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.
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
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!
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?
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?
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.
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."
--
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
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.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. - George Bernard Shaw
RMS is an unreasonable man. And he is working diligently for progress, whether you believe in his politics or not.
But then, Shaw was a socialist, so...uhhh, no...I won't go there.
You totally misunderstand Stallman. He is *not* about accepting more people, concepts or things. He is about securing Freedom. He will not acccept people, concepts or things that jeopardize freedom.
In his opinion, allowing non-Free code into a (now suspect) Free kernel puts in serious jeopardy the freedoms that he holds dear.
It seems to me that if I'm not free to use whatever software I choose, I am not free.
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.
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.
X is not part of the operating system.
You can choose not to install X and still have a useful, working system.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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.
Having made significant contributions to an endeavor != ownership of that endeavor. The term 'GNU/Linux' is a brand name. That RMS seeks ideological cachet, rather than market share does not absolve him of the charge of being pernicious and off the mark. He is neither pope nor prophet here.
The prop cools the pilot: turn it off and watch 'em sweat.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
To all the genius-level deep thinkers who are dissing RMS: put your code where your mouths are. Get every bit of GNU software off your systems. Then see what your "linux" system is worth.
I use BSD mainly. Should it be called 'GNU/BSD' if I like to use Emacs? What do I do when I use gcc in favor of cc? Do I have to call it something different when I use Berkely make, then rename it when I use gmake?
NOBODY is disputing RMS's contribution to the cause. What is being disputed is his sense of entitlement and his attempts to brand Linux under the strictures of his definition and his definition only.
The prop cools the pilot: turn it off and watch 'em sweat.
I think of developers in the same terms as doctors and lawyers: the "source" is available as anyone can read medical or law books and you can even practice medicine or law on yourself.
The reason that doctors and lawyers are successful from an economic perspective is because they are a restricted club when it comes to performing their work for others.
Once again, I am forced to conclude that an organization like the AMA or ABA with state licensing for professional developers would benefit developers.
Whether or not it would benefit society is still up in the air. It would add professional liability for bad software (perhaps a good thing) but it would also raise the cost of software for society.
And what about all the non-GNU system in Linux? Like XFree for example. I wouldn't consider Linux useful without XFree. But that doesn't mean I don't have to call the OS GNU/XConsortium/Linux does it?
Linux is just a name. What a fuss on a name...
Greetings,
Project Manager of Crystal Space (http://www.crystalspace3d.org). Support CS at http://tinyurl.com/cb3x4
X is not part of the operating system.
You can choose not to install X and still have a useful, working system.
Absolutely right.
Not only that, but for a long time the BSD license wasn't compatible with the GPL, so no BSD code entered the GNU project, or Linux kernel, for quite some time. That changed in later years and, IIRC, some of the excellent BSD networking code subsequently made its way into the Linux kernel. The vast majority of the Linux kernel was, however, written from scratch and not taken from any project. All of the GNU utilities were originally written from scratch, though now that the BSD license is compatible with the GPL some BSD code may have made it into other GNU projects as well.
The GNU software, including all of the file utilities, bin utilities, compilers, assemblers, etc., ie. about 90% of what makes a basic UNIX operating systems (the kernel being the other 10%), we have because of the GNU project and, frankly, because of (here, much maligned) Richard Stallman. All he is asking is that we respect and recognize that contribution by typing an additional 4 letters when we talk about the entire operating system (GNU/Linux) and say one extra syllable.
Are we such ungrateful wretches that we can't even be bothered to honor as simple a request as that?
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
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.
the operating system I conveniently call "Linux"
Convenience is precisely my objection to the name "GNU/Linux". It's a mouthfull and does not roll off the toungue.
If it had originally been known as GNU/Linux, I bet it would have been shortened by now to just Linux.
That being said, I think it is important that Stallman be acknowledged for his contributions. Tovald has gotten a huge amount of credit for his part. He undoubtedly gets even more attention because "Linux" sounds so much like his name. Outside observers will easily remember "Linus created Linux". When it comes to invention, we usually prefer to acknowledge the person who is there for the Eureka moment and not all the people whose shoulders lifted them to that moment. "Linux" would not be anything it is today without Stallman.
How about "Stallman Linux"?
Oh you poor martyr. That mean ol' Linus took software that says 'Take this software and use it as you wish, but if you do you have to include this license and credit file' and then used it and included the license and credit file, but now you want him to acknowledge the fact that he did this every time he opens his mouth. And it probably burns you up that it is too late for you and RMS to take your ball and go home.
Actually, maybe you have a point. Perhaps since the GNU tools are rewrites of the non-free tools that were the only available software at the time, one can make the RMS-style logical leap that if it wasn't for these tools, there would not have been anything to be re-written. So in fact, the GNU folks owe a great debt to non-free software because if the software was free then there would have been no need to start the GNU project. In fact, the whole GNU project owes it's very exsitence to non-free software, and it is about time that non-free software got it's share of recognition in the development of Linux. So from this point forward it is declared that Linux should be refered to as MIT/LLNL-Pastel/AT&T/DEC/Berkeley/GNU/Linux.
He's not shoving anything down anyones throat. You don't need to listen to him or read any articles by him or even use softwre written by him or the FSF, if you don't want to.
Due credit is due credit. GNU source makes up 90% of the code on a GNU/Linux system. It's only fair.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
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.
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
That's not enough for his insatiable ego?
Maybe that should be your clue that it's not about ego.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
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.
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 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.
"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.
> 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?
Not quite. If a concession like this is made,
people should hear about it and discuss it,
which is what is happening right now. In this
regard, choosing a hopelessly inpossible goal
like having everyone use "GNU/Linux" is a
brilliant idea because it will always generate
controversy and discussion; but will never be
truly resolved. I think that RMS thrives in
this kind of environment.
> 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.
No, his goals are just different than yours.
He also comes from a family of activists. He
has a very clear world-view: free software is
good, non-free software is evil. Why would he
make a concession to evil? I'm sure that
Jesus message isn't that you should sacrifice
the ten commandments if people are attacking
Christianity.
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.
Wonderful response. I have followed the free software world for 4 years now, admiring the work of RMS. It disappoints me the utter lack of historical perspective the people here have.
Even a relative outsider to this community--like me--can see that without RMS, there is no Free Software community, no Linux, no GPL, etc. RMS is currently doing the one thing that is most difficult for people to do: stand up for a moral belief. History is replete with examples of people losing their freedoms because they do not stand for something/anything and examples of people dying to protect the freedoms ot others (like RMS).
A hundred years from now, no one will give a damn about the Slashdot posters and programmers who toil mindlessly for a paycheck. History will remember Richard Stallman. Why? Because he is one man, before his time who revolutionized computing. RMS is living his message.
No matter if the proprietary powers like MS win out against the FSF, RMS and this struggle to protect freedom will be remembered. Instead of complaining in your silly game of all take and no give, why don't you loud mouth critics go do something with your lives worth remembering?
By calling it Linux and not GNU/Linux the community shows a lack of respect. And respect is the currency of our profession.
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.
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.
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...
I think the main differences between the BSDs and Linux is that the BSDs come with their own tools and offer GNU tools as replacements as the administrator needs them. (For example BSD make supposedly does not cut the mustard for a lot of software's build scripts...) Whereas all serious Linux systems use the GNU tools by default.
My personal opinion is that RMS is nuts. With the crusade he's on, I'm amazed that newer versions of the GPL don't include a clause that say something to the effect of "Any derivitives or bundled software included with this product must be prefixed by the recursive acronym GNU."
My main gripe about RMS is that he's bitching to the wrong crowd about this. I think most people can agree that when they're talking about the entire Linux operating system, they merely say "Linux." I think most can also agree that replacing every instance of this with GNU/Linux is a mouthful. How often do you read a usenet post where the poster says "Microsoft Windows 98" or "Sun Microsystems Solaris" instead of simply "Windows" or "Solaris"?
The people RMS should be bitching to is the Linux distribution creators themselves. The ones who brand and market Linux for fun and/or profit. Especially since RMS stated in the article that his goal is not to educate those already involved with Linux (who already know that the GNU tools form a large part of the complete operating system), but those who don't know much, or anything, about Linux and the software that it is comprised of.
My perception on the whole dealie with the LUG(which may not be yours or anyone else's) is that RMS is saying "Pay homage to me or else."
The other thing I disagree strongly with:
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.
No, RMS, it takes strong bullheadedness to criticize so strongly the only reason your GNU tools are still alive today. (Not to mention putting words in people's mouths that they have never uttered.) And dear RMS, you also seem to have forgotton that Linus develops only the kernel and as such is free to call his kernel whatever the hell he wants. There is not even an ethical obligation to prefix the kernel itself with GNU. And here I thought that was only a mistake that newbies made...