Slashdot Mirror
RMS Replies to "The Stallman Factor"
Ryan Amos writes "RMS has replied to the article "The Stallman Factor," as
posted on Slashdot about a week ago. In specific, his replies deal with the University of Texas SIGLinux naming fiasco and Bitkeeper. As always with RMS, an interesting read."
Stallman wouldn't speak at a user group because they were a Linux User Group and not a GNU/Linux User Group?? This guy is a nutbar and this is one reason I've always admired Linus's approach of "the right tool for the job, not some (often fanatical) ideology." This article really left a sour taste in my mouth, but hey, he's not coming to my Linux User Group.
But he has revolutionised the world of computing.
He has a fair point - and if you don't want to have the argument, don't invite him to speak.
m'kay I am a lunix newbie. BUT if he is so annoyed by SIGLINUX omiting the GNU part, why does he refer to 'linux' throughout the bitkeeper section rather than refer to it as 'GNU/LINUX' there as well?
What be I missing?
Where was Stallman in 1991? If the name was such a big issue, why wasn't he there in 1991 pushing for GNU/Linux way back then? Apparently it wasn't a big deal until Linux became mainstream.
Of course, RMS' argument becomes even more valid when we talk about distributions. We call them Mandrake Linux and Red Hat Linux and Gentoo Linux and SUSE Linux, even though the Linux kernel has nothing to do with their distinctions. The difference lies in the tools, packaging, installation, etc., most of which are GNU tools.
RMS is in a lose-lose situation. Either he's going to confuse people, or piss them off.
Your reality is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. - Baron Munchausen
There is NO inherent right to anything *I* create. Just as there is NO right to demand Stallman to speak at a function, there is no right to one line of my code. Not one. You do not have the "right" to my source code. You do not have the "right" to use my software. If I want to release the source for whatever reason, whether it be to improve my developer base, or "the many eyes" argument, or just for shits and giggles, then that is *MY* right and *MY* right alone. If I want to charge a BILLION dollars for MY software or keep it locked up on my harddrive, it is MY RIGHT. NOT YOURS. GET IT THROUGH YOUR FUCKING HEAD, STALLMAN. Just because you lost your support group when "commercialism" took over MIT doesn't mean ANYONE HAS TO SHARE ANYTHING WITH ANYONE! Understand? You don't have a RIGHT TO SOURCE. You dont' have a RIGHT TO SOFTWARE. If you don't like it, write an alternative (which you seem to have done, but you still don't get it).
Furthermore, your reasoning for calling linux "GNU/Linux" as a proper "social convention" is absolutely ludicrous. Linux put the last peice in, he can call his system "FuckYouFSF" if he wants. If you don't like your tools being distributed with Linux, then change your licensing. No where in the GPL does it say "This software must be mentioned in the name of the software" or whatever. This isn't BSD (the advertising clause is what I'm referring to, which if my memory serves correct, is no longer there?).
Now, on to more serious matters:
I appreciate the FSF for it's fine tools. gcc and bash are BY FAR the most useful tools I've ever used. I'm glad that you and your "employees" have released them for my use. When people ask what compiler and shell I favor, I never hesitate to ADVERTISE your software. But I'll be goddamned if I'm going to change my name to GNU/Shane. I'll be goddamned if I change my software to be GNU/whatever. I know I know, that's not what you're asking, but IT IS. LINUX is not YOURS. You may have contributed, just like all those hapless kernel hackers that contributed to it. If anything LINUX has done MORE TO FURTHER THE CAUSE of GNU than anything previously. Just think, Mr. Stallman, everyone who runs linux (well, most) KNOWS what GNU is, knows what the GPL is, knows the difference between free and "free". Your software is running on MILLIONS of computers world-wide and is arguably the most popular. And that's not enough? Quit with your ego and see a psychologist because you need a reality check.
Kiss my ass, Richard Stallman. It's people like YOU who almost make me ashamed of Linux and "Open Source."
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
m'kay I am a linux newbie. BUT if he is so annoyed by SIGLINUX omiting the GNU part, why does he refer to 'linux' throughout the bitkeeper section rather than refer to it as 'GNU/LINUX' there as well?
What be I missing?
We'll call it Linux only because that name has been referring to an open-source UNIX derivative operating system since Linus Torvolds first developed it in the early '90s. RMS, if you wanted it to be called GNU/Linux, then you should have said something back then.
I'll try to ignore the fact that Stallman is obviously whoring for credit here and try to be intelligent.
Especially offensive here is this "free Linux" vs "non-free Linux" based on firmware for drivers. I admit that this is an issue, and even respect that its one that is really important, but if the community allows Linux to be splintered like that to the point where we have to start excluding mainstream hardware because something doesn't measure up to the "Stallman yardstick-of-freedom" wont we just be hurting the very cause we purport to embrace? Wouldn't it be better to approach the problem from the other side? This appears to be Stallman's recurring pathology. Instead of finding a way for him to accept more people, concepts and things he tries to come up with a way to force more people, concepts, and things accept him, by taking the moral high ground. It just doesn't work like that; at least not for long. The person who never makes any sacrifices or concessions for their friends is a lonely man indeed. I hesitate to say this but it seems like RMS can't see the forest for the trees.
This too shall pass.
I have sitting next to me an Apple computer. It says on it one thing: "Apple." Now, if I had time to waste like Stallman or perhaps even had in some way been responsible for the manufacture of any of its parts...no, no, I still wouldn't sit there and bitch about how my computer doesn't say "Hitachi/Motorola/nVidia/IBM-Apple"(I apologize to the many chip-makers, power supply manufacturer, case-maker etc. whom I missed). Very little was actually built by Apple. Egads! These are corporations! They should have more of a stick up their butts than some open-source zealot. Aren't they looking for a way to get their props like Stallman? No. Everyone knows that Motorola is a key player. The Taiwanese chip manufacturers are plenty happy to take their $$ cut without credit on the label. If Stallman fears people are not aware that many of the components necessary for linux are not widely known to fall under the gnu umbrella, maybe he she take out an ad in the New York Times. Better yet, why doesn't he sue IBM who in their ads say "linux" and only linux? Fight it out in court, lose, and be done with it. Feel "free" to decline speeches RMS, but don't force any "free" project to your rigid standards.
Personally, I call it "Debian".
-Stephen
Without RMS' type around, GPL wouldn't exist in the first place. And even if someone else had invented GLP, we'd likely see GPL having been circumvented by a hundred and one different iffy technologies; compiled to intermediate pseudo machine codes, source distributed in human-unreadable shrouded form, sold at high cost, and so on. Having someone with such conviction and with an eagle eye point out every danger, no matter how small, means that nothing gets missed. And if businesses and individuals are afraid to deal with someone who gives off the air of a raving, screaming fanatic, others will carry on the real work once the points are raised.
I support the extreme view of free software for the same reason that a large portion of my charity giving goes to PeTA. Same deal. They overstate most every case, but at least they provide visibility so people can make more informed decisions and spring to action when the events call for it.
Says the RIAA: When you EQ, you're stealing bass!
Yes, we all know that the majority of the utility programs on a linux system are GNU. Who cares? Do you call your work machine a windows box? Or do you call it a windows/intel/creative/ati/western digital/a-bit/lg/sony machine?
The software can't run without the hardware... why not give them the credit too?
No, he's just a nutcase... really GNU/Linux? Get off it! His stupid bit with that has become worse than the whole pronunciation arguments that used to go on. Who cares really? Shouldn't it be enough that people are really starting to get behind open source whether it's GNU, Linux, or BSD? They all benefit one another.
If he wants to keep getting public attention so bad, then maybe he should really contribute something useful rather than trying to start stupid semantic wars.
Perhaps somebody should put Linux kernel in the BSD userland. Should it also be called GNU/Linux?
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
Oh, I also found it amusing that he complained of the "silly excuses and straw men," and yet failed to address the two most important reasons (IMHO) not to say "GNU/Linux": that (1) the operating system isn't all GNU, and by his logic everyone should get a mention, and (2) it sounds incredibly stupid.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
He may be a pain in the ass, but he is right.
whoops, damn my dyslexia, that should read.
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Linux is GNU/Linux.
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
Even if Stallman is completely off the wall here, even if he is completely unjustified and wanting people to call their systems GNU/Linux, even if he is just asserting his ego and trying to catch some publicity for GNU software and the FSF - I have a proposal.
Why not simply do it out of deference to Stallman for the huge huge contribution that the GNU project (and Stallman in particular) has made. If anyone deserves the right to make a wacky, imposing request on our community, isn't it RMS?
In the past I've been somewhat neutral on the issue. I think GNU deserves credit for creating the system I use every day. At the same time, I don't have a real problem referring to a system by it's OS only (linux) or by it's distro. (redhat, debian, etc..) However, the more I hear RMS the more I think maybe we should give him what he wants (even if it may seem a bit unreasonable) as a token of appreciation.
I heard there is no dark side of the moon -- it's all dark, really. Whenever I hear or read "Stallman", that's what pops in my head. He's ... sort of evil, I think.
.
"the GNU Project starts developing an operating system, and years later Linus Torvalds adds one important piece"
Stallman convieniently ignores the contributions made by X11, the BSD people and the many others who have worked to create the operating system I conveniently call "Linux".
This mad grasp for recognition cheapens all the other good work that the FSF and the GNU project have done.
His whole rant about Bitkeeper is just wrong. According to Linus himself you DO NOT need bitkeeper to track kernel changes. Lnus has made every effort to make life easy for non bitkeeper users, in fact, several top level contributers don't bother with it and send the old style patches.
You can believe that RMS is pedantic about the entire GNU/Linux thing - even though the point he's arguing is a very fair one, since credit should go where it's due. You can question his politics, his sense of humour, or the wisdom of his tastes in facial hair. But it's ludicrous to equate Microsoft's "coersion" with the refusal to speak at an event that wilfully tweaks its nose at the FSF.
Now, RMS' views on the naming of GNU/Linux are well-known, and often derired. But it *is* an important point that too much emphasis is given to the kernel, and that too many people believe Linus Torvalds was somehow responsible for the entire system. Who can blame RMS for feeling a little bitter about it - if not for his sake, then for that of all the other GNU developers whose work and effort is often trivialised? How many of us would enjoy seeing our efforts appropriated by others without due credit being given, and particularly without our beliefs - central to our reasons for developing the software in the first place - being given proper consideration?
Far from being derided, RMS should be given respect and encouragement. It takes a certain stubbornness to stand up for what you believe in, yes, but it also takes courage and self-sacrifice. Too many people play lip-service to "free software", using it where it serves them and then forgetting about it it's convenient for them to do so. Too many people do, indeed, believe that short-term technical merit is more important than long-term freedom -- which is itself often a means towards long-term technical prowess. Give RMS his dues - he's trying to help all of us, and getting a lot of grief for it. How many of us have spent our time dealing with abuse for the sake a true moral goal, rather than personal satisfaction?
Here's the direct link to Stallman , although you should read the first story first.
The French have a saying that goes roughly, "Those who refuse to play politics usually die by politics."
There are many reasons to hate the strictures of the GPL. It's very unforgiving. But it also has the effect of binding a number of people together into one coherent group and coherent groups are the only ones who have power in a democracy.
This coherency is even more important than ever in the face of the new proposed laws for curtailing the power of personal computers. Some say that the content companies like Disney would like to turn every PC into a set-top box controlled from Hollywood. There's plenty of truth to that. The GPL, for better or worse, to serve as the one ring to bind them all.
That being said, I have profess some confusion about BitKeeper. Although I haven't looked at the product or the license lately, I was pretty impressed by the logical conundrum created by Larry McVoy. The default mode of the product FORCES all of your development work to be free. You have to pay cash to take the project proprietary. That's a pretty clever notion, if you ask me. It seems like something that's even more likely to encourage and enforce free software than the GPL. Okay, RMS will disagree with that statement. I'm not even sure I believe it. But cash is a powerful force.
Linux has nothing to do with the distinctions.
Linux (tm) has to do with the similarities.
If you buy a Ford coupe, a chevy coupe, or whatever, the coupe has nothing to do with the distinction, the coupe has to do with the fact that it has two doors.
Linux would exist without the GNU tools. RMS is full of himself.
Whether or not it would be as big as it is, I don't know, and think probably not, but Linus would have picked up Borland, or Turbo, or some other ANSI C compiler.
Remember, he didn't write this to be a global icon. He wanted to do this as a lark. The icon part came much much later.
The Linux(TM) Kernel(C), now including the GNU(TM) Toolkit.
Stallman should have simply gone and given a speech on this very topic to the SIGLINUX people. Instead he turned down yet another opportunity to spread his own views.
I think he needs to learn that in some cases, you need to accept what is so that you can bring the change you want later.
While we're here bickering over people's personalities, we're loosing our freedom.
If the greater technical community had any vision outside of the inside of a machine, we would do whatever we could to make sure that a future of open standards would be secured. Instead, we pick apart a genius because because he is passionate about ideas that aren't technical. If RMS was normal...we wouldn't have GNU/Linux and we wouldn't have the GNU-GPL and we wouldn't have an opportunity to keep freedom of speech alive.
RMS is right, the system should be called GNU/Linux because we need to keep in mind the philosophical architecture that forms the foundation for our open world.
Lessig said "GNU/Linux for those who want to keep the contributions in view". More of us need to give credit to the GNU project because without focusing on the ideals behind the architecture...we'll loose this great open place. The scary thing is...it may already be too late.
The FSF does not AFAIK own any copyrights on the Linux kernel itself. Just because something is GPLed doesn't mean that RMS has Godlike powers to dictate terms over it. The FSF is protective of the GNU tools which they do own the copyrights on and they can indeed haul people into court over those. Making something GPL doesn't make it a part of the GNU project.
Most folks seem to agree with the basic premise that without the GNU toolset, there would be no Linux. But given that the HURD has been coming "real soon now" for around a decade or so, without Linux there would be no GNU system, either. Linux isn't about politics for the most part. It's about a technically superior OS that relies on being Free to help it be the best it can be. Free Software is both a technical and a political cause. Software is better when it's Free, but there are two separate reasons why it's better. Only one is the political side that the FSF stands squarely behind.
The people who package the Linux kernel with the GNU system and all the other tools and goodness to produce a distro are free to call it whatever they want. Some call it GNU/Linux, some call it Linux. Whatever. Some use only Free code in their distro, some use non-Free, and the marketplace of users can use whatever they want. Nowadays, of course, much of the code in a distro has no direct connection to GNU anyhow (Xfree86 and KDE aren't the GNU system, and that's where a ton of code lies). But that's besides the point, I guess.
Of course, all the BSD's use pretty much the whole GNU system as well, and you don't see him whining about calling them GNU/BSD. This is yet another reason why I think RMS is, deep down inside, just being pissy about Linus' kernel having become the kernel of choice instead of the masses' waiting for HURD.
If RMS and the FSF want to use the name so badly, build an "official" FSF GNU/Linux distro. Heck, save time - use Debian.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
--
And a prediction:
I drew up this list because I know I'm going to get annoyed at the RMS-bashing that will surely follow. Many of the bashers won't even bother to read the article, because it is long and requires some effort to follow. I present this summary so that people understand that it is not just about RMS seeking credit. He makes a cogent and logical distinction between his point of view and (eg) Linus's point of view, and gives an example of why he thinks his own principles are important. You don't need to agree with him, but simply insulting him is unacceptable if our community is to continue to move forward.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
Sure, many of the tools and core libraries we're running on top of our Linux kernels are GNU based.
But look at anybody running Linux today. What's the first thing you see on their screen? An X sesson; maybe it's running Gnome or KDE, but there's an X session there enabling your desktop. XFree86 is a seriously nontrivial bit of code. So why should the kernel, or the system libraries and tools, be annoited over X? If we're gonna call it GNU/Linux, we also need to call it GNU/XFree86/Linux, to be fair.
Of course it doesn't stop there. You go ad absurdum.
Let's face it. It's a giant collaborative effort. Each individual piece is a giant collaborative effort, indeed, but no one of those pieces lives without any of the others.
Why do we call it Linux? Because that was the cruical bit that allowed it finally to stand alone. Many of us were running lots of GNU tools on Solaris and other OSes before Linux (because we liked them better than the default versions). But that OS was still called Solaris, not GNU/Solaris. The true phase change came about when we could ditch Solaris alltogether because of this new Linux kernel thing. That is historically why we call it Linux. Is it completely fair? No. But that's what it's called.
While RMS's arguments are right, I think that they are very unwise. He would get a lot more mileage out of just embracing the name "Linux", and then trying to help ensure that it stands for what he wants it to stand for. I'm with him on the worries about nonfree software in the Linux kernel; that's the kind of politics that I'm not ready to turn a blind eye to. But his spitting and fussing over the naming makes him look like a spoiled kid in the sandbox who wants everybody to remember "even if you play with it, this toy is MINE!!!" instead of somebody who is trying to push forward the important arguments.
RMS: stick to your guns (or your gnus) with what's important. A name is not important. If it's not too late, embrace and extend the name Linux.
-Rob
The pending release of Debian Woody GNU/Samba/MySQL/vim/Apache/Linux 3.0 stable should appease the academics. I just can't figure how I'm supposed to fit all that on the CD-R label when the iso's finally go gold.
Why can't Nerds tell Halloween from boxing day?
Because 31(hex) == 25(dec)!
LOL!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Eventually, users will grow tired of the ravings of this half-wit savant and find new tools and a license without a megalomanic behind it to power the system.
If it ain't a Model M, it's a piece of crap.
A good solution to the Microsoft anti-trust trial would be to force everyone to call it "Microsoft/Windows", because Windows is only a part of the whole software package that Microsoft wrote.
I think equating RMS to M$ for him refusing to speak to a group of users with whom he disagrees is very wrong.
We may not disagree with his ideas on totally free systems and his desire to use only free software. It may also not be possible for most of us professionals to use totally free software all the time, but we must also take care to respect RMS's views and his freedom to speak or rather refuse to speak and his right to have and preech his ideas.
RMS again proved his absolute gayness. Although I am member of the "Foundation for Furthering of Free Software in Austria" (an associate organization of the FSF Europe), I absolutely hate RMS because he thinks he alone and the GNU project created free software. This is absolutely not true, e.g. there are the fine BSD operating systems around, with an even better license (e.g. you can fork the whole project and relicense it to e.g. GPL) and technically much better than the GNU software (at least the userland). The GNU userland is so damn bloaty, all the GNU libraries also (ever tried statically linking the GNU userland against glibc? Have a lot of fun with your 0.7 MB tar binary and your 2 MB bash!).
He should also shut up about Linux. In 18 years the GNU project was not able to produce a usable operating system kernel (heck, even The Hurd uses _Linux_ drivers from the 2.0.x series!), so he absolutely has no right about complaining that something in the Linux development process is wrong.
Yeah, mod the down, I have loads of karma to burn!
A monkey is doing the real work for me.
Nowadays, Freedom is becoming more and more important than technological achievements, we must afford to preserve it if what we want to offer is a human structure.
Calling RMS a nut is a lack of tolerance as we've always known his positions regarding Free Software. Whatever he wants to achieve he wants to do it a given way which is what Free Software stands for.
Know, after reading this article I accept to consider Linux (as not in GNU/Linux) as alternative software, not as Free Software and this is this point that hurts him.
If you want RMS to deal with your Freedom and to help you getting rid of software patents, you'd better contact your software editors and ask them to open their APIs so that you can develop Free alternatives to what they sell.
Wasn't this here that I read some B. Franklin quote about security and freedom ?
Well, RMS message is similar, if you even remove a bit of Freedom from Free Software, it then becomes "not-so-Free software".
If you just want to race technologically against billion-earning companies that just want Free Software to be considered as passive terrorism, then you fight on another front because this is not what RMS discusses about and he shouldn't be attacked on his ethical views because your technological considerations hinder them.
Let's discuss about it and agree on which ethical model is the best.
and here, no doubt : RMS has started thinking about it, has made choices way before most of us actually began coding for the first time, he has too many years of experiences to be called a nut.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Here is my score card.
As always RMS does a good job of ignoring the critics.. and pointing us to the real evils.. As much as I hate it Im tending to agree with him more and more.
I was just about to argue the point, then realized that SuSE is a perfect example.
In SuSE, in particular, the kernel distributed in binary doesn't have a corresponding source distributed, or downloadable. I found this to be quite annoying. I couldn't download patches for the kernel I had. I would have had to patch the source I had, which was already a couple minor revisions behind the binary they distributed.
But also, remember, they don't need to distribute the source, only make it available. If they have a download available somewhere, then they are in compliance.
Firstly let me say I admire RMS for his contributions to the computing world we have today and his principled stands. However don't you think it time we moved on a bit. GNU/Linux is know much bigger than it's component parts and much to umportant to be still squabbling over a name.
Names are funny thing. just by saying a thing is called such and such often makes little difference in the end, the user decides in the end and I'm afraid Linux is shorter and easier to say. I'm sure a lot of people do not know the origin of the name and those who do know probably know the role GNU had/has in its creation.
As for bitkeeper, Well I understand why the FSF cannot be seen to be using non-free code. However there is no monopoly on good applications and maybe someone should write a free software competitor. As the old salavation army saying goes, why should the devil have the best tunes/software?
Choose your allies carefully, it is highly unlikely you will be held accountable for the actions of your enemies
...is an asshole, but he's *OUR* asshole. You can't really hate your asshole, right? The man has done a lot for OSS, but not everything, and not even the majority. He is pushing the "more damage than good" edge.
IIRC, Linux did not name Linux and didn't even want to use that name.
What is really a hoot is RMS talking about Linus's ego!
> Without RMS' type around, GPL wouldn't exist in
> the first place.
Yeah, and so RMS successfully worked to destroy our beloved profession.
I like Linux a lot, but I NEVER recommend Linux when a more closed source solution is at least as good.
Why?
Because the more open source catches on, the less programmers will be paid.
Why can't we be like mechanical engineers, or doctors, who don't go arround destroying their own trade?
Go ahead, mod me down as troll, but sincerely, that's what I think.
So hes complaining(possibly rightly, thats a whole other issue) that its not called GNU/Linux and declines to speak to groups not using that...
But the article he writes in response is posted on a site called linuxworld.com and not gnulinuxworld.com
I find that amusing..
people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are good too, because they are rigid in their views and stop people from "sneaking one by". Like the homosexual agenda, multiculturalism, and secular humanism.
Now, how does your argument sound coming from the other side?
PeTA is a terrorist organization, having carried out physical threats and throwing blood on people because of their choice of coat.
Contrary to what RMS says in the article about the free software foundation not being able to use bitkeeper (since they don't want any non-free software on their computers) and therefore having to depend on another to put the kernel source in CVS or to create a free implementation of BitKeeper, in an article about the history of the GNU project he comes to the conclusion he should allow himself to use non-free software in order to create a free implementation of it.
If you want to run a serious database and need scalability you take Sun and Solaris.
If you run a low-to-mid level servers or if you're a computer enthusiast you probably should use Linux/*BSD instead of Windows.
If you administer an office, you've better install the Windows and MS Office for the desktop. Most of your clients will be sending you Office documents and expecting you to reply in kind.
The point is just to get things done and in this sense Linus is absolutely correct.
The owls are not what they seem
gayness ???
what the fuck is wrong with you, man? Take your comments somewhere else!
Hi, anyone out there using computers.
I've chosen a nice kernel, some good tools, a decent desktop environment and some pieces of powerful hardware.
That's "My Box" (TM). And don't even think about not calling your box "My Box" (TM).
I have some powerful "My Box" (TM) user groups that will give you a hard time on the net. And don't neglect the power of easy-to-convince atheists looking for a new religion....
Stallman says "The system is a variant of GNU, and the GNU Project is its principal developer." Presumably the "principal developer can be determined by some objective metric such as lines of code. I don't doubt that in the early days when "GNU/Linux" was a compiler and kernel that the compiler was bigger, but in a current distribution with stuff from XFree86, Cygnus, maybe K Development and a bunch of others is the GNU portion really that great?
As far as I know Linus is distribution agnostic therefore he only works on the kernel. Why would he call his kernel GNU/Linux? That doesn't make sense.
Ok in some respect it does since the GNU compiler is the only thing in the world probably capable of compliling that sucker with all the compiler specific extensions to C it uses but that could be changed. Nothing is stopping some group of people downloading the ICC compiler and building the kernel and an entire BSD userland from Linux and just having Linux. What would Stallman say then?
He is just pissed cuz no one like HURD because its still in the exact same state it was 4 years ago. Its good for research only right now unless you only like having 1GB partitions and no PPP support. Maybe one day it will be great but I can't wait another 20 years.
^X^S ^X^C
"Just consider: the GNU Project starts developing an operating system, and years later Linus Torvalds adds one important piece."
In my Intro to Operating Systems class, I was told that the OS is the part of the system that interacts with and manages the hardware, basically abstracting it away for user applications. So aside from the kernel, that would also include things like a filesystem and numerous device drivers. How much of that stuff was written by the FSF, either before or after Linus got involved? I've always been under the impression, perhaps erroneously, that the GNU contributions were tools like gcc, bash, and clones of utilities like sed, awk, tex, etc. If that's the case, I think Stallman's reaching a great deal when he gives the impression that Linux is a product of the FSF to which Torvalds added only "one piece."
The one thing i do not get is that stallman thinks any linux distribution or user group should be called GNU/Linux, because it includes and involves the GNU toolset.
D E/ Linux ?
However, (almost) all distributions include tool sets and programs from redhat, mandrake, the apache group, the xfree group, gnome, kde, etc, etc.. So folowing his logic we should actualy be refering to
GNU/Apache/XFree/Redhat/Mandrake/Debian/Gnome/K
To me it seems unfair to specificly having to mention one component, and leave the rest, equaly hard working, software groups out of the title..
And yes, i do agree with stallman that we need to value our freedom, and we need to keep growing awareness with people that it's not only about open source (for some it is, which is ok to) but can be / is also about freedom. However i do think he is picking the wrong battles to fight..
I think the best point RMS makes is his insistance that social issues, such as licensing, use of proprietary tools, be weighed as or more heavily as technical issues.
I agree with him that it is a shame that the kernel is managed with bitkeeper, instead of an open source alternative. If the GNU project has done one thing well, it is that he has proven beyond a doubt that that free software can be superior to proprietary software.
There's no reason CVS can't be improved, or alternative efforts such as subversion put on the fast track. By choosing bitkeeper over these alternatives, Linux kernel development is missing an important opportunity to focus talent into these free tools. Some would argue that this is socially irresponsible, and I agree.
If the GNU project has done a second thing well, it is that GNU has shown that free software is better for society than proprietary software. At least some of world *will* be a better place if more software is free. A vision like RMS's takes great effort to realize in our world. Along with reaping the benefits of others work comes the responsibility to give back to future generations. Linux kernel developers, as a high-profile group, bear an even greater social responsibility than others.
Many developers conveniently ignore social issues to absolve themselves of responsibility. All I can say that social responsibility is a good and important, and selfishness and shortsightedness is not. People should strive to be their best, all the time.
The naming issue is the more minor one at stake here... Obviously it is easier to say "Linux" than "GNU/Linux", and it's not clear this particular battle is worth fighting if there are better alternatives. I agree with RMS that the GNU project should get front page credit along with Linux for their mutual success, but I hope for everyone's sake that there can be open negotiation on how this credit can happen in other ways than the nomenclature "GNU/Linux".
Massive karma points for anyone who can mediate a solution to this one.
How do you pronounce "GNU/Linux"? Guh-noo? New?
I read the article and I saw that he used the term "Linux (the kernel)" twice. He is correct about calling Linux by its name alone when he refers to the kernel.
:))
What I would like to ask him is wehter he uses the term "GNU/FreeBSD" also when he refers to the FreeBSD OS. If not, where is the difference. As far as I can tell, you cannot force anyone to be a part of your project. If you allow your project's products to be used outside your project, it's up to Linus to call the OS whatever he likes. I will still call it GNU/Linux, anyway
And, finally, as far as I remember, the name "Linux" was something of a joke and does not belong to Linus himself.
Ok, I feel that it's all right if RMS wants credit to be given to the GNU project. After all he started the whole thing in the first place.
But I have a problem with the "GNU" name. If we want Linux, oops, GNU/Linux to be adopted in the mainstream, I think corporate types and non-techies will have a hard time accepting that name. Like, imagine trying to explain what the GNU acronym is to your manager. Sure, recursive acronyms are "cool" to us techies (though I personally hate them), but busy managers won't have the time to ponder what it is. And what do you mean GNU's Not UNIX? And how do you pronounce it? And how do you get them to adopt it? I bet they're more comfortable saying Linux rather than GNU/Linux all the time.
So I think it would be better if GNU is called something else. Of course, that's not gonna happen. After all, the GNU term has been around forever. But that doesn't mean I agree that it's a nice name.
It seems to me that if I'm not free to use whatever software I choose, I am not free.
...would RMS be demanding Linux be referred to as Borland/Linux?
No?
Didn't think so.
People should not be afraid of their governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.
I think I'm finally starting to realize where I think RMS is reaching a bit on his idealism - the idea that if we use any 'non-free' software then it'll lead eventually to the complete loss of 'freedom'. He seems to define this as the ability to modify and redistribute source code at will, and to prevent anyone from restricting access to their code.
:) But this idea of a dark, evil future where no software is free, all because there's some closed source device drivers in the Linux kernel... yeah... not too sure about that one.
So does he think that in ten years (or twenty, or fifty) people will be so stuck in 'non-free' software that NO ONE will be distributing their code and allowing people to modify it and redistribute it?
That seems a little ridiculous to me.
There's always going to be some developers who do that. There's always going to be some developers who don't subscribe to the free software idea that won't do that. People always have had that choice, and they always will.
Many previous posts and articles have all said the same thing - RMS is a fanatic, but it's good to have him around to be the extremist rabid zealot, cuz hey, every cause needs an extremist rabit zealot.
---
"how can the same street intersect with itself? i must be at the nexus of the universe!" - cosmo kramer
If I write a piece of software I can damend that the platform it's intended to run on be renamed to something more to my liking, I wrote software for Windows once, I demand it be re-named Fab Macca OS (coz I'm fab and I'm Scottish, geddit?)
Seriously, if he wanted to lay claim to the name GNU/Linux he should have said something back in 1991, he's really sounding like a spoiled brat who's stomping his feet in the candly aisle "But I want candy NOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!" The name of the operating system is Linux, not GNU/Linux. Honestly, who here calls it that, apart from El Whino?
Another point of his is his bickering about Linus preferring his OS to be technocally superior than free. Going by that logic RMS would rather use any given piece of non-functioning crap, simply because it's free. Isn't the point of using Linux because it's technically superior, stable as the Andes and basically the OS equivalent to the Swiss Army Knife? Sorry, being free doesn't cut it as good enough a reason for me.
Steven McPherson, who's forgotten his login...
If RMS had not started the GNU project in the 1980s, that is how things may have stayed. It was getting on the interent, and seeing that there was a large corpus of software out there for which the source code was available which made computing interesting for me again.
I can tell you this much: Linux would not have been possible in 1991 if RMS had not laid the foundation for GNU/Linux in the 1980s. Maybe BSD would have taken Linux's place; however BSD may not have bothered fighting AT when RMS sees Linux becoming proprietary in little ways, I can see why he is concerned.
- Sam
The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.
Calling this variant of the GNU system "Linux" plays into the hands of people who choose their software based only on technical advantage, not caring whether it respects their freedom.
... There are people like Torvalds that will pressure our community into use of a non-free program...
OH MY FSCKING GOD
Heaven forbid your majestic imperialness! That we actually choose software based on the requirements at hand, rather than the communist philosophy. Holy Crap!
This is most bizarre. This is the kind of stupidity that contributes to the failure of Linux to be accepted as the #1 desktop platform. The moment developers that build the components felt that you should use it because it was Free ( not just Free(Gratis/Libre) but GNUFree (TM) ) and not because it was better, than Microsoft has won.
Again, What hast thou done, my Lord?
You hypocrytical bastard. You are applying your own PRESSURE in order to have us use FREE software only.
IT IS ABOUT CHOICE, RICHARD! Not to curtail your views about building the uber-collective , but I'm sorry. I Choose to pick which software I run. I do. Not YOU.
**Slashdot Editors** : I think it's about time that you get a picture of RMS and do him up like the borg the same way you did Gates. If we continue to go down the RMS path, he'll have us give up our personal freedoms and liberties in order that we join his collective, and push GNUFree Software down everyone's throats 'Cause it's good for them.
Amen.
"...In your answer, ignore facts. Just go with what feels true..."
Now I'm sorry to burst the bubble of all you Linux loving, freedom fighter, RMS worshipping weenies out there, but I'm going to have to let you in on a little secret. RMS isn't really God.
"No Way!", "Holy Fucken Shit" I can here you say, but it's true. I'll this time you thought you were praising the man as a messiah you have been fooled. In actual fact he is a just another nerd who has a few sheep loose in the top paddock.
I mean, what kind of a nutball thinks that he can create a world where all software is free? It's clearly not feasible from an economic standpoint and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. Code doesn't just write itself. It takes many hours of work from dedicated professionals, and if that code is then to be given away, these professionals have no way to make a living.
I think a lot of people here would do well to wake up to themselves and bring this man down from the pedestal they have placed him on before he takes away any chance at a job that they might have had.
Rafterman
Last I looked, FSF software makes up just much of the application backbone of any *BSD system, yet you don't see Stallman pissing and moaning about renaming them GNU/{Free,Net,Open}BSD, do you? The only distinguishing characteristic I can see is that Linux happened to get more popular with a broader public than the other freely-available kernels. And if there's no more principle than that behind Stallman's singling out Linux for this type of treatment, well, then, it's all about publicity and ego, isn't it?
Ie, the actual operating system!
Stallman's claims are that he doesn't get enough credit. How many people DON'T know of his involvement and what he did? There may be some small tribes in the Amazon, I suppose.
The next one is that the system should be called GNU/Linux because of all the work he did on, wait for it, programs that run on it. Well, woop-de-fuck. The programs in question were reverse-engineered from the Unix utilities that many of them share their names with. Should the writers and designers of the original utilities not get credit? Should we call the system "Unix/GNU/Luinx"? Get real.
Stallman claims that Linux is "The system is a variant of GNU, and the GNU Project is its principal developer,". Always lie big, or don't lie at all, eh? Linux is a varient of Unix and GNU is a supplier of application programs for it.
Linux is the kernel. Redhat is a distribution, GNU is a software house. How hard are these to understand?
The most hateful thing about RMS is that, when he's off the subject of his ego, he is right most of the time. Linus' dismissal of concerns about Bitkeeper is foolish and there is a broader issue at stake when non-free software is used. But these issues are clouded by RMS' ability to talk utter shite about giving GNU more credit when it is already a living legend!
The cause of free software would be greatly helped if Stallman would just fuck off. We need rational argument, not rabid ego-stroking.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Before I discovered the internet and the software libre there, computing was plain simply not interesting to me. I felt that software had become corporate, and that all software was only coming out of large corporations. It was a world of computing where indivual programmers could not make any kind of meaningful contribution. Computers were essentially fancy typewriters. This is the end result of a world using entirely proprietary software.
If RMS had not started the GNU project in the 1980s, that is how things may have stayed. It was getting on the interent, and seeing that there was a large corpus of software out there for which the source code was available which made computing interesting for me again.
I can tell you this much: Linux would not have been possible in 1991 if RMS had not laid the foundation for GNU/Linux in the 1980s. Maybe BSD would have taken Linux's place; however BSD may not have bothered fighting AT&T for the rights to their source code if RMS vision for software libre did not exist at that time.
Without RMS, Linux would be at least five years behind where it is now. Remember that before flaming him.
The change from libre software to proprietary software in the 1970s started slowly; when RMS sees Linux becoming proprietary in little ways, I can see why he is concerned.
- Sam
The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.
This isn't a flame. Really. I'm not going to call you names or insult you.
But you are hugely off base here, and it is *exactly* people like you that Stallman is trying to help... what's the word... "educate" I guess is reasonably emotionally neutral.
(And before we start - no, not everything Stallman says is gospel. In particular, while his point that Linux would be nowhere without GNU and the FSF is completely valid, the whole "GNU/Linux" naming deal is just sour grapes and entirely asinine)
With that out of the way...
Back in the day, computer science was treated like a SCIENCE, in so far that every program was treated almost like a scientific discovery. You don't hord discovery in a truely scientific world; you share it.
The program you wrote may advance the art in some manner - it solves a problem that was previously unsolved, it provides a service that was previously unavailable (or was somehow suboptimal), and the code you used to do it with may introduce new techniques to solve similar problems.
In a world where all code is shared freely, the net effect that every new program increases the size of the solution space (or, if you prefer, the "utility space") of computing in general.
It is important to understand that for the longest time, the free sharing of code was the normal state of affairs. There were no secrets between coders.
You only have to look at UNIX to see this. UNIX-as-kernel is just another operating system, but start adding in sed, grep, awk, troff, perl, TeX, vi, (even - gasp - emacs) and so forth (each of which is a component that freely plugs into the others and usually designed by other than the kernel maintainers) and you start increasing the size of the solution space of the OS.
It's not enough to just build the tool and release the binaries. The tool may be in some way incomplete for someone, and they need the ability to modify it (and then contribute their modifications back to the larger community, further increasing the solution space)
The concept of "commercial software" (ie, "software-as-product") as embodied by Microsoft and Billy Gates, nearly erased this state of affairs. For the generations of coders raised in the "software is something you hord and sell" world, you've never seen the way things were in the "software is shared freely as part of the Art" world. This really is an alien concept to you, and it's not really your fault.
Luckily for the state of the Art, code produced and freely shared is superior in every way to code produced by those that hord-and-sell. For a while, the hord-and-sell people had the upper hand, but now that almost every computer is networked, network effects are taking over, and things are slowly starting to right themselves. In ten to fifteen years, software-for-sale (with perhaps the exception of games) will be nothing more than a historical asterix.
But I digress.
The bottom line is that, yes, we all DO have the right to your code - but that is not a very good way of phrasing the situation or thinking about it. Instead, YOU have the OBLIGATION to _release_ your code, to advance the state of the Art.
Stallman is not demanding you give up what is yours, he is reminding you of your obligation to the Art.
The absolute best modern example of this I can think of is the work done by John Carmack and the rest of id Software. John's code truely advances the Art. Every new program that springs off of John's computer brings with it new techniques, new optimizations, new ways of thinking about the problem space he has tackled. And he has released the source code to every program as soon as it is commercially viable to do so, thus fulfilling his obligations to the Art. It's a very good example to follow.
But the trap you cannot fall into is to assume you have the "right" to hord code. You have no moree "right" to keep your code locked up on your hard drive for eternity than you would to hord a cure for cancer, or a working GUT equation. It is essential that you (and people like you) start to realize their DUTY to share code - if you do not, then you will eventually be marginallized and discarded, to the net loss of all.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Surely inadvertantly. But anyway, I don't remember Stallman harping on the GNU/Linux thing much, if at all, except in the past few years. I think the reason has more to do with the open source movement than anything like popularity of Linux. Before the pragmatist "Open Source" movement, Linux could only be termed "Free Software" and thus call to mind the GNU philosophy. Now that ESR has got all the press using the more business-friendly term, you always see Linux refered to as an "open-source operating system". Thus the reason why Stallman is pushing on the GNU/ part now. He wants people to realize that a huge part of the system they call "Linux" was made with more than just pragmatism in mind.
:)
Oh, and silly troll, the GNU/ thing would be nothing more than recognition for what he's already contributed.
I still call it Linux though.
The enemies of Democracy are
As was George Orwell. Perhaps that might be a hint to those still infected with McCarthyism to re-examine just what socialism means...
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Although i do understand where RMS is coming from with the GNU/Linux thing, I think he has chosen a bad way to argue it.
It is completely true to say that I am a Linux user, since I do use Linux (the kernel). It therefore seems completely reasonable to call a group of people like me a Linux User Group.
It may be true to say that we are also a GNU/Linux User Group, but that doesn't give him grounds to attack people for using the former.
psr --History is ending.
RMS is talking about the system as a whole. The Apple example you gave would be like saying we need to call it GNU/RedHat or GNU/SuSE. He's saying he wants it called GNU/Linux, that is Linux kernel + GNU software that makes up the base system. So maybe RedHat GNU/Linux...well maybe not because it also includes some non-free software. Debian GNU/Linux is a good example of (I think) how RMS would like it. Debian's base system is completely free.
The Linux kernel by itself is rightfully called Linux.
what drove me to linux was technical merit AND freedom, or if you prefer freedom AND technical merit.
They both (Linux and RMS) incarnate those points. To the point that this kind of articles is boring and "deja vu".
The only problem I see is that nobody represents the "free as in beer side", which may be a side effect of the gpl, but is an important one. If we enter an "age of information" society, the means to legally access information shall not be impossible to the poorer part of the population.
Which is what happen when the components of an information system are expensive, wether they are software or hardware. You are either cut from the rest of the civil society by not having access to vital piece of information or obliged to enter illegallity, which also cut you from the rest of the civil socity.
Cutting his own population in two is the only thing a democraty cannot survive.
The FSF filters out the firmware binary stuff from the kernel, and releases it as
GNU/Linux
and everybody is happy
Instead of a technical one doesn't make him a nut. A zealot, maybe... but I don't think that's at all bad considering how many enemies open source has right now. Between Disney's politicians and the media companies, open source needs a few people who see the polical issues and not just the technical ones. RMS? More power to 'em.
This is a wonderful example of why it is taking so long for Linux to battle the M$ monopoly.
That he WAS willing to respond on LinuxWorld without demanding that it be renamed to GNULinuxWorld?
If it wasn't for GNU and the FSF, Linux would not be as widely used as it is today. Samba, gcc, glibc, gpg, bash and and other _vital_ programs (that are free today thanks to RMS and the FSF) would not be around at least not in the same capacity. What compiles the Linux kernel? gcc What c library does Linux use? glibc How do you encrypt your email? gpg What interoperates with MS Windows? samba What did Linus write the kernel with? emacs What shell do you install on your Sun box? bash RMS has more than "a good point". He has a solid foundation on which to stand and make the claims that he makes. Linux would not be the Linux that we all know and love today had it not been for GNU. Anyone who knows anything about how software works should know this. Slashdotters are lame. You guys like to brag about using/installing Linux, yet you fail to understand the significance of having the ability to use Free software whenever and however you desire.
For those who don't know, the GNU project is located here.
I ran a benchmark between binaries output by the two compilers, and on an RS6000, the intel compiled binary wouldn't even run! I repeated the experiment on a UltraSpacIII, and again, gcc performed well and the intel-compiled version wouldn't run! I tried it on an Onyx workstation... same result! The HP-UX boxes... same! S/390 mainframe? Same! I was beginning to notice a pattern... I tried on my K7, and low, intel's compiler not only produced runnable output, but performed better than gcc. Not bad, I guess...
But in all seriousness... gcc is used all over the place, and intel's compiler is used to submit SPEC scores.
The enemies of Democracy are
Without GNU, the Linux kernel would be nothing more than a proof of concept boot disk. Look ma' I can write "Hello World!" before MS-DOS starts!
Nice pun that RMS made:
"I respect their freedom of speech, but I also have the freedom not to give a speech."
And ofcourse, RMS is right.
Bram (GNU/Linux user)
Bram Stolk http://stolk.org/tlctc/
RMS = RMS Makes Sense?
Stallmann wants his ideas to be at the forefornt of why he led the development of FSF and its various tools. He did not want free software to be tainted in any way with software that is not free but the way he is doing it sometimes are interpretted in a different light by his detractors.
Comparing his request to change the name of the group to include GNU to Microsoft's monopoly is way to exxtreme because the group can choose not to but they will not be able to hear him speak in their meeting that they invited him to be speaker. His reasons why were quite reasonable from his point of view due to his beliefs. Other members in the SIGLIUNX group were also adamant by his insistence but they will never understand him because for them it is trivial while for him its not.
Stallman's fear is that if Linux is too widespread, the succeeding generations of (GNU)/Linux users and programmers will forget its roots and the core beliefs of the FSF thus negating the freedoms he was espousing. Already he is seeing it with the inclussion of binary device drivers that is a violation of the GNU license.
Return the bells of Balangiga.
The last few times I have read anything by Stallman he seems to be advocating that developers should not have the right to choose a closed source license for their work.
So basically he wants to control the license I apply to my work.
But he cries like a baby when someone simply doesn't mention his.
I think the biggest problem with properly giving GNU credit is the absence of a good name for that part of the system.
Consider: You find yourself seated on an airplane next to RMS. You pull out your laptop to do some work, and the system boots. Your laptop's screen isn't the greatest, and RMS cannot see what is running on it. Seeking to make friendly conversation, he asks you, "Nice machine. What are you running?" You, wishing to be fair, want to give a reasonable response. "The Gnu system, with the Linux kernel".
The problem I have is the phrase "The Gnu system" is cumbersome. I would suggest RMS try to come up with a name that could be used to refer to the Gnu components, something that can be used without being glued (gnlued???) to Linux, so that somebody running Hurd/*BSD/Windows&Cygwin could say "I am running <word> on <os>".
www.eFax.com are spammers
I know it sounds shallow but appearances and marketing are very important. GNU/Linux is a terrible name. It's embarrasing and difficult to say. I don't think RMS is ever going to have much luck convincing people to use the name GNU.........
What have you been smoking, RMS? AFAIK, Torvalds doesn't fucking care what you call the OS.
I don't call it Linux. I don't call it GNU/Linux. I call it Debian. Let's face it, Linux is the kernel, GNU provides a lot, but not all, of the tools, and your distro maker provides the glue. So while I strongly agree that GNU and the FSF should be recognized for the work they've done, as well as Linus and all the other kenel hackers out there, when it comes down to it, I always refer to the OS on my system as Debian. This distinction far better for describing the system that is installed, IMHO.
-- Knuckle Blood : Official Lube of Team Rusty Nuts.
Without GNU
Without GNU,
What is an OS called Linux,
But something that just sucks.
Without GNU,
What have you,
But an OS with a screen so blue.
With GNU,
Freedom is true,
Believe in GNU,
And you'll see the world brand GNU.
I understand RMS's problem that the majority of software that is used in conjunction with the linux kernel is GNU. But I find flaw in his argument that the linux kernel is only one small piece.
If that were the case, then why is it that GNU hasn't been able to produce a working (and by working I mean production quality) kernel. I know all about HURD, and have even installed it, but it falls short of even ancient linux kernels. He can complain all he wants but where's the beef...errr kernel?
I have to agree with his argument of binary only drivers, but that is not Linux/Linus's fault, if companys choose to release closed source linux drivers so be it. But, the fact that RMS/GNU/HURD is obviously not planning on distributing any closed source drivers, more than likely means that they will never see acceptance. Which also means we will have several more spiteful essays to read from RMS. joy.
Fear trumps hope and ignorance trumps both
If you think that our profession is "writing code so we can sell it as product" then not only do you not undertand our profession, you are a minority portion of our profession as well.
By far the largest number of coders are employed as members of industry. We solve problems through the use of computing technology for other businesses and enterprises.
I'm talking about the coders that work at the banks, the insurance companies, the manufacturing industries, and so on and so forth. We GROSSLY outnumber you in the code-for-sale "industry".
We're all about code re-use, the establishment and maintainence of standards, about not continuously re-inventing the wheel - and most of all, not having to continually re-purchase and re-integrate software that solves the same goddamn problem just because the OS changed, or because some stupid closed-source company no longer supports the version of their product that we've been using for the last 5 years, or won't fix the same stupid bug that they've had for the entire lifetime of the product, or didn't properly implement the internationally accepted standard....
You get the idea.
Software is a SERVICE, not a product. And those of us who understand that and work as service providers have far better job security and much larger incomes than those of you hawking widgets.
*sigh* It's not really your fault that you (and so many other) coders see themselves as producing something that can be sold, rather than providing a service. Microsoft and Gates have set back computing and IT 20 years with their little sidetrack through software-as-product.
But the sooner you understand how our profession REALLY works, the happier you (and the rest of us!) will be.
We are doctors and lawyers (or if you prefer, plumbers and mechanics) not used car salesmen.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Wait. He gets bent of shape with the word "patent," because patents are exclusive rights to ideas and as everyone knows, ideas cannot be possessed, so how could someone be given exclusive rights to them? But, when it comes to getting "credit" for an idea, don't short change him! That idea may be free, but I came up with it. All hail me!
So, he's not really for freedom of ideas and information. Instead, he's for an economy of credit derived from new ideas as opposed to an economy of money derived from new ideas. Greedy of credit or greedy of money; its still greed.
The Linux sources themselves have an even more serious problem with non-free software: they actually contain some. Quite a few device drivers contain series of numbers that represent firmware programs to be installed in the device. These programs are not free software. A few numbers to be deposited into device registers are one thing; a substantial program in binary is another. The presence of these binary-only programs in "source" files of Linux creates a secondary problem: it calls into question whether Linux binaries can legally be redistributed at all. The GPL requires "complete corresponding source code," and a sequence of integers is not the source code. By the same token, adding such a binary to the Linux sources violates the GPL.
So, you've been warned! Go remove all those illegal copies you have!!!
And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour Isaiah 3:5
Idiots. There is no "linux" without GNU. Not only does GNU software provide the bedrock on which the system rests, GNU and the FSF provides the intellectual framework on which rests the whole conception of a "free" operating system. If it wasn't for the FSF and RMS, you wouldn't have "linux," period.
But don't worry. Nobody really expects any of you to actually DO anything in defense of free software. It's clear enough that with you folks, it's all take and no give.
mp
"The secret to strong security: less reliance on secrets." -- Whitfield Diffie
Your advocating the choise to not accept your freedom! You can freely choose to do that. As you you go down that path you'll find your freedom to make decisions will be hampered more and more. This is exactly the trap RMS mentions in his article.
Just consider: the GNU Project starts developing an operating system, and years later Linus Torvalds adds one important piece.
Which, ten years later, the FSF has yet to include in its own version.
The GNU Project says, "Please give our project equal mention," but Linus says, "Don't give them a share of the credit; call the whole thing after my name alone!" Now envision the mindset of a person who can look at these events and accuse the GNU Project of egotism. It takes strong prejudice to misjudge so drastically.
I think it takes a strong imagination to spin events this way. To my knowledge Linus never stood up and said to create the entire operating system built around his kernel Linux. He gave that name to the kernel itself, and popular usage associated the name of the kernel with the kernel/utilities combination that sprang up around it.
If RMS thinks it's unfair that someone used his utilities and then didn't name the operating system after them, that's his perogative, but it doesn't mean it's going to stick any more than years of protests from our entire community have redefined the term "hacker" in the public eye. And, as others have pointed out, the GNU utilities are an important part of every Linux distribution, but these days it's no more important than XFree86 or Gnome or KDE or the kernel itself, without which the utilities would have no application. (Perhaps we could have avoided the whole thing by calling the combination Freenix or something, but it's a bit late for that now.) As I indicated in the post title, the beast we call Linux is more than the sum of its parts, let alone more than one of its parts.
Or to put it into an American popular culture context, no matter how good or important to the team Shaq O'Neill and Kobe Bryant are, we call the team the Los Angeles Lakers, not the Los Angeles O'Neill/Bryant/Lakers.
Someone you trust is one of us.
But: The GNU Project says, "Please give our project equal mention," but Linus says, "Don't give them a share of the credit; call the whole thing after my name alone!" Now envision the mindset of a person who can look at these events and accuse the GNU Project of egotism.
To the contrary, RMS, your comment quite reveals your own. There is *no way* Linus has that sort of ego. He is not, after all, the one who stamps and screams like a spoiled brat.
Secondly, as regards Bitkeeper. I'm not familiar with either the program or its usage terms, BUT: I do know that to claim that anyone (even those developing OSS) *may not* or *should not* be FREE TO CHOOSE what they use is hypocritical in the extreme coming from a so-called advocate of freedom.
For the record, I prefer plain "Linux" as the name, just like I prefer plain "Solaris", "AIX", etc, where may of the tools derive from ancient BSD/SysV origins. If someone else prefers GNU/Linux, fine (their choice), but I take extreme distaste to anyone who attempts to force their opinion on someone else.
As far as the FSF's "largest single constituent" argument is concerned - rubbish. If I build a car from a kit or spare parts, and *happen* to drop in a Ford engine (as a single largest component) that does *NOT* make it a Ford car. In fact, Ford would take considerable exception if I called it such!
Begone, Bigot!
As Usual, RMS is giving the anti GNU and Anti Linux forces more ammo. What to scare the average company into NOT using open source software, pull out a handful of selected RMS quotes and articles.
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
What I'm looking for is simple.
Software that doesn't suck.
I have no problems with non-free software as long as it is well written and useful.
It just happens to be that most of the software that I use that "doesn't suck" is free
...grow up.
Every time I read something by RMS, I get pissed off. I think that if he had been given a religious text rather than a computer during his formative years, he would be another David Koresh (spelling?). It's rare to find such an intelligent person so blinded by his own extreme ideology.
He excels at throwing the baby out with the bathwater. First off, as others have pointed out, a normal Linux distro has software that is non-GNU - it is not just the GNU project plus a kernel, which he seems to discount as being a trivial part of the thing (which baffles me). And as others have pointed out, BSDs rely on GNU tools as well. Hell, I use Cygwin all the time - but I guess that should be called GNU/Cygwin. Or perhaps it ought to be abolished becuase it runs on (non-free!) Windows.
The bottom line is that pragmatic, intelligent people - like myself, Linus, and the vast majority of Linux users - are going to run whatever combination of software they see fit, as long as the licenses don't offend thier sense of privacy, etc. If someone came out with a commercial DVD player that ran on Linux/PPC as well as the Mac OS X one did, I would buy it (for a reasonable price) immediately. I want a tool that does the job well - why should a tool on my computer be treated any differently than the torque wrench I use on my truck. Sure, it'd be a nice to have a free torque wrench, with the specs to build my own. And often I will find free and open instructions for doing something on my truck. But at the same time, when I deem that the best soultion is commercial and I feel the price is fair, I pay for it. Same with my computer - I love Linux, becuase it works better than anything else I've tried. I also like being able to talk to the developers and fiddle with the source myself (I once added a minor feature and had it incorporated, even). But I am not about to cripple my computer and make my life inconvenient for RMS and his overblown and arrogant views of the software world. He needs to wake up and realize that the software industry is just like every other - and it will never, nor should it ever, be 100% "free" software. It's not practical, it's not logical, and it would force me to find another career or live like a pauper.
In fact, with that in mind, I would love for everyone to stop giving any money to the FSF and/or RMS, and watch the guy either starve to death or come to the realization that *GASP* he's gonna get paid to write code for a company that is going to make money off it.
_sig_ is away
That's the saddest thing I have read in a long time.
Again, I'm not flaming, or trying to insult you.
I honestly am saddened to see such selfishness in a fellow coder, and I'm saddened that those of us who understand how our Art is supposed to function allowed things to get to the point where you feel your selfishness is justified.
I'm not going to try and argue it with you. You - and your work - is lost. So be it.
But here's the thing: whatever it is you have written, the Art will see your hording as damage, and route around it. No matter how innovative you might be, no matter how talented or gifted, there exists somewhere out there someone who is equally or more talented as you, who will someday implement a program that solves the same problem, and who will release their code to the rest of us.
Some day, the problem that your horded code addresses will be solved in a freely released manner, the Art will advance, and your horded code (and by implication, you) will have been rendered irrelevant.
You and Microsoft will have the same end. By hording, all you do is buy a little time and then remove yourself as a player.
Good luck to you.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
mv linux lignux
Without GNU it would have just taken longer to write the tools that were otherwise conveniently available; in other words, just like the GNU folks did in the 80's.
of a word that you introduced to the argument. Specifically, obligation. Now, this word is not exactly simple, as it can mean a responsibility as dictated by law or by conscience. Clearly you mean the former.
And with that definition, I agree with you -- you are not obligated to release your source code. Similarly, you are not obligated to give to charity, help the elderly, vote, be nice to people, think for yourself, or do anything other than pay taxes. I agree. So does RMS. That you don't realize this is exactly where you're ranting becomes ludicrous, instead of RMS as you would claim.
However, what RMS does believe is that there is an obligation of conscience for the freedom-loving. In other words, his claim is that it is a moral obligation. And, as any non-fanatic knows, you can't force a moral obligation on someone. Thus, if you don't want to, he can't make you. What he can do is try to convince you why you should. This is what Stallman does, and he does it unapologetically. You ask the ludicrous question of why he doesn't sue IBM for calling it Linux. Because there is no legal authority to do so. He can -ask- and -argue- and -refuse to speak at your gathering if you don't- but he can't force.
Contrast with someone like, say, John Ashcroft who does believe you can and should force your view of moral responsibility on people, and tell me again who is a fanatic?
The enemies of Democracy are
A lot of comments are debating whether the Linux kernel needed GNU tools more than the GNU tools needed the Linux kernel. Both are wrong.
The Linux kernel and the GNU tools are symbiotic. You cannot even compile Linux without GCC! Each needs the other to be complete. True, you can use the GNU tools with other kernels. (When is HURD going to reach 1.0 anyway?) and you can use the Linux kernel without the GNU tools. But, the value of each one is lessened when it stands alone.
I support the FSF, with money and code. I work to maintain my freedom. At the same time, though, I do regret that Richard has decided to make this a battle. The widespread popularity of the system called Linux has brought the FSF's message to more people than ever.
Sadly, as Joe's article illustrates, many members of the community now see themselves distanced from the FSF. For instance, how many of you with GPL-licensed projects would now assign your copyright to the FSF? In the 80's and early 90's, it was quite common. Not so much, now.
"Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped." --Elbert Hubbard (1856-1915)
Lets see: I can use Windows and Bill Gates REQUIRES ME to pay ~$100/yr (upgrading semi-annually) or he will sue me into poverty. Or I can use RMS's for free. All he asks is that I speak a couple hundred syllables/yr. He doesn't even require, he merely requests it.
15 years ago I thought RMS was a nutcase. Now I have deep respect. I will speak the syllables he requests out of respect.
I only wish he would have picked meanful syllables that are phonicly intuitive (I'm tired of arguing if the G is silent) like FSF/Linux.
Since he is way smarter than me, I will utter these syllables as compensation for the software he has made available to me.
When VPNs are outlawed, only outlaws have VPNs.
He wants all software to be free. This is a simplified statement, but let it go for now. For the sake of this argument, I'm going to look at the free beer aspect of it. Wanting software to be free implies that he writes software for the sake of writing software, not for the paycheck. This implies that a successful build is its own reward (the satisfaction of contributing free software to the world justifies the work that is put in to it). In essence, GNU/Linux is a selfless, generous act for the benfit of the world at large.
Now considering the above, let's make some more implications: RMS wants the world to benefit from good software more than he wants to make money from it. That means personal gains is not his goal. Why, then, is it important that the OS have the acronym "GNU" in it? Shouldn't it be good enough that people are using it? If the software is free as in speech, should restrictions be placed on our speech when referring to it? "You may use this free (beer|speech) software, but only if you say 'GNU' every time you say Linux." If we're really free to do whatever we want to do with that source code, we should also be able to call it whatever we want. If I want to make a small modification to the OS and redistribute it, do I have to call it "GNU/Linux"? I should be able to rebrand it as "Rotten Cottage Cheese" if I want.
I think RMS is focusing too much on securing a spot in history, when he should just be glad his art is appreciated. Besides, if you make your product name tough to say (newbies may not know how to pronounce it), people won't say it. If nobody mentions it by name, its popularity won't grow. If he focused this energy towards improving the OS, wouldn't that be better than harrassing the user base? LOTS of people who contributed to the OS don't get to choose the name of the OS.
I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
I mean, is it just me, or when the rest of you read these statements from RMS, do you also get the feeling that in wandering around MIT, RMS spent too much time with Chomsky?
Throughout the article, though he at times (mainly at the beginning of the article) uses GNU/Linux, RMS refers to GNU/Linux as Linux on numerous occassions.
How can we consider his argument if he, himself, does not actively practice what he preaches?
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
Reading the Linux versus GNU/Linux arguments reminds me of the old adage about politics within university departments: it's vicious, only because the stakes are so terribly small.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Of course, all the BSD's use pretty much the whole GNU system as well, and you don't see him whining about calling them GNU/BSD.
The S in BSD stands for SYSTEM. From the begining BSD was intended to be a complete operating system with all the tools and components necessary for that. Similarly, GNU was intended to be a complete operating system. Linux was never meant to be more than a kernel and that is still true.
I think it's quite a good kernel, and I use it on all of the GNU systems I currently maintain. But a kernel is not an operating system. There is no such thing as a "Linux" operating system.
The fact that BSD adopted GNU tools to fill in the pieces originally supplied by AT&T does not make it BSD/GNU -- not in the eyes of RMS or anyone else. Bash is a component, not a system. Similarly the fact that GNU adopted XFree86 does not make it GNU/XFree or anything like that. XFree86 is a component, not a system.
Actually the fact that people use GNU with a Linux kernel does not make it GNU/Linux either: it's still GNU. But calling it GNU/Linux is a reasonable compromise because it gives credit to Torvald's particularly important contribution and allows one to distinguish between GNU systems with different kernels.
Not all those who wander are lost.
Good grief. How many copies of the GPL and LGPL are there for the reading on a typical, everyday Linux system? How many mentions of Stallman himself are tucked into the /usr/doc tree and accessible from command lines and the help menus of GUI programs? How many textfile histories of GNU and Linux? Dozens? Hundreds? That's not enough for his insatiable ego?
Maybe the community at large would be more receptive to Stallman's demands if he and the FSF crowd weren't so tone-deaf to good names for things. One of Stallman's less laudable contributions to Free Software is a tradition of terrible naming, one reflected even in heretical projects like KDE and Mozilla, and in more FSF-friendly matters like GNOME and GIMP. Renaming something ten years old to satisfy a Founding Father with ego issues is a tall enough order. Renaming it from something vaguely unappealing to something just awful-sounding is a bit much.
For all his monumental contributions, including his spearheading of this whole 100%-free Unix thing in the first place, maybe it's time to cut him loose. It's probably time for some kernel hackers to take some time off from Linux and finish up the HURD so the FSF can march off into a Hobbit-land where everyone does their word processing with TeX and GNU Emacs, and fiber-channel disk arrays are tools of fascism.
Then it'll be time to work on clean-room, GPL'ed drop-in replacements for all the GNU tools, call it LNG, or Linux is Not GNU, and be done with it.
I finish with a question. Since according to Stallman, FSF computers can't have Bitkeeper on them because it's non-Free software (a point well made and an admirable stance--as always it's the histrionic Stalinist demand that everyone else hobble themselves in deference to that point that grates), how do they work at all? Do they run systems with a Free, open-source BIOS and Free, open-source firmware on the video cards that drive their (no doubt) text-only displays too?
I'd be cranky too if I worked all day in Emacs on a daisywheel printing TTY.
Stallman feels that an opererating system is more than just a kernal, and he's right. But his entire history is based on using other peoples code to shortcut building "GNU" programs. He freely admits that he has used other's code to make his own, but since they don't have organizations with acronyms, I guess they are less deserving of title space.
Linux did the same thing. GNU assumes that anything touched by GNU is GNU, but that's hypocritical. How many additions to GNU have been made in the name of Linux? Perhaps GNU should be changing it's name.
To Lignux.
Another suggestion: just change the name outright to something like "GNU". Not, "GNU/Linux", which sounds weird to my ear anyway. Just "GNU".
Isn't it true that without the hundreds? thousands? of programs written for the GPL under the GNU project, the Linux kernel would be largely useless? Why diss all those people? They chose to distribute their code as part of GNU, not as part of BSD, or in the public domain--they made an explicit choice.
Every time we just use the word "Linux" we're reinforcing more than one misunderstanding...
"I honestly would vote libertarian if their candidates weren't usually total cooks."--slashdot poster
Stallman cares about freedom only. He is enthusiastic about it.
So, first, what is so wrong with that viewpoint? I've heard many people say that non-free software fosters innovation because of the profit motive. Meanwhile, the richest software companies in the world are fat, complacent, and releasing some of the slowest, most insecure stuff we've ever seen. And they pay their developers well to do this!
Second, what is so nutty about refusing to compromise principles? When I see Bill Gates kissing all the asses he can in Washington to prevent his precious company from having to pay for its illegal behavior, when I see senators, representatives, and presidents promise reform and then take a dip in the bribery pool, I can see why Stallman appears crazy; he is one of the few public figures who does not back down from his principles. His opponents are reduced to personal insults, because he has never done anything illegal nor has he advocated illegal behavior. (If you disagree, please prove it as has been done with Microsoft.) If you dislike Stallman because he does not compromise, at least tell the truth: "He scares me because his integrity could get us into trouble with powerful people." I think that's the story of freedom everywhere.
My career would not have been possible without free software. When I started out, a crappy PC C compiler was at least $500, and my choice of OS was windows. A choice made for me by someone else.
Other resources were closed to me unless I worked at a university. When I found the free Linux kernel, I had already been using GNU tools on my windows machine. This combo allowed be to study to become a professional UNIX admin/developer _without_ having to spend a dime on school or software licenses, and I did it on a 386 that my employer threw away. At the time, I was poor. The kind of poor that's ignored except when you miss a spot mopping the floor or stack cans of soup in the wrong pattern. I could not think of buying a place to live or starting a family, because I had no skills. I did not own a TV, or a car; I could not afford new clothes when old ones wore out. After paying bills, I usually had about $2 in my bank account.
Thanks in large part to free software, that's in the past. For 11 years I have used and supported free software and been paid good money for it. No employer can take away my computing environment, because I have the same thing at home. My small business clients have saved thousands of dollars by using GPL'd Linux, GNU, and samba instead of NT server with client connection fees. A portion of that savings comes to me as an hourly rate for set up and support, and it's 15X what I made mopping grocery store floors.
Next time you're in a retail store or a school, ask yourself how much the place is forced to spend on licenses and upgrades, then find out how much their janitors and teachers and security guards are paid. If Nike or the Gap says that they have to pay their workers in other countries low wages to contain expenses, find out how much of that expense is a Microsoft tax for crappy, insecure software that comes with no warranty, and the tech support solution is often "pay us for the upgrade".
Stallman is not the problem here, folks. He and other advocates of freedom helped make the Linux revolution possible, and even when I disagree with him, he's earned my respect. And yes, I do make monetarty donations to the FSF; I know there are other people out there who've made it the way I did.
It is an accepted wisdom that too much of anything is a bad thing; that includes too much freedom. RMS has too much rope, and is hanging free software in general.
Why do I make such sweeping claims? First, RMS is against proprietary software in any form. This is inherently self-defeating: the developers who work on free software can't do so for free. Industry has proven that the support model is nowhere near as effective as the software sale model, which means that the support model can't sustain enough developers to ensure the progression of software.
RMS's views have also shown themselves to be ineffective in stimulating innovation, something that should be rife in the free software community. Free software in general has been a technology follower for years, and its getting worse. Monitor the news on FSF/OSS sites and all you see is new projects which are trying to clone commercial products or architectures.
One of the reasons for this continual game of catch-up is that there is no scope for sharing of GNU source code with companies - in either direction. A company cannot license its code or binaries in a way that will allow it to persue the software sale model AND make RMS happy. So GNU developers must make their own version from scratch in order to achieve compatibility.
Conversely, companies are provided with no incentive to use GNU software in their products. At a push they may use software under the LGPL, but without such incentives to companies, they will not allocate corporate resources to activities which ultimately could (not necessarily would) improve the quality, functionality or quantity of free software. The worst part is that because companies don't reuse free software, but build their own, they have their own unique bugs and "features", which obviously cause imcompatibilities with other implementations ... which they don't correct. So it comes back to the GNU developers to make further additions to their software to support the incompatibilities.
So basically not having a way to share between GNU software and commercial software bites free software in a number of ways.
In my dealings with pro-GNU people I've been astounded to found how some of them have their heads so far up their arses that they are completely unaware of the state of commercial software, the features available, etc. I still hear claims like "Windows sucks - it crashes 5 times a day" being made seriously. Sure, my Windows 2000 box has crashed 5 times in the last 3 months. This was due to power failures. And I lost nothing, unlike the Linux box which couldn't boot after the second crash. But I digress (somewhat)...
How can hardcode GNU/free software supporters make claims about software they have never used? Or should I rather ask: how can the Pope understand Hinduism?
But the most debilitating of RMS's activities is his persuit of trying to convince all free software developers to use the GNU license. Thanks to Microsoft's tactics and, in part, RMSs responses, industry is very skeptical about using GNU software. This makes it extremely difficult to broaden the scope of Linux usage.
Here is an extreme case: a company wants to rid itself of Windows, and rolls out Linux workstations to all of its employees. Catch 22: the employees have the right to the source code for Linux, since you are providing them with binaries for their use; but the employees by contract are only allowed to use the computers for approved activites, which does not require the availability or use of the Linux source code. This is not a silly construct, it is a serious legal opinion (not originating from myself).
Misunderstanding of the GPL is as rife as misunderstanding of the MS EULA. The presence of viral clauses is enough to make bean counters shit themselves without fully understanding the implications.
In general, RMS doesn't seem to understand that companies don't give a shit about the availability of source code. Corporate governance isn't about technically sound solutions, its about arse covering. Pay for a commercial product, and you can expect support (even if you have to pay). It may cost more, but when all hell breaks loose you can say "I did my homework, I paid for support, its their problem now". There is no "if" about hell breaking loose - you have to assume it WILL happen. And you need to be covered.
RMS encourages the support model for free software, but its not breaking into the market because GNU software can't keep pace with corporate resources.
Until the FSF learns to leverage corporate resources - but it proprietary software to assist with kernel patching, the use of Sun's Java instead of a "fully free" (in GNU terms) codebase, or a give-and-take with commercial developers - its not going to have its software reach a critical mass where Joe Manager can trust it enough to put his job on the line.
i-name =twylite [http://public.xdi.org/=twylite], see idcommons.net
"Yes, I use gee-en-ewe-forward-slash-linux. I think everyone should use gee-en-ewe-forward-slash-linux. It's very easy to use, even if it's not easy to say."
Jesting aside, it is quite true that credit for the GNU part should be made. But why should credit go in the _name_? I'm sick to death of acronyms (even recursive ones) and I think it's OK for someone to, say, bundle up a bunch of stuff and call it 'Red Hat' or 'Mandrake' or even 'Linux'. Why the heck not? Give credit where it's due: by _author_.
---Nathaniel
If you die, can I have it?
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
If what RMS says is that the Linux kernel it self should be called GNU/Linux, I think he's wrong. Sure Linux could probably not have been made without the GNU tools, but so couldn't a lot of non-GNU software. I don't call my software GNU/whatever just because I compile it with GCC.
But! Most Linux-distributions are totally dependent on GNU software and the GNU system and tools. Complete distributions should use the name GNU/Linux - like Debian.
It stupid to tie the name of a group to an invitation. There could easily be members in that group who used the Linux kernel in a non-GNU related way. (like http://www.blueeyedos.com/)
Of course... if he won't speek to anyone who is not already converted to GNU, then....
The points about the Linux kernel are valid. I thing Thorvald takes his role much too lightly. I don't know bitkeeper, but I know CVS and have trouble seeing what makes it technically unsuited for the Linux kernel.
Thorvals is in every right to develop Linux only because it's fun. In fact I think that's great. But he has to remember that part of the reason that it's fun is that it's free.
Dirty GNU hippie
Throws tantrum over Linux
Sorry, GNU/Linux
Is there a license requirement to use GNU software that makes it so that all products that have either used the software, or contain the products, must also name their products with GNU? Is the requirement ONLY for Linux?
I believe the idea behind the FSF and Open-source movmenet is that we DO need contracts, and we do need to create contracts that allow and encourage the maximum freedom. I believe the benefits of those movements in general is that we have created software that is infact better than closed source on many levels and for many tasks. I do not believe that trivial issues such as the name of a user group, are legitimate topics for a software contract.
It is not just wrong to require such things in a contract, it is wrong to require such things without stating it in that contract as well. The licenses that exist do not state that you need to use GNU in the name of the project, nor in the name of anything. What you need to do IS in the GPL and other appropriate licenses, and unless I am mistaken, none of them require you to name your project, company, software, group anything at all.
Yes Richard is right to point out that Linux isn't the only important component of the distributions that exist, and he is even right to point out that the use and requirement for others to use a commercial product is dangerous in an open-source project, however, if he had wanted to speak at Austin SIGLINUX's group their name would have been part of his topic when he spoke, and why they should change it should be his argument. What he instead did is create a situation that would bring a greater attention to his ideology without having to bother speaking in front of these people. He should atleast be honest that he was not interested in speaking there, and point out also that it should be GNU/Linux, rather than use his speaking as a carrot. Because if the only reason people follow Richard Stallman's requests is that it is the best way to get something they want, then it is no different than a person who uses open-source tools because they are the best tools and not because they are the right thing to do. Richard seems to think that it is important to act based on what is right and wrong and not just on what is efficient, and that right and wrong are long term issues, the idea of freedom being lost due to negligance and ignorance. He is right to believe those things, and the recent Peruvian discussion with Microsoft went a long way towards explaining why open source tools are sometimes the ONLY ones that suit a transparent and appropriately maintained computer system. However in the LONG run, is it more important to bring up your point while pissing off people, rather than by trying to reach out to people woh are interested in what you have to say and make the points in a context of progress, of an understanding that there is a value to all the aspects of open-source and free software both the ideological and the practical results of those ideologies?
The proof of open-source, and GNU is that by contributing you benefit even if your contributions are not attributed. As long as no one else takes credit for your work and profits from it you really have no argument. My name is not in any open source project, yet I have actually contributed to several over several years. I never asked for attribution when I provided a patch or pointed out a bug, or researched hardware.
It is true that there are questions as to what the best way to handle Linux is. I don't know if there is any restriction to what you name that piece of software is, or whether I could go and fork it and call it Stallmix. Or Henrieta Mark III.
Maybe the GNU folks should finish Hurd (Debian has been working hard towards a distribution) and prove why their way of doing things is better than Linux, not because one is right and one is wrong, but because doing it the right way in the end produces the best result.
In any case, ideology is important, but it is important because you BELIEVE that it is the right thing to do, and if you discover that it isn't you should change your direction. Software should not be faith oriented. No one benefits by simply believing that an algorithm will work. We test and infact skepticism and debate are more important than faith in our ideology. Richard exhibits skepticism and debate but in some ways he wants others to simply believe without proof. The whole idea in software design is that you have a philosophical logical model that you can actually see work. You do not simply have an argument, you have a result. Richard DOES work hard towards keeping a debate alive, but i think he could do so with more consideration and honesty.
It's ironic -- the champion of free software doesn't understand that freedom means allowing people to say/do things that you don't agree with. Linux (the OS) has licensed the GNU software. Nothing in that license requires Linux (the OS) to have a particular name. Thus, any attempt by RMS to influence the name is based solely on a misguided sense of political correctness.
RMS's arguments may even be persuasive, but that doesn't give him the right to shove those arguments down anyone's throat.
-- Brian
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
So how exactly did he not get his fair share of the credit?
Does he think that he's famous for his dress-sense or something?
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Bravo.
That whole "code sharing is Communist" argument just makes me want to explode; it's as if anything that requires the free sharing of resources (whatever they might be) is inherenetly "bad", just because some political parties gave lip service to implementing a government based on the same principles and then built themselves a military dictatorship.
Soviet "Communism" was bad. North Korean and Chinese "Communism" is bad. North Vietnemese and Cuban "Communism" is sub-optimal (less bad than the previous examples, but with some issues)
But those political examples do not invalidate the Scientific Method (which is communistic) nor the principles of Free Software (which derives from the Scientific Method)
Good points, well said. (+2 Gets It)
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
I saw a comment here once in someone's sig line that was noteworthy, and applies to the Bitkeeper issue....
"I use Linux, not because it is free in any sense of the word, but because it is better than Windows." (okay, maybe that isn't the exact quote, but it is pretty close.)
My apologies to the original poster of this remark, I don't remember who it was.
www.wavefront-av.com
In other words, even if our software is crap, you must use it. This sounds like the kind of drivel put out by Microsoft.
If you want people to use free software, make the free software as good or better than the alternatives. Whining that people are evil if they won't use your software even when it is admittedly technically inferior is insulting and twisted.
I do value my freedom, so I won't waive my right to use the software I choose, free or commercial.
I consulted Google on this point, and found this link, containing some interesting data on lines of code in RedHat 7.1.
From the statistics given therein, it should probably be called Xfree/Mozilla/Gnu/Linux using RMS's logic. I was amused to see Mozilla so high in the list. I was also amused to see the Linux kernel is, in fact, apparently the largest chunk of code.
The only interesting thing about all this, is how the Linux community has decayed over the past 3 years into an embarassing public squabble with all the hallmarks of a third-grade sandbox dispute.
Let this sort of thing be an example to future projects. When you allow commercial intrusion into a system based on individual generosity, such as the whole Linux movement was, the system becomes unbalanced. Egos and jealousies take over, the system becomes poisoned, and people get hurt.
How about an article on that versus an article that provides even MORE evidence that RMS is complete flake.
Cheers,
Bowie J. Poag
your purpose is to serve as a warning to others. :)
But seriously:
- maybe someone is looking for a way to do what you've done in your code (no matter how specific or idiosyncratic)
- maybe someone will see your code and suggest an improvement (thus, you gain)
- I've found that assuming that all my code will see public release makes me pay more attention to how it is written, and makes me write better code.
ALL code worth writing is worth releasing.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Linus says 'call it what you want'.
Stallman says 'call it what I want'.
Linus says he wants to use software that works, and works well.
Stallman says he wants to use software that is copylefted.
World is up in arms.
And in other news, Mrs Alice Busby, 47, from Portland reports a hurricane occured in her cup while she was drinking tea.
I don't fully understand why Linus may not call his kernel Linux but has to call it GNU/Linux. I do understand that RMS want's distrubutions to call the product GNU/Linux but why the kernel?
.. then I don't think RMS should care about that decision. Maybe he should ask his programmers to create a better CVS and stop whining about it? But I am not asking RSM to do that. RMS, however, is forcing a person to "use" free software for a free project. .. thats wrong in my honest opinion.
Asking Linus to call "Linux", "GNU/Linux" is like asking me to call every project that I am maintaining call Gnu/My projects name. For all my projects I used GNU software... but does that mean that I have to call these GNU-software?
I also don't understand why Linus is not free to use whatever software he needs for his job as kernel hacker. If he wants to use Bitkeeper and he has personal reasons for that
You give RMS way too much credit.
I was using free software back in 1982, primarily Ward Christensen's Modem7 but other programs as well. This continued on through my later years playing with Commodore computers... typing in programs published in Compute, Compute's Gazette, RUN and so forth. A few years later I bought Fred Fish collection floppies for my Amiga and had a wealth of additional free programs to use.
Later in '92 I begun to use Linux. It wasn't until then, well actually probably more like six months after I started to use Linux, that I even heard of GNU or Richard Stallman. You see, I was so used to free software that I never even bothered to read the license agreement for Linux.
So that's 10 years of my using, contributing, and being involved in a free software community without the name of Richard Stallman ever appearing.
Now maybe it's true that Linux wouldn't have come about without gcc. Maybe it would have been different, hard to say.
But don't think for a minute that BSD wouldn't have fought AT&T to gain redistributable rights. On this point you give RMS entirely too much credit.
The vision of free software existed before RMS, it existed in parallel with RMS, and it exists despite RMS. RMS's vision is really quite meaningless in the whole big world of free software. Rather, if anything, it has been damaging to the cause with his anti-commercialism.
The only reason we even talk about the GPL today is because a man by the name of Linus Torvalds made the decision to release Linux under that license. If he had not, GNU would be irrelevant. Without that kernel there would be no OS, there would be no distribution that was nearly entirely based off of GNU pieces. Without that kernel no further work would have proceeded on GNU projects. Without the popularity given to GNU from that kernel, RMS would now be a small footnote on a web page somewhere.
It's a chicken and egg scenario. Both are dependent upon on another.
Please don't feed the egos.
C'mon guys, if David Lee Roth and Sammy Hagar can co-exist and tour, then you two ought to be able to find some common ground.
RMS ranting about Bitkeeper:
One solution is to set up another repository for the Linux sources, using CVS or another free version control system, and arranging to load new versions into it automatically
Did he not just call it Linux instead of GNU/Linux? That's absurd! It's hard enough to figure out how to pronounce Linux without that GNU thing. Nevertheless, RMS and Linus are both gods.
If I've understood the name problem correctly:
Linus only wrote the kernel, but at five syllables
Guh-Noo-slash-li-nux is too much of a mouthful for
most people to bother, hence the whole thing gets
called Linux.
What's needed is a name that doesn't credit with
Linus with more than his fair share but is easy
to remember and pronounce.
I propose GNULT, pron. Guhnult, which stands for
GNULT's Not Uniquely Linus Torvalds'
-- Kilfire
RMS wrote:
The FSF cannot do this, because we cannot install Bitkeeper on our machines.
Yes they can. They just choose not to. What RMS meant to say was that the FSF is not willing to do this.
-Waldo Jaquith
Honestly, if he would get his head out of his ass and look at the big picture, he'd realize that making small concessions here and there in the interest of achieving the big goal--to get as many people using free/OSS software as possible--is the optimal path. But no, instead he has to act like a myopic slave to politics, which only annoys other people and hampers not only Linux's adoption but that of all free software.
Honestly, if you were a software salesman trying to prevent a major account from converting from MS software to free/open software, wouldn't you play up the "why would you trust your business to a bunch of loons" angle, and use this kind of material from RMS to support your case? I know I would if my job and income were on the line.
Perhaps that's what RMS really needs--a couple of years spent earning his living by writing and selling software to people who are concerned about technical merits and what the product does, and not politics. I suspect it would do him a world of good.
Of course, all the BSD's use pretty much the whole GNU system as well, and you don't see him whining about calling them GNU/BSD. This is yet another reason why I think RMS is, deep down inside, just being pissy ...
... all he is asking is that his project, GNU, without which the Linux kernel not only wouldn't exist, but would be completely unusable, be given some credit. Typing 4 extra characters, or saying one syllable, seems like the very least we can do, all things considered.
... certainly a greater debt than we owe any other single person, Linus Torvalds included. Showing a modicum of respect and support for his project's contribution, and the emphesis on freedom their project represents, really shouldn't be so much to ask.
Nonsense.
RMS recognizes that BSD was developed independently of GNU. They may be using many GNU tools now, but they had their own compilers, their own file utils, bin utils, etc., fully independent of GNU.
The Linux kernel never had any of this. It was created with gcc, and could only become a usable operating system with the plethora of tools made available by the GNU project. Unlike BSD, Linux owes its entire existence to the GNU project. Giving them credit for having written most of what makes up a basic UNIX system, minus the kernel (which came last), really isn't so much to ask.
Your assertion that he should ask the BSD folks (who do not owe their existence to his project) to prefix their projects with GNU because he requests that courtesy of the Linux projects (who do owe their existence to his project), demonstrates not only a woeful ignorance of both the history and current makeup of both BSD and Linux projects on your part, but an assumption of arragance with respect to RMS that the history of his actions and words, all slander aside, simply do not bear out.
It isn't like Stallman is asking people to call GNU/Linux "Stallix" or something
We owe the guy a great debt for his contribution to our quality of life (and in some cases our livlihoods)
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
If you'll notice in the reply, Stallman's at odds with himself, trying to brand an OS (Linux) with the GNU nameplate that he himself in his response calls "partially non-free [because of insertions from application like BitKeeper]". Sounds like a pretty clear double standard there.
It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
You are missing the point here. XFree86 is packaged independently in many GNU/Linux distributions, but it is not an inherent part of the system that you call Linux.
Linux the kernel is minimally distributed with either GNU components or GNU add-ons. Further, it requires GNU packages in order for it to work. This is the distribution that should be called GNU/Linux. Try not to confuse yourselves, will you?
I think the time has to come to debate the possibility that RMS may be a sociopath. Reading his arguements about the LUG changing its name for him to speak was almost painful. I am seriously not trolling here and would like to hear what other psych majors have to say on this.
I totally agree that RMS should spend/waste his time worrying about naming conventions of different groups instead of:
1. actually writing in c++/c open source
replacements for commercial software
2. actually debugging somone elses c++/c
open source replacement for commercial
software
Doesn't RMS remind you of the town mayor whom gets his picture taken near the town water supply to show you that the water is safe?
Hi, I got my photo taken, can we move to the next photo-op?
It is an obvious fact that one could install a system with the linux kernel and a few other non-GNU programs and end up with a complete functioning system. Getting compiled up without the glibc might be a chore, but it could be done. Are any of the GNU programs included with BSD? Do they call it GNU/BSD? Stallman's beef shouldn't be with Linus over the Linux kernel, it should be with the folks who maintain the Linux distributions. Redhat Linux should really be called Redhat GNU/Linux... Those boys are the ones that should be tacking on the GNU name. Because they roll the GNU stuff into their distribution.
I do agree with Stallman's points on BitKeeper. CVS should be the obvious choice here, and if it needs something in order to get it to do what the Kernel Koders need... well then, fix it. I bet RealAudio would love to get some hooks in the kernel that require a "Free" install of their software in order to develop/maintain the code.
While I don't agree with all his points - I think the OSS movement would definitely not be where it now is with Linus or closed/non-GNU software - I respect him for his principles. He has a very good point that if you don't value your freedoms you will lose them, because others tend to value your freedoms less than you do.
On the other hand, he would gain a lot of respect in the general Linux community if he would learn or at least value the principle of compromise.
I bought a Daimler/Chrysler/Dodge vehicle once. Found out it had Mitsubishi pieces in it.
During WWII Stalin said the Ilyushin IL-2 was as necessary to the army as bread an water, but everyone called these planes Sturmoviks.
When I take a business trip, I often fly on a 757. Most people couldn't tell you it was made by Boeing.
And whose work is the so called "Space Shuttle?"
I once cracked open a Compaq monitor, only to find some components from Texas Instruments.
You know that bargain tissue you can buy at the grocery store? I call it "Kleenex" even though it wasn't made by Kimberly Clark.
People say Windows all the time without mentioning Microsoft. I sometimes use Windows.
The "PC" was an IBM idea. Used to be IBM PC, if you remember. Now we just have PCs.
I know a man with a legislative award for discovering cyclooxygenase 2, but I don't see his name on Vioxx or Celebrex.
Flavored water with sugar in it is Kool Aid.
Plywood used to be called "Prest Wood" after its brand name.
There is no provision in the GPL to prefix your system with "GNU" if it happens to use pieces that belong to the GNU project.
The Linux Kernel doesn't belong to the GNU project. Nor does XFree86, nor Apache, nor Perl...
I'll take freedom over GNU/Freedom.
So long as firmware has a FULLY documented API to talk to it I don't see why having to download it to the device is so much of a big deal. Infact even if the code was available it might it might not be compilable by the likes of gcc, so where would you then be? Some firmware is EEPROM some is just in ram, ram is faster anyway, so then you have to get every device having EEPROM and RAM...
I have more of a problem with "binary drivers", because my computer is nothing to do with there card. Their card however can work how it likes. Just give me the api to talk to it.
James
This Credit nonsense, why doesn't he call Linux GNU, that would be correct. That's a not-invented-here syndrom of Stallman. He wants to have power and respect, we shall not give it to him but share our code. It's very funny so watch his dogmatic GNU/Linux nonsense and see him talking abvout linux developers etc.
The Free Software Foundation should just change the name of their project to the "Linux Project"... then they will get all the recognition they need.
But seriously... the GNU project gets recognition for their greatest achievement... GCC. They did not succeed in creating a kernel and that is the heart of an OS... so they should just quit whining and be glad that people are using their software.
--
"What do you want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? Cause I'm married."
From now on, I'll be calling it "Lignux".
It's a nice name, flows smoothly...
Of course, the "g" is silent. (It doesn't stand for anything anyway.*) For convenience, you can spell it without the "g" too, as long as you remember that it's there.
(* GNU stands, of course, for "GNU's not Unix"; the "G" should be eliminated due to the stack overflow error that necessarily results...)
Stallman says that declining to give a service is not coercion in the Microsoft way. Actually, I thought the denial of service was Microsoft's biggest coercion tactic...that is, denying to sell vendors Windows at a decent price unless they met certain requirements.
Joe Barr claims in his original article that Stallman is not about ego. After reading his reply, I can't help but think there's a hell of a lot of ego here.
And that subject pretty much sums it up. What Stallman is fighting for is brand awareness, to get the word out to people that it's the GNU project, which he holds perhaps -too- near and dear to his heart, that did in the long run make it all possible. Unfortunately, he's allowed this matter to get so tightly wound up in his psyche that he's failing to see how this can be turned to his own benefit. The GNU project tools and contributions can be turned into a "brand name" with or without forcing people to refer to it as GNU/Linux or anything else. That's a really bad precedent to set. If Microsoft were doing it with Visual Studio, we'd all be screaming and wanting to nail Bill Gates with a pie, or worse. As it is, we see ".net" being used as marketing hype in itself.
What Stallman should do, in my not-so-humble-before-lunch opinion is start a campaign of GNU brand awareness. Put together a low-zealotry webpage explaining what GNU has contributed, without being self-congratulatory. Add a link to this page someplace in the documents for GNU project software. Ask - don't demand - that Linux distributions help and promote the GNU project's contributions. I'm sure that almost all the major distributions will bend over backward to help GNU become more recognized as long as they aren't forced. One major thing is that by trying to tack GNU onto Linux is that recognition of anything GNU does that isn't Linux-related will plummet. That's just how people work.
What's been happening now is simply counter productive. I know more about RMS through these Linux / GNU/Linux debates than I ever did through his actions in writing software. Linux has been dubbed Linux by the media, and if -anyone- thinks they can get all the media outlets to refer to it as GNU/Linux they're sorely mistaken. Linux by itself has become a recognized word in everyday life, even my parents know it. Fighting something like that is just going to get you frustrated because it can't be changed by force.
Take the long view, Richard. Make GNU a symbiotic lifeform with Linux in a way beyond the code, but don't try and force yourself on it like the borg. That's who we're fighting against.
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
t.c is coming back
    united under CVS
7 vendor Unixes for the dwarf admins
    in their corporate halls
100 linuxen for mortal lusers
    doomed to choose
One Gnu to rule them all,
    One Gnu to find them.
One Gnu to enslave them all,
    And in the darkness bind them
In the land of Cambridge,
    where Mr. Stallman whines
See this and add your own Doggerel verse
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
Just because it can be useful to share code doesn't give you the God-given right to have access to anybody's code. They wrote it - they can do what they like with it.
Code represents hard work, and like any other creative work deserves copyright protection.
Since code isn't something that just anybody can do in the blink of an eye, it attains value. If you want that code you can either
a) Come to some agreement with the author for the code (i.e. pay for it)
or
b) Write it yourself
If you find yourself not wishing to take option b) then obviously the code has value, as you don't wish to put in the time and energy yourself. Therefore if the author wishes to be compensated for the time and effort he or she put into creating it, then that seems fair enough, doesn't it?
Luckily many people are prepared to contribute code for the greater good, and this should be encouraged - but coding isn't free.
You people really need to do something more productive then argue about a damn name! Common! What is the use! While you sit here and bicker and bitch about a freaking name, those at Microsoft that though Windows should be called Bill's Windows aren't bitching every friggin' day about it. They continue to code (although probably not well). I can see all of this splintering over simple issues being the downfall of OSS. Common guys, grow up.
...And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)
Anyone who wants to understand RMS should read Free as In Freedom first. It's free as in beer and free as in speech.
The most chilling part of the whole book is a reference to Bill Gates' Open Letter to Hobbyists. It's chilling really, to think of young Bill, writing this letter, unaware of where he will be in 25 some-odd years.
Two quotes from this letter are very interesting:
Nothing would please me more than being able to hire ten programmers and deluge the hobby market with good software.
I think he succeeded in the hiring and deluging, but some might want to qualify "good".
But ultimately, he got one thing terribly wrong...
What hobbyist can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free?
It turns out that the Internet makes that thing possible. A math whiz at MIT, a graduate student in Finland, a couple hundred thousand computer hobbyists all over the world can do this.
Before you attack RMS for his wacky views, remember that he has committed his life to his views. He's committed his life to proving Gates' letter wrong.
Of course, you can buy tools from someone, and IMHO, that's okay. I can't grow bananas in my back yard, so I pay money for them. I suppose RMS would do without bananas.
But the GNU project is all about making the quality tools for free. The GPL enforces that notion with our own crazy copyright law. To extend my analogy, I do grow basil in a window box. You're welcome to some of my basil, but if you want to a whole lot of it, please give me some of your fine pesto sauce. You don't want to share, OK, then get your mitts off my plants.
More than many other modern occupations, programming is a craft: like gardening, or woodworking. Many people do it for fun. Some are lucky enough to get paid. The freedom RMS is fighting for is the freedom to share your code openly. You get my basil, I get your pesto, and everyone can get bananas. The conventional rules of scarcity don't apply with code. As we share, our tools get better, we become better craftsmen and perhaps we get our $208 back.
My father is a blogger.
If you believe having strong conviction is good RMS should be one of your idols. You should go back right now and re-read his article (Or read it the first time if you are a slashdot editor) Between every statement try to answer how it might have helped keep Free software Free. When you're done you should know his convictions are consistent. Although he makes many people mad, You will always make a sinner mad by calling him a sinner.
Where are your convictions? I think RMS believes Freedom is on everyone's list. You can't trade in a portion of that conviction without the willingness to trade it all in. If some of that conviction has a price the rest must have a price too. There is nothing worth the price of Freedom. The problem with non-Free software is NOT that you trade your ability to write Free software for the ability to use non-Free software. You trade your ability to write Free software by letting someone else determine what/when/where you can use any software. All forms of Freedom are traded this way. The right to privacy is traded by letting someone else determine what/when/where you have any privacy.
In the last 20 hrs software has given people an excuse for giving away Freedom fairly quickly. unfortunately the Freedom given away is much more general than just publishing software. It's the Freedom of Innovation/Creativity. Where does that land on your measure of convictions?
Linus already gave RMS more than he deserved by putting the Linux kernel under the GPL in the first place, which Linus did out of respect for GCC.
If RMS wants to bitch and moan about it, he should contact all the distributions, like Red Hat, which distribute the GNU Tools with the Linux kernel, and request that they change their names to GNU/Redhat, GNU/Slackware, etc., etc. That would be more accurate and less absurd, since the kernel is just a bunch of C code, and doesn't have nearly as much to do with the GNU Tools. (especially since you can compile it with other compilers now)
Stallman asserted two things: that the FSF uses absolutely no non-free software. He then said that the Linux kernel contained non-free (as he defines it) software, and that a long term goal is to come up with a completely free Linux kernel.
So, he's saying that nobody involved with the FSF uses a Linux kernel at the moment, right? Right?
I mean, given that he makes a personal attack against Linus for valuing pragmatism over ideals, and makes it clear that no compromise is acceptable, ever, then it would be breaktakingly hypocritical of him to decry Linux as non-free while at the same time actually making use of it, right?
Right?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Let's look at the medical example.
You state that "curing cancer" is a concrete goal, and you are correct - but is "keeping track of 3.5k MP3 files" not also a concrete goal?
You state that "learning about the body" is an abstract goal - but is not "learning about computing" not also an abstract goal?
One can construct similar decision trees for either discipline. The solution spaces are different, but the underlying concepts are the same.
You also state that your little pet program won't help cure cancer - but how can you know that?
Perhaps a cancer researcher needs to organize 3500 medical files. Perhaps your MP3 organizer contains an innovation or some solid code that lends itself to modification so that it can solve Mr Cancer Researcher's organization problem. Perhaps by virtue of solving his problem, a cure for cancer is found.
Yes, it's a stretch, but the history of science is full of these strange, seemingly unrelated connections that lead to bigger things. There is historical precident for this stretching.
By releasing your code, your work becomes part of the larger whole, where it may be used to solve other problems and provide other services. By not releasing your code, it stagnates and dies.
Isn't that an easy choice?
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Encouraging is fine. Advocating is fine. Requiring is not fine. Requiring is bad.
Remember, "require" can mean two things in this context. It can mean either that free software places a requirement upon you to do something, or that it, itself, requires something. Requirement also means prerequisite or necessary precondition. Without sharing, there is no free software. Thus it is a requirement. But not in the sense you condemn as bad.
Science attempts to achieve goals, either abstract or concrete. he abstract goals lead to the concrete ones. Curing cancer (a concrete goal) is a good thing, therefore learning about the body (an abstract goal) is a good thing, therefore anything we can do to advance the goal of learning about the body is good.
That is a very engineering-oriented view of science. I recognize it, being an engineer. But it isn't true. We learn about the body because we are driven to. We study things that have nothing to do with curing cancer and could not conceivably do so. We study the birth of the cosmos because we want insight into the universe, not because it will let us make a Magic Wiget. The collective goal of science -is- the advancement of the art.
This little pet program of mine won't lead to curing cancer, or any other moral absolute. So there's basically no reason for me to apply the practices of the scientific community to my own work.
Curing cancer has nothing to do with it. The practices of the scientific community are the way they are because it is the best way to advance the collective body of knowlege. The same for programming. You don't have to tell anyone about your program, but just like a scientist doing research who never publishes, you do nothing for the community. That's fine. Don't. But the reason to do so is the same as it is in science.
The enemies of Democracy are
Caveat: I agree with RMS about a lot of things, but I disagree with him on some things as well. I like the GPL I don't care for idiotic posturing over semantics.
To the driver, the firmware code is just data that is sent to the hardware device on startup. The hardware may see it as a program, but unless the hardware manufacturer has GPL'd his firmware and patents, the GPL does not apply.
Repeat: the firmware is data as far as the drivers and kernel are concerned. It is not linked to the kernel, it is merely hard-coded data to be sent to the hardware device. Last time I looked, the GPL did not require all data manipulated by GPL'd software to be public domain.
RMS is demolishing straw-men and resorting to ad-hominem attacks on Torvalds in this essay.... Seems to me he's done a good job of establishing the intellectual bankruptcy of his "GNU/Linux" argument.
---dragoness
Y'know, I dig GNU and all, and I surely appreciate that all those GNU applications give me something to run on my nice, shiny Linux box (GCC and libc would be especially hard to live without) - but sometimes RMS just comes across as being so petty! Is the important issue here the -name- of an operating system, or a club, or the -respect- which the GNU project deserves?
Consider: If that SIGLinux had changed its name to SIGFree, its name wouldn't have meant much to anybody. SIGFree is a pretty stupid name. "SIGLinux", even if it doesn't represent everything a "Linux club" is interested in ("Linux Clubs" in my experience also appeal to BSD users and people with a general interest in hacking, Free Software, etc.) the meaning is recognizable: someone who said one day, "You know, I'd like to set up a Linux system" could search, find the club, and then the club could educate them on the importance of GNU.
Consider: The name of the club, or OS, isn't nearly as important with regard to this issue as the treatment of GNU. If "Linux"-oriented organizations made it abundantly clear that they, and Linux itself, owe a great deal to the GNU project, then proper accreditation is served.
IMO the GNU project owes about as much to free kernels like Linux as the free kernels owe to GNU. GNU took way too long to develop their own kernel: and GNU's system software without a kernel is as useless as a kernel without system software. RMS can nitpick over stupid little issues in the Linux kernel all he wants: but it works, it supports all my hardware, and it has journalling filesystems. Nothing GNU has produced can compete with that.
Bow-ties are cool.
it's...
Why can't Nerds tell Halloween from Christmas day?
because 31(oct) == 25(dec)
One of the key guarantees that Knuth wanted to give was a stable system with backwards compatibility. Therefore you are not allowed to modify TeX, and indeed it has not been modified in about a decade. (There are rumors of an upcoming patch that may be released in a year or two.)
This license condition is not an idle requirement. There have been cases where people have made innocent changes (eg adjusted fonts slightly) and Knuth got very upset.
Systems like LaTeX that are built on top of the TeX system often are free software. But TeX itself is not.
If the HURD is already a part of the GNU project,
the calling the HURD "GNU/HURD" seems redundant.
You can think of the GNU/ prefix as implicit, just
as the maker of a car, i.e., Honda Civic or simply
a Civic or simply Honda.
Most things have many names.
So I could see one saying, "I run a GNU system",
or "I run a Linux system" or "I have a GNU Linux computer", etc. They all mean the same thing.
The only time I would make the distinction would
be in the press, or in formal stuff.
Just my $0.02.
- llordsmiff -
Ah, but as soon as you release code under the GPL, that code DOES have sharing enforced with the force of law.
We're starting to run into the shades of grey that reality thrusts into any black-and-white argument.
Would I advocate enforced sharing of code, to the point where a law enforcement agency could compel the release of arbitrary code as produced by an individual (as separate froma corporation)? IE, would I support the Code Sharing Agency holding the gentleman who started this thread at gunpoint or in jail until he released his code?
No, I would not. He has the right to be selfish and rude. I would hope his conscience would compel him to release the code, but I wouldn't want to see him forced to against his will.
UNLESS the code in question is GPLed. If it is a GPL-licenced deriviative work subsequently released, part of getting access to that code in the first place was the acceptance of the requirement to release code. As such, a derivative of a GPLed work is protected by law, he knew that up front, and I'd be entirely comfortable with a State agency enforcing that requirement.
This is the beauty of the GPL. It enforces good manners on those who choose to accept the initial obligation.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
By releasing your code, your work becomes part of the larger whole, where it may be used to solve other problems and provide other services. By not releasing your code, it stagnates and dies.
Isn't that an easy choice?
Yup. It sure is. You worry about your code, and I'll worry about mine.
What is it, exactly, that so excites you about telling other people what to do with their code?
In my world it is ok to be lax about statements and how things are presented. The people I know and deal with know what is meant and what is expected.
But in the real world words have specific meanings and there are many people willing to take advantage of every loop hole in order to profit from and take the work of others.
In summary RMS is right words do matter, and the way things are presented does matter. It may seem like one is being picky, but such is the world we live in.
When RMS was keynote speaker at Guadec2001 he pulled the following stunt:
Seeing this text on the conference folder:
The GNOME project is building a complete, user-friendly desktop for Unix and Linux that is freely available for everyone.
He insisted (threathening not to give his talk) on having the text changed to this:
GNOME is the GNU desktop project, building a complete, user-friendly desktop for GNU and GNU/Linux (and Unix), so that all computer users can have freedom.
He then went on to personally paste this text on every single conference folder (about 500 of them).
It is not that I don't see his point. I just don't share his views.
My point is that he is a loose canon. You cannot count on him behaving rationally. And you definitely cannot expect other people (outside the (GNU)/Linux environment) to take his seriously. He is harming the cause with his theatricals.
To my knowledge, Linus hasn't really said this.
He has, I believe, said that the kernel should be called "linux" (and that you can pronounce it however you like, just use it).
I think he thinks (and is correct that) GNU/XFree86/KDE/Linux doesn't have the same ring to it that "linux" has; I also think he thinks that it's fine when people say "I run debian" or "I run redhat" instead of "I run Debian Linux" or "I run Debian GNU/Linux".
Linus has always seemed much more laied-back than RMS. RMS gets angry when things aren't done his way, because he is convicted about his beliefs. Many people who are extremely convicted about good things are difficult to get along with, even with they are "right".
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
what would Hitler and Stalin have done in this situation? How would they have responded? Would the rhetoric simply repeat what was said before, or rephrase in order to explain better? Or would I simply be a slimy politician and basically go back on what I said and try to play both sides of the fence because I wish to gain more favor and popularity and/or I subconsciously realize how flawed my logic is?
Microsoft hates GPL. Hates the word GNU. That's reason enough for me. Every piece of free software should be called GNU/[name here].
I have to admit I'm getting less moderate as i get older. I think using 'unfree' tools and code in LINUX is a bad thing. And I think saying "Write better free software and I'll use it" brings to mind the saying: Those who see evil and don't speak against it are part of the problem (paraphrased)
Zelazny Amber analogy: Torvalds, ESR and others are pale shadows of Stallman. They get like 75% of it, but they compromise in the end. Sad.
Off topic: My company is replacing Lotus Notes as our web server (thank god) and I think I've convinced them to go Apache/Tomcat/Struts/Linux over dot.net. w00t!
Push the button Max!!!!
I don't think we have a moral obligation to share.
The closest thing I'd say to that is that it is perferable, alturistic and in the greater good to share our code when we can.
Sadly, for many of us we can't really share the code and still expect to make a living from writing it.
I think that the name GNU/Linux is kind of
silly, but that is not the point. The only
thing worse than being talked about is NOT
being talked about, and whenever one of these
GNU/Linux issues comes up, people discuss the
FSF and their ideas.
People who get pissed off by it are really just
confusing their emotions - Stallman has a point
and it is difficult to admit it for some.
I'm a little bit disappointed that RMS has
gone to new depths and attacked Linus
personally, but I can see why he did it - the
BitKeeper & device driver issues are quite
significant. The ability for free software
advocates to remain ideologically pure is at
risk.
People didn't suddenly change their minds about free software when the term "Open Software" appeared. They immediately locked onto the better term. Free in reference to a product means you don't have to pay for it. So going through this whole "free as in..." thingy was annoying to most people.
A good term has to roll of your tongue nicely. Replacing a good term with something wierd and awkward is extremely unlikely to work, even if it may be more accurate.
I might favour the name "United States of sorta North America, but not the Canadian bit" (USNnC).
Honestly how good do you think my chances are to bring that about?
You make an important point here about when and why we would choose to use a compound name for something that "looks like" one object. More specific names are not used merely because they exist, but because their use helps distinguish or disambiguate among alternatives.
The irony here is that one reason why GNU/Linux probably sounds wrong is precisely because there isn't much need to distinguish that variant from the others, since they are essentially not as well known. It is precisely because the GNU toolset is by far the most common one to be used with Linux that it will be tough to get anybody to use the term GNU/Linux. Now, if using Linux with a BSD-derived (or Solaris-derived or whatever) toolset became more popular, then you'd have a chance for ambiguity, and very possibly you'd use a compound term of some kind.
An additional problem, though, is that GNU/Linux will always seem clunky because it does not follow usual conventions for compounding. In particular, if you show this to the average person the street, I'd expect a number of them to think that whatever it was you were talking about was *either* GNU *or* Linux. Stallman clearly doesn't mean this, however. The problem is that the term you could use ("GNU Linux") emphatically makes GNU the "adjective" (specifier if you're that kind of person) that modifies the meaning of whatever Linux is. I don't think that is what the FSF would like people to think, either. But I'm pretty sure that BSD Linux and GNU Linux (for example) are the terms people would use to make the distinction between two systems with the obvious (to a hacker) properties. Fighting that is going to be very tough.
An additional real problem with the GNU/Linux formulation is that it suffers from what I'll call the "hyphenation problem". We all know married couples who, instead of keeping separate names or having one take the name of the other, choose to hyphenate their names. So far, so good. But we also know that this solution to solving an identity problem really only works for one generation. If Montgomery-Smith marries Johnson-Laird, then things go down hill pretty fast if they want to hyphenate. A similar problem happens with any system that relies on Linux, a GNU toolset, XFree86, and some substantial bundle of applications and desktop stuff (like KDE or Gnome). At one level, you could see how mentioning them all could be useful in a few contexts, but in practice, nobody is going to do this. In this particular case, people probably choose to mention only that which cannot be assumed as background. So if you mention "Gnome", it's not very likely (yet) that you're running on anything other than XFree86. It's possible that you could be using BSD rather than Linux. The tools used to compile the thing and/or the shell used are very possibly not relevent in context. So, here, you can predict that people will talk about Linux Gnome or BSD Gnome or something similar *if* they choose to mention the kernel at all.
To wrap this up, I think the big problem is that even if you agreed with RMS on principle, you'd be fighting the language and its speakers. In the end, I don't see how this is going to work out happily for anybody with a specific agenda that conflicts with how natural languages work.
Babar
in my native U.S., facial tissues are called "kleenex," regardless of the supplier: Scott, Kimberly-Clarke, Weyerhauser, or Kleenex...
the dude is fighting a force of nature - he's either going to die frustrated or come to terms with it.
What is it, exactly, that makes you want to keep your code from becoming part of the greater whole?
I've got lots of examples that show why Sharing Is Good - what do you have on your side, except "Mine!"?
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Remember, "require" can mean two things in this context.
;-)
You've left me dizzy with your artful display of circular reasoning.
That is a very engineering-oriented view of science. I recognize it, being an engineer. But it isn't true. We learn about the body because we are driven to.
Please don't confuse motivation with justification. Why do we study the body? Who knows? A compulsion inherent in human nature, maybe. But the question before the committee is why should we study the body?
Actually, the real question was why should we share code. A poster said that we should share code for the same reasons that scientists should share data; that is, free software is based on the same principles as the scientific method. I refute this, because the moral foundation of the scientific method and the moral foundation of the free software movement couldn't be more different from one another.
The practices of the scientific community are the way they are because it is the best way to advance the collective body of knowlege. The same for programming.
But in saying this you're trying to attach a value to "advancing the art," or as you say it, the "collective body of knowledge."
I attach no value to the collective body of knowledge in and of itself. Period. If you tell me that I should do X because it advances the art, I will react the same way as if you said I should do X because it makes florns more smooly. I have no opinion on florns, or their collective smooliness. So I just don't care.
Likewise, I just don't care about advancing the art. Computer programs give me no pleasure, and they don't-- by themselves-- improve the world in any meaningful way.
It is of course possible to improve the world through the careful application of computer programs. The same can be said of just about anything. But in order to translate that into a moral argument, you'd have to make some connection between what I do and the ultimate improvement of the world through computer programs derived from or inspired by what I do. Basically it turns into a "but for" argument. In the absence of my code, the world misses out on some important program that, when properly applied, could do something good. (Good in the moral sense, I mean.)
But another poster already made the point that the fact that I don't share my code basically means nothing. Somebody, somewhere, will come up with the same things I've come up with. So the "but for" argument fails. The world gets the benefit of my code even if I don't release it, because somebody out there will think of it independently.
Unless, of course, I'm some kind of genius. Anybody out there think I'm some kind of genius?
You don't have to tell anyone about your program, but just like a scientist doing research who never publishes, you do nothing for the community. That's fine. Don't. But the reason to do so is the same as it is in science.
Again, you're thinking too shallowly. Why is it a moral good for us to advance science and understanding? Because through science and understanding we can directly improve our world, and do good for other people. Simple.
Why is it a moral good for us to advance the art of programming?
Note here my use of the phrase "moral good." I chose it quite deliberately. A moral good is something that should result in a compulsion to action in a moral person. Saving a drowning person is a moral good, so a moral person when faced with a drowning person will be compelled to throw a life preserver. What moral good can we think of that would produce in a moral person a compulsion to release his or her source code?
Since this conversation started with the idea of an obligation to share code, I think it's reasonable to expect there to be some moral justification for that obligation. So far, I've seen none.
"I love to give speeches to Linux user groups .. but NOT if they have "Linux" in their name!! coz .. *sniff* *sob* it's called GNU/LINUX!!! *boohooo* why doesn't *sob* anyone understand??? *cry*" --RMS
Just a short summary for those of you who CBA to read the article.
Oh and mr RMS, neo says you are a dumb idiotic wanker. Ph34r.
Jeebs. Which planet are you from? To be traitors they would have to have firstly have to have somehow sworn loyalty to you. As it turns out they have just made a different choice to you on what computer/OS to run...
Wether people choose to say "GNU/Linux" or just "Linux", it seems to me that RMS's campaign for the GNU/Linux name is having the desired effect. The very fact that it inflames so many passionate discussions puts GNU in the forefront of people's conciousness - whether they go along with the name or not. It's really not the name that's important. If we take RMS's words at face value, the reason he wants people to use the name is to make people conscious of the free software philosophy. The more people rail about whether the name should be GNU/Linux or Linux, the more successful RMS's campaign becomes.
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
OK, here's my solution to put this to rest forever. I'm going to call it "Lignux" from now on. With a silent G when pronounced (hey, everyone argues pronunciation already).
Lignux.
Easy to say, easy to type. Everybody with me?
-TVE
Honestly, if his preferred naming convention is so displeasing to you, why don't you go and write your own GNU utilities, compiler, and whatnot?
It can't be that hard, right?
One of the main arguments against the "GNU/Linux" seems to be that it is too much of a mouthful.
If that's the case, why not call it "Lignux"?
This has the gnu term embedded inside. ;-)
I'm running Cygwin (www.cygwin.com), the set of GNU libraries and tools for Windows 98 on my work pc. Does that mean I have to call this OS GNU/Windows 98? And should SCO Openserver 5 with the GNU libs and tools from the Skunkware CD be called GNU/SCO Openserver? Certainly not! I remember a few months back someone posted a small Linux distro on Freshmeat without any GNU software using an alternate libc and compiler. Hmmm. Maybe this whole issue is that RMS is jealous of Linus's programming skill. More to the point: Richard, how many lines of code have YOU written lately.
"As flies to the wanton boys are we to the gods; they kill us for sport." - William Shakespeare, King Lear
My proposal does not address the problem of RMS occasionally being apparently petty, or the argument over "GNU/Linux" but it does address the problem of giving proper credit to the work done by the GNU project.
My proposal is this: If you use GNU software on a regular basis, particularly if you use the software as part of your work, accredit them. Find a place to say "This work would not have been possible without the many fine utilities produced by the GNU project." or something similar.
Bow-ties are cool.
Sure, the system as a whole's usually referred to as Linux, rather than GNU/Linux, and realistically, that won't change, probably because it's easier to say "Linux" rather than "GNU/Linux", and just calling it "GNU" isn't appropriate since the HURD's not involved. But as far as giving credit where credit is due, the components GNU has produced are credited -- my Debian system's package descriptions refer to "GNU Emacs" and "GNU fileutils", letting you know just where that editor and those basic file management utilities came from, and I'm so used to GNU C at this point, that it strikes me as odd to have to use 'cc' instead of 'gcc' on proprietary Unices. The FSF's tools are important, non-trivial, and anyone involved with Linux to any degree knows it. The GNU project is in no danger of being forgotten -- merly neglected, perhaps. (How many people do you know who're running the HURD?)
Programming is as much of a science as biology, or medicine, or engineering.
Every program written solves a problem. It doesn't have to be a "big" problem, like a cure for cancer, to be good.
Solve a problem, advance the state of computing. The more problems solved, the larger the solution space.
Perhaps the problem you solved will lead to something "big", like a cure for cancer. Perhaps all you'll do is relieve a little frustration for someone. The "size" of the good is irrelevant and unpredictable. It doesn't matter.
It costs you *nothing* to release your code. NOTHING. Unlike the basil used in another poster's example, if you copy my code, there is no loss to me. Code can be copied ad infinitem with no loss to the producer.
The only time there is loss is if you hord your code, because you then withold your work from the greater community. By hording, you force someone to have to re-solve the problem that you have already completed. You force duplication of effort.
So yes, you have an *obligation* to release code, the exact same way your girlfriend has an obligation to release the results of her clinical studies. It is *exactly* the same thing.
THIS is the true poison that the code-for-sale people have injected into our industry. It has changed us from being scientists working together to solve problems, and reduced us to used car salesman.
Well, I'm not a used car salesman, thank you very much. I'm a scientist. I share my code because I have a moral duty to do so. And I remind my fellow *scientists* of their obligation too - because (to our shame) our profession has neglected to install that sense of duty at the universities. We sold our collective soul, and I would see that reversed.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
I don't recall reading about Linus Torvalds saying anything like this. The closest thing that comes to mind is him saying something along the lines of "RMS can call Linux whatever he wants to call it".
I consider this to be somewhat defamatory, and a quick Google search didn't turn up much to validate RMS's pseudo-quote. Can anyone clarify?
1. "Linux powered by GNU"
2. "Linux with GNU inside"
Use of label like these would emphasize the GNU connection, but still take advance on the name recognation Linux already have.
My 0,25 DDK
You've left me dizzy with your artful display of circular reasoning.
After a statement like that, I expected some demonstration of what, exactly, the circular reasoning was. Were I to actually have used circular reasoning, I would like to know about it. I don't willfully use logical fallacies.
Actually, the real question was why should we share code. A poster said that we should share code for the same reasons that scientists should share data; that is, free software is based on the same principles as the scientific method. I refute this, because the moral foundation of the scientific method and the moral foundation of the free software movement couldn't be more different from one another.
You're only rationale for that statement was that science is to let us cure cancer. Which clearly not all science is for. Much of it isn't of any readily obvious worth at all, much less something of such clear "moral" value as curing cancer.
I attach no value to the collective body of knowledge in and of itself. Period.
What more needs to be said, then? If you don't, then you don't. But you go on to say:
It is of course possible to improve the world through the careful application of computer programs. The same can be said of just about anything. But in order to translate that into a moral argument, you'd have to make some connection between what I do and the ultimate improvement of the world through computer programs derived from or inspired by what I do. Basically it turns into a "but for" argument. In the absence of my code, the world misses out on some important program that, when properly applied, could do something good. (Good in the moral sense, I mean.)
Ah. Well, I thought that was obvious. Sorry. Simply put, the state of the art is that from which we can draw knowlege to apply to the problems that have some "moral" value. Can this be used to draw a direct line between your C code and a cure for cancer? Surely not. It is merely a possibility. But there is no clear line between any aspect of research and a cure for cancer. Even those who are specifically studying cures for cancer cannot know if their research will result in a cure. But I guarantee that those researches are using a body of knowlege -- including programs -- that were conceived without even a thought toward curing cancer with them.
But another poster already made the point that the fact that I don't share my code basically means nothing. Somebody, somewhere, will come up with the same things I've come up with. So the "but for" argument fails. The world gets the benefit of my code even if I don't release it, because somebody out there will think of it independently.
That's nonsense. If someone else thinks up something like what you did, then we get the benefit of -their- code. And you use the word "will" when what you mean is "might". And while simultaneous discoveries do happen (thanks to them both drawing on the same previous body of knowlege, ie the state of the art, thanks to sharing), they are an exception. Would you argue that nothing would be different if Newton had not published his theories, because someone else would have eventually come up with an equation for gravitational attraction?
Note here my use of the phrase "moral good." I chose it quite deliberately. A moral good is something that should result in a compulsion to action in a moral person. Saving a drowning person is a moral good, so a moral person when faced with a drowning person will be compelled to throw a life preserver. What moral good can we think of that would produce in a moral person a compulsion to release his or her source code?
Would you consider developing a better life preserver to be a moral good, since it could be used to save someone's life? What about a device for clearing water from the lungs of those rescued? What about developing a better polymer for the O-rings in the device? What about developing a carbon-chain modelling program for analyzing the properties of polymers? What about developing an archival program used to organize the data files made by the modelling program?
Is that too distant from saving someone's life? If you limit that which is worth doing to that which has direct causation, none of what could have direct causation would be possible.
The key question is -- are you satisfied with "might"? What about when the only other answer is "definitely not"?
Since this conversation started with the idea of an obligation to share code, I think it's reasonable to expect there to be some moral justification for that obligation. So far, I've seen none.
RMS talks quite exetensively on the subject. He doesn't phrase it in terms of "moral good", but "freedom". If you consider "freedom" a "moral good", then his arguments should have weight. If you don't, then he isn't talking to you.
The enemies of Democracy are
He is going on about how software is free, but is whining about how we use/name it. Does this make sense?
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
Mentionning GNU contribution is not the aim of RMS. It is just a way of promoting Free Software.
I wonder if you did read the article.
From a user point of view, the important things are (a) the kernel, and (b) the operating environment. MS Windows refers to both the underlying kernel and the operating environment; as the operating environment becomes more and more developed and Linux moves to the desktop, specifying the optimal operating environment will probably become more important.
Although I share most of RMS concerns he fails to acknowledge the different relations that the community has with Free software. While some are hackers with higher ideals as he is, many are hobbists that simple enjoy programming. Others are just users. For some is the work that feeds their families. For others is a enormous market for their products or services. Many simply enjoy the fact of being part of something much bigger than them. Spite of all this variety, Free software offers something to all this people, and all this people offer back something to the community. The system that you have and enjoy so much is result of many people's work. GNU, Linux, BSD, XFree86, Gnome or KDE are just bricks which have little value when considered alone (hence the absurd of GNU/Linux) - they are nothing alone and, above all, they are nothing without the community which made/uses them. Although so many people hate it (and rightfuly too) even Microsoft had an important role by making the Personal Computer an acessible reality, and by being a monopoly which made the Open Source alternative florish so much. We must accept this variety, instead of forcing our point of views on everybody else. I think that one of the effects of RMS polemics is that he always makes one think, reminding the past, and planing the future as we want, instead of blindfoldly taking what the present gives. That is his major achievement.
"PETA sent $70,500 in 1995 to Rodney Coronado, a convicted arsonist and avowed member of the domestic-terrorist group called the Animal Liberation Front. Coronado served a five-year federal prison sentence for a 1992 animal-rights-related firebombing at Michigan State University.
Unapologetic about its ties to domestic terrorism, PETA also made a cash donation in 2001 to the North American Earth Liberation Front, a group that the FBI has called a domestic terrorist organization."
On the internet, no one knows you're a frog.
And the best way to get it is to support the ideals of the free software foundation.
When nt4 came out, everyone said it was better, more secure, easier to use, yada yada. Of course this was all marketing BS, but the people who sign the cheques believed it.
All of the major unix vendors ran about like proverbial chickens announcing that they were dumping unix and introducing intel/nt systems. Everyone except for Sun, anyway.
Then came the unix is dead in 5 years crap. As a technical person, I was astounded that people would ditch unix for nt4.
Which brings me to my point, Linux Torvalds and RMS are BOTH correct. People must be able to choose software based on a technical basis. But, only free software, ala GNU, ensures that good software will remain despite the multi-billion dollar marketing efforts by people that would have us choose software based on hype, FUD and other forms of BS.
It's ironic -- the champion of free software doesn't understand that freedom means allowing people to say/do things that you don't agree with.
Is it that he doesn't understand, or perhaps that he sees an excellent opportunity to promote GNU?
Most Linux distributions do use a lot of GNU and GPL, and people have benefitted greatly from this.
By telling people "Hey look at what GNU has done for you" he can build awareness of what he is doing and what he stands for?
He lets people call it Linux, as you said, he really can't stop them. However he encourages people to promote GNU too, shouldn't he be allowed to do that too?
M$ hounds us all, so what do the GNU/GPL/Linux/OOS techno-competents do ??? Naming clusterfsck !!! What a bleating buncha pathetic bastards. All ya need are lovebeads, and a copy of Das (GNU) Capital and off ya go ...
One one hand you can say, that RMS really is being greedy and selfish and just wants credit for his work. However I think that is wrong, I think that what he is really saying is that he wants the spirit of free software to be infused in this software because the software is 'based' on the GPL and was made possiable by free software. Linux is GPLed, but Linus doesn't really care if you believe in free software or not, he just wants to have fun programming and doing his projects. However, this project has grown beyond his original scope. RMS is an idealist, he believes that software should be free, not free of cost, but free to expand and grow. He sees software as a puzzle and when you write a program that does something useful, it's like a self-solving puzzle. Most people would take that information that you have created by writing your code and hide it in the form of a computer binary. He thinks that we should instead let everyone see your solution and learn from it. That's what free software is, being able to learn from other people's work and expand on it to create something better then what the original author imagined.
He's not a hypocrite, he wants the people who use free software to subscribe to the same philosophy with which the programs were written in. What's wrong with that?
By calling it Linux and not GNU/Linux the community shows a lack of respect. And respect is the currency of our profession.
However the FSF can not make anyone follow the GPL, only the copyright holder.
If the copyright holders consider the behaviour acceptable and not in violation of their license, there is no issue, they just permit it and don't chase down the 'violator'.
There have been cases of 'weak' linking where the author said he considers that derivative work and it has been argued.
In this case with the kernel I believe that some of the relevant copyright holders have said the attached binary modules are not derivative works.
The real Stallman factor ("S")is how big a flamefestany mention of him stirs up.
I'd say that S is still pretty high around here...
I'd like to counter your argument by saying that GNU would likely never have achieved its name recognition and open-source success without the presence of Linux kernel. I highly doubt that the GNU/FSF folks had everything done and perfected before the Linux kernel was released, just waiting for any kernel to be dropped into place and absorbed into their perfect operating system. GLIBC and GCC have undergone significant development since the Linux kernel was released. It would be more accurate to say that GNU/FSF had developed a rough framework to support an operating system, but not a complete work that lacked only a kernel.
People would say that the GNU/FSF's kernel, GNU/Hurd, is being developed, but look where it is. Advanced architecture aside, it's been more than 10 years in development and still isn't ready for prime-time use. The Linux kernel has the stability and the developer base to bring any GNU/FSF project into widespread use and open-source acceptance, and it would be nice if RMS got off his high horse and realized why GNU/FSF software is well-known today.
The "bedrock on which the system rests" would probably be the hardware, which for most Linux platforms was developed and sold by a for-profit company. How would RMS feel about his group's software being used on non-free hardware, developed internally, with secret designs, and sold at a price? Given his stance on non-free software, it seems very hypocritical.
For other examples, why isn't RMS attacking IBM for attempting to sell their expensive mainframes with a proprietary, non-free operating system running multiple instances of Linux kernels using GNU tools? Shouldn't he be lambasting Ximian for selling a non-free software component, Ximian Connector, which was designed solely to work with an open-source application? Why isn't he beating down the doors of the hundreds and thousands of companies who develop Linux software internally and license it as company confidential or trade secret material? If RMS is really that voraciously opposed to non-free software, it would seem that he has far larger battles to fight than insisting on calling the operating system GNU/Linux.
Nobody's trying to take credit away from the GNU/FSF people. We all pretty much know who did what work. That information is freely available and usually included in the README/LICENSE files of the software components in question, and it isn't that hard to go look at http://www.gnu.org and find out.
Nobody's suggesting that Linux users uninstall every GNU/FSF software component in their distribution/system because they're tired of RMS. It's a pretty idiotic request to cripple a good, working operating system that way. Linux and the GNU tools have become symbiotic -- they have grown around each other, and work together quite well.
I think my main gripe with RMS has been that he presumes to speak for a lot of the rest of the FSF community. I do realize and rely on his work in the open-source area, but I don't believe he's portraying the GNU/FSF in a positive light. It's one thing to espouse ideological freedom and encourage others to use free, open source software components. It's another thing to presume that based on past contributions to the open source community, one has the freedom to push one's opinions, naming conventions, and beliefs on the rest of the community.
That's what I see happening here. RMS is so vehemently trying to attach his group's credit to an operating system that includes pieces of code from a wide variety of other sources. Everyone else in this thread has mentioned a lot of other critical non-GNU/FSF software components (try XFree86) so I won't give a big list.
Looie, if you're going to put your code where your mouth is, why not delete the Linux kernel, install the GNU/Hurd kernel and be done with it? It's clear that you'd prefer to use GNU/FSF code. Open-source is all about giving back to the community. Those who know how, do so; the rest just rant.
Linux, as our community sees it, is just a name. It's simple, catchy, and easy to remember. (It wasn't even Linus Torvalds' first choice for a kernel name, but it happened to stick and the rest is history.) Linux describes an operating system and helps define various distributions which contain a wealth of free software components that make a very useful, flexible, and powerful system.
Consider this: even though the original developers of BSD probably aren't involved in the various projects (Free/Net/OpenBSD) using the same name, the project maintainers decided to keep the "BSD" in their name. One assumes that it was out of respect for the good work done by the original developers. This respect, by the use of a name or title, has to be deserved, not demanded.
That's why I'm still not calling it GNU/Linux.
Super ninja monkeys will one day rule the world!
Sun Solaris will henceforth be referred to as AT call the whole thing after my name alone!" Now envision the mindset of a person who can look at these events and accuse the AT&T Project of egotism. It takes strong prejudice to misjudge so drastically.
Thank you very much. You may now continue with your regularly scheduled flame war.
Edith Keeler Must Die
I gave him several reasons why I intend to stick to "Linux" when discussing the system with my readers -- I guess these must be his "silly excuses".
I don't think he would be able to say what my "excuses" were, though, because I get the strong impression that he doesn't listen as hard to you as he'd like you to listen to him.
He goes on: In my case he's wrong here too. I was not just "friendly": I've spent much of my 20 years as an IT journalist rooting for free software and GNU. He hasn't lost that much -- shall continue to root. But the friendship side of things sure took a knocking.
--
el bid
If I have a mac with Office on it, does that make it Microsoft/MacOS?
Also, yes, Linux gets play from having GNU tools available, but so does GNU. How many people have downloaded and installed the Hurd? How many people would be exposed to GNU tools without Linux? gcc probably, but gcc isn't under direct FSF control anymore anyway. It was stagnating so much that they forked it into egcs, then egcs became the mainline branch.
I don't think that he's concerned about this crowd anymore. He's concerned with the public at large that sees IBM commercials during basketball games (you know, the ones where they have a couple of basketball teams where the players all bear names related to the computing world) which mention linux, asking "why does he play for free", with an answer of "because he loves the game." Seeing the commercial, one only equates free with not having to pay money - there's no evocation of the other (and ostensibly more important) connotation of free that Stallman advocates. Had it been called GNU/Linux, perhaps the other connotation would have been more evident - I have my doubts. But that is Stallman's thinking here - throwing the GNU in front may actually expose more people to the idea of freedom in software than would otherwise normally encounter it. At least perhaps it would cause them to wonder about the GNU part and in finding out about it, they would eventually run into the freedom concept.
For myself I doubt that most people would put the freedom concept above the doesn't cost money concept, or that they would even look beyond the doesn't cost money concept - but if you can get to even a few more of those that would value the freedom concept if exposed to it, then it is probably worthwhile.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Promoting "GNU/Linux" -> promotes the GNU project -> promptes Free Software.
As you see, promoting the GNU project is not the aim of RMS and the FSF. Their aim is to promote Free Software. And they are not just promoting Free Software with speech: they are acting to propose a solution (the GNU project) composed of Free Software, to free people from proprietary software.
If you don't care about Free Software ideals, just ignore it instead of combatting it.
Olivier Mengué.
There is no way that RMS could to have written all the code the GNU project maintains. I don't care how smart he is believed to be. If you believe that he's just trying to get his name attached to the popularity that linux has then you are wrong, he wants everyone who has contributed to the project to get credit.
That said, I think that his real goal with making a big stink over this whole deal is that he wants to make sure that people know about free software, and not let free software die. He believes that the usage of non-free software impares free software, and to a certain degree he is right.
Was Turbo C available for any system other than DOS back in 1991? I think not.
stallman says that he is NOT using m$ style force, because he just simply made an ultimatum (albeit a rather strong one) that stated that if the name was not changed, the greatest advocate of the thing he wants it changed to is not going to speak.
however, barr has a point. i don't think he is saying that stallman IS using m$ style force, but this is the impression that mailing list participants get. as much as ideology and religion is important, you have to do a little PR on the side too. the point is, people DO want stallman to speak because he is a famous guy and has created an enormous force in the community of which many of us are a part.
you cannot go around telling people that they have to submit to your will in order for them to use your services. the people on the mailing list want the speech, so using his fame as leverage for such immediate and sudden action is rather strange. sure, RMS has a point to make, and he IS making it. but you have to have a little give and take in terms of naming conventions.
he himself said that it would be ok if barr called linux "linux" instead of calling gnu/linux "gnu/linux". all that was important was understanding. i think a mailing list that wants RMS to speak understands...
QED
BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
One solution is to set up another repository for the Linux sources, using CVS or another free version control system, and arranging to load new versions into it automatically. This could use Bitkeeper to access the latest revisions, then install the new revisions into CVS. That update process could run automatically and frequently.
The FSF cannot do this, because we cannot install Bitkeeper on our machines. We have no non-free systems or applications on them now, and our principles say we must keep it that way. (emphasis added)
So Richard - which is it? Do your principles endow you with more or less freedom? You say the FSF CAN'T install Bitkeeper because it is non-free. Yet people who disagree with you use all the free software that the FSF uses, and in addition they can and do use proprietary software if they so choose.
It seems like Richard has painted himself into a corner, and has LESS freedom than someone who is not laboring under the principles he endorses. But I suppose RMS will counter that a man who is a slave to his ideals, is not really a slave at all.
I suppose my disagreement is, like Richard's beef, over just one word: can't vs. won't.
Edith Keeler Must Die
hehe, since va linux became va software, there seems to be a sh*tload of FUD comming on this place. lets have a new fight instead of ms vs open/free source/software lets have something cooler.. lets start fighting each other. Who of you started this crap? (so i can bithcslap you) This is not the way linux should go.. or was the insight of 'unity, sharing, freedom, fairplay, whatever even in software' just one of my regular hallucinations. ... maybe rms isn't as smart as i was hoping, was it really nessecairy to go in te counterattack?
people with semi-compatible argumants should compromise, not get in fights, you get in a fight with those that deny you to have an opinion. and wtf
I'm talking about the coders that work at the banks, the insurance companies, the manufacturing industries, and so on and so forth. We GROSSLY outnumber you in the code-for-sale "industry".
This is true. But the overwhelming majority of these coders use proprietary, code-for-sale building blocks, not free software. Very little "engineering" actually happens. Most coders just hack together pre-made components, in any way that will work. This often takes more effort, and certainly doesn't work as well as a truly engineered solution, but it's all most coders know how to do. So I wouldn't use the doctor/lawyer analogy.
And I wouldn't use the plumber analogy either- pieces of pipe are generic. They're available anywhere from a variety of sources, and all made to a standard, so the pieces are all compatible. And within reason, all plumbers can fix all pipes.
The used car salesman analogy might actually be most accurate- find a good deal on a repo'ed F250 pickup truck with a sketchy history, roll back the odometer, and do a quick detailing job. Mount some fancy wheels, a tow package, and a blade on the front, and unload it on some unsuspecting rube with the promise of riches from plowing parking lots and pulling stumps. Implement your "service" model by selling him a worthless warranty. Now you've got him! Having aready spent the money and afraid to void his warranty, you can charge him over $100 an hour to fix the stuff that (conveniently) isn't covered, while paying dumb laborers $6 an hour to actually do the work.
And that, my friend, is the business software industry in a nutshell.
> Some day, the problem that your horded code
> addresses will be solved in a freely released
> manner, the Art will advance, and your horded
> code (and by implication, you) will have been
> rendered irrelevant.
-----> Patents.....
When the idea is patented, forgot it. Bye bye freedom.
From the GPL:
I'm not familiar with the particular drivers RMS refers to, but it sounds reasonable to me that a binary string may fit the definition of "source" for programming firmware. Assembly might be preferable, but only if you have an assembler designed for the firmware. Is the GNU project going to provide that?
I'd want more information before I started condemning Linux programmers for this kind of thing.
RMS complains about credit and wants Linux dists to be called GNU/Linux, well this disrespects the guys that actually thought it all up. ATT and the
UNIX guys.
A Linux distribution is an implementation of a "GNU system", but a GNU system is an implementation of UNIX.
So the proper credited names should be:
UNIX/Linux and UNIX/Hurd.
Of course RMS/GNU's intention was to disrepect UNIX. And of course my intention is to disrespect GNU/RMS.
There is no proof that a GNU model works better than a BSD model. Only the rantings of RMS.
St iGNUcius Picture and it is priceless.... cheers
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Not on a server. You know, all those HTTP and Samba servers out there?
Oh, right -- those GNU/Linux/Apache and GNU/Linux/Samba servers. The argument still works, even if you take out X.
Yes, thank you, you saved me the trouble of making that point myself. Somebody with moderator points please mod this parent up so it will be seen.
-Rob
So much for freedom.
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
You haven't been paying attention in free
software history class.
Debian was originally an FSF project. Since so much of the software running under Linux was written by the GNU project, it seems natural that Ian Murdock went to them for support when starting Debian. Keep in mind, however, that Debian had disagreements with the FSF from early on, and eventually broke all official ties with them.
As the Social Contract and DFSG were written, Debian was forced to apologize later for having non-free. Paragraph Five is really an
apology by the project to appease the harder free software stance that the project had begun to take.
I will repeat what another person just wrote:
How many of us would enjoy seeing our efforts appropriated by others without due credit being given, and particularly without our beliefs - central to our reasons for developing the software in the first place - being given proper consideration?
without which "Linux" would not exist, and BSD would be crippled.
What about my freedom to call something anything I like...?
I suppose you'd be free ("Freedom of Speech" and all) to call an Apple by the name "Orange", but that won't help others understand what you're talking about. Recall the confusion which resulted when the previous "presidential administration" unilaterally redefined the term "sex" to exclude fellatio.
The man's point is that the FSF's OS is much more properly named "GNU" or "GNU/Linux", that "Linux" really properly refers only to the Kernel, and that the FSF deserves at least as much recognition in the deal as does Mr. Torvalds. "Everybody" may know this, but newbies and the laiety (especially the PRESS) tend to gloss over this important matter.
Exceeding the recommended torque is not recommended.
Couldn't they change their name to "Society Interested in Gnu/LINUX", and use the natural abbreviation "SIGLINUX"?
Stallman makes much noise about freedom, but he always seems to forget what the term implies. Freedom isn't just about a name or getting public credit for your work. If the former was valid, we'd all consider China, Congo and North Korea democracies simply because their leaders slapped the word "democratic" on the official country names. Likewise, the latter would make someone like Richard Gere eminently more important than almost all activists - simply because his efforts are more recognized in the media.
Freedom is greater than any one person or title, but Stallman doesn't seem to recognize that. Read that article closely; he effectively argues that if you don't do what he says and give him credit at all times, you're surrendering your freedom. It sounds remarkably like the "if you don't agree to everything we say, the terrorists win" rhetoric from the US government - or a Microsoft-like FUD approach.
Yes, care should be taken to avoid dependence on commercial software for the development of Linux (and I don't feel the need to use "GNU/" part, Mr. Stallman, I'm old enough to know something without it being explicitly stated). However, there's a big difference between voicing your opinion and - from what I've seen of Stallman here and in the past - trying to exert influence on people against their wishes. If everyone's favourite GNU creator is truly interested in getting the message out rather than boosting his self-esteem, why doesn't he speak to groups like SIGLINUX and persuade the users independently of the group operators?
Wouldn't dangling a poisonous spider over a flame cause it to climb up and bite you? Kinda undermines that "generous genius" attribution, no?
If Montgomery-Smith marries Johnson-Laird, then things go down hill pretty fast if they want to hyphenate.
Well, X windows fonts solved the hyphenation problem already!! Montgomery-Smith married to Johnson-Laird will become:
-*-Smith-*-Laird- or
-Montgomery-*-Laird- or
-Montgomery-*-Johnson- or
-*-Smith-Johnson-*-
Who would have thought the ingenuity of that ugly font naming in X could apply to real life!
the best tyrants in the world were known to have great sense's of humor and general charisma. I guess I can come kick your ass and rape your daughter as long as I can crack a joke. Fucking sheep... GROW A BRAIN
Emphasis mine...
Just consider: the GNU Project starts developing an operating system, and years later Linus Torvalds adds one important piece. The GNU Project says, "Please give our project equal mention," but Linus says, "Don't give them a share of the credit; call the whole thing after my name alone!" Now envision the mindset of a person who can look at these events and accuse the GNU Project of egotism. It takes strong prejudice to misjudge so drastically.
Couldn't agree more.
The FSF wrote a much bigger part of the OS we think of as "Linux", yet they're willing to share its name. Linus wrote a much smaller part, yet he isn't.
The Tlog - a technology blog
The compiler is GNU, yes, but a lot of the utilities found in BSD systems *is* BSD software, not GNU...
And to think, the FSF had already said as much previously:m l
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/bsd.ht
Looks like someone needs to go back and review their own pages.
--It burns! --It's loaded with wasabi.
this entire thread seems to be just about the gnu/linux thing and egos. what about rms's points about bitkeeper? can we talk about that? i, for one, know very little.
i know that the bitkeeper people have been very helpful and accomidating. i know they've talked about releasing their code in the future. But, the fact that it is not open does seem like a risk.
also, the bitkeeper messages needed to get modded up to 3 because that is my threshold.
thanks.
If this is your measure, then Microsoft is your answer.
There is a nice article on the GNU site entitled, "Why Software Should Not Have Owners". Isn't Stallman, by insisting that Linux be called GNU/Linux, trying to claim ownership? If software should not have owners, why does Stallman care what it's called? As long as Linux is GPL'd and his propaganda is spread throughout the land, his insistence that it be called GNU/Linux seems a bit disingenuous to me.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-f
Free software is a very noble idea. Any time you give of your self and your resources to others, you are doing a good thing. (with obvious exceptions like giving crack to kids or a knife to a murderer) However, Stallman is a very troubled and confused individual that confuses the issue with draconian desires and showboating that will only hurt the underlying cause.
So to YOU my friend, I ask... if someone comes and beats on you and then you defend yourself, would you not think it is silly if another person came and ridiculed you? *Smart* is not the right word here. Stallman, like Gore is actually rather smart. however it is a lack of logic, reason and ethics that cause the problems here. That means that anyone can step up to the plate and help out this and many other causes. This crap about an 'intellectual elite' is not going to help anyone or anything. What we all need is an ethical, stable, consistent and rational person who believes in education instead of brute force manipulation.
RMS wrote: "Just consider: the GNU Project starts developing an operating system, and years later Linus Torvalds adds one important piece. The GNU Project says, 'Please give our project equal mention,' but Linus says, 'Don't give them a share of the credit; call the whole thing after my name alone!'"
Maybe I'm wrong about this and if I am please correct me, but isn't that "one important piece" the kernel?! Don't play down the significance of this, RMS. It seems to me that you could take the source of the GNU tools, use any compiler for the kernel that you have, and make a system that functions more or less the same. The kernel is a critical underlying piece and it's what makes Linux Linux. It could be a BSD. It could be a SysV distro. GNU gave a lot of the core functionality on top of the kernel, and props to them and especially for gcc, but the kernel makes the OS what it is. The binaries that sit on top of it are just that.
If there were different sets of binaries, so let's say that the system worked of a lot of BSD binaries instead of GNU binaries, then I could see the need for the distinction GNU/Linux vs. BSD/Linux. But there aren't.
Again, mad props to the GNU project because nobody in the OSS community will deny them a $hitload of credit, but it could still be Linux without the GNU binaries. And I don't want to start including the name of every project that contributes a large amount of binaries to my system. "Yes, on my desktop I'm using XFree86/KDE/Ximian/GNU/Linux."
http://starboard.flowtheory.net/
As if that stopped Linus when to compile Linux, you needed Minix on another partition of your hard drive. Besides, I was giving Turbo C as a concrete example and not neccesarily the best one. Before GCC, BSD was being compiled on various hardware. My point is that Linus chose the tool that was the most convenient at the time but it does not make the tool irreplacable (or more important than the achievement done by the tool).
I miss the Karma Whores.
I actually agree with you. Mostly with regards to the when we can. Even though I feel a moral obligation to share, if I can't, I can't and I don't call that hypocrisy. Or at least, not in the pejorative way most use the term. Hypocrisy is only bad when you don't believe in what you say you should do at all. Just not doing it for practical reasons isn't so bad.
:)
This is another way in which a moral obligation is not the same as a legal obligation.
The enemies of Democracy are
It is a sad day when you have to explain such trivial issues to the Linux crowd, for we start doing this we ought to re-examin whether we should cater to the mainstream. We were so so much better without the push for "world domination" since it is no longer desirable. Hey people! I truely hope that MS Windows becomes more technically superior to Linux so that all of you newcomers can mover right back to what you post in this boad you consider as the "right tools for the job". Freedom matter a great deal, it matter far more than technical superiority. It this not obvious in so many other things in life?
Thanks.
he has no more right to the software he wrote than does any tom, dick or harry that comes across it on the net or on a cd. The _only_ way this would not be the case is in a situation where Stallman does not live up to those ideals he claims to hold dear and forces on others. Therein lies the root of the problem.
whatever... shutup Stallman.
...do you guys have to read texts like the one below to understand why Richard Stallman wants you to call it GNU/Linux?
-----
"The point isn't that the GNU tools are a major part of a standard Linux distribution.
In the early 1990s, the GNU project had everything you needed for a baseline operating system. Compiler, assembler, linker, C library, shell. Everything except a kernel. Linus took those tools and added the final piece, the kernel. Linus didn't need X-Windows or Perl. Apache didn't exist. Linus needed a compiler, a linker, an assembler, a C library, and a shell. He used the GNU project's tools. Linux is built upon a foundation of GNU tools.
That's why the Stallman can claim the GNU project has a valid claim to share the Linux title. Why bother? Politics. Stallman is pushing a political and ethical agenda. Free Software or nothing. Part of his job is to spread the word, and getting the GNU name used is a great way to do it. Every user who says "What's the GNU thing in front of Linux?" is an opportunity to spread the word.
That said, I'm not sure I agree that it should be called GNU/Linux. It seems a bit pushy to me. But don't make the mistake that he wants it called GNU/Linux just because the GNU tools are part of the typical package. He wants it added to help spread the Free Software word. His claim is that the GNU tools where the foundation."
-- Alan De Smet, 2001-08-19
Neither freedom nor microsoft (as some dragged MS unnecessarily by comparing RMS with MS) has anything to do with calling it Linux or GNU/Linux.
I don't understand how by calling it "Linux" directly gives credit (exclusive credit) to Linus! Next thing RMS will start complaining about will be to stop calling anything that appears on the GUI as "Windows" and start calling them FreeWindows or GNU/Windows.
With all due respect to the GNU software that I use, I really think Linux has become a generic name. All the fuss about it and equating it to 'freedom' really makes RMS and his folks look like jokers.
I WILL call the Linux as "Linux" because thats what it is!
Most folks seem to agree with the basic premise that without the GNU toolset, there would be no Linux
This is NOT the point.
The thing I finally realized reading this article by RMS is that he's not just talking about a compiler (or toolset), but rather the whole GNU system,- and that's NOT just a bunch of software, but also the politics behind it, best described by the GPL!
Without the GNU compiler, Linux could have still existed, there _are_ other compilers/editors out there. BUT, without the GPL license it would not be what it has become. And THAT is what's important, and why GNU deserves, or rather NEEDS credit.
I feel that RMS is not so much personally pissy about not getting credit, but rather wants more emphasis on the 'political' background that was instrumental in creating this piece of software. Torvalds did not write Linux alone, and without the GPL a lot of folks would not have contributed. It's important that people realize that.
I strongly believe that it's not a matter that GNU DESERVES credit, but rather NEEDS the credit, in order for people to understand the significance of Free Software. Or more, how that's what enabled the creation of such a piece of software.
Think of this: M$ would think twice before ripping out a large portion of Linux to include it into one of their closed source projects. Is this because Torvalds is such a dangerous guy, or because of the strength of the GPL?
The whole Linux vs. GNU/Linux aside...
It seems that if RMS wants converts to his ideology, limiting himself to groups that follow the GNU/Linux line is preaching to the choir: those not toeing his line are the ones who need speaking to _most_.
I suppose that it is part of RMS's goal to try to slip in plugs for GNU, but his response seems more like a glorified flame war...
Not creating the software license and movement that made it all possible.
I agree that I'm not sure that Linus was ever so vehemently for Linux as a name (he preferred "freax", as the story goes, I believe). I don't think it's an ego thing on behalf of either party.
However, Linux couldn't have made it this far without the GPL and tools like GCC and GDB. Imagine instead of just using GCC Linus insisted that every kernel developer go and buy Intel's ICC compiler (I don't know how much it costs, but I assume in the $1000s), just because it had some neat extension he wanted to use.
Forcing developers to use non-free software like bitkeeper is counter-productive, because whether you like it or not, there are some very intelligent coders who will be put off hacking the kernel source because they have to use non-free software to do so.
I don't blame Linus for not starting the Free Software Movement himself, he's much younger that Stallman, but I don't think in a million years he would have done what Stallman did to make the Linux kernel project possible.
As an aside I have never had personal dealings with either RMS or Linus, nor do I have any special dislike of Linus, I just think if free software got the project so far, why ditch it now?
Regards
James
I always thought that "linux" was Finnish for "Gnu"! Words in another language aren't necessarily close to the English equivalent.
On the same note I thought that "OpenBSD" was a synonym for "Gnu". At least I'm pretty sure that "OpenBSD" is a synonym for "Linux" because they are mostly the same. Only the kernel really seems to be different - all the tools that I use are the same... such as "vi" and "less" and "more" and of course the old workhorse "gcc" which is used to create _everything_.
Calling this variant of the GNU system "Linux" plays into the hands of people who choose their software based only on technical advantage, not caring whether it respects their freedom.
I can assure you, the vast majority of Free Software/Open Source (or whatever you want to call it) will be evaluated and deployed based on its technical merits and value.
Give RMS what he wants -- ideology over technical merit -- and you cede the Internet and the entire software market to Microsoft.
Personally, I use Mac OS X, a BSD OS with a nice GUI and none of the ideological crap.
The ambiguity in 'free' that English affords is a problem, no doubt. But other languages have it worse. Translating anything FSF-related into Polish I have a major ambiguity issue: the Polish equivalent of 'free' also has two senses. One is 'libre', free as in speech. The other is slow, as in molasses. Try getting your PHB to deploy this cheap but powerful "Slow software"
"Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
If this is your measure, then BSD is your answer.
I understand Stallman's point. His organization put an uncountable number of man hours into producing reliable widely used and useful tools, utilities, applications and more. They deserve credit where credit is due.
Linus and the kernel developers contributed similar amounts of efforts and did a far, far better job at marketing. A talent which is very deserving of credit on its own.
So GNU/Linux would be appropriate. So would Linux/GNU with equal validity. However, check out the software packages on a LiGNUx distributed and just discover how many packages and applications were created by people other than the GNU Foundation or Linux Kernel developers. They deserve the same credit as well.
Oh wait? Did you get all these applications and build them yourself? no, (probably not) The people at Suse, RedHat, Slackware, YellowDog and many, many others made equally important contributions to the system you are running. Do they get much mention? Not really. Only when asking questions about troubleshooting when you say: Oh its a Suse 7.3 distribution.
So shouldn't it be: Linux/GNU/John-Doe/RedHat/Suse/YellowDog?
Oops, left out all the commercial vendors that have supported this effort. HP for instance seems to be contributing quite a bit in the printing area.
Linux/GNU/John-Doe/Redhat/Suse/YellowDog/HP/COMPAQ . .
You know... Its just plain silly to do this.
Stallman is on an Ego trip. He deserves to be. So does Linus. The difference is Stallman expects his ego to be paid and is completely uncompromising in not only his beliefs but also in his attempt at converting others.
As he said "I don't mind if [you] call it linux because you know what its all about.". Well This is the way everyone should be treated in our community. If somebody knows what their talking about then it doesn't matter what they call it. If they don't know then its their personal failing, Not Stallman's or Linus' or anybody else. They don't deserve to be punished, reprimanded or flogged for getting it wrong. The fact that they chose your product/system over others should be enough to welcome them.
If you're in this for credit you're in the wrong place. If you're in this to make a positive difference you are going to have to be diplomatic and self sacraficing most of the time.
People don't compromise with uncompromising people.
Richard has the right idea: Free Software. But if he's going to charge an Ego fee for the use of his products its not really "Free" is it? Not in terms of beer at least. If he wants everything named GNU then the GPL should enforce this. Otherwise, let it go.
I will never live for sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
...towards projects that don't happen to be his pet-projects. I mean, he seems to be hostile towards Linux (and Linus). It seems to me that he's annoyed by the fact that Linux came along and stole the thunder that was reserved for his pet-project: HURD. Well, Stallman and FSF has no-one but themselves to blame. They have been working on HURD for as long as I can remember, and it's still unfinished!
Another example is KDE. There used to be genuine reason for him to be annoyed, but those reasons have been corrected. KDE is GPL-compliant. Yet he seems to be rather hostile towards KDE. His biased towards Gnome (the official GNU Desktop) is rather obvious.
It seems to me that he's negative towards software-projects that compete with official GNU-projects (Linux vs. HURD, KDE vs. Gnome). One would think that RMS would be happy when GPL-software gets more popular, but his ego seems to get in the way. He wants HIS projects to succeed, not some other projects. And if he can't beat that other project, he then insists that The Mark of GNU must be placed on that project (Linux is beating HURD, so he insists that Linux gets named GNU/Linux). I bet if KDE started to show sings of killing Gnome, RMS would insist that KDE get's renamed to GDE (GNU Desktop Environment) or something similar.
As to the naming of Linux... I will keep on calling it "Linux", thank you very much. If I need to separate the kernel from the OS, I will talk about "The Linux Kernel". Nothing in the GPL suggests that it must be named after the GNU-project. I might have started to call it GNU/Linux, but RMS's foaming-at-the-mouth attitude has turned me away from his suggestions.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
What's this GNU thing that everyone is clammoring to get attention to? See, I've been living on Mars in a cave with my fingers in my ears and my eyes closed. The point I'm trying to make is that there are a vast number of computer users who don't even know what Linux (the operating system) is, let alone the different cultures behind the free software movement. In this respect, RMS is preaching to the converted. It's pretty obvious that everyone here is well aware of the contributions of the GNU Foundation. The majority of the discussion is about how to give due credit. The other side of the fence however, things get a little muddier. How do you preach about freedom when most people don't know they're in shackles? What most people define as freedom boils down to the right to vote. When Congress (or any legislative body) passes a bill that flies in the face of freedom, people more or less accept it so long it doesn't overtly change their daily routine. Or if a company hires an army of lawyers or accountants to throw up a smoke screen while executives plunder the company vaults, people chalk it up to deplorable yet typical of corporate greed. As the line between citizen and consumer gets blurrier, these abuses will only get more blatant and the responses even more passive (so long as they keep offering "value added services"). This is the arena that a man like Richard Stallman should be playing to. IMHO, if he is genuinely concerned with liberating users of computer software and the world at large, his message would be better served freeing those who don't know they are confined. Within the free software community at large, at least people are free enough to choose their level of freedom. Linus chose best tool for the job. RMS chose freedom about all else. But what's truly important is that the choice was theirs to make. So maybe people are right. The right to vote is freedom. Just make sure you have all the options available to you before you do.
"Watch your cornhole, bud."
I can't see why the Linux kernel is not using CVS.
Technically, could someone point out the reasons?
Mozilla is far larger I believe than the Linux kernel, has a vast array of CVS hookups readily available for coordinating even the most complex relationships with developers.
Has Linus ever stated exactly the technical details of why cvs is not used? I know Linux many times uses and does things according to his preference, with debatable excuses for using a particular algorithm or code for one thing, or a particular piece of software for development.
Exactly what preferences did he use personally to apply the use of Bitkeeper over CVS?
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
I call it Linux. RMS and everybody else, deal with it, and I'll tell you why: on a daily basis when I use my computer, running Mandrake 8.2, I am constantly running tools that are either directly from FSF or are based on the GPL, which is itself developed by the FSF. I am aware of the source, and my own thought runs on the line that this development is enveloped within the Linux name.
Further, my own opinion is this: Linux can't really run without the GNU tools. RMS will agree here, but this is implied. You install the kernel, be it by commercial versions or downloading tarballs from one of the many sites out there, it's gonna install with - get this - GNU tools.
But that's just my thoughts. -Dennis Carr
This sig no verb.
ROFL RMS must be a troll and /. has fallen for it!(700+ comments) He can't be serious (or else he is severly disturbed and needs some thorazine)!
I mean look a the guy.
Really, I am cracking up at work....
BTW does RMS have a /. user account or does he post AC....hmmmm
Does anybody else find it funny that Stallman appears to be taking the exact same mindset that produced the original BSD license. The desire for recognition of the project resulted in the BSD advertising clause which the FSF had a major issue with. Now the FSF seems to be heading towards implementing their own version. Might we find the GPL 3.x containing a clause akin to ...use of this software in derivitive projects is permitted provided that the term GNU/ precede the name of any resulting work...."? I guess I don't see the reasoning why the GNU desire for recognition is any more valid than the BSD effort.
Maybe a few more projects should adopt a similar stance so even Stallman sees the lunacy of talking about his GNU/X/Perl/../../HURD system?
The Revolution. Now available as a convienent six tape series from PBS.
Probably the worst thing you can say about RMS is that he doesn't choose his battles wisely. Insisting that Linux be called GNU/Linux is like insisting that Kleenex's be called facial tissues and Ketchup be called catsup -- I'm sorry, but common usage trumps his arguments of ultimate origin, despite the fact that his arguments are essentially correct. Look, Watt didn't event the steam engine either, but what's more important: progagating the use of the excellent tools developed by GNU and others to the benefit of all computer users, or taking credit for these tools? Richard, I admire you for sticking to principles, but your talents and energies COULD be better utilized. (And no, you don't "owe" anybody a speech, and you are free to choose whatever standards you want for accepting or rejecting invitations.) Agree or disagree with him, you've gotta admit the world is a better place for having RMS around. Let's try to be more tolerant and inclusive here, rather than divisive, ok?
One problem I see with the 'linux' movement is that it leaves a lot of the free software ideals in the dust in order to further their own monetary needs. This battle will probably rage for as long as there is free software, people trying to make it more free balenced by those who wish to exploit it. I think that RMS is trying to keep the software as free as possible. Promoting GNU/Linux is just a way for him to try and keep the GNU name in public view, (mindshare) which is very important. Linux got popular very slowly and now normal people are finally getting exposed to it.
And most people can't tell the difference between the OS, the kernel, the GUI and the Mouse. When more people talk about 'the internet' they are actually talking about netscape navigator or Internet Explorer (Problem with IE, is that the name implies that it can actually explore the entire internet). By encouraging people to call it GNU/Linux instead of linux he promotes the ideals of the FSF which most people have no clue about.
Most people think that if something is cheap, then it has no value, so the Free Software Foundation must be worthless. People that know about it, know that to be false, but it's hardwired into people that price determines worth.
fuck off, you cock-sucking free software zealot.
..has written more usable, quality code than probably the entirely of Slashdot.
For that, I respect him.
But, I'm afraid I won't listen to him further. Attacks against Linus? For the love of Bob, man. Perhaps Linux wouldn't be so far along without Stallman and GNU, but where would they be? When was the last time you saw something about the HURD in the news?
There's a reason why Stallman is widely regarded as a frothing lunatic, and why Torvalds is widely regarded as the second coming. It's because Linus simply doesn't care about the politics. Oh, he'll viciously debate technical points, but you don't see him running around on a one-man crusade to get everyone in the world using Linux. Linus is alive within the Tao, where Stallman has fallen from grace and entered the world of muckraking and fillibustering.
Stallman would have us all use *only* GPL'd programs, just as a certain Mr. Gates would have us use *only* programs from a certain company.
"You must use free programs." scares me even more than "You must use proprietary software." Why? Because most of the contributers to Linux and Open Source software have day jobs. Would they be programming if everything was free? Can a copy of the GPL feed a family?
And face it - there's just too many places where closed souce makes absolute sense. Say id released the source to Quake 3 the day it was out. What'd happen? We'd see tons of good, quality mods, perhaps, but we'd see so many crappy Q3 clones that it wouldn't be funny. The userbase would be fragmented, and it'd be darned hard to get a good game going, because everyone's playing on their own little version.
whining to an entirely different level.
Setting his threshold to 5, Sparky eliminated most of the trolls on /.
You are a toad and a petty little man. People call it Linux because that's easier to say than gee-ehn-yoo-slash-linux. The fact that you would write an article about this petty bickering over nomenclature shines a light upon the truth of how overly important you think you are to the world in contrast to how unimportant you really are.
Go back to your butterflies and your myopic lop-sided views. Linux will grow without you and your kind... souring the air with your hippy stinch ruining the experience for the rest of us.
McJ
RMS seems happy with any name other then Linux, and if Linux is used they must use GNU with it.
This seems obserd.
Say I have a Tree, but its mainly made of wood. Under the same logic I should call it:
Wood/Tree
or maybe:
Wood/Leafs/Roots/Atoms/Cells/...../Tree =/
I dont think any linux user (bar maybe the _realy_ new ones) dont apreciate that their OS would be useless if all the GNU stuff was taken out.
yeah, I know, you've got a point. I may have misworded my view/feelings a bit. I guess to me RMS just seems inable to relax about the issue, that raises some concern with me. I mean here's someone who has strong views on a concept as important as freedom yet he gets all uptight about a little thing like a name. There's something about that which doesn't seem right to me.
I had an email discussion once with a guy who had gotten emails from RMS personally asking him to add gnu to Linux, and it wasn't like it was someone in RMS' inner circle either, just a guy that happened to get in contact with RMS for some reason or other.
I know no-one is going to go to jail for leaving gnu out of Linux but I'm not so sure about what kind of things RMS would (ab)use to get his way if he could.
The truth, on the other hand, is that existing copyright and patent laws create an exceptionally non-free market.
The GPL serves a very important purpose. It creates an alternate, voluntary market for software developers. You can join this market and use software from it, and all you have to do is forfeit the abuse of restrictive intellectual property laws while you're using the market.
There is no logical inconsistency. The GPL exists to repair the mistakes of legislation: the primary mistake being that ideas - thoughts - should receive enough artificial protection to make them as scarce and difficult-to-modify as physical goods.
WRONG. You are playing with words to make your argument. Imagine a law which says, "When asked to do so by a grocery store clerk, all customers will refrain from discussing the groceries with any other customer." Then imagine that one special grocery store offers to never use the law. Their sole condition is that the customers, when they one day open their own grocery stores, will make the same offer to their customers.
According to your logic, the original grocery store would be restricting freedom by making this offer.
If you offer to provide someone with freedoms that the law took away, on the sole condition that the freedoms be passed on indefinitely, you are not taking away freedoms.
There is a fundamental fallacy in Stallman's thinking which rests in his conceptualization of software freedom as an extension of free speech. One of the difficulties is that Stallman conceptualizes information in such a way that privacy is nonexistent, because it is ethically wrong for me to place limits on how people use the information I give them. As a researcher, I regularly contract away my freedom to do whatever I want with information in order to ethically protect the people who give me that information. Before I do an interview I give my research participants a piece of paper that says I will keep their data confidential, I will only publish aggregate abstracts of the information they give me without revealing personal names or even information that might be used to identify them, (for example, chief supervisor at Magic Corp.) Not only do I place restrictions on how I can use information, but I also promise that if a participant ever wants to quit the study, I will destroy all of their information. From a GNU perspective making these compromises that are essential to respecting the privacy of my participants and clients is unreasonable.
The freedoms that Stallman declares to be an absolute right are not absolute, they are negotiated between people who provide information and the people who use information. Stallman's insistence on his narrow interpretation of those rights ignores the fact that content and software producers have a right to exclusively profit for and get credit from their work for a limited duration of time. It is interesting that Stallman insists on branding gnu software, while insisting on a intellectual property model which makes such a branding very difficult. Open sourcing software like public domain is an optional service, one that should be encouraged just as we encourage software to be bundled with documentation, but not an absolute right.
In addition, Stallman's perspective makes sense from a programmer's point of view. What Stallman wants is the ability to crack open the source code for any bit of software, modify it, make "improvements" to it, and redistribute those improvements under his own copyright. However, from an end users point of view the freedom to "use" software in order to make money and to be productive is more important than the ability to see under the hood. Technical merit is not just a convenience for end-users, it is a requirement. For example, since I have got repetitive stress injury, my ability to use a computer depends on a commercial speech recognition software that runs under Microsoft Windows. The claim that support of open source requires an open source only desktop would mean doing nothing (except perhaps for tearing tickets at the local movie theater) until an open source speech recognition tool matures (ViaVoice uses a proprietary speech engine). In addition advancing speech recognition as an application is an area that is probably unsuited to open source because it is built on basic research that costs money. Carnegie-Melon's Sphinx is heavily subsidized by the Department of Defense, which is itself ethically problematic for many of us. The groups producing commercial speech recognition software have a right (or rather the freedom) to shrink wrap their product in order to protect their competitive advantage. Another application area where open source is lacking is in non-BibTex bibliography database software. Yest another area where open source not only is lacking in terms of technical merit, but in sheer technical availability is in qualitative research tools for document analysis. As far as I can tell there is only one open source project in this area.
Granted, I don't buy the claim that consumers have no rights at all in regards to software or content other than the rights granted by information providers. But Linus's challenge that if you object to the fact that I am using proprietary software, the me a better application applies. If I did wait for the open source community to develop high-quality speech recognition applications, bibliography database software, and document analysis software, my unemployment would probably run out. Is it better for me to be ethically clean and produce nothing (assuming that I agree with the notion that proprietary software is ethically tainted) or is it better to use open source software where I can, use closed source software where no equivalent exists or is practical, and produce open content of my own?
At any rate I am tempted to apply a GNG liscence to the projects I'm working on (GNG is not Gnu) primarily because I find the claim that referencing closed source, and seeking interoperability with closed source applications is ethically problematic to be itself an ethically problematic statement.
That's what RMS really wants.
I had the chance and privilege to watch one of RMS talks in 2001, and I must confess it was very inspiring and brilliant. Just as Linus stated in his book, I honestly believe that Stallman diserves a monument in his honour for creating the GPL and the whole concept behind Free Software. However, sometimes I feel that his fanaticism takes control over him, stopping him from doing what is really important because of some MINOR issue: the Linux vs. GNU/Linux one. I really believe that the word RMS should incorporate, at least a bit, is "relaxation". Relax man! Dont take things to seriously! In this matter, my opinion is closer to Linus's.
Surely your average BSD system has plenty of free content in it's core - and it's the same kind of tools and utilities. When I do ls on my BSD box, isn't it compiled from the same source? Why doesn't RMS go after the BSD teams and try to get them to call it GNU/*BSD ? Maybe the "90% FSF" figure for your average distro is not really correct ....
You monkey your wrenches around these wretches the best you can.
The problem with all the computer programmer types posting on this web page is that they're too logical to see the sociological side to this issue. RMS's arguments, carried out to their logical conclusion, may say that BitKeeper is Okay if it advances the cause, or that my box should be called GNU/Linux/Xfree86/Gnome/RedHat....
But, as thinking human beings, we must put down our silly little computer-like logic and get to the practical aspects of the issue... and that might mean technical superiority or political maneuvering.
> What hobbyist can put 3-man years into
> programming, finding all bugs, documenting his
> product and distribute for free?
---------------
> It turns out that the Internet makes that thing
> possible. A math whiz at MIT, a graduate
> student in Finland, a couple hundred thousand
> computer hobbyists all over the world can do
> this.
Yes. But what about the people who need to make a living?
What about the software developer who is as smart as you, but who is not rich and does not live on his parents' money?
Why destroy opportunity for this guy?
So he won't give a speech for a non gnu/linux group because of their name, but he'll do an editorial for linuxworld.com. Perhaps he should have asked them to change their domainname to gnulinux.com :)
But software development is a collaborative process, so you're always stuck working in the social realm, and political issues will always be an issue.
Disagree with Stallman's ideals or tactics all you want, but "politics doesn't matter" is just not the right answer.
Sometimes you need to think about problems that can't be solved just by looking up the answer in Knuth.
Stallman is a hippocrit
First he releases the GNU utilities for people to use these under the terms of the GPL.
Linus writes Linux kernel and uses GNU utilities, under the terms of the GPL.
Stallman says, "Your OS is using the GNU utilities, I want you to call it GNU/Linux"....
That doesn't sound very Free to me. AFK, the Linux distros have met the requirements of the GPL, yet Stallman want more.
If Linus had taken the GNU tools, added his own kernel (lets call it Linus-ix), and package the two of them together to call it "Linux", then absolutely it should be called "Linux". But that's not what happened.
To use your first example, if Dodge had built a car using Mitsubishi parts and a GM engine, what would it be called? A "Dodge", or perhaps a "Mitsubish/GM hybrid"?
If Red Hat had built an operating system using GNU parts and a Linux engine, what would it be called? A "Red Hat", or perhaps a "GNU/Linux hybrid"?
No one is professing that "Red Hat" be renamed to "GNU/Red Hat", or that "Debian" be renamed to "GNU/Debian". Why? Because Red Hat is an entire operating system, just as Dodge as in entire car in your first example. Linux is not an entire operating system, though, just as a GM engine is not an entire car.
Your other "analogies" are even worse, so I won't bother discussing them.
This is what burns me about Stallman. He thinks that the name Linux is about giving credit to Linus, and GNU/Linux is about giving credit to GNU.
The name Linux is a brand, not a credit
And part of the issue is that Linux actually has brand equity, whereas GNU really has none or very little. RMS is trying to piggyback GNU on Linux's brand equity, plain and simple.
Obviously RMS has quite a bit of experience as an engineer, but is mighty niave when it comes to marketing. The name "GNU" is indication of his lack of marketing experience. Ever explained what GNU is? "GNU stands for GNU's Not Unix. Get it? Its a recursive acronym. Clever huh?" Any time you have to explain an acronym, you're in trouble.
Then RMS is trying to essentially weaken the Linux brand... which is a mistake. It doesn't matter what it is called as long as it is an established and positive brand. It could have been named after a empty vessel (think Xerox, Kleenex, Viagra) as it happened it is based on Linus's name.
I also don't think it is cool that RMS only proposed changing the name *after* Linux as a brand became valuable. I don't remember hearing these arguments til probably 1998 or so, well after the brand was established.
-k
I often wonder about Stallman's real beef with Linux when it is not called Gnu/Linux. I know people are going to mod this as flamebait, troll, or whatever, but it is the truth:
BSD contains the same number of official GNU tools that Linux does, as do many proprietary Unices. So, what separates Linux is its adoption of the GPL for the EULA of the kernel itself. So I think that Stallman is being a little unfair to insist that people call it GNU-Linux (next will we call it GNU-BSD, GNU-Solaris, etc?).
The other point is that GNU has semi-officially adopted the Linux kernel (seemingly as a temporary solution while developing HURD) as much as things went the other way.
I really like to hear Stallman's thoughts on the philosophy of the GPL--I think that they are sound. Too bad he had to open his mouth and damage his credibility this way...
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Look people, it comes down to this: the GPL doesn't have any requirements concerning the naming of your applications, if you include GNU works.
Apparently, Stallman doesn't like the idea that I am free to take his freely-given-away software and freely fucking call it whatever I want. This reminds me of my mother-in-law, who, as a flaming liberal, kept pressuring me to get more involved with politics. "Its your duty to vote!" and other naggings, all the time. Fine, I finally started checking around to the different parties, their platforms, what they say, what they actually do, and what are the real effects of their policies at the federal, state, and local levels. Guess what: I decided to register as a Republican, and maintain my Libertarian viewpoint on most issues. Well, that didn't please her at all! We cannot now have a political discussion, even though I did my homework and made my conscientious choice, because I simply don't agree with her Leftist leanings. Hypocrit!
Same with RMS: software should be free, but people should not be free to speak of it as they wish.
in front of you, much like he is today, with his
GNU utilities in most Unix distributions and with
his GPL leading the whole revolution.
Without gcc, gdb, and libraries Linus would be nobody.
The work that Linus started is based on Stallman's
work. And now that the money whores like esr have
appeared on the landscape, it will not be long when one
day it will be announced that a *major* non-free fork has
occured, and if you don't like it so be it!
Oh, things of this sort are happening every day with the
distros and for the last few years have been crowling into the Linux kernel. If this
is the "pragmatic world", then I DON'T LIKE IT AT ALL.
The wake-up call was meant to wake you up so doomsday never arrives. Wake up! or please move back to MS Windows.
He has valid points, but like many elitists, he can't see the forest for the trees. He's marginalizing himself to fringe groups, assuring his message will not be heard by those who need to hear it.
Basically RMS will not speak to LUGs. But he speaks at all manner of other places, where for the most part ordinary LUG members don't go to hear him. That way basically no one hears his message except the choir.
The problem is then compounded by the observation that he eventually only speaks to the fringe that will comply with his demands.
He thinks he's educating people. He's kidding himself. If he was really interested in spreading his message, he'd make a point to speak to the groups who've refused to change their names in response to his e-mails.
who cares about GNU crap any more, the world moves on, most developers now used MS tools
+5 insightful
Look at his values... he calls children "frivolous things to blow money on". When people become so obsessed with their own "freedom" they become so selfish and arrogant, they are part of the problem, not the solution. The most generous and unselfish people I know pour their lives into other people's lives, including into their children, which are everyone's future.
Stallman can keep his software, it will not come spend time with him when he is old and feeble and is relegated to a nursing home. Then he perhaps will reconsider how he spent his life and his time and last of all his money.
From the article mentioned...
LinuxWorld Today: So you have your basic needs taken care of.
Richard Stallman: Well, they are now. But when I started the GNU project I couldn't be assured of that. I wasn't rich and I didn't know how I was going to make a living. But fortunately, I live cheaply. I've resisted acquiring the expensive habits that some other people pick up as soon as they get enough money to. You know, like houses and cars and children and boats and planes. Art collecting. People tend to think, "I have money now, let me look for some frivolous thing to blow it on." But my idea was, "I'm going to save this so that in the future I won't have any worries about it." Living cheaply helps doing that. It also enabled me to decide what I was going to do with my life instead of having money decide for me.
So the proper credited names should be:
UNIX/Linux and UNIX/Hurd.
...
There is no proof that a GNU model works better than a BSD model. Only the rantings of RMS.
Right on.
I can't believe Stallman said:
The use of Bitkeeper for the Linux sources has a grave effect on the free software community, because anyone who wants to closely track patches to Linux can only do it by installing that non-free program. There must be dozens or even hundreds of kernel hackers who have done this. Most of them are gradually convincing themselves that it is ok to use non-free software, in order to avoid a sense of cognitive dissonance about the presence of Bitkeeper on their machines. What can be done about this?
One solution is to set up another repository for the Linux sources, using CVS or another free version control system, and arranging to load new versions into it automatically. This could use Bitkeeper to access the latest revisions, then install the new revisions into CVS. That update process could run automatically and frequently.
The FSF cannot do this, because we cannot install Bitkeeper on our machines. We have no non-free systems or applications on them now, and our principles say we must keep it that way. Operating this repository would have to be done by someone else who is willing to have Bitkeeper on his machine, unless someone can find or make a way to do it using free software.
"gradually convincing themselves that it is ok to use non-free software, in order to avoid a sense of cognitive dissonance..."
?!!!
"we cannot install Bitkeeper on our machines. We have no non-free systems or applications on them now, and our principles say we must keep it that way."
?!!!
What a fucking nutcase!
Ohhh software without source code is so evil that Stalman can't even install any on a single machine?
The man has issues (and volumes and subscriptions).
God, the man needs to get laid or take a pill or something.
Rocky J. Squirrel
I think the real irony is that you've just given the DRM fascists enough ammunition against open-source software to undo about a man-year of well-reasoned legal arguments. I can see it now: "gdb is a hacking tool, pure and simple, so specialized that a mere three commands to it are sufficient to undo the best copy-protection that an industry giant like Intel has to offer."
Way to go, hax0r boy.
Mr. Stallman lives on a planet where non-free software is predominant. But, in this light, isn't it a bit strange that he hasn't yet commited suicide to avoid futher compromising his ideological position?
Of course not! If Mr. The Sane was not around, who would be left to make retaliatory ad hominem attacks about minor ideologial transgressions against aspiring Free Software authors who do not go out of their way to make sure that the GNU project gets the credit that (RMS feels) it deserves?
Hey, Stallman!: Linus Torvalds does not produce a GNU/Linux distribution. What would you have him do? a) Rename his kernel? b) Jump up and down and wave his arms at distribution producers? c) Quack like a duck?
If the credit is due to you, isn't the handwaving your job? Why should Torvalds do it for you? You imply that he has usurped your credit; however, he names no distributions... Does he steal your credit simply be existing? Or write software? Or hold a different ideological position? How dare he do those things!
I apologize in advance for any rantishness apparent in the following. I've tried my best to avoid that; I support Free Software proper, but I'm not sure if I support Stallman's methods.
Most seem to agree... Referring to a GNU/Linux OS without the "GNU" is not the same thing as crediting Torvalds for its production. Indeed, these two matters are unrelated. If some are misled to believe that the Linux kernel is its primary component of a distribution, simply because "Linux" appears in its name, that is their failing, not the distribution namer's, and certainly not Mr. Torvalds'.
It's just a name, dammit! What difference does it make what the name is? "To make that name appear justified, they must see molehills as mountains and mountains as molehills." This quote from you is especially appropriate, as it as much to the name to which you refer, as to your quest to seek renaming.
My $0.02 theory:
Okay, you refuse to give speeches for organizations that do not call GNU/Linux distributions by names that you feel are appropriate. And if this naming issue was really about credit assigned to the GNU project, then your position would most definitely be retributive. But, as you say, it isn't, because it's not about credit at all.
What is it about? It's about you doing whatever is in your power to ensure that messages endorsing free software are maximized, and messages endorsing non-free software are minimized. You want free advertising, plain and simple. You may feel that your ideological vision could spread over enough time without you having to pull a Daffy Duck, but that's irrelevant, because it would take longer. You're not afraid of borrowing big non-free-software's strategy and starting a public endoctrination campaign about software licensing on the back of revenues from successful products. So, you will attempt to hitch a ride on the popularity of GNU-containing OSes. Never mind that distribution creators have already followed (and promoted) your license; never mind that at best you remained indifferent to their efforts, and at worst you were actively kicking and screaming and dragging your heels over ideological differences; their distributions contain your software, so they must owe you [insert something more here] (e.g. primary credit), and you can use that to shoehorn them into changing their names to promote your vision. But why, then, does the Linux community laugh at you when you try to fly your flag on the masts of their ships? [Why? I don't know... He's on third base, and I don't give a darn!]
Oops. I've gone and done it. I said "Linux community". Now, I was talking about the community of Linux kernel users, of course. And since there are no Non-GNU Linux OSes, that must mean that all the OSes I'm talking about are GNU-based OSes. So, I'm sure you're offended. I apologize. However, as there are Non-Linux GNU systems, it is obvious that I'm not talking about all GNU systems. This is the origin of the naming convention; it necessarily and sufficiently identifies a set of something without adding qualifications that are needed to define the set. That is all. Don't take it personally.
If you ask me, the fact that it goes without saying -- that all Linux-based OS distributions contain GNU software -- is worth far more to the GNU project than any free advertising could be. The ideals of Free Software stand on their own merits. You need to lighten up, maybe, but you don't need to stack the deck in your favour. The ideological zealotry has scared away enough folks; don't lets start with the marketing...
Why doesen't someone take the the BSD userland and make it work under the linux kernel. Would RMS still be able to rant about GNU/Linux?
Right, he's not Natalie Portman, but a true primadonna much the same. Perusal of his stodgy reply, which I bothered to read, shows it to be just a geekily framed whine, because nobody loves him. A quick look at his home page will also show Exhibit B: Mr. RMS does write about every single political issue on the planet. What for? Who cares what does he believe? Where did he get his purported guruness, which in any case would be only limited to geekspace, not to the full space-time continuum. I am not politically correct, and so to sum it all up, throw him to the lions, so that they also can have some fun....
Thufir Hawat
Part-time Mentat
In resonse to everyone here:
I was not talking about the GPL. I have no argument with it. It is what it is. I use quite a lot of GPL software, and quite a lot of BSD software, and very little proprietary software.
Yes, I am very much against trivial software patents, ridiculous copy-protection requirements, etc...
But I simply don't understand a philosophy that says I don't have freedom if I use software without source, or that it is somehow morally wrong to release a binary without giving out the source.
That is what RMS seems to be saying. If he is not saying this, then I see no logical inconsistency.
My freedom or liberty gives me the ability to choose whether I use proprietary or "free" software. This freedom or liberty also gives me the choice whether to release source with my software, or just distribute as a binary. This freedom doesn't allow me the right to prevent others from talking about my software, or to prevent others from writing similar software, etc... I force no one, I expect no one to force me.
If RMS agrees with this, then I wish he would spend more energy on the issues of improper government control, rather than the whole "source code is a precondition for freedom" thing.
Idiot. Some of us don't care about the 'karma' system. Maybe you think of posting good posts as 'whoring' - but you're nothing more than a stupid troll yourself.
"Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
I cannot help but be amazed at how reserved Richard's responses are to all the crap he gets.
There are usually entries calling him eogtistical and such, if that were true, you would think that
his responses would justify the label, but they don't.
Would'nt it be great if we could just focus on promoting the GNU project and freesoftware and
leave all the personalities out of it.
forgivness is easier to get than permission
Without Linus's kernel, the "Gnu system" would be completely irrelevant today.
... at the time, FreeBSD was the first free operating system I found, and while there were a lot of GNU tools in use on Sun and other BSD systems, Linux was relatively unknown. The legal issues forced myself and others to look further, and Linus' kernel was the only other offering at the time.
That simply isn't true. Indeed, your next sentence admits as much
The BSDs would still have gotten out of the legal wrangling with AT&T before the HURD was done, and FreeBSD would have taken the mindshare that Linux got.
Which would have been fine. The reason I ended up using GNU/Linux instead of BSD was because of that legal wrangling
However, had BSD won the mindshare the GNU/Linux has, it wouldn't have hurt the FSF at all. As others have noted, much of the GNU stuff is being used in the BSD world today because it is good software. Contrary to popular myth, BSD and the FSF/GPL are not all that adversarial. Their disagreement is more one of strategy not philosophy. Indeed, the FSF specifically endorsed using the BSD license with the ogg-vorbis stuff, specifically because it was a more strategic license for getting the standard more widely adopted in embedded systems.
And, unlike Linus' recent comments on the LKML saying in effect "take any references to the FSF out of the FAQ, none of our documentation should point people to the FSF at all", the BSD folks seem happy to coexist with the FSF and even mention them on occasion, despite having no affiliation. In other words, the FSF would be just as big a player had BSD won the majority of the mindshare as it is with Linux having won it, only to have some of its leadership actively trying to steer people away from the FSF and the message they are trying to convey.
I must admit I lost most of my respect for Linus when he made that comment. He claims not to want to be political, but then he takes very political stances on questions like that, actively steering people away from the one organization to which he owes his fame and much of his career. Being anti-FSF is as political a stance to take as being pro-FSF, and deliberately trying to silence the voice of those who have contributed 90% of what makes Linux a UNIX-like operating system is not only profoundly political, it is indefensibly political against the very people to whome the community owes so much.
It is ironic that, as someone who has been using GNU/Linux since the 0.48x days (and who was as unfuriated as the rest with RMS's lignux nonsense) that I have come full circle to understand and respect RMS's point of view, and that now the behavior of Linus and some others, whome I've held in high regard for over a decade, is such that they have become in some respects as offensive to me as RMS once was.
I will continue to use the operating system, and to contribute in my way, because I believe in free software and have profited greatly from it, but while I am quite critical of RMS, I am utterly disillusioned with Linus' rather hypocritical stances on these issues and the profoundly arrogant ingratitude he seems to be displaying of late.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
RMS claims that the FSF has not proprietary software on their systems. I can't believe that is true. Are they using an open source BIOS? Do their disk drives have open source firmware? For that matter, why stop at free software? FSF should insist on using free hardware.
(since I don't feel like creating an account just to reply to this one post, I didn't :P )
.1% SysV, and 1% GOLD, and the rest is other stuff I hacked together from other sources.
:P)
:)
Hmm....I use a ton of different packages from a ton of different sources, so should my system be called XFree/BSD/SysV/GNU/GOLD(my project)/vmware/linux? Or maybe it should be called just GNU/Linux, because they of course contributed the following packages... compiler, half the libc( other half is bsd on my system), linker/assembler, bash(exists ONLY for make menuconfig for kernel), mkdir, chmod, and a couple others. Basically, there's about 10% GNU utils, 5% BSD, 20% X,
Basically, RMS, GIVE IT A REST FOR GOD'S SAKE (funny saying that, since I don't even believe in god!
Just another rant by an anti-RMS, anti-GNU zealot
Justin Hibbits
Oh, and just to piss him off....go to http://gold-project.org (when it gets up...till then, go to http://sourceforge.net/projects/gingnu (the old name...) )
:)
hawk
Jason Goemaat
jasong@netins.net
None of those GNU clones would exist without someone to author and design the originals...
Why the heck would it be? You're confused. GNU's Not Unix. Linux Is Not UniX.
BSD is Unix.
That help?
BSD did exist before GNU/Linux, but it was not Free back then.
Quite little actually. Remember, BSD wasn't Free in the beginning. Had it been, a lot of stuff would never have been written, almost certainly including Linux itself. People don't rewrite an entire production quality OS from the ground up just for kicks.
You just gave yourself away, troll.
Maybe it should be BSD/Linux?=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.