Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Operating Systems GNU is Not Unix

GNU Hurd 0.5, GNU Mach 1.4, GNU MIG 1.4 Released 206

Posted by timothy
from the gathering-storm dept.
jrepin writes "Which day could be better suited for publishing a set of Hurd package releases than the GNU project's 30th birthday? These new releases bundle bug fixes and enhancements done since the last releases more than a decade ago; really too many (both years and improvements) to list them individually, The GNU Hurd is the GNU project's replacement for the Unix kernel. It is a collection of servers that run on the Mach microkernel to implement file systems, network protocols, file access control, and other features that are implemented by the Unix kernel or similar kernels (such as Linux)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GNU Hurd 0.5, GNU Mach 1.4, GNU MIG 1.4 Released

Comments Filter:
  • by Freshly Exhumed (105597) on Friday September 27, 2013 @10:07PM (#44976959) Homepage

    30 years for Hurd 0.5, so 1.0 will be available in 2043?

    • by MrEricSir (398214) on Friday September 27, 2013 @10:10PM (#44976975) Homepage

      GNU is 30 years old, but Hurd is "only" 23. It started while the first Bush was still president rather than Reagan.

      • by Freshly Exhumed (105597) on Friday September 27, 2013 @10:20PM (#44977037) Homepage

        So they'll complete Hurd 1.0 just in time for the 2038 bug [wikipedia.org]! That gives them 23 more years to go completely 64-bit by then.

      • by iggymanz (596061) on Friday September 27, 2013 @10:20PM (#44977039)

        wrong. the initial failed attempt at HURD started in 1986 with a BSD 4.4 like kernel. The project is thus 27 years old. still not stable, not suitable for any production use, and only runs on i386, it is a failure

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ArchieBunker (132337)

          The people in charge of that are so out of touch they should be committed in a mental hospital. It wasn't that long ago they finally supported partitions bigger than 2GB, yes two GigaBytes. Think about that fact while you also learn that RMS uses an old terminal or some such nonsense along with a script to gather Google searches and email the text to him. He lacks a graphical interface.

          • by K. S. Kyosuke (729550) on Saturday September 28, 2013 @05:26AM (#44978023)

            Think about that fact while you also learn that RMS uses an old terminal or some such nonsense along with a script to gather Google searches and email the text to him.

            If you think about it, it's a fairly effective way of avoiding getting hacked (or at least minimizing the attack surface).

            • by drinkypoo (153816)

              He's protected from the Snow Crash, but the Blight will still own his computer.

              • by mellon (7048)

                Meh, the blight will just hack the people in the cubicle next to him and send them over to make him sit in front of the programming screen. No need to hack him through an ASCII terminal. Prepare to be assimilated! (Speaking of which, why do Borgs always say stuff like that? How do you prepare to be assimilated?)

                • I thought the Borg said things more along the lines of 'You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile'. Not so much a request to prepare, just a statement that it will happen.

                • by drinkypoo (153816)

                  Meh, the blight will just hack the people in the cubicle next to him and send them over to make him sit in front of the programming screen.

                  Not this far into the slowness.

                • by ultranova (717540)

                  How do you prepare to be assimilated?

                  Quickly memorize My Immortal so you'll be spit out and humanity classified as "poisonous - don't eat"?

                  It works for caterpillars.

            • Why should he be worried since he has the source code? Another bombshell for you guys. His systems did not even have passwords until an untrustworthy worker started fucking around.

          • by serviscope_minor (664417) on Saturday September 28, 2013 @07:36AM (#44978263) Journal

            The people in charge of that are so out of touch they should be committed in a mental hospital.

            Well, aren't you so high and mighty and important shitting on someone else's personal project.

            That's all hurd is: it's a small hobby project by a very small number of programmers.

            It's not for you, it's for them. Being "in touch" with you is not a requirement.

            Oh and by the way, I've no idea what your hobbies are, but I'm sure they suck and you're crap and should be in a mental hospital.

            Think about that fact while you also learn that RMS uses an old terminal or some such nonsense along with a script to gather Google searches and email the text to him. He lacks a graphical interface.

            Firstly, I already knew that.

            Secondly, so what? That's his choice. You know he does that on GNU/Linux, right?

            On a MIPS laptop which doesn't even run hurd? You know that too, right?

            • by shaitand (626655)
              "GNU/Linux"

              I didn't know GNU produced a Linux system. Yes, I know the reference it is the result of petty jealousy and attempt at attention grabbing, nothing more.
        • by phantomfive (622387) on Saturday September 28, 2013 @12:33AM (#44977409) Journal
          My understanding is the people who are doing it now are mainly doing it for fun, because they like kernel programming. there is no longer a pressing urgent need for a free kernel. And if they come up with some good ideas, they will be copied into more mainstream kernels.
          • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Saturday September 28, 2013 @06:17AM (#44978109) Journal
            And they've been using it to explore some quite interesting ideas in kernel design. The fine-grained compartmentalism that a microkernel provides (at the expense of some performance) is starting to look more attractive in a world where computers run in very hostile environments and yet even a 50% slower kernel would have a negligible impact on user-perceived performance (or battery life).
            • by fatphil (181876) on Saturday September 28, 2013 @06:51AM (#44978171) Homepage
              The funny thing is that for some kernels, it's perfectly true. I know the kernel I run on this workstation here gives about 99.5% of the cycles to the userspace programs that I launch. Yet playing very briefly with a windows 8 system a few months back (it survived about 20 minutes between arrival at the office and having linux put on it), the kernel and hundreds of intimately-bound-I-don't-know-what-the-fuck-they-do-or-why-I-would-ever-want-them daemons were taking up between 5% and 10% of the CPU constantly. The former I would happily accept a 50% increase in overhead to, I'm perfectly happy only having 99.25% to myself. But the latter would have ground to a halt if there were any more impediments to interprocess communication.
              • by fnj (64210)

                Let me try to understand this.

                0.5% overhead is fine with you. I am absolutely in agreement with this.

                5-10% overhead horrifies you. OK, you're starting to lose me here. 5-10% overhead is canceled out completely by maybe TWO MONTHS of CPU development. It's nothing. Nada.

                Anticipation of an implied rise to perhaps 7.5-15% overhead seems to make you reel in dismay. That seems to you to equate to the system grinding to a halt. Funny, in my world it translates to a system which is 85-92.5% as efficient as a theore

                • 5-10% overhead is canceled out completely by maybe TWO MONTHS of CPU development.

                  I really wish CPUs were increasing speed at that rate

              • by Kjella (173770)

                Yet playing very briefly with a windows 8 system a few months back (it survived about 20 minutes between arrival at the office and having linux put on it), the kernel and hundreds of intimately-bound-I-don't-know-what-the-fuck-they-do-or-why-I-would-ever-want-them daemons were taking up between 5% and 10% of the CPU constantly.

                OEM or corporate install full of crapware? Pure Windows (installed yourself from an OEM/retail disc) is a whole different ballgame, Microsoft actually doesn't add much crap like that. I don't have personal experience with a clean Win8 install, but at least on Win7 it's 99-100% idle when I don't do anything.

              • Keep in ,mind that with Windows, Internet Explorer is an integral part of the kernel !* ;-)

                *No, I don't believe that, but Bill Gates certainly wanted US Courts to think so back in the day.
            • by iggymanz (596061)

              but other projects have done such things *successfully* and could even be used on a real server to provide a real service, for example minix 3

              • MINIX 3 is a pretty conventional microkernel. Take a look, for example, at some of the virtual memory stuff done in L4/HURD. This can be seen as a continuation of the external pager support in Mach, but with a much simpler and cleaner design and a lot of direct application to current workloads.
            • by unixisc (2429386)

              And they've been using it to explore some quite interesting ideas in kernel design. The fine-grained compartmentalism that a microkernel provides (at the expense of some performance) is starting to look more attractive in a world where computers run in very hostile environments and yet even a 50% slower kernel would have a negligible impact on user-perceived performance (or battery life).

              But are these achievable under Mach? I know that some microkernels seem to be very good - like Chorus, L4 and now Minix 3.x. But has Mach progressed much since 3.0? Only positive thing about it is that it is multi-platform, but w/ just x64 and ARM remaining, that's not saying much.

              HURD had experimented w/ a number of microkernels, but I think they'd have done well to fork Minix 3.x and port the HURD there. Oh, and as some noted above, since they are so late, they might as well go directly to 64-bit, a

        • Though one could be forgiven for getting the timeline mixed up, given all the bizarre declarations, bizarre nomenclature, confusion of theoretical projects with real projects, dogmatic insistence that things are in fact whatever Stallman calls them, etc.
        • As a 'product' it may be a dismal failure, but the work getting to it has clearly been not and we every day enjoy the 'collateral successes'.

          For all his faults, RMS did help the 'movement' in incalculable ways.

      • by Cinder6 (894572)

        Christ, and we thought Duke Nukem took forever.

    • by erroneus (253617)

      I was thinking something along those lines myself. To arrive at "1.0" would mean that it would be feature complete and stable according to the "1.0" set defined when "1.0" was created as a target. That already makes me wonder if Hurd is absolete before it has been completed.

    • by Lunix Nutcase (1092239) on Friday September 27, 2013 @10:13PM (#44976993)

      And in 2063, Steam for Hurd!!!

    • by krkhan (1071096) on Friday September 27, 2013 @10:30PM (#44977061) Homepage
      Just in time for Chrome 2147483647.
    • Yes. They plan to speed up its development by rewriting it in Perl 6.

    • by c (8461)

      30 years for Hurd 0.5, so 1.0 will be available in 2043?

      Well, no. Being a Unix replacement, I'd expect it sometime around 1975.

    • 30 years for Hurd 0.5, so 1.0 will be available in 2043?

      I know I'm being a pedantic pangolin here and ruining your joke without any good reason, but we should still remember that version numbers are not floating point numbers. Rather, they contain groups of integer numbers separated with a dot. So after 0.9 there might still be 0.10, 0.11, etc...

  • by tmark (230091) on Friday September 27, 2013 @10:11PM (#44976977)

    "Development of the Hurd has proceeded slowly." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd)

    As per http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd/status.html [gnu.org]: " It may not be ready for production use, as there are still some bugs and missing features".

    Exactly how long has it been like this ? I tracked this project for about a decade until I concluded it would never be ready for production - over a decade ago.

  • Oh, I don't know maybe some day in the early 90's. Back when it would have been useful to me. /kidding only a little.

  • I've heard it said that time moves on and that maybe even Linux won't last forever. Wether or not that is true I Believe *nix in general will be around for a long long time yet. Fast forward a decade or two - despite Hurd and it's sllloowww.... development being a bit of a joke, wouldn't it be something if we are all actually using Hurd in the future? Stranger things have happened.
  • Proposal: (Score:5, Funny)

    by pseudofrog (570061) on Friday September 27, 2013 @10:18PM (#44977023)
    Fork a BSD variant, license it under the GPL, package it with GNU stuff, call it Hurd 1.0.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Fork a BSD variant, license it under the GPL, package it with GNU stuff, call it Hurd 1.0.

      Just in case you (or anyone else who reads this) is really so ignorant of copyright law, it should be said that forking code that isn't your own does not suddenly turn you from a licensee into a licensor. You can't take a BSD operating system, remove the BSD license, and attach the GPL for at least two reasons: 1) the BSD license forbids distributing sources (or binaries) without a copy of the license (which is the BSD license itself), and 2) you are not the copyright owner of any part of the BSD operating

      • by caseih (160668)

        It's a fine line here, though. I definitely can legally take your code that you released as BSD, extend or modify it, and release my version as GPL in its entirety. You still retain the copyright on your code, and of course someone could extract your code from my project and use it under the original BSD license. But I as a developer need not make much distinction.

        As for your claim the BSD requires the license to be distributed with the code, it doesn't actually say that (never uses the word, "license").

    • by unixisc (2429386)

      Fork a BSD variant, license it under the GPL, package it with GNU stuff, call it Hurd 1.0.

      I suggested that for the microkernel - just take Minix 3, which is BSDL, fork it, license that under GPL3, package it w/ the HURD services and Emacs, and then call it HURD 1.0

  • Relevance? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dreamchaser (49529) on Friday September 27, 2013 @10:22PM (#44977047) Homepage Journal

    What exactly is relevant about Hurd now? The OS landscape has changed and people have moved on. This is really a non-story, aside from the humor value.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      If that's how you think, you've chosen the wrong name. Maybe 'dreambasher' would be more appropriate.

      A small handful of technical people have a dream to make a viable microkernel operating system, and they're chasing their dream. Good for them.

    • "Moved on"? You make is sound as if Hurd was relevat once!

  • ...on my PowerPC 620...

  • by conner_bw (120497) on Friday September 27, 2013 @10:48PM (#44977121) Homepage Journal

    HURD will be paired with the Unity GUI and renamed Caldera OpenLinux to make HURD the most popular distro ever!

    • by unixisc (2429386)
      Actually, the perfect pure GNU system - HURD on an Itanium (or a real VLIW CPU), w/ Emacs on top of it as well as GNOME 3. Only impurity here - X11, which isn't GPL3. Maybe they can try and do a GPL variation of either X11 or Wayland or Mir, whichever they prefer.
  • IPv6 support in pfinet, based on Linux 2.2.14.

    • by smash (1351)
      Oh cool, I'll try and source an old 3c509 or NE2000 (and a motherboard with ISA or PCI slots) for network support.
      • by Anomalyst (742352)
        Remeber, most 3c509b drivers will NOT work with the 3c509c,something about removing the way most drivers pulled the data from the card.
    • by unixisc (2429386)
      I thought Minix 3.4 is already ready. It has Minix at the bottom, and NetBSD userland.

How many hardware guys does it take to change a light bulb? "Well the diagnostics say it's fine buddy, so it's a software problem."

Working...