Forum Rules - Formats - Spotlights  -  Home - Library - New Additions

GNU Hurd

ianduniandun
edited July 2013 in Software
I was in a GNU mood today so I decided to try to get Debian GNU Hurd working on QEMU, and if that failed VirtualBox. I first tried getting a pre-installed Hurd image working on QEMU using the instructions on the website, and it didnt work (network, the VGA console, Xorg). It was also a pain to start up. Because it didnt support Control-C to force quit an application, when I ran ping I had to force-restart the VM, which made Hurd complain about the HD not being clean, which I expected. However, the instructions the OS gave you to mount the file system as writable didn't work. So I had to run fsck and reboot. Over and over again. So, I gave up and tried VirtualBox. This time, I installed Hurd by hand, and networking actually worked. However, the VGA console didn't work, and neither did Xorg. I gave up. :)

If you have any tips on how to get GNU Hurd working, or want to give your opinion on Hurd, you should reply to this thread.
«1

Comments

  • noonenoone
    From what I heard, Hurd hasn't been slightly stable at all, even though it's been in development longer than linux has. I tried it once, and never got the thing to even boot up.
  • ianduniandun
    That's the thing. It doesnt make any sense. Why could linux be made stable in a few years but GNU Hurd hasn't even gotten to 1.0 in over a decade. Its not like its not doable. Apple and NeXT both created OSes based on the mach kernel.

    Although, I will admit that it not booting is weird. Do you even see GRUB when you start the machine? The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is that you have SATA disks, which don't work with Hurd.
  • noonenoone
    It was a sata controller, which was an assumption i made on why it wouldn't boot that time. Now, I love the idea of a microkernel, and in some aspects, it's been applied and used (see QNX), but I don't understand why it's taken so long for Hurd to develop and it's still not even at a stable release.
  • ianduniandun
    Probably because of Linux itself. After Linux was discovered to be a suitable kernel for the GNU tools, I imagine that Hurd was sidelined and turned into a hobby project that will never really go anywhere. The project homepage says that people only use their spare time on Hurd, which would make sense because there was never any demand for Hurd in the first place, as there was Linux.
  • JoshJosh
    Because Hurd are purists. They believe in preserving their sacred "freeness" in Linux. They refuse to implement or integrate anything into their software that isn't 100% strict GPL compliant.
  • BlueSunBlueSun
    Josh wrote:
    Because Hurd are purists. They believe in preserving their sacred "freeness" in Linux. They refuse to implement or integrate anything into their software that isn't 100% strict GPL compliant.

    lol, the StallmanOS.
  • DeepFriedCookiesDeepFriedCookies
    Multiple reasons.

    1. Hurd is extremely old. Like, it was developed in the 1980's as an experiment. No one took it seriously, and it was part of a much larger experiment. Because of this, there's probably code there that's existed since the 80's- to me, it seems like the Windows problem, just a million times worse. BUT I'm not a programmer- don't take my word for it.

    2. Hurd is.. well, Hurd. It's the Stallman OS. Stallman is anal about things being COMPLETELY open source, and refuses to use money. He's such a hippy, even beyond my level of socialist ideals, he's like the superhippy. As such, companies like IBM and Sun could've never jumped on his products.

    3. Hurd is.. well, once again, Hurd. Why use it? Linux is there, Linus made something MUCH more simple, MUCH smaller, and MUCH more efficient. The only thing that makes Hurd and better is microkernel- and even still, it's not enough of an advantage to mean changing from Linux to Hurd. It's like a bolt on neck or set in neck versus the neck-through design in the guitar world. Sure, neck through is just as easy to build as set in, and offers quite a few advantages, but those old Les Pauls and Telecasters with their bolt on and set in necks sound pretty decent, don't they? And oh, by chance, look at this! We already have the tools and training to build them! Why change? Same thing with Hurd versus Linux.
  • gdea73gdea73
    hurd hurd hurd, the hurd is the word.

    ... sorry. :P I don't even watch Family Guy

    My only issue with Linux as it stands is hardware support. The little glitches (esp. with laptops) are just a bitch.

    http://xkcd.com/619/
  • DeepFriedCookiesDeepFriedCookies
    I haven't had a problem since the 90's with Linux.


    Now if we're talking hurd.. Yeah, you're going to have to cherry pick every single piece of hardware in that system. :|
  • gdea73gdea73
    Linux can be difficult with AMD GPUs if they're just slightly outdated and you want hardware acceleration.
  • noonenoone
    gdea73 wrote:
    hurd hurd hurd, the hurd is the word.

    ... sorry. :P I don't even watch Family Guy

    My only issue with Linux as it stands is hardware support. The little glitches (esp. with laptops) are just a bitch.

    http://xkcd.com/619/
    I've only ever suffered issues with dial up modems back in the day and the only recent issue I've had is with the Nvidia Optimus chipset in my laptop. That's the same chipset that Torvalds did the "Nvidia, fuck you!" comment with his middle finger recently about.

    Back to the topic, some microkernels are pretty awesome. QNX always comes to my mind. We will get to see how it handles to consumer use in the Blackberry now, however it's used in several areas with uptimes in decades. It's also used in clusters to monitor nuclear power plants throughout the US and Canada. I got to talk to a guy last year who said the last time their machines were down that run QNX was 1995 for a software upgrade. Now that's some impressive uptime.
  • DeepFriedCookiesDeepFriedCookies
    Uptime isn't a good indicator of whether software is good or not. Something that's designed for a single task could stay running for years.. :|

    Still, pretty impressive that it hasn't somehow bit the dust in almost 20 years.
  • BlueSunBlueSun
    I agree, uptime in and of itself isn't all that impressive. It's more impressive that they've kept power going to that machine all of these years than it is that the OS didn't need to be rebooted.

    I mean, typically, the only reason I reboot a machine is for updates. If you never update it, I imagine you could get some very long uptimes.
  • noonenoone
    Uptime can mean stability in some aspects. I've seen a few isolated windows machines that will bomb on their own after a year or so running non stop. Having seen that machine running QNX myself, it looks like it was set up in the early 90's, backups taken using tape machines and they appear to try to hotswap hardware while the machine is running. The machine also does not do just a single thing, it was taking data from parts of that facility, processing log files and sends that information via serial to a terminal machine that looked like it was running NT 3.51 (but with much much newer hardware). I was told though that they were intending to replace that machine in a year or two with a Windows cluster. I don't think I quite agree with that.
  • BlueSunBlueSun
    Uptime only means stability if the system is actually doing something. Like I said, if it sits there and does nothing, any system could achieve an exceptionally long uptime. So uptime by itself doesn't give you the whole picture.

    I'm not saying QNX isn't stable or anything like that, I'm just trying to say that uptime by itself doesn't mean anything.
  • DeepFriedCookiesDeepFriedCookies
    If I could be arsed, I'd get a desktop with Windows 98 and leave that thing on. Uptime means *nothing*, and unless you somehow fuck it up, you'll have no problems keeping a Windows system (any windows) up for just as long as a Unix system. Hell, DOS beats either of them. The secret is: *not doing anything*.

    Also isn't Blackberry OS 10 based off of QNX? :|
  • noonenoone
    DeepFriedCookies wrote:
    If I could be arsed, I'd get a desktop with Windows 98 and leave that thing on. Uptime means *nothing*, and unless you somehow fuck it up, you'll have no problems keeping a Windows system (any windows) up for just as long as a Unix system. Hell, DOS beats either of them. The secret is: *not doing anything*.

    Also isn't Blackberry OS 10 based off of QNX? :|
    It is. I'm curious how the thing will run personally. I've been debating changing phones soon, even though my phone is only a year old now.
    I'm a bit of an android fan personally, but this "we don't support the newest version of android on your 1 year old device that we released with a 3 version old copy of android" is a load of shit. I really want to rant on about that, but that's not the correct topic to.
  • gdea73gdea73
    (Don't mean to continue off topic, but... well, I kind of do.)

    It's the same deal with Apple... all the tards upgrade without realizing that gives you half the software features of the newer model, at half the speed. And of course, you can't downgrade, so then once it gets "old and slow," you buy a new one...

    So for example, the iPhone 3G on iOS 3.1.2, was a completely usable cell phone. Updating to 4.2.1 gave it *some* new features (but left out the important ones such as pseudo-multitasking, wallpapers behind the springboard, etc.), but it was so slow that it couldn't compute the "slide to answer call" gesture before the call was dropped or went to voicemail.
  • nighticenightice
    DeepFriedCookies wrote:
    If I could be arsed, I'd get a desktop with Windows 98 and leave that thing on. Uptime means *nothing*, and unless you somehow fuck it up, you'll have no problems keeping a Windows system (any windows) up for just as long as a Unix system.

    49 days, in the case of Windows 98.
  • noonenoone
    gdea73 wrote:
    (Don't mean to continue off topic, but... well, I kind of do.)

    It's the same deal with Apple... all the tards upgrade without realizing that gives you half the software features of the newer model, at half the speed. And of course, you can't downgrade, so then once it gets "old and slow," you buy a new one...

    So for example, the iPhone 3G on iOS 3.1.2, was a completely usable cell phone. Updating to 4.2.1 gave it *some* new features (but left out the important ones such as pseudo-multitasking, wallpapers behind the springboard, etc.), but it was so slow that it couldn't compute the "slide to answer call" gesture before the call was dropped or went to voicemail.
    The thing with the android headsets is that the hardware is easily able to handle the OS upgrades. However, they throw out a handset, then only do 2 minor software updates then leave it. I'm running a droid 3, which was announced to never get the upgrade from Gingerbread to ICS. The excuse was that there wasn't enough memory to handle the newer OSes (it has like 512mb of ram). I have to call bullshit to a remark like that, because it's been able to handle a 3rd party ICS rom easily without any slowdowns (actually it seemed a bit faster). On top of that, most handset makers have locked the bootloader to keep people from doing their own upgrades. (I partially understand keeping the kernel the same to prevent rootkits, but at least allow people to unlock it if they must, like what HTC is doing now). There are people that are using KEXEC to bypass this and they chain 2 kernels together to load a newer version, but this should be completely unnecessary.
    nightice wrote:
    DeepFriedCookies wrote:
    If I could be arsed, I'd get a desktop with Windows 98 and leave that thing on. Uptime means *nothing*, and unless you somehow fuck it up, you'll have no problems keeping a Windows system (any windows) up for just as long as a Unix system.

    49 days, in the case of Windows 98.
    I've never been able to witness a windows 98 machine even stay on as long as 2 weeks without it taking a dump on itself while idling. I've never seen a vista machine even surpass a week of uptime without locking up, but I've seen a Windows 2000 machine that's still running (since service pack 3) and the other day, I encountered a windows XP machine that's been running since XP came out. The guy didn't listen to us when he plugged in a network cable however this week.
    You know those myths about a unpatched machine can only survive for about 30 minutes without being owned? That's incorrect. It's more like less than 10 minutes, max.
  • JoshJosh
    7609#sh ver
    Cisco Internetwork Operating System Software
    IOS (tm) s3223_rp Software (s3223_rp-ADVIPSERVICESK9_WAN-M), Version 12.2(18)SXF 5, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc3)
    Technical Support: http://www.cisco.com/techsupport
    Copyright (c) 1986-2006 by cisco Systems, Inc.
    Compiled Fri 07-Jul-06 21:54 by kellythw
    Image text-base: 0x40101040, data-base: 0x42D20000

    ROM: System Bootstrap, Version 12.2(17r)SX3, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1)
    BOOTLDR: s3223_rp Software (s3223_rp-ADVIPSERVICESK9_WAN-M), Version 12.2(18)SXF 5, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc3)
    7609 uptime is 5 years, 16 weeks, 4 days, 21 hours, 25 minutes
  • bittinbittin
    http://developers.slashdot.org/story/13/02/10/1510219/gnu-hurd-to-develop-sata-usb-audio-support
  • DeepFriedCookiesDeepFriedCookies
    The Windows 98 thing, about 48 days, is a myth. I'm pretty sure it was Duff on here who disproved it years ago, but I may be wrong.
  • JoshJosh
    98 original gold release had this problem. Was fixed in later updates/SE.
  • DeepFriedCookiesDeepFriedCookies
    Ah, thought so. Because I remember seeing someone who kept 98 running for almost a year.
  • Linuxgamer94Linuxgamer94
    Hurd looks like a terminal and thus I have no interest. Now if they could get A GUI on it and have it work it VB then I would love to try it out. As of now it is just an other OS that is out there.
  • BODBOD
    Linuxgamer94 wrote:
    Hurd looks like a terminal and thus I have no interest. Now if they could get A GUI on it and have it work it VB then I would love to try it out. As of now it is just an other OS that is out there.

    This post was so terrible that it sucked all the energy from me, thus I'm not able to state what is so wrong about this statement.

    Ugh.
  • noonenoone
    Linuxgamer94 wrote:
    Hurd looks like a terminal and thus I have no interest. Now if they could get A GUI on it and have it work it VB then I would love to try it out. As of now it is just an other OS that is out there.
    siskofacepalm.gif
    Uh, I'm guessing you mean the command line interface (aka text mode). All OSes have that in one form or another still. Linux has it too, but people don't seem to notice anymore because at boot, Xorg automatically starts and you're switched to the console with X running. It's a matter of just hitting Control+alt+backspace to kill X and drop back to the command line (though most distros disabled this and requires a line in xorg.conf now), or you can switch to it by hitting control+alt+F#, where the # corresponds to one of the function keys at the top of your keyboard. Windows too can be ran without a GUI, they're doing it in some recent releases of Windows server. Also historically, Windows 1.x to ME were just shells on top of DOS. Even OS/2, the OS developed by Microsoft and IBM to replace that line started without a GUI.
  • Linuxgamer94Linuxgamer94
    Yet all can use X.org, wayland, or that other one for Ubuntu. Linux has a GUI, Windows has had a GUI, Mac and NEXT, OS/2, Free DOS, DOS, Free BSD, Pure Darwin, ect.. Hurd does not have a GUI and even Plan 9 has a GUI and Hurd does not work in Virualbox so I don't want to use it. Then you have the huge lack of documentation.
  • noonenoone
    Linuxgamer94 wrote:
    Yet all can use X.org, wayland, or that other one for Ubuntu. Linux has a GUI, Windows has had a GUI, Mac and NEXT, OS/2, Free DOS, DOS, Free BSD, Pure Darwin, ect.. Hurd does not have a GUI and even Plan 9 has a GUI and Hurd does not work in Virualbox so I don't want to use it. Then you have the huge lack of documentation.
    Hurd has Xorg support. You have to install it manually.
    DOS did not have a gui that came with it, unless you're counting dosshell.
Sign In or Register to comment.