Revert "rename open_issues.mdwn to service_solahart_jakarta_selatan__082122541663.mdwn"

This reverts commit 95878586ec7611791f4001a4ee17abf943fae3c1.

1 files changed, 708 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/open_issues/mission_statement.mdwn b/open_issues/mission_statement.mdwn
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..a1c8f235
--- /dev/null
+++ b/open_issues/mission_statement.mdwn
@@ -0,0 +1,708 @@
+[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2011, 2012, 2013 Free Software Foundation,
+Inc."]]
+
+[[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable
+id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
+document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
+any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant
+Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.  A copy of the license
+is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation
+License|/fdl]]."]]"""]]
+
+[[!tag open_issue_documentation]]
+
+[[!toc]]
+
+
+# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-10-12
+
+    <ArneBab> we have a mission statement: http://hurd.gnu.org
+    <Gorodish> yes
+    <Gorodish> but it's quite wishy washy
+    <Gorodish> considering all the elegant capability Hurd potentially has to
+      offer
+    <antrik> Gorodish: it's true that the mission statement is very
+      abstract... but then, it's hard to put anything more specific into 35
+      words
+    <Gorodish> not with some practice
+    <Gorodish> I notice programers tend to speak and write in terms of what
+      something does
+    <Gorodish> not what it is
+    <Gorodish> the "What is Hurd" is a good example
+    <Gorodish> there's a lot of interesting information there
+    <Gorodish> but the way it's ordered is odd
+    <antrik> a mission statement is not primarily a PR instrument; but rather a
+      guide that allows separating things that benefit the common goal from
+      things that don't...
+    <antrik> I agree that some actual marketing material in addition would be
+      nice :-)
+    <Gorodish> yes
+    <Gorodish> the modesty of Developers that work on FOSS projects never
+      ceases to amaze me
+    <Gorodish> I agree that the informational, factual, results oriented
+      documentation is the primary objective of documenting
+
+
+# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-11-25
+
+    <antrik> heh, nice: http://telepathy.freedesktop.org/wiki/Rationale
+    <antrik> most of this could be read as a rationale for the Hurd just as
+      well ;-)
+
+
+# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-04-06
+
+    <braunr> LibreMan: the real feature of the hurd is its extensibility
+
+[[/Extensibility]], [[/advantages]].
+
+    <braunr> LibreMan: (though it could be improved even further)
+    <LibreMan> braunr: yeah, I keep reading that ... but that sounds too
+      abstract, I can not imagine what useful could that provide to the actual
+      users
+    <braunr> LibreMan: say fuse, but improved
+    <braunr> LibreMan: do you see how useful fuse is ?
+    <braunr> if so, you shouldn't have trouble imagining the gap between linux
+      without fuse and linux with fuse is about the same as linux with fuse and
+      the hurd
+    <braunr> and yes, it's abstract
+    <braunr> translators are not only about file systems
+    <LibreMan> braunr: well, its main advantage is that it's running in
+      user-space and therefore doesn't need root priviledges to mount whatever
+      fs you want?
+    <braunr> no
+    <braunr> you don't need to change the kernel, or implement weird tricks to
+      get what you want working
+    <LibreMan> braunr: okay, but there is fuse for Linux ... so the
+      difference/advantages need to be between Linux WITH fuse and Hurd
+    <braunr> that's what i'm saying
+    <LibreMan> the issue I have is that I do not see why anyone would have any
+      incentive to switch to Hurd
+    <braunr> there isn't much, which is why we stick with unix instead of,
+      e.g. plan9 or other advanced systems
+    <pinotree> try to use fuse on a server where there is no fuse installed
+    <LibreMan> if I want fuse-like functionallity I just install FUSE, no need
+      for Hurd ... so the reson to use it is not there
+    <braunr> LibreMan: read what i wrote
+    <braunr> using the hurd compared to using linux with fuse is about the same
+      as using linux with fuse compared to using linux without fuse
+    <LibreMan> braunr: ah, sorry ... I see
+    <braunr> it's a step further
+    <braunr> in theory, developers can add/remove the components they want,
+      making system development faster and more reliable
+    <braunr> where with unix, you need stuff like user mode linux or a virtual
+      machine
+    <LibreMan> braunr: but in practice it was the opposite so far :)
+    <braunr> not really
+    <braunr> it's a lack of manpower
+    <braunr> not a problem of partice versus theory
+    <braunr> practice*
+    <LibreMan> braunr: what do you think are the reasons why Hurd developement
+      is so slow if it should be faster in theory?
+
+[[faq/how_many_developers]].
+
+    <braunr> 17:30 < braunr> it's a lack of manpower
+    <braunr> pay someone to do the job
+    <braunr> :p
+    <LibreMan> braunr: then why does Linux get the manpower but Hurd doesn't?
+    <braunr> $$
+    <LibreMan> braunr: ??
+    <braunr> linux developers are paid
+    <LibreMan> because companies are using it :)
+    <braunr> yes
+    <LibreMan> why are they not using Hurd then?
+    <braunr> because it wasn't reliable enough
+    <LibreMan> Linux wasn't either at some point
+    <braunr> sure
+    <braunr> but when it became, the switch towards its use began
+    <braunr> now that they have something free and already working, there is no
+      point switching again
+    <LibreMan> paid devs join only AFTER volunteers got it to the stage that it
+      was useful to companies
+    <braunr> well linux was easier to develop at the beginning (and is still
+      today because of several kernel hacking features)
+    <braunr> it followed the traditional unix model, nothing was really new
+      about it
+    <LibreMan> braunr: exactly! that's why I think that Hurd needs to have very
+      compelling technical advantages to overcome that barrier
+    <braunr> few people/companies really care about such technical advantages
+    <braunr> they don't care if there are ugly tricks to overcome some problems
+    <LibreMan> you mean about such that Hurd can provide, right?
+    <braunr> it's not elegant, but most of the time they're not even aware of
+      it
+    <braunr> yes
+    <LibreMan> that's eaxctly my point ... most people do not care if it's
+      "elegant" from a programmers POV, they care whether it WORKS
+    <braunr> well yes
+    <braunr> what's your point ?
+    <LibreMan> all I see about Hurd is how "elegant" it is ... but that doesn't
+      matter if it doesn't provide any practical advantages
+    <braunr> you want us to expose a killer feature amazing enough to make the
+      world use our code ?
+    <LibreMan> well, I want Hurd to succeed and try to identify the resons it
+      doesn't
+    <braunr> it does, but not to the point of making people use it
+    <braunr> unix *is* good enough
+    <braunr> same reason plan9 "failed" really
+    <LibreMan> define your idea of Hurd succeeding then, I thought it was to
+      make it useful to the point that people use it :)
+    <braunr> there are many other attempts to make better system architectures
+    <braunr> it is
+    <braunr> people are still using windows you know, and i really don't see
+      why, but it does the work for them
+    <LibreMan> <braunr> you want us to expose a killer feature amazing enough
+      to make the world use our code ? --- YES ;)
+    <braunr> other people can think about the same between unix and the hurd
+    <braunr> LibreMan: well too bad, there is none, because, again, unix isn't
+      that bad
+    <braunr> it doesn't prevent us from making a better system that is usable
+    <LibreMan> to explain my take on this - there are two kind of people, those
+      who care about philosophy behind software (and its consequences, FSF
+      etc.) and those who don't
+    <LibreMan> it's the job of those who do care to make the sw so good that
+      those who do not care switch to it = victory :)
+    <LibreMan> as I said the reasons I want Hurd to succeed are more
+      "political" than technical ... I do not know how many Hurd devs agree
+      with that kind of sentiment but I'd rather want a GNU project to be in
+      the forefront than that of a  "benevolent dictator" that doesnt' really
+      care about user freedom
+    <LibreMan> from thechnical POV I agree that Linux isn't that bad ... it's
+      quite good, it's the "behind the scenes" stuff I do not like about it
+    <LibreMan> I'm kind of confused right now ... what exactly is to point of
+      Hurd then? I thought it was to make it good enough or better than Linux
+      so users start using it (privatly or corporate)
+    <LibreMan> is this just a research project that isn't intended to be used
+      by "general population"?
+    <braunr> LibreMan: it's an operating system project
+    <braunr> some people try to make it as good as it can be, but it's not easy
+    <braunr> it's not a pet or research only system
+    <LibreMan> braunr: I see what it is ... I'm struggling to see what is the
+      point of it being an "OS project", what's its intended purpose
+    <braunr> but it doesn't suit all the needs for a general OS yet
+    <braunr> LibreMan: a general purpose OS like most free unices
+    <LibreMan> what are the motivations behind making it as good as it can be
+    <braunr> for us developers ?
+    <LibreMan> yes
+    <braunr> for me, the architecture
+    <LibreMan> whe you say that linux is goos enough then what's the point?
+    <braunr> we can do better
+    <LibreMan> for you it's just a hobby that doesn't have any real goal except
+      challenging yourself to do it?
+    <braunr> because of lack of time, you could say that
+    <LibreMan> so you want Hurd to challenge Linux one day, right?
+    <braunr> challenging isn't the point
+    <braunr> i'd like to be able to use it for my needs
+    <LibreMan> well, that wasn't the right choise of word but to be better than
+      Linux
+    <braunr> again, you miss the point
+    <braunr> i don't care much about hurd vs linux
+    <LibreMan> your own needs, so you do not want others to use it?
+    <braunr> i care about the hurd and what i do
+    <braunr> others would think the same
+    <braunr> they would want it to work for their needs
+    <LibreMan> I'm asking about you, do YOU want others to use it? is that one
+      of your goals?
+    <braunr> not really
+    <braunr> i let them do what they want
+    <LibreMan> ah I see, so it is kind of a hobby project for you - you're
+      doing to for yourself and your own needs
+    <LibreMan> and don't care if anyone else uses it or not
+    <braunr> yes, i don't care much about the politics around such projects tb
+    <braunr> tbh
+    <LibreMan> is this kind of sentiment prevalent is the Hurd dev community?
+    <braunr> i don't work on software to break any benevolent dictator or
+      anyone in particular
+    <braunr> i don't know
+    <braunr> i'd say so, yes
+    <braunr> but not sure
+    <braunr> i'm not saying they don't care about freedom, don't get me wrong
+    <braunr> i'd say we sure prefer free software over open source
+    <braunr> but i don't think people work on the hurd specifically for these
+      reasons, rather than the technical ones
+    <LibreMan> interesting ... from the presentation of the project by
+      outsiders I got the impression that it is significantly about freedom,
+      GNU - that those are the main drivers
+    <braunr> if it really was so, we would have grabbed a bsd variant,
+      relicenced it with GPLv3, and call it FreeGNU or NetGNU
+    <LibreMan> and that's how I approached the project ... maybe I was wrong,
+      I'm kind of disappointed if that's so :) I care about those things a
+      great deal, in fact that's the only reason I care about Hurd really
+
+    <lcc> the hurd is designed to offer more freedom, in various ways, to the
+      user. freedom from the admin.
+    <lcc> right?
+    <braunr> lcc: that's embedded in the term "extensibility", yes
+    <braunr> lcc: but there are technical solutions for that on other systems
+      as well now
+
+    <antrik> as for the Hurd, people who said they are interested in it only
+      because of freedom aspects *never* contributed anything significant
+    <antrik> *all* serious contributors are motivated at least equally by the
+      technical merits; often more
+    <antrik> (though the fact that it's a GNU project is what has brought many
+      developers here in the first place...)
+    <LibreMan> antrik: I would phrase it the other way - why do people who have
+      contributed significantly not care about freedom that much? or ... how do
+      you know they don't?
+    <antrik> most of us *do* care about freedem. but it's not our primary
+      motivation. the freedom aspects are just not strong enough to motivate
+      anyone alone
+    <antrik> as braunr already pointed out, if the sole purpose was creating a
+      GNU kernel, there would be *much* more promising venues for that
+    <LibreMan> I do not think so ... if you someone where to just take BSD and
+      rebrand it as AWSOMEnewGNUkernel it wouldn't be looked upon too favorably
+    <LibreMan> there is an honor aspect to it, to have something developed by
+      the community that stands by it
+    <LibreMan> so I do not think it would work
+    <antrik> BSD has forked countless times, and several of these forks became
+      very popular. I don't see why a GNU one shouldn't do well enough
+    <antrik> bat that's beside the point. writing a new boring monolithic
+      UNIX-like kernel from scratch is not that hard
+    <antrik> (as Linus has proven, amonst others...)
+    <antrik> if the sole purpose would be having a GNU kernel, I'd be strongly
+      advocating writing a new monolithic kernel from scratch
+    <LibreMan> antrik: ah, snap! not that hard you say? with all the features
+      Linux has? sure, it's not hard to make a kernel that barely boots but
+      that's not the point, is it? :)
+    <antrik> (yes, even now, with the Hurd being almost usable, I still think
+      it would be easier to get a new monolithic kernel to production quality)
+    <LibreMan> antrik: and here is was braunr who was pitching extensibility
+      and faster developement of Hurd as its advantage - and here you come
+      saying that it would be easier to write monolithic kernel from scratch
+    <LibreMan> get your story striaght guys ;)
+    <antrik> the Hurd makes it easier to develop new features. it's not easier
+      to get it production-ready in the first place
+    <LibreMan> antrik: what's the difference of developing a feature that makes
+      it "production ready" and another one that make it "production ready" for
+      a different use?
+    <antrik> features don't make a system production ready
+    <LibreMan> what makes  a system production ready?
+    <LibreMan> what do you consider a "production"?
+    <antrik> supporting enough use cases that a non-trivial number of users
+      have their needs covered; and being stable enough that it's not annoying
+      to use
+    <LibreMan> either it is easier to develop or it isn't ... either it is
+      modular from it's core or it isn't
+    <antrik> well, not only stable enough, but also performant, secure etc.
+    <antrik> wrong
+    <LibreMan> are you saying that the fruits of its modularity will show only
+      after enough modules have been written?
+    <antrik> a modular system with strong isolation is inherently more
+      complicated to get right
+    <LibreMan> that sure is a weird argument to make ...
+    <LibreMan> right ... but when you get it right, the further development is
+      much easier?
+    <antrik> depends. making fundamental changes to how the system works will
+      always be tricky. but adding new stuff that doesn't require fundamental
+      changes, building on the existing foundations, is way easier
+    <antrik> we believe that once we have the fundamentals mostly right, most
+      things people will be adding will fall into the latter catogory
+    <antrik> category
+    <LibreMan> o what's missing to Hurd before it "got it right" and the fast
+      pace development kicks in?
+    <antrik> but so far most of the work is in the former category, meaning
+      progress is slow
+    <LibreMan> because from readin the site it seems the core is pretty much
+      done ... what it needs are all the translators, drivers, user-space tools
+      to make use of that core - is that impression wrong?
+    <antrik> you are missing the point. there is no unified "development pace"
+      measurement. it is easier to add certain things right now. but to get the
+      system production ready, it still requires considerable work on the hard
+      parts
+    <antrik> well, it's not as simple ;-)
+    <LibreMan> are you sure the work on "the hard parts" is ever going to be
+      done? :)
+    <antrik> the core is working, but it is still missing some features, and
+      it's missing lots of performance optimisation and bug fixing
+    <LibreMan> it seems more hard parts pop up every time you think it is
+      almost production ready
+    <antrik> also, we know today that the core could work much better in some
+      regards if we make some major changes. not a priority right now, but
+      something that will have to be addressed in the long run to seriously
+      compete with other systems
+    <antrik> well, no software is ever done :-)
+    <antrik> but I hope we will get to a point where the hard parts work well
+      enough for most people
+    <LibreMan> in fact I remember the design of Hurd was specifically chose by
+      RMS because he thought it would be easier to implement modular system -
+      that was 20 yeras ago? :)
+    <antrik> yes, and he admitted later that he was totally wrong on that :-)
+    <LibreMan> yeah, that was one unlucky choice for GNU ...
+    <antrik> who knows. it's hard to estimate what would have happened it GNU
+      chose a different route back then
+    <LibreMan> so ... Hurd is a hobby project for you too?
+    <LibreMan> or ... what do you hope to achieve by working on Hurd?
+    <LibreMan> I'm really interested in the motivations of people behind Hurd
+      as I'm kind of surprised it's not that much freedom and GNU ...
+    <antrik> it's a hobby project for everyone -- nobody gets paid for working
+      on it
+    <antrik> in the long run, I hope the Hurd to be a good platform for my
+      higher-level ideas. I have a vision of a desktop environment working
+      quite differently from what exists today; and I believe the extensible
+      architecture of the Hurd makes it easier to implement these ideas
+    <LibreMan> that's not what I meant as you may have guessed from my line of
+      reasoning so far
+    <LibreMan> yeah, that's my definition of a hobby project :) not whether one
+      gets payed to do it or not but whether one does it to satisfy their own
+      curiosity
+    <antrik> well, curiosity is clearly too narrow
+    <LibreMan> as far as I'm concerned I'd have a more "political" goal of
+      influencing the wider world to move toward more freedom
+    <antrik> but hackers never work on volunteer projects except to scratch
+      their own itch, or to work on something they are genuinely interested
+      in. nobody hacks free software just to save the world
+    <LibreMan> I find some technical aspects very interesting and fun but if
+      they wouldn't further the goal of more freedom they'd be without purpose
+      to me
+    <antrik> just think of the GNU high priority projects list -- it has zery
+      effect
+    <antrik> zero
+    <LibreMan> yeah ... and I think that is a real shame
+    <LibreMan> I keep thinking that it's because most hackers do not realize
+      the importance of freedom and the consequences of not having it
+    <antrik> it's a shame that some people at the FSF seem to believe they can
+      tell hackers what to work on :-P
+    <LibreMan> I do not think anybody at FSF actually believes that
+    <LibreMan> they believe as I do that we can persuade hackers to work on
+      things after they themselves recognise the significance of it
+    <antrik> no. there are many many hackers who genuinely believe in
+      supporting software freedom (both in the Hurd and in other GNU projects)
+      -- but there are none who would work on projects they are not personally
+      interested in because of that
+    <LibreMan> well, how does one become "personally interested" in a project?
+      surely it's not something you;re born with ... after recognising a
+      significance of some project some may become personally interested in it
+      - and that's the point ;)
+    <antrik> well, if I you mean nobody realises that software freedom is so
+      important they should work on it instead of doing things they actually
+      enjoy... they yes, I guess you are right :-P
+    <antrik> significance is subjective. just because something may be
+      important to the general public, doesn't mean I personally care about it
+    <LibreMan> you keep projecting your own concerns into it
+    <LibreMan> just because you're not interested in something doesn't mean
+      someone else isn't
+    <LibreMan> you approach it from the POV that omebody is telling YOU what
+      you should do ...
+    <LibreMan> that is not the case
+    <antrik> LibreMan: well, but there are obviously things no hackers care
+      about -- or otherwise there would be no need for the high priority
+      projects list... it's a list of things that would be important for
+      software freedom, but nobody is interested in working on. and having a
+      list of them won't change that fact
+    <LibreMan> antrik: why do you feel entitled to speak for all hackers? the
+      projects are high priority exactly because there isn;t enough people
+      working on them, if they were they wouldn't be high priority :)
+    <LibreMan> so maybe you have cause and effect mixed up ...
+    <LibreMan> there is no need to list office suite as hight priority because
+      there is LibreOffice, if there wasn't I'm sure it would be right there on
+      the priority list
+    <antrik> LibreMan: err... how is that different from what I said?
+    <antrik> these projects are there because there are not enough people
+      working on them -- i.e. hackers are not interested in them
+    <LibreMan> you said it in a way the implied that hackers are not interested
+      in working on projects that are required for providing freedom - but
+      mostly there are, it's just a few project where aren't - and those are
+      listed as high priority to bring attention to them
+    <LibreMan> well, maybe after seeing them on a high priority list some
+      hackes become interested in them - that is the point :)
+    <antrik> yes, that's what I implied. the fact that there are projects
+      hackers aren't working on, although they would be important for software
+      freedom, proves that this is not sufficient motivation for volunteers
+    <antrik> if software freedom alone would motivate hackers, there would be
+      enough people working on important projects
+    <LibreMan> who ever claimed that freedom alone motivated hackers? :)
+    <antrik> but there aren't. we have the list, and people are *still* not
+      working on these projects -- q.e.d.
+    <LibreMan> I do not get what you're trying to prove
+    <antrik> the track record so far clearly shows that hackers do *not* become
+      interested in working on these projects just because they are on the list
+    <antrik> err... you pretty much claimed that Hurd hackers should be
+      motivated by freedom alone
+    <antrik> and expressed great disappointment that we aren't
+    <braunr> LibreMan: you expected the hurd developers to share the common
+      goal of freedom mainly, and now you're saying you don't think hackers
+      would work for freedom alone ?
+    <LibreMan>  freedom mainly ==  freedom alone?
+    <braunr> antrik: would you see an objection to using netbsd as a code base
+      for a mach clone ?
+    <braunr> LibreMan: you said share the common goal of freedom
+    <LibreMan> you're twisting my word to suit your own line of reasoning
+    <braunr> implying we all agree this is the priority
+    <LibreMan> being a priority doesn't mean it is there "alone", does it?
+    <braunr> it means it's the only one
+    <LibreMan> in another words, do you reject the possibility of enjoying
+      working on a project and doing it for freedom? because it seems you
+      somehow do not allow for that possibility
+    <braunr> if we agree on it, we can't have multiple priorities per people
+    <braunr> yes, that's what we're saying
+    <braunr> freedom isn't a goal
+    <braunr> it's a constraint
+    <braunr> the project *has* to be free
+    <LibreMan> so if you;re doing something to achieve freedom you can not BY
+      DEFINITION enjoy it? :D
+    <braunr> LibreMan: more or less, yes
+    <braunr> i enjoy the technical aspect, i advocate freedom
+    <LibreMan> then I've just disproven you :) I do things for freedom and
+      enjoy them
+    <braunr> no, not for freedom
+    <LibreMan> yes, for freedom
+    <braunr> i'm telling you it's not what motivates me to write code
+    <LibreMan> if I did not believe in freedom I wouldn't do them
+    <LibreMan> and I'm not talking about you
+    <braunr> i believe in freedom, my job consists of developing mostly
+      proprietary software
+    <braunr> how can you disprove me if you're not talking about me on this ?
+    <LibreMan> you said it's not possible IN PRINCIPLE, well antrik did and you
+      agreed - if you did not follow his line of argument then do not try to
+      continue where he left off ;)
+    <braunr> what project have you worked on ?
+    <LibreMan> my personal ones, nothing big
+    <braunr> so you're not a hacker, you're excluded from the group considered
+    <LibreMan> I'll tell you when it cathes on :)
+    <braunr> (bam)
+    <LibreMan> so now you decide who is and is not a hacker, well ... :)
+    <braunr> :)
+    <LibreMan> but ok, let's not talk about me I concede that I'm a lousy one
+      if any :)
+    <LibreMan> what about RMS, do you consider him a hacker?
+    <braunr> i think he became a hacker for other reasons than freedom
+    <LibreMan> would you say he is not motivated by freedom (if that can be
+      even concieved of)? :)
+    <braunr> and sees freedom as necessary too
+    <braunr> i can't say, i don't know him
+    <antrik> braunr: nope. in fact we discussed this in the past. someone even
+      worked on GSoC project bringing Hurd/Mach features to NetBSD -- but AFAIK
+      nothing came out of it
+    <braunr> antrik: ok
+    <LibreMan> well, he is pretty vocal with plenty of writings ... on the
+      other hand you seemed to know me well enough to proclaim me a non-hacker
+    <braunr> i don't know why he worked on emacs and gcc rather than the hurd
+      :p
+    <braunr> but something other than freedom must have motivated such choices
+    <antrik> I'm uncertain though whether NetBSD is a more useful base than
+      Linux. it would offer advantages on the licensing front, but it would not
+      offer the advantage that people could just run it on their existing
+      systems...
+    <LibreMan> gcc seems pretty significant for Linux lol
+    <braunr> antrik: true
+    <LibreMan> or GNU
+    <braunr> antrik: there are already system call stubs, and the VM is very,
+      very similar
+    <braunr> LibreMan: the hurd was too, at the time
+    <LibreMan> he can not work on everything
+    <braunr> so he ahd to choose, and based his choice on something else than
+      freedom (since all these projects are free)
+    <braunr> i guess he enjoyed emacs more
+    <antrik> LibreMan: RMS is not much of a practicing hacker anymore
+      nowadays...
+    <antrik> braunr: yeah, that's another advantage of using NetBSD as a
+      base... it might be easier to do
+    <braunr> LibreMan: what was your original question again ?
+    <braunr> i've been somewhat ironic since that trademark stuff, i'm serious
+      again now
+    <antrik> LibreMan: again, freedom is a factor for many of us; but not the
+      primary motivation
+    <antrik> (as braunr put, being free software is mandatory for us; but that
+      doesn't mean the main reason for working on the Hurd is some indirect
+      benefit for the free software movement...)
+    <LibreMan> braunr: the original goal was to understand the strong points of
+      Hurd to I can help communicate them to other hackers who might be
+      interested in Hurd
+    <LibreMan> because I wanted it to succeed to advance freedom more
+    <antrik> LibreMan: well, practice what you preach ;-)
+    <LibreMan> but now that I've founf that not even devs themselves are that
+      much interested in freedom I do not have that desire anymore
+    <antrik> you will hardly motivate other hackers to work on something you do
+      not even work on yourself...
+    <LibreMan> and focus my attention somewhere else
+    <antrik> [sigh]
+    <braunr> well, you can now state that the hurd has an elegant architecture
+      allowing many ugly hacks to disappear, and that it doesn't yet handle
+      sata drives or usb keys or advandced multicast routing or ...
+    <antrik> LibreMan: how about you listen to what we are saying?
+    <LibreMan> antrik: so I should work on everything in the world that
+      advances freedom or shut up?
+    <antrik> LibreMan: we *are* interested in freedom. we would work on nothing
+      else than a free software system. it's just not the primary motivation
+      for working on the Hurd
+    <antrik> if you primary motivation is advancing free software, the Hurd is
+      probably indeed not the right project to work on. other projects are more
+      important for that
+    <antrik> and that's got nothing to do with our priorities
+    <antrik> it's simply a matter of what areas free software is most lacking
+      in. the kernel is not one of them.
+    <braunr> antrik: my primary concern with netbsd are drivers
+    <LibreMan> I naively assumed that people working on a GNU project will
+      share GNU vlaues, instead I find that some of them poke fun at its high
+      priority projects
+    <braunr> i poke fun at you
+    <braunr> because you think trademark has any real value on the free
+      software community
+    <LibreMan> braunr: I see, congratulations ... I hope you enjoy it
+    <antrik> if there were no suitable free software kernels around, many
+      people might work on the Hurd mostly to advance free software. but as it
+      stands, having a GNU kernel is secondary
+    <braunr> yes, freedom is a primary goal when there are no free alternatives
+    <antrik> LibreMan: you are accusing us of not sharing GNU values, which is
+      quite outrageous I must say
+    <braunr> LibreMan: actually no, i'd prefer converstation with someone who
+      understands what i'm saying
+    <braunr> even if he contradicts me, like antrik often does
+    <braunr> (but he's usually right)
+    <braunr> LibreMan: you just don't want to accept some (many) of us are here
+      more for technical reasons than ethical ones
+    <LibreMan> antrik: well, some of your reasoning and tone would seem to
+      suggest so ...
+    <braunr> i didn't see antrik being particularly aggressive, but personally,
+      i react badly to stupidity
+    <LibreMan> braunr: WHAT? I've never said anything about what you should or
+      should not do or believe
+    <braunr> you clearly expected something when you first arrived
+    <LibreMan> I said I personally expected more enhusiastic people concerning
+      GNU and freedom but that was my personal expectaion and my personal
+      disappointment
+    <antrik> what makes you think we are not enthusiastic about GNU and
+      software freedom?
+    <braunr> more enthusiastic is vague, you expected us to be some sort of
+      freedom fighters
+    <antrik> just for the record, I'm part of the German core team of the FSFE
+    <braunr> i even stated early that we're mostly part of the free software
+      rather than open source movement, and you still find our point of view
+      disappointing
+    <antrik> still, it's not my major motivation for working on the Hurd
+    <antrik> I don't see any contradiction in that
+    <LibreMan> I don;t know maybe I misunderstand you, I do not mean any
+      disrespect
+    <braunr> me neither
+    <LibreMan> maybe "hackers" truly do think differently than I expected them
+      to in general and it's not specific to Hurd
+    <braunr> well the very word hacker describe someone interested by "hacking"
+      down something to get to understand it
+    <braunr> it's strongly technical
+    <LibreMan> antrik: why are you a core team member of th FSFE? what do you
+      do there and why? is that not motivated by the desire for more freedom?
+    <braunr> and we're lucky, many of them aren't deeply concerned with money
+      and secrecy, and prefer being open about their work
+    <braunr> you still don't get it ...
+    <antrik> LibreMan: of course it is
+    <antrik> and hacking free software in general also is (partly) motivated by
+      that
+    <antrik> but hacking on the Hurd specifically not so much
+    <braunr> 20:23 < antrik> LibreMan: we *are* interested in freedom. we would
+      work on nothing else than a free software system. it's just not the
+      primary motivation for working on the Hurd
+    <braunr> he already answered your question there
+    <antrik> (as I already said, it *is* in fact part of the motivation in my
+      case... just not the major part)
+    <LibreMan> antrik: but if it ever achieved wide success and you would be
+      asy on a "board" to decide future direction would you choose for exacmple
+      to prevent TiVO-ization over wider adpotion?
+    <braunr> we already answered that too
+    <antrik> LibreMan: that's actually not even for us to decide, as long as we
+      are an official GNU project
+    <antrik> but of course we are a GNU project because we *do* believe in
+      software freedom, and obviously wouldn't accept Tivoisation
+    <braunr> (and our discussion about using netbsd as a code base is a
+      relevant example of license concerns)
+    <LibreMan> I'm really trying to get to the core of "not motivated by
+      freedom" but being "interested in freedom" ... I really do not get that,
+      if you are interested in freedom wouldn't you want a project you work on
+      being used to advance it as much as possible and therefore be also
+      motivated to do it the best while enjoying it to achieve the goal of more
+      freedom since you value it that much?
+    <braunr> LibreMan: except for the GPLv2 vs GPLv3 debate, i don't see where
+      there can be a conflict between freedom and technical interest
+    <LibreMan> braunr: the issues around freedom are mainly not technical
+      ... GPLv2 and GPLv3 is also not about technical interests
+    <braunr> that's my problem with you, i fail to see where the problem you
+      think of is
+    <LibreMan> it tends to be about the possibility to extract money and impose
+      your will on the users which turns out to be highly profitable and
+      politicaly desirable in some instances
+    <LibreMan> of course it's technically the best to open-source but how are
+      you going to sell a product like that? that is the main question
+      troubling most corporations
+    <LibreMan> ok, I'm not going to bore you any more ;) I found out what I
+      needed to know ... now I'm going to try to forget about Hurd and focus on
+      something else where my help can be more effective  at achieving what I
+      want ;) good luck with your endavours
+    <antrik> LibreMan: of course we hope for the Hurd to advance the cause of
+      freedom, just like any free software we would work on... still, it's not
+      the primary reason why we work on the Hurd, instead of the myriads of
+      other free software projects out there
+
+
+# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-04-09
+
+    <antono> what is the most impressive thing about hurd you wold like to
+      promote?
+    <antono> killing feature
+    <antono> i've created some simple hurd screencasts here
+      http://shelr.tv/records/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=hurd
+    <antono> but probably i could share something more interesting :)
+    <antrik> antono: if we had such an obvious killer feature, we wouldn't have
+      to struggle ;-)
+    <antrik> the problem is that the advantages of the Hurd architecture are
+      too abstract for the vast majority of people to take them seriously
+    <antrik> IMHO the most interesting part of the Hurd is the fully
+      decentralised (and thus infinitely extensible) VFS mechanism
+    <antrik> but even that is very abstract...
+    <antono> antrik: cand i do somenthing relly fundamental with hurd
+      translator?
+    <antono> for example i hate old school unix FHS
+    <antono> I would like to have only /Users/me and /System/GNU 
+    <antono> and i would like to only see it, but behinde the scenes it should
+      be Debian with FHS layout
+    <antono> is it possible?
+    <antrik> antono: of course. not sure translators offer much advantage over
+      FUSE in this case though... it doesn't really change the functionality of
+      the VFS; only rearranges the tree a bit
+    <antrik> (might even be doable with standard Linux features)
+
+
+# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-07-25
+
+    <braunr> because it has design problems, because it has implementation
+      problems, lots of problems, and far too few people to keep up with other
+      systems that are already dominating
+    <braunr> also, considering other research projects get much more funding
+      than we do, they probably have a better chance at being adopted
+    <rah> you consider the Hurd to be a research project?
+    <braunr> and as they're more recent, they sometimes overcome some of the
+      issues we have
+    <braunr> yes and no
+    <braunr> yes because it was, at the time of its creation, and it hasn't
+      changed much, and there aren't many (any?) other systems with such a
+      design
+    <braunr> and no because the hurd is actually working, and being released as
+      part of something like debian
+    <braunr> which clearly shows it's able to do the stuff it was intended for
+    <braunr> i consider it a technically very interesting project for
+      developers who want to know more about microkernel based extensible
+      systems
+    <antrik> rah: I don't expect the Hurd to achieve world domination, because
+      most people consider Linux "good enough" and will stick with it
+    <antrik> I for my part think though we could do better than Linux (in
+      certain regards I consider important), which is why I still consider it
+      interesting and worthwhile
+    <nowhere_man> I think that in some respect the OS scene may evolve a bit
+      like the PL one, where everyone progressively adopts ideas from Lisp but
+      doesn't want to do Lisp: everyone slowly shifts towards what µ-kernels
+      OSes have done from the start, but they don't want µ-kernels...
+    <braunr> nowhere_man: that's my opinion too
+    <braunr> and this is why i think something like the hurd still has valuable
+      purpose
+    <nowhere_man> braunr: in honesty, I still ponder the fact that it's my
+      coping mechanism to accept being a Lisp and Hurd fan ;-)
+    <braunr> nowhere_man: it can be used that way too
+    <braunr> functional programming is getting more and more attention
+    <braunr> so it's fine if you're a lisp fan really
+
+
+# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-02-04
+
+    <civodul> BTW, it's weird that the mission statement linked from
+      hurd.gnu.org is in weblog/ and written in the first person
+    <braunr> yes
+    <braunr> very :)