IRC, #hurd, 2011-01-12.
<Pete-J> Hello i am just curious of the development of Hurd - what's the current mission on the microkernel i see projects like l4 and viengoos, will one of these projects replace Mach? or will you stick with Mach <Pete-J> as i understand is that Mach is a first generation microkernel that's very old in design and causes alot of issues <Pete-J> that's where l4 and viengoos comes in - they are trying to be the next generation Mach - am i correct? <neal> l4 is not a drop in replacement for Mach <neal> it doesn't actually do much resource management <neal> for instance, you still have to implement a memory manager <neal> this is where several issues are with Mach <neal> l4 doesn't address those issues; it punts to the operating system <Pete-J> and what about viengoos? <neal> it's unfinished <neal> and it implemented some untested ideas <neal> i.e., parts of viengoos were research <neal> there has not been a sufficient evaluation of those ideas to determine whether they are a good approach <Pete-J> meaning that viengoos is a research kernel that could aid Mach? <neal> I'm not sure I understand your question <Pete-J> Well is viengoos trying to be a replacement for Mach, or will viengoos be an experiment of new ideas that could be implemented in Mach? <Pete-J> i am sorry for my limited english <neal> viengoos was designed with a Hurd-like user-land in mind <neal> in that sense it was a Mach replacement <neal> (unlike L4) <neal> viengoos consisted of a few experiments <neal> one could implement them in mach <neal> but it would require exposing new interfaces <neal> in which case, I'm not sure you could call the result Mach <Pete-J> Well as i understand you develop two microkernels side by side, wouldnt it be more effective to investigate viengoos more and maybe move the focus to viengoos? <antrik> no <antrik> having something working all the time is crucial <antrik> it's very hard to motivate people to work on a project that might be useful, in a couple of years, perhaps... <Pete-J> Well Mach is meant to be replaced one day - i see no reason to keep on developing it just because it works at this moment <Pete-J> *if Mach is meant to be replaced <antrik> it's not at all clear that it will be replaced by something completely different. I for my part believe that modifying the existing Mach is a more promising approach <Pete-J> as i understand man power is something you need - and by spreading out the developers just makes the progress more slow <antrik> but even if it *were* to be replaced one day, it doesn't change the fact that we need it *now* <antrik> all software will be obsolete one day. doesn't mean it's not worth working on <antrik> the vast majority of work is not on the microkernel anyways, but on the system running on top of it <Pete-J> ahh i see <antrik> manpower is not something that comes from nowhere. again, having something working is crucial in a volunteer project like this <antrik> there are no fixed plans