diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'open_issues/mission_statement.mdwn')
| -rw-r--r-- | open_issues/mission_statement.mdwn | 708 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 708 deletions
diff --git a/open_issues/mission_statement.mdwn b/open_issues/mission_statement.mdwn deleted file mode 100644 index a1c8f235..00000000 --- a/open_issues/mission_statement.mdwn +++ /dev/null @@ -1,708 +0,0 @@ -[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2011, 2012, 2013 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]]."]]"""]] - -[[!tag open_issue_documentation]] - -[[!toc]] - - -# 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? - -[[faq/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 :) |