Why GNU Hurd Never Got off the Ground: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 01:32, 6 January 2021

Idealistic. Did not join the worse is better philosophy, ie, it's not the best but works great approach of Linux. [1]
There are many open source projects like this - some neat features, somewhat incomplete, worked on by a small but devoted team. HURD is just a very high-profile example. This is a relevant point for OSE. A point of traction must be reached at one point in order to become immortal.

Worse is Better Philosophy - implementation simplicity is key, not interface simplicity.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 *Idealistic. Did not join the ''worse is better'' philosophy, ie, ''it's not the best but works great'' approach of Linux. [https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/edl9t/so_whats_the_deal_with_gnu_hurd_will_it_ever_be/]
-*OSE learnings - ''There are many open source projects like this - some neat features, somewhat incomplete, worked on by a small but devoted team. HURD is just a very high-profile example.'' This is a relevant point. A point of traction must be reached at one point to escape lack of world-changing results.
+*''There are many open source projects like this - some neat features, somewhat incomplete, worked on by a small but devoted team. HURD is just a very high-profile example.'' This is a relevant point for OSE. A point of traction must be reached at one point in order to become immortal.
 <html><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4vW62KqKJ5A" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></html>
+*[[Worse is Better Philosophy]] - implementation simplicity is key, not interface simplicity.