- IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-10-12
- IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-11-25
- IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-04-06
- IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-04-09
- IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-07-25
- IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-02-04
IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-10-12
<ArneBab> we have a mission statement: http://hurd.gnu.org
<Gorodish> yes
<Gorodish> but it's quite wishy washy
<Gorodish> considering all the elegant capability Hurd potentially has to
offer
<antrik> Gorodish: it's true that the mission statement is very
abstract... but then, it's hard to put anything more specific into 35
words
<Gorodish> not with some practice
<Gorodish> I notice programers tend to speak and write in terms of what
something does
<Gorodish> not what it is
<Gorodish> the "What is Hurd" is a good example
<Gorodish> there's a lot of interesting information there
<Gorodish> but the way it's ordered is odd
<antrik> a mission statement is not primarily a PR instrument; but rather a
guide that allows separating things that benefit the common goal from
things that don't...
<antrik> I agree that some actual marketing material in addition would be
nice :-)
<Gorodish> yes
<Gorodish> the modesty of Developers that work on FOSS projects never
ceases to amaze me
<Gorodish> I agree that the informational, factual, results oriented
documentation is the primary objective of documenting
IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-11-25
<antrik> heh, nice: http://telepathy.freedesktop.org/wiki/Rationale
<antrik> most of this could be read as a rationale for the Hurd just as
well ;-)
IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-04-06
<braunr> LibreMan: the real feature of the hurd is its extensibility
Extensibility, advantages.
<braunr> LibreMan: (though it could be improved even further)
<LibreMan> braunr: yeah, I keep reading that ... but that sounds too
abstract, I can not imagine what useful could that provide to the actual
users
<braunr> LibreMan: say fuse, but improved
<braunr> LibreMan: do you see how useful fuse is ?
<braunr> if so, you shouldn't have trouble imagining the gap between linux
without fuse and linux with fuse is about the same as linux with fuse and
the hurd
<braunr> and yes, it's abstract
<braunr> translators are not only about file systems
<LibreMan> braunr: well, its main advantage is that it's running in
user-space and therefore doesn't need root priviledges to mount whatever
fs you want?
<braunr> no
<braunr> you don't need to change the kernel, or implement weird tricks to
get what you want working
<LibreMan> braunr: okay, but there is fuse for Linux ... so the
difference/advantages need to be between Linux WITH fuse and Hurd
<braunr> that's what i'm saying
<LibreMan> the issue I have is that I do not see why anyone would have any
incentive to switch to Hurd
<braunr> there isn't much, which is why we stick with unix instead of,
e.g. plan9 or other advanced systems
<pinotree> try to use fuse on a server where there is no fuse installed
<LibreMan> if I want fuse-like functionallity I just install FUSE, no need
for Hurd ... so the reson to use it is not there
<braunr> LibreMan: read what i wrote
<braunr> using the hurd compared to using linux with fuse is about the same
as using linux with fuse compared to using linux without fuse
<LibreMan> braunr: ah, sorry ... I see
<braunr> it's a step further
<braunr> in theory, developers can add/remove the components they want,
making system development faster and more reliable
<braunr> where with unix, you need stuff like user mode linux or a virtual
machine
<LibreMan> braunr: but in practice it was the opposite so far :)
<braunr> not really
<braunr> it's a lack of manpower
<braunr> not a problem of partice versus theory
<braunr> practice*
<LibreMan> braunr: what do you think are the reasons why Hurd developement
is so slow if it should be faster in theory?
how many developers.
<braunr> 17:30 < braunr> it's a lack of manpower
<braunr> pay someone to do the job
<braunr> :p
<LibreMan> braunr: then why does Linux get the manpower but Hurd doesn't?
<braunr> $$
<LibreMan> braunr: ??
<braunr> linux developers are paid
<LibreMan> because companies are using it :)
<braunr> yes
<LibreMan> why are they not using Hurd then?
<braunr> because it wasn't reliable enough
<LibreMan> Linux wasn't either at some point
<braunr> sure
<braunr> but when it became, the switch towards its use began
<braunr> now that they have something free and already working, there is no
point switching again
<LibreMan> paid devs join only AFTER volunteers got it to the stage that it
was useful to companies
<braunr> well linux was easier to develop at the beginning (and is still
today because of several kernel hacking features)
<braunr> it followed the traditional unix model, nothing was really new
about it
<LibreMan> braunr: exactly! that's why I think that Hurd needs to have very
compelling technical advantages to overcome that barrier
<braunr> few people/companies really care about such technical advantages
<braunr> they don't care if there are ugly tricks to overcome some problems
<LibreMan> you mean about such that Hurd can provide, right?
<braunr> it's not elegant, but most of the time they're not even aware of
it
<braunr> yes
<LibreMan> that's eaxctly my point ... most people do not care if it's
"elegant" from a programmers POV, they care whether it WORKS
<braunr> well yes
<braunr> what's your point ?
<LibreMan> all I see about Hurd is how "elegant" it is ... but that doesn't
matter if it doesn't provide any practical advantages
<braunr> you want us to expose a killer feature amazing enough to make the
world use our code ?
<LibreMan> well, I want Hurd to succeed and try to identify the resons it
doesn't
<braunr> it does, but not to the point of making people use it
<braunr> unix *is* good enough
<braunr> same reason plan9 "failed" really
<LibreMan> define your idea of Hurd succeeding then, I thought it was to
make it useful to the point that people use it :)
<braunr> there are many other attempts to make better system architectures
<braunr> it is
<braunr> people are still using windows you know, and i really don't see
why, but it does the work for them
<LibreMan> <braunr> you want us to expose a killer feature amazing enough
to make the world use our code ? --- YES ;)
<braunr> other people can think about the same between unix and the hurd
<braunr> LibreMan: well too bad, there is none, because, again, unix isn't
that bad
<braunr> it doesn't prevent us from making a better system that is usable
<LibreMan> to explain my take on this - there are two kind of people, those
who care about philosophy behind software (and its consequences, FSF
etc.) and those who don't
<LibreMan> it's the job of those who do care to make the sw so good that
those who do not care switch to it = victory :)
<LibreMan> as I said the reasons I want Hurd to succeed are more
"political" than technical ... I do not know how many Hurd devs agree
with that kind of sentiment but I'd rather want a GNU project to be in
the forefront than that of a "benevolent dictator" that doesnt' really
care about user freedom
<LibreMan> from thechnical POV I agree that Linux isn't that bad ... it's
quite good, it's the "behind the scenes" stuff I do not like about it
<LibreMan> I'm kind of confused right now ... what exactly is to point of
Hurd then? I thought it was to make it good enough or better than Linux
so users start using it (privatly or corporate)
<LibreMan> is this just a research project that isn't intended to be used
by "general population"?
<braunr> LibreMan: it's an operating system project
<braunr> some people try to make it as good as it can be, but it's not easy
<braunr> it's not a pet or research only system
<LibreMan> braunr: I see what it is ... I'm struggling to see what is the
point of it being an "OS project", what's its intended purpose
<braunr> but it doesn't suit all the needs for a general OS yet
<braunr> LibreMan: a general purpose OS like most free unices
<LibreMan> what are the motivations behind making it as good as it can be
<braunr> for us developers ?
<LibreMan> yes
<braunr> for me, the architecture
<LibreMan> whe you say that linux is goos enough then what's the point?
<braunr> we can do better
<LibreMan> for you it's just a hobby that doesn't have any real goal except
challenging yourself to do it?
<braunr> because of lack of time, you could say that
<LibreMan> so you want Hurd to challenge Linux one day, right?
<braunr> challenging isn't the point
<braunr> i'd like to be able to use it for my needs
<LibreMan> well, that wasn't the right choise of word but to be better than
Linux
<braunr> again, you miss the point
<braunr> i don't care much about hurd vs linux
<LibreMan> your own needs, so you do not want others to use it?
<braunr> i care about the hurd and what i do
<braunr> others would think the same
<braunr> they would want it to work for their needs
<LibreMan> I'm asking about you, do YOU want others to use it? is that one
of your goals?
<braunr> not really
<braunr> i let them do what they want
<LibreMan> ah I see, so it is kind of a hobby project for you - you're
doing to for yourself and your own needs
<LibreMan> and don't care if anyone else uses it or not
<braunr> yes, i don't care much about the politics around such projects tb
<braunr> tbh
<LibreMan> is this kind of sentiment prevalent is the Hurd dev community?
<braunr> i don't work on software to break any benevolent dictator or
anyone in particular
<braunr> i don't know
<braunr> i'd say so, yes
<braunr> but not sure
<braunr> i'm not saying they don't care about freedom, don't get me wrong
<braunr> i'd say we sure prefer free software over open source
<braunr> but i don't think people work on the hurd specifically for these
reasons, rather than the technical ones
<LibreMan> interesting ... from the presentation of the project by
outsiders I got the impression that it is significantly about freedom,
GNU - that those are the main drivers
<braunr> if it really was so, we would have grabbed a bsd variant,
relicenced it with GPLv3, and call it FreeGNU or NetGNU
<LibreMan> and that's how I approached the project ... maybe I was wrong,
I'm kind of disappointed if that's so :) I care about those things a
great deal, in fact that's the only reason I care about Hurd really
<lcc> the hurd is designed to offer more freedom, in various ways, to the
user. freedom from the admin.
<lcc> right?
<braunr> lcc: that's embedded in the term "extensibility", yes
<braunr> lcc: but there are technical solutions for that on other systems
as well now
<antrik> as for the Hurd, people who said they are interested in it only
because of freedom aspects *never* contributed anything significant
<antrik> *all* serious contributors are motivated at least equally by the
technical merits; often more
<antrik> (though the fact that it's a GNU project is what has brought many
developers here in the first place...)
<LibreMan> antrik: I would phrase it the other way - why do people who have
contributed significantly not care about freedom that much? or ... how do
you know they don't?
<antrik> most of us *do* care about freedem. but it's not our primary
motivation. the freedom aspects are just not strong enough to motivate
anyone alone
<antrik> as braunr already pointed out, if the sole purpose was creating a
GNU kernel, there would be *much* more promising venues for that
<LibreMan> I do not think so ... if you someone where to just take BSD and
rebrand it as AWSOMEnewGNUkernel it wouldn't be looked upon too favorably
<LibreMan> there is an honor aspect to it, to have something developed by
the community that stands by it
<LibreMan> so I do not think it would work
<antrik> BSD has forked countless times, and several of these forks became
very popular. I don't see why a GNU one shouldn't do well enough
<antrik> bat that's beside the point. writing a new boring monolithic
UNIX-like kernel from scratch is not that hard
<antrik> (as Linus has proven, amonst others...)
<antrik> if the sole purpose would be having a GNU kernel, I'd be strongly
advocating writing a new monolithic kernel from scratch
<LibreMan> antrik: ah, snap! not that hard you say? with all the features
Linux has? sure, it's not hard to make a kernel that barely boots but
that's not the point, is it? :)
<antrik> (yes, even now, with the Hurd being almost usable, I still think
it would be easier to get a new monolithic kernel to production quality)
<LibreMan> antrik: and here is was braunr who was pitching extensibility
and faster developement of Hurd as its advantage - and here you come
saying that it would be easier to write monolithic kernel from scratch
<LibreMan> get your story striaght guys ;)
<antrik> the Hurd makes it easier to develop new features. it's not easier
to get it production-ready in the first place
<LibreMan> antrik: what's the difference of developing a feature that makes
it "production ready" and another one that make it "production ready" for
a different use?
<antrik> features don't make a system production ready
<LibreMan> what makes a system production ready?
<LibreMan> what do you consider a "production"?
<antrik> supporting enough use cases that a non-trivial number of users
have their needs covered; and being stable enough that it's not annoying
to use
<LibreMan> either it is easier to develop or it isn't ... either it is
modular from it's core or it isn't
<antrik> well, not only stable enough, but also performant, secure etc.
<antrik> wrong
<LibreMan> are you saying that the fruits of its modularity will show only
after enough modules have been written?
<antrik> a modular system with strong isolation is inherently more
complicated to get right
<LibreMan> that sure is a weird argument to make ...
<LibreMan> right ... but when you get it right, the further development is
much easier?
<antrik> depends. making fundamental changes to how the system works will
always be tricky. but adding new stuff that doesn't require fundamental
changes, building on the existing foundations, is way easier
<antrik> we believe that once we have the fundamentals mostly right, most
things people will be adding will fall into the latter catogory
<antrik> category
<LibreMan> o what's missing to Hurd before it "got it right" and the fast
pace development kicks in?
<antrik> but so far most of the work is in the former category, meaning
progress is slow
<LibreMan> because from readin the site it seems the core is pretty much
done ... what it needs are all the translators, drivers, user-space tools
to make use of that core - is that impression wrong?
<antrik> you are missing the point. there is no unified "development pace"
measurement. it is easier to add certain things right now. but to get the
system production ready, it still requires considerable work on the hard
parts
<antrik> well, it's not as simple ;-)
<LibreMan> are you sure the work on "the hard parts" is ever going to be
done? :)
<antrik> the core is working, but it is still missing some features, and
it's missing lots of performance optimisation and bug fixing
<LibreMan> it seems more hard parts pop up every time you think it is
almost production ready
<antrik> also, we know today that the core could work much better in some
regards if we make some major changes. not a priority right now, but
something that will have to be addressed in the long run to seriously
compete with other systems
<antrik> well, no software is ever done :-)
<antrik> but I hope we will get to a point where the hard parts work well
enough for most people
<LibreMan> in fact I remember the design of Hurd was specifically chose by
RMS because he thought it would be easier to implement modular system -
that was 20 yeras ago? :)
<antrik> yes, and he admitted later that he was totally wrong on that :-)
<LibreMan> yeah, that was one unlucky choice for GNU ...
<antrik> who knows. it's hard to estimate what would have happened it GNU
chose a different route back then
<LibreMan> so ... Hurd is a hobby project for you too?
<LibreMan> or ... what do you hope to achieve by working on Hurd?
<LibreMan> I'm really interested in the motivations of people behind Hurd
as I'm kind of surprised it's not that much freedom and GNU ...
<antrik> it's a hobby project for everyone -- nobody gets paid for working
on it
<antrik> in the long run, I hope the Hurd to be a good platform for my
higher-level ideas. I have a vision of a desktop environment working
quite differently from what exists today; and I believe the extensible
architecture of the Hurd makes it easier to implement these ideas
<LibreMan> that's not what I meant as you may have guessed from my line of
reasoning so far
<LibreMan> yeah, that's my definition of a hobby project :) not whether one
gets payed to do it or not but whether one does it to satisfy their own
curiosity
<antrik> well, curiosity is clearly too narrow
<LibreMan> as far as I'm concerned I'd have a more "political" goal of
influencing the wider world to move toward more freedom
<antrik> but hackers never work on volunteer projects except to scratch
their own itch, or to work on something they are genuinely interested
in. nobody hacks free software just to save the world
<LibreMan> I find some technical aspects very interesting and fun but if
they wouldn't further the goal of more freedom they'd be without purpose
to me
<antrik> just think of the GNU high priority projects list -- it has zery
effect
<antrik> zero
<LibreMan> yeah ... and I think that is a real shame
<LibreMan> I keep thinking that it's because most hackers do not realize
the importance of freedom and the consequences of not having it
<antrik> it's a shame that some people at the FSF seem to believe they can
tell hackers what to work on :-P
<LibreMan> I do not think anybody at FSF actually believes that
<LibreMan> they believe as I do that we can persuade hackers to work on
things after they themselves recognise the significance of it
<antrik> no. there are many many hackers who genuinely believe in
supporting software freedom (both in the Hurd and in other GNU projects)
-- but there are none who would work on projects they are not personally
interested in because of that
<LibreMan> well, how does one become "personally interested" in a project?
surely it's not something you;re born with ... after recognising a
significance of some project some may become personally interested in it
- and that's the point ;)
<antrik> well, if I you mean nobody realises that software freedom is so
important they should work on it instead of doing things they actually
enjoy... they yes, I guess you are right :-P
<antrik> significance is subjective. just because something may be
important to the general public, doesn't mean I personally care about it
<LibreMan> you keep projecting your own concerns into it
<LibreMan> just because you're not interested in something doesn't mean
someone else isn't
<LibreMan> you approach it from the POV that omebody is telling YOU what
you should do ...
<LibreMan> that is not the case
<antrik> LibreMan: well, but there are obviously things no hackers care
about -- or otherwise there would be no need for the high priority
projects list... it's a list of things that would be important for
software freedom, but nobody is interested in working on. and having a
list of them won't change that fact
<LibreMan> antrik: why do you feel entitled to speak for all hackers? the
projects are high priority exactly because there isn;t enough people
working on them, if they were they wouldn't be high priority :)
<LibreMan> so maybe you have cause and effect mixed up ...
<LibreMan> there is no need to list office suite as hight priority because
there is LibreOffice, if there wasn't I'm sure it would be right there on
the priority list
<antrik> LibreMan: err... how is that different from what I said?
<antrik> these projects are there because there are not enough people
working on them -- i.e. hackers are not interested in them
<LibreMan> you said it in a way the implied that hackers are not interested
in working on projects that are required for providing freedom - but
mostly there are, it's just a few project where aren't - and those are
listed as high priority to bring attention to them
<LibreMan> well, maybe after seeing them on a high priority list some
hackes become interested in them - that is the point :)
<antrik> yes, that's what I implied. the fact that there are projects
hackers aren't working on, although they would be important for software
freedom, proves that this is not sufficient motivation for volunteers
<antrik> if software freedom alone would motivate hackers, there would be
enough people working on important projects
<LibreMan> who ever claimed that freedom alone motivated hackers? :)
<antrik> but there aren't. we have the list, and people are *still* not
working on these projects -- q.e.d.
<LibreMan> I do not get what you're trying to prove
<antrik> the track record so far clearly shows that hackers do *not* become
interested in working on these projects just because they are on the list
<antrik> err... you pretty much claimed that Hurd hackers should be
motivated by freedom alone
<antrik> and expressed great disappointment that we aren't
<braunr> LibreMan: you expected the hurd developers to share the common
goal of freedom mainly, and now you're saying you don't think hackers
would work for freedom alone ?
<LibreMan> freedom mainly == freedom alone?
<braunr> antrik: would you see an objection to using netbsd as a code base
for a mach clone ?
<braunr> LibreMan: you said share the common goal of freedom
<LibreMan> you're twisting my word to suit your own line of reasoning
<braunr> implying we all agree this is the priority
<LibreMan> being a priority doesn't mean it is there "alone", does it?
<braunr> it means it's the only one
<LibreMan> in another words, do you reject the possibility of enjoying
working on a project and doing it for freedom? because it seems you
somehow do not allow for that possibility
<braunr> if we agree on it, we can't have multiple priorities per people
<braunr> yes, that's what we're saying
<braunr> freedom isn't a goal
<braunr> it's a constraint
<braunr> the project *has* to be free
<LibreMan> so if you;re doing something to achieve freedom you can not BY
DEFINITION enjoy it? :D
<braunr> LibreMan: more or less, yes
<braunr> i enjoy the technical aspect, i advocate freedom
<LibreMan> then I've just disproven you :) I do things for freedom and
enjoy them
<braunr> no, not for freedom
<LibreMan> yes, for freedom
<braunr> i'm telling you it's not what motivates me to write code
<LibreMan> if I did not believe in freedom I wouldn't do them
<LibreMan> and I'm not talking about you
<braunr> i believe in freedom, my job consists of developing mostly
proprietary software
<braunr> how can you disprove me if you're not talking about me on this ?
<LibreMan> you said it's not possible IN PRINCIPLE, well antrik did and you
agreed - if you did not follow his line of argument then do not try to
continue where he left off ;)
<braunr> what project have you worked on ?
<LibreMan> my personal ones, nothing big
<braunr> so you're not a hacker, you're excluded from the group considered
<LibreMan> I'll tell you when it cathes on :)
<braunr> (bam)
<LibreMan> so now you decide who is and is not a hacker, well ... :)
<braunr> :)
<LibreMan> but ok, let's not talk about me I concede that I'm a lousy one
if any :)
<LibreMan> what about RMS, do you consider him a hacker?
<braunr> i think he became a hacker for other reasons than freedom
<LibreMan> would you say he is not motivated by freedom (if that can be
even concieved of)? :)
<braunr> and sees freedom as necessary too
<braunr> i can't say, i don't know him
<antrik> braunr: nope. in fact we discussed this in the past. someone even
worked on GSoC project bringing Hurd/Mach features to NetBSD -- but AFAIK
nothing came out of it
<braunr> antrik: ok
<LibreMan> well, he is pretty vocal with plenty of writings ... on the
other hand you seemed to know me well enough to proclaim me a non-hacker
<braunr> i don't know why he worked on emacs and gcc rather than the hurd
:p
<braunr> but something other than freedom must have motivated such choices
<antrik> I'm uncertain though whether NetBSD is a more useful base than
Linux. it would offer advantages on the licensing front, but it would not
offer the advantage that people could just run it on their existing
systems...
<LibreMan> gcc seems pretty significant for Linux lol
<braunr> antrik: true
<LibreMan> or GNU
<braunr> antrik: there are already system call stubs, and the VM is very,
very similar
<braunr> LibreMan: the hurd was too, at the time
<LibreMan> he can not work on everything
<braunr> so he ahd to choose, and based his choice on something else than
freedom (since all these projects are free)
<braunr> i guess he enjoyed emacs more
<antrik> LibreMan: RMS is not much of a practicing hacker anymore
nowadays...
<antrik> braunr: yeah, that's another advantage of using NetBSD as a
base... it might be easier to do
<braunr> LibreMan: what was your original question again ?
<braunr> i've been somewhat ironic since that trademark stuff, i'm serious
again now
<antrik> LibreMan: again, freedom is a factor for many of us; but not the
primary motivation
<antrik> (as braunr put, being free software is mandatory for us; but that
doesn't mean the main reason for working on the Hurd is some indirect
benefit for the free software movement...)
<LibreMan> braunr: the original goal was to understand the strong points of
Hurd to I can help communicate them to other hackers who might be
interested in Hurd
<LibreMan> because I wanted it to succeed to advance freedom more
<antrik> LibreMan: well, practice what you preach ;-)
<LibreMan> but now that I've founf that not even devs themselves are that
much interested in freedom I do not have that desire anymore
<antrik> you will hardly motivate other hackers to work on something you do
not even work on yourself...
<LibreMan> and focus my attention somewhere else
<antrik> [sigh]
<braunr> well, you can now state that the hurd has an elegant architecture
allowing many ugly hacks to disappear, and that it doesn't yet handle
sata drives or usb keys or advandced multicast routing or ...
<antrik> LibreMan: how about you listen to what we are saying?
<LibreMan> antrik: so I should work on everything in the world that
advances freedom or shut up?
<antrik> LibreMan: we *are* interested in freedom. we would work on nothing
else than a free software system. it's just not the primary motivation
for working on the Hurd
<antrik> if you primary motivation is advancing free software, the Hurd is
probably indeed not the right project to work on. other projects are more
important for that
<antrik> and that's got nothing to do with our priorities
<antrik> it's simply a matter of what areas free software is most lacking
in. the kernel is not one of them.
<braunr> antrik: my primary concern with netbsd are drivers
<LibreMan> I naively assumed that people working on a GNU project will
share GNU vlaues, instead I find that some of them poke fun at its high
priority projects
<braunr> i poke fun at you
<braunr> because you think trademark has any real value on the free
software community
<LibreMan> braunr: I see, congratulations ... I hope you enjoy it
<antrik> if there were no suitable free software kernels around, many
people might work on the Hurd mostly to advance free software. but as it
stands, having a GNU kernel is secondary
<braunr> yes, freedom is a primary goal when there are no free alternatives
<antrik> LibreMan: you are accusing us of not sharing GNU values, which is
quite outrageous I must say
<braunr> LibreMan: actually no, i'd prefer converstation with someone who
understands what i'm saying
<braunr> even if he contradicts me, like antrik often does
<braunr> (but he's usually right)
<braunr> LibreMan: you just don't want to accept some (many) of us are here
more for technical reasons than ethical ones
<LibreMan> antrik: well, some of your reasoning and tone would seem to
suggest so ...
<braunr> i didn't see antrik being particularly aggressive, but personally,
i react badly to stupidity
<LibreMan> braunr: WHAT? I've never said anything about what you should or
should not do or believe
<braunr> you clearly expected something when you first arrived
<LibreMan> I said I personally expected more enhusiastic people concerning
GNU and freedom but that was my personal expectaion and my personal
disappointment
<antrik> what makes you think we are not enthusiastic about GNU and
software freedom?
<braunr> more enthusiastic is vague, you expected us to be some sort of
freedom fighters
<antrik> just for the record, I'm part of the German core team of the FSFE
<braunr> i even stated early that we're mostly part of the free software
rather than open source movement, and you still find our point of view
disappointing
<antrik> still, it's not my major motivation for working on the Hurd
<antrik> I don't see any contradiction in that
<LibreMan> I don;t know maybe I misunderstand you, I do not mean any
disrespect
<braunr> me neither
<LibreMan> maybe "hackers" truly do think differently than I expected them
to in general and it's not specific to Hurd
<braunr> well the very word hacker describe someone interested by "hacking"
down something to get to understand it
<braunr> it's strongly technical
<LibreMan> antrik: why are you a core team member of th FSFE? what do you
do there and why? is that not motivated by the desire for more freedom?
<braunr> and we're lucky, many of them aren't deeply concerned with money
and secrecy, and prefer being open about their work
<braunr> you still don't get it ...
<antrik> LibreMan: of course it is
<antrik> and hacking free software in general also is (partly) motivated by
that
<antrik> but hacking on the Hurd specifically not so much
<braunr> 20:23 < antrik> LibreMan: we *are* interested in freedom. we would
work on nothing else than a free software system. it's just not the
primary motivation for working on the Hurd
<braunr> he already answered your question there
<antrik> (as I already said, it *is* in fact part of the motivation in my
case... just not the major part)
<LibreMan> antrik: but if it ever achieved wide success and you would be
asy on a "board" to decide future direction would you choose for exacmple
to prevent TiVO-ization over wider adpotion?
<braunr> we already answered that too
<antrik> LibreMan: that's actually not even for us to decide, as long as we
are an official GNU project
<antrik> but of course we are a GNU project because we *do* believe in
software freedom, and obviously wouldn't accept Tivoisation
<braunr> (and our discussion about using netbsd as a code base is a
relevant example of license concerns)
<LibreMan> I'm really trying to get to the core of "not motivated by
freedom" but being "interested in freedom" ... I really do not get that,
if you are interested in freedom wouldn't you want a project you work on
being used to advance it as much as possible and therefore be also
motivated to do it the best while enjoying it to achieve the goal of more
freedom since you value it that much?
<braunr> LibreMan: except for the GPLv2 vs GPLv3 debate, i don't see where
there can be a conflict between freedom and technical interest
<LibreMan> braunr: the issues around freedom are mainly not technical
... GPLv2 and GPLv3 is also not about technical interests
<braunr> that's my problem with you, i fail to see where the problem you
think of is
<LibreMan> it tends to be about the possibility to extract money and impose
your will on the users which turns out to be highly profitable and
politicaly desirable in some instances
<LibreMan> of course it's technically the best to open-source but how are
you going to sell a product like that? that is the main question
troubling most corporations
<LibreMan> ok, I'm not going to bore you any more ;) I found out what I
needed to know ... now I'm going to try to forget about Hurd and focus on
something else where my help can be more effective at achieving what I
want ;) good luck with your endavours
<antrik> LibreMan: of course we hope for the Hurd to advance the cause of
freedom, just like any free software we would work on... still, it's not
the primary reason why we work on the Hurd, instead of the myriads of
other free software projects out there
IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-04-09
<antono> what is the most impressive thing about hurd you wold like to
promote?
<antono> killing feature
<antono> i've created some simple hurd screencasts here
http://shelr.tv/records/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=hurd
<antono> but probably i could share something more interesting :)
<antrik> antono: if we had such an obvious killer feature, we wouldn't have
to struggle ;-)
<antrik> the problem is that the advantages of the Hurd architecture are
too abstract for the vast majority of people to take them seriously
<antrik> IMHO the most interesting part of the Hurd is the fully
decentralised (and thus infinitely extensible) VFS mechanism
<antrik> but even that is very abstract...
<antono> antrik: cand i do somenthing relly fundamental with hurd
translator?
<antono> for example i hate old school unix FHS
<antono> I would like to have only /Users/me and /System/GNU
<antono> and i would like to only see it, but behinde the scenes it should
be Debian with FHS layout
<antono> is it possible?
<antrik> antono: of course. not sure translators offer much advantage over
FUSE in this case though... it doesn't really change the functionality of
the VFS; only rearranges the tree a bit
<antrik> (might even be doable with standard Linux features)
IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-07-25
<braunr> because it has design problems, because it has implementation
problems, lots of problems, and far too few people to keep up with other
systems that are already dominating
<braunr> also, considering other research projects get much more funding
than we do, they probably have a better chance at being adopted
<rah> you consider the Hurd to be a research project?
<braunr> and as they're more recent, they sometimes overcome some of the
issues we have
<braunr> yes and no
<braunr> yes because it was, at the time of its creation, and it hasn't
changed much, and there aren't many (any?) other systems with such a
design
<braunr> and no because the hurd is actually working, and being released as
part of something like debian
<braunr> which clearly shows it's able to do the stuff it was intended for
<braunr> i consider it a technically very interesting project for
developers who want to know more about microkernel based extensible
systems
<antrik> rah: I don't expect the Hurd to achieve world domination, because
most people consider Linux "good enough" and will stick with it
<antrik> I for my part think though we could do better than Linux (in
certain regards I consider important), which is why I still consider it
interesting and worthwhile
<nowhere_man> I think that in some respect the OS scene may evolve a bit
like the PL one, where everyone progressively adopts ideas from Lisp but
doesn't want to do Lisp: everyone slowly shifts towards what µ-kernels
OSes have done from the start, but they don't want µ-kernels...
<braunr> nowhere_man: that's my opinion too
<braunr> and this is why i think something like the hurd still has valuable
purpose
<nowhere_man> braunr: in honesty, I still ponder the fact that it's my
coping mechanism to accept being a Lisp and Hurd fan ;-)
<braunr> nowhere_man: it can be used that way too
<braunr> functional programming is getting more and more attention
<braunr> so it's fine if you're a lisp fan really
IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-02-04
<civodul> BTW, it's weird that the mission statement linked from
hurd.gnu.org is in weblog/ and written in the first person
<braunr> yes
<braunr> very :)