0

As I know, shortly after Linus Torvalds liberated the Linux kernel it was implemented in GNU operating system which is since then known as GNU/Linux or GNU+Linux.

From the GNU article in Wikipedia I understand the GNU OS kernel is Hurd.

Was Hurd created as a modification of Torvalds's Linux kernel?

Improve this question
7
  • 8
    For a very, very long time, there was the question whether Hurd was created at all. And it still somewhat is.
    – tofro
    Commented Jun 2, 2019 at 8:50
  • 11
    Come on. You're already reading the wikipedia article, but couldn't click through to the GNU Hurd article to read about it?
    – pipe
    Commented Jun 2, 2019 at 10:42
  • 10
    You're using weird terminology IMO. What do you mean by "Linus Torvals liberated the Linux kernel"? And by "it was implemented in GNU operating system"?
    – Roel Schroeven
    Commented Jun 2, 2019 at 11:25
  • 2
    @RoelSchroeven It does almost feel as if there is an intention to prove a very specific poitical point. Doesn't it?
    – Raffzahn
    Commented Jun 2, 2019 at 22:55
  • 1
    @Raffzahn Not impossible, but in such cases I prefer to assume good intentions until proven otherwise.
    – Roel Schroeven
    Commented Jun 3, 2019 at 7:21

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
15

No. The Hurd was a separate effort, using a microkernel design. Some computer scientists believe this to have more appealing properties than the pragmatic monolithic design of the Linux kernel, but it is also more difficult to implement, which is partly why the Hurd was not delivered in a timely fashion and the world ended up going with Linux.

Improve this answer
2
  • 1
    " it is also more difficult to implement" - in theory the opposite is true because it breaks up the kernel so it can be compiled separately and loaded on the fly. In practice, one can do that with a monokernel as well, with some work. More importantly, the micro adds overhead that has never been successfully avoided at a large scale.
    – Maury Markowitz
    Commented Jun 3, 2019 at 18:39
  • 1
    Now read blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2016/01/01/0 .
    – JdeBP
    Commented Jun 5, 2019 at 18:13
9

No, Hurd kernel had been in developement for a few years before Linux kernel was released.

Improve this answer
7
  • 2
    Do you have anything to back that up?
    – Chenmunka ♦
    Commented Jun 2, 2019 at 11:11
  • 7
    From the mouth of RMS: gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd-and-linux.html
    – Tommy
    Commented Jun 2, 2019 at 12:05
  • 4
    Per Wikipedia, GNU Hurd development started in 1986 (based on MIT/TRIX), was abandoned, then restarted in 1990 (based on CMU Mach). The initial release of Linux was in September of 1991.
    – Kelvin Sherlock
    Commented Jun 2, 2019 at 13:50
  • 7
    I was at university during the early noughties; at the time one professor used Hurd and Linux to demonstrate the difference between what can happen if you sit down and tirelessly plan versus if you just start coding and don't worry about an all-encompassing plan in advance.
    – Tommy
    Commented Jun 2, 2019 at 15:04
  • 3
    @Tommy: Indeed. It is quite funny to look at all the statements Linus made when he originally released Linux. "It will not be as big and professional as GNU", "It is intimately tied to 386 and cannot be ported", also he deemed making it support multiple CPUs close to impossible.
    – Jörg W Mittag
    Commented Jun 3, 2019 at 15:01
3

No, they were independent developments.

However, the situation is a little bit more complex. Hurd is not just a Linux with a different kernel, also the structure of the OS is highly different.

GNU Hurd is a microkernel. That means that the actual kernel does as little as possible. The ordinary kernel functionality is being done by user space processes, communicating with the microkernel and with each other.

For example, the ext4 filesystem driver is a kernel module in Linux. That means it is a collection of functions in a library, what converts the ext4 filesystem operations to block device operations.

In Hurd, the ext21 filesystem driver is essentially a daemon, service. Just like, for example, the Apache web server. The ext4 filesystem operations are talking with this daemon.

A Microkernel-based OS has also the feature, that the actual microkernel is actually an easily replaceable part of the system. The important part of the system is the collection of its daemons.

GNU Hurd is the abbreviation of "Hird of Unix Replacement Daemons". During its development, the actually used microkernel was changed multiple times.

Thus, what we understand on the "Linux kernel", is a "microkernel + the collection of the Unix replacement daemons" in the sense of the GNU Hurd.

Thus:

  • Some of the code of the daemons is probably derived from Linux kernel code. Particularly the filesystem drivers.
  • Its microkernel is an entirely independent development from the Linux kernel.

The sum is that probably it has much Linux kernel code, it is mainly a different product (note, both systems being GPL, it is not a major question from the intellectual property view).

1As far I know, ext3/4 support is not developed yet.

Improve this answer
6
  • "Some of the code of the daemons is probably derived from Linux kernel code." I would assume the opposite. The GNU project is very, very careful about who contributes to their code; code is never taken from authors who haven't signed statements about possible employer claims, etc. That makes copying code from Linux a no-go.
    – Nick Matteo
    Commented Nov 4, 2021 at 19:43
  • @NickMatteo I've checked the hurd source code, the first what I can see that it is a source debian package. Also the first page of the hurd gitweb ( git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/hurd/hurd.git ) shows an ancient import from linux 2.2 .
    – peterh
    Commented Nov 4, 2021 at 23:50
  • Well, that seems like they did, then! I am surprised.
    – Nick Matteo
    Commented Nov 5, 2021 at 1:31
  • Btw, I believe actually a mutilated linux kernel would serve as the best hurd microkernel.
    – peterh
    Commented Nov 5, 2021 at 12:03
  • @NickMatteo Imho, Hurd is a failed project what makes me really sad. The causes of the failure were these: 1) what microkernels were thought for, are already being done by containerisation or virtual machines 2) lack of a really working microkernel, all the microkernels I've seen were effectively bad, big monolithic kernels 3) and they have no chance against a good, big monolithic kernel, the Linux. | The obvious escape would be to use a mutilated Linux as the Hurd microkernel, Hurd does not do that because they want a different thing from Linux, which is nice but they can not do that.
    – peterh
    Commented Nov 10, 2021 at 16:38

You must log in to answer this question.