Slashdot Mirror
Stallman Clarifies Position RE:Gnome & .Net
RMS ? has sent The Register an email in which he corrects their 'inaccurate' representation of his stance on the GNOME & .NET issue. He states, "I am pretty sure something was garbled in the quotation which has me asking Miguel to 'explain himself to us', because those words would be
explicitly confrontational, and I did not have any wish to do that."
RMS "explicitly confrontational?" Surely you jest!
;-)
Wow, this is turning into a ping-pong match.
You have to wonder how much relevant information is lost before a story makes it to press these days. Partial quotes, reassembled sentences, poor fact checking. This is meant to address the media in general, not this article specifically.
We need a newspaper/website that quotes people word for word rather than just the highlights, and always sends two reporters to cover a job separately. Not that it will ever happen but I bet we'd have a considerably different view of world events if it happened.
> "GNOME is part of the GNU project, and is free software
> (some times referred to as open source software.)"
I take that to be saying that "free software" is not equivalent to "open source" software, although sometimes it is referred to that way.
No, he is not lying.
The "free software movement" based upon the
GPL, LGPL, GFDL etc. and started by GNU is
very different from the Open Source movement
started by Bruce Evans?
Anyway, the latter you can inform you about
at http://opensource.org
The former at http://www.fsf.org
FSF is the Free Software Foundation, which is
the nowadays' head of the GNU project, the
GNU licenses and non-GNU projects that are
under the [L]GPL and hosted by them but do not
belong to the GNU project as a whole.
RMS is head of the GNU project and the FSF,
so I think he is right to decide which direction
the GNU project follows, although I am not, in
my PERSONAL opinion, happy with this line.
Take the Gnu Compiler Collection (GCC) as an
example: http://gcc.gnu.org
The Copyright lines in the Copyleft license
(sigh!) refer to the FSF as owner.
If you want any of your changes be committed
into gcc you MUST transfer your copyright on
these changes to the FSF, which then, in turn,
incorporates them under the current GPL (or LGPL,
for example in the glibc, but I don't know if
this practice is there, too).
These are because then the FSF can be sure that
no third party copyright owner can claim anything
about such core projects as the gcc. For example,
if the GPL would prove invalid in court, the FSF
would change the GCC license from one day to
another to a protective one.
As I said, *personally* I am no GNU fan and do
use a modificated MIT/X/BSD license for my projects,
but on the other hand I am glad that RMS started
things such as the gcc that early.
Credits to whom credits belong.
My Karma isn't excellent, damn it! (And
RMS has never been confrontational. But he has always stood his ground.
Unfortunately many "nutbags" seem unable to understand the difference.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
The very existence of GNOME is the direct result of our ideals of freedom, precisely what the open source movement was founded in 1998 to reject.
:)
So open source rejects your ideals of freedom, and has done since its foundation?
Someone better notify the press
Henry
i don't do sigs. oops.
He's not. If you bothered to read the article you'd see that someone told RMS that Miguel wanted to change the licence of Gnome to the X11 licence. RMS said he would not like that and that he did not belive Miguel would do that.
How about (3) "Karma Sucks" is unable to parse the English language?
Gnome is part of the GNU project... True.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I actually have a few issues to address regarding the Register's report...
.NET framework -
.NET technology specifically for GNOME. As we all know, that is far from the case... While this involves a quite obvious conflict of interest for M$ as a corporation (industry acceptance of .NET -vs- inadvertently providing Linux w/ new technology), I wouldn't say that M$ has been overly cooperative!!!
.NET including SmartClients and the new Microsoft security model. ®"
First, I would like to raise the question of exactly where it is that I can view de Icaza's comments.
"Miguel de Icaza has issued his own clarification, here, which also amounts to 'move along folks, there's nothing to see'."
Unfortunately, however, the good people at the Register neglected to actually link the here in that statement! Anyone have any ideas???
Next, I move to a quote the Register supplies from de Icaza regarding the
".NET is a fantastic technology upgrade for GNOME from Microsoft,"
Perhaps it's just me, perhaps it is the fault of the translation, but in this quote it sounds to me as if de Icaza is portraying Microsoft as having graciously created the
And finally, I point to the final line of the article referencing comments by de Icaza -
"In the interview, he praised many aspects of
Please...someone say it ain't so!!! Is this individual actually praising the evil empire's security model? Has he been smoking dope!!! I think I'll just forget that I saw that and move on as if nothing ever happened...
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. -- Benjamin Franklin
I do have to admit that the "Oh, I didn't really mean Gnome should be based on .NET" was amusing, though. The email making that statement and then describing why it would be a good idea anyways was great.
Ah well, Ximian will get to write one program and sell to the Windows and Linux markets, which is the entire point of Mono to begin with. (Anthing else is just justification for this common sense business decision.)
.technomancer
Miguel's response to this controversy appeased a lot of my concerns about what they actually want do do with Mono, and especially his apparent admiration for Microsoft's stuff (he likes .Net, but still thinks everything that came before it is garbage). While I still disagree with his fetish for next-gen APIs over designing an actual desktop (which KDE seems much farther along with), at least he doesn't appear to be selling out to M$ as readily as it first seemed.
The problem is that the Open Source Initiative would like to redefine common usage words to fit their particular meaning.
open source (no caps, no initiative) obviously implies that the source is open, or that you are able to see it. Nothing more, nothing less. With gnome you can see the source and tinker with it if you want.. its open source.. anyone that says otherwise is a dumbass.
I don't see a contradiction. The fact that some people refer to some free software as "open source" doesn't imply that all open source software is free software.
Methinks you are mis-judging him. I had my attitude about RMS corrected at The Bazzar.
One of the 'linux columists' (aka he had web site where everything is rosy in the Linux world, everything would be running linux, etc la) was standing next to RMS. RMS said 'I need to get my ID badge' and the 'journalist' said "Badges? You are RMS, you don't need no stinking badges" RMS then put him in his place by explaining there was no need to be confontational with the security guard who was just going to do his job and ask for a badge.
RMS is passionate about his GNU thing. And, he's willing to be confrontational about the GNU thing.
Oooh baby, the release of wget version 1.8 and then 1.8.1 in December was great! I think wget is more than enough to justify the existance of the entire Free Software Foundation. No, really. I'll donate to the FSF if someone keeps maintaining wget and makes it rock even more.
"I'm a slashdot troll, who never has to worry about being misquoted because no one would bother quoting me, so I'll attack RMS for being misquoted because he's a nice easy target, and it's easier to destroy than create."
Not exactly. It's "OSI Certified Open Source Software". "OSI Certified" is the modifier, "Open Source Software" is the noun. Sorry that we don't approve non-software licenses, but we have to draw the line somewhere. We had somebody ask us to approve a license for a movie a year or so ago!
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
It's no big secret that I don't like Stallman.... however, he's had some good ideas and he gave us the GPL, one of the most useful pieces of software of the last 20 years (yes, contracts are software too!)
So why is it that he continually manages to irritate so many people? I think the answer is, you have to think a lot like RMS in order to understand what he's saying... particularly on the first try. As a result, he's prone to miscommunication. He appears confrontational because he frequently speaks his mind in a way that's going to get misinterpreted by everyone else. So is it our fault for not understanding his 'great mind'?
I don't think so. Richard, if you'd just have some respect for other people's 'user interfaces', you'd have a lot fewer problems, and do the community a whole world of good. RMS is not 'intuitive' or 'user friendly' for most of the world. Understanding how people communicate is critical to building effective interfaces to software. It's even more critical as a tool of persuasion. The Free Software community, like it or not, has a public face now, and you're it. Do you really want to keep hurting the community you built?
Okay, I'll call you out. Which of RMS's four freedoms is not present in any OSI-approved license?
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Once again, The Register screws up and misrepresents the truth as some sensationalistic trash. Why am I not surprised? They can't just sit back and admit they made a mistake putting up that article and try to blame it on some other tech site. And they go on to try and demonize Miguel de Icaza a bit more at the bottom! Come on guys, what ever happened to fact checking and journalistic integrity? You wrote the article, you didn't check your facts, you were in the wrong. Admit it.
Hah. The day The Register posts an honest retraction and admits they made a mistake without trying to weasel out of it is the day satan drives to work in a snowplow.
I honestly can't believe the amount of crap Miguel gets, based on The Register's blatant misreporting of the truth. It's time people stopped going after leaders like Miguel and after the people who profiteer from turning the community on itself.
All opinions expressed are opinions. Duh.
Regardless of what movement Stallman is the head of and which GNOME is associated with, it is in fact completely correct to refer to it as an open source project. There is a reason the Open Source Initiative couldn't get a trademark, because the phrase "open source" is in common usage. And in that common usage it completely and accurately describes GNOME.
It continues to amaze me over and over, how uninformed people attack Richard Stallman not substantively, but personally - attacking the way he looks, the way he talks, but never substantively refuting what he says. It amazes me even more, how these ad hominem attacks get up-modded. Apparently there is a lot of hatred out there for people of principle.
/. "community"). But it was precisely his unyielding, principled approach to software development that made the GNU project succeed in the end, despite the odds.
Well let's first get some facts straight. No one who uses GNU/Linux or any of the related free or open source software built on the Gnu/Linux platform would be enjoying the use of this stuff if it wasn't for Richard Stallman. In the mid-80s when he decided to rebuild Unix from scratch, all my geek and hacker friends who were Unix users at the time, thought he was totally nuts (just like a good part of the
Linus Torvald, a great programmer and a man worthy of praise, finished up what Stallman had started. But he was standing on the shoulder of a giant. If Richard Stallman feels that the OS should be called GNU/Linux he is 100% justified, whether or not its an ego issue as many here contend, or an issue of principle, as he does. Either way, as the man who made it happen, he has the right to make that demand. Whether you honor it or not is your choice. But insulting him while you continue to use the fruits of his labor is worse than hypocrisy - its theft.
There is not one, not one person, in the free software or open source world who has contributed more to the existance of this stuff than Richard Stallman. So at the very least, he deserves the gratitude of anyone who uses this software, for whatever reason they might use it.
To say that Richard Stallman's radical ideas are a hindrance to the acceptance of non-proprietary alternatives is absurd. This is the guy who invented the whole concept, this is the man who made it happen. It's precisely because he is fanatical and unyielding that this movement came into being. All those willing to compromise would never have stayed the course he did.
That doesn't mean you have to accept his point of view. I personally think that in the commercial world, there is a place for BSD-style licenses, and unlike Richard Stallman I don't think these are immoral.
Nonetheless I feel tremendous gratitude for what he has done and continues to do, I respect and admire his principled approach to his work and his life. I strongly resent the ungrateful, spiteful, empty-headed sniping that gets thrown his way in this forum. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!
Don't forget the tendency of this community to interpret everything he says in as negative a way as possible.
If he disagrees with something, everyone starts screaming about he's a ranting ideologue who's bent on coercing everyone to follow his ideals. It doesn't matter how he phrases it, it's immediately translated by the anti-RMS crowd into some kind of insane crusade against whatever he's talking about.
Look at the current incident. Someone asks him a question that's based on faulty assumptions. He points out that the questioner might have some of his facts wrong, then says if they were right he'd disagree with it. Instantly the anti-RMS crowd comes out en masse, shrieking.
What's next? RMS order soup with his dinner, and we get the slashdot headline "RMS blasts salad as entree choice"?
I'm not sure why there's such a huge anti-RMS movement in the free software/open source communities. I have some theories though:
1. Stallman has the audacity not to uncritically support everything everyone else does in the open source arena.
2. He represents an older generation of programmers who did the real pioneering stuff, and young programmers today have self-esteem problems with recognizing anyone older than themselves.
3. They don't like his political views.
RMS has never been confrontational.
You mean like that time he tore a reporter a new asshole for using the term "Linux"?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
GNU was meant to be an operating system. An operating system is composed of a kernel, and then supporting software.
What you are using is most likely some distribution that includes the GNU binutils, libc, and tons of other GNU tools. It also contains the Linux kernel. All together, there is likely more code on your PC that belongs to the GNU project than to the Linux project. Therefore, it only makes sense to call the operating system you use, GNU/Linux. No one is making the argument that Linux should be referred to as GNU/Linux, just that the operating system which is composed chiefly of the Linux kernel and GNU utilites should properly be referred to as GNU/Linux.
Linux wouldn't compile with Intel c++ and it surely would not be 30% faster. The linux kernel hackers choose GCC because they knew exactly how it produced code. Linux is highly optimized to produce the best possible code from GCC, and in spots where performance is key, the code is written in assembly.
Porting Linux to Intel c++ would do nothing, especially since Linux is written in C and the 30% figure comes from many of the patented optimizations that Intel owns for C++. Has nothing to do with C.
If you went from Emacs to KWrite, you obviously never knew how to use Emacs properly because no one in their right mind would switch from Emacs to KWrite.
The fact of the matter is that Linux as you know it is more of a GNU project than a Linux project. The kernel is not terribly big or important and it no where near independent of the GNU system.
Oh, BTW, you criticism RMS because he's written Emacs, GCC, GDB, Guile, etc and you've written???
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
open source vs Open Source Initiative (OSI).
Pay attention to the details. They are important. You always need to stop and figure out what people mean when they throw around the term open source. Do they just mean to imply the combined common usage of the 2 words? (ie: you can look at the source code) Or are they talking about OSI?
Bravo. Sensible people looking at the meanings of everyday words are few and far between in the whole OS/free software/etc. world. If there was less fussing about words and more writing of software, everyone would benefit. (Except for the few stray firebrands who thrive on publicity.)
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
"A free replacement for Visual Basic which works with GNOME would be a major step forward; any capable team that wants to launch this project should please contact gnu@gnu.org." --RMS
Psst, Mr. Stallman sir, you've already got one: GNOME Basic.
Go read what he as to say about the .NET Framework, Mono and GNOME.
He also replys directly to the RMS controversy.
Wax on, wax off baby!
"...A free replacement for Visual Basic which works with GNOME would be a major step forward; any capable team that wants to launch this project should please contact gnu@gnu.org." [RMS}
Ya. I was having my cup of coffee this morning and thinking, "Man, it's been a long time since I've been infected with a solid high quality virus. I should go install W2k."
I keep trying to pick fights, but I can't shake this Excellent karma.
lol! Well, that's the first person I've ever heard use the term "unix-y" in a negative way.
;-)
I have to admit, I was on a bit of a tangent when I wrote that response, but I stand by my intention that one who has learned to use Emacs properly would never switch to something else.
Perhaps you should try XEmacs? XEmacs has a toolbar and the more familiar point-and-click interface along with the powerful lisp backend. GNU Emacs does not have such an interface because it needs to work in both GUI and console mode.
Emacs isn't good for writing formatted documents, but as far as programming is concerned (or working with plain text), emacs just is so useful.
Before entirely giving up on Emacs, I suggest checking out XEmacs and reading the Emacs tutorial. Give it a chance and you'll find it so much more useful.
Emacs is not just a better editor, but it has features that no other editor has. So people often come off of the Windows world use to Word and Notepad and never really understand what an editor is capable of.
Either way, atleast your not abandoning Emacs for vi
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
I think that it is important that a variety of licensing schemes, and I think that developers' should be free to choose the licenses for their code so long as they are not taking code from other projects.
Freedom is freedom is diversity of opinion. I think that if the BSD or GPL licenses died out, I think that it would be a sad day.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP