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.
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
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.
http://saveie6.com/