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.
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.
[1] https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd/documentation/transla...
Okay, then tell us why we should care about it when more popular operating systems fit our needs better anyways.
Man, y'all are gonna be so mad when you find out some people work on OSS projects for fun or ideological reasons.
Again, a sentiment that needs repeating far too often here, not everything is about, or for, you.
Not everyone here is a joyless sack of shit yet.
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 find the desire to work on a 30 year old operating system that still lacks USB support much more confusing.
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
Valuing my time doesn't make me a capitalist.
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.
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.
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.