Slashdot Mirror
Free software's Brave GNU world
stodge@hotmail.com sent us a link to
Free software's brave GNU world, another in a recent
stream of articles about RMS not getting credit in the age
of Linux. This one isn't bad.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
1984
O'Brien: How many are two plus two, Winston?
Winston: Four, five six whatever you say!
O'brien: That's right, Winston. Two plus two are whatever we declare them to be
1999
O'Brien How many are two plus two?
Winston:Four
O'brien: Wrong Winston ! Very, Very WrOng! Two plus two is not four --as far as you're concerned. Two plus two are five are six are three, any thing but four. Two plus two are four is a proprietary algorithm and thus the intellectual property the Party, who retain full exclusive rights to their property.
Many of the utilities I have on my windows partition weren't written by Microsoft. Should I call Windows "Microsoft, Norton, Corel, etc.../Windows 95?"
Linux is an operating system. Alot of its utilities are part of GNU, and RMS deserves recognition for that. However the operating system is called Linux, so when one is talking about the operating system they should refer to it as Linux.
The /kernel/ is called Linux. It's not much of an operating system without the GNU stuff. He doesn't want it called the GNU/Linux kernel, but to say that you have a "Linux system" is misleading, because you in fact have a "GNU/Linux" system.
RMS is slowly being marginalized, which is why
he's being so vocal right now. Before all this,
GNU was (or was seen to be) the moral high ground
of software. Internet time finally caught up with
the FSF/GNU, and even gcc, the FSF flagship,
is being outrun by another group (egcs). Kinda
sad, oh well.
Anyway, it's gotta be aggravating that HURD (or
whatever it's called) has been outrun so quickly.
It it actually out yet?
Well,
I dunno - I call it GNU/Linux - but that's in part because I use Debian GNU/Linux.
Besides, there's other open software that lets you do 'whatever you want' - its the *BSD variants.
This is not a shot at the *BSD distros - they have a much deserved reputation for correctness and quality - but it seems that the BSD style license is better suited for the 'commercial' types than the GNU Public License.
.....is DC current. Edison fought visciously
against Tesla's AC, which is the one that
changed the world. Afterwards Edison was
more than happy to take credit for Tesla's
work.
--"I invented the internet."--- Al Gore
Free software means people can use it anyway they
like. If RMS decided to call his stull "free",
why does he still bitching about people not giving
hime enough credit?
The Linux community should be that is NOT RMS who
carries the flag anymore!
I like Gnu stuff, But I just call my system Linux!
RMS is a freaking baby.
Why does calling my SUSE disro Linux malign GNU? Stallman has never explained that. I getting the sneaking suspicion he just wants some of Linus's airtime.
GNU's Not Unix.
Linux can contain GNU without dissing it.
They're both clones anyway.
Thanks
Ron Rangel
You can say the same thing about Linus and his Linux name.
I call my system for Xfree/GNU/BSD/Qt/Linux because it more accurately describes my operating system. Get the point?
So Linus only made the kernal, its an important part, but it isn't the entire Os yet the OS is named after him.
RMS just wants create for what he has done. A lot of people don't want cash but they want their name to be recognize. Linus has it already because he wrote the kernel. Now if everyone referred to Linux as GNU an Linus said the same things as RMS would he be a baby?
GPL software are copyrighted works and you can only do whatever the license allows. In particular, you are not allowed to change the copyright-holder's name which in many, many cases does in fact belong to the FSF. Please note that about
30% of your operating system was created by the GNU project. In comparison, the
size of the Linux kernel (of which Linus wrote 10%) is about 3% of the total size. Giving credit to GNU does not seem unreasonable.
Stallman did write a C compiler but he didn't INVENT C. He just cloned a bunch of stuff.
He gets lots of credit - what he deserves and nothing more.
Yeah, what about comparing the weight of your brain to the weight of your body?
RMS should pull his head out of his ass and realize that it is not going to help his goal
to feud with Linus.
I have never read an article where Linus said that he did not get enough credit. Whereas every other day RMS is sulking or screaming about how he doesn't get enough credit. I am glad to see other free compilers being used in some distros (RMS's main claim to the naming). Will RMS stop harping when gcc is no longer the main compiler? I doubt it.
I do understand where RMS is coming from, and do feel that the FSF is not getting enough credit for what we know and love as "Linux".
However, how many of you Solaris folks immediately download the GNU tools as soon as you load a new box? AIX? So while many of us use a third party kernel, the GNU tools are almost universal on every platform (even though they don't necessarily ship with GNU tools).
Linux will always be "Linux", but I do think it would be fair for distributors to label their products something like "Red Hat Linux, featuring the Free Software Foundations GNU suite of utilities". Just something nice an prominent on the front of the box and CD ROM jewel case. They should be proud of using the GNU tools and the name should be used for marketing purposes, as well as to give credit for the other tremendously significant component.
Too often Apache is given lots of top billing on a package because of its current popularity. GNU should get equal or better billing.
And I would hope that Caldera, SuSE, Red Hat, et al are kicking back some of their profits to the FSF. That would be the ethical thing to do.
If RMS wants his software to be truly free, he has to let it go. He has to push it out into the world and the let the world do with it, call it, as the world will. He is of course free to insist on what people call the software he originated, just as the world is free to continue to call it whatever they want. If the software is truly free he has as much right to insist people call it GNU/Linux as he has to insist that people call Istanbul Constantinople, and probably with just about as much effect.
In order of derivation. Why doesn't RMS call GNU the ATT/BSD derived system of utilities? Or perhaps the 'MIT paid for this' system of utilities?
You know much of that 30% code weight is stupid little text games (even in the emacs lisp code), so if I don't use them do I still have to include the GNU in my system name?
A glib subject header, but one that came to mind seeing the Slashdot header.
I do see RMS and Linus in the relative positions of Newton and Einstein. Newton came first, was by later standards opinionated and simplistic (much like this analogy!), but did a tremendous amount in developing mechanics and calculus, without which later work would have been impossible.
Later, Einstein threw out some of Newton's tenets (absolute space and time) because in the framework he saw (relativity), they just couldn't stay. IIRC, Einstein wrote "Forgive me, Newton," in one of his notebooks.
Now I don't know if Linus Torvalds wrote "Forgive me, Stallman" in a notebook anywhere. However, the point I'm lurching towards is that Linux is different from GNU as relativity is different from classical (Newtonian) mechanics. At a certain point, you stop talking about Newton and start talking about Einstein because that's the point you're working from.
Of course, that raises a projection into the future. When the quantum physicists came along, Einstein freaked. "God does not play dice!" was his retort to the quantum physicists' assertion that electrons were actually probability waves.
So who's going to be the Heisenberg to Linus Torvalds's Einstein?
Giving credit to GNU does not seem unreasonable.
Isn't there a LICENSE (or equivalent) file distributed with Linux? Also, if you run 'gcc --version', does it not give credit back to GNU? I can't answer these questions directly since I am not in front of a Linux box at this moment.
Sean Farley
RMS just wants create for what he has done.
;)
He should have added an "advertising" clause to the GPL. It would require that all OS's under the GPL must give credit to RMS.
Sean Farley
It must be an understood rule only applicable to operating systems. ;)
Sean Farley
I know I don't have a GNU/Linux system. Many of the daemons on my system are of BSD origin. I therefore must have a BSD/Linux system.
The community has voted by usage. Here is a search I did on DejaNews:
45000 hits for GNU/Linux
2600000 hits for Linux (probably includes the GNU/Linux hits)
Sean Farley
"Linux can contain GNU without dissing it."
I think you have it backwards. The GNU system now has a Linux kernel.
I'm sort of new to the Linux scene (about a year), but it was only a few days ago that I learned who "RMS" was, and the significant role he played in its development. Nearly every mention of Linux that I've seen, where it was attributed to a source, mentioned Linus Torvalds, with no reference to RMS anywhere in sight. If journalists would start crediting BOTH of them as "co-creators," it would, if anything, demonstrate a greater degree of fairness.
With all due respect to RMS, I still think
Linux is Linux, not GNU/Linux. Say,
I have a sparcstation and whatever I could
replace with Free Software I did (well, I did
live the Solaris assembler and loader). Yet
I still call it Solaris, not GNU/Solaris.
This is the kernel, not a compiler or
editor or shell script or even Windows Manager,
which we commonly refere when we say 'Unix-like
operating system'.
RMS could have just finished HURD. Whether
GNU didn't have enough resources or something,
I don't know. This whole issue,
Linux vs GNU/Linux is getting out of
proportions.
Once again, I have tremendous respect for RMS.
But - this is Linus Torvald who wrote a Linux
kernel (with assistance of zillion of other
folks, of course)
Oh, wow, they re-wrote awk. oh , excuse me,
gawk(tm RMS). F@#$ that! Besides, the
Sun compiler kicked gcc's butt. GNU only
became a big deal because Linux became a big
deal. Linux ? Ever "hurd" of that???
Linus Rocks !!!
I guess these lamers who complain about RMS don't
know any UNIX or Linux history. If they did,
they might not be complaining. Personally, I think it's great that GNU has a Linux kernel. If anyone wants to start their own distribution without GNU
I wish them luck.
Where the hell is HURD ? I want to switch !
Don't you just get the feeling from the
tone of voice of the reporter that RMS is
jealous and whiny ??? No wonder the community
has adopted Linus as the symbol! Yes, both
are great coders and visionaries; who would
you want to invite over for dinner?
It is more sexy to credit the work with some
intelligent and normal looking 'stdent' than
with a long-beard, street-type figure fanatic.
Well what the hell are you complaining about then? I suppose you prefer the term Open Source and that is not political correctness?
The name should reflect the essential character of the thing being named. Why not call it New Windows or Old Hat?
The essential thing about what there is out there now is that it is free.
Calling it by other names distracts attention from this.
I do not think so.
Every time RMS talks about aknowledging this or that, he never asks anyone to call anything "Stallmanx" or "RMS/Linux".
My point is that Mr. Stallman is consistent with his own views: he _never_ (IMNSHO) tries to promote himself, but rather the FSF/GNU/whatever.
I'll keep on calling the OS I use Linux, rather than GNU/Linux, but I still see Mr. Stallman's point: Linux does not immediately stand for the whole free software philosophy behind it. And I do not really care. Somebody should, though, and that's when I think we should be thankfull for RMS, not only for his many code contributions, but for keeping the fight going.
-awa (Lynx ate my cookies, can't remember my pass)
I seem to recall that, acc. to the Cathedral & the Bazzar, one of the reasons free software works is that it's authors get kudos for their contributions. Now, if the users of free software are going to turn around and spit at those who've made significant contributions, then the whole thing will eventually fall apart, as authors lose interest. Note that freedom to use and freedom to redistribute is not the same thing as freedom to slap the author: seems to me that a lot of you guys are just using libertarianism as an excuse for blind selfishness.
Hurd is not a version of linux. It is a unix implementation on top of a mach microkernel.
Debian GNU/HURD 1.3 is the only distribution.
RMS of course. He brings an assortment of his own tea bags in a large plastic bag. And he will sit quietly under the table hacking away on something important.
Linus on the other hand... Since he's Finnish he'd demand unlimited access to all the Vodka bottles in the house. And if you'd refuse he'd cut you up with his knife (which all Finns are carrying at all times).
>Basically, my interpretation is that the argument >for the "GNU/Linux" name is that so-called
>Linux distributions are basically built on the >pioneer work of the FSF.
And GNU is basically built on the architecture and priciples of UNIX.
I loved this post - it was a small breath of fresh air amongst so much drivel. I don't agree the difference is so much, more of style than substance.
As soon as its part of the GNU project,
It seems that the individuals loose a lot of credit once it become assimilated in GNU.
RMS says that it is less important that everyone knows who wrote the software than the fact that it is free.
But he wants everyone to know that GNU and himself deserve credit.
hmm...
It's a great fun with party games.
It should really be called GNU/Hurd...
but you can call it hGNUrd if you like.
-rms
Obvious: The 3% code that is the core of the OS is the hardest part to write.
Depending on where RMS is going with this,
GNU/Linux may be the wrong name for a Linux
based distribution.
Should be:
Free-Linux, if the point is to underscore the fact that it is based on those software freedom principles that Ricky preaches.
GNU-Linux, if the point is not about individuals who wrote core peices of the OS, or freedom, but rather that the largest portion of code was written by the GNU/FSF organization, which I, Ricky Stalman founded for software freedom.
GNU-X-BSD-Linux - Want to more accuratly give credit according to code percentages.
RMS-Linux, I want all the credit.
Linux, a name change at this point is really not that important.
Had it right the first time buddy.
:P
XFree is NOT GNU and NOT under the GPL.
I invite you to try to run only with code that was written by GNU.
And btw, Under GPL does not mean GNU.
Hint start with T^HHurd...
'nuff said
Yeah, This isn't no freakin free software. Its a bunch of nazis. "do it our way or else!" Screw 'em.
Linux has been called Linux for so many years now. Suddenly its GNU/Linux. |Assholes.
See above.
Qt? Oh I'm sorry, I was looking for the open-source discussion group.
Richard Stalmann, one of the greatest software engineers ever, is working for more than 15 years, sometimes in difficult conditions, to give you and me the possibility of writting these messages with free software. Of course you are free to bash him. Of course you are also free to bash Washington, Lincoln, Churchill, and millions of others who gave their best to fulfill our dreams of freedom, who gave us the possibility of speaking free, even to bash them. That is their major greatness.
... is the official distribution of GNU project
Cocreaters? Cocloners! And they still want all the glory!
"Adopted" is not the same thing! Man, get a life there.
Linux is just a kernel which was suitable for a HURD stopgap. It's good to see that Debian has a HURD distribution happening, Debian GNU/HURD, I like that. :) I also like that RMS looks like a GNU. ;^D
So what if many or even most of the utilities are GNU? Operating systems are historically either named for the kernel or named for nothing in particular.
I don't see any reason to change this just because the utilities are GNU.
Also, Linux is NOT a GNU system. It is a Unix-like system that uses the GNU utilities. Where GNU and Unix differ, Linux systems take the Unix approach, not the GNU approach. The only system that should really be called a GNU system is HURD.
True, you're being more than fair. But GNU in the name helps get other people to spread the word about where the system came from and why it exists. Many hands make light work....
Gosh, that's a big help. Everyone I know spends lots of time staring at their default environment wondering "hmm, what's that mean?"
I don't think Stallman would care about the name if J. Random Linux User knew the story of GNU and how closely what we've been given matches his vision. Free Software is for everyone, so do something to make sure everyone knows why.
That's the real disagreement. Stallman claims this isn't so, that most users never hear anything about Project GNU or the ethical motivations for Free Software. In my limited experience, he's completely right. Come on- nobody would bother writing an article like that if Stallman's saga were common knowledge!
Of course it will. The majority of "Linuxers" have never heard of GNU, and know nothing about Stallman's anti-IP stance.
Uh, how? We've ignored (shat on, really) every reminder so far to publicize the ideas that make all this possible. When should we start talking about it, if not now?
Why would he say that? He gets all of it!
Linux is a relay race where the last runner can't remember what team he's with. The groupies shrug and cheer and give the whole prize to him.
Yeah, the usual metaphor is "if you're not a mechanic, would you happily buy a car with the hood welded shut?"
I have stock Red Hat 5.2 (workstation installation) at the moment; a few kernel headers mention the GPL but I had to start Emacs to find the text and the Manifesto. They aren't making it easy to spread the word.
Ummm, I thought it was Richard.
... the PC that works. As opposed to the one that doesn't.
Debian is independent from the FSF and here is
the proof: ftp to ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/slink/non-free
and you will find more non-free packages than
you can possibly count. No, it is not GNU's
idea to distribute non-free software.
Good point. Perhaps if free software is to thrive in future, the sharing of credit will need to become more systematic. Copyright has had a couple of centuries to evolve; copyleft is still brand new, comparatively.
Why not have the GPL pop up on any load of a Linux system? This seems to me to be at least sensible to draw attention that at least the EU and any newbies would see that the GPL and GNU are inherently parts and foundations of the Linux o/s. I'm not saying there should be the "EULA"-type message box where you either agree or it doesn't allow you to install it...what I'm suggesting is a simple means by which attention would be drawn to at least the licensing and the fact that the software would not be available in this manner without it. This is also a possible for the other licenses,such as BSD,Apache,etc...
Just a wild-haired thought
P.S. I'm not really anonymous,just left my password at the house (: --Rev. Kronovohr
The main distribution of Debian is based of only free software.
To become a leader, all you must do is find a parade and jump in front of it.
This is precisely what Richard is trying to do when he puts "GNU" in front of "Linux."
--Brett Glass
The claim is, IMHO, that GNU set out to do this as early as 1983, and wrote the very basic tools needed for a free Unix (the compiler, libraries and basic tools), and collected other software needed for a system.
For example, GNU has adopted outside free software for its system. X windows and several BSD programs are part of the GNU system.
Basically, my interpretation is that the argument for the "GNU/Linux" name is that so-called Linux distributions are basically built on the pioneer work of the FSF.
---
Nowhere in the GPL it says "Thou shalt prefix every derived work of this code with 'GNU/'." I think you are confusing issues. It is one thing if you are being forced to call the OS GNU/Linux; it is another if you are asked to do so, because of some purported application of an ethical principle.
RMS calls GNU software "free" not because people can do anything they like with it, but rather because you can do anything you like that doesn't make the software any less free for other people. Thus, the GPL removes your "freedom" to take away the freedom from the code and its derived works.
---
This is false. If you are the author of your own code, you can release it under the GPL and give additional permission to link to other code. Though this is a problem when there's a program with contributions from many people, not all of which give permission to link to other code.
This is the reason some people claim distribution of KDE under GPL is illegal, BTW.
The GPL is trying to allow the end user to be able to rebuild the program they are using. That is all fine whent he end user is a progremmer, but not when they are a non techy.
Not quite. Even if you are not techy, you can hire someone to customize free software...
The GPL's disadvantages, as I see it, come directly from the conflict between its goal (keeping the whole of the GNU system free for all of it's users) and the realities of our social system (IP, patent and copyright law). In order to protect your software from being hoarded by proprietary software makers, you must make some sacrifices, which entail you will have a tougher time linking to other free, non-GPL code.
My point is that, the way I see the GPL, it is not an end, but rather a means for free software to stay free in a non-free world. Were the social changes the FSF advocates to come by, all these issues would disappear.
---
Hmmm. I've given some thougt (not too much, don't worry ;-) to this statement, and I couldn't help but think: "is this a definition of Free Software or of Libertine Software?"
Think of it. When we talk about people being free, we don't mean they can do anything they like. We mean that no one is restricts them, that they participate as equals with others in society.
So what the FSF is after is not that you be able to do absolutely anything you like with your software, but rather, than you can do as possibly much with software as you can without anyone else's possibilities being diminished.
---
---
Check the software page on the FSF site. They list the programs which are officially part of GNU, and a bunch of others.
---
And yes, the BSD/XFree contribution is also very important. But that is the reason FSF hasn't written many, say, ftp daemons--- they just took the one from BSD. The idea of GNU is not to write a whole Unix system from scratch, it is to build a free Unix. For this goal, taking existing free software is alright.
---
---
- to take by choice into a relationship; specif: to take voluntarily (a child of other parents) as one's own child.
- to take up and practice or use as one's own
- to accept formally and an put into effect
- to choose (a textbook) for required study in a course
So you are interpreting adopt in only one of it's senses. Your argument is thus seriously strained.(GNU could adopt Windows, but I wouldn't start calling it GNU/Windows).
Well, this is not an issue anyway. Have you seen the FSF claim XFree should be called GNU/XFree, or that the Linux kernel (not the distros) should be called GNU/Linux? In fact, RMS has clearly expressed himself to be in no way in favor of that.
GNU, according to RMS is what you get when you put together all the components the GNU project has written/collected since its start (and that includes X and much BSD code). GNU/Linux is when you combine those components with the Linux kernel. It's not a matter of who wrote how much and which code; it's a matter of who had the vision of making such a system, and set out to make it come by with the means available at the moment.
---
Hehehe. AFAIK, all the free unices, for example the BSDs, are at least built with gcc... So you have to find another free compiler if you don't want to depend on proprietary code. (I don't know if there is another free compiler, or if there is one, how good it is.)
---
I'll only call it Linux. On the other hand I _choose_ the GPL for licensing my software, and not by accident or out of some misguided attempt to be cool: I want the GPL taint, I support that part of the philosophy. And I also talk to people about the GNU philosophy quite often, and have told many people about it.
I truly appreciate RMS, and I figure I can call Linux what I please because I'm already supporting Stallman, very seriously, and at some personal risk (I might be doing myself out of a future, but that's my risk to take, isn't it?)
Posted by Anhydrous Cowboy:
Right, I think we understand that he wants everyone in the world chanting "GNU/Linux" whenever he enters the room. Question: how many divisions has he got?
Posted by Art Pepper:
Personally, I refer to my system as a GNU/Linux because I believe it more accurately describes my operating system.
Posted by DrDrieux:
Rather a good point is also implied here: Isn't Stallman's positon that look-and-feel is also a tool of the Great Satan? If Stallman isn't making the same class of claim here, then I do not understand what he is saying. How odd that he's saying that if it is his ox-- or vision of 'Nix-- that's gored, then what he has previously called evil is actually OK.
Hypocrisy, any one?
And so far as I can tell, ADM Hopper was the proponent of developing a more symbolic language; not exactly the mother of the genre, but very close.
Cheers,
Drieux
Posted by "Courageous Coward":
All the RMS bashers out there, grow up! Stop your automatic responses whenever RMS is mentioned! Don't you know that someone else, not RMS, wrote the article this time?
>(and btw, XFree is part of the GNU system)
? XFree is released under a different license by a different group. How is it GNU?
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
>The main idea of Linus was to bring a new free, powerful OS. And this OS was to be integrated to the GNU.
No, it wasn't. The FSF continued work on HURD because Linus didn't plan to port Linux off the x86 platform. Linus's goal was a free Unix, which he was going to call Freax (sp?) Someone else put the Linux moniker on it, and it stuck. RMS has only raised the GNU/Linux name now that it's popular, a clear case of sour grapes. Using the GPL does not make your program GNU. Nor does using gcc make your program GNU -- proprietary programs aren't named after the compilers used to build them.
RMS is probably pissed not just because of the name, but because Linus and apparently the majority of Linuxers disagree with RMS's anti-IP stance. Apparently RMS believes that changing the name will help spread his views.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
From the article:
> Some open-source advocates "have been known to say if (their) effort produces better technology it'll succeed in marketplace, and if so (they're) right, and if not (they're) wrong," [RMS] says.
RMs then goes on talking about this "right" and "wrong" in the moral sense, when clearly Open Source advocates mean it in the correct/incorrect sense -- correct about open source being the way to technically better software. If you're interviewed, shouldn't you have some clue about the issues you yourself bring up?
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Even I can remember that it's Dr Stallman.
Why does RMS think he has the right to influence what people call the OS ?
;-).
Is it because as the author of a large chunk of it, he believes he has rights over it that other people don't have. I suppose it's his "intellectual property"
It seems to me that continual harping on this point turns people off. Lot's of things are named inappropriately eg "America", get over it. If he want's people to really listen to his message about "freedom" then he would be better off dropping this name thing. BTW, just as I take exception to terms like "software piracy" and "intellectual property" I don't think people should automatically accept RMS's definition of free software. For instance, LGPL seems much more free to me than GPL.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
People see "MS Outlook" and say, "Hey, that's a Microsoft product. It must be (fantastic|easy to use|bloated|evil|feature-rich)." If someone sees just plain "Outlook" and aren't familiar with it, they don't really know very much about who made it.
Similarly, if someone sees "GNU/" they think "Hey, that's a GNU product. It must be (open source|free|difficult to use|for hackers|cool|whatever)."
At least that's the way I see it... If we can establish a "brand name" out of the GNU acronym, it could be useful in other places.
I'm not trying to say Linux is a "GNU product" per se. That might have sounded a bit confusing. What I mean is that there's a lot of stuff that can be classified as "GNU", and the more name recognition they can get out of it, the more likely people will trust GNU utilities over proprietary ones, etc. The Linux OS in its present form does consist primarily of the "Linux kernel" and the "GNU utility set".
Though I do agree that this whole business seems a bit silly to be pursuing so stubbornly. It's "Linux". *shrug*
Moron
Brak: What's THAT?
Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
Good boy. Thanks.
(not affiliated, by the way)
Brak: What's THAT?
Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
You got it. Absolutely correct, sir.
Brak: What's THAT?
Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
The GNU system is a set of UNIXish utilities and programs, most under the GPL and written by the FSF, which together form the fundamental operating layer of a usable computer system. In Linux, this layer has one additional component which is not part of GNU, the kernel. Ergo, it is called GNU/Linux.
And please don't tell me that you could replace all the GNU components with non-GNU components. Of course you could. Then you wouldn't be running GNU/Linux anymore. IMHO, the RMS-bashers are just trying to make him look silly to marginalize him. I'm not going to resort to a silly analogy to make my point, though.
I'll be interested to hear when someone manages to remove libc, sh, make, sed, fileutils, and binutils and still have a usable system, though.
That said, I still call the system Linux in conversation just because GNU/Linux is too long and everyone knows what I mean. But the proper name is GNU/Linux.
Daniel
[ PS - the BSD contribution to my system, so far as I can tell, consists of kill, renice, whois, write, and a bunch of minor calendar-related utilities. ]
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
GNU is an operating system. The underpinnings were written by FSF and are licensed under the GPL. Many of the applications on it are also written by the FSF. Many aren't. So? We're discussing the name of the OS. Not the name of the distribution.
And btw, not under GPL does not mean not GNU.
I invite you again to run only with code that is not part of GNU.
Hint: start with libc...
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
The complete history is somewhat more complex. Telsa and Westinghouse certainly did push AC over DC, to the eventual benefit of everyone. But after Edison lost that fight, he did switch his companies over to working in the AC world (ever heard of a small company called General Electric?) and _continued_ to push the term "Edison Service".
But he didn't quit either because he lost the first round, or because others used terminology he didn't like.
sPh
Trying to simplify for an OT thread. I worked for an old-line Edison company (not ConEd though) for 11 years. I have ~200 books about the history and structure of the utility industry in my library. So I have some knowledge whereof I speak, but just abstracting a little.
sPh
After thinking about this overnight, it occured to me that there are actually some fairly strong parallels between RMS and Tesla. Both were "mad genius" types who came up with several true innovations [a genius by definition being a person who has _two_ original ideas]. Both had their work picked up and extended in a commercial direction by others of less genius but more business sense (Westinghouse, Linus).
Tesla in the end was destroyed when he tried to continue extending his underlying principles in a direction that was either (a) not in accordance with physical reality (90% probability) or (b) too advanced for its time (10% probability).
Where will RMS end up, I wonder?
sPh
Far back in the depths of time, three people invented the hammer, chisel, and dovetail joint. Call them Alpha, Beta, and Gamma. Is every piece of furniture built since that time called an Alpha-Beta-Gamma/sideboard, or an Alpha-Beta-Gamma/dresser?
Someone first developed the concept of a high level language compiler. In many versions of computing history I have read, that person was Grace Hopper. Are all high level languages called Hopper/Cobol, Hopper/C, Hopper/Gnu/gcc?
Thomas Edison certainly tried to force the world to call electricity "Edison Electricty", and was roundly rebuffed. Did he stop working on developing electrical distribution equipment when he met that rebuff?
So please explain to me why Linux _should_ be called GNU/Linux. Exactly, and referring to the above examples. Because, although I have tremendous respect for RMS, FSF, and the GPL, I really must be missing something here about the name thing.
sPh
It's true that Linux relies on a LOT of GNU software but that doesn't mean that 1) he's responsible for all of it or 2) that Linux needs to be named "GNU/Linux".
If his personality weren't so abrasive, and his tirades against anyone who disagrees with him so obnoxious then maybe (and even then just maybe) enough people would have rallied behind him to make a Linux-like collaboration possible.
(anyone have an idea of what % of the Linux code is actaully FSF [e.g., binutils, or libc] code? I bet its
The power of Linux's success is not because of free software that the GNU project started, but rather because the guy at the center is, unlike RMS, easy-going, laid-back and not out to beat people to death if they don't agree with him.
RMS should find a therapist and lay off claiming credit for other peoples' organizational and interpersonal skills.
_DHMS
I bow down before RMS. I read "Hackers" in High School and never looked back. Nevertheless every time he complains about this Gnu/Linux thing I cringe. It sounds so much like he just wants personal attention. Linus should probably send more attention over Robert's (and Gnu's) way but really somebody has got to take him aside and tell him that his ranting is just going to result in his own marginalization.
RMS needs to get a grip and focus on something that really matters. If he wants to call it GNU/Linux, then he can make his own distribution and put whatever name he wants on it. Hell, call it RMS/Linux for all I care.
The fact is that people are free to call it whatever they want to call it. Just as RMS is free to complain about what other people are calling Linux. Just as I am free to call RMS a whiny freak who has his priorities out of whack.
Without GNU and the FSF, Linux would never have been possible.
GNU is the foundation of Linux, and everyone involved made it what it is.
That being said, I think that RMS just wants people to realize this fact, so that we maintain the freedom that made Linux what it is today.
I don't think RMS is trying to get credit for anything he hasn't played a part in.
The Linux kernel is under the GPL... that's the GNU General Public License. Same goes for the vast magority of software on my system. Without that, where would we be? We owe a lot to RMS...
:-) Force of habit I guess.
I dunno - myself, I have no problem with "GNU/Linux," but I can see where RMS's attitude can put people off.
Keep in mind that it is possible that someone, someday, will put together some new kernel that becomes dominant. (Linus has quipped that it may be called "Daveix") - then what will we be running?
Or, if Gnome or KDE becomes the basic thing that most users interact with - will we then be running Gnome? or KDE? (or GNU/Gnome....)
I like the GNU thing because that's really where a lot of this stuff came from. (with props to BSD and everyone else...) Linux is the kernel, and it is hugely important, but it really doesn't make sense to call the whole system "Linux."
Having said all this, what do I tell people that I run? I say "I run Linux." Go figure.
/ramble off
"If I have seen farther than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants."
Isaac Newton
Thousands of people have made the open source community what it is today, and continue to do so.
Every one of them deserves our thanks.
Fuck Slashdot
I don't know whether XFree is or isn't GNU but in order for it to be GNU, the act of adoption would have to be mutually respected. That is:
1) FSF has to adopt X, and
2) XFree has to consider FSF its parent.
Otherwise it doesn't mean anything. (GNU could adopt Windows, but I wouldn't start calling it GNU/Windows). Got a link from XFree showing (2)?
(I just spent five minutes and couldn't find anything to this effect).
This is pretty funny.
All these people on /. saying "It's only a word, what does it matter what we call it?" are the same people who were getting pissed at Kipling's misappropriate of "hacker".
Say what you like about RMS (and being a BSD license advocate, I disagree with the GNU Manifesto), at least he's consistent.
N
If RMS wants his software to be truly free
That's the point. RMS doesn't want it to be truly free. Truly free == in the public domain, you can do anything with it.
There are many things you can't do with GPLd code.
N
Its always been a tradition in computing to name the operating system after the kernel. Its only appropriate, as it is the kernel that determines the operating characteristics of the OS as a whole.
CP/M=Control Program/Microprocessor
KIM=Keyboard Interface Monitor
VMS=Virtual Memory System
VM=Virtual Memory (This is a guess)
ICL Multijob
etc etc
The kernel, dispite being less visible, is the major part of any Linux distribution and successfully implementing a OS Kernel is significantly more complex that implementing a clone of grep,awk, or even a compiler.
Linus et al used the GNU tools because they where there, and if they where not, then perhaps it would have taken longer to bring Linux to where it is now. But then again, would GNU have anything like the influence it has now if it wasn't for Linux ? I think not.
RMS should stop beefing and do something else. Perhaps finish Hurd ? Then he'd really have something to shout about. IFAIK Hurd has been around longer than Linux, but where is it ? Perhaps implementing a kernel is harder than RMS is prepared to admit...
*--BigMan--- Time flies like an arrow.. but personally I prefer a nice glass of wine!
No, RMS is responsible for almost everything that comprises of a core UNIX system *EXEPT* the kernel. RMS did a lot more work that Linus.
And what the hell do thier personalities have to do with acceptance of thier beleifs? This is computer software, not Hollywood. How many people judge software by its authors?? And what's wrong with being a long-bearded hippie anyway??
Read the other posts before you post something yourself! I started reading this because i'm interested in the subject, but stopped about half way through because all i read was the same three or four different messages worded differently. And i'm not even saying what my own opinions are, but most of the posts are just plain wrong! Please know what you're talking about before you post and back up what you say with some real facts or real logic cause you're on the internet and just a couple of lines of HTML and NO ONE WILL TAKE YOUR WORD FOR ANYTHING! I like reading the posts cause i usually get some nice suplementary information from them, but PLEASE:
* read others posts before you post yourself
* support your ideas with facts and/or sound logic, if you don't have any facts and/or sound logic, then don't post!
* please do as i did and refrain from titling your post as something like this (and i do see this a lot): "AHH!! EVERYONE IS AN IDIOT! YOU ALL ARE SO DAMN STUPID!"
I would not use a linux box without the GNU stuff for very long. (If it is even possible to make a linux distro without the GNU tools).
Seem to me that a lot of the anti-RMS people don't really get how important a lot of these tool are.
Linux, coming to a desktop near you!
Isn't it more like, "Without Minix, Linux would never have been possible."
Or how about, "Without PCs, Linux would never have been possible."
Or even better, "Without electricity, Linux would never have been possible."
I think it should, therefore it should be called Minix/PC/elec/Linux. I mean, give credit where credit is due.
Oh, and don't forget to give credit to those guys who came up with multitasking. And protected memory. And filesystems.
Gee, isn't this starting to sound like a BSD license? I thought that Stallman advocated against the name clause in the BSD license.
The main idea of Linus was to bring a new free, powerful OS. And this OS was to be integrated to the GNU.
The right thing would be to call Linux, The GNU !
( Would you call Windows95 Win32? No !!)
on SUSE 6.0 that gives me:
MACHTYPE=i586-pc-linux-gnu
OSTYPE=linux-gnu
hmmm... I guess S.U.S.E IS giving GNU its due.
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
if he doesn't care about the name, then he shouldn't constantly point our attention to the name, because that's all that's being debated here.
People who think changing names will change opinions or awareness of the facts are not neccessarily stupid, but they ARE usually quite disappointed, just ask the 'Negroes', er... 'Afro-Americans', um... 'Black Americans', or wait 'People of Color'!! (This is NOT meant to be insulting to people who consider themselves to be on of these groups) The fact is, if you want to teach history, then teach history; Changing names is not going to do the job for you.
Chris Kuhi
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
This brings up a question I have--- if RMS agitating for the terms "GNU/FreeBSD"? "GNU/NetBSD"? What's the difference here, other
than Linux envy? If I use BSD tools, should I
call it "BSD/Linux"?
Sure I'd call Windows95 Win32. After all, it's only about 1/3 as good as Microsoft says it is.
-- Alastair
Say what you like about RMS (and being a BSD license advocate, I disagree with the GNU Manifesto), at least he's consistent.
But does the GPL require that everything GNU software touches be called GNU/This and GNU/That? Isn't Stallman caught in his own "IP freedom" trap?
cpeterso
Just how much of Linux is GNU? What exactly is an operating system? Emacs is not part of the OS . Neither is gcc (although ist's incredibly usefull). Neither is bash because I can use any other shell in it's place. Basically, if you can remove something without breaking the OS, it's not part of the OS. (In keeping with this definition, I assert that windows95 is merely a bad command-line version of DOS).
What's left in the core that we can truly call GNU? A few libraries. A few tremendously important libraries. So in one sense, RMS has a point. However, If I write a program with the GNU libraries that becomes incredibly popular, will I also have to call it GNU just because RMS wants me to? GNU is tools. Pure and simple.
The Linux community is not ignoring Richard. We respect and admire him for his accomplishments. GNU is acknowledged throughout Linux. A newbie would have to be blind not to quickly realize that GNU had a large part to play.
This controversy is a form of political correctness, an attempt to use language to further an ideology (FSFism).
The last time I read the GPL, it had no legal requirements on naming. Perhaps RMS should change the GPL to include a clause requiring people to use the term "GNU" in their program titles. "GNU/Linux" is not the accurate term because it infers that Linux is part of the GNU project. More accurate would be "Linux with GNU, and X, and PERL, and Sendmail, etc, etc.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
> No, RMS is responsible for almost everything > that comprises of a core UNIX system *EXEPT* the > kernel. RMS did a lot more work that Linus First off, I'm not disputing this. I think RMS has done an amazing thing by writing the GPL. I don't entirely agree with his opinions, but I respect his steadfast nature and his consistency. I don't use emacs, but I have to respect his programming talent. > And what the hell do thier personalities have to > do with acceptance of thier beleifs? This is > computer software, not Hollywood. How many > people judge software by its authors? The thing is, RMS's latest complaints have nothing to do with programming and everything to do with credit and visibility. He objects to the attention Linus is getting because he feels it diminishes the importance of GNU and free software in the public eye. GNU was important to the development to Linux, but I for one am glad that in the latest flood of Linux publicity, RMS is not at the center of it. His biting and rude personality would stain the very thing he's trying to promote. The first time I read an interview someone did with RMS, I was shocked that so many people were behind him. His attitude was just repulsive. It wasn't until later that I went back and did some research and figured out why he's been so instrumental in Free Software. So in the context of public image, I think that RMS's shortcomings in that area are entirely relevant; GNU will become more well known as more people become curious about Linux anyway.
No, RMS is responsible for almost everything that comprises of a core UNIX system *EXEPT* the kernel. RMS did a lot more work that Linus.
First off, I'm not disputing this. I think RMS has done an amazing thing by writing the GPL. I don't entirely agree with his opinions, but I respect his steadfast nature and his consistency. Also, while I don't use emacs, I have to respect his programming talent.
And what the hell do thier personalities have to do with acceptance of thier beleifs? This is computer software, not Hollywood. How many people judge software by its authors?
The thing is, RMS's latest complaints have nothing to do with programming and everything to do with credit and visibility. He objects to the attention Linus is getting because he feels it diminishes the importance of GNU and free software in the public eye.
GNU was important to the development to Linux, but I for one am glad that in the latest flood of Linux publicity, RMS is not at the center of it. His biting and rude personality would stain the very thing he's trying to promote. The first time I read an interview someone did with RMS, I was shocked that so many people were behind him. His attitude was just repulsive. It wasn't until later that I went back and did some research and figured out why he's been so instrumental in Free Software.
So in the context of public image, I think that RMS's shortcomings in that area are entirely relevant; GNU will become more well known as more people become curious about Linux anyway.
Tatara
Does RMS know that bad people are writing about him?
--
Beef
"Raging Moderate" of the
>Qt? Oh I'm sorry, I was looking for the >open-source discussion group
/. an open-source group? And anyway
Since when was
Qt is open-source
I remember some weeks ago when Gnome 1.0 was released. Almost everyone (on this debate forum) was chanting about how great the new free GUI is, and how bad KDE was, because they're not using a "free" toolkit. Everyone was praising RMS and his philosophies.
But that doesn't seem to be as important as it was some weeks ago. Now RMS is a pathetic moron who just want to have some attention.
Just a thought...
Actually, a lot of people do use his preferred terminology: ever hear of Con Edison? Edison electricity, that.
Zagmar
Actually RMS calls it free because he THINKS it
is free. the GPL isn't about freedom. At least
not the freedom of the programmer. As a
progarmmer I can't use GPL code.
Reason:
In order to use GPL code my application has to be GPL. but if my applciation is GPL then I can't use a non GPL piece of code (library or what not)
from someone else. My hands are then tied.
The GPL is trying to allow the end user to be able to rebuild the program they are using. That is all fine whent he end user is a progremmer, but not when they are a non techy. What the GPL calls an end product is vague at best. Plus I've always been a fan of the KISS principle. And the GPL seems more complex than it needs to be (and the LGPL makes the GPL look simple).
Which on the name of Linux, I call it linux in part becuase RMS needs some humbleness (I also like my systems would be better called Apache/ISC/GN/Linux rather than just GNU/Linux). The GNU info pages are filled with snobishness and FUD. Take gnu make. in the comparitive section it doesn't mention a bunch of very nice features available in commercial make programs, it only
compares with a few of the makes that come with
unicies.
One of the most important skills of a programmer (shoot any engineer for that matter) is to be
open for input. Now I'm not saying you can't have an ego (for I know I do), but you can't just act like little kid cose your eyes and say it is the best way to do it because it is the way we do it.
oh please. 30% of what? code... who cares.
(and that statement comes from a person who
writes code all day).
how about of what I use daily. A huge amount
of that 30% is programs I rarely use. A lot I don't even install. If you are talking about
what gets used the most, Apache/ISC/Linux would
be far more accurate.
Well actually if you read the GNU literature (which RMS is the inspiration for) it tends to get very whiney at times. I always get the feeling of "no this is the right way to do it becuase RMS from on high said to do it this way". Please the GNU camp needs to grow up.
Amen Brother (or sister although with the latest poll, brother is a good bet).
Please, don't patronize me. your post impiles I don't know what software is GNU... bite me...
- compile stuff (so I really run Borland/Windows since half the stuff I run is compiled by borland)
Which actually I do use tcsh... been using it for 10 years, once bash became popular didn't see anything so cool it mandated a switch.
And yes I'm not saying I would have a working system without GNU.
BUT, and what you see too clueless to catch on to is that I wouldn't have a working system without a lot of other tools as well.
I have no problems giving GNU credit where credit was due. But to say GNU owes linux and linux owes GNU everything is crap. before linux the GNU stuff was no where near where it is today (I know I used it on sunOS boxes). They built off each other. But linux is linux. the name shouldn't be based off of the insides.
Sorry, it is true. I used to like the GPL, then I actually read the thing.
..."
..."
Specifically (pulled from GPL ver 2):
1) Additions to the GPL:
from item 6 in the license:
"...You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted werein.
this License.
so I can't impose the "restriction" on my users of not being able to look at the source of a library I don't have source code for.
2) But the kicker (from part 2 of the GPL):
"... If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License
so roughly I have to violate the license of someone elses work to make my product GPL. uh... that seems bad to me. distribution includes binary distribution. SO if I like to a binary Intel library I link with I suddenly have to release the Intel library under the GPL???
I think Intel wouldn't be happy.
3) techy point: You can accomplish the hire someone to fix a program issue with code covered in a much simpler license.
Finally:
I liked the spirt of the old Copyleft, the problem is the GPL is way convoluted. everyone I know who has had IP lawyers look at it, and all the IP lawyers I know get scared looking at it. There are so many loopholes and ambiguities that you have to wonder why a simpler license wasn't chosen.
Now don't get me wrong, I like open software (in fact I write a bunch of it). But my focus is allowing a programmer to produce products that solve problems. My top priority is to allow programmers access to the source code (and thus indcirectly an end user access). I think my main bitch has to do with library work. the LGPL is a joke. Its usefullness falls apart when you actually try to apply it to say C++ code. I want to be able to write a library that if people modifiy the library they hacve to keep it open, but anyone can use (read link to it, include it's headers which contain lots of inline code) freely. and there is NO current GNU license will let me do that.