> So what is* the point of HURD, other than stroking RMS's ego? Why write > HURD when we've got Linux, other than said reason. ;) because people *can*, that's the primary reason why. ;) in theory, HURD's microkernel design is more efficient, more secure, and more flexible than a monolithic kernel. it's a nice theory. even Linus himself once said something along the lines that if it had been a bit farther along in development, he wouldn't have written Linux. however, HURD is one of those things that seems to be the technology of the future -- always has been, always will be. Monolithic kernels so far have worked a lot better in practice than microkernels do (depending on who you talk to and what examples they use). My understanding of the problems with HURD, is that performance is terrible, due to the context switches between processes. (supposedly it's about 10x faster to compile the HURD kernel on Linux, than to do it on HURD itself.) if anyone can correct me, please do; I'm genuinely curious. Carl Soderstrom -- Network Engineer Real-Time Enterprises (952) 943-8700 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: tclug-list-unsubscribe at mn-linux.org For additional commands, e-mail: tclug-list-help at mn-linux.org