Re: The Hurd: what is it?

[Marcus Brinkmann]

At Wed, 09 Nov 2005 01:43:01 +0100,
Alfred M Szmidt wrote:
> Right now Hurd on L4 seems to be dead as a stone

This is not true (or may have some truth in it, depending on how you
define "Hurd on L4").

> And it will require a total redesign, total rewrite of
> everything, and what not.  

This is not true.
 
> People are confused where to spend their time

On whose behalf are you speaking?  I have not had a single complaint so far.

> and have become more so
> now that Hurd/L4 might not even be a viable choice.

Again, who are you talking about?

> Should time be
> spent on the currently working Hurd/Mach, should it be spent on the
> non-existant Hurd/L4, or should it be spent on the
> Hurd/something-that-doesn't-even-exist-yet?
>
> Marcus answer was `that is up to each and one to decide'.  This is
> completely inappropriate from someone who is a co-maintainer.

Why do you think this is inappropriate?  Please cite chapter and verse
of the GNU maintainer standard.

What do you think is appropriate instead?

> Right now we have two projects that try to achive the same goal while
> being totally incomaptible with each other,

Incompatible in what regard?

> and there is a chance that
> yet another alternative comes a long that is incompatible with both of
> the previous efforts.
>
> So I'm asking the maintainers (Roland, Thomas) what the heck is the
> direction of the Hurd is or should be.  If it is the Hurd/Mach, then
> Hurd/L4 should be dropped completely, if it is Hurd/L4, then Hurd/Mach
> should be dropped compltely, or if it is
> Hurd/something-that-doesn't-even-exist.

Of course, I don't speak for Roland or Thomas.  But as far as I know,
the direction of the Hurd has not changed at all.  The Hurd-on-L4
efforts are an evaluation of a new design.  Until such a design
emerges as a viable alternative, there is nothing to decide.

You don't explain why such a redesign process is fundamentally
incompatible with maintaining the current code base.  Consequently,
your list of alternatives is narrow and in fact absurd: If one were to
follow your advice strictly, no fundamental changes could ever occur
in the development of a project.

Thanks,
Marcus