Why GNU Hurd Never Got off the Ground: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<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> | <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. | |||
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.