GNU/Hurd vs. GNU/Linux
I was quite surprised to learn that the GNU project has an independent kernel of their own called Hurd. And there are mainstream distributions like Arch Hurd and Debian GNU/Hurd which uses it. Is there any significant advantage for Hurd over Linux?
gnu hurd
edited Jul 29 '15 at 9:25
tschwinge
31
asked Oct 29 '11 at 14:51
Bernhard HeijstekBernhard Heijstek
5471719
add a comment |
I was quite surprised to learn that the GNU project has an independent kernel of their own called Hurd. And there are mainstream distributions like Arch Hurd and Debian GNU/Hurd which uses it. Is there any significant advantage for Hurd over Linux?
gnu hurd
edited Jul 29 '15 at 9:25
tschwinge
31
asked Oct 29 '11 at 14:51
Bernhard HeijstekBernhard Heijstek
5471719
9
The distribution of Debian which runs the FreeBSD kernel is a more significant player. People are actually using that for production work, unlike the Hurd.
– Faheem Mitha
Oct 29 '11 at 16:54
<a href="rixstep.com/1/20110807,00.shtml">Here</a> are some further thoughts on the OS differences that arise from different kernel architectures (monolithic kernel vs microkernel).
– user11967
Oct 31 '11 at 8:21
I agree. GNU/HURD today is no less effective than GNU/Linux.
– Samuel S. Mandal
Aug 6 '16 at 10:24
add a comment |
I was quite surprised to learn that the GNU project has an independent kernel of their own called Hurd. And there are mainstream distributions like Arch Hurd and Debian GNU/Hurd which uses it. Is there any significant advantage for Hurd over Linux?
gnu hurd
edited Jul 29 '15 at 9:25
tschwinge
31
asked Oct 29 '11 at 14:51
Bernhard HeijstekBernhard Heijstek
5471719
I was quite surprised to learn that the GNU project has an independent kernel of their own called Hurd. And there are mainstream distributions like Arch Hurd and Debian GNU/Hurd which uses it. Is there any significant advantage for Hurd over Linux?
gnu hurd
gnu hurd
edited Jul 29 '15 at 9:25
tschwinge
31
asked Oct 29 '11 at 14:51
Bernhard HeijstekBernhard Heijstek
5471719
edited Jul 29 '15 at 9:25
tschwinge
31
asked Oct 29 '11 at 14:51
Bernhard HeijstekBernhard Heijstek
5471719
edited Jul 29 '15 at 9:25
tschwinge
31
edited Jul 29 '15 at 9:25
tschwinge
31
edited Jul 29 '15 at 9:25
tschwinge
31
31
asked Oct 29 '11 at 14:51
Bernhard HeijstekBernhard Heijstek
5471719
asked Oct 29 '11 at 14:51
Bernhard HeijstekBernhard Heijstek
5471719
asked Oct 29 '11 at 14:51
Bernhard HeijstekBernhard Heijstek
5471719
5471719
9
The distribution of Debian which runs the FreeBSD kernel is a more significant player. People are actually using that for production work, unlike the Hurd.
– Faheem Mitha
Oct 29 '11 at 16:54
<a href="rixstep.com/1/20110807,00.shtml">Here</a> are some further thoughts on the OS differences that arise from different kernel architectures (monolithic kernel vs microkernel).
– user11967
Oct 31 '11 at 8:21
I agree. GNU/HURD today is no less effective than GNU/Linux.
– Samuel S. Mandal
Aug 6 '16 at 10:24
add a comment |
9
The distribution of Debian which runs the FreeBSD kernel is a more significant player. People are actually using that for production work, unlike the Hurd.
– Faheem Mitha
Oct 29 '11 at 16:54
<a href="rixstep.com/1/20110807,00.shtml">Here</a> are some further thoughts on the OS differences that arise from different kernel architectures (monolithic kernel vs microkernel).
– user11967
Oct 31 '11 at 8:21
I agree. GNU/HURD today is no less effective than GNU/Linux.
– Samuel S. Mandal
Aug 6 '16 at 10:24
9
9
The distribution of Debian which runs the FreeBSD kernel is a more significant player. People are actually using that for production work, unlike the Hurd.
– Faheem Mitha
Oct 29 '11 at 16:54
The distribution of Debian which runs the FreeBSD kernel is a more significant player. People are actually using that for production work, unlike the Hurd.
– Faheem Mitha
Oct 29 '11 at 16:54
<a href="rixstep.com/1/20110807,00.shtml">Here</a> are some further thoughts on the OS differences that arise from different kernel architectures (monolithic kernel vs microkernel).
– user11967
Oct 31 '11 at 8:21
<a href="rixstep.com/1/20110807,00.shtml">Here</a> are some further thoughts on the OS differences that arise from different kernel architectures (monolithic kernel vs microkernel).
– user11967
Oct 31 '11 at 8:21
I agree. GNU/HURD today is no less effective than GNU/Linux.
– Samuel S. Mandal
Aug 6 '16 at 10:24
I agree. GNU/HURD today is no less effective than GNU/Linux.
– Samuel S. Mandal
Aug 6 '16 at 10:24
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
At this point in time, considering there is no "stable" distribution of GNU/Hurd, the major advantages seem to lie with Linux.
A good place to start understanding the differences between a Mach microkernel, and a traditional monolithic unix kernel is the Wikipedia page on Mach (Kernel).
As an interesting note, Mac OS X, uses a Mach Kernel, called XNU. Though based on Mach 3.0, it's not a microkernel, like Hurd is. It makes sense, since Jobs brought the Mach kernel from NeXT to Apple when Apple bought NeXT.
Happy Reading.
Status Update 2018
In the first 6 months of 2018, the git repo for HURD received only 40 commits, so rumors of stability may be exaggerated. And the number of active code contributors is down to something like 5. So, GNU/Hurd is still at a major disadvantage to GNU/Linux. Check back in 2025 after another 7 years, for another update.
See this article from Phoronix for detail.
answered Oct 29 '11 at 16:04
Tim KennedyTim Kennedy
14.5k23050
You might want to update your answer now. As of 2013 the hurd is a remarkable piece of software that is moving forward nicely, and is now in the position to stay online for quite some time before needing to be taken down (there are still some memory leaks). You can find more information here and here
– NlightNFotis
Feb 17 '13 at 8:55
5
@NlightNFotis Suggest you post your own answer.
– derobert
Aug 22 '13 at 15:27
@NlightNFotis how about as of 2016? any updates?
– Kolob Canyon
Oct 27 '16 at 20:28
As of March 2017, it is finally getting to be stable. But, it is still not ready for production. It still has serious unresolved bugs and missing features.
– farhangfarhangfar
Mar 23 '17 at 17:29
A low number of commits may mean stability. A high number of commits may mean unstable. Or it may be the opposite. It kinda depends on what's committed.
– Kusalananda
Feb 8 at 8:39
add a comment |
Hurd was the original 'anticipated' kernel BEFORE Linux existed. It has been under development, seemingly for years. During that time, Linus Torvalds along with volunteers worldwide, developed and implemented a kernel that is large, but worked. It was enhanced with programmers from many software firms including Redhat, HP and IBM. It is reliable and works. Mach adhere to the Minix philosophy of having a simple microkernel. I would suggest you take a look at the work of Minix if you would like to see the differences in philosophy. Though the microkernel may have some theoretical advantages, all of the literature I have read, seems to favor the kernel strategy taken by Linux.
edited Aug 22 '13 at 11:46
a CVn
17.1k851105
answered Oct 30 '11 at 16:40
apolinskyapolinsky
44038
5
There are cases where the separation a microkernel offers is worth the costs - usually systems that have to be highly reliable and able to cope with as many errors as possible. Typically anything running on an aircraft (apart from on-board entertainment systems) or in automotive industry. Generally places where less is more, since lives are at risk.
– peterph
Jan 30 '14 at 21:34
"seemingly" for years?
– Kusalananda
Feb 8 at 8:39
add a comment |
According to the Wikipedia article on GNU Hurd:
In 2010, after twenty years under development, Stallman said that he
was "not very optimistic about the GNU Hurd. It makes some progress,
but to be really superior it would require solving a lot of deep
problems", but added that "finishing it is not crucial" for the GNU
system because a free kernel already existed (Linux), and completing
Hurd would not address the main remaining problem for a free operating
system: device support.
It seems that it would take a large amount of work to complete the project and resolve the issues that it is facing. On top of this, it is quite unclear what (if any) benefits the Hurd kernel would bring to most normal users over the current Linux kernel, which has had a large amount of resources poured into it over many years and works very well on a wide range of architectures.
Because of this, it seems that Hurd is little more than an academic exercise at this point. With no real driving need behind it, it seems unlikely that it will reach full usability any time soon, let alone catch up with or exceed the impressive capabilities of Linux. I don't mean to knock the Hurd developers, but I wouldn't hold your breath ...
answered Nov 14 '17 at 22:12
Time4TeaTime4Tea
1,145325
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f23549%2fgnu-hurd-vs-gnu-linux%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
At this point in time, considering there is no "stable" distribution of GNU/Hurd, the major advantages seem to lie with Linux.
A good place to start understanding the differences between a Mach microkernel, and a traditional monolithic unix kernel is the Wikipedia page on Mach (Kernel).
As an interesting note, Mac OS X, uses a Mach Kernel, called XNU. Though based on Mach 3.0, it's not a microkernel, like Hurd is. It makes sense, since Jobs brought the Mach kernel from NeXT to Apple when Apple bought NeXT.
Happy Reading.
Status Update 2018
In the first 6 months of 2018, the git repo for HURD received only 40 commits, so rumors of stability may be exaggerated. And the number of active code contributors is down to something like 5. So, GNU/Hurd is still at a major disadvantage to GNU/Linux. Check back in 2025 after another 7 years, for another update.
See this article from Phoronix for detail.
answered Oct 29 '11 at 16:04
Tim KennedyTim Kennedy
14.5k23050
You might want to update your answer now. As of 2013 the hurd is a remarkable piece of software that is moving forward nicely, and is now in the position to stay online for quite some time before needing to be taken down (there are still some memory leaks). You can find more information here and here
– NlightNFotis
Feb 17 '13 at 8:55
5
@NlightNFotis Suggest you post your own answer.
– derobert
Aug 22 '13 at 15:27
@NlightNFotis how about as of 2016? any updates?
– Kolob Canyon
Oct 27 '16 at 20:28
As of March 2017, it is finally getting to be stable. But, it is still not ready for production. It still has serious unresolved bugs and missing features.
– farhangfarhangfar
Mar 23 '17 at 17:29
A low number of commits may mean stability. A high number of commits may mean unstable. Or it may be the opposite. It kinda depends on what's committed.
– Kusalananda
Feb 8 at 8:39
add a comment |
At this point in time, considering there is no "stable" distribution of GNU/Hurd, the major advantages seem to lie with Linux.
A good place to start understanding the differences between a Mach microkernel, and a traditional monolithic unix kernel is the Wikipedia page on Mach (Kernel).
As an interesting note, Mac OS X, uses a Mach Kernel, called XNU. Though based on Mach 3.0, it's not a microkernel, like Hurd is. It makes sense, since Jobs brought the Mach kernel from NeXT to Apple when Apple bought NeXT.
Happy Reading.
Status Update 2018
In the first 6 months of 2018, the git repo for HURD received only 40 commits, so rumors of stability may be exaggerated. And the number of active code contributors is down to something like 5. So, GNU/Hurd is still at a major disadvantage to GNU/Linux. Check back in 2025 after another 7 years, for another update.
See this article from Phoronix for detail.
answered Oct 29 '11 at 16:04
Tim KennedyTim Kennedy
14.5k23050
You might want to update your answer now. As of 2013 the hurd is a remarkable piece of software that is moving forward nicely, and is now in the position to stay online for quite some time before needing to be taken down (there are still some memory leaks). You can find more information here and here
– NlightNFotis
Feb 17 '13 at 8:55
5
@NlightNFotis Suggest you post your own answer.
– derobert
Aug 22 '13 at 15:27
@NlightNFotis how about as of 2016? any updates?
– Kolob Canyon
Oct 27 '16 at 20:28
As of March 2017, it is finally getting to be stable. But, it is still not ready for production. It still has serious unresolved bugs and missing features.
– farhangfarhangfar
Mar 23 '17 at 17:29
A low number of commits may mean stability. A high number of commits may mean unstable. Or it may be the opposite. It kinda depends on what's committed.
– Kusalananda
Feb 8 at 8:39
add a comment |
At this point in time, considering there is no "stable" distribution of GNU/Hurd, the major advantages seem to lie with Linux.
A good place to start understanding the differences between a Mach microkernel, and a traditional monolithic unix kernel is the Wikipedia page on Mach (Kernel).
As an interesting note, Mac OS X, uses a Mach Kernel, called XNU. Though based on Mach 3.0, it's not a microkernel, like Hurd is. It makes sense, since Jobs brought the Mach kernel from NeXT to Apple when Apple bought NeXT.
Happy Reading.
Status Update 2018
In the first 6 months of 2018, the git repo for HURD received only 40 commits, so rumors of stability may be exaggerated. And the number of active code contributors is down to something like 5. So, GNU/Hurd is still at a major disadvantage to GNU/Linux. Check back in 2025 after another 7 years, for another update.
See this article from Phoronix for detail.
answered Oct 29 '11 at 16:04
Tim KennedyTim Kennedy
14.5k23050
At this point in time, considering there is no "stable" distribution of GNU/Hurd, the major advantages seem to lie with Linux.
A good place to start understanding the differences between a Mach microkernel, and a traditional monolithic unix kernel is the Wikipedia page on Mach (Kernel).
As an interesting note, Mac OS X, uses a Mach Kernel, called XNU. Though based on Mach 3.0, it's not a microkernel, like Hurd is. It makes sense, since Jobs brought the Mach kernel from NeXT to Apple when Apple bought NeXT.
Happy Reading.
Status Update 2018
In the first 6 months of 2018, the git repo for HURD received only 40 commits, so rumors of stability may be exaggerated. And the number of active code contributors is down to something like 5. So, GNU/Hurd is still at a major disadvantage to GNU/Linux. Check back in 2025 after another 7 years, for another update.
See this article from Phoronix for detail.
answered Oct 29 '11 at 16:04
Tim KennedyTim Kennedy
14.5k23050
edited Oct 22 '18 at 16:57
answered Oct 29 '11 at 16:04
Tim KennedyTim Kennedy
14.5k23050
answered Oct 29 '11 at 16:04
Tim KennedyTim Kennedy
14.5k23050
answered Oct 29 '11 at 16:04
Tim KennedyTim Kennedy
14.5k23050
14.5k23050
You might want to update your answer now. As of 2013 the hurd is a remarkable piece of software that is moving forward nicely, and is now in the position to stay online for quite some time before needing to be taken down (there are still some memory leaks). You can find more information here and here
– NlightNFotis
Feb 17 '13 at 8:55
5
@NlightNFotis Suggest you post your own answer.
– derobert
Aug 22 '13 at 15:27
@NlightNFotis how about as of 2016? any updates?
– Kolob Canyon
Oct 27 '16 at 20:28
As of March 2017, it is finally getting to be stable. But, it is still not ready for production. It still has serious unresolved bugs and missing features.
– farhangfarhangfar
Mar 23 '17 at 17:29
A low number of commits may mean stability. A high number of commits may mean unstable. Or it may be the opposite. It kinda depends on what's committed.
– Kusalananda
Feb 8 at 8:39
add a comment |
You might want to update your answer now. As of 2013 the hurd is a remarkable piece of software that is moving forward nicely, and is now in the position to stay online for quite some time before needing to be taken down (there are still some memory leaks). You can find more information here and here
– NlightNFotis
Feb 17 '13 at 8:55
5
@NlightNFotis Suggest you post your own answer.
– derobert
Aug 22 '13 at 15:27
@NlightNFotis how about as of 2016? any updates?
– Kolob Canyon
Oct 27 '16 at 20:28
As of March 2017, it is finally getting to be stable. But, it is still not ready for production. It still has serious unresolved bugs and missing features.
– farhangfarhangfar
Mar 23 '17 at 17:29
A low number of commits may mean stability. A high number of commits may mean unstable. Or it may be the opposite. It kinda depends on what's committed.
– Kusalananda
Feb 8 at 8:39
You might want to update your answer now. As of 2013 the hurd is a remarkable piece of software that is moving forward nicely, and is now in the position to stay online for quite some time before needing to be taken down (there are still some memory leaks). You can find more information here and here
– NlightNFotis
Feb 17 '13 at 8:55
You might want to update your answer now. As of 2013 the hurd is a remarkable piece of software that is moving forward nicely, and is now in the position to stay online for quite some time before needing to be taken down (there are still some memory leaks). You can find more information here and here
– NlightNFotis
Feb 17 '13 at 8:55
5
5
@NlightNFotis Suggest you post your own answer.
– derobert
Aug 22 '13 at 15:27
@NlightNFotis Suggest you post your own answer.
– derobert
Aug 22 '13 at 15:27
@NlightNFotis how about as of 2016? any updates?
– Kolob Canyon
Oct 27 '16 at 20:28
@NlightNFotis how about as of 2016? any updates?
– Kolob Canyon
Oct 27 '16 at 20:28
As of March 2017, it is finally getting to be stable. But, it is still not ready for production. It still has serious unresolved bugs and missing features.
– farhangfarhangfar
Mar 23 '17 at 17:29
As of March 2017, it is finally getting to be stable. But, it is still not ready for production. It still has serious unresolved bugs and missing features.
– farhangfarhangfar
Mar 23 '17 at 17:29
A low number of commits may mean stability. A high number of commits may mean unstable. Or it may be the opposite. It kinda depends on what's committed.
– Kusalananda
Feb 8 at 8:39
A low number of commits may mean stability. A high number of commits may mean unstable. Or it may be the opposite. It kinda depends on what's committed.
– Kusalananda
Feb 8 at 8:39
add a comment |
Hurd was the original 'anticipated' kernel BEFORE Linux existed. It has been under development, seemingly for years. During that time, Linus Torvalds along with volunteers worldwide, developed and implemented a kernel that is large, but worked. It was enhanced with programmers from many software firms including Redhat, HP and IBM. It is reliable and works. Mach adhere to the Minix philosophy of having a simple microkernel. I would suggest you take a look at the work of Minix if you would like to see the differences in philosophy. Though the microkernel may have some theoretical advantages, all of the literature I have read, seems to favor the kernel strategy taken by Linux.
edited Aug 22 '13 at 11:46
a CVn
17.1k851105
answered Oct 30 '11 at 16:40
apolinskyapolinsky
44038
5
There are cases where the separation a microkernel offers is worth the costs - usually systems that have to be highly reliable and able to cope with as many errors as possible. Typically anything running on an aircraft (apart from on-board entertainment systems) or in automotive industry. Generally places where less is more, since lives are at risk.
– peterph
Jan 30 '14 at 21:34
"seemingly" for years?
– Kusalananda
Feb 8 at 8:39
add a comment |
Hurd was the original 'anticipated' kernel BEFORE Linux existed. It has been under development, seemingly for years. During that time, Linus Torvalds along with volunteers worldwide, developed and implemented a kernel that is large, but worked. It was enhanced with programmers from many software firms including Redhat, HP and IBM. It is reliable and works. Mach adhere to the Minix philosophy of having a simple microkernel. I would suggest you take a look at the work of Minix if you would like to see the differences in philosophy. Though the microkernel may have some theoretical advantages, all of the literature I have read, seems to favor the kernel strategy taken by Linux.
edited Aug 22 '13 at 11:46
a CVn
17.1k851105
answered Oct 30 '11 at 16:40
apolinskyapolinsky
44038
5
There are cases where the separation a microkernel offers is worth the costs - usually systems that have to be highly reliable and able to cope with as many errors as possible. Typically anything running on an aircraft (apart from on-board entertainment systems) or in automotive industry. Generally places where less is more, since lives are at risk.
– peterph
Jan 30 '14 at 21:34
"seemingly" for years?
– Kusalananda
Feb 8 at 8:39
add a comment |
Hurd was the original 'anticipated' kernel BEFORE Linux existed. It has been under development, seemingly for years. During that time, Linus Torvalds along with volunteers worldwide, developed and implemented a kernel that is large, but worked. It was enhanced with programmers from many software firms including Redhat, HP and IBM. It is reliable and works. Mach adhere to the Minix philosophy of having a simple microkernel. I would suggest you take a look at the work of Minix if you would like to see the differences in philosophy. Though the microkernel may have some theoretical advantages, all of the literature I have read, seems to favor the kernel strategy taken by Linux.
edited Aug 22 '13 at 11:46
a CVn
17.1k851105
answered Oct 30 '11 at 16:40
apolinskyapolinsky
44038
Hurd was the original 'anticipated' kernel BEFORE Linux existed. It has been under development, seemingly for years. During that time, Linus Torvalds along with volunteers worldwide, developed and implemented a kernel that is large, but worked. It was enhanced with programmers from many software firms including Redhat, HP and IBM. It is reliable and works. Mach adhere to the Minix philosophy of having a simple microkernel. I would suggest you take a look at the work of Minix if you would like to see the differences in philosophy. Though the microkernel may have some theoretical advantages, all of the literature I have read, seems to favor the kernel strategy taken by Linux.
edited Aug 22 '13 at 11:46
a CVn
17.1k851105
answered Oct 30 '11 at 16:40
apolinskyapolinsky
44038
edited Aug 22 '13 at 11:46
a CVn
17.1k851105
edited Aug 22 '13 at 11:46
a CVn
17.1k851105
edited Aug 22 '13 at 11:46
a CVn
17.1k851105
17.1k851105
answered Oct 30 '11 at 16:40
apolinskyapolinsky
44038
answered Oct 30 '11 at 16:40
apolinskyapolinsky
44038
answered Oct 30 '11 at 16:40
apolinskyapolinsky
44038
44038
5
There are cases where the separation a microkernel offers is worth the costs - usually systems that have to be highly reliable and able to cope with as many errors as possible. Typically anything running on an aircraft (apart from on-board entertainment systems) or in automotive industry. Generally places where less is more, since lives are at risk.
– peterph
Jan 30 '14 at 21:34
"seemingly" for years?
– Kusalananda
Feb 8 at 8:39
add a comment |
5
There are cases where the separation a microkernel offers is worth the costs - usually systems that have to be highly reliable and able to cope with as many errors as possible. Typically anything running on an aircraft (apart from on-board entertainment systems) or in automotive industry. Generally places where less is more, since lives are at risk.
– peterph
Jan 30 '14 at 21:34
"seemingly" for years?
– Kusalananda
Feb 8 at 8:39
5
5
There are cases where the separation a microkernel offers is worth the costs - usually systems that have to be highly reliable and able to cope with as many errors as possible. Typically anything running on an aircraft (apart from on-board entertainment systems) or in automotive industry. Generally places where less is more, since lives are at risk.
– peterph
Jan 30 '14 at 21:34
There are cases where the separation a microkernel offers is worth the costs - usually systems that have to be highly reliable and able to cope with as many errors as possible. Typically anything running on an aircraft (apart from on-board entertainment systems) or in automotive industry. Generally places where less is more, since lives are at risk.
– peterph
Jan 30 '14 at 21:34
"seemingly" for years?
– Kusalananda
Feb 8 at 8:39
"seemingly" for years?
– Kusalananda
Feb 8 at 8:39
add a comment |
According to the Wikipedia article on GNU Hurd:
In 2010, after twenty years under development, Stallman said that he
was "not very optimistic about the GNU Hurd. It makes some progress,
but to be really superior it would require solving a lot of deep
problems", but added that "finishing it is not crucial" for the GNU
system because a free kernel already existed (Linux), and completing
Hurd would not address the main remaining problem for a free operating
system: device support.
It seems that it would take a large amount of work to complete the project and resolve the issues that it is facing. On top of this, it is quite unclear what (if any) benefits the Hurd kernel would bring to most normal users over the current Linux kernel, which has had a large amount of resources poured into it over many years and works very well on a wide range of architectures.
Because of this, it seems that Hurd is little more than an academic exercise at this point. With no real driving need behind it, it seems unlikely that it will reach full usability any time soon, let alone catch up with or exceed the impressive capabilities of Linux. I don't mean to knock the Hurd developers, but I wouldn't hold your breath ...
answered Nov 14 '17 at 22:12
Time4TeaTime4Tea
1,145325
add a comment |
According to the Wikipedia article on GNU Hurd:
In 2010, after twenty years under development, Stallman said that he
was "not very optimistic about the GNU Hurd. It makes some progress,
but to be really superior it would require solving a lot of deep
problems", but added that "finishing it is not crucial" for the GNU
system because a free kernel already existed (Linux), and completing
Hurd would not address the main remaining problem for a free operating
system: device support.
It seems that it would take a large amount of work to complete the project and resolve the issues that it is facing. On top of this, it is quite unclear what (if any) benefits the Hurd kernel would bring to most normal users over the current Linux kernel, which has had a large amount of resources poured into it over many years and works very well on a wide range of architectures.
Because of this, it seems that Hurd is little more than an academic exercise at this point. With no real driving need behind it, it seems unlikely that it will reach full usability any time soon, let alone catch up with or exceed the impressive capabilities of Linux. I don't mean to knock the Hurd developers, but I wouldn't hold your breath ...
answered Nov 14 '17 at 22:12
Time4TeaTime4Tea
1,145325
add a comment |
According to the Wikipedia article on GNU Hurd:
In 2010, after twenty years under development, Stallman said that he
was "not very optimistic about the GNU Hurd. It makes some progress,
but to be really superior it would require solving a lot of deep
problems", but added that "finishing it is not crucial" for the GNU
system because a free kernel already existed (Linux), and completing
Hurd would not address the main remaining problem for a free operating
system: device support.
It seems that it would take a large amount of work to complete the project and resolve the issues that it is facing. On top of this, it is quite unclear what (if any) benefits the Hurd kernel would bring to most normal users over the current Linux kernel, which has had a large amount of resources poured into it over many years and works very well on a wide range of architectures.
Because of this, it seems that Hurd is little more than an academic exercise at this point. With no real driving need behind it, it seems unlikely that it will reach full usability any time soon, let alone catch up with or exceed the impressive capabilities of Linux. I don't mean to knock the Hurd developers, but I wouldn't hold your breath ...
answered Nov 14 '17 at 22:12
Time4TeaTime4Tea
1,145325
According to the Wikipedia article on GNU Hurd:
In 2010, after twenty years under development, Stallman said that he
was "not very optimistic about the GNU Hurd. It makes some progress,
but to be really superior it would require solving a lot of deep
problems", but added that "finishing it is not crucial" for the GNU
system because a free kernel already existed (Linux), and completing
Hurd would not address the main remaining problem for a free operating
system: device support.
It seems that it would take a large amount of work to complete the project and resolve the issues that it is facing. On top of this, it is quite unclear what (if any) benefits the Hurd kernel would bring to most normal users over the current Linux kernel, which has had a large amount of resources poured into it over many years and works very well on a wide range of architectures.
Because of this, it seems that Hurd is little more than an academic exercise at this point. With no real driving need behind it, it seems unlikely that it will reach full usability any time soon, let alone catch up with or exceed the impressive capabilities of Linux. I don't mean to knock the Hurd developers, but I wouldn't hold your breath ...
answered Nov 14 '17 at 22:12
Time4TeaTime4Tea
1,145325
answered Nov 14 '17 at 22:12
Time4TeaTime4Tea
1,145325
answered Nov 14 '17 at 22:12
Time4TeaTime4Tea
1,145325
answered Nov 14 '17 at 22:12
Time4TeaTime4Tea
1,145325
1,145325
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f23549%2fgnu-hurd-vs-gnu-linux%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
9
The distribution of Debian which runs the FreeBSD kernel is a more significant player. People are actually using that for production work, unlike the Hurd.
– Faheem Mitha
Oct 29 '11 at 16:54
<a href="rixstep.com/1/20110807,00.shtml">Here</a> are some further thoughts on the OS differences that arise from different kernel architectures (monolithic kernel vs microkernel).
– user11967
Oct 31 '11 at 8:21
I agree. GNU/HURD today is no less effective than GNU/Linux.
– Samuel S. Mandal
Aug 6 '16 at 10:24