I was quite surprised to learn that the GNU project has an independent kernel of their own called Hurd. And there are mainstream distributions like Arch Hurd and Debian GNU/Hurd which uses it. Is there any significant advantage for Hurd over Linux?
Tell me more
×
Unix & Linux Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for
users of Linux, FreeBSD and other Un*x-like operating systems.. It's 100% free, no registration required.
|
|
At this point in time, considering there is no "stable" distribution of GNU/Hurd, the major advantages seem to lie with Linux. A good place to start understanding the differences between a Mach microkernel, and a traditional monolithic unix kernel is the Wikipedia page on Mach (Kernel). As an interesting note, Mac OS X, uses a Mach Kernel, called XNU. Though based on Mach 3.0, it's not a microkernel, like Hurd is. It makes sense, since Jobs brought the Mach kernel from NeXT to Apple when Apple bought NeXT. Happy Reading. |
||||
|
|
Here are some further thoughts on the OS differences that arise from different kernel architectures (monolithic kernel vs microkernel). |
|||
|
|
|
Hurd was the original 'anticipated' kernel BEFORE Linux existed. It has been under development, seemingly for years. During that time, Linus Torvalds along with volunteers worldwide, developed and implemented a kernel that is large, but worked. It was enhanced with programmers from many software firms including Redhat, HP and IBM. It is reliable and works. Mach adhere to the Minix philosophy of having a simple microkernel. I would suggest you take a look at the work of Minix if you would like to see the differences in philosophy. Though the microkernel may have some theoretical advantages, all of the literature I have read, seems to favor the kernel strategy taken by Linux. Alan |
|||
|
|
