From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 13:46:06 +0200 From: Harri Haataja Subject: Re: Again: (self)hosted Plan9? Was: [9fans] extending xen to allow driver development in Plan 9 In-reply-to: <2f130bc76a530f2f6618a33c28beff27@coraid.com> To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Message-id: <20070208114606.GG12106@XTL.antioffline.net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline References: <2f130bc76a530f2f6618a33c28beff27@coraid.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0ecc3114-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 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. -- You know you've been playing Nethack too much when... You look both ways down the corridor, start to sweat... then realise you're looking at your EMail address.