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.
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.
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.
Okay, lets set this straight once and for all.
What is part of the operating system?
- kernel
- libraries necessary to run C programs
- the most basic interface possible
What is not part of the operating system?
- GUI
- web browser
- office suite
- your mom
Okay... so, you should call linux "GNU/Linux", because GNU tools are a larger percentage of the Operating System itself than even the Linux kernel.
You should not call windows "Windows98/Acrobat Reader" because Acrobat Reader in no way qualifies as a "part of the Operating System".
I have an idea. GNU/Linux is a bit of a mouthful, so let's use an abbreviation. I recommend "Linux".
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
I use some Gnu tools and many more non-gnu-licensed tools with my linux kernels. I'm not gonna say Gnu/Apache/Perl/BSD/etc/Linux, and neither should anyone else. Yeah, the system would be less useful without gnu tools, it'd also not be what it is without all the other pieces of software on it.
The point isn't that the GNU tools are a major part of a standard Linux distribution.
In the early 1990s, the GNU project had everything you needed for a baseline operating system. Compiler, assembler, linker, C library, shell. Everything except a kernel. Linus took those tools and added the final piece, the kernel. Linus didn't need X-Windows or Perl. Apache didn't exist. Linus needed a compiler, a linker, an assembler, a C library, and a shell. He used the GNU project's tools. Linux is built upon a foundation of GNU tools.
That's why the Stallman can claim the GNU project has a valid claim to share the Linux title. Why bother? Politics. Stallman is pushing a political and ethical agenda. Free Software or nothing. Part of his job is to spread the word, and getting the GNU name used is a great way to do it. Every user who says "What's the GNU thing in front of Linux?" is an opportunity to spread the word.
That said, I'm not sure I agree that it should be called GNU/Linux. It seems a bit pushy to me. But don't make the mistake that he wants it called GNU/Linux just because the GNU tools are part of the typical package. He wants it added to help spread the Free Software word. His claim is that the GNU tools where the foundation.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
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.
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
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!
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.
How about this:
"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."
That's how it's supposed to be bad. If you look at ESR's recent article, he says that developers should have the freedom to do what they want. If i'm not reading this wrong, Drepper is the maintainer of glibc, and so should decide what goes on - if he has a plan for how it will work and evolve, and it's his project, then he should have the right to have the project follow his plan, and not be taken out of his control.
He also says:
"I find this completely unacceptable and can assure
everybody that I consider none of the code I contributed to glibc
(which is quite a lot) to be as part of the GNU project and so a major
part of what Stallman claims credit for is simply going away."
If he's an important contributor, and the project maintainer, I think he has every right to control the project. He is not a control freak just because he wants his project to be given to someone else! This doesn't apply to all situations, but for some projects it's good to have one person in control who decides how things will work, and controls the overall architecture and the project in general.
They that quote Benjamin Franklin on liberty and safety deserve neither.