Slashdot Mirror
Stallman Meets KDE Team for Tea
fishermonger writes "Trying to imoprove relations, the french KDE team invited RMS to tea at Linux Solutions 2003. From the piece: 'He asked whether KDE people were saying "Gnu/Linux" or just "Linux", and Open Source or Free Software. I told him some of us are using KDE/Gnu/Linux which pleased him as an answer.' Many pearls in the article."
For those interested, a quick googling shows stallamn's blog has listed this for years.
--I don't mind Debian being Gnu/Linux in concept, but trying to make everyone else say Gnu/blah is just stupid.
--Apart from that, props to RMS for his coding contributions and efforts for Free Software.
Root!
.
== WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
.......we use Klinux and Kemacs to compile Kgnu software. It is pronounced KgnuLinux right?
I thank Mr Stallman for creating all the gnu software and for his vision of having groups of people working with each other and sharing intellectual idea's freely. Linux and perhaps FreeBSD would not be without him.
However his die hard views seem strange. If Linus calls his kernel Linux and not gnuLinux then its called Linux. A name is a name. Who cares? I could call it Katzware! But its still Linux.
Also there are many different kinds of licensing that are ok besides the GPL. The perl artistic license, BSD, X11 community license, etc. I use gnu software under FreeBSD. Does that mean it should be called gnuFreeBSD?
He rails agaisn't anything non gpl including X11 but uses it on his desktop. According to the copyright, his desktop is not offically gnu? He also stated when kde finally under pressure convinced QT to gpl there code, Stallan said they should be beginging for forgiveness! How offensive. I would of expected a thank you from him instead.
Only debian Gnu/Linux is officially gnu because you can chose to select only licenses that are gpl except x11. This is why my FreeBSD box is not offically gnu even though I use gnu software with it.
His dream of free software and a community of sharing is here and he should chill. He got his gnutopia with debian.
To be gnu it all has to be gnu which %99 of all Linux installs are not since they include non gpl software.
http://saveie6.com/
It seemed almost like something out of Bill & Ted's excellent adventure :). Like bringing somebody of renowned ability from the past to the present and showing him what stuffs like. I'm not sure if it was just the way the article was written but it almost seemed like RMS had never used KDE before. When asked how much he used X, he responded "sometimes".
Thats crazy. I understand that you use what you know, but this is a guy who is using emacs as his windowing system. Kind of changes my opinion of him as an all knowing guru.
Note: I'm not dissing his abilities or role in history. He has done shit that most of us could never come close to surpassing. Its just amazing to see how little things have changed for him in the last 10 years.
can't sleep slashdot will eat me
I think the problems are coming from issues of "Intellectual Hygiene"... RMS parses Linux as something that gnu facilitated, and in his worldview gnu is more important and overarching than Linux is. (In the longer term, he may be right). So I guess he feels some cognitive dissonance when its Linux this and Linux that, whereas the FSF and gnu are less honoured.
:-)
Hopefully in the future historians will write this time up as a radical return to the concept of the Public Domain for Public Good, something that has been almost destroyed by Greedy Corporate Fucks. Linux is feted for its direct effects today on the GCFs, as its the most visible sign of the battle, but its the GPL and the gnu concepts that are actually driving it underneath and changing the agenda, IMHO.
Still, even appreciating this, GNU/Linux is a bit of a mouthful
However his die hard views seem strange. If Linus calls his kernel Linux and not gnuLinux then its called Linux. A name is a name. Who cares? I could call it Katzware! But its still Linux.
I agree that RMS has chosen an odd battle to fight with this GNU/Linux stuff. However, even RMS isn't trying to get Linus to change the name of the kernel.
The kernel is Linux. You can say "the Linux kernel" or you can just say "Linux". What annoys RMS is that people refer to their whole system as "my Linux system", as if the kernel were the most important part. So he wants people to say "my GNU/Linux system".
There is some justice in his request. If you count how many lines of code in a running system come from the GNU project, you will get a large number. And the compiler we use to build our Linux kernels is from the GNU project.
Presumably, if someone were to port the BSD userland to run over the Linux kernel, RMS would also be perfectly happy to hear people say "my BSD/Linux system".
All that said, RMS will find it to be a losing battle. When I am talking about my personal Linux system, I say "that's my Athlon XP system running Linux". The motherboard, hard disk, video card, and RAM are all pretty essential to my system's operations, and it would I suppose be more correct to say "that's my ASUS A7V333 Athlon XP system with a GeForce 4 and blah blah blah all running GNU/Linux". I just don't, though.
When I was running Windows 98, I usually said something like "my computer with Win98", as opposed to "my computer running Microsoft Windows 98 Second Edition". Most people can't be bothered to add on extra syllables.
The kernel really is the most important part, when you are tersely describing a computer, because it controls what software will run on that computer. Adding the "GNU/" prefix is more a sign of respect to the GNU project than a useful classifier that describes the system.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
If Linus calls his kernel Linux and not gnuLinux then its called Linux.
Its not Linux (the kernel) that RMS is calling GNU/Linux. He calls linux linux just like anyone else. What he is calling GNU/Linux is all the distrubutions which are made up from the GNU project together with the linux kernel (and usually some other stuff)
Most people call the distributions just linux, which is fine (I personally think people can call things whatever they like) but I find it does cause confusion sometimes. eg "I'm downloading a new version of linux" can mean redhat 9 for example, or it can mean linux-2.5.68.tar.gz
RMS idea of saying GNU/Linux does avoid this confusion while at the same time giving credit to the GNU project. (After all, any given distro probably contains more lines of GNU code than Linux code (in fact emacs probably does that alone!))
However, I prefer to be even more specific and just use vendor names. "I'm downloading a new version of debian" is pretty unambiguous and avoids the whole linux vs gnu/linux problem.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
Go together like...
Mix the failings of Usenet with the shortcomings of the World Wide Web and the result is slashdot.
It's great that this meeting took place. Since KDE is now 100% Free Software there is no reason for any serious contention.
I have no relationship with RMS or the Free Software Foundation, but I would like to respond (perhaps preemptively) to some of the common anti-RMS flames that inevitably come up in any discussion involving RMS.
Anti-RMS argument #1) "I don't like RMS because he says GNU/Linux instead of Linux."
It may be quixotic of RMS to want this, but it is certainly not malicious, and he has presented solid ethical and practical reasons for his argument. Essentially, by including GNU, we give acknowlegement to the philosophy of freedom behind the OS, not just to the individual who provided leadership in creating one important part of it, the kernel.
This angers some people because they feel he is "telling them what to do." He's not telling you, he's ASKING you, and he has provided good ethical arguments supporting his position. If you disagree, fine, but don't say that he's "telling you what to do." He's not.
Others feel he is slighting Linus Torvolds... this is hardly the case, RMS always gives Linus high praise for his leadership in creating the Linux kernel. In the unlikely event that everyone did start saying "GNU/Linux," Linus would still be the only person (that I know of) whose name is the basis of the name of a major OS.
Anti RMS argument #2) "RMS is too much of an idealist / extemeist"
Can we please give the man some credit? Because of his "extremism," KDE is now free software instead of proprietary. Without RMS and his "extremism" I think it is likely that Free Software would be a truly marginal movement today, rather than the large scale success it has become.Anti RMS argument #3) "RMS is too biased towards the GPL, other free software licences are just as good." OR "the GPL isn't as free as some other licences", etc.
Only a tiny minority of people who make this argument understand what they are talking about. Please read about and try to get a basic understanding of the issues involved. I did, and once I did I was surprised to find myself in agreement with RMS.Anti RMS argument #4) "GNU/Hurd is so late, it will never get working, blah blah blah."
Yes, eveyone knows GNU/Hurd is late... so what? Nobody's suffering waiting for it, they can use the Linux kernel. This is part of the beauty of Free Software. We don't need to wait for a central authority to create tools we need... we can get them from other people or do it ourselves.
* * * *
I think that the more you understand the issues involved, the more you understand how critical it is to be aware of the PHILOSOPHY behind free software, not just the "coolness" of it. The main purpose of free software is to help us remain free, not just to be good practical tools or to save us a few dollars (though these are also important).
I have met many people in person who express a negative view of RMS and/or the GPL. Most of the time, once they learn about the issues involved, the majority change their views. I implore anyone who feels negativly about RMS to at least read about the FSF philosophy.
I can't understand why the hell they recommend against using C++. It's standardized, fairly portable (if written correctly), supports a multi-pardigm approach to programming (procedural, object-oriented, generative ) and is supported on nearly every platform known to man. The resulting code is usually quite performant, using a decent compiler (again, assuming the source is written by someone competent).
I can't see the FSF recommending Java, since it hardly qualifies as "Free", so it would seem that C++ would be exactly the language they would recommend.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
There are some misunderstandings that remain unaddressed in this thread. The followups, I'm glad to see, display an understanding of the issues described in the GNU/Linux FAQ. I hope to clear up the issues I spotted which remain. All spelling in the quotes is in context.
That's great. I hope you'll understand he's asking people to use the name GNU to get a share of the credit he (and many other people) think the GNU/Linux operating system is due. There is a technical advantage to distinguishing between the kernal and the rest of the OS here as well--it helps people speak more clearly about what they wish to address and thus avoid confusion.
Actually he objects to the use of non-free software. He has no quarrel with non-GPL licenses so long as they are Free Software licenses. RMS might believe the GPL is a superior Free Software license to other Free Software licenses, but that does not stop him from recommending the use of Free Software under a variety of non-GPL licenses.
XFree86 is one example: XFree86 is Free Software so RMS doesn't object to its use and development. He goes further than that, actually. He is on record encouraging people to contribute their time and effort to it even under its non-copylefted Free Software license (the MIT X11 license). Unfortunately I don't have a specific pointer to precisely where the question arises, but if you listen to the Q&A sections of the history of Free Software talks, you'll hear him tell a questioner why he recommends against making a GPL-covered fork of XFree86.
I attended a lecture on Halloween a couple of years ago at the University of Chicago in which he said he talked briefly about the differences between Debian's Free Software Guidelines and the set of licenses it deems acceptable and the FSF's definition of Free Software and the set of licenses it deems acceptable. There is overwhelmingly large overlap but the two are not the same. So, no, he didn't get precisely everything he wanted with Debian but that didn't stop the FSF from pitching in (money or resources, I've forgotten which it was) to help get Debian started. Perhaps when GNU/Hurd is ready for ordinary users to use some people will make a GNU distribution that includes only Free Software as defined by the FSF.
However there is a more important issue at stake here: The Free Software community is constantly under attack from those who seek to compete with Free Software by making Free Software illegal or impossible to use and share. Patents on algorithms used in computer software (so-called "software patents") and the recent so-called "Super-DMCA" bills (now laws in many states) sweeping the US are examples of how laws can trump what you can do in your home with standard-compliant equipment and software hooked up to lines you pay to use. I'm not sure exactly what "chill[ing]" would entail, but it sounds like you want him to let his guard down and believe he has accomplished his goal. Far from it.
Some of the most important hurdles the Free Software community has yet to jump are legalistic and require becoming informed and putting aside some political differences to work together and defeat well-organized monied interests. These are not problems we can solve with our clever coding talents alone. The software the community put together, the community the GNU GPL built (which I believe will be perhaps his most important legacy) require eternal vigilance and, in exchange, can grant us one of the best things in the world: freedom.
Digital Citizen
"If Linus calls his kernel Linux and not gnuLinux then its called Linux."
RMS doesn't care what Linus names his kernel. RMS does care what name people use to describe the operating system that fundamentally matches the project he started twenty years ago.
It bothers me to use "Linux" as the name of a kernel *and* the name of a class of operating systems. That's just plain confusing.
Doesn't it also seem strange to name an operating system after its kernel, which was named after a single kernel developer? And when looking for a name for all Linux-based operating systems, it's striking that they all (AFAIK) are based on the GNU project. Nobody is bundling Linux with FreeBSD tools, are they?
Calling a large class of operating systems "Linux" just seems strange to me, since Linus had very little to do with any of them. He wrote a kernel, and (with the "help" of a friend) name it Linux. And that's the only part of operating systems that Torvald's really seems to care much about (it's not even clear that he cares about every subsystem in "his" kernel). So why call any complete operating system Linux? As far as I know, Linus does not have his own distrobution.
-Paul Komarek
To see the damage that he does to himself, just look at the hideous slagging he's getting by some of the posters here. Here, on Slashdot, most of the folk can reasonably be assumed to be pro free software and the GPL, yet still we get this internecine war evertime RMS is mentioned. And it all comes down to his attitude over "Gnu/Linux".
Stallman doesn't seem to see how petty this makes him look. Which wouldn't be so bad, except that linked as he is with the free software movement, it reflects badly on the movement as a whole. Given RMS' skills as a publicist, I find myself wondering whether he is unaware of this effect, or if he simply places a higher priority on having first billing.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
English has different words for "freedom" and "free" too .. "freedom" and "free" why they decided to use the moniker "free" in FSF instead of Freedom is anyones guess really.
The whole GNU/Linux debate is getting tiresome, it reminds me of socialist parties in Europe who war for years over the name of a party, it tends to ruin their credibility amongst the electorate.
Surely the most important thing is to have a name that is recoqnised and used by the masses. Sadly for RMS , "Linux" is now a household name, and you simply cannot retrofit household names. I realise that he and his group have provided the framework for the entire operating system that is GNU/Linux, i think there are enough mentions of "GNU" in the header files, man pages, about dialog boxes to show how embedded GNU is into Linux.
I really dont think that GNU/Linux is going to come into every day use, but i think the history books will look nicely upon RMS.
Exactly. Who ever says "I use Microsoft Windows" (for example)?
Though we know there wouldn't really be a Windows without Microsoft, it's somewhat similar to GNU/Linux.
SYS 64738 NO CARRIER
Part of the problem with this argument which RMS likes is that Linux was not just the kernel. Sure, there was a "linux" tarball, but people who rallied around the effort were interested in getting this kernel to work.
So plenty of work went into making a workable system. This included getting libc to a functional state (which was not functional before the Linux crowd came), getting various system tools developed (mkf2, fsck, apm, pcmcia support, device drivers, util-linux, boot loaders), getting X into a usable shape and so on.
Sure, GNU and X might have written a lot of code before. But it was the Linux movement that made it all happen and come together. The Linux crowd picked up pieces from everywhere they could: the BSD "netkit", the X/Y/Z-modem software (that back in that day *was important*), minicom (again, important on that day), slip to get hooked up to the internet and provide servers, ppp, X11. You get the picture.
And now there is an attempt from rms to rewrite history "Linux was only the kernel" he says. And "GNU provided everything else".
There's nothing honest about writing "RMS is an asshole" on a free software news site.
Sure there is. The guy is an asshole. He goes around constantly correcting people who use the word "Linux", insisting they replace the term with "GNU/Linux". I'll call if whatever the fuck I please, thanks, and if RMS doesn't like it he can eat my shorts.
It's an oversimplification that can be avoided by being specific.
Bullshit. If the listener knows what you're talking about that is the definition of the word. Common usage defines the definition, not some pedantic assholes who insist that they, and they alone, get to define terms. That's how language evolves, Jack.
It doesn't matter what you, RMS, or anyone has to say about the matter. If the vast majority of folks refer to the kernel, OS, and tools as "Linux" then it is Linux - and that's all there is to it.
No analogies, please. I can see the strawman arguments coming a mile away. Take them somewhere else.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
The UN is a democratic body. It respects the voices of all nations. America's REAL problem is that they aren't allowed to dominate UN discourse. This angers them, because their is no tolerance and respect for differing opinions.
America has JUST demonstrated that it feels that it has the authority to START WARS. Not only had the world-democratic body said "No, we dont agree this is the best course" you did it anyway.
This WMD, "Liberation" is smoke and mirrors, its about the price of oil. I know it, the UN knows it, America knows it (even the clueless ones who 'support the troops' can formulate a complex meme greater than "your with us or against us")
Where this "the UN is Communist" is coming from I dont know. About Communism, Democracy and Capitalism, In short; American Capitalism is Imperialism. Trade must be democratically controlled (Social Democracy) else a world-feudal state will be born.
- many dictators, and in general is about as friendly toward real democracy as an alligator is toward chickens. The enthusiasm is definitely there, and in the UN's case so is the lip-service, but the best you can expect IRL is a sick charade.
Ok, this is the icing. America is the most broken democracy anywhere in the modern world. Period. Its corrupt, unresponsive and poorly organized. Its moribund and stifled - a charade. When you manage to elect someone who is not a multi-millionaire, outside of the two colluding parties, let me know. Further, as for "support of dictators" you A) MUST read this book and B) understand that america has DIRECTLY supported both Osama Bin Laden and Sadam... they, if anything are YOUR CREATIONS. Your lack of perspective w/r/t the actions of your OWN NATION is appalling.
As for some iraqis calling for a non-secular future for Iraq, you only have to look to your present Christian-Bush and the tolerance of non-secularism that he is an advocate of. "Faith-based" - wtf is that? Dont point fingers buddy, the Christian Right owns the Whitehouse - the puritan adherence to Fundamental Christian values has made your current administration (and the intellectual state of your nation) the laughing stock of the planet. Open your eyes pal, a Christian Reformation is underway in America... and the New Crusades are virtually underway.
I think you're missing many of the UNsubtle nuances here. -- are you kidding? You are 100% clueless. Your statements are a display of EXACTLY the ignorance that the rest of the planet cant fathom about Americans. You must break out of the "america is the greatest" mindset for 5 minutes and do some reading... start with some foreign press. Do you know what your doing in Columbia? That your UN ambassador is wanted in C.America for war-crimes related to Iran-Contra?