linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Re: [OT] HURD vs Linux/HURD
@ 2003-07-19 15:03 John Bradford
  2003-07-19 15:02 ` Christian Reichert
                   ` (3 more replies)
  0 siblings, 4 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: John Bradford @ 2003-07-19 15:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: john, lkml; +Cc: alan, linux-kernel, lm, rms, Valdis.Kletnieks

> >> If everyone spent the time replacing bitkeeper instead of beating up
> >> Larry they'd get a lot further.
> > Linux isn't the only free operating system in existance, and although BK
> > seems to suit the requirements of a lot of Linux developers, that
> > doesn't mean that it meets the requirements of other free OS
> > development teams.
> > I strongly suspect that we'll see a free SCM developed after a few more
> > years of HURD development, for example.
> > Doesn't mean we'll switch to it, though, we haven't switched to my bug
> > database, have we?  :-).
> > John.
>
> Given that large chunks of HURD come from Linux, please refer to it as
> Linux/HURD.

What HURD code comes from Linux?  GNU/Mach uses code from Linux, but
not HURD as far as I know.

John.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: [OT] HURD vs Linux/HURD
@ 2003-07-20 17:24 John Bradford
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: John Bradford @ 2003-07-20 17:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: john, vonbrand; +Cc: linux-kernel

> >                                                              We are
> > discussing what parts of the Hurd and GNU Mach contain code derived
> > from Linux.  That's actually quite interesting, and on-topic.
>
> Why? Are you planing to take anything from Hurd? Or complain that they
> (legally!) are taking GPLed code and use it elsewhere? In the fist case,
> discussion about the _technical_ merit of the code to swipe is on-topic,
> all else isn't. The second case is none of your business, (unless you wrote
> the code and did not GPL it).

I'm certaily _not_ going to complain that code has been taken from
Linux - as you pointed out, that is perfectly legal.

The use of the Linux drivers in the Hurd is the closest thing[1] we've
got to a fork[2] of the Linux kernel.

So, yes, I am interested in seeing if they have done anything better
than we have, or have investigated possibilities we haven't.

John.

[1] I am _NOT_ saying that the Hurd is a fork of Linux, but that it's
about the only codebase which took Linux kernel code, and has let it
evolve separately from mainline over a number of years.  OK, the Vax
port has lived outside of mainline for a number of years too, but
that's mainly architecture specific changes.

[2] OK, ELKS is a fork of the Linux kernel, but not specifically
targeted at 386+ boxes.

John.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: [OT] HURD vs Linux/HURD
@ 2003-07-20 13:49 John Bradford
  2003-07-20 16:59 ` Horst von Brand
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 30+ messages in thread
From: John Bradford @ 2003-07-20 13:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: beef, lloy0076
  Cc: alan, john, linux-kernel, lkml, lm, rms, tytso, Valdis.Kletnieks

>  * bitkeeper (because it's a better system than anything open source) vs
>    cvs wars are tedious

This discussion is nothing to do with Bit Keeper, (anymore).  We are
discussing what parts of the Hurd and GNU Mach contain code derived
from Linux.  That's actually quite interesting, and on-topic.

John.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper
@ 2003-07-19 10:33 John Bradford
  2003-07-19 14:00 ` [OT] HURD vs Linux/HURD Linux Kernel Mailing List
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 30+ messages in thread
From: John Bradford @ 2003-07-19 10:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: alan, Valdis.Kletnieks; +Cc: linux-kernel, lm, rms

> If everyone spent the time replacing bitkeeper instead of beating up
> Larry they'd get a lot further.

Linux isn't the only free operating system in existance, and although
BK seems to suit the requirements of a lot of Linux developers, that
doesn't mean that it meets the requirements of other free OS
development teams.

I strongly suspect that we'll see a free SCM developed after a few
more years of HURD development, for example.

Doesn't mean we'll switch to it, though, we haven't switched to my bug
database, have we?  :-).

John.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2003-07-22  4:39 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-07-19 15:03 [OT] HURD vs Linux/HURD John Bradford
2003-07-19 15:02 ` Christian Reichert
2003-07-19 17:09   ` Gaël Le Mignot
2003-07-19 17:23     ` Larry McVoy
2003-07-19 17:46       ` Gaël Le Mignot
2003-07-19 18:12         ` Larry McVoy
2003-07-19 18:41           ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-07-19 18:45             ` Larry McVoy
2003-07-19 20:07               ` Gaël Le Mignot
2003-07-19 20:05           ` Gaël Le Mignot
2003-07-19 20:28             ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2003-07-19 22:03             ` Larry McVoy
2003-07-19 22:23               ` Alan Cox
2003-07-19 22:33               ` Roman Zippel
2003-07-20  6:35                 ` Andre Hedrick
2003-07-19 18:58         ` Zwane Mwaikambo
2003-07-19 22:42         ` Greg KH
2003-07-19 15:04 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-07-19 15:16 ` Linux Kernel Mailing List
2003-07-20  6:32   ` Andre Hedrick
2003-07-20  0:07 ` Theodore Ts'o
2003-07-20 13:23   ` Charles E. Youse
2003-07-20 13:41     ` David Lloyd
2003-07-20 14:09     ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-07-20 15:27       ` Brian McGroarty
2003-07-22  4:52     ` Miles Bader
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-07-20 17:24 John Bradford
2003-07-20 13:49 John Bradford
2003-07-20 16:59 ` Horst von Brand
2003-07-19 10:33 Bitkeeper John Bradford
2003-07-19 14:00 ` [OT] HURD vs Linux/HURD Linux Kernel Mailing List

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).