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."
i always just call it linux no matter what kind I'm using.. do people actually call it gnu/linux rather than linux? or even KDE/Gnu/Linux ??
do you just type it, or actually say "I use gnu linux"
I was hoping this article would have a couple pictures of Richard Stallman trying to strangle somebody on the KDE team while being held back by some of his FSF cohorts. I mean, they use kvim and they're developing KDE, which was previously "not free as in freedom".
*sigh* it was still very interesting, but a little disappointing to say the least.
--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??
I (sometimes) use KDE under FreeBSD. And I know people that use it with Solaris, and OSX. KDE doesn't require GNU or Linux, it requires QT (which usually implies X11) X/QT/KDE is more accurate.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
"'He asked whether KDE people were saying "Gnu/Linux" or just "Linux""
Personally, I don't say Gnu/Linux, or even KDE/Gnu/Linux.
When someone asks what I'm using, I tell them I'm using KDE/X-Windows 11/Gnu/Linux/System V/MIT/AT&T/AMD/K7/x86/Intel.
Got to give credit to everyone, RMS told me so, so it must be true!
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
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
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.
RMS has no issue with the kernel's name. He doesn't think that Linus' kernel, the Linux kernel itself should be called GNU/Linux. His problem is that people called entire distros which use the Linux kernel simply "Linux." He has a problem with this because a big part of any Linux distro is a bunch of GNU software. He evidentally things that any user of Linux should be forced to pay him in respect and homage by calling it GNU/Linux instead of simply Linux. Afterall, the kernel is a very small part of it. But if we're talking about how much of what makes up a distro, Linux should be probably be called XFree/Linux86 before GNU/Linux, at least in terms of total KLOC in a distro.
Are you sure he uses XFree86 on his desktop? I imagine that RMS gets by perfectly fine without using any non-GPL software... I wouldn't be surprised if he did use non-GPL stuff, but he's not your average 16 year old Windows convert- he doesn't need XFree or KDE or GNOME or even WindowMaker.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
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
http://saveie6.com/
Now we're gonna have to call it Freedom Linux.
Problem is the g++ gnu compiler sucked ass until recently. Even today it compiles code slow. Many people saw how bloated and slow the badly compiled programs were and assumed C++ sucked. Alot of this was in the late 80's and early 90's when computers were alot slower and a new wave of thinking from recent CS grads who never had to write programs in kb's rather then megs. Old Unix hackers had to use assembly to cut down on cpu and memory. Code wasting cpu cycles and memory for gui's and object oriented programming, and solving relationships was blaspemy. The mac was hated for years because of this. Even though it had a workstation class processor that could cream an 8086 pc. It was assumed no cpu cycles were left to do anything usefull. That was a lie. Infact during this time sed was written just because ED and VI were viewed as too bloated. Also sed was usefull in scripting which is why it lasted but I remember the author complaining about huge memory and sed was the answer. Today this is silly but some still are biased who are from this era. RMS definetly was from this that time.
They also only do functional and not object oriented programming most of the time. It is true that over doing it and calling everything as an object is bad. Both Linux and FreeBSD use objects even though they are mostly functional programs. It really is appropriate in alot of situations.
Objects have their uses and desktop gui's is certainly one of them. Object oriented programming is great for simulations which a desktop is. Its really a virtual 2d desk with a word processor as a paper pad, a spreadsheet as a balance book, and a web browser as large book with links as a toc.
Similiating a desk and writing event driven programs certainly needs to be done in a object oriented manner. It can be done without objects but it would be difficult and could easily produce buggy code. Doing object oriented programming in C certainly does not make sense and is ugly. C is a low level language and not designed for it. You need to write alot of code in c for the equilivant in many other languages that are not as high level. C was designed to write device drivers and operating systems.
Early versions of gnome are examples of object oriented programming gone bad in C. Remember in the old days of starting gnome from a command prompt and seeing page upon page of errors? I believe newer versions of gnome have alot more C++ and perl code in the bonoboo objects. This is smart and wise. Also alot of the wheel was reinvented by implementing objecting oriented libraries in C when they were already available in C++.
This is why KDE took off. Now KDE is becomming too complex and cluttered and gnome is getting cleaner after they finished rewriting the api's and gnome itself from a clean start.
FYI, the FSF makes a Free version of Java. You do not need to depend on Sun or IBM.
http://saveie6.com/
i went to the wise man and asked for advice.
"what kind of O/S to use, what's really nice?"
his beatific smile froze, eyes shrunk like a drunk mole,
whispered conspiringly: "emacs on console".
"what?!" i gasped, shocked, for how could it be
this self-styled geezer freak lecturing me?
my gigahertz beige steed sits awaiting the splendor;
i had no need for this aging freedom defender.
so i maxed out by fat pipe and installed all the ISOs,
task bar set one-click to grep google and lycos,
hardened and locked down and securely security-patched,
wallpapered and skin-toned and alpha blend cross-hatched.
and now to get cracking: i had much work to do.
had to write some rad shareware and slick manpages, too.
had to divine physics laws, apply methods numerical,
had to slather my ears w/ songs dull and hysterical.
in such a way i passed hours of enjoyment,
built up enough skills to muster gainful employment.
real world happiness, that's what i achieved,
pocketbook full, due to what i believed.
but lately i've wondered, is all this enough for me?
have i been blind, perhaps i'm too "tough" to see?
where is the respect i thought i'd have by now?
all these riches yet the hackers don't scrape and bow?
they call me a user and sometimes with "l" prefixed.
my opinions aren't sought, my postings are simply pre-nixed.
dammit what do i have to do to get street cred?
lawyer, who can i sue to save embarrassment beet red?
bellicose times these are, w/ the lawyers in charge.
and still the wise man floats not alone on his barge.
maybe i'll join him after all, lay down my wrong role.
maybe i can find happiness by using emacs on console.
Wrote most of it.
No, the intention of the GPL is to *lower programmer's wages*. Stallman freely states this.
No, he doesn't. Cite one place where he's ever said this.
Now, granted, that's not ALL workers, but given he's a communist
He describes himself as a liberal, not a communist. Of course to some right-wing nutjobs that's the same thing.
- yes, the ideals behind the GPL are communism, no matter how much many out there would prefer to deny it.
So, the ideal of not buying cars with their hoods welded shut is "communist" too, is it?
Or the ideal of having techies paid for services - technical support, and custom programming (which is what a large part of the programming workforce does anyway - most professional programmers aren't paid to work on Office or OpenOffice.) - is "communism"?
If you're not trolling, then you're just a whiner who doesn't realise that no-one gave you the right to have a job handed to you on a silver platter. If someone makes a free replacement for MS Office which is so good that everyone switches over to it - they have just put all the MS Office programmers out of work. Tough. They can now do something more productive with their lives. It doesn't make moral or financial sense to pay them to produce a product which no-one will buy. And that is not "communist" either - that is just free market logic. Same thing happens every year with all kinds of product every year - this is not at all specific to the GPL.
(And I stand by all these points, even though I am pretty much a communist!)
Female Prison Rape in NY
In a stunning turn of events, Lord Stallman is hired by Microsoft.
:-)
Ballmer: Palladium is now the ultimate power in the cyberuniverse. I suggest we use it.
Stallman: Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed, Mr. Gates. The ability to dominate the planet is insignificant, next to the power of Open Source.
Ballmer: Don't try to frighten us with your Hippy ways, Lord Stallman. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion hasn't given you the power to conjure up the stolen code, nor helped us find the rebels hidden serv- *urk* *gaak*
Stallman: I find your lack of faith disturbing.
Gates: Enough of this! Stallman, release his server!
Stallman:As you wish. *virtual thud*
Gates: This bickering is pointless. Lord Stallman will provide us with the IP of the rebels hidden server by time Palladium is operational. We will then crush the rebellion with one swift lawsuit.
------------
(I wrote this one for a post a long time ago but it fits here
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
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?