

Bits from the Debian GNU/Hurd porters - tshepang
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2014/05/msg00006.html

======
stormbrew
It kind of seems like the least interesting possible thing to do with Hurd,
given its major architectural differences from Linux, is to make it as much
like Linux as possible. I'm just not sure who the target users are for "Debian
GNU/Hurd" or why they'd ever be better served by it than by Debian Linux?

Edit to add: That said, since Debian seems to be the main group willing to do
any kind of binary distribution with Hurd, they get to call the shots.

~~~
mercurial
> It kind of seems like the least interesting possible thing to do with Hurd,
> given its major architectural differences from Linux, is to make it as much
> like Linux as possible.

I suppose that whoever uses it also needs userland software. It's fun to have
a kernel with an unusual architecture, but less so when there is no
application for it. I'm also not sure who the public is, apart from FSF
people(?), kernel enthusiasts and people who like to experiment. But clearly
there are enough people interested that it is getting more usable, and there
is nothing wrong with that.

~~~
gkya
Hurd is a POSIX OS.

~~~
stormbrew
So are certain versions of Windows NT.

What I'm talking about is adopting things well outside the confines of POSIX,
into using stuff like FHS and systemv-style init. Hurd has some powerful stuff
that's more like Plan9 than it is like UNIX, and some linuxy ways of doing
things can get in the way of using those.

~~~
rbanffy
If having a Linux-like layer is what it takes to gain more traction, then so
be it.

The world gains very little from having a great OS nobody knows about.

With time, the Hurd-ish ways should prevail where it makes sense.

~~~
zanny
They already did, its called Plan9 =P

Really, the next innovation in kernels and system architecture needs to be an
improvement on plan9 - not on Unix, again.

------
atmosx
This advantages page is interesting:
[http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/advantages.html](http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/advantages.html)

~~~
CHY872
I'm just not sure they're all advantages for a general purpose kernel. Many
have tried the microkernel model - Windows (NT) and OS X as two examples were
both designed around the microkernel model, but have had to give it up since
then purely for performance reasons. The high overheads of all the IPC meant
that the operating system was just a bit slow, and the IPC made it all hard to
debug.

~~~
justizin
it seems that to say that OS X was designed around the microkernel model, but
had to give it up is misleading.

XNU, OS X's kernel, is based on the Mach microkernel, but also leverages some
monolithic design in some cases.

In any case, it seems that Debian GNU/Hurd would be a worthwhile place to
experiment with such technologies with a familiar runtime.

~~~
CHY872
Sorry for the confusion - that's what I meant. They both vaguely work around
the microkernel architecture, except where it's not desirable for performance
reasons - so for example on my Mac basically every hardware driver runs in
supervisor mode.

I agree with the premise that it's more hackable, though.

------
popee
> Switch to pthreads.

I'm not aware what they used before, but why pthreads? Isn't this perfect
opportunity to try to develop something better, introduce new concepts (async,
coroutines or some kind of userspace deterministic job management)? Not sure
if backward compatibility is best way to go here, but maybe i'm just talking
gibberish

~~~
asveikau
Putting aside the need to port code from elsewhere and not exist in your own
private universe, this is a bit like saying remove the filesystem APIs because
we have a database. Both are valid things to keep around. Given the choice
there are still lots of instances where you would pick the former.

~~~
popee
I'm aware of this and it's rational choice, but whata opportunity. They (just
maybe) could also add compatibility layer on top of something else, like other
projects do, but nvm.

------
e12e
Sorry to see them selling themselves short, as far as I can tell, coverage
increased from 70% to 80% (not from 73%) -- so it's more an increase of 14%,
not 10%!

Great to see this port moving forward, now I'm no longer certain my next
playdate will be with Debian/kFreeBSD after all!

~~~
danudey
They likely meant ten percentage points, a frustratingly common
miscommunication.

------
bitwize
Sysvinit? Really?

systemd is becoming the standard free-Unix init. Even the OpenBSD folks
acknowledge the need for a systemd-compatible init and have started a GSoC
project for just that.

~~~
Karellen
Uh, no. Check #15 and #16 in "The 30 Biggest Myths about systemd".[0] It's
highly unlikely that systemd will ever run on *BSD - even on Debian/BSD with a
GNU userland - and those are a lot closer to Linux than than Hurd is. Systemd
is Linux-only. I'm tempted to say it's GNU/Linux-only, but I'm not sure if
Google's working on getting it to run on Android/Linux.

EDIT - even if the BSDs have started working on their own equivalent, that
doesn't help the Debian/Hurd porters who need a working init system _now_. Or,
more accurately, a couple of years ago when they really started to get the
distro together.

[0] [http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-
myths.html](http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html)

~~~
vezzy-fnord
The BSDs aren't working on any alternative, as far as I know. OpenBSD is
working on creating OS-agnostic replacements for some of the common systemd
interfaces (logind, hostnamed, etc.) for use in porting applications that need
them, e.g. GNOME.

