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>)
...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.
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.
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.
Well now, since we're being pedantic I would point out that:
And....I don't care. I call the whole lot Linux, unless I'm referring to particular features of distributions in which case it gets called Redhat, Debian or (in my case) Cobalt.
Cheers,
Ian
And GNU/Linus is a programmer person. GNU/RMS is a person who smells funny.
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
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.
ESR is just some sort of leeching gasbag.
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
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.
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.
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...
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
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:
ESR is just some sort of leeching gasbag.
ESR still writes code to this day. Ever browse Sourceforge's Trove? He created it. Compile a recent kernel? The piece that figures out the complex kernel configuration dependency logic is his. Then there's fetchmail. of course (not that it was really worth writing a software engineering theory paper over). He maintains the Jargon File. And he probably has more elisp contributions to emacs than RMS. Just about everywhere I go, I see something with ESR as a contributor.
But you weren't really interested in the truth, were you?
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
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.
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