kernel is one of the harder parts of that goal, and when Linux took off the gnu kernel lost a lot of steam. That they chose a more difficult design only helped. But the question is moot now. Even at that early stage, he realizes that GNU doesn't have to write everything. Having a large enough body of libre-software is the real goal. And who knows, in 10 or 20 years it may be time for a new kernel design?
lmm 13y ago
"Linux" is the GNU OS - most of the pieces are the same, and many of them have histories that you can trace back well into the '80s. It's just the kernel that's different, but that's one small piece that interoperates with the rest of it.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  There are a lot of parts in a "typical" Linux system these days that are non-GNU, and a lot of GNU pieces have become less central or been displaced in many distros (dash in place of bash by default in Debian, for instance). This is not to take anything away from GNU, or the far more central role GNU code played in earlier Linux systems; I think it's totally legitimate to say that modern Linux systems are a success of the GNU project and the GNU vision. But it's less true these days that (desktop) "Linux" is "A GNU system with the Linux kernel."
  - teddyh 13y ago
    > dash in place of bash by default in Debian, for instance Dash takes the place of the Posix binary /bin/sh for performance and memory reasons. The default shell for users remains /bin/bash — this is what a terminal application will run, which is what a “shell” is supposed to be. The /bin/sh thing is not supposed to be viewed as the shell, and its replacement is a non-issue in this context.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      Hm, I think I recall some install of something that had only dash by default, but I could easily be misremembering. Regardless it has made bash slightly less central, and there are probably other examples of GNU code being displaced.
      - teddyh 13y ago
        Originally you said “a lot of GNU pieces have become less central or been displaced in many distros”. I challenge this statement and put it to you to provide examples. Simply saying “there are probably other examples” will not do. This sounds like simply wishful thinking to me.
chubot 13y ago
GNU is alive and well -- the GNU kernel isn't (or has been making very slow progress). The project just diverged from its original technical goals, which is common. Stallman would say GNU is an OS without a kernel. Debian GNU/Linux would be the complete OS. Someone pointed out on HN recently that many things user space on a typical "Linux" box comes from non-GNU projects, and it's not x11/GNU/Linux, or gnu/FreeBSD, or llvm/FreeBSD. So yeah I sort of see their point.

Innocent question: what happened to GNU? Lotsa good tools available, but as Minix spawned Linux which has a good chunk of the world, GNU as an OS seems but a legend.

AlexeyBrin 13y ago

They have a working kernel, HURD, you can play with it using a Debian release: http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/ http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/

jdreaver 13y ago

Their OS is called GNU Hurd. [1] Apparently, they are still making progress, but it must be hard to catch up with Linux. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Apparently, they are still making progress, but it must be hard to catch up with Linux. Its probably hard with far fewer active developers, and even harder with the amount of Hurd's development effort that's gone into a series of dead-end efforts to replace the kernel.
acuozzo 13y ago
s/\<OS\>/kernel
- jdreaver 13y ago
  That's what I thought, but the Wikipedia article states: "GNU Hurd (usually referred to as the Hurd) is a computer operating system using the GNU Mach kernel designed as a replacement for Unix..." So it looks like GNU Mach is the kernel.
sweettea 13y ago
Especially hard to catch up with Linux when Linux began development in 1991 and Hurd began in 1983. Linux is only -8 years ahead of Hurd in development, you'd think Hurd could have caught up by now.
- pjmlp 13y ago
  Well, it is only so, given the amount of money and resources IBM, Intel and friends put into Linux. How far would be Linux without those investments?
  - Touche 13y ago
    Why did they invest in Linux instead of Hurd?
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    Linux was well ahead of where Hurd was at the time (and, in fact, ahead of where Hurd is now in terms of practical usability) when Linux attracted those investments (which mostly occurred after 2.0 in the mid 1990s when Linux was 5 or so years old and Hurd over a dozen years old.) Kind of ironic, in retrospect, is Linus's original comp.os.minix posting announcing the project, saying on part, "I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones."
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      There's been definite progress with HURD recently. I'm not sure mid-90's Linux is still more usable than HURD (though I'm certainly not sure of the converse, either).
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > I'm not sure mid-90's Linux is still more usable than HURD Mid-90s Linux was more usable on then-current hardware than the Hurd is on now-current hardware, though I suspect that mid-90s Linux would be less usable now (on current hardware) than the Hurd.
agumonkey 13y ago
speaking of progress http://lwn.net/Articles/554992/ http://lwn.net/Articles/554992/ first comments include slides and videos of gnu hm 2011 and 2013

randomknowledge 13y ago

I would consider that a success. The free software ecosystem has grown much larger then any one project or organization.

noselasd 13y ago

Most of the base stuff used with linux comes from GNU. glibc, gcc, bash, and many the base tools - which is why many insist on calling it GNU/Linux

kunai 13y ago

Well, GNU has traditionally been awful at systems programming. They worked for more than a decade on the HURD kernel even after gcc and coreutils were long completed. Eventually, Linus got tired of waiting and created his own operating system using the GNU utils (I so wished he had used the 386BSD tools instead), and HURD pretty much just went away. The mailing lists are full of spam and progress is at a crawl. It's awful. If you want progress, just use Linux.

jsymolon 13y ago
> (I so wished he had used the 386BSD tools instead), I'm curious to the difference between the two. Do you have an example ?
- EdiX 13y ago
  They are a smaller code base, commands take less options, do less things. It's closer to the original UNIX userland. A minority of people prefers this characteristics, history suggests that the majority just enjoys the added features: the GNU userland was widespread before Linux existed, people today install (parts of) the GNU userland on Mac OS X using fink/macports/homebrew.
dllthomas 13y ago
"(I so wished he had used the 386BSD tools instead)" My understanding of the timeline is that 386BSD was not available when Linus started work.
- jff 13y ago
  In fact, I think he may have once said that if 386BSD had been available at the time, he wouldn't have bothered doing Linux, or at least making it into what it is now.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    That does ring a bell, though I've no idea the source.

mixmastamyk 13y ago

It's everywhere on Linux, and a even few other places... quite successful. Building the kernel is one of the harder parts of that goal, and when Linux took off the gnu kernel lost a lot of steam. That they chose a more difficult design only helped. But the question is moot now. Even at that early stage, he realizes that GNU doesn't have to write everything. Having a large enough body of libre-software is the real goal. And who knows, in 10 or 20 years it may be time for a new kernel design?

lmm 13y ago

"Linux" is the GNU OS - most of the pieces are the same, and many of them have histories that you can trace back well into the '80s. It's just the kernel that's different, but that's one small piece that interoperates with the rest of it.

dllthomas 13y ago
There are a lot of parts in a "typical" Linux system these days that are non-GNU, and a lot of GNU pieces have become less central or been displaced in many distros (dash in place of bash by default in Debian, for instance). This is not to take anything away from GNU, or the far more central role GNU code played in earlier Linux systems; I think it's totally legitimate to say that modern Linux systems are a success of the GNU project and the GNU vision. But it's less true these days that (desktop) "Linux" is "A GNU system with the Linux kernel."
- teddyh 13y ago
  > dash in place of bash by default in Debian, for instance Dash takes the place of the Posix binary /bin/sh for performance and memory reasons. The default shell for users remains /bin/bash — this is what a terminal application will run, which is what a “shell” is supposed to be. The /bin/sh thing is not supposed to be viewed as the shell, and its replacement is a non-issue in this context.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    Hm, I think I recall some install of something that had only dash by default, but I could easily be misremembering. Regardless it has made bash slightly less central, and there are probably other examples of GNU code being displaced.
    - teddyh 13y ago
      Originally you said “a lot of GNU pieces have become less central or been displaced in many distros”. I challenge this statement and put it to you to provide examples. Simply saying “there are probably other examples” will not do. This sounds like simply wishful thinking to me.

chubot 13y ago

GNU is alive and well -- the GNU kernel isn't (or has been making very slow progress). The project just diverged from its original technical goals, which is common. Stallman would say GNU is an OS without a kernel. Debian GNU/Linux would be the complete OS. Someone pointed out on HN recently that many things user space on a typical "Linux" box comes from non-GNU projects, and it's not x11/GNU/Linux, or gnu/FreeBSD, or llvm/FreeBSD. So yeah I sort of see their point.