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.
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?
Right now, the target audience are Hurd developers, who need a useful userspace to work with. Making that userspace as much like Linux as possible reduces the incremental maintenance effort, which is critically important given the limited number of developers.
(You could reasonably ask the value of developing Hurd at all, but given a set of people wanting to develop it, it makes sense for them to do so using a Debian userspace.)
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.
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.
it may be posix-like, but even Linux is not really a POSIX OS except for one version of Red Hat long ago, and maybe now or in the future some Oracle distribution. Same goes for UNIX - these proprietary, commercial certifications only apply to a frozen codebase.
Since Linux distributions are actually GNU operating systems with a Linux kernel, there's no reason it doesn't make sense to try a GNU operating system with a GNU kernel.
Hurd predates Linux, it isn't architecturally different from Linux, Linux is architecturally different from it - but almost none of the runtime cares if it is running on a modular monolithic kernel (Linux) or a microkernel (Hurd, Minix, Mach).
I'm probably being over-pedantic here, but you know that technically the kernel is the OS, right? The userspace tools are not the operating system. So Linux distributions are Linux operating systems, with tools from the GNU project.
Back to your sentiment, yeah it makes sense for all things GNU to be able to work with each other. That's one of the biggest benefits of this Debian project.
Yes. The name argument really should be laid to rest now since the "linux OS" has died and been replaced by distributions.
I don't run linux, I run Debian. Debian might include packages from GNU, Linux, BSD, HURD, KDE, GNOME, US, EU, and X, but do I call the OS any of those?
Static operative systems with packages from only one source is a thing of the past.
Well, OS is broader than the kernel. I agree with you that Linux is not "a GNU OS," but mostly because only a small portion of any given linux distribution is GNU or couldn't easily be replaced by nearly identical non-GNU components. Certainly once you get into using something like KDE, the bulk of your environment is not in any way part of the GNU project.
They don't make it "as much like Linux as possible". Although nobody except for rms uses that name, the OS is actually called GNU. And they're "just" replacing the kernels, not really building the separate OS.
While modern GNU (and related) userland is, indeed, has many strong ties to Linux, their first milestone is probably to get things working, so, I guess, getting rid of Linuxisms just isn't the priority.
Comments
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.
Right now, the target audience are Hurd developers, who need a useful userspace to work with. Making that userspace as much like Linux as possible reduces the incremental maintenance effort, which is critically important given the limited number of developers.
(You could reasonably ask the value of developing Hurd at all, but given a set of people wanting to develop it, it makes sense for them to do so using a Debian userspace.)
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.
Hurd is a POSIX OS.
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.
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.
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.
it may be posix-like, but even Linux is not really a POSIX OS except for one version of Red Hat long ago, and maybe now or in the future some Oracle distribution. Same goes for UNIX - these proprietary, commercial certifications only apply to a frozen codebase.
This doesn't seem like a useful distinction.
Since Linux distributions are actually GNU operating systems with a Linux kernel, there's no reason it doesn't make sense to try a GNU operating system with a GNU kernel.
Hurd predates Linux, it isn't architecturally different from Linux, Linux is architecturally different from it - but almost none of the runtime cares if it is running on a modular monolithic kernel (Linux) or a microkernel (Hurd, Minix, Mach).
I'm probably being over-pedantic here, but you know that technically the kernel is the OS, right? The userspace tools are not the operating system. So Linux distributions are Linux operating systems, with tools from the GNU project.
Back to your sentiment, yeah it makes sense for all things GNU to be able to work with each other. That's one of the biggest benefits of this Debian project.
I used to argue that.
Android's largely convinced me otherwise.
(Android isn't a Linux OS so far as I'm concerned).
Yes. The name argument really should be laid to rest now since the "linux OS" has died and been replaced by distributions.
I don't run linux, I run Debian. Debian might include packages from GNU, Linux, BSD, HURD, KDE, GNOME, US, EU, and X, but do I call the OS any of those?
Static operative systems with packages from only one source is a thing of the past.
According to whose techne?
This really all boils down to opinions, nothing else.
Well, OS is broader than the kernel. I agree with you that Linux is not "a GNU OS," but mostly because only a small portion of any given linux distribution is GNU or couldn't easily be replaced by nearly identical non-GNU components. Certainly once you get into using something like KDE, the bulk of your environment is not in any way part of the GNU project.
I think you may be forgetting glibc :). It certainly doesn't fall under the rubric of "easy to replace" -- although it's certainly possible.
They don't make it "as much like Linux as possible". Although nobody except for rms uses that name, the OS is actually called GNU. And they're "just" replacing the kernels, not really building the separate OS.
While modern GNU (and related) userland is, indeed, has many strong ties to Linux, their first milestone is probably to get things working, so, I guess, getting rid of Linuxisms just isn't the priority.