path: root/open_issues/mission_statement.mdwn

[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2011 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)