From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <283f5df10702080447xc13af84ped239768f468e000@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 07:47:09 -0500 From: "LiteStar numnums" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: Again: (self)hosted Plan9? Was: [9fans] extending xen to allow driver development in Plan 9 In-Reply-To: <20070208114606.GG12106@XTL.antioffline.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <2f130bc76a530f2f6618a33c28beff27@coraid.com> <20070208114606.GG12106@XTL.antioffline.net> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0ed09ab0-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 The last thing I heard of the L4 port was that they had recently been able to load an executable without a kernel panic. Not really the progress you'd hope for (esp. considering that there are a bunch of robust OSs based upon L4, such as L4Linux & TUD:OS). The Wikipedia article says that there was further discussion as to wether or not they should switch to the later L4 spec, or the Coyotos kernel. The 0.2 Hurd/Mach does have some nice live CDs out there currently, although they aren't of much use considering Hurd's 'feature set'. On 2/8/07, Harri Haataja wrote: > 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. ianah= d) > > 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. > --=20 If work and leisure are soon to be subordinated to this one utopian principle -- absolute busyness -- then utopia and melancholy will come to coincide: an age without conflict will dawn, perpetually busy -- and without consciousness. -- G=FCnter Grass