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."
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
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?
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
Absolutely. We need more people who are less lukewarm, one way or the other. When Barr mentions that "You cannot force people to share your beliefs, especially a community that values freedom as much as the Linux crowd.", he is entirely missing the point -- the Linux crowd often does *not* value freedom in any meaningful sense; it professes the desire for freedom right up to the point at which 'freedom' means something other than 'freedom to use other people's work for free' or 'freedom at the expense of convenience'.
Just as, to use your example, there are 'vegetarians' who eat chicken and fish, or people who give money to save cute fluffy animals while wearing leather jackets, there are countless Linux users who will, time and again, sacrifice their freedom for the sake of a 'better' technical product, or who will steal free software for their closed-source products. We absolutely need people who are passionate about their beliefs -- if only so that those beliefs are clear and in the open so that they can be questioned. I don't believe RMS is afraid of debate; he's more than able to support his philosophical stance because, unlike most of us, he has one. And that's an important thing.
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 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
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.
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.
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