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.
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
...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.
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!
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
The "GNU/" is silent. Get over it. ;-)
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.
I don't really hold his ideals dearly. GNU, BSD, whatever. I'm pretty pragmatic in my devotion to open-source. It's just code, people. No need to get all antsy about it, sheesh. :-).
Public domain is the best license, IMHO. Screw the hoarders who'll take it and keep their changes, that can be their bad karma
It's a strange world -- let's keep it that way
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.
If we start putting GNU before every program that was made with GNU software, where will that lead us? Combine that with gnome, and you've got GNU/Gvi, GNU/GMozilla, GNU/GGoddammit
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
Well he's asked. Most people have said no. Next issue please. Continuing to beat the issue won't make any difference to what people have decided. If he had got a kernel out on the street in 1986, when they started working on a kernel, then Linux wouldn't exist, so it's really his own fault.
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"
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.
Where does it end, and why there? Please be as precise in your answer as Mr. Stallman prefers to be in his.
sPh
I understand the motivation behind the GNU operating system, and that Linux was the last (but not least) major component thereof. However, I continue to call my Red Hat 7.3 box a Linux system.
By the same token, I think it would appropriate for, say, Debian to deemphasize Linux, and simply call it a GNU system. The distinction is more ideological than technical.
"Linux" is the popular usage. Trying to change it to "GNU/Linux" is counter productive.
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?
If you're going to be pedantic, then so am I! Just because it's compiled with GCC, that doesn't make it part of the GNU project. Using a GPL'd compiler does not make the compiled output GPL'd. Hah, I out-pedant thee! A pox on thy inferior pedantry!
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.
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. =)
Sarcastic? Moi?
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
Erm, nope. GNU/Linux isn't GNU/Linux because it was compiled with GCC, it's GNU/Linux because it includes the full GNU user-land with the Linux kernel. If you remove GNU from RedHat, you have an entirely different system.
If people were taking the BSD user land, which includes a few GNU utilities but isn't GNU per-se, Stallman wouldn't be asking you to do anything. He hasn't asked for OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, Mac OS X/NextStep, etc, to be named GNU/OpenBSD etc, which are also built using GNU tools - they do not include and rely on the full GNU user land as their non-kernel parts of the OS.
I do wish people would read what RMS actually has to say instead of repeating the same-old "I'm going to call it GNU/Slashdot" "He's forcing everyone to give out their code for free!" etc bullshit.
KMSMA (WWBD?)
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)
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.
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.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!
If they had called it "Freenix" or "StallmanOS" or something, it might not have occurred to Linus and his buddies to come up with a new name when they were developping the Linux kernel.
As it is, whoever thought "the GNU System" was a cool name simply blew it. Almost nobody says "guh-NOO-LIN-ux" when discussing Linux, and almost nobody ever will. Try to get over it. Life will go on.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
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:
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
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
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
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 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!
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 :-).
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!
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
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.")