5 ms·

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_H

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.
        dllthomas 13y ago
        That's likely the case. I remember some struggles with Linux in those days, but any direct comparison is clouded both by memory (I was pretty young at the time) and by a lack of any direct experience with HURD.
  - asdasf 13y ago
    The linux of 1998 is still light years ahead of the hurd of today. That was before all those IBM and intel investments.
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

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.
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        That's likely the case. I remember some struggles with Linux in those days, but any direct comparison is clouded both by memory (I was pretty young at the time) and by a lack of any direct experience with HURD.
- asdasf 13y ago
  The linux of 1998 is still light years ahead of the hurd of today. That was before all those IBM and intel investments.

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