Slashdot Mirror
RMS Accused Of Attempting Glibc Hostile Takeover
Bram Stolk sent a bit in thats been floating around lately where Ulrich Drepper, glibc maintainer announces the new version, and sidetracks to discuss an an RMS takeover attempt and how he feels about it. He raises several good points and I tend to agree with him. The FSF has done, and continues to do so much good, but more and more tension continues to grow between the extreme free speech faction and the more moderate folks. People have asked my opinion, and I'll just leave it by saying I don't prefix "Linux" with those 3 little letters and a slash even tho I've been asked.
Isn't it striking that people who claim to be members of a group advocating free thought and speech would be so anal and vitrolic about everyone who doesn't call Linux GNU/Linux?
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Maybe some of the more rabid fans of RMS will open their eyes now and see him for the megalomaniac that he is. It isn't about free speech or free software at all to him, it's about control and forcing his opinions upon everyone he can get to.
_Who_ asked?
RMS, or some slashdot troll?
This matters, you know. As you put it know, your statement is meaningless.
The glibc situation is even more frightening if one realizes the story behind it. When I started porting glibc 1.09 to Linux (which eventually became glibc 2.0) Stallman threatened me and tried to force me to contribute rather to the work on the Hurd. Work on Linux would be counter-productive to the Free Software course. Then came, what would be called embrace-and-extend if performed by the Evil of the North-West, and his claim for everything which lead to Linux's success.
I assume that he is suggesting not to sign the copyright over to GNU, but still supports using the GPL as a license for software. The bit about the Hurd is interesting. We've been hearing about the Hurd for a long time, and now that Linux is so strong, the Hurd will have a hard time taking over.
Adding GNU to the front of Linux seems to me a lot like adding "FedEx" to the front of "Super Bowl" or something like that. It just seems like somebody wanting to get their name in lights for doing background work. Maybe I'm strange, but when I do background work, I usually enjoy being credited in the background someplace, not out in front of the people who pull things together in the end...
Posted from the wireless couch.
would be for Richard Stalin to....disappear...in some way or another.
TODO: Something witty here...
Obviously you are not a sys admin, because I am a Unix/Linux admin, and I can say from first hand experience that a properly maintained Unix or Linux system requires far less maintenance than Windos NT. Sure, updates come out all the time, but that does not always mean that you have to run out and install every update.
A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
Saying RMS is hostile when it comes to GNU supported projects is a joke. This man will rear his ugly head in any GNU project and expect his voice to be heard regardless of what the developers want. Everything is instantly his even if his contributions amount to nothing. Who cares if he's responsible for the "movement"... Since when is code supposed to be driven by politics? Maybe in a small insignificant project, but you don't play political games with something you expect a community that worships you to use. Unless, of course, you're RMS.
Who the F moderated this as "Interesting?" This is clearly "Flamebait."
I'm getting tired of these specific version dependencies (especially in Qt/KDE apps).
when I start calling my other OSes Microsoft Windows and Apple Mac OS X.
RMS said that support for Linux would be "Counter productive" to the FSF. I'm sorry, but I'm not sure many people knew about GNU (besides Emacs) before Linux. Also, if it wasn't for Linux, GNU would've probably been forgotten and people would use Free BSD systems. RMS's probem is that he has the SAME EXACT opinion of software that he had 15 years ago. Now that is not normal, normally it would've evolved a bit, but not in his case. Personnaly, I think what RMS did for the Free Software community is great, but I don't think he has rights to control people and projects like that. Seems like "If a project is GNU, the project belongs to RMS."
RMS: All your projects are belon to us!
Good. Down to -1 where this trash belongs.
You know, your post was just fine until that last comment.
Yes, Linux, just like everything else, has problems. It seems to me that those problems are those of a project that is very large and is not under the control of any one person/group/entity. This is fairly new territory for about everybody, and there are growing pains to be had.
Why is it that we expect everything to fall together like a well-crafted puzzle? What you have is a bunch of people putting the hardest and best effort, mostly for free, into something they want to see. Linux is a vision of what they want to see the world be like.
And so, because of these growing pains, there is no place for Linux? I doubt that highly. Every operating system contributes and learns something from the other OS's out there.
You posted AC, but I wonder if you yourself have contributed anything to Linux? Have you ever tried to find out why it crashes? Have you ever tried to create a program that produces what you want? You, sir (I assume) have missed the point. If you don't like it, get up, go to your computer, and help fix it. Don't sit and whine and hope to get moderated up pointing out issues that you could help fix.
Sometimes I wonder if Linux is the problem, or if it is misinformed lazy people like you that scare people away.
Random Musings
Excellent Troll.
So tell me if you implement bits and pieces to form your own Unix does that not become a Unix? Or are you implying that merging several ideas to form your own better tool is not acceptable. So you learn the way to do things on the new system.
Care to provide even anecdotal evidence for your claims about childish messages? How about that steep learning curve, gee wouldn't that apply to any Unix. A little thrashing when moving from one *nix to another is expectd. Anyways most Solaris admins I know just install the GNU toolchain as the first step of the setup process anyhow.
Anyone concerned about data redundancy/safety can use XFS now that it is stable, that argument too is now kind of pointless. Ever heard of consistent backups on top of all of this?
Frequent updates? Minus security updates what operating system does not have frequent updates, *cough* windows? Come on that is stretching it too. Most updates are too external from the kernel software which gets updated on all unices when the updates come out.... If it works dont mess with it tho right?
I am trying to find any reason or truth in your arguments and im coming up short. Any good Unix admin is going to cost you, and they can most surely handle any Unix or *nix like operating system. Go play back in the sand box now.
Jeremy
I'm sorry CmdrTaco but during the infamous KDE/Gnome flamefests you added way too much oil to the fire to be considered even remotely moderate on the issue of Free Software and the GPL. Don't try to make yourself look so objective and balanced when all the long toothed /. readers know exactly what your views on anything non GPLed are.
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
I'm pretty sure those of us who have met Stallman in person would agree wholeheartedly.
;)]
Despite the fact the cause has some degree of validity, the extremes which he takes it to regularly stomps on people's toes, and is generally antisocial.
I had the (mis?)fortune to meet him during one of his visits to Canberra, Australia - which, over lunch, he proceded to argue that our local Linux Users Group (CLUG) should rename itself to the Canberra GNU/Linux Users Group. This did not go down well.
Even though there are some fairly valid reasons as to why, its still fairly egotistical of him - did he ask for a consensus of all the developers releasing "GNU Software"? Does his own technical work make up a large slice of the GNU works used by linux? [No, Emacs does not count as a large slice, despite its footprint.
Just consider RMS as what he really is, a politican.
Seems to me like this developer dosnt feel he should have to 'answer' to anyone. In his rather flaming screed he stops to say "and I reserve the right of the final decision. ".
One cannot dicatate the terms to a project and treat any act of anyothers will, with regards to that project, as an afront on his unchallengeable-word. If he cannot deal with group decision making, than maybe (as he suggests) he can fork his code and stop receiving contributions. IF however, he wants to keep an open project, he must give some credit to other developers.
RMS may have, at some time, contributed some code to this project... he then deserves to have his voice heard. The majority rules in GNU/Linux and if this developer dosnt like it, again, he is simply invited to fork.
also... i do recognize that he began the porting project (as i learned in the article) - but once you accept patches you accept considering others opinion. Looks like this developer is a little upset at having someone (RMS) use his weight to challenge his fiefdom.
On a more ancillary note: His email was tremendously 'trollish' - his tone and demeanour would tell me that this person's ego had a LARGE part in his reaction to RMS... that tells more about hims own personality than it does RMS's.
GNU and the FSF are about a political and philisophical ideal.. and I am glad RMS defends those ideals endlessly. I am amazed by his tenacity and single-minded devotion to his alturist cause. Anyone who mistakes RMS as being a 'egotist' I believe is really simply incapable of understanding someone with this level of dedication, determination and self-lessness. People hear him demand the "GNU" and think its his ego, I bet he would rather not have to repeat himself over and over and over and just let it rest - but there are people who still dont understand exactly what libre software means... and RMSs adherence to that goal.
I hope I don't see any README files bitching about "give credit where credit is due" and not calling GNU&Linux (my variant which is a bit more descriptive imo) by a name which gives credit to the GNU developers (not the FSF developers but anyone who releases their code under the GPL).
On the other hand, does the name of XMMS give credit to the mpg123 developers? There are plenty of projects which repackage other GNU software without giving credit in the name. Does the GNU licensing give enough credit? I really don't think so, but demanding that the name of every project incorporated is not the answer either. Mozilla/XPCom/Bugzilla/Talkback/etc.
--Drew Vogel
"People have asked my opinion, and I'll just leave it by saying I don't prefix "Linux" with those 3 little letters and a slash even tho I've been asked."
Never mind that when I purchase or download a Linux version 70% or more of the included software is GNU. Right?
Wow, Rob. Colour me surprised
If you want to boot to a good OS for free in all it's connotations try the Linux kernel. If you wish to also be productive, your almost certain to be using GNU software. And even if you aren't, chances are that your kernel was compiled by the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC). Linux sans GNU ? Please at least try to be serious.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Wouldn't it be an idea to put the Linux kernel, and 'surrounding' stuff (in the context of linux and it's distributions) under a BSD license?
:), but on the other hand, it would be really free for any one. Much like public domain, but you get the credit and you would still have a lot of developers working on the stuff, like it is now. Apache, X, the BSD's and lots more big good projects use the BSD license and they don't seem to have a problem with it.
:)
I know a little about what the pro's and con's of several free software licenses are, and - at least in my humble opinion - a BSD license would be more free that the GPL.
Personally with free I mean it as in:
free beer
free speach
free of 'socialistic' (in the Russia, 1917, meaning of the word) leadership
A BSD license would allow a company to extend your code without contributing it back. It would allow the code to be used in baby shredding machines (just to talk in Theo de Raadt's style
This is really stuff for more discussion, also outside Slashdot (stories with their comments only live that long). It's just a thought.
PS: don't take the baby shredder too seriously, it's just to make a point
often when people discuss about "linux vs microsoft" they see it as just a discussion on technical merits. they do not understand that what it is all about is a matter of freedom. so here it helps to introduce the GNU philosophy. by calling it GNU/linux the important part of the whole thing is much more visible. after all: if it where only for technical merits we could use just about any other unix as well in many cases..
linux is an excelent unix. but so are *BSDs and so is solaris..etc.. what is the important part, the part that has the power to change our world to be a better place is that the linux kernel and most utilities are under the GPL. this is what changes our world. not the technical merits of it.
greetings from europe. der mond.
I hate moderates. They have no vision and no conviction. They go where the wind blows. You can never count on them when the shit hits the fan.
RMS is a man I can trust. He sticks to his ideals no matter what, and he has vision. I hope he never falls prey to apathy like moderates do.
That's right. You can:
1. burn them with fire
2. spray them with water
and you are obviously not an experienced troll spotter....
Collecting data is only the first step toward wisdom. But sharing data is the first step toward community
There are other open source C compilers on the horizon (watcom), so linux won't be dependant on any particular "GNU" compiler.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
The GNU project has done a bit more than do "background work". Think of GNOME, bash, all the Unix utilities, or even Emacs. Not to mention all the development stuff, in particular the GNU compiler, which is not at all "background" if you develop software.
And of course FedEx didn't create the Super Bowl, while it is questionable whether Linux, or indeed much of the free software movement, would have existed without Stallman and the GNU project.
The LGPL does not try to force anyone to use any GNU/whatever naming conventions. The excerpt from the license that is in the release notes is from the LGPL's preamble, it does not require any LGPL project to include GNU in its name, nor does it require Linux vendors to rename their products.
The glibc's release notes unfortunately don't mention what exactly RMS reqeusted, other than "control". "Control" is a very vague term. What kind of unacceptable changes did he ask for?
Also, the "or any later version" provision of the (L)GPL does not allow RMS to "to screw you when it pleases him", because the license explicitly states that "Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version."
I consider the release notes FUD until someone can present me some very convincing facts.
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
Considering RMS is the subject of the discussion, not one of the conversants, it is not even vaguely ad hominem. Maybe if you'd learned the phrase somewhere other than slashdot, you'd actually be able to use it properly.
says who?? It's not in the GPL. He can do anything he wants to do. It would be a nice gesture sure, I don't see anything inherently wrong with that.
The majority of the Linux community has not embraced naming Linux GNU/Linux for whatever reasons. So why can't RMS and his sheep respect that and let the issue die? You say majority rules right??
Apparently it only matters when the outcome is in their favor.
.
This is what happens when anyone envisions a society. They find that their design must be enforced, or the vision will fracture, evolve, and maybe die. This is a consequence of a society, and of organic systems in general. Of course, the society is more powerful than the creator, and the society will eventually win. No amount of force can constrain the society to the model indefinitely.
The vision Stallman has will not be reality, no matter how much Stallman kicks and screams. He created something wonderful, but now that other people are involved, it is something else than what he originally envisioned and he is fighting that. He can't fight it forever. It is not his anymore.
"a properly maintained Unix or Linux system requires far less maintenance than Windos NT"
Exactly. Properly maintaining a linux box takes more time than maintaining a windows box (cf download; patch; configure; make; hup; make install for _every_ skript kiddie vulnerability du jour for the 2000 apps in the average distribution, vs downloading and installing a hotfix/service pack).
"but that does not always mean that you have to run out and install every update."
It does if you want to remain employed...
"But I could imagine that a PS2 wrapper that supports some standard interface used on other machines might make SONY extremely unhappy, because of encouraging people to write their software portably instead of writing it specifically for the PS2. Making them unhappy seems like a good thing given the circumstances."
WTF!? Closed implementations are bad, but if it pisses a commercial developer off it's OK? All in all I think he is right though, people DO confuse "Open Source" and "Free Software". It's a good thing for RMS to, I realize this is going to be marked as flamebait, but I think if people knew what a bigot RMS was, they would be much less likely to support "Free Software".
And thank-you btw CmdrTaco for using "Linux" and not "GNU/Linux".
I demand that you modify your ASCII art to the appropriate form, namely:
:)
GNU/LINUX
SUCKS!
I really didn't want to get into this discusion. But hey, I did!
RMS
Alright, this looks like a troll, but what the heck, it's time to try out the new improved Slashdot.
One of them is keeping every part of "GNU/Linux" as cheap as possible. This is really necessary, if you look at the facts:
Necessary to whom?
If you put Linux next to some other operating systems out there for a cost comparison, the conclusions are devastating for Linux.
By "some other operating systems", are you including the likes of Windows NT? Mac OS? Or just other UNIX variants like FreeBSD or Solaris? Are you referring to servers or desktop machines? Do you have any numbers to back up your claim?
Linux costs not only more because of the frequent updates which require new cdrom's to be bought if you don't have a high speed Internet connection.
What frequent updates are you talking about? Security patches? I certainly hope you're not suggesting that a system administrator using ANY operating system not keep up to date on security patches. After all, look at Code Red - the patch has been available for months, but there are still infected machines spreading the worm to this day. If you're suggesting that an update is required every time anyone releases a new version of something, you're out of your mind.
Another factor in Linux cost is its maintenance. Linux requires a *lot* of maintenance, work doable only by the relatively few high-paid Linux administrators that put themselves - of course willingly - at a great place in the market. Linux seems to be needing maintenance continuously.
My experience has been quite the opposite. Some initial setup work is certainly required, but once you've got everything configured, it stays the way you left it. Linux is comparable to other UNIX variants in this regard - quite a contrast from Windows, which generally needs constant babysitting.
Add to this the cost of loss of data. Linux' native file system, EXT2FS, is known to lose data like a firehose loses water, when the file system isn't unmounted properly. Other unix file systems are much more tolerant towards unexpected crashes. An example is the FreeBSD file system, which with soft updates enabled, performance-wise blows EXT2FS out of the water, and doesn't have the negative drawback of extreme data loss in case of a system breakdown.
I really can't comment on this; perhaps someone else will shed some light. It should be noted, however, that FreeBSD uses the UFS filesystem, as do many other BSD variants including (optionally) Mac OS X.
Factor in also the fact that crashes happen much more often on Linux than on other unices. On other unices, crashes usually are caused by external sources like power outages. Crashes in Linux are a regular thing, and nobody seems to know what causes them, internally.
A regular thing? I don't believe I've ever seen a crash on a Linux box that couldn't be attributed to outside influences or hardware failure (note to self: when hot-plugging SCSI drives, take care that you plug the power connector in straight, and don't inadvertently touch a hot connector to ground). If you've had regular crashes under Linux, maybe you have flakey hardware, or maybe your distribution has made buggy modifications (*cough*RedHat?*cough*), or maybe you are simply incompetent.
The steep learning curve compared to about any other operating system out there is a major factor in Linux' cost. The system is a mix of features from all kinds of unices, but not one of them is implemented right. A Linux user has to live with badly coded tools which have low performance, mangle data seemingly at random and are not in line with their specification. On top of that a lot of them spit out the most childish and unprofessional messages, indicating that they were created by 14-year olds with too much time, no talent and a bad attitude.
I've noticed that most people who think Linux has a steep learning curve are those who already have previous experience with another system, and are forced to unlearn years of habit. To me, configuring Apache is a cinch, but put me in front of IIS and I don't know where to begin. Slackware seems pretty logical to me, but many things in SunOS feel backwards and strange. If you're referring to desktop systems, I've seen several people with no prior Linux experience sit down in front of KDE and feel fairly comfortable immediately.
Again you mention random data corruption - I have to question both your hardware and your software, since I have not heard of this being a common problem. Childish and unprofessional? Sometimes I believe a personal touch is appropriate, but perhaps you could provide some examples?
I can go on and on and on, but the message is clear. In this world, there is no place for Linux. It's not an option for any one who seeks a professional OS with high performance, scalability, stability, adherence to standards, etc. The best place it should ever reach is the toy store, and even that would be flattering.
You, sir, are a troll. I'm not denying that other OSes may be better suited to certain tasks, but Linux suits me just fine for now.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
says who?? It's not in the GPL. He can do anything he wants to do
Did you read the article? RMS asked a group of major contributors to change something, some agreed some disagreed - this person cannot act as if the project (the collection of GPLed code) is his to stear alone... if *EVERY* other developer had agreed w/ RMS, and they forked, would this developer be crying 'foul' now about his work being lead in a direction he didnt agree with? You bet he would.
why can't RMS and his sheep respect that and let the issue die? You say majority rules right??
and RMS is welcome to continue to argue *for* GNU/Linux... whats your issue?
I'm sorry CmdrTaco but during the infamous KDE/Gnome flamefests you added way too much oil to the fire to be considered even remotely moderate on the issue of Free Software and the GPL.
/., he remains moderate on the issue, simply stating his opinion in a manner that it is obviously seperated from the story.
/. readers complain about on an almost daily basis? Just because he happens to have strong opinions doesn't mean that he can't post a news story on the subject. It's not hypocrisy at all.
So during discussions about the FSF, GPL, etc., CmdrTaco expressed his opinion in a matter-of-fact way. Now, when presenting a story that goes on the main page of
Wait, what's the problem? Did you want him to write a 300-word diatribe at the top of the article vehemently expressing his strong beliefs on the subject? Isn't this what we as
-- "Complacency is a far more dangerous attitude than outrage." -Naomi Littlebear
"Falun Gong protesters have been subjected to a carckdown in China" - CNN
Truth
Maybe we should have a poll about this just to kinde see what ppl are thinking about this
42
Listen to what you are saying now. In a collaborative effort, you listen to what people want. Perhaps the developer in question was just did not understand what open collaboration means?
Ulrich is actually a pretty staunch defender of software freedom. I think this is a political and personality conflict, more than a difference in ideology.
But then, Ulrich is quite inscrutable, so I don't claim to speak for him.
The evaluation of an action as 'practical' . . . depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.
I've heard the comparison before, I forget where but perhaps it was with ESR, between the sociosphere of software development and an acetylene molecule. Basically, acetylene is two carbon atoms with a triple bond between them, each of which has a hydrogen atom single bonded off the opposite side. Like so: H-C#C-H (pretend the # is a triple bond).
Here's the comparison: Stallman and Gates are the hydrogen atoms, the little guys at the opposite ends of the molecule. House Open Source and House Proprietary are the carbon atoms, triple bonded to each other and single bonded to their respective zealots.
The vast majority of the energy in an acetylene molecule is in that triple bond between the carbon atoms. So it would seem that the vast majority of the energy in the software universe is in the bond between open source and proprietary camps, that is, in the individual developers who might work for the proprietary side and go home to the open source side. The hydrogen atoms really don't have much of an impact on the molecule until one or both goes flying off in some other direction. At that point, the molecule has to rearrange itself and usually ends up dispensing with all that energy in the triple bond in the form of an explosion. With Gates espousing Shared Source and Stallman making a power grab, I guess that explosion is due any day now.
When acetylene combusts, two acetylene molecules ideally combine with three oxygen molecules to form two carbon dioxide molecules and one water. Let's assume that oxygen, in this little chemical analogy, represents lawyers....
I'm sure you can take it from there.
I like to play children's songs in minor keys.
"We're all sons of bitches now." --J. Robert Oppenheimer
We are the same people that us IANAL, IOW, OTOH, IMHO ,etc. We are *NIX people and are "lazy" by default, so if we don't have to type "GNU/" to get our point across, we won't. No disrespect, but it's easier to type, and it also rolls off the tounge a little more smoothly. It's akin to insisting that the dining hall at school be called "Anderson Common" when everyone does, and always will call it "SAGA"
Comments should be like skirts. Short enough to keep your attention, but long enough to cover the subject
Just out of curiosity, are there any movements out there to rewrite all the GNU tools? I would think there would be a lot of people in favor of something, with all the pro-BSD license folks, and just people who generally think that having one, let say, socially challenged guy in charge of a lot of software is a bad idea.
It could even be GPL (although I think the BSD license is "freer"), but to tell you the truth, I think there would be a lot of benefit of moving beyond the FSF. To quote the movie Lawrence of Arabia:
Feisal: The world is delighted at the picture of Damascus liberated by the Arab army.
Allenby: Led, may I remind you, sir, by a British-serving officer.
Feisal: Ah yes. But then Aurens [Lawrence] is a sword with two edges. We are equally glad to be rid of him, are we not?
Allenby: I thought I was a hard man, sir.
It's almost always better when revolutionaries die in the revolution.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
It's stupid, and probably a bit too confusing for some people. simple as that.
Comments should be like skirts. Short enough to keep your attention, but long enough to cover the subject
I'm NOT complaining about the story being posted per se. I just didn't like that very last paragraph. What I'm complaining about is CmdrTaco trying to paint himself as a balanced observer when we all know that he's as big a FSF/GPL zealot as they get.
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
If you spell it out... GNULINUX and say it phonetically correct, you get...
NUL LIN UX
Unless you are a retard. In which case you would say the GNU part in the correct (but incorrect by english rules way)
G NUL LIN UX.
We could drop the NUL, for reasons I could poke Pun at but refues to do so. Also it would make it shorter.
G LIN UX
The G and the LIN sound better if you remove the space. Since UX sounds so much like SUX and FUX (not to mention, TRUX and DUX, though both are irrelevent to this direction of thinking), we will drop the UX which leaves us with...
GLIN
Since many Linux people feel the Kernal is more important than everything else, we could move the G to the end.
LING
These changes may seem a bit extreme, but I think if people give them some thought they would see that it's actually more sensible than this whole GNU/LINUX thing.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
That's all well and fine, but even if all Linux distributions stopped 'shipping' with all GNU software today, GNU remains inextricably entwined in the Linux story. Nothing will ever change that, at least for this thread of the space-time continuum.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
I don't think Stallman does much on mere impulse and you should all know that by now. GNU didn't get where it is today by sheer chance. Take a deep breathe and think things over before flinging insults.
How? Why?
Because you say so? I think I'll reserve judgement until I hear something more than "He just is, okay!"
Aha! So that's what it's all about. I find it surprising that someone working on "the GNU C library" as it's called in these release notes, should take exception to the idea that it's supposed to be a part of the GNU operating system.
Calling the operating system GNU/Linux, GNU/Hurd or whatever is not egotism (or not just egotism, anyway). It's an accurate description of what the system is. Look at, for instance, reviews calling openUNIX "Linux without Linux". That just sounds absurd, unless you know that the first "Linux" actually means "GNU".
Does not play well with others. End of story.
because RMS is the sole contributor to GNU software and to Linux.
thanks you rabid RMS fan
7:44pm up 233 days, 16:20, 3 users, load average: 0.35, 0.42, 0.38
Desktop Workstation used for about 10 hours/day doing development and playing quake2 at lunch.. Thanks, but try again pal.
I can't reach it today.
When first reading the GPL (which has a similar clause) my first reaction was I wanted to rip this out too.
However, as I realised later, this creates a new problem: if a bug in the version of the (L)GPL that I'm using for my program is ever discovered, I will have to get permission from anyone who has ever contributed to upgrade to a newer version of the (L)GPL that fixes the bug. This would probably be at least a major hassle and at worst impossible.
A way around this problem would be to add-in my own section that grants the original developer(s) the exclusive right to upgrade the license, but then, I'm not a lawyer, so this would be hard, and it still puts the power to upgrade the license into the hands of a select few, albeit this select few would now include me.
So I decided to leave the clause in for lack of a better alternative.
If there is hope, it lies in the trolls.
we all know that he's as big a FSF/GPL zealot as they get.
I'm necessarily defending Taco, but it does say something that he doesn't use the idiotic "GNU/Linux" tag. At the very least, he could be a bigger> FSF/GPL zealot. :)
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
You have obviously not followed how decisions are taken in successful open source projects.
To make things work, you need one or a few people who take the final decisions. Democracy is simply *not* the way to develop quality software.
... but also make sure you refer to Microsoft BSD/Windows.
Giving credit where credit is due is one thing, but trying to give everyone credit in the name is just going to lead to horribly long names.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
duh it says "at your option" meaning it's YOUR option to relicense it. Not RMSes. If you project is under the control of a steering commitee then it's at THIER option. No where does it say at RMS option, mmmkay.
Found this interesting entry in Miguel de Icaza's weblog - http://primates.ximian.com/~miguel/activity-log.ht ml, dated Jul'28th -
I talked to Don Becker about GNU/Linux, and he had an interesting story to tell. Back in the day when he was at MIT and was an active contributor to gcc, he tried to get RMS to support Linux. RMS' answer back in the day went along the lines of `Linux is a waste of time, work on the Hurd instead, it is the future'.
An interesting twist to the Linux vs GNU/Linux debate.
Seems to confirm what RMS told Drepper. He seems to want it both ways . More developers need to come forward with their experiences - they will be doing the community a service.
I am of the people who say "We should call it Xfree86/BSD/GNU/Linux then." (add KDE, Apache and a few more), because Linux_kernel+GNU_tools alone would be useless for the vast majority of */Linux/* users. And the work of a lot more developers is ignored when calling the whole stuff GNU/Linux.
... it is fine when thought of as "the kernel of a GNU/Linux distribution", but there will be people to believe that the Linux kernel is a GNU project.
:)
I don't agree with "GNU and Linux represent the core that is needed". I work in embedded systems, it is perfectly possible to have working and useful systems based on a Linux kernel, without any bit of GNU run-time software.
I especially hate the fact that this confusion led to some people naming Linux-the-kernel the "GNU/Linux kernel"
So, how should YOU call your system-featuring-a-Linux-kernel-and-GNU-code ? Simple:
Got a Slack ? Name it "Slackware Linux"
a RedHat ? that's a "RedHat Linux"
a Mandrake ? what about "Linux-Mandrake"
a SuSE ? "SuSE Linux" looks nice
a Debian ? "Debian GNU/Linux".
And now, how should your */Linux/* distributor name its stuff ? Hint: the Debian project got it right. Mandrake is halfway to the light (their site mention their system as a GNU/Linux system). Others should really fear RMS assaults
(btw I told that to RMS last year. I got some pissed-of replies and I was not sure he understood my point - but he made his point of view a bit clearer since then, so there is hope)
My opinion is that software is more useful when it is non-propietary. I think, in a sense, that this makes people somewhat more free (to do what they wish with the software).
I don't really agree with the Open Source concept. The concept, as I understand it, is that software should be non-propietary just because it makes the software less buggy and allows the Open Source Development Model.
However, this means there is no reason to give free use to small software. I am learning how to program and I like to see small examples of software to learn from and eventually use in my own software. This is kind of like freedom but not exactly (and the FSF has repeatedly said that freedom isn't a completely satisfactory word but there isn't anything better).
Now, what this has to do with RMS--I have no idea. For the reasons above, I support most of the views on www.gnu.org/philosophy/ . And my views are independent of RMS and anyone else---its just that we happen to agree.
There is some wishful thinking on my part. The first is that there is a GNU without RMS. It seems almost all of the pages on gnu.org are authored by RMS. I would like to think there is at least some kind of democracy at work within the GNU community and the FSF to balance against natural human limitations (like ego and fanatism).
But even if RMS is as bad as some say--it doesn't change my view. I would be for the development of a new free software organization if necessary. But already GNU is big in the hearts and minds of the free software community.
Hmm ... that would be like using someone elses slashdot account because they didnt log out on a public computer ...
... but nah...
and his desc says he likes masquarading as a hacker too...
hmm I could use the +1
Wonder if he will be more careful next time...
Classical Liberalism: All your base are belong to you.
Could RMS really be L. Bob Rife from Snow Crash?
Hmm.
Though not in words like "raging maniac" and such, Ulrich apparently does not like wat Linus is doing with the Linux kernel as well.
Although I admire all the time and devotion Ulrich spends in developing glibc, and it is obviously clear that he cares very much for his project, it seems to me Ulrich sounds like a paranoid, obsessed with a man who he thinks is threatening him and trying to take over his project.
However, glibc is GPL'd. That means RMS, or I, or anybody else can take over, fork, do whatever we please with glibc. The only thing we cannot do ist take away this freedom from other users or developers.
I'm happy to believe that Stallman can be difficult to work with or to converse with. But over the course of twenty years or more, the only thing he has done is produce free software, persuade others to produce free software, and strive to create a world where everybody can use free software. I see no harm in that.
Subject: glibc 2.2.4
From: Ulrich Drepper
Date: 15 Aug 2001 22:09:23 -0700
Release 2.2.4 of the GNU C library is now available at ftp://sources.redhat.com/pub/glibc/releases
[end quote]
I can't make much out of Drepper's accusations. What exactly is supposed to have happened? And what is so different about the LGPL 2.1 that Drepper does not like?
LGPL 2.0 or LGPL 2.1
Both versions have the "any later version" clause. Is it only that ver. 2.1 mentions the term Gnu/Linux? But it's only used there as an example, nothing legaly requires you to follow that example. Does Drepper now wish that the GNU libc library could be re-named to the Linux libc library, or what? Why did he originally license it under a GNU license in the first place? Or did he? Who originally named it the Gnu libc? What is the history of glibc?
Has anyone seen or heard or read anything that backs up these claims?
You know that episode of Star Trek (the original series) where the Enterprise crew and a bunch of Klingons are battling it out on board the Enterprise? Through a suspicious sequence of circumstances, events are set up just so that their fight is prolonged, and no one quite gets the upper hand. Eventually Kirk gets an inkling of what is going on. An evil glowing alien entity has been manipulating them, and drawing energy from their discord.
Well, I have come to a similar realization myself. We all are in the same situation. In this case, the evil glowing alien is none other than... CmdrTaco himself.
Don't believe me? Just look at the stories he's posted today. He's made today into the most outrageous troll day yet.
Believe me, this is not about naming schemes... the previous poster was right: its about control.
I think that Drepper may have acted inappropriately... but maybe he was trying to call attention to something that is seriously wrong.
See, I don't know what Stallman is trying to achieve... but if it was anything like altruism and freedom... then he wouldn't be so damn pushy. Look-- Linus isn't really the one who names the system.... we are! Linux is the system name because we choose to call it that. If we preferred, we would call it a GNU system... but too many of us get that uneasy feeling when RMS says-- "don't call it what you wnat, put my name on it!" (ie GNU/Linux = Stallmanix). It just makes me uncomfortable when a guy ONLY likes free software if its through the FSF and gnu.org... (ie, Stallman's kingdom).
Both Linus Torvalds and Ulrich Drepper has commented on the "or any later version" stuff. Linus has explicitly said that the kernel code is licensed under GNU GPL version 2, _not_ any later version. He did this when rumors started about a GPL version 3 with unknown changes.
Remember that the "spirit" of the GPL is the spirit that wants to rid the world os all any commercial software. Not every programmer who releases software under the (L)GPL licences wants this equally badly.
How about Lignux?
ps. Stallman is a pompous, egotistical git. And I would know, because I'm one too.
:wq
When Mr. Drepper writes
He ignores the significant phrase at your option
I doubt any of us really know the full details of the spat, but it is bad form to rip out a blast like this in the release notes. Further, it looks like the hostile takeover is by Drepper... not the original creator of the code.
Louis
GNU remains inextricably entwined in the Linux story
Only because Linus placed linux under the GNU licensing scheme. That was Linus' decision, not RMS. Granted, GNU has played a large role, but evidently not enough of a large role for everybody to stop calling it "linux" and start calling it "gnu/linux"
I think that it could be argued that without "linux", GNU tools would be backwater and little used. So it would be safe to say that "linux" has done more to shape people's image of "GNU" than the other way around. Maybe that's why everybody thinks of it as "linux" intead of "GNU/Linux".
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
A more complete version of the tale can be found in the Contributors file in the ispell distribution. That narration bends over backwards to avoid starting a flame war, so it is quite generous in describing Stallman's actions. But I haven't forgotten his attempts to trick the general public into doing what he wanted (which continue to this day), nor the generally rude way in which he behaved.
To quote:
--
Make mine methylphenidate.
So don't be so quick to criticize. After all, you're supposed to stand on the shoulders of giants, not bite their ankles. And love him or hate him, Stallman is a giant.
Essentially some wording that postures Linux as
an *alternative* to what the GNU project considers
it's 'main' thrust, Hurd? And this fellow didn't
manage to win over enough support within the
glibc project to stop a wording change?
Admittedly, RMS's obsession with this wordplay
seems to me to be unwise (it'd be better if he'd
focus on keeping the movement ideologically pure
rather than focusing on diction), but this fellow
doesn't strike me as being any more wise.
Posturing and replies to it are a waste of time --
where there are no actual effects on the way
things are run, it's better to just ignore such
things and spend that time coding, fighting
intellectual property, and other worthwhile causes.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
...remind me of my favorite line:
Everyone is entitled to my opinion.
It makes deleting comments easier. In old times, if there had been a story without a #1 comment, or even #2 or #3, it would have been obvious something was deleted. With the new system, it will be much easier for people like michael to delete what they don't like without anybody noticing.
Can't anyone see that this is just an issue of one being easier to say/catchier than the other?
I mean really, think of movies for a moment: How often do directors stick their name at the start of a title? Pretty damn often if you think about it. Steven Spielberg's this-and-that, John Carpenter's this-and-that, such-and-such, a film by James Cameron.
Ever notice how often people actually include that byline while actually talking about the movie?
Oh, just about never, maybe?
It has nothing to do with credit, it has everything to do with the name. It is simply much easier to say one word and refer to a system than to include every developer who had a hand in it in the name. Yes, I realize that the FSF put a lot of work into free operating systems, yes I realize that the OS referred to as "Linux" is comprised of much more FSF software than Linus-written software, but here's the clue train: "Linux" caught on as a name. "Linux" is going to stick. Period. It doesn't help that "The GNU Project" is just a patently stupid name, the general public doesn't appreciate the subtle geek humor in a recursive acronym (oh, wait, I don't either), nevermind the people who insist on pronouncing the hard "G" in every GNU program. It just sounds stupid. And where do you draw the line? What if I use KDE as my primary interface system... GUI is a pretty damn important thing these days, should it now become GNU/KDE/vim/Mozilla/Linux?
That's one thing Microsoft has down better than anyone else. The company is "Microsoft", the OS is "Windows", the version is (insert year here, for most recent products.. I do think "XP" is a mistake, but whatever). Very simple. Very easy to say.
It has nothing to do with credit. Another blow by the clue train for the ego-driven: most people don't give two flying steamed elephant turds who worked on their software, and if they DO care, chances are good that they have enough common sense to know that that Linus guy didn't write millions of lines of code by himself.
Just drop this stupid debate. The mainstream media/populace will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever refer to it as GNU/Linux. Ever. Ever. As in, ever. Never ever. Learn when to just accept "defeat" (if a simple name is really that big an issue to be called a defeat) and stop beating the dead horse. It's becoming tiring to watch.
"Linux" caught on. "Linux" is a good name, easy to say, recognizable, and simple. "Linux" is how it is going to stay.
You forgetting that the middle lies between right and wrong. Whichever end is right, the middle isn't. If your in the middle, the mainstream, then your part of the group that voted for Bush, or voted for Gore becuase "he was the lesser evil."
The lesser of two evils... is still evil.
yet another holy war. I see something big blowing up soon between the elders and I think we'll all be stuck in the middle. I vote that we all just call it "the system" or 1TS (one true system) or something even more generic like OS and just shut up about the rest. I'm not posting on this topic anymore. its getting old. and the elders are starting to act like toddlers. from hereon that is how I shall refer to them. RMS, ESR, O'reilly, and all the rest are heretofore to be known as the toddlers. I'm over this. its fscking stupid. hackers get way to caught up in these holy wars. we need to grow up and get over it.
-
To whoever accused the phrase "final say" as dictatorial, in a large software project someone HAS to have final say or the project will never move forwards. I think one of the key points is that if he is doing it out of love then no-one has the right to appoint himself his 'boss' and tell him how to run his hobby. I have never met RMS, but he never seems to amaze me in the way he finds the energy to persue both worthy and lost causes like a terrier. Nobody is going to say GNU/Linux. Ever. Why can't he instead channel that energy into his political career?
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
I really admire RMS, but I have to say, he does go off the deep end to the point that he may be doing more to HURT the FSF than help it.
I understand that free software is as much a political movement as it is an idea for better software. However, RMS seems to be HOSTILE to those who don't make the same choices he does. Freedom to me, means, that, freedom. It's about having the freedom to make good or bad choices.
The KDE controversy, and this takeover attempt on GLIBC etc, makes him look more like a raving lunatic, and by extension, makes ALL of us who support the principle of the GPL and open source look the same. Why? Because Stallman proclaims himself the leader of the whole movement whenever asked, or not asked.
While I have tremendous respect for the man, and his philospohy, his despotic style runs contrary to the whole anarchistic nature of free software. RMS needs to realize that not EVERYTHING needs to be called "GNU/".
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
Who the F moderated this as "Interesting?" This is clearly "Flamebait."
I regularly moderate here on Slashdot, and I'm getting real sick of seeing comments like this. And yes, I mod down comments like this one. Don't like the way I moderated something? Wait til you get mod points yourself, and do whatever the heck you want with them.
Imagine their war room--one whole wall is a giant whiteboard, filled with a huge grid. Each week a top PR droid goes over and picks a blank cell. They make a few phone calls, and by the end of the week Eris has drawn a little golden apple in the cell.
I'll bet someone is on the phone right now, trying to get Ransome Love to say something ill-advised about fetchmail.
-- MarkusQ
The main problem with communism and free software is that, in order to get get to the blissful anarchy that Marx promises, you need a period of totalitarian management to restructure from the existing system to the new one. Unfortunately, absolute power corrupts asolutely, and you're stuck with a totalitarian system that doesn't want to give up.
This really rears its ugly head when the philosophy starts to expand. As both communism and free software started to catch on, the bigger proponents of the philosophy would rather expand the power of their own totalitarian regimes rather than help establish autonomous regimes. In the eyes of Moscow, for example, the Ukraine Socialist Republic was good, but the Ukraine Soviet Socialist Republic was better (it wasn't until later that they learned of the advantages of puppet states). And the same is true with the GNU: Instead of presenting themselves and their liscencing scheme as one out of a list of alternatives, they'd rather all free software be written under the GPL.
Fortunately, when all is said and done, we're talking about an operating system and not a system of government. No matter how much people like Stallman bitch and moan, dissenting voices never have to worry about the GNU/KGB descending upon them and the Coders' Army won't send in the tanks to prevent code forking. So when all is said and done, short of brainwashing, people are still perfectly capable of making up their own mind about what they want to write or run, Which is good, because I find some GNU tools to be a pain to learn...
At any rate, in the game of Axis & Allies that is the OS war, we'll call Microsoft facist Germany, GNU will be the Soviet Union, and for the role of the political moderates (relatively speaking), we have corporations like IBM and RedHat as the US and the UK. Now all we need is somebody to play Japan...
Oh, yeah, Apple. Duh...
And it has nothing to do with politics. Mozilla won't stay up and running when a textbox is active (e.g., /.'s comment area), so I won't try and find a specific URL. Just search the gcc archives over the last two or three months for glibc. It's not a huge problem. Just quite techincal.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
So what exactly did Stallman do? I see no facts. I see alot of name calling though. Anyone know what Stallman actually did to piss of this little crybaby?
OK, now I'm thinking about using that Hell March tune from the game as the start-up sound in Gnome...
This is like Sun forcing developers to name all Java applications Java*** because they are compiled and run with Java tools... or getting pissed off because you wrote a distributed application server in Java before they got around to it.
Stallman didn't manage to finish his kernel due to a lack of pragmatism. He did help get some decent tools built, though. Any by his very license we can use them to build any damn thing we want and call it anything we want as well.
You don't see him bitching about the 99.9999% of other applications built on GNU tools not being called GNU***.
The Hurd will never go anywhere unless it implements a decent Linux interface. That chaps his ass so hard he can barely breath.
Reverse Engineer the GNU utilities! Call it the Linux Utilities. Then you will have to call Linux Linux/Linux.
RMS can rightly claim to be the parent of the FSF/GNU movement.
However, the Linux/Linus prodigy has taken the spotlight. (Do your own survey: Who's heard of GNU/RMS; who's heard of Linux/Linus?)
Your children have outgrown you RMS; let them go. Be proud, not envious, of their accomplishments.
I'm currently standing on the sidelines watching this debate, and at the same time attempting to choose a license for my first "open source" project. Making the decission is very hard for me, because once I had a friend who got burned by RMS and co for violating the gpl (linking to gnu libs). Anyways, I've narrowed down my choices to lgpl, or bsd. The bsd is too cold, the gpl is too hot, but nothing seems to be "just right". Is it possible to createa new license to replace the gnu as a drop-in replacment? Or is the fsf involvment/control really that deeply entenched into the gnu? I mean.... teh damn thing is so lengthy... who has time to read it anyways? Come to think of it, most of what I hear about the gnu is all rehtoric spread by a zelot troll. The author mentions that We should read the GNU, and yank out the parts that we don't like.... such as the parts that refer to any future versions of the gnu taking over the current versions of the license. Well, what if the gnu decided that a future version of the license were to force authors to append "gnu/" to the beggining of your code? Seems like a valid point, but then how far will the FSF support, and protect you for having editted their license in your favor? In fact it really wouldnt' be their license anymore would it? Besides, how ever elected RMS dictator of his own projecct. I mean look at the way he is inserting himself into the glibc project. Isn't it not time that we insert somebody else in place of stalman in his own gnu regime? Is this possible. I kown the regents in California don't seem to impose themselves as dictator of any given open source project under their license.
It isn't a lie if you belive it.
The test of a belief is not in whether they handle being popular, but whether they stand up to being opposed.
Anybody can work to be popular. It isn't difficult. You just have to change your mind every five minutes, and sway with every breeze. But it takes a VERY strong character to be UNpopular.
This is why I can respect Richard Stallman's views. I don't have to agree with every single one of his opinions, to understand that his honesty and openness are, alone, acheivements that very few people ever achieve. He is literally a one-in-a-million person.
Now we've dealt with the personal side, let's take a look at the actual argument itself - the hijacking of a GPLed program.
HOW THE HELL DO YOU HIJACK A FREE PROGRAM!
Sorry for the shout, but it's an important point. Once a program is GPLed, ANYBODY is entitled to produce their own version. If person A wants function A, and person B wants function B, then each is fully, legally, morally and GNUally entitled, empowered and ectoplasmed to produce their own versions.
Another GPLed package, the Linux kernel, has AT LEAST nine distinct versions. And That Is Good!!!
Yet another, the GCC package, has at least two variants (GCC/EGCS, and PGCC), but there are almost certainly more.
What does that leave us. X? Well, it's not technically GPLed, but it's not short of variants, either. XGGI, XFree86, the OSF tapes, the various "proprietary" versions, a couple of scratch implementations in JAVA, etc, etc.
My message to the GLIBC implementors is this: Cut the crap! If you want to go one way, then go that way! Just stop bitching about someone else going another! Release your own version, and let the best code win.
Of course, if you'd rather bitch than let the code decide, then don't expect respect in the long-term. Sure, you'll get "sympathy" now, because RMS makes a good target. But that'll fade. Then you'd better be damn sure you're on solid ground. And hot air ain't solid.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
He shows up at the Boston Computer Society
Linux and UNIX users group, and of course
demands that the group rename itself to the
GNU-slash-Linux users group.
Hmm, it seem like it was only a couple of years ago (maybe it was) that RMS admitted that he hadn't heard much about linux, then six months later he was asking everyone to put a gnu in front.
Maybe recent converts to linux will stop posting replies to any mention of the kernel that it should be prefixed with a gnu.
I'll say it again, the gnu operating system is called hurd. Calling linux a variant of this is a little odd. Also the linux kernel allows things like Nvidia's fine closed source graphics drivers to work with it, which appears to be the antithesis of RMS's personal philosophy. GNU tools are an essential part of working with linux, but in most cases X is as well. Although the number of MB that X takes up is enormously larger than the gnu tools on most linux boxes, no-one asks us to call it "Open Group/Linux".
I'd better get back to work, using gnu/NT4 (the cygwin tools do a lot on this box).
We built this Linux on
G-N-U
(What, no Jefferson Starship fans out there?)
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Well, OK, he did. He called it Freax!
That sucked, so the FTP site maintainer
at ftp.funet.fi changed the name.
bullsh*t we know what is afoot.
redmond and friends are muscling in.
old gnu-usenix guys know this. Of the vocal ones Stallman is one of the few who understands the importance of yelling Free free libre all the time.
a polished hurd will shortly be released and will eat every competitors lunch.
(sorry that shouda been GNU/HURD).
take it easy mit dem egoz
My opinion: It seems to me that when people comment on Slashdot about free software licensing, they often become sidetracked from the main issue.
The main issue is not whether Richard Stallman has personal failings! I have noticed that he sometimes becomes strained when, for the one-millionth time, people misunderstand the issues. But who cares about personal issues? We should be concerned about a particular type of world freedom, I think.
An example of the main issue, for me, is that if you use, or program for, Microsoft Windows, you are effectively a dog on Bill Gates' leash. Bill can do whatever he wants with you. He can refuse to support new hardware. He can decide that your copy of Windows is obsolete. He can decide that your old hardware is obsolete. He can, under the DMCA, remotely disable your entire OS. He can support U.S. spy agencies in a hidden way. He can avoid fixing bugs because he wants to save some so that you will be interested in buying a new release. Under the traditional system, one person has control over an entire world of software.
The GPL is a sophisticated way of avoiding being under the control of a dictator. That's where the word "freedom" counts the most. The GPL creates a brotherhood in the place of a dictatorship.
Robert Frost said in a famous poem, "Good fences make good neighbors." In this case, the extremely rigid and legally powerful fence of the GPL creates a worldwide brotherhood that no one can take away from us.
There are cases where rigidity in one area creates freedom where you want it. The GPL creates freedom where you want it, but only if it is rigidly followed.
A lot of people have a lot of pain over rules that were set for them in childhood. But not all rules are bad.
Bush's education improvements were
I suggest do not trust to RedHat's Ulrich
Drepper until RMS will tell his part of this
stupid story. RMS is not a communist, but people
who is saying so are stupid and I qualify them
as "Public Enemies"
Linus originally called his OS Freax.
Linux is a name given by the ftp.funet.fi
FTP site admin.
Pigdog journal coined this term during their interview with Stallman that I think describe him very accurately.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
RMS sent one of his lackeys to bug the procps
people (Michael K. Johnson and myself) about
making procps part of the GNU project. I got
all sorts of demands to trace where every bit
of code came from, and no offer of real help.
So I told him where he could stuff his lawyers.
This is classic PR strategy: label one position as extreme and position yourself as middle-of-the-road. In fact, these are simply a few different positions among a wide variety of possibilities; which one looks more extreme depends on where you happen to sit yourself. Let's please stop borrowing this propagandistic language and stick to the facts.
Now, what about this specific case? We don't really know RMS's position, but if RMS has more specific concerns, he should communicate them publically. For now, I think Ulrich's recommendation is a pretty good one: consider carefully whether you sign your projects over to the FSF, and consider deleting the "any later version" clause from the (L)GPL. For now, it looks to me like Ulrich is doing the right thing with glibc.
Granted, GNU has played a large role, but evidently not enough of a large role for everybody to stop calling it "linux" and start calling it "gnu/linux"
Hmmm, let's see. GNU provided: compilers, libraries, linkers, editors, shells, utilities and various other tools AND the GPL and LGPL free software licenses(which if you have ever involved in anything to do with law, you know it's f*cking expensive). In short, the FSF did all the work that no one else wanted to do and provided us all with everything we need to write and release Free Software. Furthermore, we can be assured that the FSF will always pursue Free Software and infringers of the GPL. Linus provided: some code.
Now I dare you to try and tell me with a straight face that GNU didn't play a large role in Linux's past, present and future(and every other Free Software project).
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
"Isn't it striking that people who claim to be members of a group advocating free thought and speech would be so anal and vitrolic about everyone who doesn't call Linux GNU/Linux?"
I get your point, BUT, its not that simple
For many years RMS was, if not the sole keeper of the "Open Software" (avoiding all the cliche and predefined terms) the "Atlas" upon whose shoulders the burden of making the case for open software and systems against ALL of IBM and the "BUNCH" (IBM and Burroughs, Univac, NCR, Control Data, Honeywell) all of whom would have done just about anything to keep their intellectual fiefdoms as closed as possible ***FOREVER***!
In those many years of intellectual and philosophical isloation, Stallman became a "Gadfly", as this is one way to further your case in the face of overwhelming opposition and resistance.
RMS could have cashed in at any point, and there is little doubt that had he done so, he could well be a billionaire today. Instead, he stuck with his passion and beliefs.
So, now a new generation comes along, with a new perspective on open software and systems.
RMS looks at us and must think "If only they knew how hard it was to keep the FSF idea alive. and they're "selling it out" for a few dollars!"
Yes, he can be autocratic, elitist and intolerant, and occasionally manipulative and Machiavellian, but he's like those Japanese soldiers from WWII, found in the jungles of the Phillipines and other South Pacific islands, who emerge in their 80's and 90's still fighting for Imperial Japan....
Their early experiences have so imprinted them, that they have become captives of conflicts fought and battles long over.
Let's give him our respect and compassion for all that he's accomplished in the past, (we wouldn't be here without him) and fight our own contemporary battles for the advancement of open software and systems, and leave him to his memories.
Let us not be distracted by distracting and nonproductive tautological discussions from another time and place.
Ten quid, she's so easy to blind. And not a word is spoken...
RMS has no right to dictate terms or to use a BS SC to usurp the seats of influence or any other means.
if he attempts this sort of thing again, it is the duty of the community to throw him out on his ass. but lets be a little forgiving, put him on parol, don't nail him to a cross.
RMS has done some really cool stuff for us, permit him the dignity of a second shot. thats the very least you can do for a comrad who has strayed from the flock.
where would we be with out the GPL? the GNU project? the FSF? or RMS?
I believe the TCP stack was a "Linux Original" I forget the name of the original guy who wrote it, he handed it off to somebody else, and eventually it got handed off to Alan Cox if I remember my Linux history correctly. In a recent book, it clearly stated they didn't take BSD's TCP stack because Bell Lab's was in the process of suing the BSD people.
They didn't want to risk any legal trouble. The TCP stack is what made it take so long to go from 0.95 to 1.0, and was much harder to get it right then anybody dreamed it would be. Have I got my history correct?
Kirby
Never mind that when I purchase or download a Linux version 70% or more of the included software is GNU. Right?
Being under the GPL is not the same as being GNU. I've written stuff and released it under the GPL and I'll be damned if anyone is going to tell me that the FSF deserves naming credit for my software.
NO CARRIER
RMS should try to take the resistance of the "GNU" label to heart and understand that it is not only the inconvenience of the burden he is demanding. Even if there isn't strong reason to believe or have faith in RMS, it's never a good idea to depend on one source for guidance. A varied concensus (a steering committee?) is usually a good thing. If the interpretation of the facts lead to a correct conclusion (that RMS actually attempted to coup that project) it shows a strong indication of a real problem in our midst. RMS's view cannot be the only or best view for all cases for all time.
Here's a prediction:
I'm not even bringing up issues of motivation and I'm not prepared to say that RMS is an evil bastard and must die. Let's face it, the community owes this one man a lot. However, the community doesn't owe him "everything" and especially not anything we are unwilling to give. After all, this *IS* still about free thought and expression. So, RMS, if they are unwilling to comform and you force it, aren't you encroaching on peoples' freedoms by enforcing rules that serve no other purpose than to assert your ego? (And believe me, putting GNU/ in front of everything cannot be construed any other way.) And please, don't give me any "greater good" nonsense because to me, taking the fire away from one person for the greater good makes everyone vulnerable to the same treatment in the future for the same reason.
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 3, August 2001
Copyright (C) 1989, 1991, 2001 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3. All programs using features of this software must have a name beginning
with Gnu.
4. Neither the name of the Free Software Foundation nor the names of
its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived
from this software without specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS''
AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE REGENTS OR CONTRIBUTORS
BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY,
OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF
SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN
CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)
ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
First, the leaders of a cause need to be extreme. RMS must make comments, and hold dear beliefs, that are not the same as the average persons' (users') beliefs. This must be, for you do not get people to change, without something that they must change to. The extreme position is necessary so that people will concede a more moderate position. This is done all the time. In Politics, someone will leak an exetreme position, see the reaction in the press, and instead go forward with a more moderate position, claiming the position was that of a staffer, and not of the politician.
:-)
Second, I do not seek to excuse any of RMS' behaviour. Even if we all feel that RMS is totally out of line, it is still RMS that must excuse himself -- if he feels that he needs to. It is the extreme position that RMS holds that both moves The Cause forward, and, at times, restrains progress. Let us hope that all parties involved can recognize when they are causing irreperable damage.
Third, if RMS were this much of a zealot, and a Mac user, who would notice?
...you'll just encourage the MacTards to get in here as well.
This old saying that goes WAY WAY back, but applies so perfectly here, as it usually does:
... absolutely!
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts,
If God gave us curiosity
This article is extremely one-sided. I think I'll wait until some impatial third party looks at what actually happened, or did not happen, before casting judgement on either side.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
this has been, and hopefully will continue to be, the most all-round entertaining Slashdot story (and comments)in recent times.
I've never liked this statement in the GPL:
... GNU Lesser General Public License as published by the Free
Software Foundation; either version 2.1 of the License, or (at your
option) any later version.
Now I see this statement actually LIMITS the author's freedom. That cannot be a good thing.And you wonder why Microsoft will roll right over your pansy asses? Or why Microsoft has a legitimate concern over the GPL?
for years but there is little interest due to the freeness of the GPL'd GCC compiler. It is not unlike X11 and its BSD-like license - why rewrite the X11 system if there already exists a "free enough" version?
Furthermore, we can be assured that the FSF will always pursue Free Software
t ml, dated Jul'28th -
Evidently it's not free enough that I can call the software that I use what I want (i.e. just "linux", not gnu/linux)
I stole this from post #2195302;
Found this interesting entry in Miguel de Icaza's weblog - http://primates.ximian.com/~miguel/activity-log.h
I talked to Don Becker about GNU/Linux, and he had an interesting story to tell. Back in the day when he was at MIT and was an active contributor to gcc, he tried to get RMS to support Linux. RMS' answer back in the day went along the lines of `Linux is a waste of time, work on the Hurd instead, it is the future'.
An interesting twist to the Linux vs GNU/Linux debate.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
So let me get this straight: some guy accuses RMS of "hostile takeover" of a *GNU* project. This guy makes some strong claims in his article. He uses terms like "conspiracy", "embrace and extend", "stab in the back", etc. Such extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... and he offers none. There are only two pieces of information in the article:
1) Steering Comittee was formed so that one person (the whining guy) does not have complete control over the project
2) glibc license was changed from LGPL 2.0 to LGPL 2.1.
And this is supposed to be bad how? How does that justify the claim that RMS is a "control freak"? Everything else in the article is pure rhetoric without even a shed of evidence.
People, please, before you do your usual "some guy good, RMS bad" knee-jerk reaction read the damn article and think. glibc is GNU libc, it is not a one man's project. It sounds to me like this guy is a control freak -- he started whining after he realized that other people have a say in the project development. So yeah, this entire article is a troll.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
While GNU products were around before Linux, it took Linux's populatity to give GNU popularity. The HURD has really only gotten anywhere because of Linux -- Debian. Linux needed GNU and GNU needed Linux.
Here's the deal. First guy codes something. Second guy wants to use a certian license. First guy doesn't like that idea, so second guy (rightfully) goes to first guys comrads and complains. First guy gets scared because he knows second guy could have a point, so first guy releases update log with slightly squewed information about the situation. First guy calls second guy a crazy control freak because second guy decides to express his opinion.
First guy then decides to become a BSD whore and make second guy look like a laughing stock. Second guy doesn't care.
Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves.
on the planet who hasn't contributed to what
is conveniently, if inaccurately, called "Linux" who doesn't know
what Gnu and the GPL is.
For ghod's sake, the Linux kernel itself was
and remains released under the GPL. You can't
take two steps through any decent software
these days before you run into the GPL copyleft.
Which is a good thing.
Richard: Please relax. Your beloved GPL
is bigger than it has ever been. Don't worry
that people confuse it with a penguin right now.
Sit back and enjoy the ride. In ten years it'll
look different, and in twenty years different again.
Let's say I decided to start a car company called "Daewoo". I purchased all the required parts - engines from Honda, tires from Firestone, lots of steel from US Steel, and robotic assembly machinery from Mitsubishi. Let's consider the activity of machining the steel and assembling the vehicle from its constituent parts "compilation" and the constituent parts themselves "libraries". Would the fact that the car would not be possible without Honda, Firestone, US Steel, and Mitsubishi neccessitate naming it HondaFirestoneUSSteelMitsubishi/Daewoo?
Such a scenario seems rather absurd, does it not ?
lets remember this is the same GNU that effectively abondoned gcc to the point that the project forked (egcs) in an attempt to bring the Linux community a reasonably up to date compiler.
What a fitting allusion; perhaps more so depending on how things play out.
From this report on C/Net, Richard Stallman, father of the GNU Free Software Project, was found dead, age 37 in his Liverpool apartment this morning. Cause of death is still unknown at this point but appears to have been massive coronary failure caused by obsesity and poor oral hygiene.
Sad news. :-( I'm only speculating here, but I wouldn't be surprised if stress didn't add to the conditions that killed him. I plan on getting away from my PC and getting in some exercise after reading this, however. Too many coders have been dying recently. ;-(
If you're going to call it GNU/Linux...
Might as well call windows what it is...
APPLE/Windows
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I was working on that one just now! Darn. I feel so......robbed. :) I'm gonna submit it (with your name) to RMS. He's gonna love this.
Frankly I'd rather deal with RMS' fanaticism than his opposition's apathetic, let's sell Linux out to proprietary interests (one piece at a time) attitude.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Why define an OS that way? It's just dumb. The OS at its most basic form is a command interpreter of some sort, which can be just a kernel. Why specify that an OS must contain libraries that can run C programs? Don't people use languages other than C? And how about straight assembly? If someone writes something that functions as an OS, but it doesn't have C libraries and must be coded for by other means, it's still an OS. Or are we going to start arbitrarily defining things by what languages and libraries they use? Doesn't a piece of software serve the same function, whether it's written in C or Java or Python or whatever? Then stop defining an OS by a compiler or a library. If you want to see an OS at its most basic, just put an ancient DOS command.com on an empty drive, along with whatever text config files that version of DOS will require to load itself. Sure, DOS usually has other files for "external commands" and for access to upper memory, etc.,--but they aren't necessary to do the absolute basics.
It's just stupid, and besides many people use OSes who wouldn't use a compiler and wouldn't know or care what libraries their software is linked to. An OS, like it or not, is defined by its kernel.
Let me lather, rinse, and repeat: an OS is defined by its kernel. And here's where I prove it: If I run a Solaris box and install and link to a bunch of GNU stuff, does that magically transform my OS into GNU/Solaris? NO.
This is why I think Stallman should be largely ignored now that he has already made his historic contribution of the GNU tools. He will go down in history for that accomplishment. But at the moment he's a hindrance, not a help. He has passed his prime, made his contribution, and is now being a petty bitch who squabbles about naming an OS he didn't write. He is actively trying to harm Linux, what with his devotion to the HURD. Anyone who doubts this, should read the post referenced in this story where the Linux glibc porter/maintainer states that Stallman tried to push him into working on glibc for Hurd instead of for Linux.
It should be obvious that Linux is RMS's "bastard child"--it's the first OS born from the GNU tools, and it has made the Free Software movement what it is today as well as helping spawn Open Source. Without Linux, Free Software would still be a tiny little movemwent instead of being on so many desktops and servers. Yet Stallman doesn't care about Linux, he cares about finally building the kernel for his GNU/HURD dream and eventually putting Linux out to pasture. And that's fine. But don't be a schmuck and think Stallman cares about Linux or should be listened to about a damned thing that has to do with Linux. If it were up to him, all Linux developers would drop their work and start on the Hurd. Things like the attempted coup mentioned in this story just go to show that RMS is slowly sabotaging Linux, in order to promote his Hurd. And before marking this as flamebait, at least read the account linked in the story.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
An Editorial Posted Here.
--SuperBug
--SuperBug
That's a contraction due to length constaints of RMS's actually sig in a letter to The Register.
Sincerely,
Richard Stallman
Principal developer of the operating system often inaccurately called "Linux"
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/18291.html
No, no glory grabbing at all, nothing to see here, move along...
Tastes Like Chicken
animal farm was written with respect to communist history in the stalin-trotsky era, so if there are any parallels, they are to that.
Free Anne Tomlinson!!
"Most of them are equivalent except for details of wording, but the license used for BSD until 1999 had a special problem: the ``obnoxious BSD advertising clause''. It said that every advertisement mentioning the software must include a particular sentence....To address this problem, in my ``spare time'' I talk with developers who have used BSD-style licenses, asking them if they would please remove the advertising clause."
There isn't any advertising clause in the GNU project software license. If Stallman feels the need to put one in, he's more than welcome.
Otherwise, he just should just learn to live with the consequences of "freedom".
RMS may like control, but look at this case we can see Drepper is the one with a bigger ego than RMS. Let's look at the facts:
1. RMS is accused of taking over the control of a GNU project. Not mentioning that RMS probably started the glibc project and contributed code in earlier years, how has RMS tried to control glibc? Does RMS decide, say, how glibc should be written? I don't see that. Drepper is in full technical control.
2. The only place where Drepper is unhappy about seems to be the "GNU/Linux" mentioning in LGPL 2.1. Otherwise LGPL 2.1 and 2.0 are about the same. The licenses give the same rights to users. Drepper makes a big deal out of a naming issue which is not even part of the actual license requirements. And glibc being a GNU Project, switching to LGPL 2.1 seems ony natural. Just a routine step.
3. Drepper seems unhappy about the creation of a SC. He accuses the SC was an attempt to steal the project. From him. Now, who is the one wanting control here? The SC is a more democratic way to run a project than a single maintainer. At least the other contributors have more say than letting Drepper decide everything.
4. Drepper wants control, which can be seen by his handling of the gcc 3 issue. Drepper disagreed with gcc developers (many of them) on certain technical issues over gcc 3. He once declared he would never accept patches to make glibc capable of being built with gcc 3. Despite other glibc contributors' attempts to find a solution, he just says, "NO, I won't accept any patches". This issue does not involve RMS at all, and Drepper just goes against many gcc developers, who are perhaps some of the smartest compiler people in the world. It is hard to say that Drepper is right and all these gcc people are wrong.
RMS may like control, but in this story Drepper is more of a control freak and has a bigger ego.
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!
RMS is absolutely needed to preserve the purest ideals of Open Source. Anyone with vision will constantly be bombarded with negative vitriol from minds of lesser expanse. Einstein said something ot that affect many years ago. That tenent holds true in this case. Those without the dedication, foresight or courage to do as RMS has done will question his intentions, and his wisdom. The long and short of it is withoug RMS we would not have the OS movement we have today.
Ahah, that's the analogy I was looking for... RMS is the Thomas Paine of the Open Source Movement, and like Paine, he is being sidelined for a more "moderate" approach. The analogy can be carried even farther, because Paine was sidelined in favor of the American aristocracy and business, to the detriment of the commoner. Much as it is here.
Peace,
Vale
All Hail Stallman and Linus. Jon Postel, you ARE missed.
Thank god the great inventors of our time haven't had this same demeanor. All trucks would be diesel/trucks and all ac powered devices would be tesla/(insert device name here). After all, where would these things be without the inventions of these great men?
If it ain't a Model M, it's a piece of crap.
Evidently it's not free enough that I can call the software that I use what I want (i.e. just "linux", not gnu/linux)
;-)
Dude, you can do whatever the hell you want. I honestly couldn't care less. But this is an issue of respect. It's akin to holding a door open for someone just walking in behind you. You don't have to do it, and no one will for ce you to do it, but it's pretty rude if you don't. Furthermore, if you truly believe in Free Software and want to help in the most trivial way(and yet, with all the argument over it, it doesn't seem so trivial does it?), the GNU argument I gave in my previous post is a pretty good one; do it to raise awareness. Or don't.
An interesting twist to the Linux vs GNU/Linux debate.
First of all, I don't see how this is at all significant. It's well known that RMS wanted to develop and adopt Hurd over the Linux kernel, simply because Hurd was built on a microkernel, which at the time was believed to be the better way to do it(and still is, though not with Mach). GNU was about building the best operating system with all Free Software, and Hurd had the superior architecture, so RMS was behind it. So were 80% of university professors(who were in love with the Mach architecture - which Hurd is based on). I don't see how this is damning evidence against RMS.
Even I'm against Linux(the kernel) as being the future of computing because, quite simply, it won't be(well, not against, but I think it will soon be eclipsed by a better architecture). I'm an ardent Open Source and Free Software supporter, but just because I support it, doesn't mean I agree with what all or any of the Free Software developers are doing out there. But then again, it's none of my business what they do with their Free time.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
Hurd is based on a different design that will allow it to do things the Linux kernel is not capable of doing. Linux's ubiquity is not Hurd's problem.
Hurd's problem is that its based on a microkernel with performance flaws, that its significantly more difficult to develop efficient code than Linux, and its rate of progress resembles US IRS computerization projects.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
Is that the buck lies with Linus on this whole issue. He own's the trademark for "Linux", so Stallman getting people to call it "GNU/Linux" or getting that in print on their products is a very stupid idea. Regardless of what happens Linus may always say.. Remove the GNU/ from infront of the name Linux. It's just a dumb idea, Stallman is wrong on this front. Promoting GNU could be done much better by saying "This is what spawned Linux" because we provided free tools etc etc.
Fair enough; that's a valid point. But look at what he is proposing, and you see that Stallman is a total hypocrite. His doctrinaire stance on issues like free speech and open source prompts him to fight this jihad, and yet when you get right down to his actual proposal, he's willing to bend the rules quite a bit. Though he would never say it, his rationale for "GNU" Linux essentially relies on GNU being more worthy of credit than anything else related to Linux -- not exactly a very principled argument; in fact, completely subjective.
For obvious reasons, he wants "GNU/Linux". No more, no less. But what is GNU, except a mere coalition of developers who are not named Richard Stallman, and who happen to put out most GNU software? So, in the interests of simple recognition -- after all, that's all Stallman is after, guys -- it's only fair that we put the names of everyone who has contributed to the GNU in front of "Linux" as well.
But who trained all of those developers? Why, MIT of course (here I'm generalizing, but that's actually not too far from the truth). So now we have "MIT/developers/GNU/Linux". And I suppose it's only fair to throw a nod to Donald Knuth, who's pioneering work on, well, everything, was of course instrumental in the development of the Linux operating system. Progressing back through history, there'd certainly be no "Knuth/MIT/developers/GNU/Linux" without Charles Babbage. Follow this train of thought far enough and you end up with "God/ ... / Babbage/Knuth/MIT/developers/GNU/Linux".
I'm exaggerating, but you see my point. Stallman is arrogating GNU to a point where it's contributions to Linux are more valuable than the many hundreds of equally important contributions from many other people & companies, all in the name of advancing his political agenda. Not exactly a radical departure from the status quo if you're Richard Stallman. But for everyone else, it's hard to reconcile his high-minded, egalitarian, and quite laudable beliefs about intellectual freedom with his disturbing willingness to essentially stifle the work of others in the name of "progress," which is a word that of course Stallman the Great has defined in his own terms on behalf of the rest of us.
It's obvious that the only simple, sane, and fair thing to do is:
Linux
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
If Bill Gates can grab DOS and call it MS-DOS, why can't RMS grab Linux and call it GNU/Linux?
It's been done before.
Well, GNU didn't need Linux, but it was certainly helped by Linux's popularity. That's undisputable.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
Well, since so much of the GNU project's work depended on code and culture provided by the Berkeley folks, how about we call it the "BSD/GNU"
... dammit, now I've forgotten what I was going to talk about. It's all those damn begats.
project? While we're at it, how about those AT&T/BSD systems? Perhaps we should even extend this to GE/AT&T's original work. [... time passes...]
So, anyway, I was using my God/Adam/Abel/[...]/GE/AT&T/BSD/GNU/Linux system, the other day, and
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
I think alot of new and seasoned Linux users are just realizing what they have become a part of and don't like it. Well, guess what? It,s more than an OS you got in a book. It's an ideal, a way of doing things. No, it ain't perfect. This little episode, true or not, PO's the living daylights out of me. But I'll take it to the alternative any day.
Someone else mentioned to him that he could call it Linux, but Linus thought it was too egotistical. For whatever reason, the ftp administrator at Helsinki Intitute of Technology(I think), named the directory Linux, and it just stuck.
If you haven't read "Just for Fun", check it out. Its interesting and pretty funny at times too. Linus doesn't seem to be the "euro-snob" I thought he would be.
Given the adoption of "Linux" as teh official name by the popular press, there's no chance GNU/Linux will ever catch on, except for a few diehards. By cementing Linux in the minds of ordinary users, the press has basically constrained GNU as answer to Computer Bowl trivia. Adding GNU/ to the front of Linux in ads, articles, and press releases would only confuse most users, since the new name would make them think somebody has added something new to Linux, not just changed the name.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Well at least when the FSF did all the maintainance glibc would run on many platforms and some version of UNIX. I still remember building (or trying) it under SCO UNIX. With the aparent exceptions of GUN Hurd, the newer glibc only runs on linux. An unportable glibc :(.
I've watched this brew for some time, speaking as someone who's involved with FSF and has seen arguments fly between the {RMS, Brad Kuhn} collective and Ulrich Drepper.
:-), the sentiment I feel is very valid.
Quite frankly, I agree wholeheartedly with Ulrich. While I wouldn't personally have put it quite how he did (read his mailing list posts in the past: he doesn't mince his words
From what I, personally, have seen, Richard Stallman does behave in exactly the way that UIlrich describes: he believes that developers are *privledged* to be writing *their* software, which ultimately is *his* software, because it has a 'GNU' tag at the beginning. In reality, these developers are doing the FSF a favour, and a service, by allowing their hard work to be included in the GNU Project. Stallman rarely sees it this way, and treats inclusion as the GNU Project as his personal license to dictate how the software should be developed, and managed.
I don't like this one little bit, and I wholeheartedly support Ulrich's statements and sentiments.
My two cents, FWIW.
"Don't programmers deserve a reward for their creativity?"
If anything deserves a reward, it is social contribution. Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs.
I think I agree with all of that. But Stallman does not. He demands that the naming rights tag along with the work - a stupid, tragic restriction on the use of those programs, one that has nothing to do with coding, and one that will in effect prevent GNU software's use by endlessly confusing possible users.
Having created, Stallman is using all his efforts to control his creation. So, by his own thinking, Stallman deserves punishment. Q.E.D.
I guess this is just the way things go isn't it? Every now and then a visionary is born, JFK, Gorbatsov, Jesus... you name 'em. I wouldn't compare Richard Stallman to any of those, but look at the analogies. Here's somebody with some great vision and a dedication to fulfill that vision. All is good as long as the group of 'followers' is small and one to one communication is possible and the vision can be explained in vivid detail to a few leaders who actually understand what the vision means, could mean.
The leaders get the responsibility to help turn this vision into reality. But no matter how good the explanation, always some of the full extent of the vision goes missing when transferring it to somebody. So each of the leaders try to fulfill the vision in a slightly different manner, they are slightly worse explainers and chances are the new people are slightly worse understanders. This misunderstanding grows bigger and bigger, and today there are 'Christians' who really think that attending the house of god every weekend is enough to make them a good person.
So, Stallman has a nasty personality? Maybe. I don't know him. Control freak? No I don't think so, just a man with vision who sees his vision pulverising as the rats start gnawing at it. Maybe I'm coloring it a little bit too rosy, but still, everybody who understands where opensource comes from, where GNU comes from, can probably at least recognise that we as a 'community' (although I don't really feel part of the hissing, popping and whizzing group of people that now call themselves the 'community') owe Richard Stallman a whole lot. Instead of ventilating your dumbfounded (not all of you) meaningless 'opinions' after reading a few lines of what a regular 'meanie' RMS is, you could just shut your big trap for a while and at least show some R.E.S.P.E.C.T.
With a server configuration it is something like less than 10% :P not 70%...
At least be partially scientific 70% was a total shot in the dark, and dead wrong.
Here
At least argue that Linux may not have existed without FSF work or something, but dont pretend like FSF work is the only part of the OS these days.
Jeremy
Jeremy
People who use linux is calling Stallman an a$$ and no one on slashdot is ready to hang someone. Finally slashdoters and i agree... where are them flying pigs... whats his name didn't win the pga... and as far as i know hell hasn't frozen over. Man thats odd.
Nor Linux is Linux, so what!?
America ( The continent ) is not called Colombia/America!
Maybe it should because Colombus discovered it! and Americo Vespucio was the first to know it was a new continent!
And not to mention the US!
Who has 'taken' the name America to name just a small part of the American continent!
So if you say Colombia/America I'll say GNU/Linux.
Too bad Columbus is dead, I bet he an RMS would be great friends.
--Manuel
"I hate quotations, tell me what you think"
Posted anonymously since it's so damn off-topic.
Nobody claimed democracy was the way to develop quality software. But the decision maker should know when a decision is made based upon technical reasons and when it is for political reasons. If there are no technical considerations for a particular action, why pick a POLITICAL FIGHT?
Most people that haven't used a BSD operating system before would be surprised to find out that most BSD developers don't consider the GPL free at all. I kindof agree with them.
They all use a lot of GPL software, though, just because they don't neccessarily want to re-do all the code themselves. If you're interested, take a look at these URLs:
Here and Here
no text here, sorry, but I am somewhat inebriated
I don't necessarily agree with RMS.
I don't necessarily agree that GNU should be pre-pended to Linux.
HOWEVER, it's clear that GNU and the FSF need to see more recognition than they currently enjoy. How likely is it that Linux would exist or that Linus would have produced during the timeframe that he did if the GNU compiler and family did not exist?
I've been using the Internet since 1985 and I can't even fathom an Internet without gcc, et. al. These *core* (possibly more than any kernel) tools ran on just about every OS under the Sun and I haven't use a different compiler under UNIX since 1985.
During my first job in Silicon Valley, the developers were cross-compiling m68k code on SPARC boxes with gcc. Truly impressive. The capabilities, flexibility, and robustness of the GNU development tools is undeniable.
Truly, some level of recognition from just about every major open source development project should be realized. In fact, many times a lot of the "ease" of portability between OSes for these projects is because you didn't have to deal with different compiler quirks. gcc behaves almost 100% the same regardless of OS.
I know this may be a religious issue for some, but GNU/FSF/RMS deserve some recognition that, frankly, they have not seen.
It's all about combinations. The great thing about this system is that you can replace bits with other bits.
For example, if it's the GNU utilities plus the Linux kernel, it's GNU/Linux. Replace the Linux kernel with the HURD kernel[*], and it's GNU/HURD. Or replace the GNU bits with something else, and it's SomethingElse/Linux.
Analogies with otehr operating systems dont' really work, because they aren't as configurable. We have the Mr. Potato Head of computer systems. Don't like the ear? Don't like the brain? Replace them. And rename them, so people know what the fsck you're talking about.
Having said that, I don't much care for RMS' in-your-face stance and general arrogant attitude. But on this issue he does have a clue.
[*] Although heaven knows why you'd want to.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
As a preface, I am not attempting here to flame RMS. I recognize his previous achievements, particularly the writing of the first versions of gcc and emacs, both of which I use and I like. However, for some reason which is not apparent to me, he has left software behind and moved into politics. He has just tried to take over glibc, which is of similar importance to the Linux Kernel.
Beyond its being non-ethical, immoral, irresponsible and Micro$oftish, this demonstrates to us the position that Stallman has decided to take. Unlike most programmers, he does not really like the software - if he did, he would leave it to its developers and maintainers (who have been doing a pretty good job). As I see it (and you may disagree), RMS's desire is to earn influence at the expense of the software.
And as to my opinion of (GNU/)Linux - it should be Linux. It is true that numerous GNU tools are commonly used under Linux; however the real credit belongs to the developers (who have done it for the sake of Free Software, not for the sake of GNU). Any attempt to prefix it with GNU (and thus emphasize the role of GNU) is political, and I don't think there should be room for politics in the truly Free Software.
I don't believe that at all. It would have developed quite differently, but I think it would have come about anyway.
In the beginning, Linus was using Minix, a unix-like OS that was not freely redistributable. There was a C compiler available for Minix that DID come with source code, but was not in as advanced a state as gcc at the time. The BSD source had recently become available, but it was only partially complete and in a questionable legal state.
In my opinion, if RMS were not around, Linus would have taken a different compiler, opted to use the BSD utilities and libc source, and released the source under a different license than the GPL. The presence of the GNU source code gave us a path that wasn't under threat of legal action, so that seemed like the better choice, even though it took the GNU tools a while to catch up with the BSD versions.
What we can say for sure, though, is that Linux was not a part of the GNU project -- the GNU folks were working on the Hurd.
..wayne..
Think about what RMS does, and why -- he has a passionate belief "software should be Free", and expresses it in a fairly consistant manner. He fights a somewhat unpopular fight with little reward -- outside of recognition within of a small, tight-knit community, which isn't much.
RMS has been fighting this fight longer than some GNU/Linux nerds have been alive. He had the vision to kick the thing off in the first place. His reward? A string of Slashdot readers questioning his relevency, sanity and parentage.
While I may disagree with some of RMS's views (I get the occasional whiff of Unreconstructed Socialist from some of his writing, and nobody hates a commie (or a socialist) more than me), I have the utmost respect for his work, and I'm thankful for it.
While Ulrich may have a genuine beef with RMS, waving it about in public (and Slashdot posting the story) is not very professional, nor productive.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Take over THIS!!!
I wonder what if RMS did take control of glibc? Would it do harm to users, develoeprs or RHAT the company?
Maybe off topic but I've always wondered what kind of business model (and morality) it is to build for profit companies around software based some many people's 'free' work. I wonder how developers who contributed to these projects (say, glibc) and yet not big enough to become shareholder of these companies feel when they see stock the IPO craze of RHAT and LNUX?
If not for RMS's work RHAT wouldn't have been existed today.
As for the bashing, imho RMS has as much freedom to stab from back as Drepper tell him to shut up in the release note.
Nah, RMS only developed the bits that suck. The cool stuff was developed by some Finnish guy.
Bill Gates - lots of money = RMS
I don't prefix "Linux" with those 3 little letters and a slash even tho I've been asked.
Then, don't bother why Linux'll finally lose marketshares...
I personally had many occasions to proof what RMS was saying and I definitely agree his strategy is the most efficient against FUD.
Open Source is a concept, GPL is a philosophy. It is much more evolved.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Where's the part in the middle where the DJ talks?
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
I'm sorry, what I meant to say was that RMS isn't worth exterminating.
--
Thanks retaliatory mods, no more exodus mirrors for you!
And of course every comment posted means more banner impressions for Slashdot!
too late, cat's out of the bag as far as the terminology goes. Not to mention the fact that about 70% (there ought to be a poll!) of everybody who has a clue what the GNU part means disagrees with stallman.
I think Stallman's just sour-grapesing it cause the GNU/Hurd is not even a blip on the radar, and Linus probably pipes his email to /dev/null.
First off, I must confess, I think Drepper's behavior was very unprofessional, especially for someone representing RedHat, the great flagship Linux corporation ("The Linux Standard", my 7.1 box says). *Individuals* can act rashly in public, but my boss would never let me slag other teammates with whom I have differences of opinion, to potential customers in an official document. Ever. I highly doubt Microsoft developers slag each other in public, since they understand the necessity to present themselves as a "unified group of mature professionals" to the people. The Linux guys do not seem to think this as necessary, which is part of the reason corporate interests often think of us as a group of cha0tic haxx0rs with no semblance of order. This image hurts us all, as corporations would rather trust ultra-professional IBM than the gypsy on the streetcorner. So would I. We, as the gypsy, have an excellent offering; but that doesn't matter. As Microsoft has proven, the *image* of "having it all together" is more important than *actually* having it all together.
;-)
This kind of personal bickering should remain exactly that - personal. Private. Not Public. The heat that public infighting brings will only fuel the discord, and that hurts everybody in the Linux and FSF community. Drepper shouldn't be using his glibc 2.2.4 Release Notes as a podium for attacking other members of the community, that's what Slashdot's for.
Also, I agree that Stallman is vocal and extreme in his views, but that's because none of the rest of us are. If it were up to most of us developers, Linux would be as proprietary as Windows. Things already seem to be heading that way, as most of the distros are adding in non-GPL stuff to try and get a leg up on the competition. We ARE becoming Microsofts, slowly, and RMS is trying to fight that trend. Look for a distro that uses 100% free software... maybe Debian? Not many out there anymore. *Technology is becoming more important than philosophy, and this is very bad*. Technology should not be amoral. Amoral technology is deadly. Amoral people controlling technology is deadly. But how do you enforce morality on an amoral individual? How do you ensure technology is never used to enslave? The freedom to enslave is NOT a freedom, despite what Gates and Ballmer may say.
Linux isn't *about* the technology, it's about the ideology of freedom. We choose Linux because of the ideas behind it, not because of the technology. Otherwise, we'd all be using BeOS, the BSDs, MacOS, and of course, Windows. Linux isn't technically superior to any of these, and it sure wasn't in the beginning, when developers were drawn to it for only the right reasons! In the beginning, people chose GNU/Linux for the GPL, for the idea that they could contribute to something that would be free forever to all, and could never be subverted. People came because they wanted to contribute and make a difference by doing something noble and pure; giving their labor, talents, and the fruits of their minds to the world, and using the GPL to ensure it would always be free, open, and accessible to all - never to be taken by corporations and bound into a product that does not freely offer anything in return.
People chose it for its philosophy, not its technology. Those who choose it for its technology do not develop the same deep roots as RMS or the other idealists in the community, and thus they're the ones who will try to change the community into a business venture rather than a noble venture. It is because of RMS and his unique license that kids in India, China (no, they didn't use it to make CodeRed), and all over the world (wherever they couldn't afford, couldn't get access to, or chose not to use, Microsoft's offerings) have access to an excellent system like Linux, which promotes freedom, sharing, and community. And it was all offered freely, with the condition that it stay free forever.
One last thing: saying "Gnu/Linux" is not a nod to RMS, it's an acknowledgement of the philosophy behind the technology. I'm not going to push the "GNU word" on anybody, but I agree with RMS. If people don't say it, people don't think about it, and people forget about it. This system is losing its roots and becoming another Microsoft. Look at Caldera. What a shame. They have nearly abandoned the ideals that brought us this far in favor of a greater potential profit, which I think will never come, since they can't compete directly with Microsoft, and by losing the ideals of Gnu, they alienate much of the Linux community.
And I'm not calling it Gnu/Linux because there's enough content in here for people to grumble about. But normally I do call it Gnu/Linux. To me, it's not the word Gnu so much as understanding the reason for saying the word that counts.
Goodbye, sweet karma...
The Bob Dole/Internet
Nevermind that Linux was compiled in the past without GCC (Minix anyone?) Please, at least try to be serious.
If Stallman wants proper credit given to GNU/Linux, and he contributed so much to GNU, I say we combine Stallman and Linux to give both central figures credit to the OS.
We will now call it "Stallinux".
D'OH!
OTOH, by licensing software under v2.1 of the LGPL, you acknowledge that Linux is a.) GNU/Linux and b.) a variant of the GNU operating system.
What an asshole. GNU tools were developed so that anyone and everyone could use them for FREE! It didn't matter what they were used for, for video games, for pornographic file viewers... whatever the user wanted to do, no matter how tasteless. It was given out free, and anyone could use them. This was the philosophy behind his entire FSF.
Great, so someone actually used it to build something neat. It was called Linux.
But wait, it actually became useful and popular! And now RMS wants his due props. Sorry buttfuck, you don't deserve shit. Linux was created out of tools that were distributed for free, and now he wants the right to name Linux GNU/Linux because he wants recognition?
Bill Gates is laughing hysterically at us because
the leader of the Free Software Foundation is so childish and petty that he will fragment his own supporters because of his foolish and megalomanical desires to bulldoze his insignia into a successful free software project.
RMS is dividing Microsoft's enemies up and doing a better job of splintering the free software community than Microsoft could ever do. Good going, you idiot!
****TROLL ALERT****
Attention, viewers. The seemingly innocuous post you have just read contains elements (overblown phraseology, potentially offensive generalizations) strongly suggestive of the "craft" of trolling.
This craft, practiced in secret by middle-aged virgins, aims to evoke a reaction in the viewer. Any reaction, even one of simple digust at the puerile fantasies and primitive intellects of the troller, is acceptable for their purposes. Watch out for "goat sex" and "nazi harangues," two standard troll formats.
More discerning trolls, such as the previous post, taste the joys of the provocateur's art on a more exalted plane. Stirring up the blind fantaticism of GNU/losers and Microserfs becomes, for them, not the tangential consequence of electronic dialog, but its sole object and intent.
But I digress. The final word on trolling is that it is in every way reprehenible: stultifying to intellectual congress, frustrating to social interaction, and maddenning to the aesthetic sensibilities. In no way should you respond or acknowledge the presence of a troll, even to denigrate it.
And by the way, Vi sucks.
"Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental." -Slashdot
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html LOL, last time I checked, Linux was the creation of Linus Torvalds...
The basic idealogical dispute is that previously it was illegal to link glibc with proprietary software linked by non-GNU compilers due to a special "modified GPL" in the libio section of the GNU C Library. The change that the steering committee (who are developers like Roland McGrath, not just "Stallman") made was primiarily to convert that code to LGPL. Ulrich was the one being an idealogue about it. In this case, the steering committee was the group that was actually trying to get the right thing done for the users.
The glibc-2.2.4 announcement advised everyone to switch to it. What the announcement did not mention is that if you try to configure glibc-2.2.4, you discover that it does not want to build under gcc-3. The steering committee is pushing for a fast release of glibc-2.2.5 which will not have this problem.
So far, the steering committee seems to be a very positive influence. In the past, people were giving up hope on glibc due to its bloat, arcaneness, and legal issues. The SC seems much more focused on what users want.
By the way, let me say that Ulrich Drepper has made many contributions to glibc and I hope he will continue to be involved as a contributor.
Crazy: A person who keeps doing the same thing again and again expecting different results.
In must be infuriating to him why people don't agree with him when he's sure that his arguments are both correct and, to his mind anyway, persuasive. The problem is that he is still using the same tactics he used 10 years ago, but apparently hoping that the results will be different.
He knows he's right and that if people just understood his point of view that they would rally behind his cause. It's his achilles heel, his kryptonite. Blessed with intelligence but without social skills.
But I'm sure that nobody here can relate.
If Operating Systems Were Airlines
DOS Air
Passengers out onto the runway, grab hold of the plane, push it until it gets into the air, hop on, then jump off when it hits the ground. They grab the plane again, push it back into the air, hop on, jump of...
MAC Airways
The cashiers, flight attendants, and pilots all look the same, and act the same. When you ask them questions about the flight, they reply that you don't want to know, and would you please return to your seat and watch the movie.
Windows Airlines
The terminal is neat and clen, the attendants courteous, the pilots capable. The fleet of Lear jets the carrier operates is immense. Your jet takes off without a hitch, pushes above the clouds, and at 20,000 feet, explodes without warning.
Fly Windows NT
Passengers carry their seats out onto the tarmac and place them in the outline of a plane. They sit down, flap their arms, and make jet swooshing sounds as if they are flying.
Unix Express
Passengers bring a piece of the airplane and a box of tools with them to the airport. They gather on the tarmac, arguing about what kind of plane they want to build. The passengers split into groups and build several different aircraft but give them all the same name. Only some passengers reach their destination, but all of them believe they arrived.
because I'm telling you the FSF deserves naming credit for your software
The best part about RMS is that he gives us
Microsofties a wonderful wedge to divide, and
eventually conquer free software. Bicker
on... Bicker on!
Maybe the key insight is that nobody can control the naming of a GPL'd project. I can fork Emacs and call it HappyEdit. I can fork it 1000 times and apply 1000 randomly generated names. But these actions are only significant if I can interest others in these forks.
Since the code itself can be forked, there's not logic in trying to maintain control of the name. We all would like to receive credit for the work we've done, but the GPL does not make any provision for this.
None of YOUR software would be possible without the great wisdom of RMS!
:)
I'll bet you didn't realize that we never thought about sharing source code to software until RMS and GNU came along, did ya?
Yep, this is flame bait.
"The same thing we try to do every night, Pinky...try to take over glibc!"
You must be getting all of the spam aimed at me. Do you want my nubile lesbian riot grrrl porno-and-piercings spam? It's not doing a thing for me.
Dear Mr. Stallman:
Can you tell me how to get Hurd running on a Linux system?
Hey boys & girls
,Bob Young ...
Keep in mind that RMS is not in this for the money
like the other kiddies... Gates
He got into this stuff to give us a free o/s.
Free as in freedom and free as in pretty much
0 cost. The later for which I am and will always
be thankful. I did not know of RMS's existence
until I read mention of him in the book rebel code. I was totally unaware that most of the
applications in the Slackware GNU/Linux distribution came from GNU . Linux Journal (now another comercialized rag) and others did a great
job of masking the existence of the GNU FSF and RMS quite well. Just as the Linux Kernel needed
someone to lead the development to get it to the
place it is today, I think you need a leader/org
to help standardize free software, I have not seen
any other body/org write standards and freely publish them and ask for input/changes.
RMS is a programmer, most of you savant progs are
not exactly known for your great social skills.
Quite the opposite actually. This should be very
obvious , as you have probably read in the
message written by this Ulrich guy, I read some
similar words from others in the mid 90's about
Linus. BTW, I am not a prog, I just use the stuff.
forgivness is easier to get than permission
This is a great representation of the UNIX mentality. NO ONE in the real world will call it GNU/Linux EVER. Instead of focusing on programming, coordination and legal battles, this guy feels entitled to demand "GNU" in everything, because he's coordinated for a long time. I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. Step outside the techie world and realize NOBODY CARES! NOBODY CARES!
A big ol' turf war pissing contest. Great. Thank you. Managers pondering the merits of open-source pick up on this kind of thing and realize that if a company wrote their code they wouldn't start dithering over the name. It's time for RMS to wake up and say "Damn! What is this going to accomplish?"
--hongpong.com
Actually, it's G as in General.
Living better through chemicals
Yesterday we had news on slashdot:
GNU is Unix
Today the news is:
GNU is not Linux
Here in Holland we call the summertime, cucumbertime.
Or so to speak: No news today
Well, don't worry about that. We can get you back before you leave. (Dr. Who)
Speaking of intelligent discourse... Am I the only person who finds it ironic that the primary reason the BSD license was incompatible with the GPL was its advertising clause? (You know, that clause that says that people who derive their work from the BSD-license-covered source must advertise that fact by saying "Contains code developed by so-and-so"...)
And yet, isn't that what RMS is asking of the Linux community? That is, for us to slap "GNU inside" on our Linux boxes?
Oh, the irony...
--JoeProgram Intellivision!
I think that really RMS is just acting like an overprotective father/mother. Look, this man gave up a significant portion of his life hoping to raise a project that shares his morals/beliefs. Then one day corperate america rides up on their shiny new hog and begins to make the project wonder if "daddy" was right. I really feel for RMS, to put all of that work into a project, only to be ditched and ridiculed once the project hits the big time.
I respect RMS but i can hear the FreeBSD installers formating ext2 partitions at this very moment...
Every time I see RMS get all uppity like this, I'm tempted to port the BSD userland to Linux--replace glibc with BSD's libc, dump gawk for the One True Awk, etc... and release a distribution with only a small amount of GNU stuff (separated out so you can easily delete it if you want). But unfortunately, I don't have the time for it... it'd be awesome if someone did this though :)
Linus had called it Linux while he was working on it alone. He then went to release it to the world, and was (embarrassed|too shy|whatever) to release it with a name so obviously derived from his own. So, he renamed it Freax and uploaded it. The FTP site admin, who was aware of the original name Linux, didn't like Freax at all, and renamed it back to Linux.
This article on Wired tells the story. Specifically:
And that is, as Paul Harvey would say, the rest of the story.
--JoeProgram Intellivision!
Actually I see it a lot differently:
Drepper is actually working on the glibc project. Stallman isn't. That alone should be a good reason for Drepper to resent Stallman's disruptive activities.
Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised if Stallman was directing the gcc project in such a way as to extend influence over glibc. Drepper has every right to be angry. All he's doing is putting the spotlight on Stallman's underhanded behavior. As well he should.
Actually most of us never thought about closing the source until Bill G. came along. Stallman is just taking an old idea and putting some things back the way they once were. You youngsters need to keep up on your history.
And you can't statically link against it because of lgpl, but there are different bugs in every version. Then you tell yourself, self, why don't you just ship a version of glibc with the package and dynamically link? Well, it turns out that ld-linux.so is also a buggy piece of crap, and different versions of ld-linux will only work with certain versions of glibc. Then people whine that commercial apps say "requires redhat 6.2." THIS IS THE REASON WHY!
the guy spends his entire fucking life helping us as the developer/users.
and then you treat him like shit.
i think that's just wrong.
and i also think most of you don't even run linux.
blah.
and the licensee thing was ripped out of context.
i think the glib author is just a tad bit paraonoid.
i understand the reason why RMS would want us to call linux as GNU/linux, but in a naming scheme, it's always better to have 1 word that defines the application/tools/os, etc..
it's just sounds better, especially from a marketting perspective.
examples.
-photoshop
-gimp
-maya
-softimage
-grip
-vc6
-l0nix
-emacs
-vim
-nedit
-gnus
-sylpheed
these all go together nicely..
so just for the sake of pr, i really don't think we should make a mess about calling linux GNU/Linux.
blah.
Richard Stallman is a kook.
Drepper has done some good work, but did you really have to give publicity to his rant in which he calls Richard Stallman a "raging manic" among other things?
Whatever his technical abilities, Drepper seems to be lacking in maturity, to say the least.
Whilst I agree that Drepper's comments on Stallman can be characterized as "an attack" (I'd like to hear Stallman's side before I comment on whether it's justified or not) - the phrase "poor design decisions of the kernel developers" is most definitely not. It's a technical criticism.
By contrast it's calm, does not use emotional language and is not directed at a single named individual.
Far from adding evidence to Drepper being a "paranoid, obsessed" man - I think this comment adds more balance and makes his attack on Stallman look more like a one-off.
Developing software using AN open source like development method is great. Let's focus on that. RMS wants another thing: get rid of the phenomenon called 'ownership'. His biggest weapon is the GPL that forces to open up everything and leaves the original author without real ownership of what he's written (since everyone can just grab the open sourcecode).
If you think opening up the sourcecode so development of that sourcecode is done in a different way is a political act and the REASON you open up the sourcecode is not because you WANT to develop code using open source techniques, but because you're using the sourcecode as a weapon against 'ownership', fine. But realise that there are A LOT of developers who just want to create code, share code, use code, and are NOT using the sourcecode as a weapon against 'ownership' or any other political statement.
Keep the politics out of the software, please.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
doh!
Got shack?
ShackCentral Network
Worlds best gaming network!!!
Where's the problem??
Yes, the Linux Kernel is not a GNU project, but it is licensed under the GNU Public License.Many very important parts of a "Linux Distribution" have been developed or ported by FSF - "GNU".
But would anyone say that a modern "Linux Distribution" is able to fulfill all needs with a kernel and a few utils? A "Linux Distribution" isn't in fact a Linux Distribution, as it distributes much more than just the kernel.
It's a distribution of Linux, the GNU utils, and so many many more things many of us use in daily life.
So could you please stop bothering about where a specific software comes from? We know GNU is great, we wouldn't have come so far without the FSF, and neither did we without Linux. Nor without the glibc, egcs + gcc, pam, rpm + deb, samba, apache, etc etc etc.
All of these are credited the way they deserve it, and all of these have either Free or Open source.
So what's this discussion good for? Can anybody tell me? If the Big Bad Business comes and steals our Open Source software and all that stays for us is Free Software, we're still good enough for keeping up with them. But for this it is essential that we develop Free (or at least Open Source) Software all together, and not against each other.
So please stay quiet, take a seat, have a sandwich and a jolt and go ahead doing the things you're really good at. I don't give a f*** about if we call it GNU/Linux or not, do it if you want, but I say you have to name it "GNU/XFree86/Apache/..../Linux" then.
WHY don't these guys just start finishing the HURD then? That way, they could have their own system, and call that GNU. Everybody else would get a different kernel to choose from.
-- Cure for Cancer instead of SETI! (only w32 yet - mail and beg)
KDE / Gnome / BSD / Linux / GNU
Has anyone noticed the incredible Balkanization
that's going on here ??? What the hell is it about
Unix that makes all of its advocates want to engage
in a circular shooting match.
The free Unix world is fragmenting badly - if you
don't believe me just try to compile any major
(or minor for that matter) project from source.
Its time to move on and leave politics aside.
You can bitch all you want about this or that
license - if no one uses your code - who cares.
Back in the 80's while the major Unix vendors
were all trying to kill one another the rest
of us dreamed of a Unix we could actually afford
to run. Thanks to a kid from Finland that
dream was realized 10 years ago. I have been
using Linux since then and I hate to watch
while a bunch of idiots piss in everybodys
sandbox. Remember why we're all here - its
time to move on and get back to whats important.
GNG = GNG's Not GNU
See it recurse! See it bifurcate!
"People have asked my opinion, and I'll just leave it by saying I don't prefix "Linux" with those 3 little letters and a slash even tho I've been asked."
No kidding. That's like saying Hitler didn't prefer Germany with those little Jews. And it's though, not tho.
What Tim O'Reilly has to do with this? Did he ever call Stallman or anyone else by some bad words or what? From what I have read from O'Reilly his style always was moderate and respectful.
-- Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
Stallman may be a little wierd, but the GPL was a fantastic invention.
I'd rather see BSD GPLed (and thus protected) than Linux opened up to corprate rape.
You (I assume you are Geoff Kuenning) leave out a lot from that story...
1. The version wasn't merely not "GPL-compatible", it wasn't open software either. Specifically, it did not allow for-profit distribution alone.
2. People suggested removing these restrictions to you was vicioucly flamed, you wouldn't even accept that these restriction existed. This might be the cause of the "misunderstanding".
3. ispell 4.0 was not derived from your code. It was derived from the code of _original_ ispell author (i.e. not you), who had assigned his code to the FSF. Specifically, it lacked all the i18n features you had added.
It is true that FSF withdraw[1] ispell 4.0 as soon as ispell 3.x was released under a free software license. I think that makes it pretty clear that the action was in defence for free software, not an attempt to increase their control.
[1] As far as one can withdraw alreeady released free software -- ispell 4.0 still have DOS/Windows users as version 3 was much harder to port to DOS. This, b.t.w. is still a cause of confusion about what version is newer. Something that could easily be solved by releasing a version 3 derivative as version 5. That would require someone to be more pragmatic and less determined about whose fault it is, though.
-- Richard Stallman (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html)
Most FSF projects were started by volunteers, in the case of gcc, gdb and Emacs the volunteer was RMS.
But glibc was, as far as I understand, a project where Roland McGrath was _hired_ by the FSF to write a C runtime library for use in GNU (and meanwhile in order to provide GCC with an ANSI C compliant library on proprietary Unixen. The first glibc target was SunOS).
This makes it as much a GNU project as anything can be. Owned by and developed for GNU, in the start for FSF money.
UD should of course have thanks for accepting the BURDEN of maintainership, his technical and political contributions to the project (convincing the Linux developers to use the official branch of the GNU library instead of thei own ancient branch is no major feat).
However, if he somehow have forgotten that he was appointed to and have worked for years on a GNU project, I think it is best if he leave at least the political part of the job to someone else, for example a Steering Comittee (with people like Roland McGrath, the original author).
And this is why I use ATT/Solaris.
:-)
Or SVr4/Solaris.
Or Unix/Solaris.
Or BellLabs/Solaris.
Or ThompsonRitchie/Solaris
Whatever. Linux was something nice. It's a shame that egos, zealots and kiddies ruined it.
Now back to your regularly scheduled commercial Unix...
--dm
(And, FWIW, Solaris is one of the few Unices that can truly call itself a descendent of SVr4... And, for the most part, Sun has kept true to those roots and hasn't corrupted it with those 3 letters and a slash yet. If I say them, a nasty man might just appear.
I can't remember when I last saw so many flame-bait and troll articles moderated to "interesting" or "insightfull.
Please take time to Meta-Moderate today!
SLOGEN [ http://ungdomshus.nu : Sebastian cover music]
The thing about language is this. You simply can't control how people use. Very awful language, like "thought police," "GNUsiance" and other derogatory invective has spewed forth at RMS, because it is virtually impossible to have a civil discussion with him without his correcting, not your ideas, but you language.
The FSF web site is full of definitions, and that is fine so far as it goes. However, these definitions challenge ordinary and traditional uses of words, and to the extent they do, RMS is way out of line suggesting that those who use these terms in ordinary course are "wrong."
While language-hacking was a popular thing in the 70s, it is a demagogical technique that has long since lost favor. I, for one, am quite fed up with it. RMS has done a great many things, but far greater people than he have sacrificed far more in the name of freedom, that it offends me for him to appropriate the word -- and more important, that he suggests I should not feel free to use any meaning but his.
I'll call it GNU/Linux, when he replaces "free software" with "GNUfree software."
Sony, Intel, Rambus and IBM got paid in the manner that matters for hardware manufacturers: $$$.
For developers, yes, mostly you just want your stuff used, but recognition is no trivial matter.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Linux is what the kernel is called... the complete system should be GNU/Linux because a lot of essential parts of the system are GNU?
.dll libraries I have to call it MS/Borland/Frisky ??? YEAH RIGHT !! Get a life and do something useful.
If I write an app called 'Frisky' in a Borland IDE, compiled with a Borland compiler, and that app runs on MS Platforms only and makes use of MS
This thread makes me sad. Despite the fact that RMS has repeated it over and over, people still don't seem to understand this:
Stallman wants the prefix GNU/ to be assigned to the operating system to emphasise the political aspects of free software, NOT because he desires credit. RMS and many others (I am among them) are extremely unhappy about the idea of GNU/Linux being turned into nothing but a commercial product distributed in nice shrinkwrapped CDs full of a mixture of free and proprietary software. He is afraid of it being an apolitical computer platform providing an alternative to Windows in practical, but not philosophical terms.
"Linux" and "Open Source" have over the past several years becoming increasingly attractive industry buzz words (observe the corporate involvement), but "freedom" has not. If I go to linux.com or linux.org, in general (with some exceptions) I find out all about the practical aspects of "Linux". I see mention of the fact that the source is available (perhaps with a link to the GPL), but that is usually all. The rest of the pages are filled with security tips, announcements of a new version of Redhat, beginners guides, Perl tutorials, Linux mugs for sale or whatever. This is the shiny corporate world of the operating system. Listen to media reports on Linux and see how much they talk about freedom in fundamental political and philosophical terms.
By asking people to call it "GNU/Linux" - hardly an unreasonable given that it is an operating system composed of GNU with the Linux kernel - RMS is putting at least some focus on GNU, and hopefully what GNU is about. If the media, and people in general began to talk about GNU and the fact that the operating system they love so dearly was created largely on the basis of freedom, perhaps they might finally begin to see that rights aren't something to be afraid of.
It could be argued that demanding that it be called GNU/Linux is not the best way to do this, especially with regard to the perception of GNU that such demands seem to lend themselves to. But for God's sake - at least realise that there are bigger, more important, more fundamental things to think about than the shallow view that you're getting off paying thousands of dollars to Microsoft.
That's my opinion.
GNU project does not have a kernel to run on. Ok hurd exists but I would be really interested to see it running on my ibook or on my PC . Linux and GNU need each other.
FSF is a foundation for free software. It support GNU but also free software. Linux is free software and moreover it is GPL. It would be a nonsense to give more support to linux than to HURD, and vice versa. On the GNU poject page, you can read than glibc is for HURD and Linux, and it should remain like this.
I support blindly free software, but I am also very disappointed to see how sometime, time and energy is wated in such sterile discussions
I've been hearing about Hurd from the FSF for many years now. It has more or less languished while Linux has taken off like a rocket.
The market (and the developers) seem to be voting with their feet when it comes to releasing a usable Hurd. So instead of kicking and screaming, maybe Stallman would be better off actually aiding the project that people WANT to be a part of and software that people WANT to use. The highly political naming war seems like a complete waste of oxygen.
Cheers,
Just another coward
I remember back in the good old days, when people were more than fully aware that Stallman was a frothing left-wing pinko frothing commie frothing fanatic... I specifically remember him trying to pull a very similar trick.
All at once, he popped up on the linux kernel mailing list and demanded that becuase he was a big and very important person, that linux immediately be renamed 'lignux'. Naturally enough he was laughed off the face of thelist.
Some weeks later the next major version of emacs was released featuring autoconf identifying systems as i386-unknown-lignux. Naturally enough, the rest of the world who hadn't seen Stallman's tantrum were puzzled by this. Eventually (the next day) someone released a patch and it swept the world bringing a certain frothing fanatic's to his knees.
After the laughter and taunting had died down, it all just died away. I wonder how many people now involved with linux and this issue actually remember. Perhaps it should be a maxim that fanatics of any kind make dangerous enemies, but even more dangerous friends...
B>
Read the licenses carefully and rip out parts which give Stallman any possibility to influence your future. Phrases like
just invites him to screw you when it pleases him. Rip out the "any later version" part [...]
And sure enough, it wasn't part of the License itself, but of the (although suggestive) part on how to apply the license to your source code. In the License it says:
This clause seems a little strange at first, and note, that you can restrict the licensing of a library to a specific version of the LGPL (although it's not explicitly said so you can do so by specifying the LGPL-Version). I think there is a good reason for using that option though, as long as one assumes, that the LGPL and the GPL will stay the same in spirit (the [...] part in above quote): what if you merge two libraries or use part of one library with part of another, soon you'll probably find all versions of the LGPL applicable to different parts of the code. Also an upgraded Version might close some loopholes of previous ones, so if you trust the FSF to do the right thing with the LGPL it's probably a good thing to leave the option of a License upgrade open to later developers. And anyway, as long as one person or group of persons keep control of a project (in the sense of being responsible for it) it's their choice, what specific licence the actual code ships with.
I also noted, that (3) allows to elevate LGPLd code to GPLd code. Again this makes sense, in the case that you want to use LGPLd code in a GPLd project (but not vice versa, which wouldn't make sense anyway, since that would 'degrade' the GPL to the LGPL). I think these paragraphs are in there for convenience's sake and not to give RMS total control over anything GPLd. Anyway, ripping the first quoted snippet out of context and using it to picture RMS as a controlfreak is, in my opinion, bad style. RMS often enough comes through, well, overenthusiastic, to say the least. The "GNU/Linux" vs. "Linux" debate doesn't help that either, but let's be honest, Linux wouldn't be what it is today, hadn't the GNU Software and the free software idea already been in place.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
By "F", I'm sure you meant F*dge. We here on slashdot do not approve or condone such language. Please refrain from using it in the future. Thank you, and God bless ESR.
saru mo ki kara ochiru
This has been seen for quite some time. It seems that Stallman is loosing a view of reality. Yes, it's Linux. And so what? It could be GNU for ever and ever and never become the system we know today. And people choose names for simplicity, reference and popularity. No one says "The United States of America" when referring to that piece of land in North America. It's either the "States", "USA", "US" or simply America. Some are more and less correct but no one is running here and crying for purities.
What Stallman is doing is dogmatising the soul of Free Softwares, Open Sources, Public Domains and everything that created the powerful, free and prosperous community of developers we have today. What he may get from this is the fact that GPL may turn into a void manifest of dubious ideals. If we are going to push the sense of things to the extremes, then they will loose every possible meaning. That's what will happen to GPL if we are going to fight for "purisms", "ideal worlds" and "bright futures".
If we are going to stick to words, instead of the conceptions of freedoms and rights on this imperfect world, then we will get the same fate of Communism.
Well if we go in dogamtisms then let's name Linux in Stallman's full sense: GNU's not Unix/Linux. It simply sounds stupid.
Why is it every time someone compares Linux to FreeBSD or Linux to any other *nix, the Linux kiddies defend themselves by says "It's better than Windows !!!". No SHIT, it's better than Windows. That doesn't make it a good OS. Better than Windows is like the Taller Than Napolean Award, everyone wins. Here's another idiotic example.
"much more often on Linux than on other unices"
"FreeBSD file system, which with soft updates enabled, performance-wise blows EXT2FS out of the water"
"The system is a mix of features from all kinds of unices, but not one of them is implemented right"
And the moron's response is:
"a properly maintained Unix or Linux system requires far less maintenance than Windos NT"
There it is again. On demand, the Linux kiddie will run to compare his OS to Windows.
challenge:
"But FreeBSD is a REAL OS, and it's far more stable and reliable than Linux."
response:
"Obviously you don't know what you're talking about. Linux is fifty bazillion times more stable than Windows 3.0 running over DRDOS on a 386 system with bad SIMMs."
WHO IS TALKING ABOUT WINDOWS ?!
Drop the s/FreeBSD/Windows/g bit when you're arguing about OSes Linux kiddies.
Oh, and you can mod this a flame if you like, but damnit, what I just said was the bare ass truth. Every time it comes down to an OS vs OS pissing contest, Linux kiddies have to bring MS into it, so at least they're better than somebody. In the above example the guy was talking about "Unicies" and the responding kiddie somehow felt he needed to bring Windows NT into it.
I really think that just saying "GNU" itself isn't enough. I mean, Stallman has been the major contributor to GNU stuff. The name of GNU should be adjusted accordingly to represent that.
From now on, we should refer to this as Stallman/GNU in order to respect his view that the major contributor to a project should have its name in the title.
And, by supposition, he can then request the name "Stallman/GNU/Linux" for the Linux operating system. Its only fair.
/*
7:44pm up 233 days, 16:20, 3 users, load average: 0.35, 0.42, 0.38
Desktop Workstation used for about 10 hours/day doing development and playing quake2 at lunch.. Thanks, but try again pal.
*/
Wow, that almost comes mildly close to some of my FreeBSD servers in production. Keep trying kid.
He even left us the choice of using whatever names for whatever systems. But he did show us the difference between freedom and openness. Then it occured to me that the guy is actually looking for happiness and peace, and needs freedom to accomplish this. Now we finally have many systems going (with more and more threats showing up) we do have choice. There is freedom.
Now then, let us return to happiness and not fight a war, oaky!
Why define an OS that way? It's just dumb.
... loose definition of what an operating system is for PR spin reasons (and so perhaps also some of those subjected to their propoganda) almost no operating system designers would agree with that.
... it would certainly point out the changes you've made to the stock system in a precise, concise manner that would make the differences clear to an otherwise unsuspecting programmer or user who sits down and otherwise wonders why cp, mv, ls, and tar behave so differently than expected.
I think you'll find yourself rather alone in academic circles in defending that statement. While Microsoft might agree with your
The definition of what is and is not an OS is a little fuzzy, but not nearly as arbitrary or fuzzy as you make it out to be. Defining an operating system as "just the kernel" is no more reasonable than defining the operating system as "the kernel, the shell and other tools necessary to use it, the GUI, and, oh, by the way, the web browser and office suite). There is a reason we refer to an operating system kernel as the kernel, not the entire operating system. Because there is, in fact, more to an operating system than just the kernel.
As for your silly notion of GNU/Solaris, Sun provides all the necessary tools to use the operating system (bourne shell, c shell, basic filesystem utilities such as newfs, fsck, ls, cp, etc.), and basic c libraries said utilities require. If they used soley GNU ls, cp, clib (glib), etc. rather than providing their own then RMS would be reasonable in requesting that Sun give him credit for having written most of their "operating system." Since Sun, not the FSF, wrote the software, there would be no such obligation. If you, as a Solaris user, choose to install the GNU versions of the various utilities, then perhaps calling it GNU/Solaris isn't so unreasonable
I was never really happy with RMS name change requests and found the "lignux" notion particularly obnoxious and offensive, and RMS was never much of a diplomat. However, the FSF has requested the use of the GNU prefix as a way of underscoring the freedom aspect of free software, and giving credit where credit is due. I try to refer to Linux as GNU/Linux (when I remember) not out of some misguided notion of obligation or desire to advocate the Free Software Movement ueber alles, but rather out of common courtesy to those who wrote the vast majority of the underlying system which I use everyday at work and at home.
I don't agree with everything RMS or the Free Software Foundation says, but the recent demonizing of the FSF and RMS by Tim O'Reilly, ESR, and slashdot is nothing short of despicable. Disagreements are one thing, but demonizing, demigaugary, and poisoning of the Free Software/Open Source community with this sort of one-sided propoganda is destructive and defies common sense, and I want nothing to do with it or those who support it.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
This may take me down to -1, Troll oblivion, but just hear me out first. It's some honest pondering.
Could this be a bad sign of things to come? What I see, is one of the maintainers of a vital component of Linux(*1) ranting about the very organisations that (good or evil) *are* pretty vital parts of the Linux operating system. For the record, I agree with them about Stali^H^H^H^H^HStallman (*2). But frankly it's worrying that at least one of my operating system's vital components is written someone who rants about other people in the public release notes! (Which IMHO makes him a bit of a war monger)
On the other side of the fence... it's also worrying that the GPL, which maybe 70%(?) of the Linux software is distributed under, was thought up by someone who seems to be losing a lot of credibility and trustworthiness.
Couldn't he suddenly change the licence to a "new version" that allows him to claim all the work for himself, restrict it so that only he can distribute it, and make billions?
We've also seen sour grapes between the glibc and gcc developers over GCC 3.0, which also made it into the release notes. What if this turns out just as nasty? To the point where they refuse to co-operate? What use would glibc or GCC be if they were incompatible with each other?
(They *really* need to be written by the same people, but that's for another topic).
Am I just being paranoid and misinformed?
(*1): or GNU/Linux. "What Do You Want To Call It Today?"
(*2): True, if it weren't for RMS, Linux wouldn't be what it is today (if anything at all). But that doesn't mean I like what he's turned into.
This conserves the bandwidth of companies that serve ads that I'm not interested in. Everybody wins.
Many companies are paid by the ad traffic. If you block an ad, regardless of whether you believe you would have been interested or not, the site doesn't get paid.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
The original Stack was BSD's. The BSD advert was displayed right on there , all the way up to , I believe, 1.2.12 or 1.0.13 or something like that (My mind blanks on some of this.. but I know that the stack was BSD's for what was a relatively long time.) I remember the flamewars quite vividly. "WHEN are we going to remove that STUPID stack?"
Etc.
Magnwa
>And here's where I prove it: If I run a Solaris box and install and link to a bunch of GNU stuff, does that magically transform my OS into GNU/Solaris? NO.
If you are setting a GNU system with the Solaris kernel, then it is called GNU/Solaris; the same principle as if you set a GNU system with a Linux kernel it is called GNU/Linux.
Dr. Rafael Sepulveda
Yeah, all they have to do is build factories on the mainland in Manchuria and French Indo-China and Russia is theirs, along with India and the U.S. supported Chinese forces. =)
Gotta love Axis.
People keep arguing over licenses, developers keep bitching about egos and such.
Nobody wonders why Linux is the only free software project that is not yet blessed by a CVS repository and decent, serious release management.
That's so strange: the "less free" projects are much better managed that the "more free" ones (see FreeBSD/KDE vs. Linux/Gnome).
D'oh.
Socrates didn't live in a barrel afaik. You're thinking of Diogenes.
Hey, should I program with Emacs or Vi?
for someone that's supposed to be so god-damned concerned with the "freedom as speech" mentality re: software, rms sure as fuck is one of the first to chuck it right out of the window when it's most convenient to do so. isn't this an all-or-nothing concept, here?
I'd just like to say, I've taken up crack as my new hobby. It's great! Really expensive, always the chance you'll get ripped off with soap, or even when you do get some, it's probably been stepped on so much you might not get the bell-ringer you're looking for, but you'll still suck down on that stem like it's your lifeline, pushing the wire back and forth fiendishly...and the crack whores! I think we're seeing a resurgence of the crack whore. Long live gwb's america!
At the time he started porting glibc to Linux (see article) it must have been cristal clear to Ulrich Drepper what the deal with GNU, GNU projects, the LGPL, and the glibc in particular were. In short it is about individuals making (many small) contributions to something that in the end is beneficial for a big group of individuals - call it user base, comunity, or society.
The GNU Project was the first of its kind and many similar free projects followed. The GPL and LGPL are constructed to protect this freedom, the basic idea of sharing. That is the reason why many of the follow-up projects chose this license - as the best possible protection for their code.
Making the above statement Ulrich Drepper, for me, becomes questionable as a project maintainer for glibc. His statement is a complete negation of the idea behind free software and GNU in particular. For him free software seems to be about claiming credit, not about sharing contributions (and I think it is more than ok that RMS claims a major part of the credit for Linux and that he wishes to see GNU mentioned together with Linux).
Ulrich Drepper seems not willing to continue playing by the rules that must have been clear to him, and that he accepted, when he started contributing to glibc, one of the core GNU projects. Even worse: Instead of walking away
Personally I think that the post script to this release note was written in rage and that is wasn't really clear to Ulrich, what he was actually saying. But it still makes me sad to see that a brilliant developer like Ulrich looses control over himself to such a degree that he makes statements perverting his own contribution to GNU and GNU/Free Software in general.
Oops, that was an unintended double negation.
The term 'Thought Police' implies that RMS is engaged in monitoring peoples behavior and punishing people for deviation. This is odd since the distinctive fact about RMS is that he manages to be out of touch with the hacker community beyond the Switzerland floor of 545 tech square to breathtaking degree.
RMS does not use any non-free software and is quite likely to reject pieces of software where he does not like the license conditions. Back in 1997 he still had not used the Web.
Linux uses a lot of GNU code, however it makes no attempt to hide the fact. It is not like NCSA's attempt to hijack the Web where CERN's libwww was used without attribution and the original documentation had no mention of CERN or the phrase World Wide Web.
The point about Linus is that he delivered more than just the kernel. He got together a complete bootable image that people could install. GNU did not lack a kernel, they lacked a loader. They had the CMU MACH kernel but they could not get it together to write a loader.
At the time the GNU libraries and applications were considerably less robust than they are today. The hacker base was much smaller and fewer patches were submitted. With the exception of emacs you would not use the GNU tools for additional features although you would use gcc because it saved you $1000+. Many of the other tools simply did not get enough use for the bugs to be eliminated. The only reason to use them was religion since the UNIX workstation you used already included them.
Until Linus came along and provided a bootable image that would run on PC hardware that is. Once you had an O/S that did not come with a native version of make it was pretty important that gmake worked well. People had always used gmake (if you wanted to build emacs it was advisable) but there was no reason to run the gnu version of most of the UNIX utilities.
What it comes down to is vision. Linus understood that if you put the basic framework in place unstructured community action would complete it. RMS wanted to be in control of everything and there was no reason why the kernel was any more objectionable than the applications he was using. In fact it was probably less objectionable because he wasn't so aware of it.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
This whole discussion of what makes up and "operating system" harkens back to very similar arguments made when Microsoft released Windows 95. On one side, people said that MS-DOS was the operating system (MSDOS.SYS, IO.SYS and COMMAND.COM), with the Windows 95 GUI and associated utilities being the "operating environment". Microsoft on the other hand, said that the GUI was included within the "operating system" bubble.
Linux could be considered similarly. The Linux Kernel and the shell would be considered the "operating system". While XF86, all the utilities, applications etc would be considered the "operating environment". It's misguided to think that the "operating system" includes some method of allowing a human being to interact with it. That's what the "operating environment" is for.
Now, I'm not trying to classify where GNU fits in all this, but distinguishing the difference between the "operating system" and "operating environment" seems like a good start toward figuring that out.
I think though that GNU spans across both categories... If that justifies RMS calling GNU/Linux is beyond me. I say Linux, because that is what it is to me.
Arrrrrgh!!! That obnoxious "Gary Gnu" dude from "The Great Space Coaster" keeps popping into my head.
The LAST thing that I need is an image of Gary Gnu in my mind every time I see "GNU/Linux."
Please, Senor Stallman.. don't inflict that horror upon us all....
From what I can tell, Ulrich wasn't upset by RMS forking, because that's not what RMS was even TRYING to do. RMS was trying to go around and turn all the other glibc developers against Ulrich, which is a bit more personal kind of activity. I wouldn't be insulted if someone forked a project I was working on, HOWEVER, I too would be PISSED if someone tried to turn all my codevelopers against me. Very few people on Slashdot seem to be getting this point. They think it is ALL about license or naming issues. Those issues might have been the original issues that caused a split between Ulrich and RMS, but I'm sure it's Stallmans essentially personal attack against Ulrich that sparked this flamefest.
I have to agree. RMS was the guy in the trenches-- one of the few vocal advocates of non-proprietary software for a very long time. Without him and the GNU foundation a lot of what we 'open-source' or 'free software' developers take for granted wouldn't exist. For that I thank him, and can respect his accomplishments.
But....
RMS is a fanatic. Not only that, he is a millitant fanatic. While that was useful twenty years ago, the playing field has changed. there are many vocal advocates now, none of whome I think are 'selling-out' RMS' ethics. None of whome are harming the movement.
RMS though, now he's gone from being the cure of problems to the cause. Militant fanatics suffer from tunnel vision, and anyone in the way of their goals--well, the ends justify the means right?
I thank RMS for what he's done in the past, but I think its time for him to step aside and let some more moderate people carry the torch. The movement is alive and well, and would do better without the militant fanatics.
IMHO.
Beware the Whyte Wolf.
With a gun barrel between your teeth, you speak only in vowels...
http://www.goatse.cx/
if this is the kind of bullshit we have to go through for a "free" OS, then I'll just burn a friend's copy of Windows and use it.
A regular thing? I don't believe I've ever seen a crash on a Linux box that couldn't be attributed to outside influences or hardware failure (note to self: when hot-plugging SCSI drives, take care that you plug the power connector in straight, and don't inadvertently touch a hot connector to ground). If you've had regular crashes under Linux, maybe you have flakey hardware, or maybe your distribution has made buggy modifications (*cough*RedHat?*cough*), or maybe you are simply incompetent.
No operasting system is perfect, not even linux. In any OS, there is going to be crashes once in awhile. After reading this, I have concluded that anything else you have to say about linux is one sided.
Yes, this is possible, but you have to trust somebody. It's important for the license to be upgradeable in order that future, presently unforseen problems may be fixed. And if you want your software to live beyond you, some entity other than a single person needs to have that power.
Nobody else (except maybe SPI) even comes close to the trustworthiness the FSF has earned on this issue. I don't think even RMS's most vicious and vitriolic attackers seriously believe he'll run off with GPL'ed software and sell out to a proprietary interest.
--Mike
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
RMS has converted thousands of neutral, and even hostile, people to his viewpoint. He's persuaded people to donate millions of hours of skilled labor towards his projects and his vision. In the technical arena, he has achieved his goal of a complete Unix workalike system with source code available to everyone. In the political sphere, the FSF's conceptions of intellectual property have broad currency among millions of programmers.
I agree that he has a blind spot about the "Gnu/Linux" issue. RMS is profoundly innovative, which means that he's profoundly indifferent to peer pressure. This enabled him to develop Project GNU from scratch, but it also leads him into bonehead moves like "Gnu/Linux" and "Lignux".
As the slashdot system of handing out moderation point to use, is, I have 5 points to assign. I have noticed lately that the overall comments and moderation point weights assigned are really quite accurate of representing and presenting a fair and bigger picture.
On this topic, the most positive thing I see is the amount of energy and effort people have put forth in expressing their pov. The importance of doing this, cannot be underestimated!!!
Although M$ may be having an internal field day with this topic and the responces, perhaps even getting some inspiration for their next attack on the GPL, the FACT IS:
It is this sort of drive that creates and maintains what in needed in order to keep the computer software industry in check. I suspect it's a good thing overall to have something like a minor conflict as this linux vs. GNU naming for it helps to keep things in check. And in this case helps communicate the history of credit, good or bad.
With all this in mind, and regarding the few days I've had 5 points to assign, then (though I technically can't but only verbaly can) I give all five points to the spirit of standing up for what you believe and keeping things in check in doing so.
Stallman gets his acronym and the rest of us don't have to add any more sylables.
There is no need to use a SlashDot sig for SEO...
NT
--
Thanks retaliatory mods, no more exodus mirrors for you!
It's a moot question because they simply don't have this power. Read the license. The people who own the code (meaning you, if you wrote it, and not on some company's time), can relicense at will. The people who contribute (significant) patches also have this power. The power that the FSF retains for itself via upgrades to the GPL is exceedingly narrow (and might even be so limited as to be completely useless).
Besides, who [sic] ever elected RMS dictator of his own projecct[?]
Read your history. When he started the FSF, no one really appreciated the need for software freedom. Not everyone agrees with him, but he's certainly walked his talk, and has more credibility than anyone else when it comes to furthering the FSF's goals.
--Mike
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
In fact, some time ago, Intel looked into this exact issue, and started their famous "Intel Inside" campaign to get more end user mindshare. They advertised to users directly and they also offered incentives to manufacturers such as Dell and Sony to stick "Intel Inside" stickers on their computers and in their advertising.
Apache does a similar thing by offering "powered by Apache" logos for people who care to use them.
I agree with you -- the organization that takes responsibility for the product gets to name the product. When my Dell computer breaks, I call Dell. When my Red Hat software breaks, I e-mail Red Hat.
If it's important to end users to know whether the product is based on the GNU development tools, then the manufacturers will advertise that. I think it would be worthwhile for the FSF to develop a "powered by GNU" or "based on GNU" branding program. And if it's critical to end users that the system is Gnu-based, then the manufacturers can put that in the name.
At this stage of the market, the end users think it's critical to know what kernel they are using (hence Red Hat Linux, Slackware Linux, Debian GNU/Linux, SuSe Linux, versus Caldera OpenUnix), but most of the end users don't think the GNU part is critical enough to go into the name.
The FSF could be a lot more constructive by figuring out what level of GNU recognition end users actually have right now and developing a branding program around that. They can also work to increase the profile and value of the GNU brand to end users. But it just not important enough to end users right now to justify the "GNU/Linux" co-name.
That's not a troll. don't know if it's insightfull, interesting or funny, but it's definitely not a troll. mod that up.
The KDE controversy was quite valid. It was solved in a quite satisfactory manner, and I currently usually prefer to use KDE. But until Gnome started making a lot of headway the license issue was... unsettling. Rather like the *.gif problem, though it never got to that point. But at the time the QPL was not an safe license to depend on. It's been fixed, but don't mistake the point. There was a real danger.
...).
Consider that in intelligence estimates, the threat is calculated not on what you estimate as likely, but rather on what you estimate as possible. You may think that someone is your friend, but don't set things up so that you are depending on it. That puts too much stress on the friendship. And puts you at risk if it crumples. (Or if he is bought out. Or if there is a management change. Or if
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
In reality, the compiler/linker and some command line tools were the only GNU software used by Linus when he started out. He had to work on his own C library because the GNU C library wasn't ready, he didn't use Emacs, GNU bash wasn't available, and he didn't originally release it under the GPL.
Also note that the current C & C++ libraries were not written by the FSF and were not originally part of the GNU project (the copyrights were signed over after the fact). They're not currently maintained by the FSF either. Further, the current GNU compiler suite wasn't GNU software until the FSF agreed to abandon the old gcc tree and adopt egcs from Cygnus.
In fact, few of the current GNU projects started out as GNU projects. Most became GNU projects only after the FSF coerced people into signing over their copyrights. The real agenda of the FSF is not to develop code, but to gain control over as much free software as possible. And they're perfectly willing to twist words, screw people over, stab them in the back, and play license games to get what they want.
In particular, if people en masse take to deleting the 'or any future version' clause in the GPL, there is a substantial risk involved. Let's pretend, for a moment, that the wording of the current GPL is so completely perfect that there can be no flaw in it of any kind.
Enter several hundred highly paid Microsoft lawyers and just _one_ corrupt judge willing to be bribed- or just _one_ prejudiced judge wanting to rule in favor of Microsoft because of how much business they do, and against the smelly hacker commies.
Curtain rises on a court case, in which the GPL is tested, and despite the so-perfect wording (IANAL- are you, and ready to swear the GPL will stand up against any and all future conditions ever to arise?) the ruling goes against the FSF- the GPL is ruled equivalent to public domain, or to the BSD license, or some other major catastrophic failing is applied to it. The ruling may be wrong but it is still the law. Result: the entire body of GPLed code is immediately compromised and no longer provides the effect of 'if you use any of this you must share yourself' that is desired.
At this point, any code that uses the true FSF version of the GPL or LGPL can rapidly be transferred to a new version written to work around the catastrophic ruling. Effectively a snapshot of the entire Free software world gets given to the sharks. "Gee thanks! *CHOMP*" But the active development can immediately transition to a new 'if you use any of this you must share yourself' version written to not be a giveaway to proprietary coders.
Meanwhile, what of the people who went along with Ulrich Drepper's very bad idea to lock code permanently to one version of the license? Surprise! All that code _continues_ to require the now-compromised-and-useless version of the license. In fact, if you are a recipient of the code you can't change that! You're compelled to use the version that's been rendered useless, and you are compelled to do a big give-away to proprietary coders with every line of code you write, who give you nothing in return. Fun huh? And all that needed to happen to produce this state of affairs was for some crazed lawyer and hostile judge to invalidate _one_ version of the GPL- the version you use, the same version that you stubbornly stick to because you don't trust the FSF (who wrote the damn thing!) to be able to release a new version in future without screwing you over. In fact, the only reason you can think of to release a new version is to be screwing you over, and you couldn't imagine anyone ever legally blowing a hole in the version of the GPL you've tied yourself to, although you are not a lawyer. Surprise!
This is the risk in listening to the suggestions Ulrich Drepper is making. You might as well write your own damn license and start over if you're going to carry on like this. As just an ordinary, not-very-important GPL-using developer, I figure I have as good a right as anybody to beg people not to go along with this dangerous nonsense- I think only original authors are really entitled to play with the wording in this way, and even for them the risk of doing so is an absolute timebomb.
This idea is potentially a lot more damaging than any amount of 'things named Gnu*' bickering, and I am stunned that Ulrich Drepper is advocating it. Please don't listen.
That being said, I have little patience for the man. I suppose we owe him a debt for forcing us to re-think the way we develop software. But his ideas are not well thought out, and he's too damn intolerant. Worst of all, he refuses to acknowledge his failures.
There's a very good reason GNU doesn't get the top billing Stallman thinks it deserves. Project GNU is a failure. Its goal of a free OS never appeared, at least not in any useful form. It did produce some bits and pieces of an OS, including some important development tools -- but also including a lot buggy, useless bloatware.
GNU might still be a success of sorts if it there had every been a real GNU kernel. But Stallman wasted a decade dicking around with Hurd and wasting time on ideological hassles. Inevitabily, somebody else came along and supplied the missing piece. It was a small piece, but it was crucial. So the complete OS is known as "Linux", not "GNU". No amount of hassling will ever make people say "GNU/Linux." It's just the way people think. Labels again.
'nuff said
The revolution will NOT be televised.
I don't like taking down my NFS server and finding that the running disks have become corrupted due to some bug in NFS/VFS/ext2. I don't like it when the VM subsystem gets fucked up in the supposedly stable kernel because nobody on linux-kernel knows how to write a VM (2.4.0's kernel? stolen from FreeBSD). Then there's the glibc-version-du-jour problem (similar to the windows DLL problem) and the RPM-version-du-jour problem, both solved by the FreeBSD ports system.
Linux is a fucking annoying OS to try to maintain. And don't even start talking to me about trying to make it work on the desktop. We had religious Linux bigots that tried to make web developers use Linux and lets just say that they got pushed out of that particular decision making process and the users got Macs and Windoze.
I've been there and actually tried all of this, this is not theoretical. Linux sucks.
Open source will never amount to much of anything. Programmers are as a whole anti-social, paranoid monomaniacs with serious ego problems and low social IQ. Until you idiots realise that
1) Hierarchies work and
2) 99% of the world do not care about well coded and virtually unusable software
you will contimue to have your asses handed to you by the more savvy and yes, more intelligent folks at Sun, IBM, Microsoft et al.
****TROLL ALERT****au contraire, mes ami...*****THOUGHT POLICE ALERT*****
"Attention, viewers. The seemingly innocuous post you have just read contains elements (overblown phraseology, potentially offensive generalizations) strongly suggestive of the "craft" of trolling." ---- What are you smoking?
I see that the oldest and unfortunately truest tradition of Decnet, political correctness, still has a tenacious foothold in the community when it comes to RMS.
My prior post was polite, considerate and fully acknowledged Richard's contributions, which is more than some of the criticism that he receives from the LINUX community. NO, my friend, the agenda here is yours.
While i don't know if it's a simple, unrefined need for attention or more deviously, a reactive "ad hominem" attack against anything that questions RMS' relevance.
It was also peformed in the classic Goebbelian fashion, without neither examples nor proof of your claims.
But, assuming that it was an attack against the notion of RMS' decreasing relevance. Let me state it more clearly...
Everytime Richard launches into one of his canned diatribes, whether against the entire concept of "Open Soure" and/or any license scheme other than GNU/GPL and starts getting pissy about how "impure" other people are (and how "pure" he is), he loses relevance and influence and credibility.
Richard's spent 3 decades (unsuccessfully) trying to get something like LINUX going, he should be F*****G tickled pink and blue at how well the Open Source movement has brought the entire question of the value of proprietary software into the public for discussion. Since that's supposedly what he's all about.
Instead, he demonstrates this remarkable infintilism by running around acting like he's everybody's dick-deprived, spinster aunt, Zelda. Lecturing people who don't; want it, need it or appreciate it on the values of ***HIS DEFINTIONS*** of "virtuousness" and "purity"
There is NO BETTER example of this than the non-issue of appending GNU to LINUX, if this was all that big of an issue to him, he WOULD HAVE PUT IT IN THE LICENSE, as that's his complete raison d'etre.
Nope, Richard bet the farm on Hurd, dissed LINUX/Linus for years and now wants a piece of the action. But, in classic autocratic fashion he just doesn't want to "get on the LINUX bus" with the rest of the community, he wants to tell the bus where to go and how to get there. That's called hijacking.
Well, as someone who ***genuinely*** values much of what RMS has done (even if not how's he done it). One thing is clear.
The biggest impediment to RMS's "Message" is RMS, and he's dooming himself to increasing irrelevance in the Open Source movement by his behaviours.
Ten quid, she's so easy to blind. And not a word is spoken...
Milhous, and is Richard Milhous Nixon??? There sured does seem to be some similarities.
My Weblog
ask yourself why this or that is an issue. What is your philosophy. What are you trying to achieve. What do you see as bad (that you are fighting against).
Then take a look at your processes and methods and see if you contradicted yourself. If so, then make changes. For example, lets say that I am of the belief that software should be free, and that people should have the freedom to make their own choices in the ways that they see fit as best for them. But then I hypocritically force my views on others, and my methods of achieving my lofty goals are through brute force and strong-arm tactics. Lets say that I believe that everyone should be free to express and hold their opinion and live the lives that they choose... unless I don't like them or their choices.
In this case I would be a hypocrit that has proven through action that I really do NOT believe in what I state as my goals and beliefs. In fact, by saying one thing and doing another I am nothing more than a greedy politician (just like the politicians and evil corporations I demonize). Because I act in ways I demonize others for, I both a hypocrit and by my OWN DEFNITION, I am EVIL! I can then choose to use logic and reason in order to rectify this, or lash out with hatred at anyone who tries to help, thus becoming just one more poisonous flavor of icecream in the Baskin Robins of corruption.
Hey, I can even employ the FUD and propoganda I lash out at, and instead of education, use subversion, censorship and aggression to get my way!!!!
Or, I can realize I am correct, so I do not need to resort to violence, deceit or coersion. I will educate not eradicate. I will realize that I must first police myself and my organizations before I look outward and attack anyone else.
> It's a bit too glib, see?
damn punny. major props to you.
No matter how many itty bitty little fingers they have, it doesn't change this fact. Human beings are autonomous entities, while fetuses are partially developed and reliant on a human being to stay alive until they are human.
Just as I have the right to kill a tapeworm that is living inside of me, I have the right to kill a parasitic fetus that is living inside of me.
He can add any new rule as he please and most existing GPL program will fall under it! After all the following is part of COPYING:
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
Well, strictly speaking, the kernel is the OS. It manages all the processes and hardware on your system. You merely need a few daemons to give the added functionality of networking, logging, and services that provide for the general health of your system. But in this case, calling the kernel the OS, you still have a lot of contributed (GPLed) code that went into the linux kernel. Would it be better to say all the names of the developers in alphabetic order as the name of the OS or simply attach GNU, which defines the legal, ethical and moral idealism of the license, code and OS. Afterall its the choice of the GNU generation. But at least its a choice.
Read your moderator guidelines, and learn to separate your personal agenda motivations from the requirements of the moderator. Unpopular yet valid opinions have their place, whether or not you like them. Moderate down stuff which is just plain wrong, not stuff you disagree with.
'Your' moderator points are to be used for the good of the community, not for advancing your own political views. A bad moderator is as bad as the trolls, if not worse.
He's not the one who picked the fight. Remember that it was RMS who went behind his back and tried to turn the other key developers against him.
Keep repeating that mantra, it will help you feel better about yourself being wrong. In the mean time, the rest of the world will define an OS by its kernel and label them accordingly.
RMS and GNU have been working since 1984 to get a complete unix-like OS out. It's true they've done a lot of work... But why O why can't they get the damn kernel out the door?
They've had a complete OS minus the kernel for years and years now and still NO KERNEL. Either their coding abilities and contributions don't ammount to much, or more likely, they don't know what they should be spending their time on.
If they just got their kenrel out the door, they could stop harping on linux and get on with whatever it is they want to do after they're done.
Actually, this really makes you think. They belittle the linux kernel all the time (eg here) yet in 10 years they still haven't been able to release something nearly as functional.
Liberty.
Actually, ISPELL originally came from ITS, the PDP-10 timesharing system that Stallman and others first wrote EMACS for. ISPELL stood for "ITS Spell" (it was itself portedfrom some other PDP-10 TOPS-10 program, I think). I remember all this because I integrated it into EMACS (M-$). I worked with Stallman on this and other issues for a few years.
The Unix vesrion came about when Pace Willison took the algorithms and code, which were as open and freely available on the ARPANet, and ported them to PDP-11 Unix. Gil Pratt might have helped, but I can't remember. This version is the one that went to the FSF, as described in previous messages.
[I wrote this back on March 31, 1999, but it's just as true today as it was then...]
Why "GNU/Linux" is a Misnomer
There is no GNU/Linux distribution.
The only appropriate use of the term "GNU/Linux" would be for a Linux distribution released under the auspices of the GNU project. Since no such distribution actually exists, the term "GNU/Linux" is a complete misnomer.
Sorry, an FTP archive does not a distribution make. If it did, no distribution maker would get any attention, since everyone would go to the FTP archives and get everything from the source. In real life, nobody wants to do that to create a complete system, and most people lack the skills and determination to bootstrap a system entirely from scratch this way. (And for those who do, their systems might be most accurately described as "custom Unix-like systems", although they would more likely be described as "custom Linux systems" now.)
The avowed goal of the GNU project is to create a complete system which is like Unix, but not proprietary. The packaging of a distribution is an essential part of creating a complete system. Without a distribution, you don't have a complete system; it is just as important as the kernel itself. A complete system must form a cohesive whole. To point at a jumble of diverse components and describe them as a "complete system" is delusional at best. All of Stallman's prevarications aside, the kernel was not the "last piece" missing from "the GNU system". (If this were true, why didn't the GNU project release "GNU/Linux" immediately when the Linux kernel became available?)
The GNU project has yet to produce a complete system. If and when the GNU project releases a distribution of the GNU operating system based on the Linux kernel, it will be fully appropriate to call that distribution "GNU/Linux". Similarly, a GNU distribution based on the Hurd kernel would be appropriate to name "GNU/Hurd".
The GNU project has no right to dictate the choice of names for distributions made by others. Given how obsessed RMS is with issues of freedom, it is quite ironic that he doesn't afford distribution makers the freedom to name their distributions, or the marketplace the freedom to choose generic names.
Linux distribution makers have chosen to use the term "Linux" in all their distribution names for name recognition reasons. This was not done to unfairly bestow credit on the Linux kernel out of proportion to its contribution to the entire system, as RMS appears to believe. Rather, this is entirely an issue of marketing for the complete distribution.
Whether RMS likes it or not, "Linux" is a more marketable name than "GNU" is. This is partly because RMS cares more about adherence to his ideals than appeasing the market. (This is not necessarily a bad thing.) This is partly because the recursive nature of the "GNU's Not Unix" acronym isn't very appealing to the general public, being both confusing and rather "cutesy" at the same time.
Mostly,"Linux" wins from a marketing perspective simply because it is very reminiscent of "Unix", itself a bizarre name that nonetheless carries considerable name recognition in the marketplace, due to the distinguished record acquired by Unix systems of all flavors over the years. Since Linux is "Unix-like", this is a good and appropriate connotation, as well as being marketable. Marketing is about perception, not fairness.
It is disingenuous in the extreme for RMS to insist that all Linux distributions should be referred to as "GNU/Linux". By doing so, RMS manages to present himself as childish and petulant, eroding much of the credibility he had built up through years of dedication and hard work. It reinforces the image of an inflexible zealot, which encourages people to discount his contributions rather than acknowledging them.
Yes, the GNU tools form an essential piece of a typical Linux distribution. The Linux kernel itself is essential. The X Windows system is essential. BSD-derived code is essential. The packaging of the distribution itself is essential. Many components of the system are essential, and none of that matters when it comes to the name.
The name of a distribution is the exclusive perogative of its creator. Just as Linus Torvalds has the perogative of naming the Linux kernel despite his admission that most of the lines of code come from contributions, so does Red Hat have the perogative of naming their distribution "Red Hat Linux", regardless of where the greatest contribution may lie.
RMS has no cause to complain. X Windows is not credited in the GNU name because it has been "adopted" by the GNU project, and is therefore considered to be implicitly credited. In fact, the GNU project "adopted" as many components as possible, and only rewrote what was necessary to fill in the gaps.
What RMS has willfully ignored is that most Linux distributions have "adopted" many GNU components to fill in the gaps to create a complete system, exactly as the GNU project "adopted" what was already available. By the same logic, the GNU project is implicitly credited, as is X Windows. The choice of a name for the overall distribution remains strictly a marketing decision, not a recognition of credit due or most significant contributor.
The upshot of all this? The term Linux distribution (or simply Linux) is entirely appropriate to refer to generic distributions based on Linux. Not because of the relative importance of the kernel to the overall system, but because "Linux" is the only term common in the names of all Linux distributions. Therefore, it is the most appropriate generic designation, and "GNU/Linux" is the misnomer that should be suppressed.
Copyright 1999 by Deven T. Corzine. <deven@ties.org>
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
I've met RMS and anyone with insight into the human soul knows instantly that the guy is an egomaniac
He is doing irreparable harm to FSF the commie bastard should quit and let good hearted people take oker
...that if I write a book using EMACS, I have to add GNU and/or EMACS to the title, since it was built with EMACS as the foundation? I don't think so...
You mean RMS tried to convince others of his point-of-view, and didnt tell this developer about it... only a paranoid ego freak would see this as a personal attack.
Do think maybe this person was so astonished, so amazed that his ultimate authority wasnt being 100% acknowledged that he over-reacted in this vitrol-filled screed?
Maybe just even a little bit..?
I've met Stallman (though not recently). He _is_ consistent in his views; unfortunately his views are often a combination of self-serving and socialist.
I chatted with him 15 years ago; he hasn't changed his goals since then: to control how other people write and use software. His political positions are heavily influenced by late-60's/early 70's socialism. He loves to subvert terminology in ways that confuse people (especially in the US). He carefully (and slyly) chose the Free Software Foundation name to make people think that it was "free" in the same way public domain software is. He makes no bones about the fact that the GPL is a tool to achieve his political ends if you directly query him on it.
Of course, he has every right to advance his political aims (though he doesn't like others doing the same when they might come into conflict with him). Many people put things under the GPL without realizing they were advancing his personal or political agenda, and that they were giving major rights to him and the FSF to their code. (See the latest glibc release notes for examples.)
Stallman fundamentally believes that no one should be _allowed_ to sell their work. ESR is correct here - remove the charged word "freedom" from the debate and see where his preferred results end up.
Stallman also endorses that the end ("free" software) justifies the means.
If you think I'm in the O'Rielly/ESR camp on this - maybe I am. I dislike how RMS has caused "public domain" software to disappear - everyone seems to feel required to license their software under one or another license. RMS is (or at least was) quite anti-public-domain - he felt that it reduced his leverage to attain his political goals.
Free software is free as in free speech but I think you meant "free software" extremists. Is it wrong to be extremely devoted to what you consider right? Patrick Herny was an extremist. Jefferson was an extremist. Certainly one can also name less savory extremists. But the point is that being a fanatic or extreme in one's support of what one considers right is not automatically an ill.
I support the types of freedoms the FSF is for. I don't always support their wordings or attitudes or actions.
It is Drepper that looks like a foaming at the mouth loon, not RMS.
Above post is just stupid and uninformed.
Please do yourself a favor and smoke a whole bunch more. When you get your "bell ringer", look around. That's as good as its going to get.
I'll address your points one by one:
First, RMS attempted to control the technical direction of glibc by telling all developers to work on what he wanted done, which would promote HURD while makin Linux a second-class citizen. He also attempted to install an FSF controlled seering committee that would focus discussion and work around those things. He was unsuccessful in both counts.
Second, Drepper is mad about the name GNU/Linux because he completely understands the significance. Stallman wants to make GNU the primary point, so that someday he can pull out the Linux kernel (which he has always had a grudge against) and install HURD in its place. He wants to change the name so that people see Linux as a minor part of the GNU operating system, and so take that change as a small and natural one, rather than the large and unpleasant one that it is.
For your third point, although you are right about an SC beeing a more democratic way to run a project, this SC was conceived of as a takeover attempt and implemented in an undemocratic way (ie. with RMS choosing his lackeys as the members and people working on the project getting a secondary role). Thus, this particular committee is flawed.
Lastly, you are right that Drepper is not perfect. I definitely disagree about the supreme competence of gcc people, though.
Drepper isn't a control freak. Quite the opposite; he strongly resists being controlled. While that makes him often equally unpleasant, he is not the same magnitude of evil.
Even Slashdot wants to hide some things
In the mean time, the rest of the world will define an OS by its kernel and label them accordingly.
Oh, cool. I can't wait for Microsoft's next release of NTKRNL.DLL! NTKRNL.DLL 2000 is pretty good, but I hear NTKRNL.DLL XP is going to be AWESOME! I'm just glad that they're finally putting KRNL32.DLL 95, KRNL32.DLL 98, and KRNL32.DLL ME to rest!