Slashdot Mirror

God knows the words "lightweight" and "Gnu" don't generally go together, but how about Guile?

This goes to the core of what I and many others don't like about RMS -- he dislikes choice.

Your evidence of this is where, exactly? I don't see him telling people they shouldn't write any particular program. I see him telling people that if they intend on distributing the software they are writing, they should distribute it as free software.

Heck, they were founded on the concept of a Free Software distribution of Linux.

Actually the GNU project predates the development of the Linux kernal by many years. So that makes it very hard to found the free software movement on anything to do with the Linux kernal.

However, because Debian offers users the option of non-Free Software, RMS no longer recommends it. In his somewhat Orwellian stance, RMS boldly claims that to be free one must not have the choice to use commercial software.

Actually, RMS is not against commercial software, he's all for it so long as it is distributed with the freedoms of free software. Perhaps you should have read the first paragraph of the article this thread is based on where RMS distinguishes between free as in price and free as in freedom (or as free software advocates like to say, "Think 'free speech', not 'free beer'.").

For RMS and a lot of other people, there are significant moral objections to non-free software, well rooted in their shared desire to build communities of people who have the freedom to share with one another. It's perfectly reasonable, given this stance, to object to any distribution of non-free software. It's also objectionable to see an organization (such as Debian) distribute software that belies their own goals (even Debian has some cognitive dissonance about the non-free software they distribute). Debian appears to be working toward getting rid of their non-free software. When they do, I'm guessing RMS will reevaluate his stance on Debian.

Plus, I don't like how he has only words of criticism and scorn for those who are making moves towards his stance but have not yet fully committed to it. You're just not good enough unless you're pushing for a total abolition of non-Free Software.

Again, you are getting this from where, exactly? I see an organization that is only asking you to do as they do and I see an organization that takes a harder line on proprietary software than they ask of you:

"The Free Software Foundation follows the rule that we cannot install any proprietary program on our computers except temporarily for the specific purpose of writing a free replacement for that very program. Aside from that, we feel there is no possible excuse for installing a proprietary program.

For example, we felt justified in installing Unix on our computer in the 1980s, because we were using it to write a free replacement for Unix. Nowadays, since free operating systems are available, the excuse is no longer applicable; we have eliminated all our non-free operating systems, and any new computer we install must run a completely free operating system.

We don't insist that users of GNU, or contributors to GNU, have to live by this rule. It is a rule we made for ourselves. But we hope you will decide to follow it too."

The FSF is led by RMS and his essays and talks are those people first look to when figuring out what the FSF and free software are all about. He is firm in his stance that all published software ought to be free software and he won't hesitate to disagree with you (some people find this uncomfortable because they're used to dealing with people who will silently retreat or lie and agree to your face and then harbor a dissenting point of view). If he ever said you were not a "good enough" person "unless you

This goes to the core of what I and many others don't like about RMS -- he dislikes choice.

Your evidence of this is where, exactly? I don't see him telling people they shouldn't write any particular program. I see him telling people that if they intend on distributing the software they are writing, they should distribute it as free software.

Heck, they were founded on the concept of a Free Software distribution of Linux.

Actually the GNU project predates the development of the Linux kernal by many years. So that makes it very hard to found the free software movement on anything to do with the Linux kernal.

However, because Debian offers users the option of non-Free Software, RMS no longer recommends it. In his somewhat Orwellian stance, RMS boldly claims that to be free one must not have the choice to use commercial software.

Actually, RMS is not against commercial software, he's all for it so long as it is distributed with the freedoms of free software. Perhaps you should have read the first paragraph of the article this thread is based on where RMS distinguishes between free as in price and free as in freedom (or as free software advocates like to say, "Think 'free speech', not 'free beer'.").

For RMS and a lot of other people, there are significant moral objections to non-free software, well rooted in their shared desire to build communities of people who have the freedom to share with one another. It's perfectly reasonable, given this stance, to object to any distribution of non-free software. It's also objectionable to see an organization (such as Debian) distribute software that belies their own goals (even Debian has some cognitive dissonance about the non-free software they distribute). Debian appears to be working toward getting rid of their non-free software. When they do, I'm guessing RMS will reevaluate his stance on Debian.

Plus, I don't like how he has only words of criticism and scorn for those who are making moves towards his stance but have not yet fully committed to it. You're just not good enough unless you're pushing for a total abolition of non-Free Software.

Again, you are getting this from where, exactly? I see an organization that is only asking you to do as they do and I see an organization that takes a harder line on proprietary software than they ask of you:

"The Free Software Foundation follows the rule that we cannot install any proprietary program on our computers except temporarily for the specific purpose of writing a free replacement for that very program. Aside from that, we feel there is no possible excuse for installing a proprietary program.

For example, we felt justified in installing Unix on our computer in the 1980s, because we were using it to write a free replacement for Unix. Nowadays, since free operating systems are available, the excuse is no longer applicable; we have eliminated all our non-free operating systems, and any new computer we install must run a completely free operating system.

We don't insist that users of GNU, or contributors to GNU, have to live by this rule. It is a rule we made for ourselves. But we hope you will decide to follow it too."

The FSF is led by RMS and his essays and talks are those people first look to when figuring out what the FSF and free software are all about. He is firm in his stance that all published software ought to be free software and he won't hesitate to disagree with you (some people find this uncomfortable because they're used to dealing with people who will silently retreat or lie and agree to your face and then harbor a dissenting point of view). If he ever said you were not a "good enough" person "unless you

He gives the Free software community a bad name, and with him on the forefront, Free software will never be part of corporate america (which is becoming more and more synonymous with America itself.)

You say that like it's both true and a bad thing. It is neither.

It's clearly untrue because some of the largest corporations in the world run free software and work hard to change the licenses to their software to become free software licenses.

It's a good thing that corporations are working with us as equals, rather than masters, because it means we can work with them or compete against them as we choose. This is one of the big differences between the open source movement and the free software movement--the open source movement was formed specifically to speak to businesses whereas the free software movement was formed to give computer users software freedom. As a citizen and computer user, I know which movement is more aimed at my interests and those of society as a whole.

I would not want more situations where corporations dominate over and exploit citizens and small investors (Among US corporations the list of corporate abusers, most of which are apparently insufficiently punished so as to deter future wrongdoing, includes Wal-Mart, MCI/Worldcom, Enron, Global Crossing, and Tyco). But don't take my word for it.

Richard, I agree with your pitch on free software to some extent, but how exactly are we in the IT business going to make a living if all (or most) of the software is free in the future?

First, this is not his problem or the responsibility of the Free Software community. It's your problem if you want to make a living doing something people can and will do for themselves. I understand and appreciate your genuine need to put food on the table, but the world is full of jobs and you won't come anywhere close to starving if you can't make money distributing copies of software. Apparently people don't need the financial incentive to justify writing software that so many people assumed was required 20 years ago when people dismissed RMS' idea for a completely free OS.

Second, to answer your question more along the line you had probably hoped: You can sell your expertise. There is always a market for experts, even in fields where findings are public domain (like much of the information courts and lawyers deal with) or readily available (like technical information on cars, houses, plumbing, and electrical work). Many millions of people make a decent living doing jobs based on selling their expertise.

You can write software that is the basis for a service you sell to other people--perhaps the service is mostly automated (like selling inexpensive licenses to tracks of music online). You can write documentation for a fee, you can maintain programs beyond the desire of the community to maintain them (perhaps someone will pay you to work on the free software in their Red Hat 6.x or 7.x GNU/Linux system).

The real question is for you: the free software world is where we are headed. What will you do to adapt to that world?

Why shouldnt someone charge for their software if its good and useful, why should they give away the design or their work, and isnt a little commerical competition good?

I'm sure RMS would agree--they should charge as much as they can get and they do. And they can continue to do so in a world where all published software is free software. Competition on an even playing field is not just good, it's better than getting involved with a monopoly (a.k.a., all software proprietors).

If software developers should work for free, why not electronic engineers, architects, every profession?

RMS never said that "software developers should work for free" or anything like that. He has said quite the opposite in the essay I just linked to, in fact. He maintains that all published software should be free software. And this use of the word free is as in freedom, not price. Perhaps you should have read the article's first paragraph or read more about what GNU stands for via the link to the GNU website he linked to in his article (not reading either makes me mildly curious which moderators gave your post an undeserved +5 informative).

How are we going to make a living?
See the Why Software Should Be Free: Economics argument.
Its immoral to release non-free software, and therefore it should not be done. If you cannot make a living writing software without resorting to immoral deeds, by all means do something else to make a living.
Also note that Free Software can cost money (First copy, packaged copies, supported copies, etc), and that programmers can still work on Free Software by-contract.

He is evil because he does not support Debian/etc only because they support non-free software.
That's not true, he has supported Debian, even throughout times in which they supported non-free software. Thing is, now that non-free software is no longer essential to a system, Stallman believes we should move to the next step and use purely Free Software. Now that there are 100% Free GNU/Linux distributions, he recommends those instead.

Why is Stallman opposing the choice between Free and Non-Free software?

Because that choice implies that using and creating Non-Free software is acceptable, a view that is not agreeable.

Why is he persuing the GNU/Linux naming issue? Its just words!

Because words are important. Labelling a GNU system with a Linux kernel GNU or GNU/Linux rather than Linux is a matter of proper attribution of credit. As one of the main authors of GNU, he is totally within his rights to ask for the deserved credit. He believes that raising awareness to "GNU" (rather than just "Linux") will make people aware of the Free Software movement, rather than just the Open Source movement.

Software does not require Freedom. Users don't want Freedom when using software.

This is analogous to claiming that Speech does not require freedom. Lack of Freedom in software means that when your neighbour asks you to share some piece of software, you have to refuse. It means that if you are a programmer, and want to create modifications, share insights, be inspired to create new works, etc. you are out of luck.
It means that if you are not a programmer, you cannot ask your programmer friend, or hire a programmer to do these things for you.
It means that the vendor has some degree of control over your life, and that directly translates to lack of freedom in an increasingly important part of people's lives.

Software is there to fulfill a need, and if Closed/Proprietary software fulfills it, then it should be used.

Using Closed/Proprietary software is morally unacceptable and should be replaced by Free Software.

How are we going to make a living?
See the Why Software Should Be Free: Economics argument.
Its immoral to release non-free software, and therefore it should not be done. If you cannot make a living writing software without resorting to immoral deeds, by all means do something else to make a living.
Also note that Free Software can cost money (First copy, packaged copies, supported copies, etc), and that programmers can still work on Free Software by-contract.

He is evil because he does not support Debian/etc only because they support non-free software.
That's not true, he has supported Debian, even throughout times in which they supported non-free software. Thing is, now that non-free software is no longer essential to a system, Stallman believes we should move to the next step and use purely Free Software. Now that there are 100% Free GNU/Linux distributions, he recommends those instead.

Why is Stallman opposing the choice between Free and Non-Free software?

Because that choice implies that using and creating Non-Free software is acceptable, a view that is not agreeable.

Why is he persuing the GNU/Linux naming issue? Its just words!

Because words are important. Labelling a GNU system with a Linux kernel GNU or GNU/Linux rather than Linux is a matter of proper attribution of credit. As one of the main authors of GNU, he is totally within his rights to ask for the deserved credit. He believes that raising awareness to "GNU" (rather than just "Linux") will make people aware of the Free Software movement, rather than just the Open Source movement.

Software does not require Freedom. Users don't want Freedom when using software.

This is analogous to claiming that Speech does not require freedom. Lack of Freedom in software means that when your neighbour asks you to share some piece of software, you have to refuse. It means that if you are a programmer, and want to create modifications, share insights, be inspired to create new works, etc. you are out of luck.
It means that if you are not a programmer, you cannot ask your programmer friend, or hire a programmer to do these things for you.
It means that the vendor has some degree of control over your life, and that directly translates to lack of freedom in an increasingly important part of people's lives.

Software is there to fulfill a need, and if Closed/Proprietary software fulfills it, then it should be used.

Using Closed/Proprietary software is morally unacceptable and should be replaced by Free Software.

So it is with RMS. He doesn't realize that the average user simply doesn't care.

Oh, I think he does know that, very much: I'd say from his writings it's one of the things he'd most like to change--through this and other articles he spends a lot of time trying to get people to care about software freedom, which he'd hardly do if he were ignorant of their apathy.

It would be different if there was a history of software vendors flagrantly abusing their power, perhaps, but there simply isn't.

First, I would take the position that preventing one person from helping another is in fact a pretty serious abuse of power. Secondly, Microsoft is probably a bad example of a well-behaved software company, considering the many companies, users and general public which have been aggrieved by their practices (yes, to the extent of going out of business due to persecution by Microsoft)--practices all of which, by the way, would have been impossible with a corresponding piece of free software. And if you can't look at the activation features of XP, the trusted computing initiative and the future of software licensing and foresee exactly the scenario you describe, I don't think you're looking very closely.

The problem of closed source largely exists in RMS' mind; I strongly doubt he's ever personally been inconvenienced by it any more than he's inconvenienced by the manufacturer's warning that opening the TV invalidates the warranty.

Actually there is a famous story about how inconvenienced RMS was by proprietary software (the story is about halfway down the page--search for "printer")--inconvenienced enough, at least, to devote a pretty hefty portion of his life to trying to make it better for the rest of us. And the point isn't about convenience, it's about freedom.

I'd disagree, and so would this definition of free software philosophy. Open source is more or less the same thing.

I think this sentiment is exactly why we need to understand RMS's point in this article about the difference between the goals of popularity and preserving freedom (the core difference between the Open Source and free software movements).

The Open Source movement is completely compatible with your philosophy: they tell you that source code availability is a good thing because it produces software that's better.

On the other hand--and this is a point I think you've missed--free software is better because it's free. Preserving freedom is the goal, and the availability of the source code is only one necessary step on the way to that goal.

If you choose a piece of free software, you have important freedoms, regardless of whether you ever read the source code (these are taken from the GNU project's Free Software page):

• The freedom to run the program, for any purpose - It's your damn computer, right? Don't you think you should be in charge of what you're using it for and why? Or should your software vendor? I don't want Adobe telling me I can't paint pictures of elephants because the CEO got scared by one.
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor - I like to help my friends. If I want to give my friend a bite of my sandwich I don't want Safeway telling me "Sorry, your friend must buy his own sandwich from me."

And even though you yourself do not enhance the software, when you choose free software you enjoy the side benefits of others' exercising that freedom.

RMS makes the very clear point in this article, and in his other writings, that you are mistaken when you say:

So for me, you're no different than MS.

The Open Source movement would have you believe this: that Open Source software is but one competitor for popularity. But the free software movement's goal isn't popularity, it's freedom, and that is very different from Microsoft (for you and other users), because Microsoft isn't interested in preserving your freedom (which by the way doesn't make them bad guys, in my opinion, they just have a different goal).

You see I don't care about source code

That's fine. But you should care about freedom.

He advocates it because you can develop any software, unrestricted (i.e. free).

Then that's in direct contradiction to the rest of his philosophy. Otherwise, why would he recommend against use of the LGPL and BSD-style licenses?

The thing is, there is a highly-optimising compiler for Opteron (from Pathscale) if you want to pay for it and a "good enough" one (gcc) if you don't.

By "good enough," do you mean "no better than an interpreter, destroying the only reason to write an app in C or in C++ rather than in Python"?

If you're doing serious numbercrunching on any architecture, you must consider the best compilers

The problem is that my users might be doing serious number crunching with the executable versions of the Free apps that I develop, and as a free software developer, I can't afford even "good enough" if GCC isn't "good enough" on, for example, Itanium. Distributing source code and having each owner of a machine license his own compiler would increase the cost of owning a computer several-fold. If GCC isn't "good enough" on a given platform, there's no reason for poor free software developers to buy specimens of that platform.

I recommend you look at the gcc website

I tried. What page gives the status for each platform's code generator? The target-specific notes do not list any performance issues. Do you think I could find it in messages posted to mailing lists? If so, could you please give me a few tips on how to perform such a search?

... I can't tell which 'cause both subhuman life forms are depressingly common around here.

Why shouldnt someone charge for their software if its good and useful,

Mr Stallman (do you really think you know him well enough to call him by first name?) has nothing against commercial sales for profit. Neither does the GNU project in general. You are missing the point of free software in Stallman's . Be educated.

why should they give away the design or their work

The premise of this question reeks of egotism and self-importance. Few software packages today can be claimed to serve a completely new purpose, or even to serve a pre-existing purpose in a completely new way. If someone is inclined not to 'give away' their best-thing-since-sliced-bread software design, I'm inclined to ask what they're hiding. The GNU General Public Licence requires that redistributions of GPL-licensed software be done so under the same licence; think of it as a "share and share alike" clause.

If being a professional (charging) software developer becomes "bad" or "unfashionable"

Once again, you are missing the point of free software. Also, I disagree with claiming that a professional necessarily charges for goods or services, but that's a personal problem of mine.

First of all, Open Source is a movement and Free Software is another. They have completly differents phylosophies and objectives as well.

"At a trade show in late 1998, dedicated to the operating system often referred to as ``Linux'', the featured speaker was an executive from a prominent software company. He was probably invited on account of his company's decision to ``support'' that system. Unfortunately, their form of ``support'' consists of releasing non-free software that works with the system--in other words, using our community as a market but not contributing to it.

He said, ``There is no way we will make our product open source, but perhaps we will make it `internal' open source. If we allow our customer support staff to have access to the source code, they could fix bugs for the customers, and we could provide a better product and better service.'' (This is not an exact quote, as I did not write his words down, but it gets the gist.)

People in the audience afterward told me, ``He just doesn't get the point.'' But is that so? Which point did he not get?

He did not miss the point of the Open Source movement. That movement does not say users should have freedom, only that allowing more people to look at the source code and help improve it makes for faster and better development. The executive grasped that point completely; unwilling to carry out that approach in full, users included, he was considering implementing it partially, within the company.

The point that he missed is the point that ``open source'' was designed not to raise: the point that users deserve freedom."

The fact that there is a .com, short for "commercial", in the first place probably bothers him.

What the FSF proposes isn't to give away your software for free. You can charge for your work and you are encouraged to do this. But once you've sold your software to another you, you may let he/she to redistribute it for free or sell it under the same terms you used. You people who use the software are not ruled by the software or by the company.

Stallman doesn't encourage comunism or non-profit activies. He encourage the free software for the freedom of the users.

I could explain a lot of things here, but I would say exactly what have already been said at the GNU site. Maybe you should read it really careful before saying thinks like 'turn away from capitalism'.

There is a webpage for the 20th anniversary of the GNU project, but I can't see any planned events. Does anybody know if there are or have been some GNU parties around the world?

In comparison, the last I heard about gcc on itanium was that it could only get about 20% of the performance of intel's proprietary compiler, and gcc still can't vectorise. Things may have changed, and the gcc-compiled itanic object code may be better now, but who knows.

The thing is, there is a highly-optimising compiler for Opteron (from Pathscale) if you want to pay for it and a "good enough" one (gcc) if you don't. If you're doing serious numbercrunching on any architecture, you must consider the best compilers, otherwise all that (expensive) hardware is wasted. Most times, that means paying for a specialist compiler.

I recommend you look at the gcc website for more information about platform-specifics.

That rings a bell.

There was some show-stopping problem with the way HURD addressed discs which meant they could only support pathetically small discs. This was going to force a major rewrite and I have never heard anything of the project since.

Would this new architecture fix that problem? (possibly not, it may have been something along the lines of large discs needing a large memory footprint - something x86-64 would help with but would be too wasteful to be used)

When we speak of Free Software, we are not talking about freeware, i.e., software that is essentially in the public domain. Rather, we are talking about software that is licensed under the precepts of the Free Software Foundation ("FSF") and its flagship GNU General Public License.

Well maybe I missed somthing, but last time I checked, it's free only if you use it in free software.

Yeah, just like the linux kernel ...

For other software, they are just like any other commecrial software company.

... which doesn't even have this option.

Btw. it seems you are talking about QT, not KDE. I sense you should inform yourself about KDE and what some people (rightly or wrongly) suppose to be its problems. Funnily, the FSF should be more satisfied with QT's licensing than with GTK's, but what do I know.

Then you could consider doing something yourself. You probably found out before that MS isn't really the place to trust when it comes to putting the customer first. How about a conclusion: Use something else.

And if you take the time to do some thinking anyway, think deeper (perhaps with a bit of help from the philosophy section on gnu.org), and conclude that only free software can give you what you want. Unless there is some strange company that actually cares more for its customers than for money... No, I can't think of one either.

``Free software'' does not mean ``non-commercial''. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important.

Closing free software to commercial entities is an idea roundly rejected by modern free software thinkers.

No they won't. FSF will take court action if someone violates their copyright.

Eben Moglen has been known to act as an expert witness, and I can imagine the FSF getting involved financially in a particularly deserving case, but to generalise this to say they will represent arbitrary impoverished open source developers is very wrong.

GNU Bayonne, the telecommunications application server of the GNU project, offers free, scalable, media independent software environment for development and deployment of telephony solutions for use with current and next generation telephone networks.

The FSF will jump in to defend GNU software, that is, code whose copyright is assigned to the FSF. To get their protection you would need to assign your copyright to them.

However, the FSF have their own agenda (creating the GNU system) so your software would need to fit somewhere into the FSF's plans for GNU.

They have a "help wanted" page here.

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

OTOH, making the source available on the internet is one of the specifically allowed methods of distributing it under the GPL.

A. You're supposed to provide the source code by mail-order on a physical medium, if someone orders it. You are welcome to offer people a way to copy the corresponding source code by FTP, in addition to the mail-order option, but FTP access to the source is not sufficient to satisfy section 3 of the GPL.

When a user orders the source, you have to make sure to get the source to that user. If a particular user can conveniently get the source from you by anonymous FTP, fine--that does the job. But not every user can do such a download. The rest of the users are just as entitled to get the source code from you, which means you must be prepared to send it to them by post.

If the FTP access is convenient enough, perhaps no one will choose to mail-order a copy. If so, you will never have to ship one. But you cannot assume that.

Of course, it's easiest to just send the source with the binary in the first place.


So as long as no one requests a physical copy of the source, you're right, sticking it on your site for them is good enough. The 24MB source zip file would be a little tough on dialup users, so there could be a case where they're required to provide the source on CD or whatever.

In any event, I just downloaded said file and here's what it contains (edited for lameness):


Archive: GPL.zip
Length Name

751701 busybox.tar.gz
24236327 uClinux-2.4.17.tar.gz

24988028 2 files


So unless they're offering the mplayer source separately, they're probably in violation of the GPL anyway.

Before someone says that they're just a small band of impoverished but brave open source developers who can't afford to pay lawyers....well, tough.

Actually, then they are still likely to be represented by the FSF, or FSFE in this case, probably.

But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.

How can people say BSD is dying when it has a mascot like this?! Linux needs to get its act together if it's going to compete with the kind of hot chicks and gorgeous babes that BSD has to offer!

You just can't take Linux seriously when its fronted by losers like these. Would you buy software from them? I don't think so! You Linux groupies need to find some sexy girls like her! I mean just look at this girl! Doesn't she excite you? I know this little hottie puts me in need of a cold shower! This guy looks like he is about to cream his pants standing next to such a fox. As you can see, no man can resist this sexy little minx. I mean are you telling me you wouldn't like to get your hands on this ass?!

With sexy chicks like the lovely Ceren you could have people queuing up to buy open source products. Could you really refuse to buy a copy of BSD if she told you to? Come on, you must admit she is better than an overweight penguin or a gay looking goat! Don't you wish you could get one of these? Personally I know I would give my right arm to get this close to such a divine beauty!

Join the campaign for more cute open source babes today!

Ok, then Mac OS X isn't an operating system, since its kernel is independent and is called Darwin. And Windows should be called by it's correct name: KERN386.DLL.

And there's no "Eric Stallman", unless something very strange has happened.

Read the GNU/Linux FAQ

Newsflash, the Arch developers say that Arch is the best product!

Can you provide any third party reviews? Books?

No because no one is using it except perhaps the Arch developers. Hell, even the Hurd people have not gotten in on this kool-aid.

It may indeed be a better system, but there is still the problem that cvs is ubiquitous, well-known, and widely supported. Also hwo do you convert your cvs trees to arch and maintain history? Can you integrate arch and cvs so that you can easily migrate?

The problem we will always have with software is that legacy data needs to be accessable. IF the new program cannot read the old stuff, it won't work.

My god, how can you recommend Arch when there isn't even a production-quality release yet?

All I see is 'arch-pre1' 'arch-pre9', etc at their website:


http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-arch/

How can people say BSD is dying when it has a mascot like this?! Linux needs to get its act together if it's going to compete with the kind of hot chicks and gorgeous babes that BSD has to offer!

You just can't take Linux seriously when its fronted by losers like these. Would you buy software from them? I don't think so! You Linux groupies need to find some sexy girls like her! I mean just look at this girl! Doesn't she excite you? I know this little hottie puts me in need of a cold shower! This guy looks like he is about to cream his pants standing next to such a fox. As you can see, no man can resist this sexy little minx. I mean are you telling me you wouldn't like to get your hands on this ass?!

With sexy chicks like the lovely Ceren you could have people queuing up to buy open source products. Could you really refuse to buy a copy of BSD if she told you to? Come on, you must admit she is better than an overweight penguin or a gay looking goat! Don't you wish you could get one of these? Personally I know I would give my right arm to get this close to such a divine beauty!

Join the campaign for more cute open source babes today!

Unfortunately, subversion seems to be always _almost_ stable enough for real use. Maybe this has changed recently (I've just played with it, I still use CVS for real work). I haven't really checked out GNU Arch - it seems to claim to support changesets (groups of changes), and thus I presume atomic commits, better/faster branching and merging and so on - the other good stuff that CVS is lacking. My guess is that Arch is even less mature than Subversion though, since it appears to have not been around as long.

Anyone else know of any other good alternatives that are more mature?

Time to bury CVS, not to praise it.

Check out Arch.

How can people say BSD is dying when it has a mascot like this?! Linux needs to get its act together if it's going to compete with the kind of hot chicks and gorgeous babes that BSD has to offer!

You just can't take Linux seriously when its fronted by losers like these. Would you buy software from them? I don't think so! You Linux groupies need to find some sexy girls like her! I mean just look at this girl! Doesn't she excite you? I know this little hottie puts me in need of a cold shower! This guy looks like he is about to cream his pants standing next to such a fox. As you can see, no man can resist this sexy little minx. I mean are you telling me you wouldn't like to get your hands on this ass?!

With sexy chicks like the lovely Ceren you could have people queuing up to buy open source products. Could you really refuse to buy a copy of BSD if she told you to? Come on, you must admit she is better than an overweight penguin or a gay looking goat! Don't you wish you could get one of these? Personally I know I would give my right arm to get this close to such a divine beauty!

Join the campaign for more cute open source babes today!

You may find unofficial translations of the GPL into Hebrew at law.co.il and guides.co.il.

How can people say BSD is dying when it has a mascot like this?! Linux needs to get its act together if it's going to compete with the kind of hot chicks and gorgeous babes that BSD has to offer!

You just can't take Linux seriously when its fronted by losers like these. Would you buy software from them? I don't think so! You Linux groupies need to find some sexy girls like her! I mean just look at this girl! Doesn't she excite you? I know this little hottie puts me in need of a cold shower! This guy looks like he is about to cream his pants standing next to such a fox. As you can see, no man can resist this sexy little minx. I mean are you telling me you wouldn't like to get your hands on this ass?!

With sexy chicks like the lovely Ceren you could have people queuing up to buy open source products. Could you really refuse to buy a copy of BSD if she told you to? Come on, you must admit she is better than an overweight penguin or a gay looking goat! Don't you wish you could get one of these? Personally I know I would give my right arm to get this close to such a divine beauty!

Join the campaign for more cute open source babes today!

How can people say BSD is dying when it has a mascot like this?! Linux needs to get its act together if it's going to compete with the kind of hot chicks and gorgeous babes that BSD has to offer!

You just can't take Linux seriously when its fronted by losers like these. Would you buy software from them? I don't think so! You Linux groupies need to find some sexy girls like her! I mean just look at this girl! Doesn't she excite you? I know this little hottie puts me in need of a cold shower! This guy looks like he is about to cream his pants standing next to such a fox. As you can see, no man can resist this sexy little minx. I mean are you telling me you wouldn't like to get your hands on this ass?!

With sexy chicks like the lovely Ceren you could have people queuing up to buy open source products. Could you really refuse to buy a copy of BSD if she told you to? Come on, you must admit she is better than an overweight penguin or a gay looking goat! Don't you wish you could get one of these? Personally I know I would give my right arm to get this close to such a divine beauty!

Join the campaign for more cute open source babes today!

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

Although I think most people agree that it is absurd to force companies to contribute to OS projects or have the government involved. I think the article and the comments point out a major weakness in the PR associated with the Free/Open Source movement. In the early days (GNU before Linux), I am sure that price/cost was not the primary problem with software in many cases and clearly was not what RMS was fighting. Later, unfortunately, three main things brought low or zero price to the top of the OS PR list:

• It was a way to get the attention of corporations.
• There was no (good) existing model to charge for it.
• It allowed for the rapid spread of code among OS supporters.

There is nothing wrong ethically, morally, or GPL-wise with charging or paying for OS software.
I don't believe that for companies, that price is the primary consideration for many pieces of OS software. For many other pieces of OS software there are no viable commercial alternatives. For Linux, cost was previously presented as one of top reasons to switch, but I thing it is past the time to de-emphasize the cost issue.
The more productive discussion that I hope will come out of this is how do we create new models to encourage compensating OS developers/projects and supporting projects in a variety of ways. Here are some of the ways that companies should be encouraged to participate in Free/Open Source Projects:

• Submit detailed bug reports.
• Submit patches.
• Add a "powered by" button to their website.
• Mention the projects in their trade journal articles.
• Document and release API's.
• Create, use and promote truly open standards.
• Give unused hardware, computer/office supplies, equipment to projects.
• Give money to projects, ones they use or ones they want to promote for other reasons :)
• Review their usage of OS products and gain a better understanding of how much their organization relies on low profile OS software. Most IT managers are aware of their use of Linux, but what about perl, python, rrd, cricket, thttpd, JBoss, ant, gcc, etc.
• Buy and forward new hardware to developers that they want that projects ported to.
  Dear SRX developers, please find the new VIA dual NIC EPIA boards. We know that you have been waiting for the release of these to port SRX project to them. Thanks.
  BTW - VIA mini and nano ITX rocks!
• Buy software/hardware listed as needed by projects on the project website.
• Allow projects the use of build machines.
• Host mirrors of projects.
• Give bandwidth or colocation space to projects.
• Contribute compiled binaries to the project or a binaries website.
  (not everyone can or wants to compile)
• Contribute case studies, whitepapers, benchmarks, tuning tips to the project.
• Fund a prize for innovation in OS software.
• Allocate some portion of one or more employee's time to devote to an OS project that the company is using.
• Add

How can people say BSD is dying when it has a mascot like this?! Linux needs to get its act together if it's going to compete with the kind of
hot chicks and gorgeous babes that BSD has to offer!

You just can't take Linux seriously when its fronted by losers like these. Would you buy
software from them? I don't think so! You Linux groupies need to find some sexy
girls like her ! I mean
just look at this girl ! Doesn't she excite you? I know this little hottie puts me in need of a cold
shower! This guy looks like he is about to cream his pants standing next to such a fox . As you can see, no man
can resist this sexy little minx . I mean are you telling me you
wouldn't like to get your hands on this ass
?!

With sexy chicks
like the lovely Ceren
you could have people queuing up to buy open source products. Could you really refuse to buy a copy of BSD if she
told you to? Come on, you must admit she is better than an overweight penguin or a gay looking goat
! Don't you wish you could get one of these
? Personally I know I would give my right arm to get this close
to such a divine

Join the campaign for more cute
open source babes today!

That's OK there are many things that can be usefully done even if you're not a programmer.

For example I have a project which has happily had a few people contribute to - but I know there are areas I cannot manage myself.

Contribute a logo?, or contribute some documentation? These are equally valid ways of given some time to help the project.

Of course I like toys/rewards but even minor things like a good bugreport will make my day.

I think a lot of projects are very similar to mine, a large userbase but a very small core of people who will tell you what they want and give you a small patch every now and again.

It's not often that a project gets large enough to actually get lots of people working on it, and I'm glad that mine isn't like that to be honest. Sure I'd like to think that at some point I can hand it away to others and it will continue to exist - but as long as I've had fun along the way and learnt interesting things that's enough for me.

The next time you find some free software and have trouble installing it why don't you write up your experiences and post it to a newsgroup/mailing list. Google will happily index it and chances are six months later somebody you've never met on the other side of the world will be very grateful you took the time to contribute documentation. It's a funny world like that!

I suppose that the C99 'restrict' keyword will allow the compiler to assume that each compiler is pointing at a different address, and force the programmer to write code without aliased pointers, undoing my example. But the rest of C99 is about syntactic sugar and back filling deficiencies in C (e.g. long long as a defacto 64-bit type, and finally a bool type!), right?

There does not exist any high-level language that results in code that is faster than C

This is irrelevant; this doesn't say anything about it holding forever. Remember that it used to be common place to program in assembly language to get performance, but that is quite rare for all but DSP or embedded apps these days, and some of those DSP compilers are really good too. Also don't forget the higher level languages are easier to program, which is a benefit of sorts.

Maybe you should look at HP's Dynamo sometime.

Thankyou. I've looked at it a bit, and as far as I can tell it is hardware/software assist for converting code between instruction formats. I don't really see this as wholy relevant, but I guess this is all about where and when you do the compiling; interpreted programs never get compiled, .NET is compile at install on a system, Java is famously just-in-time, C and C++ are compiled once well before load/installing, and assembly code is compiled in the programmers head!

Generating low level code at different times certainly effects portability, but I don't think it really has to be coupled with performance. Hence I would love compile at install for Java, and I really like GCJ and hope it does really well too!

But so what? What Linux needs more than anything else is to capture more than 20% of the desktop market. Once there's a foothold of that magnitude, we'll start seeing practically everything, from Doom III to Quickbooks, released in Linux.

I would ask the same question of you--so what? We already have that thanks to emulation and there are plenty of other versions of Microsoft Windows where you can be catered to so long as you're willing to give up your freedom. What we need are Free Software programs to do these jobs, not more non-free software.

So, as for those companies who aren't "giving back," -- I say, that merely by virtue of adding to the pool of Linux[sic] users, they are giving the open source movement exactly what it needs most.

Perhaps that movement is satisified, but that movement is also very shortsighted in its mission to please businesses.

You certainly won't gain popularity over proprietors by giving them code under non-copyleft Free Software licenses or by choosing to run their proprietary alternative to a free program. Treating businesses like charities doesn't make you their friend, it sets you up to be taken advantage of. I'm reminded of the FSF's response to Microsoft when Microsoft's CEOs were on the lecture circuit calling the GNU General Public License a "cancer" and "unamerican":

"From time to time, companies have said to us, "We would make an improved version of this program if you allow us to release it without freedom." We say, "No thanks--your improvements might be useful if they were free, but if we can't use them in freedom, they are no good at all." Then they appeal to our egos, saying that our code will have "more users" inside their proprietary programs. We respond that we value our community's freedom more than an irrelevant form of popularity."

Or why they ask you to give credit to the GNU operating system and not just the Linux kernal:

"People justify adding non-free software in the name of the "popularity of Linux"--in effect, valuing popularity above freedom. Sometimes this is openly admitted. For instance, Wired Magazine says Robert McMillan, editor of Linux Magazine, "feels that the move toward open source software should be fueled by technical, rather than political, decisions." And Caldera's CEO openly urged users to drop the goal of freedom and work instead for the "popularity of Linux".

Adding non-free software to the GNU/Linux system may increase the popularity, if by popularity we mean the number of people using some of GNU/Linux in combination with non-free software. But at the same time, it implicitly encourages the community to accept non-free software as a good thing, and forget the goal of freedom. It is no use driving faster if you can't stay on the road."

The chase for popularity is misguided and naive. I'm sure you have the best of intentions for GNU/Linux users, but you don't seem to understand that giving up freedom should not be done lightly. Sometimes giving up software freedom is acceptable, but most of the time it is not a good strategy. We are not well served with non-free programs to get jobs done.

But so what? What Linux needs more than anything else is to capture more than 20% of the desktop market. Once there's a foothold of that magnitude, we'll start seeing practically everything, from Doom III to Quickbooks, released in Linux.

I would ask the same question of you--so what? We already have that thanks to emulation and there are plenty of other versions of Microsoft Windows where you can be catered to so long as you're willing to give up your freedom. What we need are Free Software programs to do these jobs, not more non-free software.

So, as for those companies who aren't "giving back," -- I say, that merely by virtue of adding to the pool of Linux[sic] users, they are giving the open source movement exactly what it needs most.

Perhaps that movement is satisified, but that movement is also very shortsighted in its mission to please businesses.

You certainly won't gain popularity over proprietors by giving them code under non-copyleft Free Software licenses or by choosing to run their proprietary alternative to a free program. Treating businesses like charities doesn't make you their friend, it sets you up to be taken advantage of. I'm reminded of the FSF's response to Microsoft when Microsoft's CEOs were on the lecture circuit calling the GNU General Public License a "cancer" and "unamerican":

"From time to time, companies have said to us, "We would make an improved version of this program if you allow us to release it without freedom." We say, "No thanks--your improvements might be useful if they were free, but if we can't use them in freedom, they are no good at all." Then they appeal to our egos, saying that our code will have "more users" inside their proprietary programs. We respond that we value our community's freedom more than an irrelevant form of popularity."

Or why they ask you to give credit to the GNU operating system and not just the Linux kernal:

"People justify adding non-free software in the name of the "popularity of Linux"--in effect, valuing popularity above freedom. Sometimes this is openly admitted. For instance, Wired Magazine says Robert McMillan, editor of Linux Magazine, "feels that the move toward open source software should be fueled by technical, rather than political, decisions." And Caldera's CEO openly urged users to drop the goal of freedom and work instead for the "popularity of Linux".

Adding non-free software to the GNU/Linux system may increase the popularity, if by popularity we mean the number of people using some of GNU/Linux in combination with non-free software. But at the same time, it implicitly encourages the community to accept non-free software as a good thing, and forget the goal of freedom. It is no use driving faster if you can't stay on the road."

The chase for popularity is misguided and naive. I'm sure you have the best of intentions for GNU/Linux users, but you don't seem to understand that giving up freedom should not be done lightly. Sometimes giving up software freedom is acceptable, but most of the time it is not a good strategy. We are not well served with non-free programs to get jobs done.

But so what? What Linux needs more than anything else is to capture more than 20% of the desktop market. Once there's a foothold of that magnitude, we'll start seeing practically everything, from Doom III to Quickbooks, released in Linux.

I would ask the same question of you--so what? We already have that thanks to emulation and there are plenty of other versions of Microsoft Windows where you can be catered to so long as you're willing to give up your freedom. What we need are Free Software programs to do these jobs, not more non-free software.

So, as for those companies who aren't "giving back," -- I say, that merely by virtue of adding to the pool of Linux[sic] users, they are giving the open source movement exactly what it needs most.

Perhaps that movement is satisified, but that movement is also very shortsighted in its mission to please businesses.

You certainly won't gain popularity over proprietors by giving them code under non-copyleft Free Software licenses or by choosing to run their proprietary alternative to a free program. Treating businesses like charities doesn't make you their friend, it sets you up to be taken advantage of. I'm reminded of the FSF's response to Microsoft when Microsoft's CEOs were on the lecture circuit calling the GNU General Public License a "cancer" and "unamerican":

"From time to time, companies have said to us, "We would make an improved version of this program if you allow us to release it without freedom." We say, "No thanks--your improvements might be useful if they were free, but if we can't use them in freedom, they are no good at all." Then they appeal to our egos, saying that our code will have "more users" inside their proprietary programs. We respond that we value our community's freedom more than an irrelevant form of popularity."

Or why they ask you to give credit to the GNU operating system and not just the Linux kernal:

"People justify adding non-free software in the name of the "popularity of Linux"--in effect, valuing popularity above freedom. Sometimes this is openly admitted. For instance, Wired Magazine says Robert McMillan, editor of Linux Magazine, "feels that the move toward open source software should be fueled by technical, rather than political, decisions." And Caldera's CEO openly urged users to drop the goal of freedom and work instead for the "popularity of Linux".

Adding non-free software to the GNU/Linux system may increase the popularity, if by popularity we mean the number of people using some of GNU/Linux in combination with non-free software. But at the same time, it implicitly encourages the community to accept non-free software as a good thing, and forget the goal of freedom. It is no use driving faster if you can't stay on the road."

The chase for popularity is misguided and naive. I'm sure you have the best of intentions for GNU/Linux users, but you don't seem to understand that giving up freedom should not be done lightly. Sometimes giving up software freedom is acceptable, but most of the time it is not a good strategy. We are not well served with non-free programs to get jobs done.

But so what? What Linux needs more than anything else is to capture more than 20% of the desktop market. Once there's a foothold of that magnitude, we'll start seeing practically everything, from Doom III to Quickbooks, released in Linux.

I would ask the same question of you--so what? We already have that thanks to emulation and there are plenty of other versions of Microsoft Windows where you can be catered to so long as you're willing to give up your freedom. What we need are Free Software programs to do these jobs, not more non-free software.

So, as for those companies who aren't "giving back," -- I say, that merely by virtue of adding to the pool of Linux[sic] users, they are giving the open source movement exactly what it needs most.

Perhaps that movement is satisified, but that movement is also very shortsighted in its mission to please businesses.

You certainly won't gain popularity over proprietors by giving them code under non-copyleft Free Software licenses or by choosing to run their proprietary alternative to a free program. Treating businesses like charities doesn't make you their friend, it sets you up to be taken advantage of. I'm reminded of the FSF's response to Microsoft when Microsoft's CEOs were on the lecture circuit calling the GNU General Public License a "cancer" and "unamerican":

"From time to time, companies have said to us, "We would make an improved version of this program if you allow us to release it without freedom." We say, "No thanks--your improvements might be useful if they were free, but if we can't use them in freedom, they are no good at all." Then they appeal to our egos, saying that our code will have "more users" inside their proprietary programs. We respond that we value our community's freedom more than an irrelevant form of popularity."

Or why they ask you to give credit to the GNU operating system and not just the Linux kernal:

"People justify adding non-free software in the name of the "popularity of Linux"--in effect, valuing popularity above freedom. Sometimes this is openly admitted. For instance, Wired Magazine says Robert McMillan, editor of Linux Magazine, "feels that the move toward open source software should be fueled by technical, rather than political, decisions." And Caldera's CEO openly urged users to drop the goal of freedom and work instead for the "popularity of Linux".

Adding non-free software to the GNU/Linux system may increase the popularity, if by popularity we mean the number of people using some of GNU/Linux in combination with non-free software. But at the same time, it implicitly encourages the community to accept non-free software as a good thing, and forget the goal of freedom. It is no use driving faster if you can't stay on the road."

The chase for popularity is misguided and naive. I'm sure you have the best of intentions for GNU/Linux users, but you don't seem to understand that giving up freedom should not be done lightly. Sometimes giving up software freedom is acceptable, but most of the time it is not a good strategy. We are not well served with non-free programs to get jobs done.

The Inquirer has an excellent article that describes how companies take from the Open Source Community and how few are giving back.

I would hardly call that article excellent. Of course businesses do this. The Free Software movement identified a licensing mechanism that allows them to do this long before the Open Source movement existed. The Free Software movement even has a name for this mechanism in licenses--non-copyleft licensing. Businesses love this because it is essentially a donation to their organization. The Open Source movement doesn't distinguish between licenses that have this and licenses that don't because their message is chiefly aimed at businesses.

And it wouldn't be the Open Source movement if it didn't work this way. That movement doesn't say users should have software freedom, that movement throws out ensuring all computer users the freedoms to share and modify computer software in order to pitch a message of practical advantages (which aren't always true). The Open Source movement puts you in the position of pleading for improvements (as Charlie Demerjian's article does) instead of giving you the freedom to either do the work yourself, build a community of like-minded programmers you can rely on, or purchase support from a set of programmers bidding for your business.

Demerjian's article also doesn't demand software freedom, perhaps because the movement he aligns himself with doesn't want you to talk about such things. But he does ask for increased representation which still falls short of real support:

Another benefit is community response. If you have a person on your staff active in the community, contributing code back and forth, fixing bugs, when you ask for something, the odds of it happening are infinitely greater.

With so many people signing up to put on chains (and paying for the privilege), there's no incentive for any proprietor to do this (and as a result few do).

Both you and Demerjian (author of the Inquirer article) should read the FSF's essay on Why ``Free Software'' is better than ``Open Source'' which includes a great description of the practical weaknesses of the Open Source movement:

At a trade show in late 1998, dedicated to the operating system often referred to as ``Linux'', the featured speaker was an executive from a prominent software company. He was probably invited on account of his company's decision to ``support'' that system. Unfortunately, their form of ``support'' consists of releasing non-free software that works with the system--in other words, using our community as a market but not contributing to it.

He said, ``There is no way we will make our product open source, but perhaps we will make it `internal' open source. If we allow our customer support staff to have access to the source code, they could fix bugs for the customers, and we could provide a better product and better service.'' (This is not an exact quote, as I did not write his words down, but it gets the gist.)

People in the audience afterward told me, ``He just doesn't get the point.'' But is that so? Which point did he not get?

He did not miss the point of the Open Source movement. That movement does not say users should have freedom, only that allowing more people to look at the source code and help improve it makes for faster and better development. The executive grasped that point completely; unwilling to carry out that approach in full, users included, he was considering implementing it partially, within the company.

The point that he missed is the point that ``open source'' was designed not to raise: the point that users deserve freedom.

The Open Source movement eschews the one thing that would keep you from choosing non-free software--freedom. Without talking about software freedom, when so-called "Open Source" software fails you, you have no reason to reject a proprietary alternative.