From 1dc28d745d45be6764072af1da0ceda52a0c17a3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Schwinge Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:16:32 +0200 Subject: IRC. --- open_issues/mission_statement.mdwn | 611 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 611 insertions(+) (limited to 'open_issues/mission_statement.mdwn') diff --git a/open_issues/mission_statement.mdwn b/open_issues/mission_statement.mdwn index d136e3a8..17f148a9 100644 --- a/open_issues/mission_statement.mdwn +++ b/open_issues/mission_statement.mdwn @@ -47,3 +47,614 @@ License|/fdl]]."]]"""]] heh, nice: http://telepathy.freedesktop.org/wiki/Rationale most of this could be read as a rationale for the Hurd just as well ;-) + + +# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-04-06 + + LibreMan: the real feature of the hurd is its extensibility + +[[/Extensibility]], [[/advantages]]. + + LibreMan: (though it could be improved even further) + braunr: yeah, I keep reading that ... but that sounds too + abstract, I can not imagine what useful could that provide to the actual + users + LibreMan: say fuse, but improved + LibreMan: do you see how useful fuse is ? + 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 + and yes, it's abstract + translators are not only about file systems + 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? + no + you don't need to change the kernel, or implement weird tricks to + get what you want working + braunr: okay, but there is fuse for Linux ... so the + difference/advantages need to be between Linux WITH fuse and Hurd + that's what i'm saying + the issue I have is that I do not see why anyone would have any + incentive to switch to Hurd + there isn't much, which is why we stick with unix instead of, + e.g. plan9 or other advanced systems + try to use fuse on a server where there is no fuse installed + if I want fuse-like functionallity I just install FUSE, no need + for Hurd ... so the reson to use it is not there + LibreMan: read what i wrote + using the hurd compared to using linux with fuse is about the same + as using linux with fuse compared to using linux without fuse + braunr: ah, sorry ... I see + it's a step further + in theory, developers can add/remove the components they want, + making system development faster and more reliable + where with unix, you need stuff like user mode linux or a virtual + machine + braunr: but in practice it was the opposite so far :) + not really + it's a lack of manpower + not a problem of partice versus theory + practice* + 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]]. + + 17:30 < braunr> it's a lack of manpower + pay someone to do the job + :p + braunr: then why does Linux get the manpower but Hurd doesn't? + $$ + braunr: ?? + linux developers are paid + because companies are using it :) + yes + why are they not using Hurd then? + because it wasn't reliable enough + Linux wasn't either at some point + sure + but when it became, the switch towards its use began + now that they have something free and already working, there is no + point switching again + paid devs join only AFTER volunteers got it to the stage that it + was useful to companies + well linux was easier to develop at the beginning (and is still + today because of several kernel hacking features) + it followed the traditional unix model, nothing was really new + about it + braunr: exactly! that's why I think that Hurd needs to have very + compelling technical advantages to overcome that barrier + few people/companies really care about such technical advantages + they don't care if there are ugly tricks to overcome some problems + you mean about such that Hurd can provide, right? + it's not elegant, but most of the time they're not even aware of + it + yes + that's eaxctly my point ... most people do not care if it's + "elegant" from a programmers POV, they care whether it WORKS + well yes + what's your point ? + all I see about Hurd is how "elegant" it is ... but that doesn't + matter if it doesn't provide any practical advantages + you want us to expose a killer feature amazing enough to make the + world use our code ? + well, I want Hurd to succeed and try to identify the resons it + doesn't + it does, but not to the point of making people use it + unix *is* good enough + same reason plan9 "failed" really + define your idea of Hurd succeeding then, I thought it was to + make it useful to the point that people use it :) + there are many other attempts to make better system architectures + it is + people are still using windows you know, and i really don't see + why, but it does the work for them + you want us to expose a killer feature amazing enough + to make the world use our code ? --- YES ;) + other people can think about the same between unix and the hurd + LibreMan: well too bad, there is none, because, again, unix isn't + that bad + it doesn't prevent us from making a better system that is usable + 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 + 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 :) + 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 + 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 + 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) + is this just a research project that isn't intended to be used + by "general population"? + LibreMan: it's an operating system project + some people try to make it as good as it can be, but it's not easy + it's not a pet or research only system + 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 + but it doesn't suit all the needs for a general OS yet + LibreMan: a general purpose OS like most free unices + what are the motivations behind making it as good as it can be + for us developers ? + yes + for me, the architecture + whe you say that linux is goos enough then what's the point? + we can do better + for you it's just a hobby that doesn't have any real goal except + challenging yourself to do it? + because of lack of time, you could say that + so you want Hurd to challenge Linux one day, right? + challenging isn't the point + i'd like to be able to use it for my needs + well, that wasn't the right choise of word but to be better than + Linux + again, you miss the point + i don't care much about hurd vs linux + your own needs, so you do not want others to use it? + i care about the hurd and what i do + others would think the same + they would want it to work for their needs + I'm asking about you, do YOU want others to use it? is that one + of your goals? + not really + i let them do what they want + ah I see, so it is kind of a hobby project for you - you're + doing to for yourself and your own needs + and don't care if anyone else uses it or not + yes, i don't care much about the politics around such projects tb + tbh + is this kind of sentiment prevalent is the Hurd dev community? + i don't work on software to break any benevolent dictator or + anyone in particular + i don't know + i'd say so, yes + but not sure + i'm not saying they don't care about freedom, don't get me wrong + i'd say we sure prefer free software over open source + but i don't think people work on the hurd specifically for these + reasons, rather than the technical ones + 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 + if it really was so, we would have grabbed a bsd variant, + relicenced it with GPLv3, and call it FreeGNU or NetGNU + 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 + + the hurd is designed to offer more freedom, in various ways, to the + user. freedom from the admin. + right? + lcc: that's embedded in the term "extensibility", yes + lcc: but there are technical solutions for that on other systems + as well now + + as for the Hurd, people who said they are interested in it only + because of freedom aspects *never* contributed anything significant + *all* serious contributors are motivated at least equally by the + technical merits; often more + (though the fact that it's a GNU project is what has brought many + developers here in the first place...) + 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? + 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 + as braunr already pointed out, if the sole purpose was creating a + GNU kernel, there would be *much* more promising venues for that + 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 + there is an honor aspect to it, to have something developed by + the community that stands by it + so I do not think it would work + 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 + bat that's beside the point. writing a new boring monolithic + UNIX-like kernel from scratch is not that hard + (as Linus has proven, amonst others...) + if the sole purpose would be having a GNU kernel, I'd be strongly + advocating writing a new monolithic kernel from scratch + 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? :) + (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) + 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 + get your story striaght guys ;) + the Hurd makes it easier to develop new features. it's not easier + to get it production-ready in the first place + 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? + features don't make a system production ready + what makes a system production ready? + what do you consider a "production"? + 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 + either it is easier to develop or it isn't ... either it is + modular from it's core or it isn't + well, not only stable enough, but also performant, secure etc. + wrong + are you saying that the fruits of its modularity will show only + after enough modules have been written? + a modular system with strong isolation is inherently more + complicated to get right + that sure is a weird argument to make ... + right ... but when you get it right, the further development is + much easier? + 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 + we believe that once we have the fundamentals mostly right, most + things people will be adding will fall into the latter catogory + category + o what's missing to Hurd before it "got it right" and the fast + pace development kicks in? + but so far most of the work is in the former category, meaning + progress is slow + 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? + 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 + well, it's not as simple ;-) + are you sure the work on "the hard parts" is ever going to be + done? :) + the core is working, but it is still missing some features, and + it's missing lots of performance optimisation and bug fixing + it seems more hard parts pop up every time you think it is + almost production ready + 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 + well, no software is ever done :-) + but I hope we will get to a point where the hard parts work well + enough for most people + 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? :) + yes, and he admitted later that he was totally wrong on that :-) + yeah, that was one unlucky choice for GNU ... + who knows. it's hard to estimate what would have happened it GNU + chose a different route back then + so ... Hurd is a hobby project for you too? + or ... what do you hope to achieve by working on Hurd? + 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 ... + it's a hobby project for everyone -- nobody gets paid for working + on it + 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 + that's not what I meant as you may have guessed from my line of + reasoning so far + 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 + well, curiosity is clearly too narrow + as far as I'm concerned I'd have a more "political" goal of + influencing the wider world to move toward more freedom + 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 + 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 + just think of the GNU high priority projects list -- it has zery + effect + zero + yeah ... and I think that is a real shame + I keep thinking that it's because most hackers do not realize + the importance of freedom and the consequences of not having it + it's a shame that some people at the FSF seem to believe they can + tell hackers what to work on :-P + I do not think anybody at FSF actually believes that + they believe as I do that we can persuade hackers to work on + things after they themselves recognise the significance of it + 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 + 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 ;) + 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 + significance is subjective. just because something may be + important to the general public, doesn't mean I personally care about it + you keep projecting your own concerns into it + just because you're not interested in something doesn't mean + someone else isn't + you approach it from the POV that omebody is telling YOU what + you should do ... + that is not the case + 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 + 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 :) + so maybe you have cause and effect mixed up ... + 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 + LibreMan: err... how is that different from what I said? + these projects are there because there are not enough people + working on them -- i.e. hackers are not interested in them + 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 + well, maybe after seeing them on a high priority list some + hackes become interested in them - that is the point :) + 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 + if software freedom alone would motivate hackers, there would be + enough people working on important projects + who ever claimed that freedom alone motivated hackers? :) + but there aren't. we have the list, and people are *still* not + working on these projects -- q.e.d. + I do not get what you're trying to prove + 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 + err... you pretty much claimed that Hurd hackers should be + motivated by freedom alone + and expressed great disappointment that we aren't + 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 ? + freedom mainly == freedom alone? + antrik: would you see an objection to using netbsd as a code base + for a mach clone ? + LibreMan: you said share the common goal of freedom + you're twisting my word to suit your own line of reasoning + implying we all agree this is the priority + being a priority doesn't mean it is there "alone", does it? + it means it's the only one + 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 + if we agree on it, we can't have multiple priorities per people + yes, that's what we're saying + freedom isn't a goal + it's a constraint + the project *has* to be free + so if you;re doing something to achieve freedom you can not BY + DEFINITION enjoy it? :D + LibreMan: more or less, yes + i enjoy the technical aspect, i advocate freedom + then I've just disproven you :) I do things for freedom and + enjoy them + no, not for freedom + yes, for freedom + i'm telling you it's not what motivates me to write code + if I did not believe in freedom I wouldn't do them + and I'm not talking about you + i believe in freedom, my job consists of developing mostly + proprietary software + how can you disprove me if you're not talking about me on this ? + 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 ;) + what project have you worked on ? + my personal ones, nothing big + so you're not a hacker, you're excluded from the group considered + I'll tell you when it cathes on :) + (bam) + so now you decide who is and is not a hacker, well ... :) + :) + but ok, let's not talk about me I concede that I'm a lousy one + if any :) + what about RMS, do you consider him a hacker? + i think he became a hacker for other reasons than freedom + would you say he is not motivated by freedom (if that can be + even concieved of)? :) + and sees freedom as necessary too + i can't say, i don't know him + 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 + antrik: ok + 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 + i don't know why he worked on emacs and gcc rather than the hurd + :p + but something other than freedom must have motivated such choices + 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... + gcc seems pretty significant for Linux lol + antrik: true + or GNU + antrik: there are already system call stubs, and the VM is very, + very similar + LibreMan: the hurd was too, at the time + he can not work on everything + so he ahd to choose, and based his choice on something else than + freedom (since all these projects are free) + i guess he enjoyed emacs more + LibreMan: RMS is not much of a practicing hacker anymore + nowadays... + braunr: yeah, that's another advantage of using NetBSD as a + base... it might be easier to do + LibreMan: what was your original question again ? + i've been somewhat ironic since that trademark stuff, i'm serious + again now + LibreMan: again, freedom is a factor for many of us; but not the + primary motivation + (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...) + 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 + because I wanted it to succeed to advance freedom more + LibreMan: well, practice what you preach ;-) + but now that I've founf that not even devs themselves are that + much interested in freedom I do not have that desire anymore + you will hardly motivate other hackers to work on something you do + not even work on yourself... + and focus my attention somewhere else + [sigh] + 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 ... + LibreMan: how about you listen to what we are saying? + antrik: so I should work on everything in the world that + advances freedom or shut up? + 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 + 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 + and that's got nothing to do with our priorities + it's simply a matter of what areas free software is most lacking + in. the kernel is not one of them. + antrik: my primary concern with netbsd are drivers + 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 + i poke fun at you + because you think trademark has any real value on the free + software community + braunr: I see, congratulations ... I hope you enjoy it + 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 + yes, freedom is a primary goal when there are no free alternatives + LibreMan: you are accusing us of not sharing GNU values, which is + quite outrageous I must say + LibreMan: actually no, i'd prefer converstation with someone who + understands what i'm saying + even if he contradicts me, like antrik often does + (but he's usually right) + LibreMan: you just don't want to accept some (many) of us are here + more for technical reasons than ethical ones + antrik: well, some of your reasoning and tone would seem to + suggest so ... + i didn't see antrik being particularly aggressive, but personally, + i react badly to stupidity + braunr: WHAT? I've never said anything about what you should or + should not do or believe + you clearly expected something when you first arrived + I said I personally expected more enhusiastic people concerning + GNU and freedom but that was my personal expectaion and my personal + disappointment + what makes you think we are not enthusiastic about GNU and + software freedom? + more enthusiastic is vague, you expected us to be some sort of + freedom fighters + just for the record, I'm part of the German core team of the FSFE + 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 + still, it's not my major motivation for working on the Hurd + I don't see any contradiction in that + I don;t know maybe I misunderstand you, I do not mean any + disrespect + me neither + maybe "hackers" truly do think differently than I expected them + to in general and it's not specific to Hurd + well the very word hacker describe someone interested by "hacking" + down something to get to understand it + it's strongly technical + 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? + and we're lucky, many of them aren't deeply concerned with money + and secrecy, and prefer being open about their work + you still don't get it ... + LibreMan: of course it is + and hacking free software in general also is (partly) motivated by + that + but hacking on the Hurd specifically not so much + 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 + he already answered your question there + (as I already said, it *is* in fact part of the motivation in my + case... just not the major part) + 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? + we already answered that too + LibreMan: that's actually not even for us to decide, as long as we + are an official GNU project + but of course we are a GNU project because we *do* believe in + software freedom, and obviously wouldn't accept Tivoisation + (and our discussion about using netbsd as a code base is a + relevant example of license concerns) + 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? + LibreMan: except for the GPLv2 vs GPLv3 debate, i don't see where + there can be a conflict between freedom and technical interest + braunr: the issues around freedom are mainly not technical + ... GPLv2 and GPLv3 is also not about technical interests + that's my problem with you, i fail to see where the problem you + think of is + 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 + 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 + 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 + 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 + + what is the most impressive thing about hurd you wold like to + promote? + killing feature + i've created some simple hurd screencasts here + http://shelr.tv/records/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=hurd + but probably i could share something more interesting :) + antono: if we had such an obvious killer feature, we wouldn't have + to struggle ;-) + the problem is that the advantages of the Hurd architecture are + too abstract for the vast majority of people to take them seriously + IMHO the most interesting part of the Hurd is the fully + decentralised (and thus infinitely extensible) VFS mechanism + but even that is very abstract... + antrik: cand i do somenthing relly fundamental with hurd + translator? + for example i hate old school unix FHS + I would like to have only /Users/me and /System/GNU + and i would like to only see it, but behinde the scenes it should + be Debian with FHS layout + is it possible? + 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 + (might even be doable with standard Linux features) -- cgit v1.2.3