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.
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.
is why can't gcc 3 be used to compile this new version of glibc?
Because glibc is very sensitive to changes in how the stack is laid out, etc. This is just one of those things, just like how 2.2 kernels could not be built with gcc 2.95. Eventually everyone will get their stuff straightened out, and that's that.
I don't consider myself a "rabid RMS fan", but if it weren't for this megalomaniac, I wouldn't have a means now to thumb my nose at proprietary software and live my life Microsoft-free. I deeply respect him for that, and I'm willing to cut him some slack on occasion, especially since nobody (including this Drepper guy - his story looks more like a rant than anything else) has particularly compelling evidence to support their "RMS is a raving lunatic megalomaniac" claims. Now don't get me wrong, I will be as dissappointed as the next guy if it turns out that RMS is really losing it, but I won't deny the obvious, WHEN it becomes obvious. Call me conservative, but right now, Ulrich Drepper looks more like a raving lunatic to me for venting off like that in an official release document.
:-)
Besides, RMS can't really harm free software anyway, his own license would prevent him.
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
I also demand the final word in anything I'm the principle author - its called Quality Assurance.
ie: I filter out what I feel is crap, and similarly, I work on what *I* want to. If you submit me a good patch, it'll go in, and you'll be in my credits file/changelog, but at the end of the day, its still my project.
When you're working on stuff in your free time, this is the way of the game. Its not just a job, its personal.
And interestingly, the GPL does not grant RMS the control you think it does. Since it does not, and the GPL is the only relevant bit of information about GNU's control,everything else - that RMS is kinda extreme - is quite beside the point.
I think RMS has to sound extreme to some people, simply becuase the ideas he advocates are radical. Given the fact that the average moderate can't even defend his own opinions, why then is the judgement of 'extremist' in any way a good argument. These kind of personal attacks has got to stop.
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)
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
'Eventually'... When is that? While I'm still alive?
Who knows? And anyway, who cares? Compiling glibc is a gigantic PITA. It takes hours even on a fast machine, and it's not really necessary for anyone except people doing distributions. Did you really need to compile glibc with gcc 3.0 right away? You can use glibc with gcc 3.0 just fine, you know.
And GCC 3.0.1 comes out tommorow.
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
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.
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.
It doesn't indicate that. It doesn't indicate that at all. What is does indicate is that the author is a man that's sick of RMS's shit. It's pretty simple really. He's a man that's been pushed to the limits and isn't going to take it anymore.
Nope. That is the way to get sidelined and branded a 'lunatic' and a 'zealot' and that is exactly what RMS has managed to accomplish throughout his life. I don't think many people who aren't frequent visitors to /. even know his name or care about his views.
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
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.
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.
Even though I'm a big 'free software' freak.. the kind that thinks 'open source' is a shortcut that'll eventually bite us in the ass.. I think RMS can and does go over the top a bit. I understand why he feels the right and the need to put GNU in front of Linux but lets get real and just realize it isn't going to happen. Even though open source is mistaken in their backing down from the sharp edged rules of GNU they are doing our community a lot of good and creating tension between the two factions is foolish and at least as short sighted as going open source rather than GNU in the first place. Certainly it is foolish to do anything as hasty as try to make a landgrab of our own developers work. The best way to win a idealistic war is to be charasmatic. That is why Linus does at least as much for the free software movement as RMS even though he's been involved for a lot less time.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
... 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
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.
Neither did GNU create Linux. Linus happened to use the GPL on his OS because it was already there, and it was convenient. If it hadn't have been for GNU, the only thing that would have changed is that Linux would not have come with the variety of tools that it does (it may have, in fact, remained dependant on Minix or some other existing Unix-like OS). The result would have doubtless been that Linux would not have become as popular as it did, but I doubt it would have kept it from existing in the first place. Although Linux owes much of its ability to stand along much to the existence of GNU software, it's hardly fair to say that Linux owes its entire existence to GNU. One may as well say that they owe their entire ability to walk to whoever it was that helped them take their first step. Contributed? Definitely. Intrinsically responsible? Absolutely not.
You know, where I go to college, we have an AIX box that I have an academic account on. As far as I've been able to tell, all of the tools on it are GNU or otherwise free, but the college doesn't go around calling it a GNU/AIX installation. Why should Linux be any different?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
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.
Could RMS really be L. Bob Rife from Snow Crash?
Hmm.
Its his project, I say he can run it like he wants to.
As for the whole GNU/Linux thing; stallman just wants control over anything under the "GNU" umbrella, because he's STILL pissed at Linus having "stolen his thunder" out from under him by beating Hurd to the punch.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
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
Maybe HURD existed as a concept, but i *still* dont see it existing in a usable fashion. Maybe the Debian/HURD project will bear fruit, but as far as I know, HURD is still one of those 'research exercises'.
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)
OK, now I'm thinking about using that Hell March tune from the game as the start-up sound in Gnome...
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.
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
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
This means that if someone want to use G version 3.0, he could. But you'll still have the portections afforded by license G version 2.0! Do you think the FSF would undermine themselves by revising version 2.0 to something totally different?
"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?
No problem with that. When I am conscious of it, I can try for "GNU/Linux", but when we are writing stream of consciousness text, it's "Linux". I think that's what respect means - if you are conscious of it, make the effort, but if not, just demand some forgiveness.
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
No, no no... it's pronounced lee-nucks. The Linux Pronunciation HOWTO can be found e.g. here.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
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.
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.
If it weren't for Linux, you'd have to buy a copy of a proprietary OS to run the heavenly suite of GNU tools. Your nose would remain unthumbed.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Okay, I'll bite. Exactly how did he "demand" this? What were his words? How were they said? Did he say something like "I am Richard Stallman, your god, and I demand that you change the name of this group as I decree". That doesn't ring true.
Are you sure he wasn't just arguing in favor of it (perhaps in a poorly chosen way)?
--Mike
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
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
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
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!
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.
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/
M$ Bob, this is Slashdot. Its not NPR, and he's not supposed to be Walter Cronkite. If Taco wants to make a tongue-in-cheek observation, he's damn well entitled to do so, without your post-menstrual whining.
And a guy who can't properly spell hypocrisy and has a userid greater than 300000 really shouldn't try to condescend to CmdrTaco...
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
"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.
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?
Give me a break.
Stallman is all for 'freedom' -- on his terms.
There is nothing more dangerous than a powerful idealists. Idealism has a tendency to shift when the original ideas don't work as planned.
There's a book called "The Power Broker" by Robert Caro that describes a similar man named Robert Moses. He started out as a incorruptable reformer but finished his long career as a utterly corrupt power-mad maniac. (He virtually ruled New York State for 50 years without ever being elected.)
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
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)
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.
Nah, RMS only developed the bits that suck. The cool stuff was developed by some Finnish guy.
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...
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!
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.
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!"
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
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!
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!
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!
Richard Stallman is a kook.
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.
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)
GNG = GNG's Not GNU
See it recurse! See it bifurcate!
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.
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).
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.
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
There is nothing more dangerous than a powerful idealists.
Yes there is, complacent(ignorant) realists without who your greedy opportunists would be without power. Realists mostly use their own corrupt, self serving motives to paint others the same - and have a hard time seeing through their own selfishness to understand someone elses selflessness.
I am far more concerned with greedy realists than i am altruist idealists. Dont drop your cynicism as insightfull, it is not - it mostly speaks to your own perspective.
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.
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.
Holy CRAP, is that real? Christ on a fucking crutch! If anybody took that sort of patronizing tone with me in person, let alone the affected arrogance "Oh, you mean a computer console? What other kind is there? Oh, one of THOSE. Well, you run right along, sonny, I've got a Community to run." Wow.
Honestly, that reads like a parody.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
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
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/
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...
Don't confuse the history of the PC with the history of computing.
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 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.
BSD is completely free(dom), the GPL forces you to let others free(dom). So yes.. inherently the GPL is less free. Ofcourse.. the GPL does have a bit of an agenda (which I personally happen to agree with). By forcing freedom, the GPL is less free.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Oh, that's OK... Let them laugh, just like we will when we look at stuff like this ;-)
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
[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
Tools such as LS, TAR, GZIP, and so on are not glamourous, but they are needed to create a functional Unix-style system.
At the time Linux was developed, there were no tools of this sort under a free license other than GNU's; BSD was still under a restrictive license and there was a great deal of confusion surrounding what could and couldn't be done with it.
The upshot is that it's fair to say that without GNU, there would have been no freely-available Linux.
So, should we acknowledge RMS's great contributions to the field of free software? Of course. Do we need to put GNU/ before Linux or give him control over programs he is not actively developing? I think not.
Hope that helps.
D
Stallman's resentment began when the realities of the outside world hit the fantasy of his University world.
It had nothing to do with the PC, his resentment was formed when a group of people left the MIT AI Lab and formed their own company to build machines which would run a LISP operating environment for experimenting in AI.
It had nothing to do with the PC, and certainly nothing to do with Bill Gates. Microsoft did not invent the idea of closed source software... it existed for years prior to their startup.
I know the 'i' is short (I'm Finnish, for pete's sake), but it's impossible to write it down without explaining it (since 'i' can be pronounced 'eye'). And that's exactly why I included the link to the sound file..
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
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