Re: Improving Hurd

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

* Jan Atle Ramsli writes:
> "Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>>  * Jan Atle Ramsli writes:
> Well, now you are at center of the what I think is the problem.  Who
> says either of Mach or L4 is even suitable for this purpose?  There
> was a possibility of a total 'Faridization' of the whole thing
> (sorry, Farid, (you can imagine how many dinner parties I get
> invited to) I don't even know if you remember it, but we did talk
> about implementing a kernel with a minimal API) and it was concluded
> that nobody would agree to it.

Why would nobody agree to this?  If there was an nice library I don't see
how anyone could object.

>> And Neal is correct that it is a non-trivial thing, I believe that
>> Roland or Thomas are working on this right now.  If this had been a
>> trivial fix it would have been fixed a long time ago.
> To me the word 'trivial' covers more than a 'fix', it includes
> implementing a driver, but _only_ if the device is well documented.
> One of my very first programming tasks was building a driver for a
> graphics device, in 1986!

Well, for me "trivial" means a one-line fix, and not a pretty big job
like ext2fs.  But each to their own..

>>  PS, I hope that I didn't sound to flame-ish. =)
> That is really not so important. Not now. What is imprtant now, is
> what is being said, not so much how it is said.  Had I not let my
> evil tounge get the better of me, I would not have been incited to
> .. well, u&r.  Right now, the Hurd is finally starting to move away
> from the water-hole, I don't hear the thunder of 1.84467e+19 hoofs
> yet, but I hear whips cracking.

No, what is important right now is what we code, talk is cheap. :)

-- 
Alfred M. Szmidt