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."
Why do so many people agree RMS' growing insanity?
He claims he wants the GNU project to "have it's due". Well, fine. The GPL requires this "due" to be part of every piece of GPL'd source--it's the license, it's right there, and it GIVES CREDIT to the GNU project and it's authors. No one has stripped the GPL headers off of GPL code--it's all right there, giving CREDIT WHERE IT IS DUE.
So why is RMS griping? Why the continual whine for "GNU/Linux"? What about other GPL-ed projects that use GNU code...why is he not crusading to have GNU/ appended to those? Is it only because Linux itself (the kernel) is a "big name" with "big prestige"? Please RMS, grow the hell up. Spend less time whining about "GNU/Linux" and more time working on HURD--then you can call it whatever the heck you want. Linux is NOT your project.
RMS is once again changing the rules on a whim. GPL'd code by NATURE provides the recognition to the original authors. It does NOT command people to prepend "GNU/" to everything. RMS is changing the rules, just like he did with TrollTech ("Ok folks...you've gone GPL, but now you must apologise..."). Why does RMS feel that people can't call their projects whatever they like? Last I checked, Linux is Linus Torvald's brainchild. He started the project, he wrote the code, and HE GETS TO NAME IT WHATEVER HE WANTS.
As for RMS browbeating a user's group...all I can say is "Bra-VO RMS...you really showed those amateurs, newbies and hobbyists a thing-or-two. How DARE they name their user's group without your permission?!" And that's my point. RMS goes out of his way to be an ass towards a group of people that are ostensibly FANS of his...they wanted him to speak. He responded with stupid dogma about the name of their user's group. Way to go RMS, way to win converts. Sheesh.
Speaking as someone who was there when the whole "Linux experience" started, I can categorically state that Linus made no such statement trying to lock GNU out of any credit for anything - the issue simply never came up as far as I remember.
At that time, anyone could download the GNU software and build it, port it, or whatever on their OS, and it was a logical choice to port GNU software to Linux. But GNU wasn't the only contributor to Linux - there were significant efforts to port BSD utilities and other software to Linux, as well as lots of folks writing software from scratch or porting it from other systems - I myself wrote a curses, cron, and at implementation from scratch and submitted them for inclusion in Linux. And that's not even mentioning Wine, XFree86, and a host of other systems, utilities, and applications that were either written for or ported to Linux.
For RMS to make such a statement that Linux is based primarily on GNU software is not only silly, but smacks of the highest level of egotism. It seems as if RMS is jealous of the popularity and publicity that Linux (and Linus) has gotten, and wants a part of that limelight. This is just as silly as insisting that every single project or OS that uses GNU software proclaim that fact. Why isn't RMS out shouting to the masses that anyone who uses GNU software is required to give GNU credit, instead of just ranting about Linux?
-- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
Why can't we be like mechanical engineers, or doctors, who don't go arround destroying their own trade?
As a mechanical engineer (graduate, not P.Eng) I think Open source will make programmers more like mechanical engineers and doctors.
Every bit of work I do is open, my calculations, notes, references, articles, papers, all of it.
You can read books, you can look at the same things, I spend a large amount of my time explaining what I did and how I did it to people, my boss, coworkers and customers.
People don't pay me for this calculation, they don't pay me for this academic paper, they generally don't even pay for a generic report I would make.
What they DO pay for is the answer to their question/problem. Like a doctor or lawyer you come bringing a problem, and we solve it for a fee.
It can be a legal document, a spoken explanation, an operation, a physical product, or just advice.
I know many programmers who just solve problems for people, they make good money (like any professional) and don't have to hide, so what if they write it in PHP and give it away, the person ended up with their problem solved, the programmer got paid.
As programming problems get more and more complex you'll get more programmers to do more customization and trouble shooting, making solutions for customers, rather then generic tools.
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
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!