[[!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 we have a mission statement: http://hurd.gnu.org yes but it's quite wishy washy considering all the elegant capability Hurd potentially has to offer Gorodish: it's true that the mission statement is very abstract... but then, it's hard to put anything more specific into 35 words not with some practice I notice programers tend to speak and write in terms of what something does not what it is the "What is Hurd" is a good example there's a lot of interesting information there but the way it's ordered is odd 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... I agree that some actual marketing material in addition would be nice :-) yes the modesty of Developers that work on FOSS projects never ceases to amaze me I agree that the informational, factual, results oriented documentation is the primary objective of documenting # IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-11-25 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) # IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-07-25 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 also, considering other research projects get much more funding than we do, they probably have a better chance at being adopted you consider the Hurd to be a research project? and as they're more recent, they sometimes overcome some of the issues we have yes and no 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 and no because the hurd is actually working, and being released as part of something like debian which clearly shows it's able to do the stuff it was intended for i consider it a technically very interesting project for developers who want to know more about microkernel based extensible systems rah: I don't expect the Hurd to achieve world domination, because most people consider Linux "good enough" and will stick with it 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 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... nowhere_man: that's my opinion too and this is why i think something like the hurd still has valuable purpose braunr: in honesty, I still ponder the fact that it's my coping mechanism to accept being a Lisp and Hurd fan ;-) nowhere_man: it can be used that way too functional programming is getting more and more attention so it's fine if you're a lisp fan really # IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-02-04 BTW, it's weird that the mission statement linked from hurd.gnu.org is in weblog/ and written in the first person yes very :)