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."
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
He is talking about Linux, the kernel component of GNU/Linux. When talking only about the kernel, the correct name IS Linux, because thats what the kernel is called. The entire OS is the Linux kernel + a bunch of low and high level apps.. many of which the GNU project created. Hence the argument that the OS should be called GNU/Linux instead of just Linux.
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?
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.
"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.
No, he's just a nutcase... really GNU/Linux?
I'm not defending his arguments. But they are hardly new, are they? Everyone knows that's what he thinks - so what's the fuss about?
You show your ignorance of the issue. It is *not* 'open source' in Stallman's mind. It is, and always has been, 'Free Software'.
...
You can have 'open source' software that is not Free.
As for 'something useful', one would presume that a set of standard utilities, a compiler and a text editor/IDE would do for a start.
Go away troll
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
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.
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!
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.
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..
Actually, there are a few people helping the original author with dietlibc and embedded utilities so that their system is not a GNU/Linux anymore. :-)
The only problem that stays is the compiler. Today, also the *BSDs use gcc. *sigh*
A monkey is doing the real work for me.
^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."
I hate RMS. That's "wrong" with me.
A monkey is doing the real work for me.
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.
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.
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 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..."
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"
Nope. The difference is that *BSD is a complete distribution - kernel, libraries, posix command line tools. [although gcc and GNU emacs are used]
Linux is a kernel only, and [GNU/]linux systems use GNU libc and GNU posix command line tools.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
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
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.
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
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.
And if it wasn't for Office for Mac the Mac would be dead; do you suggest OS X should be called Microsoft OS X because of this?
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
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
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.
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
Right on. I've some points about this in my earlier post.
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.
He was trying to get the hurd working - and he's still working on it.
He out-right lies in this one where he says that Linus insisted on calling it Linux, etc. Linus didn't even name the silly thing, the guy who ran the FTP site did!
He also seems to forget little things like X that make a modern desktop possible. His arguements are specious and silly - as is he most of the time.
Have you compiled your kernel today??
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
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.
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
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
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)
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.
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.
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
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.
> The S in BSD stands for SYSTEM.
That's the weirdest spelling of "Standard" I've ever seen. (Berkeley Standard Distribution.)
rant
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.
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"
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
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
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 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
gcc, gimp, and glibc already have the apropriate GNU prefix. You could always use xemacs or one of the other non-GNU emacs versions. There's nothing forcing you to use bash either.
What I really want to know is why RMS would want a GNU/ stuck to the fromt of Linux distributions that don't subscribe to or agree with his beliefs. Debian is GNU/Linux, and follows strict free software guidelines. All the commercial distributions use non-free software. Why does he want his group to be associated with these?
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.
Get every bit of GNU software off your systems. Then see what your "linux" system is worth. Sure, you can get by without gcc, gimp, gnome, ncurses, emacs, bash. But you can start by getting glibc off your systems. And after you delete it, reboot.
Ncurses doesn't use a GNU license. It uses an MIT style license.
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
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.
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
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
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?
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.
As was the Ingsoc party in 1984. He may have been socialist, but he certainly saw in many of his works how incredibly easy it is for socialism to be subverted.
And for that matter, Shaw was a pretty moderate socialist.
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
Well, somebody could port the BSD userland. Or you use dietlibc, zsh, fvwm, vim, etc.
On my OpenBSD system, the only GNU component I actively use is gcc. I hope this will change in the future.
A monkey is doing the real work for me.
So let me get this straight...
Because Orwell spoke out against Communism in Animal Farm he was infected with McCarthyism?
That's insane.
Not too mention that his GNU/Linux war has absolutely no effect on Freedom whatsoever except to associate it with annoying behavior by idealists.
That said, I think his analysis of BitKeeper is right on.
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
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.
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.
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
Oh well, so much for informed comment.
Lets go back to basics and define terms. Which, conveniently, Stallman (or someone at FSF) has done for us.
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
- The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
- The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
- The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
When Stallman is talking about Freedom, this is what he means.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?
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
I'm sorry, but shouldn't that be GNU/Crystal Space and GNU/CEL? :)
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!!!!
Not so moose breath. There are other alternatives, and there were back then.
It's CERTAINLY true that GCC was a big improvement over other options. But it wasn't the only choice.
Have you compiled your kernel today??
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
No, every version of Linux is considerd by RMS to really be the GNU system. Doesn't matter who creates it. Red Hat Linux is a version of GNU. SuSE is a version of GNU. And RMS gets credit for creating all of them -- or at least *wants* credit.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
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.
> That's the weirdest spelling of "Software" i've ever seen.
l does indeed say "Software" and they ought to know.
Bother. At least it's an old and common one.
My reference books are at home, so I just did a Google on "Berkeley Standard Distribution" to check my memory.
However http://coe.berkeley.edu/labnotes/history_unix.htm
rant
> 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.
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!
GNU source makes up 90% of the code on a GNU/Linux system. It's only fair.
90% of the software on my Windows box is not written by Microsoft, but do I call it ID / Blizzard / Sierra / EA / Microsoft Windows ?
You know the answer as well as I do, it's called Microsoft Windows after the name of the core component - Linux is called Linux and not GNU/Linux for the same reason.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
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
Because the more open source catches on, the less programmers will be paid.
Troll. I tell you what, why don't we go ahead and give out free software and have the government pay to keep unemployed programmers happy. Its called welfare, but this sad story won't happen. Know why?
Times change and people change with it. In the old days when the auto came about, most of the horse and buggy manufacturers and families moved into much more profitable areas. Likewise, programmers with their tremendous analytical skills will have no problems adapting their careers into more lucrative positions.
Let me repeat myself. Imagine two scenarios, one in which my OS and applications have ALL FOUR OF THE FREEDOMS YOU JUST DESCRIBED, except for a firmware module to load into hardware. The other in which NONE OF MY SOFTWARE HAS ANY OF THE FREEDOMS YOU DESCRIBE, because I won't be able to use the required firmware.
Scenario 1 has more Freedom than scenario 2.
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
That is a valid concern, but wouldn't it work both ways? For example, if I start running all open source apps under windows, later I can switch to Hurd with little impact on my convenience but great improvement on my freedom.
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
You're all wrong, it stands for SATAN! Berkeley Satan Distribution. Why do you think we have a little devil mascot?
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?
Read the post again. Many McCarthians point to Orwell's works to support their denouncement of socialism in all it's forms, and the parent merely pointed out that, since Orwell himself was a socialist, perhaps the McCarthians should rethink that tactic.
The idea that Orwell was McCarthian is a complete misreading of the parent post.
It's important to point out that Socialism and Communism are not the same. The differences are subtle, to be sure, and are further confused by the fact that Marx's work is entitled "The Communist Manifesto", and that so many Communist regimes claim it as their guiding ideology (which is a bald-faced lie, as anyone who has read the book should know).
Here's a basic summary:
Socialism is an economic theory, best summed up as "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". In other words, everybody works at what they are good at, and the products of that work are shared for the benefit of all. Economic theory does not exist alone, but rather is paired with a political (aka social) theory. This pairing is referred to as a socio-economic theory.
Communism is a socio-economic theory. It takes the economic theory of Socialism, and adds the Totalitarian/Authoritarian political structure, creating what we know today as Communism. This is not necessarily bad, as Benevolent Dictatorship is the most efficient form of government. It generally ends up being bad, however, because, as we all know, power corrupts. This is what Orwell warned against in his writings.
This is also what McCarthy was fighting against, at least in his own mind, and in that view his actions can be justified. He was a nutcase, of course, who became addicted to the political power his crusade brought him. His crusade became a witchhunt, and thus McCarthyism became the bad word we know today.
On the other side of the spectrum we have Marxism, which is the socio-economic theory Marx proposed in The Communist Manifesto. This pairs Socialism with with Anarchy. It is a workable system on a small scale, but has never been (and I don't believe it ever will be) implemented on a large scale. It requires, in order to work, that those in power (especially those responsible for the distribution of goods) give up that power willingly. I think we all know how often that happens, which is why every Marxist revolution in history has resulted in a Communist regime.
Lastly, of course, we have Socialist Democracy, which has proven quite viable in Europe, the Scandinavian countries especially, and is beginning to take over South America as well. Further confusing the issue, Socialist Democracy is often referred to simply as Socialism. This makes sense in a way, as Democracy is to politics as Socialism is to economics; that is, a system which seeks to ensure the equality of all participants.
Not knowing a great deal about Shaw's personal politics, and knowing only slightly more about Orwell's, I would guess that they both favored Socialist Democracy, although Shaw, perhaps, seems to lean a little more towards Marxism.
I hope that clears up your confusion. This should in no way be considered a replacement for a real Political Science course, which would also explain the differences between Democracy, Capitalism, and the Free Market (no, they are not the same).
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
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.
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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
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.
No, but you are also making the implicit assumption that everybody who quotes Orwell is McCarthian, which is what I object to.
I think you are making the same mistake you accuse your opponents of... i.e. one of stereotyping.
I speak out against Communism all the time, and yet hold many Socialist principles dear.
Oh, this is going to be fun...
To all the genius-level deep thinkers who are dissing BS: put your code where your mouths are. Get every bit of software written in C++ off your systems. Then see what your "linux" system is worth. Sure, you can get by without gcc, gimp, gnome, ncurses, emacs, bash. But you can start by getting glibc off your systems. And after you delete it, reboot.
Idiots. There is no "linux" without C++. Not only does C++ software provide the bedrock on which the system rests, C++ provides the intellectual framework on which rests the whole conception of an operating system. If it wasn't for Bjarne Stoustroup and C++, you wouldn't have "linux," period.
But don't worry. Nobody really expects any of you to actually DO anything in defense of software. It's clear enough that with you folks, it's all take and no give.
Mmmm.. Donuts
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.
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
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"?
Wouldn't dangling a poisonous spider over a flame cause it to climb up and bite you? Kinda undermines that "generous genius" attribution, no?
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-f
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.
It is quite possible to speak out against Communism without supporting McCarthy and Orwell is a prime example of that situation.
Which is exactly what the post said. Tthe assumption you claim was in fact never made, and therefore I suggest that you read it again, as you have obviously misunderstood it.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
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
How GNU/dare you suggest that GNU/programming be done for GNU/money!
Burn in GNU/hell!
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
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?
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.
****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".****
Oh come on here. Even if we assume that Nike has a computer for every single employee, and buys fresh copies of Windows and Office for every computer every single year, we're talking $200 a year/person. Would you feel warm and fuzzy towards Nike if they gave people a dime an hour raise? Factor in that they don't buy computers for their assembly line workers and they wouldn't have to buy new tools every year, and we're closer to 1/10 of a cent per hour. Good try, but no.
...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.
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.
[ dig dig dig ] :)
Oooh, I do have troll food with me. Lucky me!
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. Sure, you can get by without gcc, gimp, gnome, ncurses, emacs, bash. But you can start by getting glibc off your systems. And after you delete it, reboot.
I drive a Saturn. Actually it might be a GM/Saturn. I tried to just drive a plain Saturn, but a GM rep told me the engine in my car was built by GM, and that if I wanted to just drive (*chuckle*) a plain Saturn I should try taking the engine out and using it.
So then I coasted in a GM/Saturn. Actually maybe it's a Firestone/GM/Saturn. I tried to just coast in the plain GM/Saturn, but a Firestone rep told me that my car was actually a Firestone/GM/Saturn, and to prove it he took the wheels off my car and told me to take it for a drive.
I was in awe of their intellectual and moral high ground.
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.
Ooooh, you know me so well! I'm a leech. I scavenge for free stuff and claim it as my own. In fact, I wrote the above post just so I could respond to it and satisfy my multiple personalities.
I admire the FSF and the GNU project and RMS's foresight. I actually donate money to the FSF now and again. I just wish he (and some others) would get the bug out of their ass and let people call it what they will. I use "Linux". I happen to use GNU tools when I run "Linux". But it's just that: "Linux". In fact, I'm feeling childish enough that it bears repeating: Linux. Linux linux linux.
Cope.
-GNU/jdm
PS. Linux.
I don't agree with Stallman on many issues, but I find it sad that so many people consider him an insane fanatic simply because he refuses to compromise his principles. His stance is well known in the community and I fail to understand how he is in the wrong for not making an exception.
Further, no one has a fundamental right to have Stallman speak at their group. He can be asked, but he is entitled to decline with or without giving a reason. In this case, he agreed to speak with certain provisions. If the other party is unwilling or unable to meet those provisions, how is this Stallman's problem?
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.
"Freedom of Speech" means that the federal government cannot imprison you for speaking your mind. RMS is not trying to give the government this power.
RMS is trying to receive credit for the GNU project's contributions to the operating environment, which are considerable. He has a valid point, and a good message, but I think he is using the wrong means to spread it.
A man who wants nothing is invincible
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.
This troll makes a very good point.
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
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.
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
And Intel's compiler beat the living crap out of GNU's.
Yeah, but at least I can freely download and redistribute GCC. With Intel's C Compiler, one has to write a crack to get past the retarded copy protection, such as this one:
Note that the crack uses GDB (another free, superior, FSF product) to manipulate command execution to bypass the license file check. What delicious irony.
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...
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.
Ok, how can I moderate my own post down? It got an informative _after_ someone said that's wrong too and I agreed.
rant
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
:)
hawk
I can't disagree with the point you make, because I think you are mostly right.
My intent (partly) with the analogies is that people tend to call things whatever they want to, that is convenient for them. I don't think this is wrong, and I think it was OK for Linus to call Linux "Linux" and be done with it. Typically, people just don't care.
I also don't believe that the stink RMS makes about it is (entirely) ego driven. I think that Linux has, in a way, fulfilled the dream that Stallman had with GNU; kind of beat him to the punch with the HURD if you like.
Except, Linux isn't quite the vision that he had, but that doesn't really matter. What he wants is that people understand the role of GNU in the whole thing, as a way of divulging its ideology. Having a successful system was only his secondary objective. Well, in a way Linus hijacked that by simply being less of an idealist than Stallman.
So I have to say that it is Stallman's fault after all. He should have accepted the Linux kernel into the GNU project, and then mostly we would all be certain of GNU's role in bringing it about.
Afterall, Stallman doesn't really care that you or I say "GNU/Linux" or just "Linux." He knows that we know GNU's significance regardless of which way we prefer. He is more concerned with the advocacy of Linux. The GNU system was to be a means to an end. Somebody else picked it up and ran with it before he could properly finish it, and now he is seeing that end go down the drain.
Such things happen when you give away your ideas. In reality, I think we all got a little bit lucky. If Stallman were driving, I think Linux would be neither so popular nor advanced. His ideas are too much ahead of their time.
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.