PDA

View Full Version : Ubuntu GNU/HURD



DPic
March 15th, 2009, 01:47 AM
Although GNU/HURD needs a lot of work and isn't a high priority (not even for the Free Software Foundation), it does seem to be overall conceptually superior to Linux. Debian already has a GNU/HURD port. My question is whether this could be done for Ubuntu. Not to make a big deal about GNU/HURd or anything, but just to have the option and perhaps contribute a little bit to it's development.

Update: I filed a bug on launchpad https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/343452


Update 2: Someone created a blueprint on launchpad https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/ubuntu-hurd

What else should i do?

Eisenwinter
March 15th, 2009, 01:54 AM
My question is whether this could be done for Ubuntu.
Aren't we (users) supposed to ask you (Ubuntu member, developer) if this can be done? ;)

(I don't even use Ubuntu, btw, just raising this random logical thought)

DPic
March 15th, 2009, 01:56 AM
Aren't we (users) supposed to ask you (Ubuntu member, developer) if this can be done? ;)

(I don't even use Ubuntu, btw, just raising this random logical thought)

Member, yes. Developer? no.

Eisenwinter
March 15th, 2009, 01:59 AM
Oh, well, then I think that it can be done.

It's just switching a kernel.

I've heard of Debian with HURD, but never actually tried it. Is it even compatible with Linux?
As in, will all the programs have to be rewritten specifically for HURD? If yes, then it's not worth the effort.

hanzomon4
March 15th, 2009, 02:42 AM
This comes every so often. I'd like to i happen

jimi_hendrix
March 15th, 2009, 02:44 AM
whats hurds theory and why is it better than linux?

Mehall
March 15th, 2009, 02:50 AM
whats hurds theory and why is it better than linux?

HURD currently uses the MACH kernel, which is a Microkernel, rather than Monolithic like Linux.

Even way back when, back when Linus first showed some people Linux, he got complaints from the creator of MINIX that it was a dead system, a shot back to the 70's. Of course, that man thought we would all be using UltraSPARCS by now, and that HURD would be ready by now :lol:

I DO think that having Ubuntu head towards HURD compatibility IS important, it's undeniable that, once HURD becomes more usable, it WILL become THE de facto standard, it is designed MUCH better than Linux is, even Linus has expressed, again, way-back-when, that HURD was a great thng, and he didn;t think Linux would ever out-last HURD.


I am actually considering making a Debian/HURD install some time soon tbh....

unoodles
March 15th, 2009, 02:55 AM
Hurd will probably be ready the day Duke Nukem Forever comes out.

That said, it will be a great day. I would love to see a working Hurd.

mehaga
March 15th, 2009, 02:57 AM
I'd love to try it (although I don't know why), but it will have to be able to run KDE or Gnome before I do.

Skripka
March 15th, 2009, 03:01 AM
HURD currently uses the MACH kernel, which is a Microkernel, rather than Monolithic like Linux.

Even way back when, back when Linus first showed some people Linux, he got complaints from the creator of MINIX that it was a dead system, a shot back to the 70's. Of course, that man thought we would all be using UltraSPARCS by now, and that HURD would be ready by now :lol:

I DO think that having Ubuntu head towards HURD compatibility IS important, it's undeniable that, once HURD becomes more usable, it WILL become THE de facto standard, it is designed MUCH better than Linux is, even Linus has expressed, again, way-back-when, that HURD was a great thng, and he didn;t think Linux would ever out-last HURD.


I am actually considering making a Debian/HURD install some time soon tbh....

Meh....HURD has been 20+ years in the making...and it still isn't ready. People were cracking terribly funny jokes about it back then too.

The day HURD is the "defact standard" is the day that college fratboys don't get drunk out of their minds regularly.

Mehall
March 15th, 2009, 03:06 AM
Meh....HURD has been 20+ years in the making...and it still isn't ready. People were cracking terribly funny jokes about it back then too.

The day HURD is the "defact standard" is the day that college fratboys don't get drunk out of their minds regularly.

Well Linux certainly isn't the definitive future my friend.

Even if it isn't the current HURD, it will be something built like HURD.

And yes, 20 years in the making, but given that for the last 15 years Linux has been stealing the devs, that might offer a clue.

fissionmailed
March 15th, 2009, 03:14 AM
In short: just say NO TO DRUGS, and maybe you won't end up like the Hurd people.

:popcorn:

Skripka
March 15th, 2009, 03:17 AM
Well Linux certainly isn't the definitive future my friend.

Even if it isn't the current HURD, it will be something built like HURD.

And yes, 20 years in the making, but given that for the last 15 years Linux has been stealing the devs, that might offer a clue.


Meh. Even if you're right and Linux has been "stealing devs" for the last 15 years, 20 years ago people still thought HURD wasn't going anywhere.

One has a choice, one can either use Linux with bits of proprietary code that works-and have a machine that actually does lots of neat "stuff" and a swank fast GUI that supports very modern hardware....

or

A HURD machine that has a CLI, but at least it is truely free!!!

Of course, I move to hyperbole in the above, but it demonstrates a truth. One can either deal with and get over certain proprietary bits of code...or simply use a comparitively primitive system that is Free as in Freedom, but at least it is "free".

With how fast new hardware and new standards come out-HURD just plain cannot keep up. Heck, the open source video drivers are only just now starting to offer 3D acceleration-and often only on cards a generation or more old. That is how far behind these efforts are. That is why HURD will never be a "defacto standard". It ends up being too little too late, in comparison to what proprietary code can offer at the same moment in time.

Skripka
March 15th, 2009, 03:17 AM
:popcorn:


I love that quote BTW. ;)

fissionmailed
March 15th, 2009, 03:22 AM
I love that quote BTW. ;)

It is amusing. :D

Dr. C
March 15th, 2009, 06:21 AM
Meh. Even if you're right and Linux has been "stealing devs" for the last 15 years, 20 years ago people still thought HURD wasn't going anywhere.

One has a choice, one can either use Linux with bits of proprietary code that works-and have a machine that actually does lots of neat "stuff" and a swank fast GUI that supports very modern hardware....

or

A HURD machine that has a CLI, but at least it is truely free!!!

Of course, I move to hyperbole in the above, but it demonstrates a truth. One can either deal with and get over certain proprietary bits of code...or simply use a comparitively primitive system that is Free as in Freedom, but at least it is "free".

With how fast new hardware and new standards come out-HURD just plain cannot keep up. Heck, the open source video drivers are only just now starting to offer 3D acceleration-and often only on cards a generation or more old. That is how far behind these efforts are. That is why HURD will never be a "defacto standard". It ends up being too little too late, in comparison to what proprietary code can offer at the same moment in time.

Actually free as in speech is not a Hurd advantage anymore. When it comes to Kernels there are quite a few Free Software options starting of course with Linux, BSD, Solaris, (Unix like) FreeDOS, ReactOS (Windows like) etc. So creating yet another Free Software Kernel does little to promote Free Software when there are far more pressing priorities (3D video, flash, etc.). This is the real reason that the Hurd will take forever to come to fruition.

shadylookin
March 15th, 2009, 07:57 AM
Ubuntu will run out of animals to name the distros after before FSF releases a stable version of HURD.

mrsteveman1
March 15th, 2009, 08:14 AM
The support behind Linux is enormous. Take a look at all the companies who make a living selling custom linux derivatives for specific purposes, they chose linux for a reason. It can be made to do just about anything, is incredibly stable and already in use by just about everyone.

DPic
March 15th, 2009, 04:55 PM
All the points here are not new at all! We all know that HURD needs a lot of work. To counter that i could never go anywhere, i would say that even if Linux takes over (becomes more widely used than proprietary OS) that will be a point where the free software "ecosystem" will be thriving and it will be a lot less difficult to get the HURD developed.

ANYWAYS

This is all irrelevant. I worded the proposal the way i did intentionally. This isn't to make a big deal out of HURD, or to say we should be giving it more attention, or even advertise it at all. This is just to make it an option and maybe help contribute a bit to it's development. Is there any huge reason not to?

smartboyathome
March 15th, 2009, 05:01 PM
I think it is very likely, since we already have Nexenta, which is Ubuntu based on OpenSolaris. :)

DPic
March 15th, 2009, 05:59 PM
I think it is very likely, since we already have Nexenta, which is Ubuntu based on OpenSolaris. :)

I was thinking of a more official project like Gobuntu, but less of a major project (which ended up mostly failing anyways). How could we see an official port happen?

jimi_hendrix
March 15th, 2009, 09:55 PM
Hurd will probably be ready the day Duke Nukem Forever comes out.

That said, it will be a great day. I would love to see a working Hurd.

or when guns n roses releases a new albume

smartboyathome
March 15th, 2009, 10:40 PM
I was thinking of a more official project like Gobuntu, but less of a major project (which ended up mostly failing anyways). How could we see an official port happen?

If it seemed that enough users wanted it, and Mark liked the idea, then Canonical would accept it as another project. As it is, though, there are already too many "official" ubuntu derivatives, imo. I can think of 8 off hand (Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Gobuntu, Edubuntu, Lubuntu, Ubuntu Netbook Remix, Ubuntu for ARM).

DPic
March 15th, 2009, 11:20 PM
If it seemed that enough users wanted it, and Mark liked the idea, then Canonical would accept it as another project. As it is, though, there are already too many "official" ubuntu derivatives, imo. I can think of 8 off hand (Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Gobuntu, Edubuntu, Lubuntu, Ubuntu Netbook Remix, Ubuntu for ARM).

Why do you say that there are too many? I think this is a good thing and isn't too much of an investment for Canonical. Besides, if Canonical, along with other organizations, can make HURD really successful, the long term payback will be huge!

MikeTheC
March 15th, 2009, 11:48 PM
Why do you folks all think Hurd is so damned important?

Assuming that the Linux kernel is a lesser kernel than GNU, it bears remembering with this "lesser" kernel we have a full-up OS, a GUI platform, multiple desktop environments, imbedded devices, lots of games, support for running a Win32 environment, full-on networking capabilities, server market domination... the list goes on and on.

How would making a switch actually improve on any of this?

DPic
March 15th, 2009, 11:51 PM
Why do you folks all think Hurd is so damned important?

Assuming that the Linux kernel is a lesser kernel than GNU, it bears remembering with this "lesser" kernel we have a full-up OS, a GUI platform, multiple desktop environments, imbedded devices, lots of games, support for running a Win32 environment, full-on networking capabilities, server market domination... the list goes on and on.

How would making a switch actually improve on any of this?

::headdesk::

We are not making a switch! We are simply calling to make this port available. Similarly, (and this might not be a great analogy), Empathy is a great IM client that is conceptually superior to Pidgin because it uses the Telepathy Framework. It is available in the Ubuntu repos but it is not the default client (although it is in Gnome). Having Empathy availble does not take away from pidgin at all. Eventually, it will surpass Pidgin in functionality and usability and then it may become default. Similarly, HURD may take time (a very long time) to surpass Linux, but it should be available

Simian Man
March 16th, 2009, 12:04 AM
Hurd is an epic failure. Give it up folks.

MikeTheC
March 16th, 2009, 12:06 AM
::headdesk::

We are not making a switch! We are simply calling to make this port available. Similarly, (and this might not be a great analogy), Empathy is a great IM client that is conceptually superior to Pidgin because it uses the Telepathy Framework. It is available in the Ubuntu repos but it is not the default client (although it is in Gnome). Having Empathy availble does not take away from pidgin at all. Eventually, it will surpass Pidgin in functionality and usability and then it may become default. Similarly, HURD may take time (a very long time) to surpass Linux, but it should be available

That's nice, but you didn't really answer my question. Why should we care about Hurd? What will it bring us that we don't already have?

DPic
March 16th, 2009, 12:18 AM
That's nice, but you didn't really answer my question. Why should we care about Hurd? What will it bring us that we don't already have?

That's not what this discussion is about. If you don't understand the potential value in HURD, you can google it.

MikeTheC
March 16th, 2009, 12:24 AM
That's not what this discussion is about. If you don't understand the potential value in HURD, you can google it.

Well, if that's not what this discussion is about, then what "is" this discussion about?

DPic
March 16th, 2009, 12:25 AM
Well, if that's not what this discussion is about, then what "is" this discussion about?

Check the first post. I tried to word it in such a way to avoid the usual flamewars that take place over HURD.

SunnyRabbiera
March 16th, 2009, 12:26 AM
Yeh HURD seems to be stuck in development hell.

BGFG
March 16th, 2009, 01:00 AM
I only read about Hurd after seeing this thread and if the kernel can really optimise use of the multicore and multithreading capabilities of modern processors, I would love to see it a stable reality and i would definitelty use it.

I think some of the posters are also confused. Not to start a silly arguement, but to my understanding, what we use is really GNU Linux, a GNU user environment placed on top the Linux Kernel. So the fully functional desktop, GUI and all that good stuff is GNU, the kernel is Linux. GNU was made to work with the linux kernel because the Hurd kernel is behind, I hope it catches up.

DPic
March 16th, 2009, 03:52 AM
I filed a launchpad bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/343452

DPic
March 16th, 2009, 03:52 AM
Although GNU/HURD needs a lot of work and isn't a high priority (not even for the Free Software Foundation), it does seem to be overall conceptually superior to Linux. Debian already has a GNU/HURD port. My question is whether this could be done for Ubuntu. Not to make a big deal about GNU/HURd or anything, but just to have the option and perhaps contribute a little bit to it's development.

Update: I filed a launchpad bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/343452

What else should i do?

Update again....i meant to update my first post, not quote it...and now i can't delete this one x.x

ROWDY!!!
March 16th, 2009, 06:14 AM
I think having an Ubuntu GNU/Hurd port as an option would be great!!
I run Debian GNU/Hurd in Qemu with the intention of learning more about it and eventually contributing to it's development.

swoll1980
March 16th, 2009, 06:35 AM
This is just to make it an option and maybe help contribute a bit to it's development. Is there any huge reason not to?

The old adages "No sense banging your head of a wall", and "Don't beat a dead horse" come to mind.

frup
March 16th, 2009, 06:41 AM
From what I understood of HURDS servers and the way a micro-kernel works having something like wine as a server of a micro-kernel would be interesting if that's even possible (I'm a layman). Eventually BeOS or other OS "servers" could be made to run and something more interesting and dynamic would probably come to life. With all the differences in Linux distributions "HURD" distributions would potentially be more varied.

The reality is that HURD is no where near ready. From what I have looked in to (over 4 years or so) about 3 people even care about it enough to contribute, the Mach kernel isn't even certain and it's still very much only existing as theory.

I booted a HURD liveCD in virtualbox or vmware once. With no X it wasn't too interesting but I'm sure people could find a use for it if they wanted to. If it had an X server and the installation didn't require bootstrapping like I believe it does I would probably dual boot it for fun, My laptops hardware is all intel with completely free drivers... so hopefully it might install one day.

I dislike the idea of splitting free software resources though... for development to be good we need to be as united as possible.

cb951303
March 16th, 2009, 08:33 AM
It's true that HURD, in theory, has a better design. But it's also very hard to implement.



Linux is evolution, not intelligent design.

DPic
May 3rd, 2009, 02:23 AM
Someone created a blueprint on launchpad https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/ubuntu-hurd

DPic
December 8th, 2009, 10:33 AM
Just started a discussion on ubuntu-devel-discuss (https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss)

https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/2009-December/010178.html

Exodist
December 8th, 2009, 10:48 AM
HURD currently uses the MACH kernel, which is a Microkernel, rather than Monolithic like Linux.

Even way back when, back when Linus first showed some people Linux, he got complaints from the creator of MINIX that it was a dead system, a shot back to the 70's. Of course, that man thought we would all be using UltraSPARCS by now, and that HURD would be ready by now :lol:

I DO think that having Ubuntu head towards HURD compatibility IS important, it's undeniable that, once HURD becomes more usable, it WILL become THE de facto standard, it is designed MUCH better than Linux is, even Linus has expressed, again, way-back-when, that HURD was a great thng, and he didn;t think Linux would ever out-last HURD.


I am actually considering making a Debian/HURD install some time soon tbh....

Can you make some pros and cons showing why it is better then just saying it is? I believe a detailed comparison is in order to make your argument solid or not.

DPic
December 8th, 2009, 10:52 AM
Can you make some pros and cons showing why it is better then just saying it is? I believe a detailed comparison is in order to make your argument solid or not.

Basically, the Linux Kernel has had a huge head start, so it's much better by any conventional standards. GNU Hurd however, uses a microkernel, which makes a lot more sense than a monolithic kernel. For a comparison of what that is, i'd check wikipedia. So, GNU Hurd has less driver support, etc, and isn't for the mainstream yet, but makes more sense in the long long term as far as how operating systems should work.

mickie.kext
December 8th, 2009, 11:02 AM
HURD is nice concept, but Mach sucks and also makes HURD to suck. It has 2Gb file-size limit and does not allocate more than 512Mb of RAM. It also has very bad reliability problems... it is not exact same Mach from Darwin but a lot more primitive version. Work is under way to port HURD servers on L4 (to replace Mach) but that is stalled again and it uncertain if it will continue. CoyotOS was research project for next-gen free software micro-kernel and it might have been second choice if L4 fails... but Coyotos got killed by Microsoft who bougt out CoyotOS main developer (http://www.osnews.com/story/21262/Jonathan_Shapiro_of_Coyotos_BitC_Joins_Microsoft), and now will probably file patents to make CoyotOS code effectively unusable outside Microsoft:(.

matthew.ball
December 8th, 2009, 11:38 AM
Definitely sounds interesting. I've been tempted to try the Debian HURD for a while now.

I would love to get into operating systems development.

gnomeuser
December 8th, 2009, 02:00 PM
It might be an interesting academic exercise but it's hardly something it makes sense to fund and to support when you have a viable alternative that isn't going to be lifted and supported solely by you.

I say go for it if you are interested, it would be a cool project but expecting Canonical to fund it isn't realistic nor I suspect a good idea (diverting funds and support/development efforts).

Xbehave
December 8th, 2009, 02:55 PM
Basically, the Linux Kernel has had a huge head start
Actually Hurd had a small head start on Linux it just never got anywhere. The main argument in favor of HURD is the microkernel:
- To my knowledge nobody has made a decent microkernel because the performance hit is too much
- Many arguments for microkernels are covered by modular kernels, all the code runs in the kernel but is in (un)loadable modules
+ A buggy module can still make the core system vulnerable/crash (however a lot of steps are done to prevent this and the modules don't get into mainline if they are unstable)
- The FSF are much stricter about copyright, you have to assign them copyright of the code you contribute which means they can relicense it, Linus just uses your GPL code.

As nice as the design of hurd is, using it will means a performance hit larger than most people are willing to take, people still whine about Xorg's design because performance isn't amazing even though it's design is pretty good.

Xbehave
December 8th, 2009, 03:37 PM
OTOH this (http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/news/2009-11-30.html) suggest the performance hit isn't too bad and Hurd isn't completely dead

rrnwexec
December 8th, 2009, 04:01 PM
This is a cool idea and would solve "the branding issue."

There is a Blueprint here:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/ubuntu-hurd/

Perhaps we can add to it and get it moving!?

Cheers,
Randall
Ubuntu Vancouver Buzz Generator

LowSky
December 8th, 2009, 04:17 PM
Hurd is a joke brought up from time to time for the past 25 years. Time to let a dream die. Work on something new and more promising.

Hybrid kernels are leading technology right now. Windows 7 and OS/X both implement the technology in different ways.

benmoran
December 8th, 2009, 05:03 PM
According to the news page, Hurd can can now install Grub. That was something that was lacking in the Hurd/Debian distribution. I'm looking forward to dual booting this in the future.


And cmon guys, nobody is saying this is going to replace Linux any time soon, if ever. It does however have value in a technological sense, which I believe is the main purpose of this thread.

phrostbyte
December 8th, 2009, 06:07 PM
I've used Hurd. AFAIK there is no X11 and barely any networking support. From the user's perspective, it's resembles a slow booting DOS with a better shell. If you want a similar experience just find one of those floppy disk Linuxes on the net somewhere. :) And you will probably even have superior network support with one of those.

If you are still curious (and that's not a bad thing), you can try a LiveCD of Hurd over here:
http://www.superunprivileged.org/hurd/live-cd/

forrestcupp
December 8th, 2009, 07:48 PM
Even Richard Stallman has said that he's not concerned with HURD anymore because Linux filled the need. The only reason there is even any development on it at all is because there are a few hobbyists out there who hate to see it die.


Hybrid kernels are leading technology right now. Windows 7 and OS/X both implement the technology in different ways.
That's what I was going to say. The future is not with microkernels, but with hybrid kernels. That's how we can get the best of both worlds. There are good and bad points to both monolithic kernels and microkernels.

rabidbadger
December 8th, 2009, 08:07 PM
To my knowledge nobody has made a decent microkernel because the performance hit is too much

Slight reality check (http://www.qnx.com/products/neutrino_rtos/) :rolleyes:

handy
December 8th, 2009, 08:17 PM
I too think that HURD should be left to the hobbyists that enjoy it. It's hard to imagine Canonical spending any resources on HURD. I would imagine that would only happen if the Debian people dramatically pushed the HURD development along to a point where Canonical could see that it had become worthwhile investing in.

Personally, I find Haiku to be the most exciting "newish" system on the horizon; I'd be surprised if we see the Haiku kernel & the GNU system being grafted by Canonical in the next 10 years.

alphaniner
December 8th, 2009, 08:20 PM
I'd be surprised if we see the Haiku kernel & the GNU system being grafted by Canonical in the next 10 years.

Uhg. I certainly don't want to see Haiku get GNU'd.

Simon17
December 8th, 2009, 08:27 PM
I GUARANTEE that within the next one and a half to two years, the HURD will be done, it will completely replace Linux, and Linus will be sorry he didn't make the kernel GPL3.

handy
December 8th, 2009, 08:54 PM
I GUARANTEE that within the next one and a half to two years, the HURD will be done, it will completely replace Linux, and Linus will be sorry he didn't make the kernel GPL3.

Talk is cheap!

Simon17
December 8th, 2009, 08:58 PM
Talk is cheap!

You're wrong; talk is Free. You might be laughing now, but when FLOSS takes over the world, we will all bow to RMS.

handy
December 8th, 2009, 09:01 PM
You're wrong; talk is Free. You might be laughing now, but when FLOSS takes over the world, we will all bow to RMS.

Oh! Now I get it.

You're a troll.

Bummer. :(

I'm out'a here.

NoaHall
December 8th, 2009, 09:02 PM
You're wrong; talk is Free. You might be laughing now, but when FLOSS takes over the world, we will all bow to RMS.

Children will sing his songs; adults will wish for his blessing in the ways of GNU; he shall be locked in his cupboard, scared and paranoid - as usual.

RiceMonster
December 8th, 2009, 09:02 PM
You're wrong; talk is Free. You might be laughing now, but when FLOSS takes over the world, we will all bow to RMS.

I hear Microsoft is going to patent talking.

alphaniner
December 8th, 2009, 09:15 PM
Children will sing his songs;

Richard Matthew Stallman, mmmm mmmm mmmm.

NoaHall
December 8th, 2009, 09:29 PM
Richard Matthew Stallman, mmmm mmmm mmmm.

Come now and share the software, you'll be free, children, you'll be free.

forrestcupp
December 8th, 2009, 09:33 PM
Oh! Now I get it.

You're a troll.

Bummer. :(

I'm out'a here.

I think he was just being sarcastic. I hope. ;)

Simian Man
December 8th, 2009, 09:35 PM
I GUARANTEE that within the next one and a half to two years, the HURD will be done, it will completely replace Linux, and Linus will be sorry he didn't make the kernel GPL3.


You're wrong; talk is Free. You might be laughing now, but when FLOSS takes over the world, we will all bow to RMS.

What's that internet rule that basically states: "Without a smiley, there is no way to distinguish between a person who is mocking an extremist viewpoint and someone who genuinely espouses that viewpoint"?

Because I honestly can't tell.

forrestcupp
December 8th, 2009, 10:23 PM
What's that internet rule that basically states: "Without a smiley, there is no way to distinguish between a person who is mocking an extremist viewpoint and someone who genuinely espouses that viewpoint"?

Because I honestly can't tell.

You should have put a ;) in there. ;)

Exodist
December 8th, 2009, 10:30 PM
Basically, the Linux Kernel has had a huge head start, so it's much better by any conventional standards. GNU Hurd however, uses a microkernel, which makes a lot more sense than a monolithic kernel. For a comparison of what that is, i'd check wikipedia. So, GNU Hurd has less driver support, etc, and isn't for the mainstream yet, but makes more sense in the long long term as far as how operating systems should work.
Not to sounds like an butt. I was inquiring for a in depth technical overview. If I wanted to learn about Hurd I would look it up myself, but since your so animate as to wanting to make a move in that direction. It seems important to me that you should know every detail before rallying everyone to your cause. Thus something of the line of at least a 100 line breakdown on the technical aspects of hurd in comparison of why they are better then linux is required. If not then your just another person who prefers the color Red to the color Blue.

gnomeuser
December 8th, 2009, 10:31 PM
I GUARANTEE that within the next one and a half to two years, the HURD will be done, it will completely replace Linux, and Linus will be sorry he didn't make the kernel GPL3.

I will bet you 100$ (I'll take my winnings in the form of a donation to the EFF).

You have no concept of how far behind HURD is not just in presenting a real world tested OS that will work on modern hardware but to present a working desktop. It's designs have not been tested and tuned.

It's just not in line with a 2 year prediction for finishing all the work they need to be able to replace Linux, let alone completely.

infestor
December 8th, 2009, 11:00 PM
HURD is like Duke Nukem Forever of kernels :p

Xbehave
December 8th, 2009, 11:12 PM
Not to sounds like an butt. I was inquiring for a in depth technical overview. If I wanted to learn about Hurd I would look it up myself, but since your so animate as to wanting to make a move in that direction. It seems important to me that you should know every detail before rallying everyone to your cause. Thus something of the line of at least a 100 line breakdown on the technical aspects of hurd in comparison of why they are better then linux is required. If not then your just another person who prefers the color Red to the color Blue.
I can do it in 22

Hurd has a microkernel. Linux has a monolithic kernel. Microkernels are better than monolithic kernels because less code can crash the OS.
Personally i think Linux is better but you don't need to grok something to have an opinion on it, however if your not sure about something never pretend it's fact because there is a thin line between being mis informed and spreading FUD (looks at Skripka)

forrestcupp
December 9th, 2009, 01:59 PM
I can do it in 22

That quote is a pretty shallow argument. I could write a sentence that lists more things about monolithic kernels that are better than microkernels. It's pretty subjective because there are good points to both kernel types, so it's basically up to the user to decide which of those pluses are more important.

Like another poster and I said earlier, the future is not in monolithic vs. micro. The future is in hybrid kernels that use the good points of both types. This way, it's possible to get the speed of a monolithic kernel while still having the safety of having drivers in user space like a microkernel. Of course, that's just one example.

Xbehave
December 9th, 2009, 02:13 PM
That quote is a pretty shallow argument. I could write a sentence that lists more things about monolithic kernels that are better than microkernels. It's pretty subjective because there are good points to both kernel types, so it's basically up to the user to decide which of those pluses are more important.
Those 22 words are a good enough reason to be a fan of hurd, my point was you don't need a CS degree to understand why HURD is a good thing. There are only 2 reason to prefer monolithic, performance (which is apparently null, if you read some of the previous posts QNX and L4's networking stack) and ease of development (you can't really argue with there are many full featured monolithic kernels and not so many microkerenels). As for "hybrid kernels", either the driver code is running in userspace or it's not, monolithic kernels can (and have) adopt features of microkernels but that doesn't make them hybrids it mearly makes them better monolithic kernels

dmn_clown
December 9th, 2009, 02:32 PM
According to Debian's Popcon there are currently 5 people with Hurd installed: http://popcon.debian.org/

If you think hurd is important than more power to you, feel free to work on another port of it. Good luck at making it into something more than a statistical anomaly. :)

liamnixon
December 9th, 2009, 05:14 PM
Hurd... :lol:

ZankerH
December 9th, 2009, 05:21 PM
Hurd will probably be ready the day Duke Nukem Forever comes out.

That said, it will be a great day. I would love to see a working Hurd.

Sorry, that analogy is no longer valid. Duke Nukem Forever has (even officially) been cancelled, and anyway, odds are any "work" done on it amounts to a bag of hot air. GNU/HURD, on the other hand, has a public, semi-working prototype released, and Debian even made a port of their software distribution for it.

HURD may not be anywhere near being ready for general use, but comparing it to a product that never even existed in the first place is just wrong.

And, while I'd love to see a Ubuntu GNU/HURD, I think a more sensible solution for now would be to improve the usability of Ubuntu GNU/Linux, and focus on removing non-Free software from it first.

matthewbpt
December 9th, 2009, 05:45 PM
This is quite interesting http://www.superunprivileged.org/hurd/live-cd/different.html

forrestcupp
December 9th, 2009, 06:04 PM
my point was you don't need a CS degree to understand why HURD is a good thing.

Wrong. HURD could be a good thing, but it is currently rubbish. And it always will be rubbish because they don't even have Stallman's support.

RiceMonster
December 9th, 2009, 06:10 PM
Wrong. HURD could be a good thing, but it is currently rubbish. And it always will be rubbish because they don't even have Stallman's support.

Exactly. Good and theory and good in practice are two different things.

Simon17
December 9th, 2009, 08:18 PM
What's that internet rule that basically states: "Without a smiley, there is no way to distinguish between a person who is mocking an extremist viewpoint and someone who genuinely espouses that viewpoint"?

Because I honestly can't tell.

What makes you think that my viewpoints are so extreme that they would be the subject of satire or parody?

Free Software WILL take over the world. Look around you; it is already happening. And I like to think that the man who created the Software Freedoms and dedicated his life to making it happen will get the credit he deserves.

Perhaps the HURD will take longer than two years, and perhaps it is behind Linux in some areas, but it already has one HUGE advantage over Linux and it won't be long before it replaces Linux as the GNU kernel.

GNU-slash-Linux will cease to exist and there will only be GNU. It will happen because people value their Freedoms. Richard Stallman created the GPL3 for us and Linus is deliberately denying people their Freedoms. He is a tyrant and a despot and he will fall.

I'm not smiling.

Jimleko211
December 9th, 2009, 09:14 PM
What makes you think that my viewpoints are so extreme that they would be the subject of satire or parody?

Free Software WILL take over the world. Look around you; it is already happening. And I like to think that the man who created the Software Freedoms and dedicated his life to making it happen will get the credit he deserves.

Perhaps the HURD will take longer than two years, and perhaps it is behind Linux in some areas, but it already has one HUGE advantage over Linux and it won't be long before it replaces Linux as the GNU kernel.

GNU-slash-Linux will cease to exist and there will only be GNU. It will happen because people value their Freedoms. Richard Stallman created the GPL3 for us and Linus is deliberately denying people their Freedoms. He is a tyrant and a despot and he will fall.

I'm not smiling.
What are you smoking? Man I gotta get some of that. A tyrant and a despot? He gives his kernel away for free, makes it open source (it's even GPL, though to me that doesn't mean a thing, I think to you it would mean something), and states that it's not perfect and that if something else is better, use it. That, my friend, is the complete opposite of a tyrant.

ZankerH
December 9th, 2009, 09:20 PM
A tyrant and a despot? He gives his kernel away for free, makes it open source (it's even GPL, though to me that doesn't mean a thing, I think to you it would mean something)

I believe the poster you were quoting was referring to the fact that Linus refuses to upgrade the Linux kernel to GPLv3, the FSF's new definition of Software Freedom. As such, he can only be considered a tyrant. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Linux becomes proprietary and fades into obscurity once HURD is completed and GNU is its own operating system again.

RiceMonster
December 9th, 2009, 09:21 PM
I believe the poster you were quoting was referring to the fact that Linus refuses to upgrade the Linux kernel to GPLv3, the FSF's new definition of Software Freedom. As such, he can only be considered a tyrant. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Linux becomes proprietary and fades into obscurity once HURD is completed and GNU is its own operating system again.

There's no way you're serious.

NoaHall
December 9th, 2009, 09:22 PM
I believe the poster you were quoting was referring to the fact that Linus refuses to upgrade the Linux kernel to GPLv3, the FSF's new definition of Software Freedom. As such, he can only be considered a tyrant. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Linux becomes proprietary and fades into obscurity once HURD is completed and GNU is its own operating system again.

Shush, you can't be crazily for GNU/Linux and then against it at the same time.

ZankerH
December 9th, 2009, 09:25 PM
Shush, you can't be crazily for GNU/Linux and then against it at the same time.

Just because it's the Free-est OS in existence doesn't mean I wouldn't go for a more Free one if it existed and was usable.

ZankerH
December 9th, 2009, 09:26 PM
There's no way you're serious.

I find being branded an "extremist" by the likes of you to be satisfactory, because it reminds me I'm not as apathetic about Software Freedom as you people are.

NoaHall
December 9th, 2009, 09:27 PM
Just because it's the Free-est OS in existence doesn't mean I wouldn't go for a more Free one if it existed and was usable.

Why not use HURD now then? ;) It exists.

ZankerH
December 9th, 2009, 09:28 PM
Why not use HURD now then? ;) It exists.

Note the "usable" part. You can't even run X on it and expect any reliability and stability, damnit.

And, mind you, I have tried. That alone is more than the majority of the people here could say.

liamnixon
December 9th, 2009, 09:28 PM
I'm really enjoying this thread. :D

Linus, a tyrant? Gold.

NoaHall
December 9th, 2009, 09:29 PM
Note the "usable" part. You can't even run X on it and expect any reliability and stability, damnit.

And, mind you, I have tried. That alone is more than the majority of the people here could say.

I've tried too. Not great, is it?(so far)

alphaniner
December 9th, 2009, 09:32 PM
GPLv3, the FSF's new definition of Software Freedom.

Ah, yes, the redefinition of freedom. That concept has a good track record.

ZankerH
December 9th, 2009, 09:39 PM
Ah, yes, the redefinition of freedom. That concept has a good track record.

It's just legal defence. As the tactics of those who oppose the very principles of Free Software improve, it's only logical that the definition be altered to prevent them from abusing old loopholes. It's just like security patches for software.

Simon17
December 9th, 2009, 09:41 PM
What are you smoking? Man I gotta get some of that. A tyrant and a despot? He gives his kernel away for free, makes it open source (it's even GPL, though to me that doesn't mean a thing, I think to you it would mean something), and states that it's not perfect and that if something else is better, use it. That, my friend, is the complete opposite of a tyrant.

Correction: The kernel is GPL VERSION 2. RMS has created new Freedoms which are not available to kernel users. DENYING FREEDOM! What do you call it then?


I believe the poster you were quoting was referring to the fact that Linus refuses to upgrade the Linux kernel to GPLv3, the FSF's new definition of Software Freedom. As such, he can only be considered a tyrant. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Linux becomes proprietary and fades into obscurity once HURD is completed and GNU is its own operating system again.

Precisely. Refreshing to see that there are still some people with a clue in this vast sea of ignorami.

alphaniner
December 9th, 2009, 09:44 PM
...RMS has created new Freedoms...

This is the kind of absurd zealotry I was referring to.

Diluted
December 9th, 2009, 09:45 PM
Correction: The kernel is GPL VERSION 2. RMS has created new Freedoms which are not available to kernel users. DENYING FREEDOM! What do you call it then?
So RMS changed something which caused existing freedom to be denied.

Who's fault is it then? Linus, or RMS?

ZankerH
December 9th, 2009, 09:49 PM
This is the kind of absurd zealotry I was referring to.

How the hell is it absurd? The new version of the GPL is an upgrade, and protects your Software Freedom better than the obsolete one. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that Linus doesn't care about the Software Freedom of Linux kernel users.

alphaniner
December 9th, 2009, 09:50 PM
So RMS changed something which caused existing freedom to be denied.

Who's fault is it then? Linus, or RMS?

No, as ZankerH said in post 92, the updated GPL is an attempt to close loopholes, ie. to further protect the FSF's idea of software freedom.


How the hell is it absurd?

The idea some people have that RMS or the FSF create freedoms.

ZankerH
December 9th, 2009, 09:55 PM
The idea some people have that RMS or the FSF create freedoms.

:%s/create/define/g and you've got it down. The Founding Fathers didn't create RL freedom in 1776 either, but they clearly defined it in a way that forever changed the course of human history. Ideas aren't created, they're thought up and, in some cases, formally defined. Those definitions are, naturally, subject to change, but that is, as I've already pointed out, analogous to security patches in software and not some Orwellian "changing the meaning of freedom". Perhaps "to create freedom" is not entirely how I'd put it, but the general idea is correct.

Diluted
December 9th, 2009, 09:56 PM
Actually my post went something like this:

RMS made changes to GPL to close loopholes.

According to Simon17, these changes (or creating new freedoms) are not available to kernel users, and as such, Linus is supposedly denying freedom and is a tyrant etc.

However, looking at it from another angle, I can also see RMS making changes which caused the denial of freedom in the first place (or at least, made it so that it would not be appealing for the kernel to be licensed as GPLv3).

So I suppose I'm just slightly confused on which side to go for.

liamnixon
December 9th, 2009, 09:57 PM
The only conclusion I can draw from this is that Linus doesn't care about the Software Freedom of Linux kernel users.

Just because Linus refuses to upgrade to GPLv.3 doesn't mean he doesn't care about software freedom (I have no idea if he does or doesn't. I'm not him). It just means there is/are aspect(s) to v.3 that he doesn't agree with, and he has the freedom to license the kernel how he wants.

ZankerH
December 9th, 2009, 09:58 PM
So I suppose I'm just slightly confused on which side to go for.

So it's somehow the FSF's fault that the egotist moron in charge of Linux is too damn arrogant to accept the new and improved GPL?

gnomeuser
December 9th, 2009, 10:04 PM
So it's somehow the FSF's fault that the egotist moron in charge of Linux is too arrogant to accept the new and improved GPL?

Well he and the kernel developer community (you know the guys who actually wrote and hold the copyright of said code) did make a list of objections and illustrated that even if they desired to move it would be impossible since there is no requirement to do copyright assignment. The kernel has always been GPLv2 not GPLv2+, it was known in advance, the FSF nor their fanboys have no reason to run around and defame Linus over this issue.

Everyone agrees to switch or it does not happen, that is the way it works given the development model of the kernel. I hardly think that makes Linus arrogant and painting him like so for these reasons certainly doesn't endear the FSF to me nor I hope any thinking human being.

alphaniner
December 9th, 2009, 10:04 PM
So it's somehow the FSF's fault that the egotist moron in charge of Linux is too damn arrogant to accept the new and improved GPL?

This is another example of that zealotry I was referring to. Why should Linus be expected to kowtow to the FSF?

Diluted
December 9th, 2009, 10:06 PM
That really depends. There are plenty of people with differing opinions on GPLv3. If someone disagrees with the changes, then that's one GPLv3 customer gone and by your definition, software that was supposed to be free is now less free than it could be.

I think GPL has done well to gather a lot of people, but if it starts to intrude on others' preferences or beliefs, then you can't blame it all on the naysayers.

However, I don't see how this warrants calling Linus a tyrant and a despot.

Twitch6000
December 9th, 2009, 10:21 PM
If you ask me the Linux Kernal should become truly open source by using the MIT/X11 license :p.

ibuclaw
December 9th, 2009, 10:43 PM
If you ask me the Linux Kernal should become truly open source by using the MIT/X11 license :p.

This may happen in the future oddly enough...

NOTE: NOT the licensing of the *entire* Kernel *solely* under MIT/X11.
But instead having sections of code released under multiple FSF compatible licenses. ie: GPLv2 AND MIT/X11 at the same time.

This idea was brought about as one of the many steps to make it easier for manufacturers to write drivers for the kernel.

Since to be able to write a driver for Linux requires the use of GPL'd hooks. Whatever source-code that uses those hooks must also be GPL'd - as agreed by the license. As we all know - some manufacturers don't like doing this.

Another attempt at swaying manufacturers was a "we write the drivers for you" free service. Where the manufacturer gives the Linux Foundation the device and schematics. Then the Kernel Devs will write and maintain the driver themselves for free so the manufacturer needn't pay employees to do it.

Any business is good business, I suppose. :)

zekopeko
December 9th, 2009, 10:49 PM
What makes you think that my viewpoints are so extreme that they would be the subject of satire or parody?

Free Software WILL take over the world. Look around you; it is already happening. And I like to think that the man who created the Software Freedoms and dedicated his life to making it happen will get the credit he deserves.

Perhaps the HURD will take longer than two years, and perhaps it is behind Linux in some areas, but it already has one HUGE advantage over Linux and it won't be long before it replaces Linux as the GNU kernel.

GNU-slash-Linux will cease to exist and there will only be GNU. It will happen because people value their Freedoms. Richard Stallman created the GPL3 for us and Linus is deliberately denying people their Freedoms. He is a tyrant and a despot and he will fall.

I'm not smiling.

What essential "Freedoms" is Linus denying us?


So it's somehow the FSF's fault that the egotist moron in charge of Linux is too damn arrogant to accept the new and improved GPL?

I LOL'd.

Will I be able to use Mono on this great new OS that is coming to sweep the world by surprise or will I have to ask RMS for permission for that?

Anyway you two are zealots. No point in arguing with men/women that have left their reason at the proverbial doorstep.

zekopeko
December 9th, 2009, 10:51 PM
This may happen in the future oddly enough...

NOTE: NOT the licensing of the *entire* Kernel *solely* under MIT/X11.
But instead having sections of code released under multiple FSF compatible licenses. ie: GPLv2 AND MIT/X11 at the same time.

This idea was brought about as one of the many steps to make it easier for manufacturers to write drivers for the kernel.

Since to be able to write a driver for Linux requires the use of GPL'd hooks. Whatever source-code that uses those hooks must also be GPL'd - as agreed by the license. As we all know - some manufacturers don't like doing this.

Another attempt at swaying manufacturers was a "we write the drivers for you" free service. Where the manufacturer gives the Linux Foundation the device and schematics. Then the Kernel Devs will write and maintain the driver themselves for free so the manufacturer needn't pay employees to do it.

Any business is good business, I suppose. :)

Isn't this a no-no? You would welcome binary blobs to make the hardware work just when hardware vendors started writing drivers in the kernel.

zekopeko
December 9th, 2009, 11:03 PM
To get this topic back on track:

OP is a man that loves cool things he read about a few days ago.

From the feel I got reading various post by DPic I believe him to be a man that likes to react before thinking about the consequence of said action. Not to mention that he won't have to do a damn thing to make this work except write how awesome it is in his blag.

His arguments boil down to "it's cool" , "HURD has a new website, something must be going on" and saying that there is support in the forums for such a move (DPic could you post a link to that assertion or was it made up on the spot or perhaps you consider 3-5 posts that say "Yey for Ubuntu HURD" a "lot of support on the forums"?).

For those that understand basic economics and resource management (and aren't raving Free software zealots) the choice is clear.

ibuclaw
December 9th, 2009, 11:07 PM
Isn't this a no-no? You would welcome binary blobs to make the hardware work just when hardware vendors started writing drivers in the kernel.

Here are my sources of information.

Re: Licensing
http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0910.2/02195.html (Actually - second look at that. It's intent is so Linux is able to work with non-GPL/binary blobs better. Not the other way round).

Re: Driver Service.
http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/free_drivers.html


To get this topic back on track:

OP is a man that loves cool things he read about a few days ago.

From the feel I got reading various post by DPic I believe him to be a man that likes to react before thinking about the consequence of said action. Not to mention that he won't have to do a damn thing to make this work except write how awesome it is in his blag.

His arguments boil down to "it's cool" , "HURD has a new website, something must be going on" and saying that there is support in the forums for such a move (DPic could you post a link to that assertion or was it made up on the spot or perhaps you consider 3-5 posts that say "Yey for Ubuntu HURD" a "lot of support on the forums"?).

For those that understand basic economics and resource management (and aren't raving Free software zealots) the choice is clear.

It was my understanding that Hurd was more server orientated...
OK - Linux is inherently server orientated too, but Linus' goal was always to make it a Desktop OS.

I may be wrong in that assumption though.

zekopeko
December 9th, 2009, 11:15 PM
Here are my sources of information.

Re: Licensing
http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0910.2/02195.html

Re: Driver Service.
http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/free_drivers.html

This has to do with debugging applications not writing drivers.
They want to be able to debug non-GPL apps from the user-space down to the kernel AFAI understand it.

I doubt that devs are going to allow non-GPL code in the drivers since binary drivers would mean a slow death to Linux.

alphaniner
December 9th, 2009, 11:19 PM
binary drivers would mean a slow death to Linux.

Could you briefly explain why you think this is so?

zekopeko
December 9th, 2009, 11:20 PM
It was my understanding that Hurd was more server orientated...
OK - Linux is inherently server orientated too, but Linus' goal was always to make it a Desktop OS.

I may be wrong in that assumption though.

Linux is server oriented because top companies that contribute large parts to the kernel have server offerings. IBM, Intel, Red Hat, Novell etc. all have server offerings in either purely software for or software+hardware.
If Canonical was as big as IBM or Intel and only wanted to make the kernel for desktops you would see more desktop oriented code submitted for inclusion.

zekopeko
December 9th, 2009, 11:25 PM
Could you briefly explain why you think this is so?

There was that infamous post by a kernel dev that told a story of a potential future if they allow non-GPL drivers in the kernel.
Don't have a link or anything to guide to find it since I read it a long time ago but the gist is this:

You allow binary drivers you are going to end up with less hardware support and speed of development since the kernel will be at the mercy of hardware manufactures and their binary drivers.

Look at the situation with Nvidia and fglrx proprietary drivers. If your kernel isn't supported your f***ed. No 3D etc. Now imagine this for every piece of your hardware. Scary...

alphaniner
December 9th, 2009, 11:33 PM
You allow binary drivers you are going to end up with less hardware support and speed of development since the kernel will be at the mercy of hardware manufactures and their binary drivers.

With the development model of the Linux kernel I guess this makes sense. Thanks.

scottuss
December 9th, 2009, 11:33 PM
This post is hilarious.

BTW ZankerH, you can install Ubuntu with only Free software.

Also, Linux a tyrant? He's a lot of things, but tyrant?

Brilliant! Keep this going guys!

forrestcupp
December 9th, 2009, 11:56 PM
If RMS wrote a new GPLv4 and it said that in order for your software to be truly free you have to bend over and kiss your own backside, some of you would do it.

If Linus didn't care about software freedom and he had complete control over it, the new releases wouldn't even be GPLv2.

I truly hope the HURD does miraculously become as functional as Linux. It would draw away all the holier-than-thou extremists and maybe we wouldn't have to hear it anymore.

zekopeko
December 10th, 2009, 12:08 AM
If RMS wrote a new GPLv4 and it said that in order for your software to be truly free you have to bend over and kiss your own backside, some of you would do it.

If Linus didn't care about software freedom and he had complete control over it, the new releases wouldn't even be GPLv2.

I truly hope the HURD does miraculously become as functional as Linux. It would draw away all the holier-than-thou extremists and maybe we wouldn't have to hear it anymore.

There's gNewSense and they are still here. They just like to troll and feel superior because they "care" for "freedom".

Exodist
December 10th, 2009, 12:18 AM
I can do it in 22

Personally i think Linux is better but you don't need to grok something to have an opinion on it, however if your not sure about something never pretend it's fact because there is a thin line between being mis informed and spreading FUD (looks at Skripka)

I stated a 100 line breakdown, you cant even read my statement and you assumed it said word. Also if thats all you got to bring to the table for debate then your statement is vastly null.

I am neither for nor against Hurd. I simply base my opinions based on technical overviews and structural breakdowns.

The current facts are:
- Linux is seasoned, robust and currently feature rich in many aspects.
- Hurd is theoretically faster, but has less drivers and features.

So unless someone who actually knows REAL technical information about Hurd wishes to stand up, its not going anywhere. Stating "Hurd is awesome its a microkernel", those responses only indicate you actually dont know anything and your just a fanboy..

Xbehave
December 10th, 2009, 02:58 AM
The current facts are:
- Linux is seasoned, robust and currently feature rich in many aspects.
- Hurd is theoretically faster, but has less drivers and features.
Hurd is theoretically slower because IPC is slower than shared memory.


So unless someone who actually knows REAL technical information about Hurd wishes to stand up, its not going anywhere. Stating "Hurd is awesome its a microkernel", those responses only indicate you actually dont know anything and your just a fanboy..
No stating Hurd is a good idea because it is a microkernel doesn't make you a fanboy any more than saying linux is awesome makes you a Linux fanboy. I doubt many people could give a detailed technical answer as to why Linux is better than the rest but it doesn't stop them liking it.


If Linus didn't care about software freedom and he had complete control over it, the new releases wouldn't even be GPLv2.
Just to clarify (for others) Linus doesn't have control over it, one of the reasons he can't relicense the kernel is because unlike the FSF you don't need to assign him copyright to submit your code, as some kernel developers are dead, either a rewrite is required to eliminate any GPL2 only code OR linus has to wait 50 years for their copyrights to expire.

Plus it's not even clear that GPL3 is freer, it closes some "loopholes" like tivoisation but that is about user freedom to run modified code on particular hardware, which is not something the GPL2 set out to do. While this feature creep may seam like a good idea lots of kernel developers dislike it because it prevents certain security practices and gets in the way of embedded development, for example ChromeOS would be impossible if the kernel was GPL3.

So the kernel being GPL2 has at least 2 major reasons:
1) It can't legally be relicensed
2) Even if it could most developers don't want it to be

Neither of those has anything to do with Linus and if anybody is tyrannical it's the FSF because they can use code you submit to a FSF project for anything (i.e they can sell it to Microsoft if they want). The FSF also decided to put a loophole in gpl3 that meant weather or not the original submitter of wikipedia content agreed, their content could be relicensed to cc, that is a pretty big abuse of power.

Xbehave
December 10th, 2009, 03:19 AM
It was my understanding that Hurd was more server orientated...
OK - Linux is inherently server orientated too, but Linus' goal was always to make it a Desktop OS.

I can (well, almost) hear you asking yourselves "why?". Hurd will be
out in a year (or two, or next month, who knows), and I've already got
minix. This is a program for hackers by a hacker. I've enjouyed doing
it, and somebody might enjoy looking at it and even modifying it for
their own needs. It is still small enough to understand, use and
modify, and I'm looking forward to any comments you might have.

Linux was meant to be a hobby to fill a gap until hurd came along, but hurd never did.

forrestcupp
December 10th, 2009, 03:50 AM
Plus it's not even clear that GPL3 is freer, it closes some "loopholes" like tivoisation but that is about user freedom to run modified code on particular hardware, which is not something the GPL2 set out to do.
Right. It's actually less free. For being "Free Software", the GPL sure has a lot of restrictions. ;)

fromthehill
December 10th, 2009, 12:04 PM
Right. It's actually less free. For being "Free Software", the GPL sure has a lot of restrictions. ;)

that's why there is WTFPL
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL):D

Tristam Green
December 10th, 2009, 02:10 PM
If RMS wrote a new GPLv4 and it said that in order for your software to be truly free you have to bend over and kiss your own backside, some of you would do it.

If Linus didn't care about software freedom and he had complete control over it, the new releases wouldn't even be GPLv2.

I truly hope the HURD does miraculously become as functional as Linux. It would draw away all the holier-than-thou extremists and maybe we wouldn't have to hear it anymore.


There's gNewSense and they are still here. They just like to troll and feel superior because they "care" for "freedom".

While the rest of us simply couldn't "give" a "crap" because we really just want something that works.

forrestcupp
December 10th, 2009, 04:47 PM
There's gNewSense and they are still here. They just like to troll and feel superior because they "care" for "freedom".But it's still Linux and based on Ubuntu, so there's still reason for them to hang around.


While the rest of us simply couldn't "give" a "crap" because we really just want something that works.Lol.

I actually somewhat care about software freedom, but not at the expense of usability.

KiwiNZ
December 10th, 2009, 06:32 PM
So it's somehow the FSF's fault that the egotist moron in charge of Linux is too damn arrogant to accept the new and improved GPL?

Or maybe he can see that the FSF and RMS and the new and less improved GPL version are holding Linux back. This is certainly so in the enterprise markets.

Also referring to people that had the ability to develop such things as Linux as morons is unacceptable on these forums. Do not do it.

RiceMonster
December 10th, 2009, 06:35 PM
The only one's who are truly arrogant are those that insist everyone else release under the license they deem to be "the most free".

Tristam Green
December 10th, 2009, 07:01 PM
Lol.

I actually somewhat care about software freedom, but not at the expense of usability.

As do I, but I'm sure you fully understand the tone in which I was speaking, forrest :) I've always valued your insight into subtlety ;-)


The only one's who are truly arrogant are those that insist everyone else release under the license they deem to be "the most free".

My Freedom is greater than your freedom, because mine is capitalized.

DeadSuperHero
December 10th, 2009, 07:54 PM
I wonder what the world would be like if Torvalds put Linux under a BSD license.

RiceMonster
December 10th, 2009, 08:15 PM
I wonder what the world would be like if Torvalds put Linux under a BSD license.

I don't know, but that's an interesting thought for sure.

Sporkman
December 11th, 2009, 04:01 AM
I wonder what the world would be like if Torvalds put Linux under a BSD license.

There'd be a lot less corporate development being passed back upstream.

DeadSuperHero
December 11th, 2009, 04:25 AM
There'd be a lot less corporate development being passed back upstream.

Not necessarily. When I met some of the FreeBSD ports maintainers and upstream developers at OSCON back in July, a lot of them insisted that companies do in fact hand back quite often...after all, it's a hassle to maintain a system all by yourself when:

1.) Your company basically only made patches to the code you forked, and your only way to provide your customers with future platform updates is to collaborate with upstream developers on it

or

2.) Your company just wants to.

It actually happens a lot.

mickie.kext
December 11th, 2009, 02:36 PM
Linus is not a tytant. I think that he really do not dislike GPLv3 personally, he is just scared what might happen if he try to push it as new licence. Think about it. Novell, Google, TiVo,... Linux business of those companies would be declared illegal if Linux move to GPLv3. They will lose money in trying to adjust their business models, and they own rather big chunk of code in Linux kernel. Maybe they will call for a for splitting community at half!? Maybe Novell will even line up with SCO, because they to have UNIX ownership. GPLv3 have big potential for disaster. It can set all progress 10 years back if people is not careful.

Basically, if Linux switches to GPLv3 right now, I think that only Cannonical and Red Hat would continue developing for sure and without complaining. It is not because people at other companies hate freedom, it is because they want freedom to. They would not be investing in FLOSS if thay don't. But if they have to adjust their whole busines model just to please FSF, they won't do it. It is hard enough to make money out of free sofware with GPLv2... They need to get sometnig in return. There is no argument that Stallman can pull in front of FLOSS companies CEOs that will convince them that GPLv3 is worth of hustle of re-licensing. They do not buy at tivoization stuf because in future, thay might need to tivoize for some reason. Only thing that is + for GPLv3 rigt now (from the likes fo Novell point of view) is improved licence compatibility. Apache licence compatibility for example. If OpenSolaris gone GPLv3 or if CDDL was GPLv3 compatible, we will now probably see more enthusiasm about GPLv3.

Bottom line, people will not risk profits only because political correctness, but if they got sometnig in return (ie, SunOS kernel licence compatibility) they would make efforts to re-licence.

That said, I think that GPLv3 is very good licence. It would make Microsoft even more scared of linux because they could not make new harmful patent covenants. But if were on Linus' place, I would not push GPLv3 either. To many people to convince with to few points they really care that can be brought up in discussion. Lets hope that Oracle changes Solaris to GPLv3 in future, that would make GPLv3 lot more interesting.

clanky
December 11th, 2009, 03:07 PM
for now would be to improve the usability of Ubuntu GNU/Linux, and focus on removing non-Free software from it first.

Yeah, because taking out half of the drivers would make the OS more usable, right?

Xbehave
December 11th, 2009, 04:15 PM
That said, I think that GPLv3 is very good licence. It would make Microsoft even more scared of linux because they could not make new harmful patent covenants. But if were on Linus' place, I would not push GPLv3 either. To many people to convince with to few points they really care that can be brought up in discussion. Lets hope that Oracle changes Solaris to GPLv3 in future, that would make GPLv3 lot more interesting.
Given that software patents vary by region so much, I don't think the place for patent deals is in the copyright lisense, the GPL2 already said there couldn't be further limits. Software should be licensed GPL2+open patents or GPL2+we permit all open-source software to use our patent, it's really not the scope of copyright. IMO the GPL2 is a pretty much perfect license and the GPL3 is a "bloated" one.

bshosey
December 13th, 2009, 06:11 PM
I would love to see a fully GPLv3 OS. I would love to see HURD be complete. But the bottem line is Linux is not ready for GPLv3. I can understand the worries of the new license that companies have.

But the true bottom line is this. Freedom goes both ways. We can sit here an preach that OpenSource is better than ClosedSource. GPLv3 is better than GPLv2 or what ever. If a certain party does not want to use it, that is their right to not use.