Re: [9fans] GNU binutils: you can't make this shit up

[erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>]

Eirik Johnson <falmarian@yahoo.com> writes

| 
| There is something to be said for microkernels
| they allow for a lot less headaches with kernel
| development, and it could drastically improve plan 9's
| portability, a key feature.

"microkernels" cover a broad range. mach is
bigger than the plan 9 kernel. bigger than the linux kernel, even.
and linux is 90% device drivers.

i hold out some hope for l4. 

| Also, the multi-server approach taken by the GNU/Hurd
| is innovative and well suited to SMP and distributed
| environments. 

what's innovative about the hurd? unless i'm missing something
plan9 fileservers are isomorphic with hurd daemons, conceptually.
the major difference being, in the hurd a server exports a random
interface, in plan9 a server exports a filesystem.
hurd isn't even an os. it needs a microkernel.

 However, the FSF has a role and the GNU
| project is (and should be) a side project for them. 
| The real problem with it, though, is that C (like plan
| 9) was designed with portability as a major feature,
| and the GNU extensions in GCC aren't helping
| portability.  It's kinda like microsoft's C#, they may
| be wonderful features, but you missed the whole point.