, does not actually work either. 0- should, really

1 files changed, 65 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/faq/0-how_many_developers/discussion.mdwn b/faq/0-how_many_developers/discussion.mdwn
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..8e4c487a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/faq/0-how_many_developers/discussion.mdwn
@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2011, 2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]]
+
+[[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable
+id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
+document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
+any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant
+Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.  A copy of the license
+is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation
+License|/fdl]]."]]"""]]
+
+
+# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-05-22
+
+    <silver_hook> Since apparently Hurd's aim is a very stable and transparent
+      system ...why aren't there any companies backing it up?
+    <antrik> silver_hook: it's not in a state yet where it would be
+      commercially interesting
+    <antrik> silver_hook: and after some epic failures in the 90s, few
+      companies dare to invest in microkernel development...
+    <silver_hook> Isn't MacOS X running on top of Mach?
+    <antrik> yes, but it's not a true microkernel system
+    <antrik> for one, it's single-server, which is boring
+    <antrik> also it uses co-location, i.e. runs all the system code in the
+      kernel address space -- they are separated only formally
+    <antrik> even NT is more of a microkernel system I think
+    <silver_hook> Oh, OK, I'm not that knowledgeable about kernels to know
+      that.
+    <antrik> well, now you know :-)
+    <silver_hook> Yup, thanks :)
+    <antrik> most people don't know this, so don't worry
+    <silver_hook> I was just wondering that it might be potentially an ideal
+      server system, right?
+    <antrik> well, *potentially* it might be an ideal general-purpose system,
+      which includes server use... though personally I think the advantages of
+      the architecture are more visible in desktop use, as servers tend to be
+      rather streamlined, with little need for individualisation :-)
+    <antrik> however, it still remains to be proven that true (multi-server)
+      microkernel operating systems actually work for general-purpose
+      applications...
+    <silver_hook> antrik: I mean regarding hosting or virtual servers.
+    <antrik> so far, they are only successful in the much simpler embedded
+      space
+    <antrik> well, yes, the Hurd architecture in theory allows very much
+      flexibility regarding virtual environments... I once blogged about
+      that. not sure whether server applications really require that
+      flexibility though. I think most people are pretty happy with the various
+      virtualisation/container solutions available in Linux. again, the
+      flexibility is more relevant in the desktop space IMHO
+    <antrik> dosn't mean it wouldn't be useful for servers too... just not as
+      much of a selling point I fear :-)
+
+
+# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-07-09
+
+    <antrik> gnu_srs1: regarding your question why people aren't interested in
+      workin on Hurd: Eric Raymond explains it pretty well in his famous
+      "Cathedral and Bazaar" paper
+    <antrik> people are more likely to work on something that *almost* works
+      for them, and where they only have to fill in a few missing bits
+    <antrik> the Hurd doesn't almost work for anyone
+    <antrik> actually, you should probably reread the whole paper. it's
+      essentially an analysis why the Hurd failed compared to Linux
+
+
+# [[open_issues/mission_statement]]