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
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!
"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?
Stallman should have simply gone and given a speech on this very topic to the SIGLINUX people. Instead he turned down yet another opportunity to spread his own views.
I think he needs to learn that in some cases, you need to accept what is so that you can bring the change you want later.
The FSF does not AFAIK own any copyrights on the Linux kernel itself. Just because something is GPLed doesn't mean that RMS has Godlike powers to dictate terms over it. The FSF is protective of the GNU tools which they do own the copyrights on and they can indeed haul people into court over those. Making something GPL doesn't make it a part of the GNU project.
Most folks seem to agree with the basic premise that without the GNU toolset, there would be no Linux. But given that the HURD has been coming "real soon now" for around a decade or so, without Linux there would be no GNU system, either. Linux isn't about politics for the most part. It's about a technically superior OS that relies on being Free to help it be the best it can be. Free Software is both a technical and a political cause. Software is better when it's Free, but there are two separate reasons why it's better. Only one is the political side that the FSF stands squarely behind.
The people who package the Linux kernel with the GNU system and all the other tools and goodness to produce a distro are free to call it whatever they want. Some call it GNU/Linux, some call it Linux. Whatever. Some use only Free code in their distro, some use non-Free, and the marketplace of users can use whatever they want. Nowadays, of course, much of the code in a distro has no direct connection to GNU anyhow (Xfree86 and KDE aren't the GNU system, and that's where a ton of code lies). But that's besides the point, I guess.
Of course, all the BSD's use pretty much the whole GNU system as well, and you don't see him whining about calling them GNU/BSD. This is yet another reason why I think RMS is, deep down inside, just being pissy about Linus' kernel having become the kernel of choice instead of the masses' waiting for HURD.
If RMS and the FSF want to use the name so badly, build an "official" FSF GNU/Linux distro. Heck, save time - use Debian.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
--
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.
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..
"if he's so down on Linux, then why doesn't he get the FSF in gear and finish up the HURD"
Oh that's a good idea. Since we the community have all sold out to non-free software, why not just go the whole way and ignore it completely.
Go whining back to the FSF, and ask the people who write the entire GNU project to write another operating system for you, you ask? Why? Because you think linux should be non-idealogical, and you're not prepared to put in any work yourself to keep it free?
If "share and share alike" is the mantra of the free-software community, where does that leave people who take the gift of GNU and try to twist it into something proprietry for selling?
S.T.F.U. about hurd -- if you're going to use GNU tools, then share some of your own stuff by working to keep linux free. Otherwise you may as well go and use Novell or Microsoft software, and stop fooling yourself about how worthy your O/S is.
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.
Ie, the actual operating system!
Stallman's claims are that he doesn't get enough credit. How many people DON'T know of his involvement and what he did? There may be some small tribes in the Amazon, I suppose.
The next one is that the system should be called GNU/Linux because of all the work he did on, wait for it, programs that run on it. Well, woop-de-fuck. The programs in question were reverse-engineered from the Unix utilities that many of them share their names with. Should the writers and designers of the original utilities not get credit? Should we call the system "Unix/GNU/Luinx"? Get real.
Stallman claims that Linux is "The system is a variant of GNU, and the GNU Project is its principal developer,". Always lie big, or don't lie at all, eh? Linux is a varient of Unix and GNU is a supplier of application programs for it.
Linux is the kernel. Redhat is a distribution, GNU is a software house. How hard are these to understand?
The most hateful thing about RMS is that, when he's off the subject of his ego, he is right most of the time. Linus' dismissal of concerns about Bitkeeper is foolish and there is a broader issue at stake when non-free software is used. But these issues are clouded by RMS' ability to talk utter shite about giving GNU more credit when it is already a living legend!
The cause of free software would be greatly helped if Stallman would just fuck off. We need rational argument, not rabid ego-stroking.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Before I discovered the internet and the software libre there, computing was plain simply not interesting to me. I felt that software had become corporate, and that all software was only coming out of large corporations. It was a world of computing where indivual programmers could not make any kind of meaningful contribution. Computers were essentially fancy typewriters. This is the end result of a world using entirely proprietary software.
If RMS had not started the GNU project in the 1980s, that is how things may have stayed. It was getting on the interent, and seeing that there was a large corpus of software out there for which the source code was available which made computing interesting for me again.
I can tell you this much: Linux would not have been possible in 1991 if RMS had not laid the foundation for GNU/Linux in the 1980s. Maybe BSD would have taken Linux's place; however BSD may not have bothered fighting AT&T for the rights to their source code if RMS vision for software libre did not exist at that time.
Without RMS, Linux would be at least five years behind where it is now. Remember that before flaming him.
The change from libre software to proprietary software in the 1970s started slowly; when RMS sees Linux becoming proprietary in little ways, I can see why he is concerned.
- Sam
The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.
This isn't a flame. Really. I'm not going to call you names or insult you.
But you are hugely off base here, and it is *exactly* people like you that Stallman is trying to help... what's the word... "educate" I guess is reasonably emotionally neutral.
(And before we start - no, not everything Stallman says is gospel. In particular, while his point that Linux would be nowhere without GNU and the FSF is completely valid, the whole "GNU/Linux" naming deal is just sour grapes and entirely asinine)
With that out of the way...
Back in the day, computer science was treated like a SCIENCE, in so far that every program was treated almost like a scientific discovery. You don't hord discovery in a truely scientific world; you share it.
The program you wrote may advance the art in some manner - it solves a problem that was previously unsolved, it provides a service that was previously unavailable (or was somehow suboptimal), and the code you used to do it with may introduce new techniques to solve similar problems.
In a world where all code is shared freely, the net effect that every new program increases the size of the solution space (or, if you prefer, the "utility space") of computing in general.
It is important to understand that for the longest time, the free sharing of code was the normal state of affairs. There were no secrets between coders.
You only have to look at UNIX to see this. UNIX-as-kernel is just another operating system, but start adding in sed, grep, awk, troff, perl, TeX, vi, (even - gasp - emacs) and so forth (each of which is a component that freely plugs into the others and usually designed by other than the kernel maintainers) and you start increasing the size of the solution space of the OS.
It's not enough to just build the tool and release the binaries. The tool may be in some way incomplete for someone, and they need the ability to modify it (and then contribute their modifications back to the larger community, further increasing the solution space)
The concept of "commercial software" (ie, "software-as-product") as embodied by Microsoft and Billy Gates, nearly erased this state of affairs. For the generations of coders raised in the "software is something you hord and sell" world, you've never seen the way things were in the "software is shared freely as part of the Art" world. This really is an alien concept to you, and it's not really your fault.
Luckily for the state of the Art, code produced and freely shared is superior in every way to code produced by those that hord-and-sell. For a while, the hord-and-sell people had the upper hand, but now that almost every computer is networked, network effects are taking over, and things are slowly starting to right themselves. In ten to fifteen years, software-for-sale (with perhaps the exception of games) will be nothing more than a historical asterix.
But I digress.
The bottom line is that, yes, we all DO have the right to your code - but that is not a very good way of phrasing the situation or thinking about it. Instead, YOU have the OBLIGATION to _release_ your code, to advance the state of the Art.
Stallman is not demanding you give up what is yours, he is reminding you of your obligation to the Art.
The absolute best modern example of this I can think of is the work done by John Carmack and the rest of id Software. John's code truely advances the Art. Every new program that springs off of John's computer brings with it new techniques, new optimizations, new ways of thinking about the problem space he has tackled. And he has released the source code to every program as soon as it is commercially viable to do so, thus fulfilling his obligations to the Art. It's a very good example to follow.
But the trap you cannot fall into is to assume you have the "right" to hord code. You have no moree "right" to keep your code locked up on your hard drive for eternity than you would to hord a cure for cancer, or a working GUT equation. It is essential that you (and people like you) start to realize their DUTY to share code - if you do not, then you will eventually be marginallized and discarded, to the net loss of all.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
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
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
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.
Stallman feels that an opererating system is more than just a kernal, and he's right. But his entire history is based on using other peoples code to shortcut building "GNU" programs. He freely admits that he has used other's code to make his own, but since they don't have organizations with acronyms, I guess they are less deserving of title space.
Linux did the same thing. GNU assumes that anything touched by GNU is GNU, but that's hypocritical. How many additions to GNU have been made in the name of Linux? Perhaps GNU should be changing it's name.
To Lignux.
To all the genius-level deep thinkers who are dissing RMS: put your code where your mouths are. Get every bit of GNU software off your systems. Then see what your "linux" system is worth.
I use BSD mainly. Should it be called 'GNU/BSD' if I like to use Emacs? What do I do when I use gcc in favor of cc? Do I have to call it something different when I use Berkely make, then rename it when I use gmake?
NOBODY is disputing RMS's contribution to the cause. What is being disputed is his sense of entitlement and his attempts to brand Linux under the strictures of his definition and his definition only.
The prop cools the pilot: turn it off and watch 'em sweat.
> The S in BSD stands for SYSTEM.
That's the weirdest spelling of "Standard" I've ever seen. (Berkeley Standard Distribution.)
rant
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
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.
Why can't we be like mechanical engineers, or doctors, who don't go arround destroying their own trade?
As a mechanical engineer (graduate, not P.Eng) I think Open source will make programmers more like mechanical engineers and doctors.
Every bit of work I do is open, my calculations, notes, references, articles, papers, all of it.
You can read books, you can look at the same things, I spend a large amount of my time explaining what I did and how I did it to people, my boss, coworkers and customers.
People don't pay me for this calculation, they don't pay me for this academic paper, they generally don't even pay for a generic report I would make.
What they DO pay for is the answer to their question/problem. Like a doctor or lawyer you come bringing a problem, and we solve it for a fee.
It can be a legal document, a spoken explanation, an operation, a physical product, or just advice.
I know many programmers who just solve problems for people, they make good money (like any professional) and don't have to hide, so what if they write it in PHP and give it away, the person ended up with their problem solved, the programmer got paid.
As programming problems get more and more complex you'll get more programmers to do more customization and trouble shooting, making solutions for customers, rather then generic tools.
You are missing the point here. XFree86 is packaged independently in many GNU/Linux distributions, but it is not an inherent part of the system that you call Linux.
Linux the kernel is minimally distributed with either GNU components or GNU add-ons. Further, it requires GNU packages in order for it to work. This is the distribution that should be called GNU/Linux. Try not to confuse yourselves, will you?
I bought a Daimler/Chrysler/Dodge vehicle once. Found out it had Mitsubishi pieces in it.
During WWII Stalin said the Ilyushin IL-2 was as necessary to the army as bread an water, but everyone called these planes Sturmoviks.
When I take a business trip, I often fly on a 757. Most people couldn't tell you it was made by Boeing.
And whose work is the so called "Space Shuttle?"
I once cracked open a Compaq monitor, only to find some components from Texas Instruments.
You know that bargain tissue you can buy at the grocery store? I call it "Kleenex" even though it wasn't made by Kimberly Clark.
People say Windows all the time without mentioning Microsoft. I sometimes use Windows.
The "PC" was an IBM idea. Used to be IBM PC, if you remember. Now we just have PCs.
I know a man with a legislative award for discovering cyclooxygenase 2, but I don't see his name on Vioxx or Celebrex.
Flavored water with sugar in it is Kool Aid.
Plywood used to be called "Prest Wood" after its brand name.
There is no provision in the GPL to prefix your system with "GNU" if it happens to use pieces that belong to the GNU project.
The Linux Kernel doesn't belong to the GNU project. Nor does XFree86, nor Apache, nor Perl...
I'll take freedom over GNU/Freedom.
And that subject pretty much sums it up. What Stallman is fighting for is brand awareness, to get the word out to people that it's the GNU project, which he holds perhaps -too- near and dear to his heart, that did in the long run make it all possible. Unfortunately, he's allowed this matter to get so tightly wound up in his psyche that he's failing to see how this can be turned to his own benefit. The GNU project tools and contributions can be turned into a "brand name" with or without forcing people to refer to it as GNU/Linux or anything else. That's a really bad precedent to set. If Microsoft were doing it with Visual Studio, we'd all be screaming and wanting to nail Bill Gates with a pie, or worse. As it is, we see ".net" being used as marketing hype in itself.
What Stallman should do, in my not-so-humble-before-lunch opinion is start a campaign of GNU brand awareness. Put together a low-zealotry webpage explaining what GNU has contributed, without being self-congratulatory. Add a link to this page someplace in the documents for GNU project software. Ask - don't demand - that Linux distributions help and promote the GNU project's contributions. I'm sure that almost all the major distributions will bend over backward to help GNU become more recognized as long as they aren't forced. One major thing is that by trying to tack GNU onto Linux is that recognition of anything GNU does that isn't Linux-related will plummet. That's just how people work.
What's been happening now is simply counter productive. I know more about RMS through these Linux / GNU/Linux debates than I ever did through his actions in writing software. Linux has been dubbed Linux by the media, and if -anyone- thinks they can get all the media outlets to refer to it as GNU/Linux they're sorely mistaken. Linux by itself has become a recognized word in everyday life, even my parents know it. Fighting something like that is just going to get you frustrated because it can't be changed by force.
Take the long view, Richard. Make GNU a symbiotic lifeform with Linux in a way beyond the code, but don't try and force yourself on it like the borg. That's who we're fighting against.
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
That's not enough for his insatiable ego?
Maybe that should be your clue that it's not about ego.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
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.
Where is the Catch 22? What rights do the employees have regarding the tools they use to perform their job? They are not the consumer in this case, they are employees. The consumer is the company. If the company changes and redistributes the software within the company but not outside the company, it is not violating the GPL License. There is NO End User License Agreement (EULA) in the GPL, only provisions for redistributing modified code and/or binaries to the public or to customers. Unless such action is taken, the company is the end user, the consumer. It would certainly be nice if the company provided its employees with information on how to obtain and install free software for themselves, but they are not obligated to do so.
assert(expired(knowledge));
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
> 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
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!
By calling it Linux and not GNU/Linux the community shows a lack of respect. And respect is the currency of our profession.
without which "Linux" would not exist, and BSD would be crippled.
What about my freedom to call something anything I like...?
I suppose you'd be free ("Freedom of Speech" and all) to call an Apple by the name "Orange", but that won't help others understand what you're talking about. Recall the confusion which resulted when the previous "presidential administration" unilaterally redefined the term "sex" to exclude fellatio.
The man's point is that the FSF's OS is much more properly named "GNU" or "GNU/Linux", that "Linux" really properly refers only to the Kernel, and that the FSF deserves at least as much recognition in the deal as does Mr. Torvalds. "Everybody" may know this, but newbies and the laiety (especially the PRESS) tend to gloss over this important matter.
Exceeding the recommended torque is not recommended.
Couldn't they change their name to "Society Interested in Gnu/LINUX", and use the natural abbreviation "SIGLINUX"?
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?
...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?
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
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...