What would be the advantage of using Arch Hurd?

trusktr · 2010-08-11 06:40:43

Would all the current packages work or would there be some incompatibilities? What are the main benefits? Just curious

Last edited by trusktr (2010-08-11 06:41:37)

ngoonee · 2010-08-11 06:45:14

No.

Coolness factor.

cesura · 2010-08-11 06:48:51

Probably many hardware incompatibilities because it is a completely different kernel. Completely.

It would make you 1337. Pretty much it.

karol · 2010-08-11 07:16:19

trusktr wrote:

Would all the current packages work or would there be some incompatibilities? What are the main benefits? Just curious

Try asking on their forum.

AngryKoala · 2010-08-11 07:17:16

The benefits of using Arch Hurd would be a microkernel (ie kernel is separate from everything)

trusktr · 2010-08-11 07:17:59

hehe ok thanks.

alexandrite · 2010-08-11 11:34:01

If you are bitten by Arch Hurd, then every full moon you'll turn into a slavering Richard Stallman and roam the streets, savagely GPL-ing everything in sight.

But seriously, I think the microkernel approach differs only from the monolithic approach in ways that probably won't be obvious to the user. Assuming everything works, you just have a shell and X and whatever else. If you like the idea of a microkernel from a design standpoint, you may get a warm feeeling from knowing you're using a system whose design philosophy you agree with, which is just about as useful as you want it to be.

Inxsible · 2010-08-11 11:47:59

alexandrite wrote:

But seriously, I think the microkernel approach differs only from the monolithic approach in ways that probably won't be obvious to the average user.

fixed

Barrucadu · 2010-08-11 13:20:11

There are none (yet); it's slow, unstable, and has awful hardware support. That doesn't stop us from working on it, though

edit: We only have a tiny subset of Arch Linux packages at the moment, and qemu is very slow so this is only changing slowly. We're all mostly working on whatever we want to work on (eg: I'm doing the LiveCD and website, and also a bit of work on gnustep and etoile; giselher is doing pretty much everything; and melpo is doing the toolchain), so package monkeys (if you've got some time) are always appreciated.

Last edited by Barrucadu (2010-08-11 13:25:00)

Giselher · 2010-08-11 21:09:49

ngoonee wrote:

No.
Coolness factor.

This.

Don't forget that Hurd is a real pain in everything and unstable like hell. Compiling glibc takes 2 days in qemu .

The main disadvantages are:

* No sound stack
* No USB stack
* Doesn't support SATA and PATA.
* X (well the xserver in our repo) is 10 times slower than Hurd itself
* Almost every important application needs patching (PATH_MAX) (e.g. pacman)

But that doesn't stop use from packaging

EDIT:
But our website is cooler , please donate

Last edited by Giselher (2010-08-11 21:20:19)

anonymous_user · 2010-08-11 23:53:48

Giselher wrote:

* Doesn't support SATA and PATA.

What does it support? SCSI?

Barrucadu · 2010-08-12 06:38:29

Giselher wrote:

* Doesn't support SATA and PATA.

Wrong; we have PATA. It's PATA and SCSI that work, and just SATA that doesn't.

Giselher · 2010-08-12 10:17:31

Barrucadu wrote:

Giselher wrote:
* Doesn't support SATA and PATA.
Wrong; we have PATA. It's PATA and SCSI that work, and just SATA that doesn't.

Oh sorry . I am not so into hardware and missunderstood the support page.

marfig · 2010-08-12 19:02:14

trusktr wrote:

Would all the current packages work or would there be some incompatibilities? What are the main benefits? Just curious

Essentially you'll gain a contemplative outlook. Very important, if you are past a certain age... or approaching it.
You'll be spending 20 years wondering what's so difficult about building a kernel, while entertaining yourself in elaborate mind puzzles as you dissect all the linguistic curiosities of the word "hurd".

Programming for Hurd is also, I hear, an excellent exercise for the contemplative. You cannot go wrong here.

Google · 2010-08-13 00:44:54

Isn't a microkernel slower due to the user mode containing so much of the system, and the faster kernel mode contains a smaller portion as opposed to the monolithic approach?

Allan · 2010-08-13 01:35:51

Maybe in the past. But modern microkernels have dealt with that such that the speed difference due to that should be negligible.

xenobrain · 2010-08-13 03:25:15

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I've been wondering for some time now. Why HURD? Wouldn't it be easier for people wanting a microkernel to work on Minix 3? Bu all accounts it's very high quality, very well documented code, and already stable to boot. And licensing hasn't been an issue for the last ten years or so.

Microkernels are a neat idea, but I just don't see need for continued work on HURD. Can someone enlighten me as to what I'm missing?

marfig · 2010-08-13 04:04:41

xenobrain wrote:

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I've been wondering for some time now. Why HURD? Wouldn't it be easier for people wanting a microkernel to work on Minix 3? Bu all accounts it's very high quality, very well documented code, and already stable to boot. And licensing hasn't been an issue for the last ten years or so.
Microkernels are a neat idea, but I just don't see need for continued work on HURD. Can someone enlighten me as to what I'm missing?

You must understand Hurd predates Linux. It was the kernel that was under development for the GNU system, when Linus showed up with his Linux kernel. Minix predates Linux, but it wasn't an option since its license was restrictive (although, I seem to remember universities could have it for free).

Today it is less clear why the project moves on. Stallman has this to say about it, which quite frankly leaves more questions than answers. So the debate (if there is a debate) rages between the potential benefits of a microkernel entirely supported by the GNU operating system and the accusation that Stallman and the folks at the GNU foundation never really came to terms with the Linux the kernel (it was adopted then because they had an operating system they wanted in the wild, but no kernel). The fact most people call it Linux and not GNU/Linux is yet another point of contention. So Hurd exists in the hopes one day the GNU operating system can exist on its own.

Personally, and despite my own acidic opinion that the Hurd project is a stain in the reputation of the GNU foundation (many microkernels have come and gone in these 20 years, some of which successfully adopted, and hurd is still nowhere to be seen), I think it is an important project. Breaking the barrier to the microkernel may be technologically relevant. I'm not imagining it being a ubiquitous solution for domestic computers, but instead as a possible solution for, for instance, mission critical systems.

Last edited by marfig (2010-08-13 04:07:44)

Google · 2010-08-13 04:28:58

Doesn't Mac OSX have a BSD kernel sitting on top of the mach microkernel, or something of the sort?

edit:

I haven't liked anything I read from Stallman.. I can't help but think he comes across arrogant and very techno-hippie-ish.

Last edited by Google (2010-08-13 04:33:35)

fsckd · 2010-08-13 04:49:06

Is it necessary to bring up personal opinions about Stallman in a thread on HURD? He doesn't develop for the project nor does he steer it anymore.

Google wrote:

Doesn't Mac OSX have a BSD kernel sitting on top of the mach microkernel, or something of the sort?

Correct.

jasonwryan · 2010-08-13 04:53:58

No - it is neither necessary nor appropriate to introduce opinions about RMS.

Please keep to the topic of the thread...

Google · 2010-08-13 05:01:02

Phew, a little rms sensitive are we!

jasonwryan · 2010-08-13 05:05:21

Google wrote:

Phew, a little rms sensitive are we!

No - just trying to avoid this thread, which has had a number of thoughtful and helpful posts, getting derailed with opinions about someone that often polarizes views.

cesura · 2010-08-13 05:07:05

How can Hurd hope to succeed anytime soon without SATA support? Is this planned/currently being worked on?

fsckd · 2010-08-13 05:17:16

itsbrad212 wrote:

How can Hurd hope to succeed anytime soon without SATA support? Is this planned/currently being worked on?

Uhhh ... may be after they decide on a microkernel. One thing for sure, it'll support Mr. Fusion.

edit: It seems they'll stick with viengoos. Development with Mach continues, however, so hopefully sometime before the sun supernovas.

Last edited by fsckd (2010-08-13 05:42:18)

Arch Linux

#1 2010-08-11 06:40:43

What would be the advantage of using Arch Hurd?

#2 2010-08-11 06:45:14

Re: What would be the advantage of using Arch Hurd?

#3 2010-08-11 06:48:51

Re: What would be the advantage of using Arch Hurd?

#4 2010-08-11 07:16:19

Re: What would be the advantage of using Arch Hurd?

#5 2010-08-11 07:17:16

Re: What would be the advantage of using Arch Hurd?

#6 2010-08-11 07:17:59

Re: What would be the advantage of using Arch Hurd?

#7 2010-08-11 11:34:01

Re: What would be the advantage of using Arch Hurd?

#8 2010-08-11 11:47:59

Re: What would be the advantage of using Arch Hurd?

#9 2010-08-11 13:20:11

Re: What would be the advantage of using Arch Hurd?

#10 2010-08-11 21:09:49

Re: What would be the advantage of using Arch Hurd?

#11 2010-08-11 23:53:48

Re: What would be the advantage of using Arch Hurd?

#12 2010-08-12 06:38:29

Re: What would be the advantage of using Arch Hurd?

#13 2010-08-12 10:17:31

Re: What would be the advantage of using Arch Hurd?

#14 2010-08-12 19:02:14

Re: What would be the advantage of using Arch Hurd?

#15 2010-08-13 00:44:54

Re: What would be the advantage of using Arch Hurd?

#16 2010-08-13 01:35:51

Re: What would be the advantage of using Arch Hurd?

#17 2010-08-13 03:25:15

Re: What would be the advantage of using Arch Hurd?

#18 2010-08-13 04:04:41

Re: What would be the advantage of using Arch Hurd?

#19 2010-08-13 04:28:58

Re: What would be the advantage of using Arch Hurd?

#20 2010-08-13 04:49:06

Re: What would be the advantage of using Arch Hurd?

#21 2010-08-13 04:53:58

Re: What would be the advantage of using Arch Hurd?

#22 2010-08-13 05:01:02

Re: What would be the advantage of using Arch Hurd?

#23 2010-08-13 05:05:21

Re: What would be the advantage of using Arch Hurd?

#24 2010-08-13 05:07:05

Re: What would be the advantage of using Arch Hurd?

#25 2010-08-13 05:17:16

Re: What would be the advantage of using Arch Hurd?

Board footer