9 ms·

Why, GNU, Why did you have to make a kernel? Ok, I get that the GNU has always wanted to make an OS that they can get credit for (GNU/Linux folks, I'm looking

Why, GNU, Why did you have to make a kernel? Ok, I get that the GNU has always wanted to make an OS that they can get credit for (GNU/Linux folks, I'm looking at you), but still. I suppose that they can make the case for making a non-monolithic kernel, but that doesn't seem necessary to me. I feel like all the years of dev work on HURD could have been better spent on other projects, but it's not my time :( Thoughts?

broodbucket 13y ago
There are heaps of open source projects that do the same thing. Count the text editors, window managers, game emulators, audio players, the list goes on forever. This is the _second_ kernel in the same kind of space.
- lokedhs 13y ago
  First, actually. :-)
mindcrime 13y ago
Thoughts? Competition makes everybody better in the long run. Also, sometimes things are just ahead of their time, and don't "come into their own" until later. It's still entirely possible that Hurd will prove to be very important and useful for some class of application(s). I feel like all the years of dev work on HURD could have been better spent on other projects, but it's not my time Exactly. The people working on it chose to work on it, and none of us have any standing to tell them that they were wrong for doing so.
vezzy-fnord 13y ago
Because a kernel is an essential part of a complete operating system. So that they can get credit? I don't think the GNU Project had anything to do with achieving reputation, but rather to spread an ideal of free software. Hurd development has been pretty sporadic in general. Just look at GNU's project catalogue: it's vast. That said, if Stallman hadn't egotistically intervened into Bushnell's original plan to adopt the 4.4BSD kernel, the Hurd could have stood a chance. But no development is a waste.
ams6110 13y ago
Why not? There's always room for improvement. Beats another JS app framework.
- pekk 13y ago
  particularly another poorly-documented, monolithic, over-marketed JS app framework
agumonkey 13y ago
It was very detrimental for the project, but it's a key part of the research/thinking/design. If you watch Hurd demos, you'll quickly see how moving bits outside the kernel gives a lot of freedom to the users. In terms of ideas and performance. Samuel Thibault 2011 (fragile) demo included mounting an iso image from a ftp in a matter of seconds. This pops from the OS design.
tjr 13y ago
I feel like all the years of dev work on HURD could have been better spent on other projects, but it's not my time For many years, it's been the effort of a handful of volunteers. Lots of GNU development has continued aside from HURD, so it's not as if HURD development has been a significant drain on getting any other useful work done. http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/faq/how_many_developers.html http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/faq/how_many_developers.htm...
russellallen 13y ago
Sometimes I think people could better spend their time on something more useful. Then I realise I'm sitting in front of a web browser browsing Hacker News. :)
wesleyac 13y ago
Thanks for all the answers. I can understand why people are making HURD, but I'll stick to Linux for now :P.
Ixiaus 13y ago
Not GNU projects but relevant and different kernels / operating systems: http://www.barrelfish.org/ http://www.barrelfish.org/ https://github.com/xomboverlord/xomb https://github.com/xomboverlord/xomb http://www.returninfinity.com/baremetal.html http://www.returninfinity.com/baremetal.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SeL4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SeL4 I don't consider any of these to be a waste of time in the least; some move quicker than others but ultimately every one of these projects is advancing the state of the art and we may one day see the fruit of this difficult type of work (building kernels from scratch).
- axaxs 13y ago
  Don't forget templeos...as trippy as it is.
  - symisc_devel 13y ago
    Absolutely, TempleOS is an amazing piece of work including its programming language (Holy C).
    - axaxs 13y ago
      Completely agreed. I wonder if it will ever 'leave' his hands, as it really is a nice language, a well thought out C improvement (for the uninitiated - http://www.templeos.org/Wb/Doc/HolyC.html http://www.templeos.org/Wb/Doc/HolyC.html ). I'm very versed with who the creator is, and his personality, but honestly think he may be one of the smartest people in the field. It's a shame more people don't take him seriously(and to their point, I don't always blame them).
      - supergauntlet 13y ago
        People tend to not take crazy people seriously. That's kinda sad because the guy is indeed one of the smartest people in the field. I just hope he gets some help and is able to work his issues out.
  - Ixiaus 13y ago
jk4930 13y ago
It's not wasted. I've seen the design concepts of HURD as an inspiration for other projects and people experimented with them. Even I got some (dumbed down) ideas that I didn't limit to software. Sometimes I think there's some similarity to the SOA approach (pretty everything's a server/service), just that HURD had the ideas earlier. But that might be a too high-level view now.
lambda 13y ago
For one, recall that the HURD project was started before Linux. At the time, there was no free Unix-like kernel they could work on; the rest of GNU had been developed on proprietary kernels. > I feel like all the years of dev work on HURD could have been better spent on other projects, but it's not my time :( I don't really think it's nearly as many developer years as you think. HURD isn't that big a project; it's a few people, working on what they want to work on. Most of the actual development effort goes into the Linux kernel. There's room for more than one free kernel out there. Heck, there's room for a lot. There are still people using and developing FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, DragonflyBSD, Darwin, Haiku, ReactOS, and more.
- ChuckMcM 13y ago
  This. If you read RMS' announcement for GNU [1] it had to have a kernel because in 1983 there wasn't a kernel. And an "operating system" was defined as its kernel, its compiler, and the tools around that and using it in day to day work. So it starts first on a compiler, then to basic libraries, and then to a kernel. I applaud the team for continuing on the path set forth in that announcement. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6457525 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6457525
gillianseed 13y ago
As someone else mentioned, the HURD was started before Linux existed back when micro-kernels was all the rage in academia. Stallman said that by using the mach-kernel they hoped to get finished faster, as it turned out this was a big mistake which he acknowledged as his own and as soon as Linux took off they started focusing on improving the GNU toolchain in conjunction with Linux. The Hurd is still in development today because there are people who like working on it during their spare-time, just like all the other alternative kernel/os projects out there.
zanny 13y ago
I'd argue that from the perspective of an operating system vetting security, a good microkernel implementation with userspace drivers would be a great win. Even when you can vet the entire linux code base (for the most part) and use only the free drivers, you still have multiple attack vectors available to possibly get code running in kernel space. Which is bad. A lot of people (myself included) probably don't think Linux is the last kernel to rule them all, ever. It doesn't distribute itself well, it is quite large, and its speed is derived from its massive developer staff. Simplifying your kernel doesn't really matter when it has hundreds of active contributors, but what about in a hundred years when all the current Linux devs are gone, and you have to try to get new generations to adopt the code base and maintain it?

broodbucket 13y ago

There are heaps of open source projects that do the same thing. Count the text editors, window managers, game emulators, audio players, the list goes on forever. This is the _second_ kernel in the same kind of space.

lokedhs 13y ago
First, actually. :-)

mindcrime 13y ago

Thoughts? Competition makes everybody better in the long run. Also, sometimes things are just ahead of their time, and don't "come into their own" until later. It's still entirely possible that Hurd will prove to be very important and useful for some class of application(s). I feel like all the years of dev work on HURD could have been better spent on other projects, but it's not my time Exactly. The people working on it chose to work on it, and none of us have any standing to tell them that they were wrong for doing so.

vezzy-fnord 13y ago

Because a kernel is an essential part of a complete operating system. So that they can get credit? I don't think the GNU Project had anything to do with achieving reputation, but rather to spread an ideal of free software. Hurd development has been pretty sporadic in general. Just look at GNU's project catalogue: it's vast. That said, if Stallman hadn't egotistically intervened into Bushnell's original plan to adopt the 4.4BSD kernel, the Hurd could have stood a chance. But no development is a waste.

ams6110 13y ago

Why not? There's always room for improvement. Beats another JS app framework.

pekk 13y ago
particularly another poorly-documented, monolithic, over-marketed JS app framework

agumonkey 13y ago

It was very detrimental for the project, but it's a key part of the research/thinking/design. If you watch Hurd demos, you'll quickly see how moving bits outside the kernel gives a lot of freedom to the users. In terms of ideas and performance. Samuel Thibault 2011 (fragile) demo included mounting an iso image from a ftp in a matter of seconds. This pops from the OS design.

tjr 13y ago

I feel like all the years of dev work on HURD could have been better spent on other projects, but it's not my time For many years, it's been the effort of a handful of volunteers. Lots of GNU development has continued aside from HURD, so it's not as if HURD development has been a significant drain on getting any other useful work done. http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/faq/how_many_developers.html http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/faq/how_many_developers.htm...

russellallen 13y ago

Sometimes I think people could better spend their time on something more useful. Then I realise I'm sitting in front of a web browser browsing Hacker News. :)

wesleyac 13y ago

Thanks for all the answers. I can understand why people are making HURD, but I'll stick to Linux for now :P.

Ixiaus 13y ago

Not GNU projects but relevant and different kernels / operating systems: http://www.barrelfish.org/ http://www.barrelfish.org/ https://github.com/xomboverlord/xomb https://github.com/xomboverlord/xomb http://www.returninfinity.com/baremetal.html http://www.returninfinity.com/baremetal.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SeL4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SeL4 I don't consider any of these to be a waste of time in the least; some move quicker than others but ultimately every one of these projects is advancing the state of the art and we may one day see the fruit of this difficult type of work (building kernels from scratch).

axaxs 13y ago
Don't forget templeos...as trippy as it is.
- symisc_devel 13y ago
  Absolutely, TempleOS is an amazing piece of work including its programming language (Holy C).
  - axaxs 13y ago
    Completely agreed. I wonder if it will ever 'leave' his hands, as it really is a nice language, a well thought out C improvement (for the uninitiated - http://www.templeos.org/Wb/Doc/HolyC.html http://www.templeos.org/Wb/Doc/HolyC.html ). I'm very versed with who the creator is, and his personality, but honestly think he may be one of the smartest people in the field. It's a shame more people don't take him seriously(and to their point, I don't always blame them).
    - supergauntlet 13y ago
      People tend to not take crazy people seriously. That's kinda sad because the guy is indeed one of the smartest people in the field. I just hope he gets some help and is able to work his issues out.
- Ixiaus 13y ago

jk4930 13y ago

It's not wasted. I've seen the design concepts of HURD as an inspiration for other projects and people experimented with them. Even I got some (dumbed down) ideas that I didn't limit to software. Sometimes I think there's some similarity to the SOA approach (pretty everything's a server/service), just that HURD had the ideas earlier. But that might be a too high-level view now.

lambda 13y ago

For one, recall that the HURD project was started before Linux. At the time, there was no free Unix-like kernel they could work on; the rest of GNU had been developed on proprietary kernels. > I feel like all the years of dev work on HURD could have been better spent on other projects, but it's not my time :( I don't really think it's nearly as many developer years as you think. HURD isn't that big a project; it's a few people, working on what they want to work on. Most of the actual development effort goes into the Linux kernel. There's room for more than one free kernel out there. Heck, there's room for a lot. There are still people using and developing FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, DragonflyBSD, Darwin, Haiku, ReactOS, and more.

ChuckMcM 13y ago
This. If you read RMS' announcement for GNU [1] it had to have a kernel because in 1983 there wasn't a kernel. And an "operating system" was defined as its kernel, its compiler, and the tools around that and using it in day to day work. So it starts first on a compiler, then to basic libraries, and then to a kernel. I applaud the team for continuing on the path set forth in that announcement. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6457525 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6457525

gillianseed 13y ago

As someone else mentioned, the HURD was started before Linux existed back when micro-kernels was all the rage in academia. Stallman said that by using the mach-kernel they hoped to get finished faster, as it turned out this was a big mistake which he acknowledged as his own and as soon as Linux took off they started focusing on improving the GNU toolchain in conjunction with Linux. The Hurd is still in development today because there are people who like working on it during their spare-time, just like all the other alternative kernel/os projects out there.

zanny 13y ago

I'd argue that from the perspective of an operating system vetting security, a good microkernel implementation with userspace drivers would be a great win. Even when you can vet the entire linux code base (for the most part) and use only the free drivers, you still have multiple attack vectors available to possibly get code running in kernel space. Which is bad. A lot of people (myself included) probably don't think Linux is the last kernel to rule them all, ever. It doesn't distribute itself well, it is quite large, and its speed is derived from its massive developer staff. Simplifying your kernel doesn't really matter when it has hundreds of active contributors, but what about in a hundred years when all the current Linux devs are gone, and you have to try to get new generations to adopt the code base and maintain it?