1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
|
[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]]
[[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable
id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant
Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license
is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation
License|/fdl]]."]]"""]]
<!--
[[!meta date="2011-07-19 23:42 UTC"]]
-->
A quarter of the Hurd, Q2 of 2011, PS: *GNU Hurd Truths and Rumors*.
[[!if test="included()" then="""[[!toggle id=full_news
text="Details."]][[!toggleable id=full_news text="[[!paste id=full_news]]"]]"""
else="
[[!paste id=full_news]]"]]
[[!cut id="full_news" text="""
After our last *[[Quarter of the Hurd|news/2011-q2]]* has been picked up by a bunch
of news sites, blogs, and so on, discussions have been running all over the
net. While we are happy to see that there obviously is quite some interest in
the GNU Hurd, we also saw some rumors and outdated information flowing around.
In the following, we try to clear the situation up a bit.
* *Debian wants to replace the Linux kernel with the GNU Hurd*. {X}
**Wrong**. We plan to get into Wheezy as an additional port besides
GNU/Linux and GNU/kFreeBSD -- but we don't know whether we will make it.
It mostly depends on a lot of work which is still to be done. If you
want to help, please see our [[contributing]] page and the *to do* list
maintained on <http://wiki.debian.org/Debian_GNU/Hurd>.
We’d be happy to have you on board!
* *Java support for GNU/Hurd is in the works*. (./) **True**. Jérémie
Koenig is working on making a versatile Java programming environment
available on the GNU/Hurd as part of his [[Google Summer of Code
project|user/jkoenig/java]], focussing on OpenJDK 7. Also, we already do
have support by the GCJ/ECJ platform, but this is not fully functional, and
Jérémie is improving that, too.
* *GNU/Hurd has no support for X.org*. {X} **Wrong**. X.Org *does*
work, and has for a long time. (Anyone remember
[1998's XFree86](http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-support/hurd/hurd_video.c?rev=1.1&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup),
by chance?) It is correct however that not a lot of advanced
drivers work, due to missing DRM (Direct Rendering Manager)
support and that it is [[somewhat_unstable|hurd/status]].
[[tschwinge]] thinks that the following one is a bit questionable...
* *The GNU/Hurd only runs on legacy hardware*. {X} **Wrong**. The GNU/Hurd
is only tested on a few platforms, but it likely runs on modern processors.
If you want to see if it works for you, just test a
[[hurd/running/Live_CD]].
* *Hurd only supports legacy devices:* ½ Partly True: Currently most
drivers are from Linux 2.0. For network cards, Linux 2.6+ drivers
are available through DDE, though (needs manual setup for
now). With a good amount of work, DDE also allows porting other
classes of drivers to allow using the drivers from recent Linux
releases — and push them into userspace.
* *The Hurd has no SMP:* <u>✔ **True**</u>: The **Hurd servers
support SMP** and **GNU Mach has SMP support**. But the latter
[[does_not_yet_have_drivers_for_nowadays_chipsets|faq/smp]], so
the Hurd currently can’t take advantage of multiple cores.
* *Developing a microkernel must be harder than developing a
monolithic kernel, because the Hurd took so long:* ✘ **Wrong**:
For the last decade, the Hurd had on average 5 hobby
developers. That these developers managed to get the Hurd into a
state where it actually gets not too far from the Linux kernel in
performance — which has about 1000 developers, many of them full
time — shows the efficiency of the Hurd’s design.
* *Installation does not work:* ½ Partly True: Did you read the
[[README|http://people.debian.org/~sthibault/hurd-i386/installer/cdimage/YES_REALLY_README.txt]]
([[file|http://xkcd.com/293/]])? Just like any beta piece of
software, there are known pitfalls to avoid (or better, help to
fix). You can also simply use the the
[[preinstalled image|http://people.debian.org/~sthibault/hurd-i386/debian-hurd.img.tar.gz]].
* *The system is called GNU/GNU Hurd:* ✘ **Wrong**: The GNU userland
(glibc, coreutils, …) and the GNU Hurd together form the GNU
system. To avoid being mistaken for GNU/Linux, we normally use
the name GNU/Hurd or GNU Hurd. The *correct* name is simply GNU.
**Test results**
The results of the test from Phoronix were quite good. We expected
that the microkernel design of the Hurd would have a far more severe
performance hit.
Some possible explanations include:
* The tests were mostly CPU bound, so the kernel was not that
relevant.
* IPCs [are no more such a problem on recent hardware][ipc].
Note: The emulation layer should rather make the context switches
worse, so it’s likely not a reason for the unexpectedly good
performance.
[ipc]: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.51.16
"""]]
<!--
slashdot
and phoronix did some [performance tests of the Hurd][phorperf],
[phorperf]: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=debian_gnu_hurd&num=1
---
IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-08-24:
< ArneBab> hurd related: I now think you were right, antrik: the hurd
rumors don’t belong into the news (tschwinge)
< antrik> ArneBab: you mean the postscriptum as a whole, or just the wild
rumours part?...
< ArneBab> the whole PS
< ArneBab> it should rather go into a blog post
< ArneBab> (in the wiki)
< antrik> hm... I don't think I agree
< ArneBab> why?
< antrik> apparently there is a number of people following the news now,
and apparently many of them misread some statements... it makes sense to
use the same channel for clarifying them I'd say
< ArneBab> hm, ok
< ArneBab> how would you select the part to include?
< antrik> roughly speaking, I'd include everything that actually relates to
the previous news that were misunderstood
< antrik> and drop all unrelated speculations that popped up
< antrik> BTW, it *might* be useful perhaps to actually update the original
news posting with the clarifications?...
< ArneBab> we can’t do that without breaking some peoples RSS feeds
< antrik> note that there is another aspect to consider: the fact that
several news sites picked it up is indeed genuine news by itself...
< ArneBab> that’s right, yes
< antrik> will it really break anything? from what I heard so far it just
means they will see the posting as new again, which would actually make
sense in this case...
< antrik> but I don't insist if you think it's too risky :-)
< antrik> just an idea
-->
|
