

Ask HN: Why Linux succeeded and Hurd didn't? - grover_hartmann


======
the_why_of_y
1\. Worse is Better: Linux was at first a very simple implementation and
famously eschewed excessively modular micro-kernel designs that were popular
in academia at the time in favor of a pragmatic monolithic architecture.

[http://www.dreamsongs.com/WorseIsBetter.html](http://www.dreamsongs.com/WorseIsBetter.html)

2\. Cathedral vs. Bazaar: Linux was very successful in attracting a large and
diverse developer community, whereas the rather top-down management approach
of many GNU projects at the time ended up not attracting many HURD
contributors.

[http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-
bazaar/cathedral...](http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-
bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/)

------
jarcane
Linux shipped.

------
detaro
Linux was useful to enough people to gain the momentum necessary to get better
and keep up with developments. Also, it mostly cares if stuff works, not if it
is the theoretical perfect thing.

Hurd didn't get to the starting level of usefulness and had no other motivator
to gain the necessary momentum. The project also seems to aim for the "perfect
OS" instead of getting something working out the door. And now there is this
other open-source OS called Linux around which is better by nearly every
measure...

~~~
veddox
That kinda reminds me of an old xkcd cartoon:
[https://xkcd.com/844/](https://xkcd.com/844/)

------
FooBarWidget
I think it's because Hurd is too ambitious. Overly ambitious project almost
always fail. By the time Hurd was done, everybody has already forgotten what
Hurd is.

