Give me one reason why GNU is still developing Hurd

[donkyhotay]

because they have a plenty of spare time- so they can do whatever they want with it.

+1

[KiwiNZ]

Sheer bloody-minded refusal to face reality?

Hmmmm, I was under the impression the OSS/GNU movement was about freedom

[Dry Lips]

Have anyone here actually tried Hurd?

[Paqman]

Hmmmm, I was under the impression the OSS/GNU movement was about freedom

The freedom to choose doesn't imply that all choices are equally valid. The GNU system already has an excellent, mature, widely supported kernel. Wasting developer time on building another might be a fun technical exercise, but it's not going to achieve anything useful.

We're all free to punch ourselves in the face any time we like. Doesn't mean anyone will applaud you for doing so.

[KiwiNZ]

The freedom to choose doesn't imply that all choices are equally valid. The GNU system already has an excellent, mature, widely supported kernel. Wasting developer time on building another might be a fun technical exercise, but it's not going to achieve anything useful.

We're all free to punch ourselves in the face any time we like. Doesn't mean anyone will applaud you for doing so.

Freedom is allowing those developers to select what project they work on.

Your logic could easily be applied to Linux desktop, after all it has only achieved +/- 1% and could be deemed as achieving nothing useful.

[lykwydchykyn]

Is there currently a FOSS kernel out there with a microkernel design? HURD is a microkernel, with a unique design. It's possible that someday the monolithic kernel approach will fail to scale (or at least be inappropriate for a given application), and won't it be nice to have a readily available microkernel to drop in and go?

BTW, last time I heard, Debian Wheezy is supposed to have a HURD flavor by the time it's released.

[BeRoot ReBoot]

Because why not? I'm still hoping to one day be able to use a fully GNU-based OS, preferably with the HURD kernel and Emacs as the userland.

[forrestcupp]

Is there currently a FOSS kernel out there with a microkernel design? HURD is a microkernel, with a unique design. It's possible that someday the monolithic kernel approach will fail to scale (or at least be inappropriate for a given application), and won't it be nice to have a readily available microkernel to drop in and go?

If there were a viable one, you would probably know about it.

BTW, last time I heard, Debian Wheezy is supposed to have a HURD flavor by the time it's released.

Just because Debian is going to have a HURD version doesn't mean HURD is going to be any less crappy than it always has been.

It's got a long way to go before it supports enough hardware to be viable.

[Copper Bezel]

Honestly, I'm surprised that there isn't more support for it, for the reason lykwydchykyn raised. Yes, kernels are hard, and it's more straightforwardly applicable to real life to do work on the Linux kernel than to work with another esoteric alternative. Yes, the hardware support is a very serious issue, because that's most of what a kernel does and most of the limitations that even GNU / Linux faces. But it's rather broadly accepted that the microkernel model is just better than the monolithic kernel strategy. To me, Haiku or *BSD offers less distinction from Linux than does Hurd, yet people do develop them. If each project were really seriously considering what the practical outcomes of its enterprise really might be, as the question assumes, then I'd think that people interested in providing another option that isn't Linux would flock to Hurd.

[szymon_g]

I didn't even know what Hurd was... I had to Google it. So, it's a replacement for Unix?

no. Plan 9 was a replacement for Unix.