[Gnu-arch-users] hurd followup

[Thomas Lord]

Tom:
>> Yes, Hurd reached for a platonic ideal and good for them but it
>> wasn't a very practical approach.

Alfred:
> I'd like to see some backup for the claim that the Hurd isn't a very
> practical approach.  I know for a fact that the hurd is actually very
> practical.

It's too off topic for prolonged discussion on this list, imo, but
you could look at the Wikipedia articles on Mach, L4, and the GNU
hurd, find RMS' retrospective comments that his original thought
was that the hurd could be completed quickly, note the lack of 
device drivers, and ask what exactly people would really want that
functionality for.

If you want to make a fast, modular OS with such radically different
capabilities there are prbly better approaches.   Build a lisp OS
or something.

I'd handwavingly suggest that in the early days the Hurd did have
a serious chance at big impact.   If it had beat Linux to the 
punch people may indeed have swallowed the performance issues
in exchange for a flexible, free kernel.   But it didn't, not 
even close, so we can only guess what might have happened.

-t