Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Free software's Brave GNU world

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the rms-getting-more-press dept.

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.

4 of 137 comments (clear)

  1. Enough with the GNU/Linux by joss · · Score: 2

    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/
  2. Why GNU and nothing else? by sphealey · · Score: 2

    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

  3. Too bad RMS just can't roll with it... by dhms · · Score: 2
    The true reason that RMS hasn't gotten all the aclaim that he feels he's due is that he hasn't done the work.



    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

  4. Linux is a part of the GNU project by The+GAP · · Score: 2

    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 !!)