LinuxDevCenter Interviews RMS

prostoalex writes "LinuxDevCenter interviews RMS. Interesting that Stallman supports the free software projects ported to proprietary operating systems: 'Porting free applications to nonfree operating systems is often useful. This allows users of those operating systems to try out using a few free programs and see that they can be good to use, that free software won't bite them. This can help people overcome worries about trying a free operating system such as GNU/Linux. Many users really do follow this path.'"

Comments

What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[Singwolf]

...just what he has explained one thousand times in everyone of his conferences.

Quoting and interview by Federico Biancuzzi:

FB: Today Linux is just a kernel, so you still have direct control over other parts of the OS. That's why the name GNU/Linux for the complete OS.

RMS: That isn't what the name GNU/Linux means; it has nothing to do with that. The name GNU/Linux means that the system started out as GNU, with Linux added.

Nowadays, the system includes thousands of packages developed by thousands of developers, but at the base it is still GNU with Linux added.

Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[Frizzle Fry]

Hey, I once had that same sig.

Anyone, the "GNU" is not supposed to refer primarily to glibc/ gcc. It's supposed to refer to the GNU implementation of the standard unix tools, like grep and ls and more and so forth. If we take X and everything graphical out of the model and just imagine a console-based system, then the real bare bones of it would be the kernel, a shell (probably from gnu) and the basic utilities (probably from gnu). With just a kernel, this system would be useless. Of course, you probably want applications too, but in terms of the bare essentials of a usable system, you need linux and the gnu stuff. Which is why it is the "gnu/linux" system. Which made some sense. RMS explains this in the film Revolution OS so if you watch that, you'll see that I'm not just making this up.

But my point was that today, stuff like KDE and X are core to most people's experience of using Linux and most people would consider those pretty essential, so by his reasoning, those people should put those in the name too, but then the whole thing spirals out of control. (I admit that my inclusion of things like XMMS was gratuitous).

All kidding aside

[pherris]

An explaination in RMS' own words.

Not surprising

[jdavidb]

As I said the other day, Stallman himself is the perfect example of using free software on proprietary OS'es. That's how the GNU project started, and today they still make reasonable efforts to keep their software portable.

A lot of people dismiss and mock RMS, but he already asked and answered a lot of these questions himself many years ago. Maybe it would help some people to periodically read through some of his writings. (I know reading things you don't agree with or like is unpopular with many around here.) RMS has made intelligent decisions on a lot of these issues.

Another thing that comes up all the time around here is selling free software, which seems to confuse a lot of people but was handled by RMS a long time ago, too.

Re:RMS (briefly) forgot what freedom means

[Bob_Robertson]

Agreed. I saw that too, but I'll let you get modded down for it. :^)

"Non-violet democratic political" is an oxymoron.

But do keep in mind that RMS is not a Libertarian. He believes in the use of force by the state, for things he agrees with.

Bob-

Re:Geez, RMS is kind of a loon.

[Anonymous Coward]

BS, before he received the grant he worked as a consultant 1/4 of each year, but only if the result was free software... He also does not waste money.

Re:Cygwin

[swv3752]

Y was a failed attempt at replacing X.

Re:Geez, RMS is kind of a loon.

[jbolden]

but to suggest that all proprietary software is unethical, well that's just obnoxious.

You are begging the question. Prove he's wrong don't just assert it.