From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 44e328ce for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2019 16:58:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 9E59B9C0EF; Sun, 1 Sep 2019 02:58:50 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E96BF9C0A7; Sun, 1 Sep 2019 02:58:19 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="OFTZqoSZ"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 4B6F29C0A7; Sun, 1 Sep 2019 02:58:18 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-lj1-f178.google.com (mail-lj1-f178.google.com [209.85.208.178]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE7799C00B for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2019 02:58:16 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-lj1-f178.google.com with SMTP id u15so9236104ljl.3 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2019 09:58:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Vhz+LuEWtSrP+NN+a0ubQK1H6GrXKZCj14uoLR0mDp4=; b=OFTZqoSZqayDvN7KJrAvoAEUSUBYKgYj71isXSZS+8YOoESIQwLKqnls50zqmwcbyv vZqW8ZkTl1eY4hmOeaWkH8KSRrVR90WoICr4HytoPIJtV+Z8qExBgj6KVwjqlvl7oboM CeJJSSXh1IhDnql8J+9VChfWn2X9E/nIskkr6fCIoYkTzZ4D4zca6VJUEb6Lz0uiNUD5 EZrqQd65iaoZ/EpN0d2hd77T53pBfuke/toK+QRlGn3eoOe5mSqSFyYLHfSrsAD6QKf/ Ij+qp8RLjKyKr3YwjY3xzBbJPJBneJQbhhg46HkOthmP98/88bK/UUtW+XWVYbGCMKgk Qq5Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Vhz+LuEWtSrP+NN+a0ubQK1H6GrXKZCj14uoLR0mDp4=; b=mT88ZwNC3TmXKKC34dttwa7ovLaZKKZMvAYNQBzaw9xzo0iZ671TFtbqQ2OCkj2/+Z hkiWgBdfVRxNNsc9ahIvVLfxDYoXhlMoaMCCSFQ6QK/PlQWvC9tCLmzvijwMopa099Bc CV8DBmVY+ETPspBBkhXT5jU2BlsDn1Tydj6pRpKFurV3by1CiwFhRCo3SeK5Lu7bnTXn GJxvSt/l5iAU1MXo4NTNInduTzgJAGIWoXhYgKM8c/dERU7uFPEAopd5/ZhMN0WjITGI W0go2SvcDaJYhu+vywGmGFqeqFi9kG73Ua+NnTGshOEtHdQIdTWTosEeu4z5YoXnw5A3 K4lA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWsXJbsywlZI2V7JonBV9n53s3UQANZbVdOWAao6LtOVujz8H3T QWuJL4BTRHgGsUcTYpiUCE5PJ4N3gHnTxPTmktA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwIB0Ay9GHqHDAz2qKZyD/qBIFfgnd21bINBJK3ZqIIA9j7SvW014okIgDROox7tj//Rk/xrivcPFlq4zR74h8= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:a17a:: with SMTP id u26mr1969874ljl.137.1567270694970; Sat, 31 Aug 2019 09:58:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <13c5c36e-c84d-e020-d09e-51c8c502dc6d@kilonet.net> <20190828231952.GA536@mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <20190828231952.GA536@mit.edu> From: Christopher Browne Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2019 12:58:00 -0400 Message-ID: To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000a68c305916ca5ca" Subject: Re: [TUHS] If not Linux, then what? X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: TUHS main list Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --0000000000000a68c305916ca5ca Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 at 19:19, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 04:07:39PM -0400, Christopher Browne wrote: > > > > - Hurd was imagined to be the next thing... > > > > To borrow from my cookie file... > > > > "I am aware of the benefits of a micro kernel approach. However, the > > fact remains that Linux is here, and GNU isn't --- and people have > > been working on Hurd for a lot longer than Linus has been working on > > Linux." -- Ted T'so, 1992. > > That's "Ts'o" :-), and that quote wasn't my arguing that Hurd would be > the next thing. It was people had been working on the Hurd for > *years* (starting 1984) and it still wasn't real. If it wasn't going > to be real after eight years, another eighty probably wouldn't have > helped. > Thanks, patched! :-) And yes, I agree that you weren't arguing for the impending relevance of Hurd. Nevertheless, at the time, there were people making the argument that Hurd would Real Soon Now make Linux irrelevant. > And a lot of this was because was because RMS was hard to work with, > and he was a purist. Pretty much very *definition* of the perfect > should always be the enemy of the "good enough". > > In fact, at one point Thomas Bushnell, one of the senior Hurd > developers pushed to have the Hurd switch to using BSD 4.4-Lite, and > Stallman refused[1]. > > =E2=80=9CRMS was a very strong believer, wrongly, I think, in a very g= reedy > algorithm approach to code reuse issues,=E2=80=9D Thomas Bushnell late= r > remembered. > > =E2=80=9CMy first choice was to take the BSD 4.4-Lite release and make= a > kernel. I knew the code, I knew how to do it. It is now perfectly > obvious to me that this would have succeeded splendidly and the > world would be a very different place today. RMS wanted to work together with people from Berkeley on such an effort. Some of them > were interested, but some seem to have been deliberately dragging > their feet: and the reason now seems to be that they had the goal > of spinning off BSDI. A GNU based on 4.4-Lite would undercut BSDI.=E2= =80=9D > > As Bushnell describes it, Stallman came to the conclusion that > =E2=80=9CMach is a working kernel. 4.4-Lite is only partial. We will g= o > with Mach.=E2=80=9D > > [1] > https://web.archive.org/web/20121228225905/http://www.linuxuser.co.uk/fea= tures/whatever-happened-to-the-hurd-the-story-of-the-gnu-os I haven't seen reference to Bushnell in a long time; looks like he has shifted to ecclesiastical matters. He was up to some interesting software things, once upon a time. The tales of Stallman being stubborn are not rare. It's interesting that perhaps BSDI was a reason for GNU avoiding 4.4-Lite. That points to why the "what might have been" is very troublesome to track down. Alternatives always interact with one another... > That's probably one of the other things that may have hampered BSD. > The BSD license made it easier (or at least made easier business > models) for monetizing BSD, and some of the most talented people went > off to make a buck off of BSD. BSDI, Sun, NetApp, Wasabi Systems, etc. > > Nothing wrong with that of course, and if people like Bill Joy were > able to make bank based on BSD, more power to them. But it probably > removed from the leadership pool people who might have had better > leadership, and technical architect skills who might have led one of > the *BSD's to greater success. > > The GPL makes it harder to monetize Linux --- although, as we've seen, > certainly not impossible --- and if you take a look at the most of the > senior technical people at Linux, none of us have made off as well as, > say, Bill Joy. I'm still a working stiff, and don't have enough to > retire. (That's OK; I'm perfectly happy being part of the 99%. :-) > > > Anyway, Hurd *might* have been a "next thing," and I don't think the > > popularity of Linux was enough to have completely taken wind out of its > > sails, given that there's the dozens of "Unix homages" out there. > > Given who called the shots (and it wasn't the key people actually > doing most of the technical work, such as Bushnell) I actually think > it's not very likely Hurd could have succeeded. RMS actually tried to > recruit me to work on the Hurd as well, and I refused, because of > project leadership concerns. (Again, feel free to hate on Linus's > management style, but there were far worse ones in the open source OS > world at the time.) > > - Ted > Yeah, there's dysfunction everywhere :-). Over the years, I have heard BSD folk blasting Linux over Linus' occasional lack of tact; that is very much a road MORE travelled by a great many projects. Hurd's challenges starved it of staff, definitely unhelpful. BSD had both amicable as well as ridiculously non-amicable forks. It's not at trivial to get the right balance and plenty easy for missteps to lead to disaster. As vast overgeneralizations of the extremes, pure diplomats don't get anything done, whilst jerks don't get enough help to support upgrading to the next generation of motherboards/disk drives/graphics cards. Successful systems fall somewhere in between. --=20 When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?" --0000000000000a68c305916ca5ca Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 at 19:19, Theodore Y.= Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:=
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 04:07:39PM -0400, Christopher Browne wr= ote:
>
> - Hurd was imagined to be the next thing...
>
> To borrow from my cookie file...
>
> "I am aware of the benefits=C2=A0 of a micro kernel approach.=C2= =A0 However, the
> fact remains=C2=A0 that Linux is=C2=A0 here, and GNU=C2=A0 isn't -= -- and=C2=A0 people have
> been working on Hurd for a lot longer than Linus has been working on > Linux." -- Ted T'so, 1992.

That's "Ts'o" :-), and that quote wasn't my arguing t= hat Hurd would be
the next thing.=C2=A0 It was people had been working on the Hurd for
*years* (starting 1984) and it still wasn't real.=C2=A0 If it wasn'= t going
to be real after eight years, another eighty probably wouldn't have
helped.

Thanks, patched!=C2=A0 :-)=C2= =A0 And yes, I agree that you weren't arguing for the
impendi= ng relevance of Hurd.=C2=A0 Nevertheless, at the time, there were
people making the argument that Hurd would Real Soon Now make
Li= nux irrelevant.
=C2=A0
And a lot of this was because was because RMS was hard to work with,
and he was a purist.=C2=A0 Pretty much very *definition* of the perfect
should always be the enemy of the "good enough".

In fact, at one point Thomas Bushnell, one of the senior Hurd
developers pushed to have the Hurd switch to using BSD 4.4-Lite, and
Stallman refused[1].

=C2=A0 =C2=A0=E2=80=9CRMS was a very strong believer, wrongly, I think, in = a very greedy
=C2=A0 =C2=A0algorithm approach to code reuse issues,=E2=80=9D Thomas Bushn= ell later
=C2=A0 =C2=A0remembered.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0=E2=80=9CMy first choice was to take the BSD 4.4-Lite release = and make a
=C2=A0 =C2=A0kernel. I knew the code, I knew how to do it. It is now perfec= tly
=C2=A0 =C2=A0obvious to me that this would have succeeded splendidly and th= e
=C2=A0 =C2=A0world would be a very different place today. RMS wanted to wor= k=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0together with people from Berkeley on such an effort. Some of = them
=C2=A0 =C2=A0were interested, but some seem to have been deliberately dragg= ing
=C2=A0 =C2=A0their feet: and the reason now seems to be that they had the g= oal
=C2=A0 =C2=A0of spinning off BSDI. A GNU based on 4.4-Lite would undercut B= SDI.=E2=80=9D

=C2=A0 =C2=A0As Bushnell describes it, Stallman came to the conclusion that=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0=E2=80=9CMach is a working kernel. 4.4-Lite is only partial. W= e will go
=C2=A0 =C2=A0with Mach.=E2=80=9D

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20121228225= 905/http://www.linuxuser.co.uk/features/whatever-happened-to-the-hurd-the-s= tory-of-the-gnu-os

I haven't seen r= eference to Bushnell in a long time; looks like he has
shifted to= ecclesiastical matters.=C2=A0 He was up to some interesting=C2=A0
software things, once upon a time.

The tales of = Stallman being stubborn are not rare.

It's int= eresting that perhaps BSDI was a reason for GNU avoiding 4.4-Lite.=C2=A0 Th= at points to why the "what might have been" is very troublesome t= o track down.=C2=A0 Alternatives always interact with one another...
<= div>=C2=A0
That'= s probably one of the other things that may have hampered BSD.
The BSD license made it easier (or at least made easier business
models) for monetizing BSD, and some of the most talented people went
off to make a buck off of BSD.=C2=A0 BSDI, Sun, NetApp, Wasabi Systems, etc= .

Nothing wrong with that of course, and if people like Bill Joy were
able to make bank based on BSD, more power to them.=C2=A0 But it probably removed from the leadership pool people who might have had better
leadership, and technical architect skills who might have led one of
the *BSD's to greater success.

The GPL makes it harder to monetize Linux --- although, as we've seen,<= br> certainly not impossible --- and if you take a look at the most of the
senior technical people at Linux, none of us have made off as well as,
say, Bill Joy.=C2=A0 I'm still a working stiff, and don't have enou= gh to
retire.=C2=A0 (That's OK; I'm perfectly happy being part of the 99%= .=C2=A0 :-)

> Anyway, Hurd *might* have been a "next thing," and I don'= ;t think the
> popularity of Linux was enough to have completely taken wind out of it= s
> sails, given that there's the dozens of "Unix homages" o= ut there.

Given who called the shots (and it wasn't the key people actually
doing most of the technical work, such as Bushnell) I actually think
it's not very likely Hurd could have succeeded.=C2=A0 RMS actually trie= d to
recruit me to work on the Hurd as well, and I refused, because of
project leadership concerns.=C2=A0 (Again, feel free to hate on Linus's=
management style, but there were far worse ones in the open source OS
world at the time.)

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 - Ted

Yeah, there's dysfunction everywhere = :-).

Over the years, I have heard BSD folk blasting Linu= x over Linus' occasional lack of tact; that is very much a road MORE tr= avelled by a great many projects.=C2=A0 Hurd's challenges starved it of= staff, definitely unhelpful.=C2=A0 BSD had both amicable as well as ridicu= lously non-amicable forks.

It's not at trivial= to get the right balance and plenty easy for missteps to lead to disaster.=

As vast overgeneralizations of the extremes, pure= diplomats don't get anything done, whilst jerks don't get enough h= elp to support upgrading to the next generation of motherboards/disk drives= /graphics cards.=C2=A0 Successful systems fall somewhere in between.
<= div>--
When confronted by a = difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the
question, "How wo= uld the Lone Ranger handle this?"
--0000000000000a68c305916ca5ca--