Re: Andrew Tanenbaum AP story

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 19:36:05 -0500, Kenneth Downs <firstinit.lastname_at_lastnameplusfam.net> wrote:

>...and yet the use of this "obsolete" design continues to grow faster than
>any other system out there, including BSD.

So what?

I completely agree with Marshall.

>Looking at the entire picture, something cannot be "superior" if it is
>encumbered by personalities, licensing, barriers to entry, or other items
>not directly tied to the pure technical matters.

The arguments about Linux's obsolescence are purely technical.

>Comparing the HURD to the monolithic Linux kernel is an easy thing to do.
>For almost ten years the question was, "Do you want the 'inferior' kernel I
>can install today or the 'superior' one that does not exist?"

I want the superior, of course.

BTW Hurd exists.

---
it exists 
The Hurd is real software that works Right Now. It is not a research
project or a proposal. You don't have to wait at all before you can
start using and developing it. 
---
http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd.html



>The combination of licensing, personality, and the pure simplicity of the


>monolithic design gave Linux the early lead and now its got the momentum. 

>It will be rendered obsolete when somebody beats that combination.


Windows NT always beated Linux.



>This does not mean Linux is "better" than BSD any more than it means that


>Linux is obsolete.  Hopefully it is just meant to show that such terms have

>little meaning.


Such terms have a lot of meaning and Linux has an obsolete design.
That's why Hurd is being developed, to replace the obsolete kernel.


Regards