Slashdot Mirror
The Stallman Factor
An anonymous reader sent us linkage to a LinuxWorld story about Stallman's Position
in the Linux World. Talks a lot about RMS's tacticts for getting his
acronym included with the kernel's name. This has been a long-running debate,
but personally I just don't care. I respect the GNU Project's involvement. But
I'm not gonna spit out extra syllables and keystrokes just to appease anyone.
The GNU/Linux systems would be nowhere without the GNU part. And most folks want more than just a kernel.
All RMS wans is credit where it is due!
was the command line.
Anyone who hasn't read Neal Stephenson's essay
In the Beginning... Was the Command Line should do so now. He treats this subject in his trademark enjoyable style. This essay can also be purchased as a thin little paperback. I love the car-lot analogy(although it harks back to the glory days of Be).
lysergically yours
With the revolutionary ideas and coding contributions from Richard Stallman, where would Linux be today? It's long past time to give this man the credit he deserves. The list of software he is responsible for is simply astounding. It's not likely that anyone will or even can be more important to Open Source anytime in the future. Richard, many thanks.
RMS - so he
--
(if you're still looking for the point, it was back there, in the post. </sig>)
GNU/Redhat, GNU/Mandrake, GNU/Debian, etc. are operating systems.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
I respect this artist's skill, but I'm not gonna pay for a painting because I can just download this jpeg.
/! He doesn't want to molest your daughter, rape your wife, or take away your rights, he just wants recognition for a freaking foundation that just happens to have these high fucking ideals, ideals which you hold dearly! WTF?
I respect this musician's lyrical ability, but I'm not gonna buy their album because I can download their MP3z.
I respect these actors, actresses, and the director who made them do their thing, but I'm not gonna pay for a movie ticket because I'm sticking it to the man with DivX.
Stallman isn't asking you to pay jack shit, he's asking for a freaking single syllable! 4 bytes! G N U
[o]_O
...he can release his own GNU/Linux
Anyway i think GNU probably get enough credit purely because the GPL is mentioned so frequently in association wiht linux.
"Precious few are ambivalent about Richard Stallman."
I guess I'm one of the "precious few".
I don't care what it's called as long as it
works like it aught to and doesn't lock up
on me in the middle of an application or game.
"Just Smile and Nod." --Huck
there's been an ongoing debate over the name of our linux user group, siglinux. apparentliy rms was going to visit the next installfest here, and wanted the name to be changed. it's nuts. it's changed from siglinux to signulinux, to sigfree, and now back to siglinux!
Yeah, it's a bit pedantic to call it GNU/Linux all the time. BUT - Most people want a bit more than a kernel. Credit where it is due - Linux may be the kernel, but how much fun would a ton of sorce be without GCC?
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
He just needs to give it up (but he never will). No one but him likes the assinine name, and it isn't neccessary to mangle a perfectly good name just to suit an agenda.
Maybe that's what bugs me... it seems so arbitrary to push this position. It just never seemed like anything worthy of his time, and it makes him look even more like a raving loonie than he really is (but hey, it takes raving loonies to change the world sometimes).
It's a strange world -- let's keep it that way
http://www.stallman.org didn't let me post the url last time..??? slashcode being strange or something?
anime+manga together at last.. in real time.
Ok, let me get this straight, Linux is just supposed to be a kernel and it is the distributions that make the OS.
How much GNU code (as written by the org) are in the kernel? I don't think there is any or very little. Therefore, why should it have the GNU tag stuck on it? A compiler chain does NOT make the OS!
I have never been able to figure this out.
BWP
The "GNU/" is silent. Get over it. ;-)
I'm still not sure what "BitKeeper" was from the article, but frankly, I don't care.
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
But I'm not gonna spit out extra syllables and keystrokes just to appease anyone.
That's okay. You'd probably just misspell them, anyhow.
--saint
GNU/I GNU/once GNU/read GNU/something GNU/saying GNU/that GNU/RMS GNU/won't GNU/rest GNU/until "GNU" GNU/is GNU/in GNU/front GNU/of GNU/every GNU/word GNU/in GNU/the GNU/English GNU/language. GNU/Doesnt GNU/he GNU/realize GNU/that GNU/too GNU/much GNU/of GNU/a GNU/thing GNU/would GNU/leave GNU/him GNU/joyless, GNU/not GNU/to GNU/mention GNU/it's GNU/just GNU/plain GNU/weird?
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
Philosophically, Stallman is as far on the extreme left of the software world as PETA is in animal rights or the CP-USA is in politics. While not outright advocating total software anarchy now, he certainly wouldn't object to the idea if it happened. The problem is that while I somewhat understand his desire for credit for GNU, he's gone about it the wrong way, attempting to coopt an essentially non-political project (at least to its creator) for his own agenda.
Like it or not, Linus ain't in it for the politics; that's just a collateral benefit of having a free, high-quality kernel. Stallman is just another extremist with a useful ideal but no practical value.
...was this quote from Linus:
"Quite frankly, I don't _want_ people using Linux for ideological reasons. I think ideology sucks. This world would be a much better place if people had less ideology, and a whole lot more. I do this because it's FUN and because others might find it useful, not because I got religion."
Given that Linus has a rep for being a bit of an egotist, I was a bit suprised by this. There seem to be two camps of Linux users: those who use it because it's Free Software (the RMS camp), and those who use it because it does what we need to do better than Win2k.
But this isn't a problem, per se, as long as each camp recognizes the other's right to exist. There is no need for "controversial figures" in the open-source community. There is very little need for evangelism. There IS a need for people from each camp to put their effort into developing Free Software which is as good as (or better than) commercial software. Doing so will further both causes.
No matter how controversial, the community needs RMS. Where Linus has openly admitted Linux is not the most important part of his life, RMS remains the prophet while Linus settles down with family life. Stallman is the perfect example of a person who is unwavering in his beliefs that all software should be free - to the point where some believe he defies common sense (e.g. coders should work as waiters to pay their bills). But he is genuinely passionate about open source, and for that we can all learn something from him. I know I am not looking forward to the day RMS is unable to continue his mission with the open source movement.
If Bill Gates had a nickel for every time Windows crashed... Oh wait, he does.
Every major free work can trace its roots to GCC (which Stallman originally wrote): Linux kernel, KDE, GNOME, XFree86. All the modern free *BSDs would be crippled without GCC as well.
He fought for ideals that may be fashionable now - but were hardly so 20 years ago.
He is a visionary. His work will benefit rich and poor alike, large corporations and third world nations.
We are all in Richard Stallman's debt.
Gnu/RMS Gnu/is Gnu/a Gnu/victim Gnu/of Gnu/his Gnu/own Gnu/success. Gnu/With Gnu/widespread Gnu/use Gnu/of Gnu/Linux, Gnu/there Gnu/is Gnu/less Gnu/likelihood Gnu/of Gnu/the Gnu/use Gnu/of Gnu/this Gnu/acronym. Gnu/Certainly Gnu/packages Gnu/must Gnu/utilize Gnu/unique Gnu/labelling Gnu/or Gnu/product Gnu/names Gnu/to Gnu/quickly Gnu/show Gnu/uniqueness Gnu/compared Gnu/with Gnu/other Gnu/products. Gnu/If Gnu/not, Gnu/a Gnu/consumer Gnu/or Gnu/user Gnu/may Gnu/be Gnu/easily Gnu/confused Gnu/and Gnu/cannot Gnu/readily Gnu/identify Gnu/product Gnu/differences.
Certainly it is annonying for all products to have a like name, isn't it?
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
sPh
Of course, Bitkeeper is a relatively minor issue. If, fortune forbid, the Linux project were to face a substantial crisis in of some sort, hopefully he'll have the balls to act the same way.
I used to be in the camp that thought the GNU acronym deserved to get more exposure than it does in Linux, but after saying "guh-new" a few too many times, I gave up. IANA marketing dweeb, but "GNU" is a phonetic nightmare that I wouldn't attach to anything, and don't get me started on Ogg Vorbis. I consider it a shame that RMS's contribution can't be as evident in the name as Linus's is, but he should have spent more time thinking of a better acronym.
Initials of RMS. Who think's his parents might have been engineers?
By seeking to include "GNU" in the GNU/Linux convention, he is only looking for recognition. For what, you might ask?
You think he's in it for the personal fame and glory? Hell no. Or the money? RMS, I really don't think so. (Yes, ESR seems motivated by fame and money, but then again I don't have the same sort of respect for ESR that I do for RMS.) He isn't looking to call it RMS/Linux; he never called it the rcc compiler or the remacs editor. He wants people to know who provided the huge mass of software surrounding the kernel, who provided the means and methodology to enable the kernel to be developed and supported and used, and most importantly, the infrastructure and enormous amount task of coordinating the individual efforts (particularly the early efforts when risk of failure was highest) and supporting those that keep it all going.
He wants people to recognize that the FSF provided GNU and that the FSF has a specific idealology that has provided you with a tangible benefit. He wants you to use more of their software, to modify and distribute their software, and to contribute to their cause. He realizes that the strength of FSF relies on you and others that believe in his goals and want to see them succeed.
He carefully separates his personal agenda from his FSF agenda. If you don't believe me, look at his web page (stallman.org) and it will become 100% evident to you that he is not in it for selfish motives.
I lost my love for him several years ago while attending a Free Software Conference that a local lug put on (Utah State). The lug was giving away prizes to people attending the conference while waiting for him to show up as the guest speaker. When he arrived he stormed in the door and stated that he would leave immediately if the lug did not stop giving away free linux books as prizes. He gave a 20 minutes spill about how the books should not be read or even given away because the content was copyrighted.
Free software is good. However, some people can take it to extemes and just piss everyone off.
I will be damned if I call anything GNU/Linux or use that damn editor emacs.
It is only correct if you call BSD's GNU/BSD when they use a majority of GNu tools. Stallman has said on numerous occasions that he ONLY wants it used on Linux.
Why?
My guess is because he would never get ANY traction in bsd-land, while in Linux-land, its so popular that ANY traction is worthwhile.
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
Where does it end, and why there? Please be as precise in your answer as Mr. Stallman prefers to be in his.
sPh
Hard-driving people tend not to be like that!
They promote their causes, their organizations, even themselves.
Because if they don't do it, they tend to get run-over by others who are doing it.
Stallman is the CEO of a foundation. Compare him to other CEO's of foundations, and see how he ranks then. But it's not an easy job.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
As someone who counts himself among those who have little opinion of Stallman, I can say this much:
No one will deny RMS' dedication to the cause of Free software, nor his contribution to the *nix world. When we have defeated the evil demons of closed formats and binary-only distrobutions, the FSF will be rightly honored as a group that started the revolution. Furthermore, GNU software has a well-earned reputation for being the most stable in existance.
That said, putting GNU/ before everything smacks to me as the sort of brand-naming that goes on in the commercial software world. It's the equivalent of saying, "It's not Acrobat, it's Adobe Acrobat." Surely we are able to give credit where credit is due without putting the name of an organization on it.
You could say that RMS is stubborn and unwilling to change, but that is precisely what made it possible for him to do what he did.
I am officially gone from
Stallman made a speach at my school a few years back to a room full of crowded CS students. He was introduced by a Religion professor. Now being a Religion professor, he made a few blunders about the IT world, to which he received some laughter. The professor then blurted out "Well, at least I have social skills!" This received a good reception to the open minded students. At this point Stallman turned to me and said "I don't get it." I explained to him that software developers tend to not have good social skills. He didn't look impressed. Then he approached the stage with his long hair, long beard, and wearing what looked like a poncho.
But on the other hand, I think it's beating a dead horse to constantly request that people call Linux GNU/Linux. Linux has name recognition now, and many already identify it with the Free Software movement, so why confuse matters? GNU certainly can stand on its own two feet, and they're coming out with a proper GNU system of their own aren't they?
I think it really is time for RMS to move past this, because it's only holding him back from adding to GNU's identity. If people get hung up on things like this, won't they be distracted from what really matters: the message of the GPL?
Weird. By about a third of the way through that paragraph, by brain had adapted, so that I was up to normal reading speed halfway.
Kind of like any loud, annoying, repetitive sound (or person), you get used to it... or ignore it.
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
Open source means never having to say thank you. Perl could be embedded in your toaster or your TV, and you wouldn't know it, and Larry Wall wouldn't get any thanks, and I don't think he really cares.
Find free books.
The beard is so evil. It makes him look like a pirate:
"Y'AAAR! Avast ye two-timin' land-lubbers! I'm Red-Beard Stallman, the evil GNU pirate! Me thinks ye be leavin' me outa yer popularity contest, so I've come ta steal yer Linux booty! Y'AAAAR!"
Stallman is on the right wing of the techno-political world. He wants to eliminate all governmental interference in the creation and use of code, and that starts with eliminating government sponsored monopolies over ideas, otherwise known as the "intellectual property" system. Isn't "That government is best that governs least" a conservative rallying cry?
I think the reason you think he's on the left is because he looks like a hippy and he doesn't support government subsidies for the corporate masters of programmers.
And how can you say the author of emacs has no practical value?
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
Why do we need a prophet? Are the MS Heathens out there going to hell if we don't convert them? Get over yourself, people. I suspect Linus has the right idea. Go play frisbee, dammit. =)
Acknowledge his existence by changing their name.
How would you like it if russians would only acknowledge your existence if you legally changed your name to have '-ski' at the end of it, or something equally silly?
www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance
Sarcastic? Moi?
GNU's contribution to Linux recognized, properly recognizing all of the equally deserving contributors to the platform in this fashion seems a trifle silly.
In fact, since some Linux distributions come bundled with none-free software, I would argue it is almost missleading to call it GNU/Linux unilaterely.
In fact, personally I could see calling it FreeOS or OSLibre as being more on the mark.
Politics is such a tiresome burden on technology at times.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
Yes, if you're generous you can help people out and give them stuff for free but you shouldn't do it and expect something in return. I believe that this was mentioned in the Bible.
Yes it's unfair but that's how it is. Ask the ones who dedicate there life to helping people, very rarely do they receive something in return from the people they help and they even receive less recognition than most people.
Yes, RMS did a great many things. We thank him, *I* thank him.
But he does seem to put himself on a pedestal, and expects to be treated accordingly.
There comes a point when a man no longer deserves a "get out of jail free card."
Is Stallman there? I don't know. That's for you to decide.
Rich...
Ignore Alien Orders
I don't see the problem people have with the whole GNU prefixing. "GNU/Linux" is a more accurate description of your OS, as the Linux kernel itself is only a small portion of your computer's functionality. A better description would be the distro you use, like "Redhat 7.3", which then implies Linux, GNU, GNOME, and others.
For me, I tend to say I use KDE. Most of my productivity is in the KDE environment, and so it is the best distro-neutral description I can think of. Saying I use "Linux" is simply too vague, and tells the person nothing. After all, my 486 firewall-box runs Linux also, as does my Sharp Zaurus, yet these are all completely different beasts.
According to RMS, Acrobat should be called MS/Acrobat.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
I really don't see the big deal, since everyone knows Linux is covered under the GPL and that much of the software in Linux dist's was made by the FSF.
But is it really that much to ask for, that in official things, high ranking members of the community call it GNU/Linux?
Linux would be nowhere without the FSF / GNU. Most of the apps in Linux were made by the FSF. The license that protects Linux from corporate raiders was pioneered by Stallman.
I'll admit, I don't say GNU/Linux regularly. In normal-day life, I simply say Linux. And I don't think that Stallman's asking that we always refer to it as GNU/Linux, even in casual talk -- just in formal discussions or conferences, etc.
When I introduce myself to one of my friend's friend's, I say, "Hi, I'm Dave." My e-mail tag says "--Dave H." But neither of those situations are formal. When I'm on a job interview, I say, "Hello, I am David Heinrich".
We recognize that there is a time to be casual and a time to be formal when speaking of ourself, clothing ourselves, and so on and so forth. Why can't we recognize that for software too?
Really, people are trying to write this guy out of the history of GNU/Linux, because they think he's that radical that scares everyone away from their cause. But without him -- or without someone strongly maintaining the ideals of Free Software -- it all falls apart.
I don't agree with everyone Stallman says. Anyone who agrees with everything someone else says (i.e., a religious person who goes to church) is a complete fucking moron. But just because I don't agree with him on everything -- even alot of things -- doesn't mean I don't respect the man and his ideals.
Stallman represents the idealist any movement must have. And he's not some wacky guy saying stuff and doing nothing. He does things to bring his ideals closer to reality. Linus and others like him represent the pragmatic wings of the movement; the idea should be to bring what is possibly in reality closer to what ideals demand.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
So you see, GNU is already crediting Linus with spreading the GNU GPL, so Linus should do the same. :)
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
The most important aspect of Linux isn't the freedom, it's the goddamn functionality. You want religion, shave your head and join a cult. You want good software, install what works best.
/. was fighting against, not what they wanted to emulate. Instead of wasting time and effort putting GNU/ in front of damn near everything, type just that much as new code, or documentation, or calm rational promotion of Linux and open software. A few characters at a time, you can create something useful, instead of just contibuting to a long distance hand-job for RMS. Let's concentrate on making things better instead of worrying about making them ideologically pure.
The idea that it's the politics that are the most important part of the free software movement, rather than whether the product is worth a damn, is why some of the most prominent products in the fight against Microsoft are such total abortions - because the folks working on them didn't care enough about writing good code. I've read lots of interviews by folks in the Mozilla camp, and they all talk about how it's important to have alternatives to MS, blah, blah, blah. None of them say anything at all about the code actually being something I would choose solely on the merits. Why not? Because they spent too much time giving interviews about how important what they were doing was, and not enough time making it *good*. I saw a rambling apologia for Mozilla on newsforge, with ol' roblimo talking about how mozilla - despite its many obvious and glaring flaws - was so great compared to MS because it had stuff like pop-up blocking built right in instead of requiring a third party add-on like IE. Never mind that this bloatware bundling from the vendor at the expense of clean code is exactly what most everyone, likely including roblimo, hates about most every other program from MS, particularly Office. But when mozilla, the politically correct choice, does it, its a brilliant decision that makes the app his favorite in the category.
RMS wrote good code. The politics came afterward, and that's the way it should be. The product comes first. The willingness to accept crap as long as it has the right name on it is why MS software is so popular despite being so flawed. I thought that was what everyone here on
You're just jealous 'cuz the voices talk to *me*
That's my point exactly. The original post limited Linux users to 2 camps. I only added 1 more, which in my opinion has the ability to take Linux the farthest into the main stream. But you've added 4 more. My point is that saying Linux users fall into 2 camps is insane! Linux IS what you want it to be.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
One of the biggest problems with the extreamism that exists in any set of belifs is that those in the moderate view never get the attention.
If there was a group of free software developers who wanted to convert people to the "free" religion, but didn't want to force, they would work passivly.
They would build good software, easy to use. They would let people use it.. promote ease of use in expanding it with new modules and the like. They would make it profitable, for people have to eat. They would show the advantage/functionality of "free".
They would believe no less than the ones wishing to "force" the beliefs. Their efforts would pay off, but they would never be recognized as paying off.
The press likes controversy, and so they would focus on the conflict. The "moderates" sympathizing with the "extreamists" would make comments and those opposing the "extreamists" would accuse the moderates of being being "extream" in their views.
With the lack of attention on "moderates", the conflict would continue, ripping a group of people who were having a poisitive influnce, apart. Even the "moderates" would begin to question themselves, as even they read the media and are not immune to its effects.
This, is what I think is happening.
Control the conflict
give exposure to the moderates
stay smarter than the situation
stay humble
and things will work out for the best
(one can be extream in views, but moderate in expressing their views. Humbleness is they key)
...the spokesman for open source in the mainstream press. But, pragmatically, it's for the best. Would you really want this crackpot representing your cause to the American people...?
And without gcc egcs probably wouldn't exist at all.
There was a time that I thought everything Stallman said was golden (actually there was a time before that when I thought everything he said was junk, but after high school I realized using proprietary software really did mean giving up freedom).
There was a time that if Stallman said: "If you believe in Free Software, you need to take of all your clothes and run through the streets screaming my name." I probably would've done it, assuming that he probably thought logically through every consequence and it was a good idea.
But the GNU/Linux thing is just really disappointing. It's embarrasing. It makes me feel silly to quote Stallman or refer people to the FSF.
I know people make fun of other things Stallman says, but usually they are making fun of what they WISH he said, rather than what he actually said. Like when people made fun of Al Gore for saying he invented the internet when he never actually said that. People like to find holes in armor, I suppose.
The GNU/Linux position is impossible. Why call it GNU when there are so many other components. And I get the feeling Stallman doesn't want to back down because, well, he doesn't want to back down, not because of any rational reason. Like a spoiled boy who can't admit he's wrong and yells his position a little louder hoping that he'll convince himself.
Stallman should drop the GNU/Linux thing. Devote more time to preaching about Freedom. Why doesn't the FSF use some of its cash hoard to buy some advertising or something? Why not splatter "Free Software means Freedom" all over magazines and web pages?
Oh well. I hope the FSF and Stallman don't become marginalized because of this, because their moral clarity on Free software and information freedom is vital.
Hackers will never be called crackers, and Linux will never be called GNU/Linux by every Linux vendor. It will never happen, and more importantly, it doesn't NEED to happen! The FSF should use their own means to advertise themselves, and not highjack other people's choice of names.
The problem is that calling the operating system in question "GNU/Linux" instead of just Linux is about as sensible as calling the CPU in your computer a "Central Processing Unit" at every opportunity.
People call it Linux because its easier to write and easier to say. I don't give a rat's ass whether Stallman approves or not. Demanding that I and everyone else kiss his ass just isn't going to work. For a genius the man has an EQ level of a three year old. Read "Free as in Freedom" if you want to see what I mean.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Hmm...let's see what I generally use on my systems:
- Apache - number one webserver, not under the GPL
- OpenSSL/SSH - provides secure access (or do you not believe in security)? Also not under the GPL
- XFree86 - allows me to see pretty pictures on the localhost or remotely, also not under the GPL
- vi - multi-purpose text editor, *not* under the GPL
- XEmacs - because RMS claims it's not GPL, & it was forked from GNU Emacs, & JWZ is cool
I could go on & on, even naming some closed-source & commercial (gasp!) software that I need & use to get my job done. My point? When you call a distribution "Linux", most people know you are referring to the complete collection of kernel, software & utilities.Look. Just because something happened does not mean it was the ONLY way it could have happened.
Yes, initially, linux distributions used a lot of gnu code. They still do.. but it makes up only a fractional portion of the whole distribution.
Nobody is trying to write him out of the history.. the thing is he tries too hard to crusade for the stupid name GNU/Linux. He didn't write Linux. He didnt'make the distribution. He's *always* had recognition for the huge contribution he makes to things.. he has a position of great respect. I have seen that go nowhere but DOWNHILL with all these antics. Granted, my opinion on the matter means jack shit.
If the GNU project had not existed, something else would have been used instead, probably the bsd tools.. they were also easily and freely available.
GNU was an option. nothing more.
I would further add that if you want to call it GNU/Linux, that's fantastic. If not, that's great, too.
If I comply with the GPL, then get off my back.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
That's ridiculous. I can run software written for pretty much any version of Windows (or DOS) EVER on my W2K machine. With [GNU/]Linux, I have to make sure I have compatible builds of this/that library, etc.
We need someone who understands the art of marketing - the art of diplomacy, rhetoric, whatever you want to call it. Part of this includes choosing good names for projects and concepts. "GNU/Linux" is a horrible name. "Free Software" is even worse. His insistance on spreading the MIT-centric idea of what the word "hacker" is supposed to mean is incredibly counter-productive. Changing the way people think involves changing the way they speak, but attempting to redefine new words does not work, especially in the most critical first stages of a movement.
"Hacker" means criminal to everyone outside our movement and associating yourself with this word is not the way to spread your ideology. The operating system that runs Slashdot and Google is known as "Linux" to everyone outside our movement, and changing that only spreads confusion.
The one that really bothers me is "Free Software." Here, the capitalization makes the difference between respected projects such as GCC and the crap shareware you'll find on tucows.com. I completely understand the whole "gratuit" vs. "libre" thing, being an amateur linguist and having read most of the FSF's philosophy. I can understand that "Free" and "free" are supposed to mean different things, but I don't like it.
What if I'm talking to someone? Much business is done over the telephone or through face-to-face meetings, not through email. With email/usenet/etc. it's easy to spot the difference between "Free" and "free", but what if I want to tell my boss that the new proxy server I installed is "Free"? Do I say:
(a) "It's Free software, as in free-with-a-capital-eff.", or
(b) "It's Open Source."
(A) will lead only to confusion because my boss doesn't care about the tiny differences between copylefted and Free-but-copyrighted software. Don't fool yourself into thinking that (a) will lead to a discussion about the nature of Free software; the business world is not academia, and has little patience for discussions which (seemingly or in reality) do not affect the bottom line.
Look at DivX versus DivX ;-). Look it up on Google if you don't
know the difference between the two (hint, the punctuation makes
all the difference). Now that DivX ;-) has become popular and DivX
is dead, the DivX ;-) people are trying very hard to break away
from their old name. What was initially a bad pun has become the
bane of this company attempting to sell their codec. Don't look
at this example from a Free software standpoint; the example is
just meant to show how a bad name can hinder the acceptance of a
codec/idea.
We (computer professionals or hackers if you insist) linguistically think much differently from most people. To me, puncuation and capitalization are as important as words. Compare:
(c) "DivX" to ;-)", and
(d) "DivX
(e) "find name copying and print" to
(f) "find / -name COPYING\* -print"
You and I know that (e) is gibberish and (f) is correct/useful, but Joe Schmoe only knows that (e) is "easier" than (f). Joe Schmoe has to "remember" (f) in its entirety in order to use it; he has difficulty deconstructing it into its component pieces and then reconstructing the pieces together again the next time the command must be used. Those of us linguistically gifted (all good programmers) do this instinctually, so we have little difficulty figuring out "DivX" versus "DivX ;-)" and "Free" versus "free". Most people
don't have the time or patience to do this.
This has nothing to do with ideas; it's all about marketing. Microsoft has some of the best marketing people, so we would do well to take an example from Redmond. Why did Microsoft change Windows NT 5.0 to Windows 2000? Joe Schmoe thinks like this:
"Oh, 5.0, but I'm already running 98, so is that an upgrade?"
"Oh, they came out with Windows 2000, and I'm only running 98."
"Oh, I can get IE for free, so it doesn't mean anything that Netscape is now free software."
"Oh, Netscape is now Open Source, so I'll download it because it gives me more freedom than IE."
In this case, Microsoft was deliberately trying to create confusion to increase the acceptance of NT 5.0. We have no interest in deliberately creating confusion (right?), so we should have a name for our software that immediately and succintly distinguishes it from gratis-but-encumbered software. Go to tucows.com and you'll see that most people (most people run windows) interact with gratis-but-encumbered software much more often than Free software.
Let's look at Microsoft's marketing strategy with NT 5.0 versus 2000 again. Syllabically, we have:
win-dows en-tee five-point-oh
win-dows two thou-sand
The renaming cut out three syllables. Coincidence?
Also, look at the components of the words:
2000
NT 5.0
The first is a simple year (easy to remember), while the second is an obscure acronym combined with an obscure version number.
When my mother first took some computer classes, she came back home to ask me what version of Windows her PC was running. I replied "Windows 3.1." (I cut my teeth programming with Borland C++ 3.0 on MS-DOS 5.0/Windows 3.1.)
She said, "No, that's not right. What version of Windows is my PC running?"
Me: "3.1."
Mom: "No, that's not a version of Windows."
Me: "Yes it is."
Mom: "Then what version of Windows is the PC at work running?"
Me: "Some are Windows 98 and some are NT 4.0."
Mom: "???"
Me: "Microsoft's versioning schemes divulged with the release of 'Chicago', aka. Windows 95. Whereas versions of Windows prior to Windows 95 were simply given a version number, Windows 95 and later were given a common name which refers to the year of intended release in addition to a normal version number. Thus, Windows 95 is in actuality Windows 4.0 and Windows 98 is Windows 4.5. Windows NT, on the other hand, is a completely separate product line. Windows NT 3.5 was the contemporary of Windows 95 and Windows NT 4.0 is the contemporary of Windows 98."
Mom: "So what version of Windows is my PC running?"
Me: "Umm...Windows 93."
The point of this who's-on-second? People want brevity and clarity, not philosophy or linguo-technical mumbo-jumbo.
In short, we need a name for our movement that:
I know that RMS dislikes the BSD license due to its advertising clause, but isn't his insistence on calling Linux GNU/Linux pretty much the same thing?
Slashdot: come for the pedantry, stay for the condescension.
Before the flames fly, hear me out.
... something we might not be doing (and either be unaware of, or taking for granted) otherwise.
1) The author of the article is correct when he points out that the FSF and RMS are making a tactical error in trying to emphesize the GNU prefix to GNU/Linux (though I respect their wishes and use it as a show of respect for their contribution), in that it distracts discussion away from the freedom RMS is trying to promote with the distraction and misconception that RMS is out to stroke his ego.
But then again, does it? I'm not so sure, now that I write this. After all, we are discussing the FSF and the freedoms it represents
2) RMS is right to place the value of freedom above that of short term 'shortcuts,' and Linus' aversion to idealogy notwithstanding, there have been some harsh reminders of the dangers in trusting one's data (such as the entire cananonical kernel source tree) to a proprietary application in a proprietary format. I personally saw several hundred hours of Blender work become worthless overnight when NaN ceased operations, and while that value might one day rise again from zero of NaN stages a comeback and somehow manages to resurrect their Blender product, it will never really be safe as long as it is beholden to a single product.
RMS has been accused of fanatacism for years for vocally warning everyone about the dangers of trusting their data to proprietary products and formats, and has stressed that the safety in storing ones data in an open format far outweights what inconvinience involved in using a less polished free alternative.
He is right. Our data is worth far more than the hardware upon which it resides, and the software used to access it.
Linus is wrong. If the folks at Bitkeeper, who I believe are as well meaning and kind as the folks at NaN were, find themselves in Chapter 11, or worse, projects which rely on that product have an unpleasant migration ahead, at best.
Subversion, CVS, arch, or other open repositories may not be as simple to use, but there exists absolutely no danger of their going away because of fiscal hard times or an unexpected economic downturn. Proprietary products do not offer this kind of insurance, and that makes trusing one's valuable data to them risky at best, often reckless, and sometimes downright suicidal (in a metaphorical sense).
3) RMS lacks tact and diplomacy. He is a talented coder and a valuable "Big Thinker," but he does make the classic mistake of equating one thing (e.g. his message of the 4 basic freedoms the GPL offers and the FSF stands for) with another (the IMHO legitimate desire to have the FSF's contribution to the GNU+Linux operating system, which is well over half the code of what arguably constitutes the core operating system).
Yes, if people are kind they will do him the favor of calling the entire system GNU/Linux in recognition of their contribution and as a favor to a man who has given us so very much, but Linus is absolutely right to eschew doctrine and idealogy as an end in themselves, and is perfectly within his rights to call the kernel Linux and not GNU/Linux. Those who bundle the various OS parts together (e.g. Debian GNU/Linux, Source Mage GNU/Linux, Gentoo GNU/Linux, Mandrake Linux, Red Hat Linux, Suse, etc.) have the right to call their product whatever they like.
Calling the system GNU/Linux rather than just Linux is a request we are all free to honor, or reject, as we see fit. Personally, with all that RMS has given us, I figure typing an extra 4 characters every time I type the name, or saying one syllable every time I speak it, is the very least I can do in return.
And in the end that is what it is all about, freedom. Freedom to agree, or freedom to disagree, and freedom to argue (quietly or loudly, depending on one's style) one's perspective in opposition to another's. Which is why I hold a number of mutually acrimonious, well known free software/open source personalities in high regard for their contributions to free software and, hence, to freedom, even when I disagree with some of them on some issues.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
The paper has the details to back it up. At that time, the Linux kernel was 2,437 KSLOC (thousands of physical lines of code). But gcc had 984 KSLOC, gdb 967 KSLOC, binutils 691 KSLOC, glibc 647 KSLOC, emacs 628 KSLOC, and so on. See the paper for details. GNU's contribution in terms of effort is, in aggregate, much larger.
Of course, it's a separate question as to whether or not the term ``GNU/Linux'' is a good term. It is clearly awkward to write and speak, and that's a very serious problem. Other postings have already hashed that to death here.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
K&R C.
It is only correct if you call BSD's GNU/BSD when they use a majority of GNu tools. Stallman has said on numerous occasions that he ONLY wants it used on Linux.
/ports tree if you wish)
BSD has its own separate set of tools. For example, you'll find BSD's version of 'ls' to have different (mostly less) options than the GNU equivelent. None of the core, required tools come from the GNU project AFAIK (though you can optionally add GNU tools like bash and the like from the
So, while the gcc compiler has given FreeBSD a boost, it (a) wasn't the only compiler FreeBSD had available (the same was not true of GNU/Linux), and (b) the GNU project did not contribute the majority of code included in the core operating system (as it did with Linux).
As another person noted, RMS is promoting the Free Software Foundation and the Freedoms it represents by asking people to use the GNU prefix, not himself. He isn't asking anyone to call it RMS/Linux or Stallmanix. It isn't about ego, it is about evangalizing freedom. Agree or disagree as you like, but stop mischaracterizing the guy.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Yunno ... I don't see Ken Thompson going around and demanding fealty from everyone for having written Unix. Welcome to the world of technology -- scratch that, welcome to the real world, where people have natural tendencies to push away people who demand gratitude. My mother doesn't claim credit for all my accomplishments, and she did a whole lot more than just provide half the chromosones...
GCC was not the first freely available compiler, nor is it the only one out there. Compiler hackers could have just as easily worked on lcc and shut RMS up for good.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
RMS wrote GCC. From scratch. By himself. GDB too. That's not the same as what Hopper did (which was paid research). It's not easy to appreciate what RMS went through to do this, especially given when it was done (mid 1980s).
Linus Torvalds wrote a kernel by himself, with very little usefulness (but heaps of promise) in the early 1990s. He was able to use the tools created by Stallman.
John Carmack (think Commander Keen, Wolfenstien, Doom, and Quake) claimed that he wouldn't have been a programmer had it not been for the tools created by Stallman. Once after Carmack won a large jackpot in Vegas (I don't know how often he does this =-), he donated the whole thing (>$10,000 I believe) to the Free Software Foundation (i.e. Stallman's group).
In the battle of the lisp machines, Stallman was afraid the highly-non-free side was going to win. To provide balance, he recreated their features and donated his code to the more free alternative company. He did this in real-time, by himself, unapid. His output equalled the output of a collection of commercial programmers hired from Stallman's lab (and others).
So GCC starts at Stallman. Free Software starts at Stallman. GNU starts at Stallman. The Open Source definition came about because of Stallman's work (and to some degree because of his contrariness and Tim O'Reilly's stupid decision not to invite RMS to his west coast summit that settled on the Open Source name). Stallman is where GCC started. Not Hopper, not Lovelace or Babbage, not Boole or Aristotle.
We're talking about running code that is still in widespread use after nearly 20 years, not paid research that was eventually perfected by others to resemble what we today think of as a compiler. Stallman is *the* person who started all of this, by himself, on his own time, taking part time jobs to survive until sufficient donations came in (for instance, the MacArthur Genius Award).
Stallman did this because of his ideology. Linus Torvalds' comments about the world being better with less ideology really seem stupid in this context, don't they? Torvalds' comments about only idiots or freaks or something choosing Free tools over superior proprietary tools really says something about Torvald's view of Stallman, doesn't it? Does Torvalds recognize that quality Free Software would not exist if everyone thought like that? Of course Torvalds has a right to his own opinions, but I wish he'd keep his mouth shut instead of revealing how shallow he is.
-Paul Komarek
So you're saying, to fight MS, you want to become MS, just without also making any money. Outstanding. We'll put out sub-standard crap but people will use it anyway because it has the right name, and eventually we'll make it all work correctly. Or maybe not, because we were too busy adding another cool feature. That's what BillG has said for years, and what you're saying now. Shit, at least he got something from it, you're aiming more toward the pissing yourself in dark slacks effect: you get a warm feeling, but no-one else much notices. Linux developers can and do write good code. Because they want to, and choose to. The freedom of open source helps, but they still need to pay attention and do some good work. What's the point of having that freedom and not ever using it for the purposes it was designed for? Open source software gives developers the best tools available to do great things. But if everyone spends all their time focusing on the "open source" and not enough time on the "software", no-one else will care. If open source software gets marginalized, because all of the biggest projects fail due to too much time was spent worrying about ideological purity and kowtowing to the RMS blessed political commissars, Gates and MS still win. But you'll have lots and lots of shiny freedom to show to your friends.
And, yeah, I'm writing this on an xp box, because that offers me the best applications currently. And I'm sitting behind an openbsd box as my firewall, because that offers the best security. And my web and other internet servers are on a Linux box, which does the best job at that role. It'd be great if all of those boxes could run Linux and I could do all that I'm doing now with my current setup, as well or better. But I can't, because too many whiny bastards would rather spend their time bitching about the politics of software rather than the quality of software. But wow, doesn't that freedom feel nice.
You're just jealous 'cuz the voices talk to *me*
I used to respect the guy a lot, but the longer he keeps up with this utterly stupid campaign to harp on the name and lambast people for preferring a usable name, the less I respect him. RMS needs to get back to evangelising stuff that actually matters.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
The most important aspect of Linux isn't the freedom, it's the goddamn functionality. You want religion, shave your head and join a cult. You want good software, install what works best.
You sir, are a part of the reason most western democracies are heading rapidly toward authoritarianism, and why our traditionally free markets are rapidly becoming stagnant oligarchies.
Concern with freedom, even evangalizing freedom, is not a religious stance, it is a political one. There is a difference, in case you slept through your grade school, high school, and college civics courses.
The politics of freedom can be very important. If certain political foundations for freedom do not exist, are not maintained, and are not fought for (in a metaphorical sense), then the necessary freedoms to write good code may likely go away. Good free code first, but only a little later good code period. Indeed, without a foundation in freedom, you are likely to see a situation in which the freedom necessary to conduct your business with any tools whatsoever is simply no longer there.
Don't believe me? Consider the history of MS DOS 6.2, which stagnated for years until the Microsoft monopoly began feeling pressure from outside and squelched superior competing products with their shoddy Windows product, a product which remained shoddy until 1998 and even now fails to live up to many of the technical standards hobbiest have managed to put together in several free operating systems.
That is one way to lose such freedom: an unassailable monopoly.
Another way is legislation, such as the DMCA, UCITA, and SSSCA. This again is a political, not religious, process that you'd better start caring about, or you may find your business legislated out of legitimacy.
Then consider software patents: the ultimate form of "I got my letter off to the patent office first, now no one can write anything remotely similiar. Nah Nah!" Another way your freedom to write code that works may quite possibly vanish.
There are other ways you can lose the ability to write code, or even have access to, code that works, indeed, the entire foundation of our free market economy can go away, and the only way to prevent that is through getting off your fat ass and having a little political insight and concern, and doing something to challenge and oppose such trends. Or perhaps you've so equated any passion for a particular political or philisophical with religious fanatacism that you are no longer emotionally capable of taking any kind of stance, for fear of looking like a balding Hari Krishna?
So, in summary, unless you want to lose the choice of using any free operating system at all, whether on technical, political, or aesthetic merits, and quite possibly lose the right to write, or even have access to, quality code of any kind, you'd better start caring a little bit more about politics and stop equating politics (and the few people who are passionate and involved enough to step up to the political plate and take a stance) with religious cults.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
In my limited experience (I've only been using Linux and other GNU tools for about 4 years now) it seems like there is an underlying current of not knowing how to correctly pronounce so many of the names and acronyms (recursive and otherwise) like GNU. Is it pronounced "new" or "guh-new" ? Then there is the classic "lin-nux" , "lee-nux" or "lye-nux" . Oh and of course there is the slew of GNU-inspired apps and tools: "nome" or "guh-nome"
Anytime I meet a fellow geek for the first time and we find that we have an interest in Free Software or Open Source software in common, there are those uncomfortable moments while conversing about things when he/she won't pronounce a name as I do. Do you correct or don't you? How do you know you're pronunciation is correct?
Other than setting up sound on Red Hat using sndconfig and hearing Linus (that's pronounced "Lee-nus") pronounce his own name and that of Linux (pronounced "lih-nux"), I've never heard the "official" pronunciation of most of this stuff. Kinda funny huh?
Or, maybe it's just me...
Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com
However, this is RMS' personal requirement when accepting a speaking engagement. Actually, other FSF speakers often speak to groups that call themselves "Linux" groups. We ask only that the advertising and press material about our particular speech call the system, GNU/Linux.
Of course, when I and other FSF speakers make a speech, one of the items on our agenda is to ask such groups, as a favor to the GNU project, to change their name and/or documents to say "GNU/Linux" consistently. While it is RMS' personal demand that the name change occur as a term to accept the engagement, the FSF does not, as an organization, demand such name changes. We simply request them.
Comparing it to Microsoft's tactics is out of proportion. FSF firmly stands for free speech rights. We assert your right to call the operating system anything you like; we request as a favor that you call it GNU/Linux.
RMS is a highly sought-after speaker. As it turns out, since he is not (nor never has been) paid a salary by the FSF, he collects speaker fees to help pay for his living expenses. As with any speaker, it's his prerogative to set the terms of his speaking engagements. Indeed, every speaker has his or her own set of requirements. (AAMOF, ESR's are available online.) Personally, I have a rule that there must be vegetarian restaurants that someone can take me to in the towns I visit. Of course, FSF doesn't take a position on vegetarianism, but it's a personal need of mine that I can't ignore---even when I am speaking on behalf of FSF.
While RMS won't come to speak for your group if it's called a "Linux" group, I'd be happy to come, as would many of the other FSF speakers. While I am there, I am, of course, going to ask you to change the name of the group. But, please note the key point here: just because RMS sets a personal rule doesn't mean it is ipso facto FSF policy.
I think that point gets to the center of the problem with Barr's article. It seems to suggest that every position that RMS takes is automatically FSF policy. Of course, as our president and founder, many of RMS' personal positions match FSF policy exactly. But, most of them don't; RMS' personal website is full of personal positions that aren't FSF policy.
Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director of the FSF
P.S. Finally, there is a factual error in the article. the GPL is the "General Public License". The G stands for General, not GNU. I usually say "GNU GPL" to make that clear.
I assume this is supposed to evoke "Cuba Libre" and imply freedom-as-in-speech. However, my second language is O-level French, and "libre" to me is every bit as ambiguous as "free", with perhaps a bit more bias towards the free-as-in-beer meaning.
In short, it doesn't help. Sorry.
--
E_NOSIG
Most of the Gnu tools (with the exception of the compiler and linker) can be replaced. Emacs is just a nightmare, Info sucks large rocks through small straws. Busybox replaces many of the standard utilities.
My Sharp Zaurus over here has very little Gnu content.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Yeah, but try running all that without the GNU C Library. You won't get very far.
Stallman has a very good point, I just don't adhere to it because it's not very practical to do everytime. I will however push the importance of the GNU Project and the FSF whenever I can. That seems a good compromise between ideals and pragmatism to me.
Mart"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
RMS denies being a libertarian. Anyone who respects Chomsky is automagically a leftist. No choice about it.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
I attend the University of Texas and am a member of SigLinux (per mentioned in the article.) I was also one of the more vocal ones for leaving the name as it is. I figure I might as well post my thoughts on the subject here..
;)
Yes, GNU has done great things for Linux. gcc, the userland, etc. But others have also done great things, such as apache, xfree86, samba, etc. If we want to be fair, and call it GNU/Linux, we can't stop there. We'd have to call it GNU/XFree86/perl/PHP/mySQL/apache/Linux. Yes, GNU has made extensive contributions to Linux. But to call it GNU/Linux makes it seem like others have not.
Personally, I don't agree with a lot of things RMS says, but I chalk them up to ideological differences and agree to disagree with a lot of GNUbies. But this issue is less ideological and more egotistical. The OS is called Linux not out of the worship we have for Linus (legend has it he first called it Freeix, but the person who ran the ftp site hated that name and just called it Linux,) it's because we've always called it Linux. The name is not about taking credit for things, it's about giving people an easy reference.
RMS contends that "Linux" refers to only the kernel. I don't know about you, but I say "Linux" when I mean the entire system and "the kernel" when I mean the kernel. I don't mean to take credit/fame/glory/whatever away from anyone, it's just easier and a lot less confusing. People also don't call Windows "Microsoft Windows," they just call it "Windows."
Calling the entire system "Linux" is not incorrect or wrong, but calling it "GNU/Linux" can get confusing, especially when talking about different distros. I've known less experienced Linux types ask if I've used the GNU Linux distro, not knowing that it was just what some people call the entire system. But I won't say that "GNU/Linux" is wrong, because it's not, but it's all just geeky semantics anyway.
My whole argument for not changing the name of SIGLinux was because we are NOT a GNU/Linux user group, we're a Linux user group. Should a version of Linux without GNU tools exist, that would fall under our area of expertise. Changing our name just to pet Stallman's ego and represent our group as holding a certain belief (where in actuality, there are some VERY widely differing opinions on the issue in SIGLinux) would misrepresent us, as we don't all buy into the GNU philosophy.
Anyway, this is a lot longer than I originally intended. So I'll stop. I'm actually looking for replies, I have enough karma already. So reply!
I'm sure you meant to say quadrant 3: "authoritarian"
Libertarians would let you decide for yourself whether you should use open software or not.
Authoritarians (like RMS) want to decide for you.
Libertarians would let you decide for yourself what to charge for your services and products.
Authoritarians (like RMS) want to decide for you.
RMS is an authoritarian, through and through.
Why must free software be dependent upon a free compiler? Seriously! Using that argument, nothing written for the MS, Borland or Intel compilers can be free. That's nonsense.
Of course free tools are preferable, but that doesn't mean they are necessary.
(besides, the maker of the compiler doesn't get to name the output of the compiler, or do you really want to give Microsoft that kind of marketing power...)
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
But do you really want to listen to the thoughts and opinions of a man who won't come to speak unless you change your name ?
graspee
Well, you can't spell "Queer" (the guy's playing a flute to a pink butterfly, for crying out loud) with an 'S', so the joke would have been lost :P
Got Rhinos?
That sounds like a great reason to call gcc GNU/gcc. If you want to call a colection of software that is GNU based GNU/something, or you want to call an FSF owned program GNU/something, then that's fine, but individual projects should be allowd to name thenselves whatever they want. Otherwise we'd have GNU/Darwin, and GNU/mozilla, and GNU/freking everything.
GNU/Linux == OS Distribution with a linux/kernel and GNU software.
GNU/Linux != Linux kernel. The linux kernel is named whatever Linus says it's named.
You've got it arse about face...
With the ideas and coding contributions from Linus Torvalds, where would GNU be today?
Summary: Nature abhors a vacuum, something else would have filled the niche occupied by the Linux kernel.
Long version:
GNU would be about the same. We would be using a different kernel, that's about it. Free kernels existed before Linux, free editors before emacs. Linux did not create anything new, it was just more convenient than the others. If Linux did not exist something else would have filled the niche, attracted users, and thereby gained more attention, maintenance, support, and use. Linux is good but free kernels existed before and will exist after.
The real revolution was not the kernel, the real revolution was in communications of ideas via the net and distribution of tools (aka the operating system) via the net. Linux was at the right place at the right time and road the net wave from it's early academic-oriented days.
Free software and the sharing of code existed long before the Linux. The GPL has a unique spin compared to older licenses but the truth is few programmers really care about BSD'ish vs. GPL'ish. People merely tend towards the license of OS they are using, or maybe the GPL's viral nature has twisted some arms :-).
Otherwise, Linux would be forgotten, like Minix, or Coherent, or NCube's OS, or Popek's kernel, or..
The g in gcc DOES stand for GNU. The C compiler on old school Unices is called cc for C Compiler sensibly enough.
Say I wonder if that isn't the answer to the GNU/Linux bickering: glinux!
Whereas Hopper invented the idea of the compiler. Without her work, no compilers, including GCC, would exist [1]. That's a bit of a difference IMHO.
sPh
[1] Typically, big ideas occur to several people when the time is right (e.g. calculus to Newton and Liebeitz), so probably someone else would have come up with the compiler if Hopper hadn't. But the difference between cloning and originality remains.
Don't forget that Linus doesn't own the kernel, which complicates the issue of who controls the name if you use ownership alone.
I think RMS would agree with your point that everyone should be allowed to name their own project whatever they want. IIRC, RMS doesn't want Linus' kernel to be called "GNU/Linux". I believe he wants the increasingly popular operating systems based on GNU software (and more generally, stemming from the GNU movement) to be called "GNU/Linux" instead of just "Linux".
I don't speak for him, of course, but my guess is that what he really wants is for the so-called "Linux Movement" to be called the "GNU/Linux Movement". I think it's pretty clear to those who know their history that the "Linux Movement" comes from several movements who owe their roots to the GNU Movement. My argument requires that we don't throw the BSD stuff into the "Linux Movement", which I believe is reasonable.
-Paul Komarek
sPh
Good point.
Please tell me what Newton's big ideas were? Derivatives, for instance, were known to his teacher Isaac Barrow. I am a mathematician, and using Newton as an example is great for my point. Every mathematician to whom I've spoken on the issue believes that ideas are discovered, not created. Furthermore, this discovery owes less to a single person than those that came before them. This applies to Newton as well. Newton, of course, was brilliant -- but giving him credit for modern calculus, or even the calculus of his time, is an oversimplification.
Hopper, for instance, moved "compilers" from Howard Aiken's Harvard lab to the commercial world (the UNIVAC in particular). Before here came devices that translated from languages similar to Algebra into code for a particular machine (for instance, for the Harvard Mark III). It has been suggested (Ceruzzi, "A History of Modern Computing", pp. 84-86) that Hopper's definition of compiler is in fact quite different than the current common definition. Hopper's idea was something closer to a linker. Thus Hopper's work is not particularly relevant to the ideas behind GCC (though it may be more relevant to GNU ld). I hope I've made it clear that Hopper did not "invent" the "idea" of a compiler. Hell, she didn't even discover the "idea". She took it from Harvard to UNIVAC.
All of this said, I thought I made it clear. I'm talking about running code that is still in widespread use. Stallman's work was by no means a clone of Hopper's work, nor of anyone else's work. Of course his ideas were influenced by other C compilers, as well as his own work with lisp. And certainly the language definition was not his own.
Stallman *wrote* GCC. From scratch. By himself. This was not a researcIt was not funded by anyone but him. Thus it is entirely reasonable to describe GCC solely in terms of RMS. The *work* was original, even if the idea was not. I'm not sure why you're trying to raise a point about the idea of GCC was not original -- of course it wasn't.
Also, GCC is not a "descendent" of C. C is a language specification, derived from B and others before it. GCC is a program. They aren't even the *same sort of thing.* We owe K&R kudos for a great language. We owe RMS kudos for writing GCC, the heart of Free Software.
-Paul Komarek
It is agreed that Stallman did not invent fire or the wheel, nor did he invent a language (why were you listing languages anyway?). He started the Free Software movement. With GCC. By himself. yadda yadda yadda.
As the subject said, GCC is the heart of Free Software. It was written by Stallman because he couldn't find a sufficiently free C compiler (he tried).
Do we disagree on anything?
-Paul Komarek
I will agree that GCC is a very valuable thing for all of us to have and share, but if RMS wasn't around to write it someone else would have. As for his ideals, well, that's an entirely different story (some of you may know I don't approve of RMS's politics. They aren't needed and they aren't fun).
-bugg
You've got it arse about face...
You are mistaken. Both of our statements are correct. GNU, GPL, and Linux were all carried along. None were irreplaceable.
Imagine Bosch going to Audi and saying "you guys use our engine computer; therefore, your brand is now Bosch/Audi". That's the kind of self-aggrandizing, arrogant crap RMS is pulling.
While RMS has done some good work for all of us, he has no business unilaterally renaming someone else's work.
It's Linux, damnit! Pay no attention to renaming attempts by self-aggrandizing blowhards.
I'm tempted by the first but not the second; I'm not going to start working for MS and Apple for no pay, thanks.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
religious fundamentalism being the biggest example of that point
Any idea, once fully implemented, is fine and dandy.
It's the difficult periods of transition that fuck everything up. And this applies to government (see France's five subsequent revolutions post 1776), medicine ("wash hands?" "trans-plant?"), and a lot of hard sciences too ("ooh, nuklear eNergy!" "Why's Kyle dead?").
If hard-line Islamics, hippie anarchists, regular people, or man-hating lesbian feminazis ruled the world, the world would get along just fine--but since there's opposition between all these groups, there's stress and problem.
Now, I do agree with you. It's nice to dream about changing the world, but until you can you need to know how to live in the one you've got. Failing to accept this (like Christ, Ghandi, and Linus have) leads to much suffering, and distracting the person between what's really important. (And in order, that'd be "telling people to be cool," "telling people to be cool," and "coding Linux.")
Simply because the overhwleming majority of its users call it thus. In the future `Linux' will have a more stricter definition: it will be an Operating System that conforms to the Linux Standards base.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that Stallman is trying to change the name of the kernel, but to point out that the system is more accurately called GNU/Linux because it's made of the GNU tools running on the Linux kernel. You could have GNU/mykernel, GNU/IBM or whatever. It's a question of accuracy.
Liberty uber alles.
Does Torvalds recognize that quality Free Software would not exist if everyone thought like that?
You're begging the question. Of course he doesn't recognize that, because it may not be reality. Linus uses Linux because its useful. There's nothing wrong with that. It doesn't mean less Open Source / Free Software would exist - likely more, because people would realize others are using Linux because of the superior end products that result from an Open Source development model, rather than a sense of ethics that very few others share.
Of course Torvalds has a right to his own opinions, but I wish he'd keep his mouth shut instead of revealing how shallow he is.
Of course you have the right to post, but I wish you too would shut up instead of revealign what an annoying illogical little bitch you are. Rude isn't it?
Every major free work can trace its roots to GCC
So what? Does that mean that gcc/GNU/RMS has to be in the name?
If that were the case, shouldn't we name a heck of a lot of software with "Microsoft VC++/" prepended?
If it's recognition RMS is after, I can understand that, but to have kittens over the name...
Maybe he's a egotistical genius commie whacko saint.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Libertarians would let you decide for yourself whether you should use open software or not.
Authoritarians (like RMS) want to decide for you.
No, he's said he's not interested in outlawing proprietary software. He just wants to make it obsolete by creating better free software.
Libertarians would let you decide for yourself what to charge for your services and products.
Authoritarians (like RMS) want to decide for you.
Wrong again. The FSF encourages the selling of software.
TheFrood
If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.
Soundbite, soundbite, let us tell what to think tonight.
What is an RMS?
RMS is a legendary hacker who wants us to give GNU credit for the Linux OS written by Linus Torvalds who everone likes.
What is an RMS?
Crazy ego guy who is disruptive at programmer gatherings and smells bad.
What is an RMS?
Man on an ideological mission to turn programming into a communist art and wants everyone to agree with him.
Okay, what is an RMS, really?
www.gnu.org, www.stallman.org -- get the truth from the horses mouth. Really, all of the above are more false than true and if you learn of him from someone else, you're likely to get a grand misconception of him. The most soundbite-like and accurate statement of him I can make is that he has introduced and broadly defended the sentiment that software should be free. Everything he does, including the GNU/Linux nominclature, is entirely for that goal.
Perhaps it is disturbing that software can be under ethical consideration. But that doesn't make the statement not true.
C'mon Stallman...finish Hurd...then you can call it GNU/Hurd and leave Linux alone.
I'm not discounting the GNU contribution....on the contrary. I wouldn't have been able to do what I did in College without GNU tools.
-ted
Also, GCC is not a "descendent" of C. C is a language specification, derived from B and others before it. GCC is a program. They aren't even the *same sort of thing.* We owe K&R kudos for a great language. We owe RMS kudos for writing GCC, the heart of Free Software.
-Paul Komarek
Excrement.
I owe RMS nothing. Nothing. Even if I ran an all GNU-system using HURD as my kernel, I'd still owe RMS nothing.
Why?
Because he gave it away.
Or at least, he said he did. Now he seems to want to say, "Um, yeah, I gave it away, but now I'd like very much for you to call Linux GNU/Linux. Oh, and I don't want you to use GCC to compile non-GPL software. What? You don't like that? Don't you know how much you owe me?"
No. He can't have it both ways. I have no intention of ever calling Linux GNU/Linux. I have no interest in his unwinnable holy war. This is the dark side of the "gift culture"...RMS is trying to suggest that we are obligated to him for something he gave away for free.
I hope I didn't claim that things compiled by GCC were GNU-ish. I believe that the original subject about GCC being at the heart of Free Software relates to its significance in the GNU project's history, as well as its significance to many programmers who have gone on to create Free Software.
In particular, it would be less tempting to apply the GPL to one's own code, if one hadn't benefitted directly from other GPL'd code such as GCC, GDB or Emacs.
The GPL was created for Emacs, after some companies "borrowed" heavily from Stallman's original Emacs but wouldn't let him see the improvements. Stallman's dissatisfaction prompted the creation of the Emacs license, which eventually became the GPL. Although Emacs was popular, I think that Stallman's release of GCC, under the new GPL, made a wide group of people take him and his GNU project seriously. GCC was also a business success for Cygnus Solutions a short time after. Thus GCC is a landmark in the Free Software world.
Since then, many people have used GCC when experimenting with programming. I certainly benefitted from a port of GCC and G++ to OS/2 when I moved beyond BASIC. I had tried to move beyond basic when I had a TI 99-4/A in the early 80s, but couldn't afford the $100 C cartridge (I was about 10 years old, and wasn't earning much at the time =-).
But nobody cares about me, so it's better to use John Carmack of id software as an example. He claims that GCC was a big part of his foray into programming. I would like to think that this is part of the reason he releases the engine for his games under the GPL after a while. And I'm sure that many other people who have made significant contributions to the Free Software world cut their teeth using GCC, and feel a need to return the favor.
I guess what I'm saying is that GCC is a big part of the Free Software world for developers. For pure users of Free Software, well, GCC probably doesn't mean as much to them. Maybe these threads about GCC are really split between developers and users. Maybe not.
-Paul Komarek
It seems to me you are being a bit too literal about "owe kudos to". I was simply suggesting that credit be given where credit was due. If you aren't giving credit to someone for Free Software, then I'm not sure why you're posting here.
;-). I don't want to argue about veterens and government in this thread, either; but I think the analogy is important. RMS fought damn hard to give us GCC and the GPL. He's worried that, through ignorance of history, the "spirit" (don't think of ghosts) that prompts such Herculean efforts will be taken for granted and lost. Maybe it's a bit like watching your grandkids come up spoiled and ungrateful.
I don't think RMS is suggesting you have an obligation to him. At best, it would seem he is suggesting that, in his opinion, you have an obligation to be neighborly and a good member of society. But I don't think anyone wants to bother arguing that with anyone else in particular; at least not in this thread.
I think RMS is worried about is a massive influx of users of Free Software taking its lessons about freedom for granted. Just like American veterens of the World Wars don't like it when American "kids" take the freedoms guaranteed to them as US citizens for granted (most people on the planet are "kids" for WWI[I] veterens
Stallman's idea of encouraging with all his power the GNU/Linux moniker may be misguided and unpopular. But that doesn't mean his point is invalid. I believe it is important to understand what it took to reach where we are today, because I don't want to do it over again.
To anyone who reads this and is not familiar with the social history of Free Software, I recommend you take a little time and read about it. Read about the history of computing; read some biographies to help you understand the key players (I know that Torvalds and RMS have easily-read biographies); read about the splendid rise and sordid decline of UNIX. This is my request -- of course you owe me nothing.
-Paul Komarek
Pronounced Gee-noox, of course...
I may not always say GNU/Linux, in fact I hardly say it. I just say Linux. But when I tell people about Linux, I always point out the fact that it wouldn't exist without Stallman and the GNU project.
When I write code for myself, I always put the GPL on it. At work I use Linux. I agree with his philosophy of openness in systems and software source. I am indebted to him.
RMS might become irrelevant to some, but never will he be irrelevant to me.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
He wants to eliminate all governmental interference in the creation and use of code, and that starts with eliminating government sponsored monopolies over ideas, otherwise known as the "intellectual property" system.
.
Well, then, let's also eliminate all government interference in the acquisition of wealth, and start by eliminating the laws against robbing banks. Okay, now moving on to a serious discussion of political property theory . .
Stallman has a fundamentally leftist view of property, in that he views it as a mere contrivance to handle the fact that physical objects cannot be simultaneously posessed by multiple people at once. However, if that's all there is to property, it means there is no fundamental right to property, and there is no intrinsic reason why you should have a specific car instead of me. This results in conclusions similar to those reached by Rawls, which holds that inequality in distribution of matter should only be tolerated insofar as the inequality improves the overall standard of living. And Rawls's theory of justice is at the core of most modern nonmarxist leftist schools of thought.
Those that make a serious intellectual defense of intellectual property operate from a different assumption. They argue that property is not a means of allocating physical objects, but in securing a person's right to his own labor. The natural gold in the ground is unowned; if I dig it up, my labor gives me the right to dispose of it as I see fit. A tree growing in the wild is unowned; if I planted it, though, my labor of planting makes it mine. An idea itself is unowned; if I think of it and document it, though, my labor of thought and documentation makes it mine. You cannot take my gold from me without stealing the benefit of my labor, which in effect makes my time digging for the gold time acting as your slave; you cannot cut down my tree without stealing the benefit of my labor which in effect makes my time planting the tree time acting as your slave; you cannot take my documented idea without stealing the benefit of my labor which in effect makes my time thinking and writing time acting as your slave.
Which theory you accept, of course, is up to you. But those, like RMS, who operate from the first theory, are on the political-economic left.
This is a peculiar tactic that I thought only political candidates used. How can an attack against an idea be ad hominem? An ad hominem is an attack is saying "he's wrong because he's a prick".
Stallman, as it happens, does come off as an arrogant whiner in his public persona. That's an opinion about him, but it doesn't necessarily invalidate what he has to say. A bigger issue is that his views are just as crude and invasive as those he opposes. He's been playing embrace-and-extend games for years; it isn't as bad as Microsoft's because the extensions go back to the community, but these extensions have come at the price of massive unnecessary software bloat. He's also very dogmatic about his views, to the point where the use of certain tools (most notably bison and (I think, anyway) readline) is distasteful because they impose restrictions in ways that other GNU tools don't (I'd rather use byacc than bison because of the GPL restrictions, for example).
/Brian
Eek! Is he really pushing the GNU prefix for Linux (the kernel)? I don't wish to appear to be supporting that. I like "GNU/Linux" for the movement, and can tolerate "GNU/Linux" for the OS. But "GNU/Linux" for the kernel is inappropriate.
If you have a reference to RMS asking for "GNU/Linux" for the kernel, please post it. Not that RMS knows who I am, but I would want to send an email to him if this is the case.
-Paul Komarek
I can recall projects with completely bogus source files which were commented and left that way because gcc produced the desired output by them. When somebody finally wanted a compiler with correct output, they forked gcc, made a better compiler, and everybody I know stopped using gcc. Thus it was until egcs was rolled back into gcc.
Now we have a robust, portable, non-crappy compiler. But I wouldn't credit gcc alone on that.
"I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
Is he really pushing the GNU prefix for Linux (the kernel)?
No.
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
but my guess is that what he really wants
;)
;) (I don't see you doing that, it's just a funny apropos expression).
Lot's of guessing about RMS around here...
rms@gnu.org
Here's an absolutely amazing thing about RMS: he answers email. Personally. No form letters. And I can assure you, the amount of email he wades through is huge.
But why let the truth get in the way of a good story?
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
alpha% cd ftp/emacs/lisp
alpha% grep Raymond ChangeLog.? ChangeLog | wc
83 418 5653
alpha% grep Stallman ChangeLog.? ChangeLog | wc
3315 13888 217454
Which leads to tragedy. Every year, hundreds of subgenious hunters are trampled to death as the gnus silently circle around and counter-attack . .
:)
hawk