Не согласен. Просто кто-то на работу не ходит. А вообще тут Маркус Бринкман накатал в рассылке
Alfred M Szmidt wrote:
> Right now Hurd on L4 seems to be dead as a stone
This is not true (or may have some truth in it, depending on how you
define "Hurd on L4").
> And it will require a total redesign, total rewrite of
> everything, and what not.
This is not true.
> People are confused where to spend their time
On whose behalf are you speaking? I have not had a single complaint so far.
> and have become more so
> now that Hurd/L4 might not even be a viable choice.
Again, who are you talking about?
> Should time be
> spent on the currently working Hurd/Mach, should it be spent on the
> non-existant Hurd/L4, or should it be spent on the
> Hurd/something-that-doesn't-even-exist-yet?
>
> Marcus answer was `that is up to each and one to decide'. This is
> completely inappropriate from someone who is a co-maintainer.
Why do you think this is inappropriate? Please cite chapter and verse
of the GNU maintainer standard.
What do you think is appropriate instead?
> Right now we have two projects that try to achive the same goal while
> being totally incomaptible with each other,
Incompatible in what regard?
> and there is a chance that
> yet another alternative comes a long that is incompatible with both of
> the previous efforts.
>
> So I'm asking the maintainers (Roland, Thomas) what the heck is the
> direction of the Hurd is or should be. If it is the Hurd/Mach, then
> Hurd/L4 should be dropped completely, if it is Hurd/L4, then Hurd/Mach
> should be dropped compltely, or if it is
> Hurd/something-that-doesn't-even-exist.
Of course, I don't speak for Roland or Thomas. But as far as I know,
the direction of the Hurd has not changed at all. The Hurd-on-L4
efforts are an evaluation of a new design. Until such a design
emerges as a viable alternative, there is nothing to decide.
You don't explain why such a redesign process is fundamentally
incompatible with maintaining the current code base. Consequently,
your list of alternatives is narrow and in fact absurd: If one were to
follow your advice strictly, no fundamental changes could ever occur
in the development of a project.
Thanks,
Marcus
Для тех, кто английский не знает или кому влом разбираться, разъясняю. Мы, типа не отказываемся от направления, по которому движемся, разрабатяывая мак. Просто будет новый дизайн, когда мы перейдем на L4. А так все идет по плану. Кстати, тут эти перцы начали дрова писать для голубого зуба под ХУРД. А я сам так KDE и не поставил, забил, а нахрена надо, blackbox нормально работает. Apache тоже не поставил, ну ничего, поставлю. Плохо, что дебиановских пакетов нет, было бы проще, а так компилить придется. Еще глюк один - на сидюке все имена из восьми букв, причем заглавных отображаются, хотя времена дос давно прошли, тоже облом. С сетью нормально работает, только что FTP клиента нормального нет вроде mc. Тоже облом. И по телнету туго до него доходит, что надо шелл дать, в общем мак тормозное ядро.
