Re: Linus supports Secure Boot and doesn't think its a big deal
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
It's why we need HURD. The Linux camp does not support free software.
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
-------- Original Message --------
From: name at domain
Sent: Fri, Jun 15, 2012 03:44 PM
To: name at domain
CC:
Subject: [Trisquel-users] Linus supports Secure Boot and doesn't think its a big deal
>"And if it's only $99 to get a key for Fedora, I don't see what the huge deal
>is." - Linus Torvalds
>
>http://www.networkworld.com/news/2012/061512-windows8-update-260229.html
>
>P.S. We discussed this earlier with Red Hat and Canonical possibly paying for
>the keys to get their OSes through the Windows 8 secure boot. How this
>affects smaller distros could be a different story. With Trisquel, won't it
>already be paid for by Canonical since it is based off Ubuntu or will Ruben
>have to fork over $99?
I will give GNU/Hurd a whirl.
How far along into development is it?
It isn't so famous as Linux. Why aren't more developers working on it?
HURD is only 386. Limited device support. Still buggy.
Debian supports it. They have QEMU and VM images to try.
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
-------- Original Message --------
From: name at domain
Sent: Fri, Jun 15, 2012 05:20 PM
To: name at domain
CC:
Subject: Re: [Trisquel-users] Linus supports Secure Boot and doesn't think its a big deal
>I will give GNU/Hurd a whirl.
>How far along into development is it?
>It isn't so famous as Linux. Why aren't more developers working on it?
>
At this point, there is not much to do. The only GUI I got running on it was fluxbox. The only distros hurd-based are Debian GNU/Hurd and Arch Hurd, arch hurd has even less packages ported to it. The main project in debian has only a handful of developers (Samuel Thibault being the main and perhaps five more, plus 20-30 contributors for porting packages). Devs are hoping for it to be ready for the release of debian wheezy.
Regarding why it doesn't have much developers, from my point of view: Most contributors to the Linux kernel are companies (Red Hat, Broadcom, IBM, even Microsoft, and many more). Companies are not interested in hurd for some reasons: They can do business with linux, hurd is not a necessity for them, and GPLv3. Independent developers prefer Linux because it is already mainstream. Hurd's history is also controversial. Devs had a hard time choosing the microkernel, they experimented L4, Coyotos and maybe others because GNU Mach had a bad implementation and former devs made a critique about it (know as The Critique). What you can do right now is go to people.debian.org/~sthibault and get the isos or preinstalled imgs and run it in qemu. It is very slow at the moment (last time it took me 3-4 hours to install) and only supports ext2fs.
Thank you, Horgeon.
Why do we actually need Hurd? It is a kernel, isn't it? Why don't we just use the Linux-libre kernel, instead?
> Why do we actually need Hurd? It is a kernel, isn't it? Why don't we
> just use the Linux-libre kernel, instead?
It's a replacement for a Unix kernel implemented as a set of servers
running on a GNU Mach microkernel, there are several advantages of this
approach explained on https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/advantages.html
and the linked page. Being able to replace parts of it by normal users
without rebooting or affecting security of the whole system is an often
mentioned feature.
(Another microkernel-based system, Minix, is using a microkernel for
reliability and being able to restart faulty drivers without rebooting
the system, this is not done with Hurd (yet?) since the drivers are
mostly in the GNU Mach kernel due to performance reasons from the times
it was implemented.)
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios