Slashdot Mirror
The Personalities Behind Linux
The following was written by Slashdot Reader Erik
The Personalities Behind LinuxThe varied personalities of Linux definitely show the many facets that make up our favorite OS. I was reading the Wired article that had an interview with RMS, and I've seen quite a few interviews with Linus. IMHO, Stallman represents quite a bit of what Linux and it's users is all about, but Torvalds is more a way to market it.
Obviously both Torvalds and Stallman were and are central to the OS. As we all know, the kernel mainly the product of Linus, but most of the tools, and the very license under which Linux was placed is the result of Stallman's GNU. But, these two men don't seem to get along quite as well as the software they wrote. Linux is a coder, but RMS is a zealot.
Stallman's fire, passion, and concern for politics are essential for Linux users. Many people criticize Richard for being overly paranoid, but that paranoia is necessary, especially in the upcoming months and years. As Linux gains mainstream support, there will undoubtedly be blatant violations of the GPL. Slashdot has recently posted at least one story of a new distro that violates the GPL. It's a huge asset to have RMS and similar enthusiasts to vigorously defend the freedom that our "rebel" OS has come to represent.
As a result, I love having RMS go everywhere he can, reminding people of the free nature of Linux. Excuse me, GNU/Linux.
Remind people that Linus didn't write the whole kernel, and owns a very small percentage of the code in any Linux distro. Torvalds will be the first to admit that. And Stallman reminds us that Linux is more about hackers and free code than about the OS itself. It's about making decisions for ourselves, not having to accept a crappy OS.
But as much credit as RMS deserves, he shouldn't necessarily be the spokesman for Linux. While
Stallman looks like a fanatic, Linus is like the penguins; cute, maybe a little plump, but over all, someone who's very likeable. Plus he has a "normal" job, and is making money from Linux (not directly, but through his Transmeta job, speaking, etc.)
As a result, though Stallman deserves tons of credit, he shouldn't necessarily be on the cover of the magazines. He's done a great job, as has Linus, but as Linux gets marketed to a more mainstream audience, we need to look at our figurehead. Stallman ranting to Wired is great, it gets everyone to stop, think, and be more aware of the politics. But let's think twice before flaming CNN/Fortune if their latest Newstand didn't mention RMS. We all know of his contribution, and all geeks appreciate it. We need him to help lead the movement, but not necessarily to be our public leader. Let CNN snub him, and let the other mags ignore him. He has a great product to be proud of. But as great as he is, he's often inflammatory, nearly always an extremist, and not necessarily who the business community wants to put it's trust in.
Don't forget that RMS has written a lot of useful code in his time. Perhaps more than Linus.
But will he go for it though? Perhaps if we tell him it will make him a martyr for free software!
RMS, MIT grad and McArthur "genius" fellow, scares the suits. Now that we have a free, common base for computers, the next move is to conquer the desktops of world's businesses. The last thing we need is a ranting lunatic bitching about people making money. Fuck that; besides it's easy to do when you have a trust fund or a "genius fellowship" to give you money and MIT credentials to get another job. Linus has the right attitude: "I do some work for money and I do some work for fun". I'm not denigrating RMS's accomplishments; it's just that he's irrelevant to the next step: WORLD DOMINATION !!!
Can I suggest we avoid discussing about personalities? I mean, it is more uplifting in general to instruct ourselves in issues pertaining to computers and other issues of eminence, leaving-out issues about people's personalities -- least we risk to lower ourselves to new levels of stupidity like those commonly found in TV journalism. While reading slashodot everyday during breaks, I keep thinking the same thoughts: In what will I become better day by day?
I think the real issue at stake here is that the US (media and majority of /.ers) are unwilling to credit a "foreigner" (Linus) with a major contribution to the future.
I don't think that's the issue at all. Linus is all people seem to be talking about. They (the press, general public) often credit him with creating Linux single handedly.
What is the issue is that without the GPL, Linux or any other software program could be taken, modified in such a way to make it proprietary, and never have the source code released. We would be right back into monopolies and crappy code. Why do you think Linus released the Linux kernel under the GPL?
This is not about personalities, this is not about who is right and who is wrong. This is about the very ideals upon which this society is founded. RMS is openly rejecting the crass comercialism and mass marketing of today. He is rebelling against the Microsofts and the WalMarts. He is saying that pride and craftsmenship count more to him then monetary rewards.
And I agree with him.
Ugh, even worse!
No offense but does this bring anything new to the table? Insight? Facts? Ideas? I didn't see much new there.
It felt like a long post in reply to some RMS linkk.
Ron
The bottom line is that people are afraid of RMS, because he levels serious and true accusations against our materialistic and anti-community way of life. Rather than react in fear, I think people should question what they've recieved as culture and as wisdom. (I am not saying that we should all become Stallmanites. I am saying we should all reexamine ourselves and our society.)
Hold me, Mommy, it's a big scruffy radical heaving shit at the system from a platform of absolutely no interest in the status quo. Horrors!
My antipathy (I only FEAR my doctor's opinion) for RMS comes from the fact that trying to turn people on to Linux is like beating back high tide with a hammer, thanks to certain freakazoids who make the whole enterprise look about as respectable as distilling gin in your bathtub.
As for Stallman's purity of vision rallying the masses into a popular uprising against the running dogs: dude, please.
Why the popularity contest? I don't give a crap what the mainstream thinks about RMS or Linus. They will continue to provide free software to those of us who understand its value. I will do the same. There will always be enough of us Techs around to fool the suits into providing us with money to build the systems that we want.
Just feed them some flashy stuff every now and then.
Domination no more. Let's go back to the days of
good Linux, with so many windows non-free-software
lovers that are about to arrive I say this not
good news to the soul of the Linux movement.
Do you pine for popularity? Go back to MS Windows.
I was about to post the same, but you posted first.
Many people just want to have software that works. From this perspective, free software/open source is one way (and not the only way) to try to achieve this goal. Arguably, there are lots of good proprietary software at a reasonable cost. The question of what is a better way to achieve this engineering goal is an empirical question. Also, there are other factors besides the free/proprietary dimension.
Many people also want software without restrictions on its source code and its reuse. Some of the justification is to have software that works, but a large part of it appears to be driven by the "golden rule" (treat other people as you would want them to treat you). The argument is that restrictions on software prevents good things like sharing and cooperation, and anything that prevents good things must be bad.
So we have these two goals: software that works and software that can be shared. These two goals don't necessarily conflict, but they don't necessarily go together either. For myself, I am happy to see it when both goals are achieved at the same time, but I am more than willing to use software that works. Better that than to do without it.
I think most people fall into this category, and this is why we like Linus more than RMS even though RMS has contributed longer and perhaps much more than Linus. For RMS, sharing is primary, and engineering is secondary. Most of us don't see it that way and don't appreciate being told that we are evil because of it.
Tom Bylander
bylander@cs.utsa.edu
It is common habit of users to speculate and
argue about sofware and future directions of SW-business.
The hard fact is: Those who do the hard work rule the free software world. Users can't do anything but whine or complain. (and send bug reporst)
They have to use what the rulers give to them.
It is amusing to see this talk about who is
politically correct and who is not. It has nothing
to do with the issue. People may not like RMS, but
as long as programmers-who-do-things listen to
him he is the ruler. Same goes to Linus, Larry, etc.
People make freqently bad analogies between communism and free software. There is one big difference tough. In communism those who did not actually do any work ruled others.
In free software you can change the world only by working hard.
Is this so hard to crasp? People
may not listen RMS, but when he decides that Scheme is good scripting language for users and some other coders listen to him. Users can't do nothing!
If somebody don't agree, he must deliver the code himself.
FreeSW-world is crude, sometimes arrogant but brutally fair.
The world wide web was invented in Switzerland!
Yeah, well, the alternative to Linux world domination isn't linux coexisting happily with everyone else. If it was, you'd be right, and who'd care?
The alternative is Microsoft domination everywhere, and you can be pretty damn sure they'd kill off standards like http, smtp, tcp/ip, etc as soon as they could and leave the obnoxious 'coexistence' crowd with outdated hardware (because the new hardware would be Microsoft Only), unable to use the internet anymore (because it would be Microsoft Only), to die at the side of The Road Ahead.
No thanks, I'll bear with the influx of the clueless if it guarantees that the future hardware and basic networking will remain open and free for all. If it gets too annoying there's always HURD or others, and if an OSS system like Linux has to be sacrificed to the masses for World Domination to guarantee the future freedom, then so be it.
RMS is Righteous.
Linus is Righteous too.
-Hobart
If I understood correctly Linus comes from Finnland.
Now, can you (yes, you with your wonderful USA- superpower-were-number-one attitude and education) tell me exactly at which time/in which dimension Finnland was a Communist country?
Please stomp your foot twice if you managed to read all of those hard words.
I think both should get equal credit. Why are people so eager to find a "owner" or someone who is the sole creator? Its like people are looking for celebrities. I really don't see why both can't be credited at the same time. It takes two (or more) to create a peace treaty.. why is it not possible for two (or more) to create a system of operating a computer ("operating system" has been coined to mean a system created by one. IBM has OS/2, Microsoft has Windows, etc.).
I don't see how the world can change when we forget the past before it even makes it to history books.
There is an aspect of the "Linus vs RMS" or "ESR vs RMS" debate that is related to the fundamental differences between engineers and scientists in the way they approach problems and what they consider to be optimal solutions. Scientists seem to be more convinced by RMS' arguments about the correctness of the free software from a socioeconomic point of view and the importance of the free exchange of ideas, while engineers like the nuts-and-bolts "it works better" angle.
From where I sit, I don't really care if it crashes 10 percent less or runs 10 percent faster. I look at long-term viability and freedom. But then again, I'm a scientist. Of course, it takes both engineers and scientists to make great free software.
-Jason
Come mierde. Y vas a chingar tu madre en el culo.
Gee whiz ma, We're multi-lingual and oh so special!
Feel free to live on in blissful ignorance. If the free operating systems stay at the same level or recede to a negligable niche market, I'm sure you'll enjoy trying to convince your ISP to support ordinary PPP CHAP (sorry, only MS patented encryption to log on here), the websites to support some form of open standard (sorry, you need IE 6.0 to browse this site), your publisher/boss/whatever to accept non-MS Word formats, etc.
Dont think it'll happen? You may not be out to get Microsoft, but they *are* out to get you. But of course, who cares, we're in our own little haven so we can always go back to playing around with UUCP.
There is no difference between a "public" and a "private" leader. It's the free software movement. It's made up of the masses who write and use the software. Hiding who we are would mean the next generation of hackers would not know who we are
Free software, GNU and Linux is strong enough to sell on its own merits. We don't have to be ashamed of or hide who we are. Having corporate and popular support is nice, but not necessary. The same guys who are hacking free software now, by and large, were hacking it when we had less than 100,000 users. We're not constrained by a company, and Linux will be what we build it to be, no matter whether we have a thousand or a million users. We have no reason to give up our ethics to sell GNU and Linux.
- pmitros at mit.edu
emacs doesn't count as "useful code"
I think you'll find that this guy is saying RMS is like John the baptist. I wonder what that makes Linus.
Most Finns feel tremendous animosity toward Russia (particularly the old Soviet regime). Finland is a small country that has been bullied by Russia for generations. My wife is Finnish, and I've spoken with many of her relatives about Russia.
Calling Finland a "one-time Communist country" is like calling France a "one-time Nazi country" because the Nazis occupied France in WWII.
"Calling Finland a "one-time Communist country" is like calling France a "one-time Nazi country"
because the Nazis occupied France in WWII."
Exactly. Finland only became a country this century. When the Bolshevics (sp) took over, Finland declared itself a country. During WWII, They had to fight Russia and Germany; odd, since Russia and Germany were also fighting each other. I may have some chronology out of order, but my point is Finland has remained remarkably free considering the enormous powers that have tried to swallow them up.
Urusei, bakayaro! Che... Mukatsuku!
Huransojin wa sugoooi baka da-na!
Europe, yo le hablo, "Chinga tu madre!"
Maybe there's a little communist in everyone of us? What is communism? Is China really a communist nation?
With so many philosophy majors around, it's so funny we still response on instinct to the word "communism". Are we ever going to get beyond the terms to the ideologies themselves?
In any case, today's border's at 49 for the region in question, not 54. Looks like, musical references aside, it failed.
If he's suppose to be John the Baptist:
Bring me his head on a silver platter, please, daddy.
Finland was never occupied by the USSR!
I was once asked by a 16 year old American teenager if houses in the UK had stairs.
Also he was quite amazed that dope is available in the UK. So it does not suprise me if Americans cannot find their own country on the map yet alone their own arseholes.
How Ignorant!
>emacs doesn't count as "useful code"
Silence, Infidel!
If I understood this Article, it should say who (RMS or Linus) can be best present to the public.
...
Well, this is a question I never asked before
Linux is pro-consumer, not pro-company IMO. These are the people RMS is looking out for. If RMS doesn't appeal to companies, that's not who he is after. He wants companies to work for the consumers, not the other way around.
I'm sick and tired of RMS. I wonder if his actions are motivated by altruism or just plain ego (probably both). The kicker was the recent spate of 'GNU/Linux' releases (Debian, Stampede, etc.).
GNU/Linux? WTF? Linux is linux. If I run the ported shell and utils on NT does that make it GNU/NT? Who came up with GNU/Linux?
RMS did not set out to aid the Linux movement. He set out to do with HURD what Linux did. Only after HURD failed to garner any serious interest did RMS toss his hat into the Linux ring.
And now he wants control of the philosophical (sp?) direction. Just shut up and go home dude.
Yes, RMS has done much good for Linux, and computing in general. And he's always more than willing to point that out for you.
However you could also argue that ESR has had a much greater effect on the mainstream - which is much more important in my opinion. (I'm a Sr Programmer at a F500 company and the Holloween Memos had a very great effect in my circles. Hardcore MS people are now looking at Linux seriously. That says a lot to me).
Ohhhh...Cool. Can I do the nails?
GNU/Linux. Bah. LINUX
Okay, the kernel stuff might be only 3% but it's a pretty damn important 3%... all that 30% of GNU applications and utils are a fat lot of good without a kernel to run them under.
...it is really stupid to think that Linus is being rejected for his nationality. The U.S. is a nation of immigrants and has a proud history of people coming over here from all over the world and making their fames and/or fortunes.
To be American doesn't mean you're born here, it means you agree with the American ideals of capitalism: [1] the production (not the seizure, not the redistribution) of wealth, and [2] voluntary trade, the persuasion of the dollar (or gold) instead of the force of guns. Being American means you believe in MAKING money, which means production, whether it's material or intellectual production.
RMS holds the medieval theory instead, at least with regard to software: he believes ownership is morally wrong, he begs for other people's wealth, and believes that theft (by copying, in this case) is morally right but unfortunately illegal, and should be legalized. He makes much of the low cost of copying but ignores the high cost of creating originals; he demolishes legal methods of distributing the latter over the former, destroys the authors' natural rights to their own creations (by subordinating them to "society"), then complains about the economic issues this creates. Though RMS is a genius when it comes to programming, his approach is distinctly un-American.
Linus doesn't believe this. He's not completely consistent, but he has at least said that authors can use whatever license they want, and that users who gripe about licenses are whiners. He has no moral qualms about working for a company that files lots of patents. He has no moral qualms about helping to keep his company's secrets. He produces wealth in remarkable quantities. That he gives some of it away generously is his claim to fame, but he produces it FIRST, and that production is his virtue. (He is still producing it and giving it away. Despite the fact that all of his code has been replaced, he is still administrating the Linux kernel changes, and that creates wealth, too.)
Linus, though not a perfect American in this sense, is much more of an American than RMS.
-- An Ayn-onymous Coward
Not being American should not be an issue for Linus. Linux is a truly international operating system. For example, Alan Cox is from Britain, Andrew Tridgell and Rasterman are from Australia, and Linus is, of course, from Finland.
Americans should stop being so self centred, and realise there is a world outside of their small country.
As an internationally developed and used operating system, it should not matter which country the developers (and figureheads) are from. It is just American jingoism if Americans reject Linus because he was not born in their country.
As an Australian, some of Linux's appeal is the fact that it has been globally developed. It should not be the decision of a small (and small-minded) group of Americans to reject Linus just because he is not 'one of them'.
> Communists believe that property should be
;-)
> centrally controlled by the government.
No, they don't. *Some* communists (e.g. Lenin) believe that centralized control of property is a necessary evil on the way to true communism, in which the enlightened workers will share the world, free from the heavy hand of elite domination.
Not that that has anything to do with RMS
Matt Gushee
Oshamanbe, Hokkaido, Japan
You can't even spell "Huransujin," and you're calling my ancestors stupid?
Matt Gushee (Huransu-kei Amerikajin)
Oshamanbe, Hokkaido, Japan
What is this strange fixation Americans have with communism. They label anyone who does not agree with their capitalist, greedy, jingoistic ideas as a communist. Anyone who shares anything and opposes the status quo is a communist. Anyone who doesn't strive to serve the 'almighty dollar' is a communist.
The cold war is over. Stop this witch-hunt.
Americans and their jingoistic ideas are approaching those of the Nazis. Communism is a valid form of government, but Americans abuse anyone who disagrees with their Capitalist ideals they have been brain-washed with since birth.
We need more people like RMS who show free-thinking and challenge the status quo. He is not a Communist, but brain-washed Americans label him as one.
I'm a little disappointed that Rob and Slashdot are spending as much time as they are talking about PEOPLE as opposed to SOFTWARE.
After all, why are we here? Because we like RMS or Linus or Tom or Rob or any of the rest of the so-called Linux "personalities"? Or because we like the software? Me, I'm here for the CODE. That's all. I couldn't care less about how fat RMS is or how cute Linus is. Much less about their politics, as long as the code keeps coming.
What I want to know is why is this the first time I have *ever* heard of Richard Stallman?? Although I still consider myself a Linux newbie (less than a year on Linux) I read alot of Linux articles on /. and otherwise and its always Linus, Linus, Linus... More should definitely be said about who RMS is and what he's done.
;)
-Fatboy
NOT Richard Stallman
by a British guy, on an OS developed by a US Company.
NeXTstep is dead! Long live NeXTstep
Linus is not an American. Neither is he a captalist. The need to try and make this relation to American-ism or American "ownership" of Linux is ridiculous. It is a globally used and developed operating system. Just because lots of people immigrated to the US doesn't make Linux or Linus any more American. For instance, Canada is a county of immigrants too. This is all irrelevant. We should joyfully accept Linux for what it is and not try to put it into anyone's preconceived notions of what it should be or what it should represent!
--Ally
I'd like to second this. Communism refers to the idea of holding possessions in common. An example is the kibbutzim of Israel (though I'm not sure how far they take the idea). It does however have to do with intellectual property rights, because the idea of communism is to give up your property rights for the common good of the community. This is not a very capitalistic notion and is certainly not "ultra-capitalism", though if voluntary, I see nothing wrong with it.
--Bette Hutchens
Many people outside the world of free software have never heard of Stallman, or even Torvalds. To such people, this is somewhat informative. To the rest of us, it is not.
In any case, it focusses far to much on GNU and Linux (the kernel), ignoring the fact that significant portions of free software and Linux (the OS) are neither GNU nor Linux (the kernel), and these are often not GPL'd: XFree86, BSD, Perl, Apache and so on.
Strictly speaking, Linux is not an OS, but neither is GNU. Even if you include Linux (the kernel) as part of `GNU', it is not complete. The name `GNU/Linux' is no better than `Linux', and is not as pleasing to the ear (which is actually true of `GNU' anything).
The best idea with redard to Linux-naming is to use the distribution name as the OS name, which is also accurate (SuSE is technically a different OS to Red Hat, which is a different OS to Debian and so on). The best collective name for all the different operating systems that use the Linux kernel is, and this is no surprise, `Linux'! That these operating systems generally include tools from XFree86, BSD, GNU and others is irrelevant. What binds them together is the common kernel.
Sadly, I think Stallman says `GNU/Linux' out of jealousy.
: The problem with most "newage" Free Software
: users is that they either don't recognize what
: people have given them, or they just don't care.
Then there are those who simply believe you can have free software without coercion. Such people (myself included) would say it was the Internet that made Linux (and *BSD) possible, not the GPL. The fact that both the Internet and free software began rapid growth outside the Academy at roughly the same time was not a coincidence.
I'm not trying to dimish the substantial contribution made by the FSF's development tools, only to point out that the FSF is neither the beginning nor the end of software with freely-available source. This was long the norm within the Academy, and what has changed is the Internet has made its extension to the wider world practicable.
: Go to FreeBSD. Please. They have a good
: movement, and if you can't handle what's been
: given to you, the BSD group requires no moral
: authorities to recognize.
*BSD and similar groups rely on honour, not coercion through the threat of a lawsuit. Yes, people have taken BSD or portions of it private (the same is true of XFree86, et. al.), but most have always given something back, and continue to do so. The beauty is the original authors are able to earn a living from their coding work (not support or documentation), while the rest of us also benefit from much of it.
People who believe this is the way things should be probably would feel more at home with *BSD than Linux (but this is certainly not because of Linus).
Yes, but there are many other operating systems (with kernels, of course!) to run GNU tools on, including the *BSDs. A lot of the GNU stuff is just cloned UNIX/BSD stuff anyway, so there isn't much of a point to use it on anything other than Linux or the Hurd, but the point is you can.
> *Some* communists (e.g. Lenin) believe that
> centralized control of property is a necessary
> evil on the way to true communism
Yes, that is the general Marxist view, which certainly doesn't equate to all communist or socialist movements (though all the major communist movements which have achieved power have been essentially Marxist).
On a broad level, Marxism is a branch of the Western, Enlightenment philosophy so deeply worshipped in America, that a universal civilisation will eventually triumph on a global level. The Marxist project turned out to be a disaster, and my guess is the American project of a global laissez-faire Utopia will fare scarcely better in the long run.
Of course, as you said, this is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand.
If Open Source succeeds, Linux doesn't have to dominate anything; the availability of source code will allow each of use to use whichever operating system he likes. Only with closed source is there the requirement that a single platform dominate.
> What is this strange fixation Americans have
> with communism.
This stems from the fact that the American laissez-faire project and the Soviet communist project are two sides of the same coin: the creation of a perfect, universal, global civilisation. It is essentially a religion (representing the `one true path'), and when such a religion splits, in this case into Classical laissez-faire and Marxist communism, the two factions always hate each other most.
Followers of one faction or the other often can't even conceive of the possibility that there may be people who do not belong to the religion at all, so anyone who does not agree with one side is automatically assumed to sympathise with the other. In the view of the American project, the defeat of Soviet communism automatically meant a world-wide victory for the American project, because there is obviously no other possibility; hence the claptrap about the `end of history', and the belief that everyone will eventually be Americans (in all but name).
To put it simply, the American world view does not allow for anything other than `capitalists' and `communists'. If you disagree with any significant aspect of American capitalism, you must be a communist.
Finland was once a Grand Duchy of the Russian Empire, but it declared itself independent in 1917, after the Bolsheviks siezed power in Russia. It was thus never part of the Soviet Union.
It has in the past been ruled by Sweden, and lost some territory to Soviet aggression during the Second World War, but has never been under a communist regime.
Actually, the Germans assisted the Finns in their defence against Soviet aggression.
linux doesnt exist with out GNU tools, Lets clerify some things first. Linus isnt the only person who works on the kernel there are many unsung heros out there. RMS is(has?) not the only person who works on gnu tools. For some strange reason humans need a figure head linus and RMS fit this bill. While this doesnt say they havent contributed significant amount of work to GNU and linux, the popularity they recive is not for codeing efforts its for "being the one" who started it all. This is about as equvilant as a CEO or something like that. Personaly I think thats a wrong reason to give a person credit. There is a fairly long list of people that deserve as much credit as both of them. This figure head phenomnon is strange at best, because its not based on contributeing actual contributeing. For example even though RMS has done alot of work he gets all the credit for every GNU project out there. Like anyone has nearly that much time. Linus gets credit for all of the snazzy features in the kernel, when in fact he was opposed to many of them at first. No one is perfect, none should get all the credit for either of thease projects. Respect a person for what they do, not abstract reasoning that doent make sence.
It's interesting to see people responding to this who have never actually met RMS. I met him at a party a few weeks ago, and I'd have to agree, on speaking to him, that he's not the person you want as the public face of GNU/Linux.
I have nothing against the guy and agree with a lot of what he has to say. But the obsession with which he rants (yeah, loaded word) about freedom of code is a little off-putting.
Sure, freedom of code is important, but trying to discuss with him issues around GNOME and where OS's should be headed, I could never get past the politics. It's nice and necessary that he's willing to fight that fight, just like it's nice and necessary that accountants are willing to pore over budgets, but most of us are interested in discussing more than just code politics or accountancy.
Actually OS/2 started as a joint MS/IBM project, so I guess you could say there are two creators of OS/2. Look around some proprietary unix's shell scripts some day. You might be surprised at to what evil companies copyrights are in there too.
anonymously, of course, since germany had a non-aggression pact with russia at the time.
Communism and marxism are not totally congruent.
Communism is a specific implementation of marxist theory (marxism is also an implementation of socialism, a _very_ general concept). The fact that Communism failed, via poor leadership (try not to slaughter your citizens, mr. stalin), cultural incompatibilities (mass slaughter was a common thing even before the soviets, on all sides. Russian society just hasn't quite developed cultural aspects we take for granted.), lack of individual drive, thought, or accountability, etc, etc, etc.
There aren't too many original societal ideas on the planet; it's just that different people and places pose radically different challenges to different social/governing styles. The failure of a style does not condemn it universally. That would be anecdotal evidence, which is inherently worthless.
not that I'm pushing marxism or anything. He was all screwed up, too. his ideas on material and property were particularly far-fetched, if I recall.
> Does this article tell anyone anything useful ?
Does this whole site tell anyone anything useful? A bunch of phony ostensibly pro-Linux propaganda... who the f cares?
Communist or not, he does come through as a wacko. What's he living off of? In his contribution to "Open Sources" (from O'Reilly, uncharacteristically bad book) he conveniently skeeps that question. He makes a lot of sense as long as one doesn't ask--what am I gonna live off of? I remember somewhere his suggestion that the distributors charge a bit more and throw some money his way (or open source way--I'm not accusing him personally of anything.) Now, _that_ does look a bit like communism. He'll be a certified genius and a big papa'll take our money to support him--for everyone's gain, of course. I'm gonna ignore the fatso until I know what he's living off of.
> During WWII, They had to fight
> Russia and Germany
that's a news to me. I just saw a picture somewhere of Mannerheim and Hitler participating in some kind of gathering--and looking rather friendly. Weren't they on the same side? Anyway, all I know about Finns is that they drink a lot . Nothing bad otherwise...
Well, Finland used to be Lapland--a province of the Russian Empire. There didn't use to be any Finland (officially, that is.) It's a bit like Poland. USSR did fight them in '39 (or '40?) cause they wanted a chunk of their territory to better prepare for Hitler's advance. They offered some exchange before, as I read somewhere, but the Finns refused the deal. The Soviets did win this small war and cut off a chunk of land.
> emacs doesn't count as "useful code"
Correct .
That is a thoughtful comment (w/o any irony) Probably too intellectual, though. "communist" is simply a curse word in the US. Not w/o a reason btw. But generally, it's a propaganda device--Bertrand Russel touched on this issue rather well.
This is all very well, and more power to RMS. I followed his idea on the net and in books, and (maybe it's me) still I fail to see the answer to a simple question: who's gonna pay? I can't figure out what he's saying on that issue. I can't see how this stuff will 'convert' the commercial user. The idea with 'free' s/w is, save on Windows, get a bare box, put linux on it. Then pay 100-times more to a geek who'll be able to operate the damn thing (and besides, he'll get you by the balls in a year's time cause he'll be the only one who can make any sense of what you've got there.) Doesn't look too attractive. Most people don't care for the source and do care for the price. So, where does it lead us?
Why not? If it's good...
..one click increases the weight and no more :)
:)
LOUD VOICES. I cannot wait until this feature
is integrated into my wearable comp
Off topic? OK. Since I apparently delegated
my vote to you to declare rms (small caps look
so nice...) a commie, would you like
to dominate the world for me too?
The name of the OS is Linux.
I am really getting sick of this GNU/Linux name.
Does RMS have the power to change it? In his dreams.
"RESPECT MY AUTHORITY"
Stallman, you sound like Cartman.
You are not the Linux spokseperson, you never will be, and acting like a fool won't get you voted in as pope either. So whats your trip?
communism is not a valid form of government. the truth is: american's rule the world right now, if we say your a communist then your a communist since you can't do anything about it.
Why don't you ask him yourself.
His address is rms@gnu.org
E.
Stupid American scum!
You don't rule the world, no American would have the brains to rule a toilet.
Why should we sit here and bad-mouth other peoples countries? What does that have to do with anything? It doesn't matter. There are both good and bad people in all countries. Were we not talking about Linux here? Last and final I do know where Finland is on a map, right next to Sweden, Norway, and Russa. Why should it matter anyway? I cannot believe people turn this from a Linux forum, to talking trash about people from other countries.
Posted by !ErrorBookmarkNotDefined:
>> Perhaps more than Linus Correction: Without a doubt more than Linus. But who's counting?
-----------------------------
Computers are useless. They can only give answers.
Posted by The guy in the next cubicle:
Actually, Finland *was* once occupied by the USSR, which would make it a one-time Communist country.
If you were hoping for a rather more insightful and in-depth review of the philosophical differences of RMS, Torvalds, et al., then I offer you my essay on Philosophies of Free Software and Intellectual Property (69KB), which examines a broad range of philosophical approaches to free software and intellectual property (without heavily advocating any of them).
The Famous Brett Watson, famous at nutters org
Since when do you have your finger on the pulse of 'a majority of Slashdotters'? I assure you that most posts I see on Slashdot are extremely pro-Linus (as well they should be), and I think the majority (not all) of posts come from US readers. In fact I don't think I've ever seen an anti-Linus post on Slashdot (from anyone, anywhere).
No kidding, I love being generalized by someone accusing me of generalization. You know, one of those "oxymoronic" things.
-Erik-
My antipathy (I only FEAR my doctor's opinion) for RMS comes from the fact that trying to turn people on to Linux is like beating back high tide with a hammer, thanks to certain freakazoids who make the whole enterprise look about as respectable as distilling gin in your bathtub.
The problem with most "newage" Free Software users is that they either don't recognize what people have given them, or they just don't care.
Go to FreeBSD. Please. They have a good movement, and if you can't handle what's been given to you, the BSD group requires no moral authorities to recognize.
The fact is, is that people see this raving freak, they aren't seeing the mind behind it, nor the ideals that created all this hoopla. After all, if that fanatical hairy freak wasn't spending months with lawyers creating and revising the GPL, would we be having this discussion? Would you be using a Linux machine to type your messages here, or run a server?
No.
Just remember that, everytime you type gcc, to compile your GPL'd code, on your OS made of Free Software.
Then think of the person who created every single one of those terms, and remember how much you criticize him for doing nothing but stifling linux's growth.
Let the OS shape itself in the minds of others, some of the best things in the world have come from the eccentrics.
-Erik-
"Sous mon grain, couchon American! "
Your point is proven
If they knew even a little french, there
would be a flame war from your comment.
BTW: Europe rulez!
Linus writes and maintains code and gives away the results for public consumption. RMS writes and maintains code and gives it away for whoever is willing to subscribe to his set of beliefs.
Get it right, troll. Both LT and RMS distribute their code under the same license, and that license says nothing about an ideology requirement on the part of its users. (It does have something to say about freedom and fairness, however.) Furthermore, RMS has written far more of such code than LT has. (Not that LOC is all-important.)
I think the real issue at stake here is that the US (media and majority of /.ers) are unwilling to credit a "foreigner" (Linus) with a major contribution to the future.
Since when do you have your finger on the pulse of 'a majority of Slashdotters'? I assure you that most posts I see on Slashdot are extremely pro-Linus (as well they should be), and I think the majority (not all) of posts come from US readers. In fact I don't think I've ever seen an anti-Linus post on Slashdot (from anyone, anywhere).
The bottom line is that people are afraid of RMS, because he levels serious and true accusations against our materialistic and anti-community way of life. Rather than react in fear, I think people should question what they've recieved as culture and as wisdom. (I am not saying that we should all become Stallmanites. I am saying we should all reexamine ourselves and our society.)
I am amazed. An article about RMS on /., and what do I see? Indeed, it appears to have replies in the form of intelligent posts, not (mostly) raving diatribes...
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
Dimidium donare Lino quam credere totum qui mavult, mavult perdere dminidium. (Martial, Epigrams I.75)
-----------
Hmmmm, I had NEVER considered that any form of nationalism or ethno-centrism played any role in the distribution of support of the various leaders of this movement, and I think its downright stupid... I think, certainly, RMS' extremism might appeal to some Americans (like myself, certainly) as a leader in the defense of our intellectual freedoms, but other than that I can see no connection as Im sure people across the globe are actracted (or repulsed) for similar reasons.
Id tend to agree with the (overtly-obvious and shallow) essay above in that RMS is a valuable "sqeaky wheel", while Linus is infinitely more valuable as the de facto leader and warm-and-fuzzy representative of the movement...
What a weak article. Hardly worth the 2 minutes it took to download over our busy network. Lignus is a cuddly spokesman, Stallman is a fanatic. Boy, there's a load of news. Slashdot's already shoddy standards have reached a new low. Was this piece written by some punk university student? Why don't you write about what some of the lesser gods in the hacking pantheon think? How about Alan Cox, Larry Wall, Rasterman, Roland McGrath and others. What does Donald Knuth think about software freedom issues...
commies commies commies
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please CHANGE YOUR RECORDS!
You Septics wouldn't know what a Commie was if it jumped up and bit you on the behind!
Give it a rest and GROW UP!!!!!
I'm out of my tree just now but please feel free to leave a banana.
I completely disagree that we should passively stand by and let RMS be ignored by CNN (et. al.), purely because some consider him too much of a 'zealot' to be the leader of a movement-- here, free software. /and/ he does a lot of work with (GNU)Linux-- but remember that RMS is responsible for -- i believe the number quoted was 30% ?--of the base code, while the kernel is maybe 3%?
/Free/ Software movement, and the concept of OSS. RMS is responsible for the GPL, but (on the part most of us tend to forget) he advocates FREE over SUPERIOR-- in fact, Linux being a better OS is almost irrelevant. RMS is advocating the concept of free over /any/ proprietary software.
/about/ the collaboration of many people to work on a (superior) product. That's part of the beauty of OSS. And the idea of collaboration can go hand-in-hand with our having /multiple/ leaders, possibly with somewhat different agendas, in both RMS and Linus.
When debating these issues, try to keep a few things in mind.
First, yes, Linus is responsible for the kernel, and I definitely agree that he makes a great figurehead,
Second, remember the difference between the
I have no problem with Linus being Finnish-- i hadn't even considered the idea that people might reject him as a leader of the movement simply because he's a foreigner: why is it that the US is automatically assumed to be the rightful 'owner' of the OS anyway? But face it, people: Linux is all
RMS has a lot of perfectly vaid points. Just because he rubs a lot of us the wrong way, we tend to reject him. But although we may come out of reading an interview with RMS somewhat annoyed at his attitude, we (techies and the public/the masses alike) will probably come out of it knowing a bit more about his influence in the movement, not to mention leaving with a better understandment of the movement (OSS, free software, Linux, etc) itself.
--Anneke
--Anneke
"Real Women Use Linux"
I agree with what you're saying, but then, I also don't.
;-) )
Linux is as good as it is because of collaborative coding - and that's a direct result of Open Source software. Not GNU itself.
However, just as other people are saying, "Listen to what RMS has to say,", I do wish RMS would sometimes listen to what others have to say.
Whether we like it or not, commercial needs have a direct influence on software, too. If only to give me that cup of tea I just had, or to pay for the line I use, or the computer, or whatever.
In a perverse twist, Linux will only hit the desktop when the likes of Microsoft actually back it to some degree as a desktop platform. Not because Microsoft's say so is important in and of itself, but because the opinion of business is. And business tends to use Office right now. (And, having used it, I can sometimes see why).
Perhaps more confusingly, I'm currently working on a project which none of the developers can see a way of giving out the source. And yet I'll happily give out the source for many other projects I've worked on. This one is a networked game - income - to pay my rent, to pay for the game's servers, and so on - relies on the game being fair, as well as playable. I can't produce that in a source distributed form, so I can't use GPL, so I can't use GPL libraries, so I then have to do even more work, simply to produce a freely downloadable game. (Box set with glossy manuals anyone?
Point being (Assuming there is one after all this, anyway) that there's a time and a place for GPL software. It undoubtedly produces higher quality software, a good 99% of the time. But it can often fail to account for other factors... Simple freedom with the code is one thing, but that doesn't always hold.
The good advocate is the one who knows the limitations as well as the freedoms, the cons as well as the pros, and those of the opposition, too. The world at large will accept imperfect solutions - you only need to look at the percentage of machines installed with Win95 for that - but they need to know those limitations, too.
The good advocate demonstrates, eloquently and persuasively, that the limitations of Linux, or GPL, or whatever else, are less constraining, or irritating, or problematic, than the alternative. And where this isn't possible without lying, well, the good coders have to step in and sort that out.
Damn and bollocks. Didn't mean to turn this into an essay. Did someone run me with -v?
Well, RMS in particular has written articles about not using LGPL on libraries, but instead using GPL, on the basis that then, people are forced into releasing the source (By GPL rules).
This fits his philosophy, of course, that freedom of source is paramount, and that the freedom *not* to give out source for any reason shalt not be granted.
In my case, that's a problem - some GNOME libraries may be, or become, GPL, for instance - because I can't reasonably give out the source because the game would then be at peril to people wrecking the system by coding around it.
I'd like to use GNOME, actually, as the UI library, but it's looking now like I'll have to drop that in favour of something else. I have no objections to paying a reasonable fee - but the point is that GPL doesn't fit every occasion.
You just summed up alot of stuff.. but does this essay answer any burning question? Or any question at all?
So RMS is a zealot. That's NEWS! So Linus is a coder.. I never would have guessed.
Ummm.. so?
--
I don't believe that RMS is "what Linux users are all about." RMS isn't anything like what I'm all about. You seem to be operating under the (RMS distributed) stereotypes of RMS as the only person who believes in free software and Linus as just some guy who's abusing RMS' system. /.ers) are unwilling to credit a "foreigner" (Linus) with a major contribution to the future. RMS may have started it all (he didn't - free software was the rule long before Stallman) but Linus' work set the ball rolling for the rest of the world.
Linus writes and maintains code and gives away the results for public consumption. RMS writes and maintains code and gives it away for whoever is willing to subscribe to his set of beliefs.
I think the real issue at stake here is that the US (media and majority of
Ouch - he called me a troll. That hurts. Really.
The bottom line is that people are afraid of RMS, because he levels serious and true accusations against our materialistic and anti-community way of life.
Yes, that's right. I said that I can't stand Stallman or anything he believes in. It's right in my post. Really.
I'm substantially more socialist than your average American (which isn't really saying much) and RMS' beliefs aren't what bother me. His rhetoric and preachiness is. An earlier post compared him to a prophet - well, of course he seems like a prophet, that's how he's been grooming himself from the beginning.
I could even put up with that if it weren't for the whole GNU/Linux thing. True, GNU comprises the *Unix* component of Linux, but that is not really what I like about Linux. I like the speed, the efficiency, etc. When people do benchmarks of OS' they don't measure the speed of the utilities ("Wow, that's one fast 'ls'!") they benchmark the kernel. That is why Linux is the benchmark-breaker. Not because of GNU.
He wants to be "first among peers." He may be willing to acknowledge that the Linux kernel is what makes his software work, but, in his eyes, it is first and foremost a GNU system.
No, this slogan was not about the whole continent, but only about how to divide the Pacific Northwest -- the land to the north of California and to the south of what was then Russian Alaska. Both the British and the Americans claimed the whole thing.
The slogan was only shouted by a few hotheads; the American government never threatened war if they didn't get the whole thing. But there were some minor battles over where to draw the line, particularly in the San Juan islands, where the US and the British almost went to war because someone shot a pig (true!).
"Linux is a coder..." Shouldn't that be "Linus is a coder"? Not to be picky or anything....
Booring... The most curious point was "the Finnish joke", which was very clearly of the Swedish tradition of Finn mockery.
I've never heard those ones in Finland, only in the Scandinavian peninsula.
Much alike the American jokes on Polish people used to be.
I think, therefore thoughts exist. Ego is just an impression.
I can see both sides of this, but have to admit I find Stallman's case the stronger with respect to GNU/Linux. I can understand that businesses and the tie-wearing world find Linus more cuddly (I note no mention has been made of ESR in the above article!), but I think it shows a lack of courtesy to write Stallman out of the picture.
;) - it really doesn't matter where the stuff comes from, as long as it works and as long as we can tweak it...
No, I know nobody's suggesting that. Yet.
However, with Big Business falling over themselves to get a slice of the GNU/Linux pie, it would be all too easy for the voices-inna-wilderness to get forgotten about in the rush to make a buck.
Basic point; I don't want to see, five or ten years down the line, a "Linux" that is encrusted with closed bits; we need to keep the source free; it keeps the coding community interested and that is, for my money, the best thing about GNU/Linux; a sharing of challenge and achievement.
If we were ever to reach the point of "RedHat '05", I'd be tempted to switch to Hurd straight away; choppy and turbulent waters are waay more fun than the mainstream
I'm in no way denigrating Linus' work, nor the Open Source movement. I'm saying that we need all of them to be treated equally; RMS' visionary nature being as important to the OS as Linus' pragmatism.
For the record, I've never seen RMS insist that users follow his set of beliefs; the GPL isn't astoundingly far-out; it's merely a device to try and ensure some credit gets spread around the right areas without anything as restrictive as a copyright hindering progress. Hardly the blueprint for a socialist revolution!
You can adhere to the FSF's general aims without holding them as forthrightly as RMS. Personally, I sympathise with RMS (possibly because he reminds me of my dad!); agreed, he's probably made life harder for himself by his refusal to compromise; but, as the above poster mentioned, he's lived it as he speaks it.
Heck, if the Yankees have such a massive problem with non-US citizens making the future, what about Babbage and Turing
Gideon.
...by a British Guy.
Oh, puhlease.
We don't need to "dominate the world" to keep MS from destroying our standards. I agree with the other guy, who says only fools care about world domination. Let the sheeps use MS crap, we developers don't need them using our free software.
See Figure 1.
Alejo.
Well, actually most libraries are issued on the LGPL which allows you to sell/give away binaries linked with the library. You only need to give the source (of the library) if you modify the library. The QPL (Qt Licence) requires you to pay for a licence if you want to sell software generated with it, but if you're making a profit that should not be too difficult (I don't think the licence is that expensive).
So what libraries do you have problems with ?
*--BigMan--- Time flies like an arrow.. but personally I prefer a nice glass of wine!
Yeah. Granted I may not agree with all of RMS's statements but I can say he has remained dead consistent since day one and I think bit by bit we may tend to agree with him.
... Freedom is not free of charge.
Without RMS where would Free Software be? We may call him extreme and inflammatory - but let's remember he's devoted his life to this and we're all benefiting from it right? Granted he doesn't do a good business spindoctor job, but there are plenty of ppl who do that in this world, we need a guy like RMS and we know it.
The problem is that sometimes the truth makes ppl uncomfortable - and the truth is we all want the cake and we want to eat it too. Guess what
don't forget about stallman vs. egcs
Some Factoids.
eat them up. yum yum.
12 of his pals should invite him to a supper. while there they should refer to wine as blood and bread as flesh and introduce into the conversation the themes of transcendence and resurrection/rebirth. might work *grin*
Stallman never took classes at MIT: he has a bachelors in physics from Harvard.
the environment on the 9th floor of 545 Tech Square was such that you did not even have to be an MIT student to hang out there.
A hacker's secret? I guess there are a lot of hackers around.
I think this brings forth the thought of "What makes a hacker?" I know people who consider themselves to be M$ gurus. I also know people who think that anybody who is a software guru is really a hacker.
About free software over running the commercial (paid-for) software for at least OS's, I think that it won't happen ever. I am trying to prove to my mother that Linux is a valid solution for serving her school, which she is sysadmin (technology advisor) and overseeing the work of installing EVERYTHING. She dosn't belive that a free system can be capable of working as well as if not better than a commercial system.
I plan to network the house this summer to prove this point. My budget is $100 in addition to the equipment I already have to network a Mac, and 2 PC compatables plus one server for dialup on demand. With teh exception of the Mac network card, I have it in the bag I think, although I'm afraid it might be only 10baseT instead of 10/100.
Laugh, it's good for you!
the biblical model of prophet was not as much a soothsayer as a person to confront society and say, "dammit, you're doing it wrong."
RMS is a voice crying out in the wilderness. Voices like that generally don't lead pep rallys. Prophets generally don't make friends in The Establishment they criticize. Being a prophet was an effective way to get yourself crucified.
Yet, we see a certain Rightness in what they are saying, even if we disagree with much, we see they're at least part right. Yes, RMS is strident and political. Yes, we need a paranoid voice calling us to a better way.
No, RMS is not the most effective guy to rally the troups and take us forward. We need positive voices like Linus' who are primarily focused on the getting the result of software
To most Americans who have heard both of them speak, RMS seems a lot more foreign than Linus.
54-40 OR FIGHT!!!!
--
Beef
"Raging Moderate" of the
You realize the "54-40 or fight" reference refers to a 19th century desire of Americans to own the continent upto 54 -40' North Latitude, don't you? You realize most of that is and always will be CANADA, don't you? So I guess Linus is as much a communist as I am an American...not very bloody much!
I can make all sorts of fun of you Americans, however, since according to recent school surveys, you can't find your own country on a map, let alone mine (or Finland apparently).
Boy, do I feel safe knowing you guys have the bomb! (NOT).
Sous mon grain, couchon American!
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
Yeah, Your right on both counts...
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
The basis for this summation (I will not call it an essay) seems to be that we "need" a spokesmodel (sorry Linus) for the @#$% OS, therefore Stallman should be quiet while Linus flashes a boy scout smile and generally make all of the suits feel better.
How important is it for the suits to feel better? I for one enjoyed working with Linux much more in the kernel 1.2 days, there was a general air of camaraderie (sp?) among us all and we felt like we were really doing something neat. Now when I come to work I get 100 questions about why doesn't this or that work, why can't this stupid linux box work like my Win95 box, etc... These are all from people who know I'm a linux user for long time.
Our new problem will be convincing the suits that there are other distributions other than IBM Linux, Compaq Linux, and major-vendor-who-buys-out Red Hat Linux. If you are worried about the comfort level of the suits, Big blue and crew will take care of that.
I applaud every one of the developers in the Linux community for putting out something that got me more excited than my first MSAI, but this new need for acceptance will be the thing that drags us down. I applaud Stallman for standing up and saying "this is our OS, it will stay our OS. You don't like it? Here's the source code, make it your OS." (this of course does not guarntee that our tools will work with your OS)
So, if Stallman is against a "Linux Standards Organization" headed by IBM, HP, Intel, Compaq, et.al., I'm with Stallman.
Hey Erik,
Regarding your commentary here. Something that I've noticed about a lot
of people's opinions about RMS seem to bother me as well. The biggest
thing is that a lot of those who actually voice themselves here on
think that he (RMS) feels his fire is being snuffed out by Linus. Hence
the whole name thing. GNU/Linux. That's not my take on it at all.
I really don't think that he presses this name thing because he feels
the need to be recognized himself. Rather he feels the need that at least
now is an important time to recognize the idea of Free Software. Average
Joe wouldn't see the name Linux and say, "Wow, this whole idea is rather
neat!" let alone make him think twice about what exactly free software
and open source actually is and means.
In other words, the product of a virtuous community is being the subject
of attention rather than the virtuous community itself. Without that
community... Linux would be worse than MSWindows as an example. No matter
how good or efficient that product (Linux / GNU/Linux) is.
I don't necessarily agree with everything Mr.Stallman says. But he's
onto something here and it makes me kind of sick when I see so many of us
flaming him when he stands up for what we are. Or pretend to be anyway.
If there really is a battle out there. Like so many say there is between
Linux or GNU/Linux (however you may prefer) and other OS's such as MS's,
it isn't OS vs OS at all. It's a cummunity's beleif model against another
more mainstream one. GNU/Linux is merely a statement. Pardon the expression,
A love child so to speak.
On a side note... One that may have relevance or one that may not (I
don't really beleive so myself), I'm not a programmer. I'm a musician.
But that doesn't mean I can't contribute to the community. Also, I've
never had a Linux box or any other Unix system. (I ran FreeBSD for a while
on my A3000T a few years ago though. But hardly long enough to have that
count for anything) I've friends that have used Linux over the years
and still do. As a result I've been learning more about it in the
technical sense and as a whole the idea around it. I'm currently waiting
for my R5 distro of LinuxPPC. I specifically bought a PPC G3 to run Linux.
I also needed the Mac platform because of Pro-tools.
I mention this because I see some
they've made concerning the actual hardware they currently use. =) Function
before machismo is my motto. Not everyone has the same needs as others.
You don't even have to be using Linux itself to understand the whole concept
behind it or even appreciate it. Although I think it would help to practice
what one preaches. I myself haven't used it for good reasons up until now.
Music software/editors and sequencers as well as software synthesis are
making headway in Linux. So now I can finally leave and use something
worthwhile and not have to give up a great deal of my favorite hobby. And
feel good about it all the while. Maybe even dredge up my old and creaky
programming skills and bring them up to date sometime soon and write my
own software as well.
Anyhow, I've gone way off topic. =)
I just wanted to say that you are somewhat right and that I somewhat agree with
you. All except for the idea that RMS may make a bit of a scary or crazy figurehead.
Again I don't beleive that he's looking for his space in the spotlight. Just trying
to make sure that the idea that started this whole thing isn't lost or overshadowed.
There is no real figurehead for GNU/Linux except for the media's need to produce
one for public consumption. Once someone really starts to use Linux, they'll be
hard pressed to not stumble across the whole ideal that makes it possible anyway.
So in my eyes, practically anyone could promote the OS and get away with it.
Except for maybe a select few... Gates Jobs Haynie.. =)
Like it or not, RMS's a large reason for all of this. As far as charisma goes? I don't
think charisma has anything to do with GNU/Linux at all. I don't go out
of my way to use a product because I or someone else might find the person or what
have you promoting it to be cute. How many people here, old and new use GNU/Linux
because they think Linus Torvalds is cute? Or rather don't use it because Richard
Stallman may come off as fanatic about the whole subject? Does a Gnu for a mascot
keep people away from using GNU software and does a cute penguin really attract
people to linux?
Not many is my guess. Linux doesn't need catchy (insert musical Intel bells here) and
(insert flashy translucent colours there) as well as (insert NewTek video toaster girl
here) or even to be more precise (insert catchy phrase "Where do you want to go today?"
somwhere in there too). We're not looking for a beautiful head of hair to sell shampoo
or anything here...
In your first paragraph you say that Linus is a better match for marketing Linux.
Promoting it would be a term I would be more comfortable with. But what do you mean
by "marketing it"? Marketing the OS or marketing the beleif and moral system that made
it possible? I would think that the latter is far more important than the OS itself.
But of course in the world as it is, you would need something tangible like the OS
to bring attention to how it was created. IE the whole free software/open source models.
Which can be used for far more than just software licensing.
The OS and the community to me seem to be very symbiotic (it has to be) and it would be
very hard if not impossible to completely seperate the two. In effect it would destroy the
OS as it is known now. And the community would still find a way to survive although
probably somewhat split about the whole thing. There's your code fork. And that would make
Linux and what it stands for a bit of a failure. Oh I'm sure it wouldn't hurt people like
you and myself.
We'd just keep using and developing the GNU/Linux that we always have. But that's not
the point. GNU/Linux isn't about keeping it to ourselves, it's always been about sharing.
Even if something like that did happen, My guess is that it would only be a matter of
time before the 'pure' form of Linux would start to rise again. It always will. But it
certainly would be better if something like that didn't have to happen. And it doesn't.
Why waste time. Our time...
More importantly, as your example shows, RMS doesn't have to be the only one around to
get the message across or rather just remind us as to what it's all about. I personally
wouldn't care as to who is spreading the message or how many. The more the better. I also
beleive that Stallman doesn't really care either. But since he is who is is, why not?
Flames or no flames.
I ask one simple question of you. Why on earth should we activley hide our Pillars of
the community from the outside world? Shame?
I don't understand. Maybe someone can help me out on that... Or maybe it's because I'm
a newbie. Have I missed something here?
- Jase
Does this article tell anyone anything useful ?
... ?
It seems to me to be an inflated piece around
an opinion which goes roughly "Linus is good,
so is Richard but Linus is a safe geek while Richard ( bless im ) is a bit of a loony"
And the conclusion is
-- Oh Well
Richard Stallman is not a communist. Communists believe that property should be centrally controlled by the government. Stallman does not believe this; he believes that the government should not enact, support or enforce intellectual property rights pertaining to software.
In fact, one could even argue that RMS is an ultra-capitalist, as he believes in nullifying the vast majority of government-interference in relation to software.
Sure, but Linux is GPL'ed remember that? And I truly think that RMS and his folks at MIT have put together a definitive "Free Software" movement. I do think that www.fsf.org matters, not a lousy redhat.com or linux.com. After all, the Linux kernel is just a headlong POSIX compliant kernel! The only success it has attained (IMHO) is the incorporation of a multitude of device drivers. (Yeah, and networking, and this and that) Forget about it and any good coder at 19 can go ahead and write an OS based on MINIX (BTW Tanenbaum rullaZ!). Though, I do appreciate that it takes a lot of skill and effort to make such a portable kernel a reality. And there is nothing wrong with the "GNU/Linux" naming, since the most *critical* parts of the system we run are made possible by the GNU project. They deserve the credit. Y'know without all those development tools, we wouldn't have a Linux kernel in the first place. What's more, your point about HURD is just misleading. Just because a zillion developers did't jump on the HURD, doesn't mean that it's any bad. When HURD gets out of alpha, it will be the finest free OS to see the light of day... And about the hardcore MS people, I think this corresponds to those people who are managers /developers in the industry who have no clue about computing? Fu**'em up man. I just had to wrestle with the suckey MFC and NT for the last year because of them...
--exa--
You're forgetting gcc that you use to compile the latest kernel the minute you get your hands on it.
I don't think we will gain by having Linux on every desktop. It will slowly be tamed and dulled, I think it would be better off staying a hacker's secret.
#include "mysig.h"