That's the wrong framing for Hurd. Hurd isn't a "product" that's trying to "win" by beating competitors.
It's a project that's being built by and for people that care about it.
You might as well ask "How can my local pick-up basketball team find a niche to make money, like NBA players do? Can we all wear more colorful jerseys so TV stations cover us?" No, that's silly, the point of the pick-up basketball team isn't to make money, it isn't to beat a competitor, like the NBA, for sports coverage, it's to hang out with friends and have fun.
That's what many free software projects are like. And if enough people come to hang out and have fun, it might organically become bigger and better, but if you start making it the point of it, it ruins it. If you tell the pick-up basketball people "No, you can't join, you're not photogenic enough", you won't have friends soon. If you start telling hurd developers "We need to take on MS, stop working on that thing you care about, no one else cares about it", the project will die.
I mean, if the goal is "install a niche kernel for the sake of it", sure that's... a reason, but all the modern non-mainstream kernels (aka not Darwin or NT) at least have a purpose as to why you'd pick them.
* Linux is the de facto kernel used on most servers, has great support and is the third pick after the mainstream kernels for a good reason. It's also usually someone's first introduction to Unix-based systems these days, so there's loads and loads of documentation available (even if the quality of that documentation runs the gamut from "acceptable" to "who wrote this").
* BSDs are rock solid and a great pick if you're targeting reliability. Knowledge on a BSD changes little with the years and that's a big bonus.
* Plan9 is interesting because it provides a unique approach to system design by taking the "everything is a file" approach to its logical limit. That doesn't make the system itself the most useful in the world but it is an excellent system to study and borrow good ideas from.
The main reasons I can see to use Hurd are... ideological opposition to Linux and being a microkernel. While the latter has interesting implications, the usual GNU problem of "we don't try to support any hardware unless it ideologically conforms" really gets in the way of wanting to use it and that's definitely a broader GNU problem but it's a much larger for problem for something as crucial as a kernel.
Also not helping things is that to my understanding, Hurd kind of has a start-stop nature to its development - that is, the project is on life support unless someone starts dissing it, so it picks up back for a few months to show how it's totally alive. Very much more of a spite driven project these days than a legitimate option.
You bring up Plan9 here as though it isn't in the same boat as Hurd. Hurd also has quirky file system stuff [1] and many other interesting and relatively novel features, but you seem to treat this totally differently from Plan9 with no real reason other than you haven't bothered dto learn about the features of Hurd.
Software development definitely needs more ideology, principles, and ethics. When talented hackers get behind a project united on these matters great and interesting features occur spontaneously
When I say ideology, I'm referring moreso to both dogma and bruised egos, both of which the GNU project is rife with.
A lot of Hurds continued development is just predicated on "we don't want to admit Linux became a success" rather than any serious principles or ethics. Again, just look at the whole start-stop nature of its development.
I don't disagree that a lot of tech professionals could spare at least some basic regards for the ethics surrounding the software they create, but you're not gonna find that at the GNU project.
> When I say ideology, I'm referring moreso to both dogma and bruised egos, both of which the GNU project is rife with.
Then just say I don't like that Hurd is part of the GNU Project because I dont like what the latter does. In my opinion, it is very hard to deny that GNU Project / FSF take principles and ethics of software development very seriously. Some people even call them dogmatic for it.
> And if enough people come to hang out and have fun
Is Hurd there? I mean, you obviously don't frame 'success' with an open source system in financial terms, but I would argue that developing a critical development mass is pretty important. Without that, the project will wither and die.
Open source is sort of an "attention economy", so the currency isn't dollars, but developer interest.
Fooling around with something for the joy of learning is a motivator, but I don't know that it's enough to sustain a project, long term.
And Hurd very much is a 'product' in the economic sense, whether it's open source, not for profit, or whatever.
I wrote a little kernel for fun in high school. I wish I still had the time to pick it back up again, or contribute to something like GNU/Hurd. Stuff like this is exactly the reason I became fascinated with programming.
If "fun" and "idological reasons" are the reason there is a community around the project, then that is in fact the answer to the question, if a little vague.
For people still not understanding, it would be nice to have an explanation of what people find fun about it, especially as a user and not a developer, and what ideological reason exactly are driving it.
I'm glad someone gets it. I've been using Linux as my daily driver for about a decade at this point. I can understand the desire to hack on that for fun, because doing so would actually bring about a tangible improvement to my life.
I find the desire to work on a 30 year old operating system that still lacks USB support much more confusing.
Again, no one is saying that everyone should care about Hurd. This just feels like an entire subthread about a strawman. I think your stance is entirely reasonable, and one I resonate with, but it felt like you expected Hurd enthusiasts to convince you that you should care. Which feels like missing the point, to me, at least.
As far as my understanding goes, there are 2 main reasons:
1. The very specific nature of the OS, which aims to be (in theory) very modular
2. You need to partake on a very clear idea of what software freedom means, in every sense of the word
I don't use Hurd, but I do get it. I feel it's quite simple.
Just because it isn't there yet doesn't mean one wouldn't want to hack on it from time to time
Hurd is over 30 years old. It didn't get support for SATA drives until 2013. It still does not support USB devices, at all. Working on such an OS doesn't seem like it would be a good use of my time, especially when that time could be spent working on Linux, or a BSD.
> why we should care about it when more popular operating systems fit our needs better
Linux started this way. If Linux reaches a point where it doesn't fill the needs of its users/developers better, they will pivot to another alternative, and Hurd is one of those future alternatives. See it as future insurance.
It's a project that's being built by and for people that care about it.
You might as well ask "How can my local pick-up basketball team find a niche to make money, like NBA players do? Can we all wear more colorful jerseys so TV stations cover us?" No, that's silly, the point of the pick-up basketball team isn't to make money, it isn't to beat a competitor, like the NBA, for sports coverage, it's to hang out with friends and have fun.
That's what many free software projects are like. And if enough people come to hang out and have fun, it might organically become bigger and better, but if you start making it the point of it, it ruins it. If you tell the pick-up basketball people "No, you can't join, you're not photogenic enough", you won't have friends soon. If you start telling hurd developers "We need to take on MS, stop working on that thing you care about, no one else cares about it", the project will die.