4 ms·

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 t

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.
  - alayne 13y ago
    Light years ahead in what sense? I think it's an anachronism from a theoretical standpoint. I'd like to see more people run with newer ideas from Plan 9 / Inferno / Hurd / all the other operating systems that aren't a monolithic 1970s design.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > Light years ahead in what sense? Usability for pretty much any of the purposes for which one uses a computer operating system other than exploring theoretical ideas about how to architect a computer operating system. > I'd like to see more people run with newer ideas from Plan 9 / Inferno / Hurd / all the other operating systems that aren't a monolithic 1970s design. So would I. That doesn't make any Hurd more ready for any other use other than exploring newer OS ideas that Linux is. Or even the most ready for such uses (or even the exploring OS architecture use) of the "Plan 9 / Inferno / Hurd" set.
    - asdasf 13y ago
      In the sense of being a working kernel you can use as the center of an operating system. I like to see people run with other ideas too. But hurd didn't have that idea, and they aren't running with it. They are stumbling around blindly. Ironically, minix is now light years ahead of hurd, and it is also a microkernel. Also, plan 9 doesn't explore much of anything in the kernel. It is a plain old boring monolithic kernel. The exploration in plan 9 was in the userland.
  - pjmlp 13y ago
    Really? I use Linux distributions since 1995 and IBM was shortly thereafter already supporting it.
    - asdasf 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.
- alayne 13y ago
  Light years ahead in what sense? I think it's an anachronism from a theoretical standpoint. I'd like to see more people run with newer ideas from Plan 9 / Inferno / Hurd / all the other operating systems that aren't a monolithic 1970s design.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Light years ahead in what sense? Usability for pretty much any of the purposes for which one uses a computer operating system other than exploring theoretical ideas about how to architect a computer operating system. > I'd like to see more people run with newer ideas from Plan 9 / Inferno / Hurd / all the other operating systems that aren't a monolithic 1970s design. So would I. That doesn't make any Hurd more ready for any other use other than exploring newer OS ideas that Linux is. Or even the most ready for such uses (or even the exploring OS architecture use) of the "Plan 9 / Inferno / Hurd" set.
  - asdasf 13y ago
    In the sense of being a working kernel you can use as the center of an operating system. I like to see people run with other ideas too. But hurd didn't have that idea, and they aren't running with it. They are stumbling around blindly. Ironically, minix is now light years ahead of hurd, and it is also a microkernel. Also, plan 9 doesn't explore much of anything in the kernel. It is a plain old boring monolithic kernel. The exploration in plan 9 was in the userland.
- pjmlp 13y ago
  Really? I use Linux distributions since 1995 and IBM was shortly thereafter already supporting it.
  - asdasf 13y ago