Re: Again: (self)hosted Plan9? Was: [9fans] extending xen to allow driver development in Plan 9

[Harri Haataja <harriha@mail.student.oulu.fi>]

On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 05:52:49PM -0500, erik quanstrom wrote:
> i don't see how you can blame hurd's vaporware status
> on switching from mach to l4.  that happened quite reciently.
> they were coding for hurd in 1990.

Adding to the handwaving:

Generally problems in hurd seem to be blamed on the kernel. They say
mach just isn't any good so that didn't work out. I don't know if the l4
thing got anywhere and it seems that at least part of the crowd
(hurd-ng) is now arguing about profound ideas at the moment without any
code trying to figure out how to start a new(?) system without having
ever ro start over again. (<-- that's all just hand-waving, though. ianahd)

If I got the picture, there seems to be one running Hurd
(http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/) and they're not happy with Mach and
aren't continuing. Then there's a number of groups looking for the
alternative. Maybe that's progress, but if the running mach version
doesn't go forward and no new version reaches a running state, the
usable Hurd will seem to be stuck in that state.

-- 
<Murgatroyd> You know you've been playing Nethack too much when...
<Murgatroyd> You look both ways down the corridor, start to sweat... then
realise you're looking at your EMail address.