Re: about GNU Hurd

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

         The flaws are real.  I recall that at least in part of that
         discussion I thought that the flaws were not absolutely
         fatal, that the Hurd on GNU Mach could still be useful for
         some things.

      Those flaws could also be fixed without rewritting everything,
      as was shown by several people including the people who actually
      wrote the Hurd.  Sadly, nobody wishes to waste time working on
      something that will (not might, but will) be discarded.

   I agree.

         But it is clear that our best hope for making the Hurd really
         good is Hurd-NG.

      Anyone who think that Hurd-NG will not have as flaws just like
      the Hurd currently has should not write software.  And as Olaf
      pointed out, nobody, not even Marcus, knows what Hurd-NG will
      look like, there is no goal, not even an idea behind it.

   I feel pretty dumb reading that. How can we say we want something
   new but we do not know what we really want. How can this end in
   something really useful or even end at all ? As we said here at my
   work place: no need, no action.

Exactly!