On Sun, Mar 10, 2002 at 05:39:23PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
I am sorry, but I am only seeing weeny type arguments for HURD.
You spell it as "the Hurd", see http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/faq.en.html#q1-2 for more information about that.
Second, what do you mean with "arguments for HURD"? Arguments for its existence? Arguments for using it? Arguments for developping it? Arguments why it isn't being used as much as it should?
Looking at the HURD programming progress shows up that there was some progress in 1996 and 1997. Please note that this was some years _after_ Linux became successful.
First try to look more careful before writing an e-mail. If you did that first you wouldn't spread such FUD and wouldn't make a fool of yourself.
For this reason, I cannot see that Linux should be responsible for the HURD desaster.
I also can't see that it's responsible. I only said that if GNU/Linux didn't exist probably more people would have been working on GNU/Hurd.
If you believe that Hurd is a good idea, then stop talking about hurd and start working on hurd.
I'm already working on the Hurd and I won't stop talking about the Hurd.
Once it becomes usable and has the features requested by the users it will be used by a noticable number of people.
The number of people trying it is already increasing because the want the Hurd's features.
Any OS that nobody likes to run cdrecord on could be considered dead these days....
You're a funny dude. And arrogant one, thinking that cdrecord is such an important program. I can name dozens of programs which are far more important than cdrecord and most of them already run on GNU/Hurd. I would recommend people who want to port programs to GNU/Hurd to port some of the more important and useful programs instead of porting cdrecord.
I know OSes with more potential than 80% of the OSes cdrecord is ported to. Also cdrecord runs on some really dead OSes (NT-3.5, BEos).
Jeroen Dekkers