|author||Thomas Schwinge <firstname.lastname@example.org>||2011-05-02 10:02:49 +0200|
|committer||Thomas Schwinge <email@example.com>||2011-05-02 10:02:49 +0200|
faq/how_many_developers: FSF, industry, science.
Diffstat (limited to 'faq/how_many_developers.mdwn')
1 files changed, 18 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/faq/how_many_developers.mdwn b/faq/how_many_developers.mdwn
index 93283113..ab8e8f28 100644
@@ -20,6 +20,16 @@ handful helps with [[Debian GNU/Hurd|hurd/running/debian]] and
developers are still available for answering technical questions, but are not
participating in the current development anymore.
+In the past (that is, a lot of years ago), the FSF did pay a few developers for
+working full time on the GNU Hurd. But that was for a limited amount of time
+only, and evidently, it was too little for getting the system into a
+competitive state. Nowadays, it's only unpaid and free-time volunteers' work.
+In contrast to the Linux kernel, there is no industry involvement in
+development. For one, this is a good thing: independency; no conflicts of
+interests. For another, it is also a bad thing: no dedicated full-time
+manpower -- which matters a lot.
# Why So Few?
@@ -34,6 +44,14 @@ involvement a waste of time. This latter point is invalid, of course, as
learning can never be a waste of time. The same holds for the [[challenges]]
raised by the GNU Hurd -- we can only learn and improve upon working on them.
+For likely the same reasons there is no industry interest in the GNU Hurd: its
+advantages are too abstract and incomplete for being of interest there.
+As for the scientific sector, the GNU Hurd projects was rather about *using* a
+[[microkernel]] intead of doing research on them, for example. But, there have
+been some projects and theses done, and some scientific papers published on GNU
+Hurd topics, and we're generally very interested in further such projects.
# Attracting New Faces