[teythoon]

I know you're just trying to be funny, but I don't think it's funny at all.

The Linux kernel undoubtedly many features that the Hurd system lacks, but that is due to the severe lack of manpower of the latter system and the billions of Dollars being poured into the former.

On the other hand the Hurd has features that the Linux kernel can never hope to achieve because of its architecture.

[Aeolos]

> The Linux kernel undoubtedly many features that the Hurd system lacks, but that is due to the severe lack of manpower of the latter system and the billions of Dollars being poured into the former.

That's why GNU Hurd is essentially a dead project. Sadly it never attracted the attention and manpower necessary for it to survive.

> On the other hand the Hurd has features that the Linux kernel can never hope to achieve because of its architecture.

For example?

[teythoon]

Fault isolation. We're doing it for daemons, we're doing it for web browsers, it is insane we're not doing it for operating system services. I bought a graphic tablet and the first time I plugged it into my laptop the Linux kernel crashed. And this was merely a faulty driver, not even malicious hardware.

Also think of the effort it took to introduce namespaces to all the Linux subsystems. After a decade the user namespace still has problems. This is ridiculously easy on a distributed system, yet very hard on a monolithic one.

[jjawssd]

I am not trying to be funny. I am dead serious. Aeolos explained it perfectly.