Slashdot Mirror
Feature:Free Linux
The Demon Penguin, first seen on a T-shirt at the Linux World conference, is the mascot of the movement to create a an FSF-free Linux by replacing all FSF-owned software in Linux distributions with replacement programs from the BSD distributions.
The Linux kernel, while GPL'd, is certainly not to be replaced, nor is anything else that was *not* written directly by the FSF, whether it's GPL'd or not. As for the compiler, perhaps egcs is a better technical solution. A mere GPL does not GNUware make. Only software that the FSF claims is theirs should be replaced.
The point is *not* that we do not like the FSF's software, or that we do not like the GPL -- well, at least not all of us. Rather, it's because we cannot abide anyone usurping responsibility for the intellectual works of others. In the case of the FSF, such an inconsistent act is oxymoronic at best, and hypocritical at worst.
Let's use real data, not the hyperbolic rhetoric so common to the FSF. Here's a code analysis of a SuSE installation. Note that FSF ownership does not even quite reach 10%, yet rms and his followers would have it called "GNU/Linux". Their claim has no honest justification. Witness the numbers, and judge for yourself: http://www.vipul.net/codd/suse5.2.R.html
Code Contribution Distribution for S.u.S.E. 5.2 Package Name: suse5.2.coddPackage Size: +514659722 bytes.
- uncredited: 82733250 (16.075%)
- free software foundation, inc: 51254116 (9.958%)
- sun microsystems, inc: 38243234 (7.43%)
- the regents of the university of california: 23581801 (4.582%)
- x consortium: 18163125 (3.529%)
- thomas g. lane: 8464917 (1.644%)
- the university of washington: 7832780 (1.521%)
- digital equipment corporation: 7206660 (1.4%)
- snns group, ipvr, univ: 4366722 (0.848%)
- aladdin enterprises: 4108079 (0.798%)
- silicon graphics, inc: 3680070 (0.715%)
- robert nation: 2465545 (0.479%)
- maorong zou: 2438025 (0.473%)
Even if it is 10%, that's not enough to rename Linux to the repugnant "GNU/Linux". And it's not 10%. On a fully loaded server system, it's much less. Attached you will find an `ls` of /usr/man/man1 and /usr/man/man8 from a well-loaded RedHat Linux server system. Let the FSF indicate which commands were written by the FSF themselves, so that their claim of GNU/Linux might have some legitimacy. Until the FSF can prove actual authorship for > 50% of these, they have no business with this deceptive "GNU/Linux" moniker.
Let us give credit where it is due: to all those hundreds and hundreds of selfless volunteers all over the world who have made all Linux what it is today. The bogus term "GNU/Linux" confuses the public about what free operating systems like Linux and BSD are all about, and, perhaps more dangerous to us in the long run, dishonors the innumerable contributors by ignoring their massive efforts.
So please, everyone: let Linux remain Linux, nothing more -- but nothing less! When rms and his minions abandon this misguided and deceptive battle, we too can relent, but until then, support the Demon Penguin!
Well, I hope you have a fun time creating a compiler as good as gcc and a debugger as good as gdb. Why waste your time on political bullshit? Shut up and write some code that we _need_, not code so you can justify creating your own non-FSF distribution. The FSF has done a lot for us all, I'm sorry if you don't appreciate it, but I sure as hell do.
Heh heh too.
More seriously, could this sentiment be the reason why the Perl-people are now rewriting many of the fileutils, textutils and more in Perl?
- the anonymous contributor.
...that RMS wants to control software as much as any corporation does. What has never been clear was whether his objection to corporate control of software was grounded more in principle or in a very personal feeling of disempowerment when he himself is not able to hack the source (and to hell with whether anyone else can).
Attached you will find an `ls` of
Oh? Where? I could not find that attachment.
RMS may sometimes be less than tactful,
but too often his detractors are downright
offensive. I've seen several people make Tom's
exact point (so why is this news?) without
tossing around words like "hypocritical", etc.
Replacing excellent FSF tools with BSD is just plain stupid, if you absolutely want to shoot youself in foot because of stupid conviction that FSF is evil - go ahead an do it.
Hey Tom,
I think you've constructed a straw man argument here. RMS doesn't claim the FSF is the world's most productive set of coders. What he wants to take credit for is the idea of free software that made Linux as it exists today possible.
So maybe a better metric for your analysis is how many lines of code in the distribution you tested are covered by the GPL vs. some other license. I eagerly await your results.
It's been years since we last got mongolian BBQ, maybe you should get in touch again.
we all know that the only people who get
kick banned in irc are whiners, lamers,
and mentally disturbed people.
#perl is obviously the most fair and
reasonable channel on the entire efnet
and the leaders there make all their
decisions so well that to think of criticizing
them is totally out of the question.
surely anyone against #perl must be some
sort of violent and small person!
all this talk about how irc is a dictatorial
place where nobody has any say in anything
except the ops, well its a load of hooey.
the ops volunteer their time to make
it a nice place, and then people come in and
do things like ask about 'sockets' (RTFM! )
and ruin it for everyone else.
really it makes me wonder why they even do it,
surely the ops must have some sort of god given
blessing to rule it.
Although you're likely to recieve flames galore for your stance, it's nice to see someone post something of substance to back up his/her claims.
The idea of naming a complete Linux system GNU was that the GNU project was the project for generating an entirely free operating system by taking all that is available freely already, add what is needed, and lobby for people releasing other important things.
Existing Linux systems are the completion of this initial GNU dream, in the spirit of the GNU dream, using components planned for the GNU dream.
It is RMS' vision come to fruition, and it has come to fruition because people took what he provided and fought for and made a whole from it.
It is entirely appropriate to credit Richard Stallman for what he has done. Unfortunately, Richard Stallman has chosen the pettiest and most annoying way of asking for credit he could think of, unilaterally renaming that what other people have shaped, showing extreme disrespect for the contributions of others. He is on a look-and-feel campaign for GNU.
Stallman is a revolutionary that has won a revolution and now gets on people's nerves that do not want constant meddling in their own work on the same goals.
Since the goals of the free software revolution are worthy, the solution is not infighting, redoing Linux without GPLed software, stupid cheap features like this, but simply ignoring Stallman when he is being childish and continuing to contribute to free software.
Your feature is exactly of the same egomaniac, unfruitful variety that you accuse Richard Stallman of.
I think this essay kind of misses the point.
The FSF advocates the GNU/Linux moniker because
FSF software makes up so much of the *heart* of the
system: the gcc/ls/ld/cat/make/man-type utilities
that, while outside the kernel, would be pretty
difficult to run a system without. The point is
that the FSF contribution is important, not that
it's big byte-wise or line-wise. After all, we call Linux Linux, and nobody cares that the kernel makes up a trivial-sized part
of their distribution. If we wanted to judge importance of contribution based solely on size, then by Christiansen's own analysis the OS should be referred to as FSFix (or perhaps uncreditedix), since that's where most of the code came from.
Looking at those numbers it's fairly obvious that we should call it Uncredited/Linux.
Look at the amount of work that poor guy has done, this is the least he deserves.
Damn Linus and RMS for hogging all the credit ! Up with Liuncreditedux !
I thought about doing this years ago, long before RMS came up with "GNU/Linux", mainly because I object to the indiscriminate use of the GPL when public domain would do. (And before this starts a flamewar, I don't object to the GPL itself, just its overly broad application to software that would be better served with a less restrictive license or no license at all.) I never got around to it chiefly because the FSF was the only game in town at the time, and I figured there wouldn't be too much interest.
This changes things. Time to fire up the compiler and write 'ls' the way it was meant to be written...
I think "RMS Linux" would be catchier than
GNU/Linux.
I have to agree. I have some additional reasons.
1) Distributions. People usually use the spot before Linux to tell which distribution it is. I realize Debian uses "Debian GNU/Linux", but I would rather they not. If GNU made their own dist, GNU Linux would make more sense. If Debian makes a FreeBSD distribution, will they name it "Debian BSD/FreeBSD"?
2) Usage. Do a search for GNU/Linux and for Linux. This is what I found on DejaNews:
"GNU/Linux" gives 49,000 hits
(Linux &! "GNU/Linux) gives 2,800,000 hits
If this is truly a community, the community should decide. The community has chosen Linux.
3) If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Linux works. We do NOT need to change it.
Sean "Irish" Farley
10% isn't the whole of the code, but damn, it is a lot. Especially when you consider it is things like gcc and gdb. It may not deserve a title credit, but damn, it deserves something!
I join EFNet #perl every so often to ask an obscure question and if I dont capitolize, spell, punctuate and use the correct tone of voice, they get mad! Yeesh, people, calm down!
...I have to agree.
Not to dismiss the importance of GNU and the FSF's
contributions--these certainly loom large in the
story of "free software", "open source", whatever
you want to call it.
But I do grow weary of Stallman's attitude and I'm
certainly offended by his religious cult's
attempt to co-opt Linux. To the point where I'm
considering dropping GNU as my own standard
licensing mechanism.
Sounds great, Tom.
As I reflect on 30 years of proprietary code in my field (geotechnical engineering), where most of what currently lives has been reinvented for the umpteenth time, and none is available as source, I see that I have two approved options: pay big $$$ for proprietary, binary only software, or write (reinvent) my own proprietary, binary only software. The amount of dead code is staggering.
Thanks but no thanks. The GPL blows as a breath of fresh air compared to the previous options.
Just use FreeBSD and be done with it. You linux users kill me.
RMS contributed more than code (thought gcc and gdb are much more important per line of code than anything else on the system, with the possible exception of the kernel itself). He created the GNU Public License, and while that isn't the only license used for free software, it was the first and it remains the most innovative.
Why is it that PERL people and similar nitwits insist on turning free software into a cult of personality instead of focusing on the debate about freedom? You have quite a lot to learn.
Think about it this way. "Linux" is the "product" name, just as "Windows" is the "product" name. "RedHat" and "Caldera" are the company names, just as "Microsoft" is the company name. Thus, "Microsoft Windows", "RedHat Linux", "Caldera Linux" make sense.
:)
Now, think what happens when Microsoft is broken into 3 vertical companies. We'll then have "Microsoft Windows", "Joe Bob's Windows", "NewSoft Windows", "RedHat Linux", "Caldera Linux", "SuSE Linux", etc.
Makes sense to me.
Why not give credit to applications? Why this infantile obsession with Linux? ITS ONLY AN OPERATING SYSTEM!
Its like becoming crazed about a car body, engine and wheels. Yeah, it moves, but the seats and sound system make it nice.
This is just software folks. Lighten up. Either way, who cares?
...and because if you want to use one of those textutils from within a Perl program, you have to call it via backticks and the associated fork/shell exec (although perl hides the nasty stuff from you) - and it may not exist on your system
:)
With the util written in native perl, you could use Fileutils::Foo, and call foo as a native Perl function.
The whole project is very apolitical, really. Besides, the idea of a native Perl version of awk or sed just tickles my funnybone.
DG
it's called egcs from the people at cygnus and they just got major help(monitary and intellectual) from intel to optimize
egcs for pentium and ppro systems, which will help
all of us running linux and *BSD on any intel/amd system newer than a 386 by creating an executable about 30-40% faster on average
Look, I think gcc is AWESOME. I've used it to write for many Unices, Windows, PalmPilot and even the Lego RCX brick. But, if you are saying that Linux should be called GNU/Linux because gcc has been used to code most of it (assuming it really is "most"), then what you are really saying is that everything compiled with GCC should be called GNU/whatever. I don't think that's really appropriate.
Linux with non-FSF tools is still linux..
FSF-tools without Linux kernel is no longer linux....
i think that is the point
That whole thread started because of one of the TODO's on the FSF foudation.... Provide a 'Free' (FSF version) of the perl documentation. Since Tom's documetation could not be changed, then redistributed as the official perl documentation, the FSF wanted to do a complete re-write of the documentation under the GPL. It then degenerated into a discussion about the FSF definition of 'Free' vs. the definition in every dictionary on the planet. Yes, he's opinionated, but he had good reason to be on the defensive in that thread.
Excuse me if I am not as famililar with this
Tom dude as I should be. I'm sure someone
would explain to me how he invented the toiler
seat. But reading his article, I was struck
by the following. The guy wants to create a
distribution where all the tools are non-GPL.
What would be the primary purpose of that? So
that binary-only distributions suddenly become
legal. Lots of companies would just love that.
This dude is trying to coopt the community into
forking Linux-development and develop another
BSD. I would guess he has pocketed his 30 pieces
of silver already.
Yeah, yeah, FreeBSD has a better userbase and is faster and its for true UNIX people blah blah....
Who said anything about FreeBSD anyway ?
Fortunately the GPL ensures that he can't. Rewriting FSF code is stupid. The term GNU/Linux is also stupid. Solution: don't use the name GNU/Linux but continue to use FSF code. However, please *do* appreciate and recognize RMS and FSF's contribution.
Well this survey does show something however:
Try searching for the words "suse" and "S.u.S.E." and see how many hits you get (not counting the word S.u.S.E. in the intro to the survey).
So for the time being I'd prefer to refer to it as GNU/Linux rather than SuSE Linux.
/J
RMS (& Co) may not have give more than 10% of the code, but he did keep the idea of Free Software (not free beer) alive in the dark ages.. SO what maybe the GNU/Linux thing is over strecthing it, but RMS full of it?? no way... RMS contributed the soul of Free Software and crafted the GPL. This was probably the greatest gift to both Free SOftware and the OSS movment. Try to see the forrest for the trees.
Wait a minute, so we're going to replace Richard Stallman with Tom Christiansen? Who is the bigger asshole?
At least Stallman has hair.
Suppose I create a Linux distribution that is a bare-bones, non-developer, end-user only bundled system. It has no need for gmake, gcc, etc., so they are not bundled with this distribution. I.E. this is a perfectly valid system, with very minimal/no GNU utilities that get installed at all due to not needing them. Should this be called "GNU/Linux"?
If you said yes because it was created using GNU utlities, think about this. I create a new program (be it OS, application, whatever) using the GNU utilities (gcc, gmake, etc.) but the new program I create has *NO* GNU code, utilities, etc. in it (remember, this is just the output of the GNU utilities.) Now, since this program was created with GNU utilities, should I call it "GNU/Program"? Should every program that was ever written using GNU utlities have "GNU/" prepended to it? Should every kernel? Should every environment?
Excuse me if I am not as famililar with this
Tom dude as I should be. I'm sure someone
would explain to me how it was he who invented the toilet seat. But reading his article, I was struck
by the following. The guy wants to create a
distribution where all the tools are non-GPL.
What would be the primary purpose of that? So
that binary-only distributions suddenly become
legal. Lots of companies would just love that.
This dude is trying to coopt the community into
forking Linux-development and develop another
BSD. I would guess he has pocketed his 30 pieces
of silver already.
I've been using unix for more than 10 years. Anybody who tries to trivialize RMS' contributions to Linux is full of shit. This
is not to say that I support the GNU/Linux
terminology... That sounds stupid and I won't use it.
Yea, watch us whip up our very own FUD, without even having Microsoft do it for us.
If the FSF owns ~10% of the source and the esteemed Mr. Torvalds has less than 1%, then perhaps there is some justification, but the damned thing already has a name and it will just confuse everyone if we change it.
Everybody quit all this annoying shit and get back to work.
Whether the free software foundation is jumping up and down about the proper name of linux or not is fairly irrelevant and certainly doesn't necessitate the replacement of 10% of linux.
the joy of linux is that it's a total democracy. if tomorrow everyone decided to start calling it bollix so it would be. so the degree to which people actually agree with the FSF will be the degree to which people actually stick to calling it GNU/Linux.
everyone in this community is allocated their own soapbox. the reason that stallman is so loud is because he did actually contribute the neato idea of free software and he got up on his box sooner than anyone else. he's entitled to his opinions, the code is out there for use so who really cares. i know i don't. i'll keep using FSF code for as long as it's useful, i'll be as grateful to the FSF as i am to everyone who contributed to the operating system.
and i'll call it anything i damn well please.
(and tom is entitled to his soapbox too and the extent to which he gets the FSF stuff rewritten is the extent to which people agree with him -- gotta love this democracy stuff).
...that RMS is upset because we're using the
exact same freedom he is advocating? The GPL
allows us to re-use GPL code in any way we
want to (as long as we release the source).
Linux has done that. It takes the FSF code, packages it up into a system called "Linux" and sends it off. Seems like RMS can't handle a dose
of his own medicine.
And on top of it all, GNU/Linux is an unwieldy
name. RMS has done great things, and deserves
credit. But renaming Linux is NOT the way to do
that.
Funny...explicitly in the gcc license is the lack
of FSF/gpl control over output, becuase
"gcc is a translator" (or something like that).
The same cannot be said for bison/yacc, which
states that stuff made with bison/yacc should be
GPL'd because they are generative tools.
Exactly! Appreciate Stallman for all that he's done (and sometimes continues to do) but ignore him when he gets all crazy. Problem solved. The most dangerous thing to do is to dismiss good ideas (and code) simply because it comes from the FSF.
Putting aside for a moment, the genuine debate
about the definition of a scripting language, I
would ask that you take the opportunity to troll
on over to #perl and point out that Perl is a
scripting language. This will enrage Tom, who
is an unreasonable zealot, probably leading to a
kick/ban. Be proud of this and wear it as a
personal badge of honor. Tom is, after all, a
idiot.
Enjoy!
I am I having a bad counting day, or did those numbers only add up to 50%?
Why waste your time telling the AC not to waste his time telling Tom Christiansen that he is wasting time?
It is his time to "waste", not yours. If he wants to do spend his valuable time doing it, why the hell should you care?
I am always annoyed by people who care what other people do with their time. When you are AC's
slavemaster, you can care what he does with his time. Until then, his time is his to do with as he pleases, and his time, wasted or not, does not concern you.
When you look at it, the single largest code contributor is the FSF. Uncredited may be a larger % of the code, but it also includeds a lot of different, smaller, efforts.
I would also like to see %GPL of total if we hold this debate.
Mostly though this is a bullshit argument by someone (TC) whose ox was gored when RMS asked for a good Free (free speech) Perl manual and TC took it to mean that RMS was blasting the perl doc that comes with the distribution. A.C.
I agree with you, perhaps at this point the best thing to do is ignore the accomplished, although lunatic RMS. I agree with Tom, too, but this isn't the time right now, people fear a split in the Linux line, as has happened to other UNIX variations, we don't want this. Don't let Linux fall to "Divide And Conquer". Tom I agree with you wholeheartedly. but this isn't the time.
As a side note, I have found most of the Slashdot posters to be utter rude and clueless lemming morons. I've suggested this EXACT thing (going FSF free) numerous times before, and have constantly been called a "loser" and other such juvenile terms...
That goes to show you just how mentally secure a lot of the Slashdot readers are. And don't bother flaming, or calling me a troll, you'll just further prove my point.
What I find really funny about this article is that Mr. Christiansen apparently has no problem at all with RedHat and SUSE renaming Linux after themselves, although their contributions in terms of lines of code doesn't remotely approach those of the FSF.
So why such animosity towards RMS? Is it because people whose main motive in life is greed find it easy to identify with commercial companies who are only in it for the money, but feel threatened when faced with selflessness and idealism?
The problem with RMS/Linux is RMS is not claiming he deserves credit. RMS is claiming the GNU project deserves credit. The two are not synonomous. I doubt RMS brings all the GNU people along when he goes on a date, for instance.
Just look down a little further:
2270. microsoft corporation: 6995 (0.001%)
I agree... Even if fsf is only 10% of the system, the stuff they did write is critical... If it wasn't for the gcc compiler for instance, i don't think linux (GNu/Linux, whatever) would have gone very far.
GNU/Linux really is an awkward name though, I think the whole name contreversy is a little silly. Anybody who uses Linux recognizes GNU as a major contributor -- it's not really necessary to change the nam.e
I'm not sure whether to treat this proposal on its technical merits or its political merits. I suppose it would be doing all of us a disfavor if I neglected either.
.. which would, imo, be a good thing. I'm not at all convinced that it's enough of a good thing that I should throw my time and energy behind demonizing the Penguin. The benefits of using the best possible technology in my technical endeavours by far outweighs (for me) the benefits of telling RMS to back off. I'd much rather simply ignore him when I disagree with him and support him when I don't. He has a lot of passion, time, and energy dedicated to making free software go, and if we actively resist on a minor point like this we run the risk of distracting him from his really useful projects and directing his energy towards countering our resistance. I'd rather avoid that.
I, too, am a bit leary of RMS's insistance that we call linux GNU/linux, and frankly I don't do it. Nevertheless, his basic argument -- that Linux depends critically upon FSF software to exist as a viable OS -- is dead-on correct. Even though the FSF's software only comprises 10% (or 1%, or whatever) of all software distributed with Linux, it's an extremely important 10%. EGCS may or may not be FSF (even of those engineers working on it at Cygnus, most of them self-identify as FSF engineers as well), but the compiler is useless without also the assembler, the linker, and the library archiver (as, ld, ar). I also wouldn't want to attempt software development without gdb and objdump, and these are all dyed-in-the-wool FSF tools.
Even ignoring software development tools, there are other critical GNU tools. Last time I hit up the big ftp sites (cdrom, sunsite, etc) by far most of the software available was gzipped (that's "GNU Zip"'d). Sure we could use other compression systems, but finding existing software that we could decompress would be a hard task. There are also many "enhanced" GNU versions of tools (strings, make, diff, etc) which I would miss terribly if I went back to using their less-featureful predecessors. The same goes (doubled) for [g]libc. Many of us probably also make extensive use of readline or getopt in some applications.
Despite all this, an all-BSD Linux has an appeal or two. Many companies are already comfortable with the BSD license and understand how to use BSD-copyrighted code in their products. These same companies stay far, far away from GPL'd code because of its viral (some say "contaminating") nature. I've also experienced first-hand some companies (or at least their executives) saying that they want to stay away from *any* "free" software other than BSD software because that's easier than doing the legal research necessary to figuring out how to use it "safely". So even if it's for stupid reasons (the business world seems to thrive on stupid reasons) just the term "all-BSD Linux distribution" would draw many companies to Linux which otherwise would have stayed away. Whether or not this is a good thing is a subjective matter. I'm just throwing it out there.
It's fairly obvious that the impetus behind the all-BSD Linux is political, not a desire to find a better technical solution. This isn't a slam, not at all, just a reality we have to accept and talk about. The main point of removing GNU from Linux is to tell RMS "we don't really need you, see, so back off!"
-- Guges --
It's very sad to see somebody of great technical talent like _RMS_ foam at the mouth so much, too, and he's been doing it longer/worse.
>It then degenerated into a discussion about the FSF definition of 'Free' vs. the definition in every dictionary on the planet.
If you seriously have a dictionary which lists "no charge" as the _only_ definition of "free", I'd say you desperately need a better dictionary.
The survey says some 50 megs of SUSE is FSF owned.
Now "linux" technically refers to the kernel specifically. How many megs does the kernel take up. On Redhat, kernel plus modules is only about 5Mb. I'm sure it's about the same on SUSE. And the kernel is useless without C libraries, compilers, shell, yada, yada.
There's ten times more GNU than Linux. I say we drop Linux from the name.
Geez...what an ass. He probably just wants to rename it Perl/Linux, and eventually just Perl.
>I doubt RMS brings all the GNU people along when he goes on a date
When he WHAT? Get real.
It seems to me that GNU is associated with a license and FSF is a foundation. Perhaps Mr. Stallman is suggesting putting an emphasis on the license that makes Linux what it is/will be and not on where it came from. He doesn't suggest FSF/Linux.
Can't you people see that Rob Malda is just posting these inflammatory articles so that he can sit back and laugh watching you all flamewar over it? Don't give in to these flamebait trolls!!
;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
;-)
Stallman has to keep shouting about freedom because the heavy breathing by the parasitical suits is so damn loud we are in danger of losing our way.
Linux is about Freedom and if we forget that, then we will lose that which is good about the Linux community. If RMS wants to drive home the point about freedom by calling it GNU/Linux then fine. If someone has a *Constructive* alternative that helps spread the word about freedom then step up, or shut up.
A.C.
BZZT!
The GNU/Hurd is (will be) the fulfillment of
RMS' FSF OS Dream. Linux was finished first,
so he's latched onto that.
Just because you contribute alot, doesn't give
you the license to be a jerk.
RMS -please put your talents to better use
than crying about a goofy name (and GNU/Linux
is..IS..IS goofy).
...FSF owned.
This doesn't sound very "free" to me. Just had to say it.
Sean "Irish" Farley
It's not nearly as hard as you think.
/home/rzxtlg> what /bin/*
opus
/bin/[
Copyright (c) 1992, 1993, 1994
test.c 8.3 (Berkeley) 4/2/94
/bin/cat
Copyright (c) 1989, 1993
cat.c 8.2 (Berkeley) 4/27/95
/bin/chmod
Copyright (c) 1989, 1993, 1994
chmod.c 8.8 (Berkeley) 4/1/94
/bin/cp
Copyright (c) 1988, 1993, 1994
cp.c 8.2 (Berkeley) 4/1/94
/bin/csh
csh.c 8.2 (Berkeley) 10/12/93
/bin/date
Copyright (c) 1985, 1987, 1988, 1993
date.c 8.1 (Berkeley) 5/31/93
/bin/dd
Copyright (c) 1991, 1993, 1994
dd.c 8.5 (Berkeley) 4/2/94
/bin/df
Copyright (c) 1980, 1990, 1993, 1994
df.c 8.7 (Berkeley) 4/2/94
/bin/echo
Copyright (c) 1989, 1993
echo.c 8.1 (Berkeley) 5/31/93
/bin/ed
Copyright (c) 1993 Andrew Moore, Talke Studio.
main.c,v 1.1 1994/02/01 00:34:42 alm Exp
/bin/expr
yaccpar 1.9 (Berkeley) 02/21/93
strftime.c 7.38
strftime.c 5.4 (Berkeley) 3/14/89
localtime.c 7.57
asctime.c 7.7
/bin/hostname
Copyright (c) 1988, 1993
hostname.c 8.1 (Berkeley) 5/31/93
/bin/kill
Copyright (c) 1988, 1993, 1994
kill.c 8.3 (Berkeley) 4/2/94
/bin/ln
Copyright (c) 1987, 1993, 1994
ln.c 8.2 (Berkeley) 3/31/94
/bin/ls
Copyright (c) 1989, 1993, 1994
ls.c 8.5 (Berkeley) 4/2/94
/bin/mkdir
Copyright (c) 1983, 1992, 1993
mkdir.c 8.2 (Berkeley) 1/25/94
/bin/mv
Copyright (c) 1989, 1993, 1994
mv.c 8.2 (Berkeley) 4/2/94
/bin/pax
Copyright (c) 1992, 1993
pax.c 8.2 (Berkeley) 4/18/94
/bin/ps
Copyright (c) 1990, 1993, 1994
ps.c 8.4 (Berkeley) 4/2/94
/bin/pwd
Copyright (c) 1991, 1993, 1994
pwd.c 8.3 (Berkeley) 4/1/94
/bin/rcp
Copyright (c) 1983, 1990, 1992, 1993
rcp.c 8.2 (Berkeley) 4/2/94
/bin/rm
Copyright (c) 1990, 1993, 1994
rm.c 8.5 (Berkeley) 4/18/94
/bin/rmail
Copyright (c) 1988, 1993
rmail.c 8.1 (Berkeley) 5/31/93
/bin/rmdir
Copyright (c) 1992, 1993, 1994
rmdir.c 8.3 (Berkeley) 4/2/94
This is not about credit, it is about Freedom.
It seems that you're good with numbers -- i didn't care to check
them -- but you don't seem to get the point. The sad thing is that
you're not the only one by far, who does not seem to understand the
importance of Freedom, and its protection, in the sense of the GPL.
Whole bunches of progammers go off and write GUI desktops,
apparently even without trying to grasp the spirit of the GPL.
Why would someone like Richard Stallman, who has devotes his life to
the cause of free software, suddenly change course and try to
harvest some cheap credit? The answer is, of course, that he hasn't
changed course. RMS is afraid (and he *should* be afraid, imo),
that through the immense success of Linux, the importance of Freedom
may easily be overlooked.
The fact that articles like this one
lately, are amongst the best arguments in favour of saying
"GNU/Linux". And if people "get confused" from hearing GNU/Linux,
that's an ideal excuse to tell them something about freedom, and why
Linux (oops) is.
I've argued with RMS about the sillyness of spelling out GNU/Linux,
and about the possible embarassment of the whole issue. Even
"Linux" is inconveniently long in conversation (two syllables), and
may therefore be often nicknamed anyway (e.g. "Loes"). It is
articles like these, that will probably make me spell out GNU/Linux
just a bit more often, even in conversation.
Jan.
Jan Nieuwenhuizen | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien/ | http://www.lilypond.org/
All right! This was damn interesting and thought provoking. I loved it and agree with it 100%
Go Man Go!
Ron Rangel
Well, they support the Debian project which already produces Debian GNU/Linux and Debian GNU/Hurd is in development stages
Please!
Nuff said.
Chances are they'd sue your ass for trying to associate your code with them. It's only when your project gains significant mindshare that they become interested in you.
In a way they're no better than Microsoft.
Not only should be called BellLinux, let's
think about BSD, the stabler, freer, older
version of Unix that everyone forgets. It
came before Linux, and before the FSF. It's
offensive to pretend that the FSF invented
free software. They didn't.
BSD uses the gcc system and associated binutils.
Shouldn't we then call it GNU/BSD? Why isn't
RMS pushing for that? What about systems that
have the GNU stuff installed? Are these GNU/Solaris?
The distribution is named for its kernel. The
rest is frill.
Be not deceived. RMS is merely trying to ride
the glory that is Linux. He doesn't deserve
the free ride.
RMS created the GPL, and helped create a good deal of what we know and love as the Linux movement. For this he should hold a place exaulted in both computing and social history. But...
1) The GPL is quite clear. You can take the code and do anything you want, as long as it stays under the GPL. The GPL denies you the ability to cement your place in history. Sorry Richard, you invented the GPL, its a great thing, and everyone has to accept the visionary restrictions it carries. Even you. Thank you for playing, but "we" are asserting the freedom you gave us and "we" call it Linux.
2) The BSD license is not GPL. It seems Tom has more of a corporate sensibility. Apple's MAC OS is "BSD based", it is also propriatary to the teeth. So, Apple is making good money off the backs of endless BSD contributors. Perhaps they wanted to donate their work product to the suits bank accounts, perhaps not. If you contribute, be sure you understand the ramifications of the GPL vs. other "Open Source" schemes. Believe me, the suits would like nothing better than to switch the entire Linux movement to BSD style licensing. Then it could be embraced, forked, and made into 50 propriatary versions just like UNIX was.
3) Why let the likes of Tom waste our collective effort? What are his true goals? ls, gcc, etc. work, work well, and are license compatible with Linux. To mobilize hordes of volunteer programmers to re-invent wheels for the corporate and political advantage is absurd. Please, please, if you volunteer your effort, direct it towards something that expands the universe.
Just listen to his point of view (one where I believe he is more concerned with software freedom and not this petty stuff - though reactionary tantrums have prompted him to point out his view more clearly). If you don't agree with him, say so. But don't claim he's forcing anyone to do anything, any more than you are forcing things on people.
It's obvious that RMS chaffs at all the attention Linux is getting - partly because it denies and dilutes the discussion of software freedom, and yes, partly from wanting more credit (which I believe he hinted at knowing this about himself in an article a while back). I think everyone wants appropriate credit where it's due - isn't that one of the cornerstones of the open source movement according to ESR (?): programmers work for status/credit/prestige more than money on these projects. RMS has expressed his opinion that GNU should have a more prominent place in the credit for Linux. You and others disagree with his suggested implementation, and that's fine, just please don't say that RMS is forcing anyone to do anything - that's just absurd. (Myself, I may write GNU/Linux sometimes, but I doubt I'll talk to others about GNU/Linux though I will and do mention the GNU project and it's part).
If You think like that, then microsoft did not make windows. Just install 4 or 5 new (=big) games and the percentage of M$-Code on the machine gets below the 10% also.
twi (w/o password handy)
The way I look at it is that the development GNU software and Linux is sorta like the Indy 500.
You may have the fastest car and win the pole. You can lead the whole race. But if you blow your engine on the last lap, and somebody else gets to the finish line first they win the race. And they get the trophy and the million dollars and the fame. While you get to put you car back on the trailer and go away.
Stallman/FSF came up with the GPL (won the pole). Stallman/FSF developed many programs (led the whole race). Stallman/FSF choked and could not complete the HURD kernel (blew engine on last lap). Linus finished the kernel part needed to pull everything together (got to finish line first).
So my message is: Stallman admit you lost, put your HURD back on your trailer and go away.
If BSD uses GCC, then of course it should be
called GNU/BSD, right?
There's one difference: Linus finished his kernel, the FSF didn't. He has every right to name his OS. Why don't you quit bitching and just run HURD if you're so into GNU philosophy?
It helps spread the word about freedom to make clear to people that the GPL is not about freedom. It is about Guild Socialism. GPL'd software is free to members of the Guild but is not free to non-members. If I can't use parts of your software in my software without joining your guild (by using the GPL), then your software is not free, except possibly in the "beer" sense.
The problem is that right now, we have the
press believing RMS's lies about his having
founded the whole notion of free software.
He tells people that his group wrote most of
Linux, and they believe him. This is a terrible
and shameful lie. RMS cares nothing but glory
for himself.
The way I look at it is that the development GNU software and Linux is sorta like the Indy 500.
You may have the fastest car and win the pole. You can lead the whole race. But if you blow your engine on the last lap, and somebody else gets to the finish line first they win the race. And they get the trophy and the million dollars and the fame. While you get to put you car back on the trailer and go away. Who remembers or cares who finished second.
Stallman/FSF came up with the GPL (won the pole). Stallman/FSF developed many programs (led the whole race). Stallman/FSF choked and could not complete the HURD kernel (blew engine on last lap). Linus finished the kernel part needed to pull everything together (got to finish line first).
So my message is: Stallman admit you lost, put your HURD back on your trailer and go away.
So you're saying that everything with the GPL
on it is automatically GNU software? What a
nutty notion!
All derivative works have the original copyright. AFAIK, egcs is a derivative of gcc just like xemacs is a derivative of emacs. So FSF owns both egcs and xemacs.
Now because of GPL, it doesn't really matter who owns the code.
Marko
Yes, RMS takes credit for having created the
notion of free software. And this is where
he is a flaming liar.
That's not true. All documentation that is
included with Perl can certainly be updated.
If you believe differently, you should discuss
the matter with the perl5-porters list or the
distribution managers.
"free" is a deceptive word. RMS was too clever
for his own good, and he hurts the freeware movement.
If he means "no strings attached", then let
him call it that. Of course, he doesn't mean that.
He wants severe strings. The GPV is not freedom.
It is another restrictive license.
As a relatively new user of Linux, I am not entirely familiar with the reasons for these "controversy." However, I am able to see that, while the FSF has contributed much to the OS (maybe, depending on the breakdown of "Uncredited", the single most), they do not own Linux... So, would someone please educate me, either with a rant or a URL, as to what exactly RMS & Co. are trying accomplish here, and why they see it as legitimate? Thanks...
I'm sorry, you've got it wrong. BSD was doing
this long before the Fettered Software Foundation.
I am rather disoriented and disappointed by all those recent arguments : OSS vs FSF, RMS vs Linus, Perens vs ESR, etc... What does that mean ?
/. !
To me, this is all pointless since we are all headed to build a better computing world; here "better" means everything from free (freedom), to free (gratis), from better quality to openness, from better suiting our needs to relying on our brain more than on our bank balance... Yes, the *whole* thing makes free software (call it whatever you like) revolutionary and appealing.
I give a lot of respect and credit to RMS, Linus, ESR, Larry Wall and every free software enthousiastic developpers. There is no use of building jails around the most open way of using computers. All these big names in free software may have different way of thinking the movement, each drawing with his own color into the big picture and raising valuable ideas for everyone, but they all help driving the train in the same approriate direction.
I think the GNU/Linux term, although not very catchy, is a mean of informing people of the contribution of the whole community. Anyway this really is a detail. Personnaly, I would be a stupid ignorant computer professionnal without the knowledge gathered using free software, whoever wrote it. GPL almost saved me from becoming a buy-and-complain computer user.
To reach 'world domination', wee need *unity*. But unity does not mean conformity and anonymity, everyone has the right to speak and express his opinion and get recognition for his hard work and enlightened ideas.
So let's take a step backwards and look at it as a whole. This is a contribution-based movement, so let's continue to learn from each others and to respect the others' work and way of thinking to keep proceeding to the right direction.
There would be nearly no use of rewriting the GNU fileutils as there is nearly no use of argueing over a name that has already gained de facto acceptance. GNU is cool, Linux is cool and Linux is the choice of a GNU generation !
my 2 EuroCent thought...
PS: Thank you
By this IDIOTIC argument, we should replace the kernel... since it represents only a tiny fraction of the total # of bytes of any distribution.
And then not call the result anything. Not that there would be anything left.
This shmuck has got a well-deserved bad rep on usenet for ass-holiness.
His book is just great, however. Gee, how many people contributed to the code that appears in his book?
Phil
Just what the subject said:
GPL is the GNU Public License. That's all it is; a license. Just because you release a piece of software (or code) under the GPL doesn't mean it's from the FSF. Counting GPLed software as FSF contributions is decietful *at best.* FOR THE INTELLIGENCE-IMPAIRED: it's a little white LIE.
You're right. You should judge it by its
idealogical parent. Therefore, it should
of course be called Ken&Dennis/Linux. Please
give due credit where it is merited.
So is your comment.
;^)
The same could be applied to *BSD, Solaris, etc. What makes a Linux system a Linux system is the fact that the *kernel* used is Linux. Many people fail to understand that.
That being said, it's deceptive to call Linux GNU/Linux, because, as many have pointed out, while Linux wouldn't exist without GNU or the FSF, the kernel could have just as easily been compiled on a commercial compiler, and the tools could have been *BSD in origin. The choice of GNU tools was one of convenience. Therefore, RMS thinks that entitles him to appropriate the Linux kernel for his own "crowing-fest." Sorry, Richard. I can't go along with that. Keep it up, and we'll have to start calling you "Dick."
Come back when you graduate from junior high. ;^)
If you don't want to see Linux split, just
call it Linux. Ignore the fettered software
fanatics. The whole {Free,Open,Net}BSD schism
is an embarrassing return to the bad old days.
RMS is not trying to create a community. That
community existed before him. He is merely
trying to steal the credit for what he didn't
do. That's dishonest.
I hope someone at the FSF read that last one...good point, that one. :^)
Of course we would still be here without Richard.
With Ken and Dennis and Bill Joy and Kirk and Van
and such, well, then maybe we wouldn't be here. But rms? Don't kid yourself.
You're just feeding his undeserved ego.
That's why I call it Debian, RedHat, SuSE, Stampede, Slackware, etc. The kernel is Linux. The end.
Jason, wondering where those other 80% of the lines would be without the C library...
Well, I see it as:
"To get a _working_ system, what do you need?"
How much of the base install of a Linux distro is actually necessary? With RPMs, etc. (and packages when using *BSD) you don't even *need* a C compiler. Yeah, okay, us power users feel castrated without one, but you can get by without one.
How much of the average Linux distro would be usable if you stripped out the GNU code, *and didn't replace it*? Probably not much, but wouldn't it be an installable and runnable OS?
On the other hand, if you left the GNU stuff, and ripped out the Linux bit (ie. the kernel) *and didn't replace it*, you wouldn't be left with *anything* usable, would you?
With FreeBSD, the GPLed stuff is stripped out into a separate source tree (/usr/src/gnu) so you can shred that lot if you want to. There are other C compilers, etc., out there you can then use to fill the gap. An OS is *better* with the GNU stuff, but operational without. The inverse is not true: you have to have a kernel of some sort to run the rest of the GNU stuff.
Bottom line: which is more vital to a running OS (without any replacements): Linux the kernel, or the GNU stuff?
Then decide what you're going to call it, based on that.
I disagree whole-heartedly.
I get the distinct impression that Stallman and his adherents are
attempting to co-opt the "Linux label" in order to piggy-back on
Linux's recent popularity. It certainly looks like Mr. Stallman
doesn't feel that he and his FSF have received enough credit.
Never mind that a standard Linux distribution is riddled with credits
and notices wrt GNU, GPL, LGPL, FSF, etc. And never mind that if you
visit the FSF Web site, it seems that 99.44% is authored by Stallman
himself. And never mind that Stallman and what he's done is widely
and readily credited by everybody else, without exception, in the
"free software" community. Apparently this is not good enough.
Tom Christiansen only wrote what many of us are thinking: we've about
had it to here with Stallman and his incessant whining for
attention. In other words: shut up already!
About the time Linux becomes commonly known as "GNU/Linux" is about
the time I head for *BSD or something else.
Maybe it's time (past time) for a NGPL (Not-GNU Public License).
Take the GNU license, rip out the virus and all references to
Stallman's FSF, and go. Then Stallman and his adherents will have
something to whine about!
OK, here's the point: RMS and his devout followers want us to call Linux GNU/Linux because it (Linux) relies upon GCC and GNU utils. We don't want to give RMS & Co. credit for writing a kernel he didn't write; therefore, switch over to non-GNU utils.
:^(
What *could* be a problem is replacing GCC...
I have a much better idea. Why don't the people who make Linux distributions use the best software available, GNU, BSD, or both, and call it whatever the hell they want?
The subject line was fairly irrelevant...your argument was with Tom, not Linus. :^P
Use some logic when picking subject lines, folks.
That being said, how much kernel code did RMS contribute?
Tom, stop causing rifts in the community with your political bullshit and go use something like FleaBSD or NotBSD.
I use bash. I use emacs. I use gcc/g++. I also use non-FSF products.
When I was using DOS, WordPerfect, MIX C compiler, LOTUS 1-2-3, dBASE III+, etc. I simply said I had a DOS machine.
If HURD was the kernel I was using I'd say I use GNU on my machine.
When I'm referring to the kernel I'll call it LINUX. When I'm referring to the bigger LINUX (kernel plus whatever else comes on the distribution CD) it's not fair to all the other developers to call it GNU/LINUX and leave them out so I'll still call it LINUX.
I think the problem arises because we got the cart before the horse. LINUX being the horse and FSF products the cart. If the FSF had HURD finished we wouldn't have this debate.
I'm very grateful to the FSF for what it has done and it appears they don't get the recognition they deserve but calling it GNU/LINUX isn't the right solution.
Without gcc, where would we be?
I drew most of the diagrams for the software project I'm doing with a Biro. Do I now have to prefix it with Biro/?
You can build a C-compilerless unixy box. My old Indy at work didn't have a C compiler on it. Sure, the OS couldn't be written without it, but what's that mean. I doubt any major software project could be written without use of at least one of: Beer, Pizza, Coca-cola, controlled substances, alcohol, nicotine, Pringles. However, if they aren't essential to the running of the installed finished system, then they aren't essential to the running of the installed finished system.
GCC ain't essential. You can do without it, OR any other C compiler. Bloody useful, true, but not essential.
Linux (the kernel) is essential. You can't (by definition?) have a Linux OS without a Linux kernel.
Thus, you can remove the GNU stuff. The use of the GNU stuff in the production of the finished article is irrelevent. Otherwise, M$ Windows should be called Crack/Diapers/Windows.
This is not about GNU/Linux at all. Tom is more devious than that, IMHO. We can only speculate as to what his true motives are but he could be trying to fragment Linux perhaps in favour of one of the BSDs. He has always loved BSD.
I call gcc by the name given -- I don't call it
"the Linux C Compiler". The terms of the GPL
are the terms RMS himself laid down. They handle
the whole credit thing. Why isn't that good
enough for RMS? Now that a piece of GPL'd
software has hit the big time, he wants credits
appended to its name. It's not good enough for
him and the FSF to get credit for gcc, et al, he
now wants credit for other packages too. Well,
RMS, you wrote the rules. Your name is on all the
stuff *you* wrote. Linus created the OS that we
all love -- you didn't. Your GPL'd software got
used in the building and in the distributions.
I'm sorry if that isn't enough credit for your
ego. Perhaps you should finish that Hurd project.
Oh yeah, like your post was a paradigm of restraint and thoughtfullness. I guess you can dish it out but you can't take it. Anyway, were do you get off telling someone not to do just what you're doing?
There are other free compilers out there. Some came out before gcc, same came out after and some came out around the same time. Secondly, as much as people seem to ignore it gcc was not written exclusively by the FSF and it didn't spring into existance wholly formed.
Getting into the idea that many of the other free softwares available would not exist without gcc to compile them is absurd. The first three brands of unix I ever used didn't rely on FSF software, they all had xv, X11, sendmail, tcp-ip, etc., all without gcc as the host compiler. The few times that I did install gcc on those machines it required that I used the native compiler to build it. Does that mean that gcc couldn't exist without HP/SUN/DEC? No it doesn't, it just means that the native compiler was a tool used in the creation of gcc.
The fact that people use gcc does not mean that they couldn't create a c compiler if they wanted one. Look around and you'll see that there are alternatives for pretty much every platform that gcc is available on. In fact back in the late 80s when I was using an Atari ST, I used a c compiler called sozobon. Sure gcc was eventually ported, but it wasn't the only option available.
So what I want to know, is how many people would drop the idea that linux/et. al. are dependant on FSF if the toolchain was replaced? Probably not many. Even though, if you look at the history of gcc you'll see that on many platforms it relied on the native linkers, assembler, loaders, etc. to procude working code, odd that nobody wants to go around claiming that gcc should be called HP/gcc or DEC/gcc or SUN/gcc or BSD/gcc...
"Jason, wondering where those other 80% of the lines would be without the C library..."
You mean that the FSF created the C library? Wow, and all this time I thought it was the ANSI C committee who formalized that.
Any code monkey can implement the C library. That's why there are about 100 of them out there. It's just not that hard.
Agreed. The GPL -- which was written by Stallman and is an instrumentality of the FSF -- says, "We'll give to users, but not to those evil money-grubbing programmers who might want to earn a living! Those, we'll undercut and destroy by making it so they can't sell their work."
This is not generosity -- it is, in fact, an attempt to create a movement that destroys viable and worthy businesses. Especially small businesses in which individual programmers try to market their work. (Big guys, like Microsoft, are virtually immune.)
Use a license like the MIT X license or the BSD license, and cast your bread upon the waters with the full knowledge that you will benefit. Don't worry if a corporation benefits as well. Remember, those corporations employ folks like you and me, and we invest in them. It's a win/win.
--Brett Glass
There are gazillions of free compilers out there, and have ever been.
And maybe, if gcc wouldn't have been around,
we could write our code in a more decent language
than C, not to speak of C++.
The reason why FSF took off is because rms had
free bandwidth at MIT, which other compiler writers did not have, or at least, not at that time.
You too claim that rms invented free software.
Why are you saying this? It isn't true, AT ALL!
"(thought gcc and gdb are much more important per line of code than anything else on the system, with the possible exception of the kernel itself)"
I'm not going to say that the compiler isn't important and I'm not going to say that the kernel isn't important. But it's certainly debatable that gdb is all the critical. But if you really want to point to the most critical code in the system, the pieces of code that really make it interesting and made people want to give it a go, then look to the networking. Some of it is in the kernel, but there's a whole slew of net code in userland that without which, the "first settlers of Linux-land" wouldn't have been quite as interested.
rms does not promote free software. He promotes
fettered software with strings attached, and
then redefines free to mean fettered.
What's GNU Perl? Does Larry Wall work for
the FSF now? Is GNU Perl better than the old
Perl? Is it faster? Does it have better
licensing? Where can I download GNU Perl from?
There's nothing inherent in the GPL that prevents forking. In fact, the Linux userland has already forked; look at the different distributions! The kernel remains unforked only because no one has seen a compelling reason to do it yet.
As for the "suits" using code that's under the BSD license: Let them! It's no different than Red Hat profiting from GPLed code in many respects. But there's something that's far better about the BSD license: it's not anti-innovation. That is, it doesn't stop people from using parts of the code to build new commercial software. Little guys, like us, who don't want to spend our lives reimplementing the wheel.
Big businesses will do what they do whether or not the GPL exists. It's only the little guys whom it hurts. If we use the MIT X or BSD license, we have a chance to compete and build bigger, better things.
--Brett Glass
Huh? The Perl Power Tools page says why it is
being done, and it has nothing to do with replacing
the existing tools. http://language.perl.com/ppt/
seems quite clear about this.
"Where has he tried to force people to call it GNU/Linux?"
He tried once. About 1 1/2 years ago he decided that the gcc target name for all linux systems was going to be 'lignux'. He just stuck it in there and released gcc. Broke a lot of shit. Fortunately everybody jumped all over him and smacked him around and then took it out.
FreeBSD OpenBSD NetBSD LinuxBSD
GNU - Gnu's not unix
Gnulix - Gnu's not linux
RMS - take a bath
100% agree. good post.
Course then to do it properly you'd have to leave out all the bits of gcc that have nothing to do with the target platform(s) that we all use. And leave out the massively growing changelog file (is that still in there? haven't looked recently.) Counting lines or bytes can be really really silly and depending on your methodology can be made to indicate about anything.
Tom Christianson is Richard Simmon's evil twin.
I don't like monopoly. The dominance of the industry by Microsoft has forced Unix to unify;
in this case behind Linux. However; it's best
to have mulitiple sources for you parts :
databases (Oracle, sybase, mysql); Editors (applix, wordperfect); GUIs (KDE, Gnome, Motif).
Why not the utilities ??? Tom is making sense
here! Why throw off Bill Gates to put yourself
at the mercy of RMS's ego?
Most of the stuff in a typical Linux distribution was NOT written as a contribution to the GNU project. Saying so is attempted theft.
The essay advocates the use of the GPL as a trap and a snare for software developers who would like to make a living from their work. The idea is to license a vital library under the GPL, and then cry "Gotcha!" when a developer is either forced to use that library or uses it without seeing that it's GPLed.
Attempts by the FSF (and by RMS, its leader) to stamp its moniker on Linux show that, while the FSF doesn't profess an interest in money, it is very much interested in power and control. This is why it advocates "freedom" and yet makes its software non-free to parties against which RMS spitefully bears a grudge (commercial software developers).
RMS's grudge goes back to the days when Symbolics, the LISP Machine company, spun off from MIT's AI Lab. RMS abhorred the notion that someone might -- horrors! -- make money off of the research in which he'd participated. He has despised all commercial software developers since and has broadened his contempt to include anyone who makes money via intellectual property. Symbolics failed, but the grudge remained.
Those who truly want to write software that's free to all should not fall for the FSF's loaded rhetoric. Use a license such as the MIT X license or the BSD license, and let your fellow developers re-use your code for any purpose. By doing so, you'll thwart the FSF's quest for power by creating software that's free for all -- not just "free for those people and uses of which the FSF happens to approve."
--Brett Glass
I believe I read some interview with Linus that he never wanted to name in Linux. A local reporter called it Linux and it stuck.
The community have used to call it Linux, and it wasn't even a name suggested by Linux. Then along comes RMS and claims that the proper name would be GNU/Linux, since he insists that FSF have written the majority of the code in Linux the OS (as opposed to Linux the kernel).
This is an attempt at demonstrating that RMS claim is wrong, and that if having written a majority of lines of code should be the criteria for choosing the name, FSF doesn't have an argument at all.
All in all, it may be viewed as a way to hopefully get RMS to stop flogging the GNU/Linux horse and do something useful instead.
which of those weren't compiled with gcc/egcs and linked with gnu libc?
Linus didn't call it Linux. Linus called it Freax. It was the sysadmin at the site he initially made it available for FTP on that renamed it Linux because he thought Freax sounded silly.
Use BSD if you want BSD.
Take away the GNU utilities, compiler, and everything else, and I'm sorry, you don't have a useable Linux distro, period.
Saying it's not necessary based on the number of lines of code is ridiculous. So, my heart takes up less than 1% of my body weight, so it's not important? I can't believe he wasted our time with this ridiculous argument.
gcc, make, binutils, emacs, gdb are all applications. There are many machines out there that do a job, do it well and don't have compilers, editors, debuggers, X11, etc.
BSD was on its own trail.
It would be around today and everyone would be using that instead of LINUX.
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Station/718 3/starticle.html
you go try to write compiler+debugger from scratch sometimes.
even if you succeed in 5 years, fsf already did. you coulda done this, you couda done that, but you didn't. but fsf did. that is the point.
"...with no performance improvments from the work, and perhaps even performance degradation."
What a silly thing to say. You seem to be claiming that FSF/GNU software is as optimal as it gets and can't be improved on. Which is patently incorrect. A lot of FSF/GNU software is bloated and slow.
Gnulix - gnu's not linux. But still, Gnu is a big part of Linux as we know it.
I seriously doubt that RMS will sue anyone over not using the name GNU/Linux. So what if he wants
people to use that name. People also want Richard to take a bath and get a haircut.
Tom is free to replace GNU utilites with BSD utilities if he wants to, and Richard is free to pitch a fit when people don't use his preferred moniker.
What is all the fuss about? RMS wants attention.
Well, most of us do. Richard is getting lots of attention these days from the mainstream media - so is his project, GNU. Maybe not enough attention to calm him down, but some people thrive on controversy. That's ok.
I don't use the name GNU/Linux because I find it unnecessary and I think "Linux" is more catchy and what more people are used to. Name recognition is important. *ANYONE* who installs and uses Linux will quickly find out about GNU and all the wonderful GNU libraries and utilities (and ones that aren't so good like infotex and GNOME). The GPL licensing is important - because distribution of source code is important to the wellbeing of Linux.
RMS has earned my respect. I'm also an aging hippy from the 60's generation but that's not why.
It's because of the clarity and impact of his writings and because of his legal and technical contributions.
People who are put off by Richard's seeming belligerence should talk back to him. I'm sure he likes a good argument. Basically, I think he's a nice guy.
Thanks, Richard
Maybe he created the Internet as well. ;)
Sean "Irish" Farley
Anything discovered after Newton using Newton's laws are not called the Newton/X law or rule. It is simply called the X law.
And as everyone knows that Leibnitz did a better job with the calc than did Newton.
I am Stallman of GNU
Resistance is futile
All your code will serve the Collective
If you hung out in #perl on IRC lately, you'd know that this was spurred not by some realization that GNU is bad, but by the fact that RMS called Perl GNU software, and that (apparently) REALLY PISSED OFF Tom.
The above comment is completely correct!
Bravo, that was a fine article.
then they'll rip your heart out.
FSF is anything but free. I'd rather give money than my intellectual property.
Where is the prince gliph when you need it?
the gnu/linux discussion has played itself out!
the history books will reflect richard opened up 'some very good minds' to the concept of "free software" and show that linus used 'free tools' to build the kernel.
linus understood the consequences of standards and free software and, like others before him, showed his thanks, by freely giving back to the community!
change the name to osfkagl (operating system formally known as gnu linux)!
Okay, that ought to make both sides mad !!!
geeze, he's not asking for "stallmanix", he was asking for gnu/linux. he doesn't go around telling people he wrote all gnu stuff...
not that i think it should be called gnu/linux. call it a donkey, for all i care. but credit should go to where it's due, that's all.
Is what percent Linus coded. Why should we call the collection of utilities and libraries "Linux" when Linus coded less than most organizations/people? Do you REALLY think Linux would have been possible without GNU? No. Because Linus would not have had a C compiler and he would be SOL and stuck with Minix.
You idiots are not understanding WHY RMS wants it to be "GNU/Linux". Its NOT because he wants fame/credit/whatever. Its simply because people are forgetting what GNU is all about. This happened to RMS way back when people started "selling out" and making proprietary programs. People lost the truth. Its not a plot to call "Linux" his' own. He would have wanted a name change long ago if that were the case. But, people a few years ago didn't lose the truth. They knew what GNU stood for. Now RMS is worried. He has every right to be. For one thing people are no longer calling it "free software". They are calling it "Open Source" (with capital letters - implying the trademark OpenSource(TM)). "open" is a hazy term at best. And "source" could mean anything. The ftp site were you download binaries free of charge could be considered "open source".
I'm not wanting to give RMS [even more] credit.. I'm wanting to keep people from losing the truth about GNU. Once we lose the truth we might as well let corporate America run over us.
One example of the future is the recent Mac OS "Open Source" release. Eric Raymond even ENDORSES Apple (look on Apple's web page for a quote from ESR). Mac OS X is not free software. I'm quite sure the license for Mac OS X is incompatible with GPL. The thing is, Mac OS X is indeed Open Source (open-source, OpenSource(TM), open sores?). Just like a "hacker" is someone who breaks into computers. Most Slashdot readers know the truth about "hacker" and "open-source"/"OpenSource(TM)" but the public doesn't know.. so the term means whatever the media collectively agrees on. The media are main stream people themselves.
For the INTELLIGENCE-IMPAIRED, GPL is General Public License.
Marxism != communism. Marx was not a communist,
or an atheist. Marx was an economics/sociology professor and Marxism is an economic theory. His personal lifestyle was quite conservative. Marxism has its good points like most theories.
Microsoft condones software piracy of its own products in Asia and other areas where licensing isn't enforced. Why? Because this puts MS products in the hands of more people who can't be made to pay for them anyway. It makes people dependent on MS. Later, when they become more affluent, they pay for upgrades, etc.
I feel that in certain circumstances unlicensed copying of licensed software (call it piracy if you will) is justified. Anyone with a grain of sense knows that software patents are bogus and that ideas should never be copyrighted.
Mind and intellect belongs to God, not to people who then try to claim exclusive rights over what belongs to universal mind and the creator within us all. What is the source of everything ?
Sure, specific inventions and industrial processes should be patented and specific writings or works copyrighted if authors want control over products and financial reward, etc. That is not at all the same as software patents and the ridiculous concept of "intelletual property" or the ownership of ideas.
Marxism has nothing to do with pirating software anyway. It's an unrelated issue.
Condoning software piracy in Asia is preaching to the faithful. Whole economies in Asia are based on piracy of software and other products. Have you ever been to Asia?
This is the oldest, tiredest argument about GPL in existence. Quick trot out the Socialism word. Oooh Scarey!
GPL is good old Capitalist Barter You get mine I get yours... None of that "I got yours, now eat my crap" that can come out of your using my code in your proprietary product.
'nuff said.
My system works fine if I do "dpkg --purge gcc" too.
I get a File Not Found or Command Invalid error.
The percentages don't add up to 100. Also, who cares. If he wants to work on FREE-BSD that's fine.
Free software and BSD are just different models with different goals.
Bruce:
If the underpinnings of a movement aren't solid, then there is no bigger or more pressing problem than making them so.
Think about it. What drives Richard Stallman? Not money; he's got his "genius grant" and has no wife, no kids, no car. And he seems to believe that money is fundamentally evil. So, he seeks power and control. Control over as much software as possible. As much control over what programmers are able to (and unable to) do for a living as possible. As much notoriety as possible. And the ability to exact as much revenge against commercial software vendors -- whom he's despised for decades -- as possible.
This may sound like an unkind portrait of Richard, but if you know the man -- and we both do -- you'll have to agree that this is, at bottom, what drives Richard Stallman and motivated the GPL. And it's not a solid foundation on which to build a movement.
This is Tom's beef, and he's not off base.
--Brett Glass
And his idea of creating a non-GPL'ed Linux distribution strikes me as very risky. The compiler in particular would have been torn apart long ago by proprietary interests if it had been covered by anything other than GPL.
RMS has some valid points, but Linux isn't going to be renamed, nor do I think should it be. Christiansen's comments, on the other hand, seem just pointless and rude.
And Tom can come back when his contribution to the free software community is as big as the FSF's.
Exactly what the previous poster was pointing out.
I understand that Tom C. is a writer but what is his contribution to the code.
Not at all! I mean exactly what I say. It's RMS who hides his desire to destroy all opportunities to benefit from intellectual property behind talk of "freedom" and is thus being disingenuous.
The GPL does not prevent money-grubbing programmers from making money from their own labor. Nay, it doesn't even prevent them from making money from GPL'd software!
It absolutely does prevent those things. The best a programmer can do, once he or she has released a product under the GPL, is make money doing peripheral tasks such as making CD-ROMs or consulting. He or she cannot make money from the software itself; it's available for free! And if the GPLed product is even adequate, it makes it impossible for any other programmer to come out with a superior commercial product in the same category. He's been irrepearably undercut by what amounts to the ultimate in predatory pricing. It's as bad as -- if not worse than -- Microsoft rolling an equivalent product into Windows.
We're seeing this now. Be, a would-be challenger to Microsoft, can't get a foothold; vendors are looking at installing Linux instead. VCs are investing in Red Hat -- a disk foundry -- not Be. Be won't be killed by Microsoft; it'll be killed by the twin pincers of Microsoft and Linux.
Of course, you can pretend that this isn't happening if you'd like, but you'll only be ignoring the mounting evidence.
--Brett Glass
As best as I understand RMS's mind (not well), it is a mix of raw egotism and a desire to push the FSF's goal of free software (i.e. empasize the role of free software in the creation of linux). The thing is, the second goal isn't entirely necessary, IMHO. Linux has essentially become equivalent with the accomplishments of free software. Everyone who uses Linux knows that it's free, in every sense of the word (from the first time they have to compile an app or patch the kernel). So my suspicion is that this is mostly RMS wanting his FSF organization's moniker plastered all over Linux software everywhere in the interest of self-promotion. That and his rivalry with ANYONE he perceives as commercial (which includes Linus Torvalds, who RMS sees as being on ESR's Open Source team of evil capitalist pig dog polluters of pure Free Software, etc. etc.). So that's the deal. The real problem from the point of view of the community is that these personal rivalries between semi-crazed (although also very intelligent) people who have contributed an awful lot to free software makes the whole community look like a bunch of infighting losers. If RMS weren't were a bit more in touch, he'd realize that he's only hurting the community. But he has such an absolutist view of the community that he doesn't really care.
however, it's equally true that up until Linux came along, the popularity of the GNU suite didn't hit anything like its current levels. No operating system, a lot less exposure to the world.
Quite a myopic view. Ask any NEXTSTEP, SunOS4, HP-UX, Irix administrator... all have had GNU tools installed in addition to or in place of the vendor utilities for a long, long time already.
I'm afraid that GNU software has been universally popular on nearly every POSIX system, long before Linux became popular.
if you want to commercialize software, do so, if you don't, don't do so.
but stop bitching about names, please.
Good job, brother.
> But there's something that's far better about
> the BSD license: it's not anti-innovation. That
> is, it doesn't stop people from using parts of
> the code to build new commercial software.
And because the BSD license isn't anti-innovation, that must explain why:
- Linux supports more network protocols than the free BSDs
- Linux supports more hardware than the free BSDs
- Linux had SMP before the BSDs and has IO-APIC support today
- Linux has new, experimental features like POSIX capabilities
- Linux has video4linux and BSD supports about 2 capture cards
Small guys don't have a chance to write commercial software nowadays anyway. Putting code under a BSD style license helps the big guys a lot more than the small commercial guys.
of course free source helps all of us
>Anyone with a grain of sense knows that software patents are bogus and that ideas should never be copyrighted.
The entire Linux kernel is copyrighted. You better find another OS!
exactly. Tom is arguing a change for political reasons just as RMB argues changing the name to GNU/Linux.
the difference is that RMS's change at least won't affect the performance of stability of the system.
Tom's change may or may not be beneficial, but would take an extensive amount of effort and wasted time.
perl is GPLed...
to be exact, you can distribute it under the terms of the Artistic license or the GNU GPL.
The GPL does not require redistributors to preserve credit, and it certainly does not require redistributors to call their products GNU/anything. If I want to call a Linux distribution "Microsoft Windows/NT", the only organization with any right to complain is Microsoft.
RMS is concerned about people ignoring freedom and/or writing him out of history, but he has no legitimate legal leg to stand on, and he knows it.
Note that there are people who would consider rewriting software to get away from the BSD license and its obnoxious advertising clause. This is stupid, too, though less so than rewriting software to get away from the unenforceable politics of the FSF.
While TomC is great at motivating developers and writing documentation, he is seldom to be taken seriously.
What does it matter what an application is
compiled with? Are you saying that a company
that builds some given PRODUCT with gcc should
by rights and fairness call it GNU/PRODUCT?
My personal favourite is LIGNUX.
In Italian, 'gn' together is sounded
as 'ny'. So for me it works.
And for my 2c worth on the GNU/Linux thing:
Linus wrote his OS specifically with GNU in mind.
If it wasn't for the base of GNU utils (and compilers) in existance, and if it wasn't
for the GPL, I think noone would doubt that the OS that Linus built would not be _anywhere_ near as advanced and popular as it is today. It is safe to say it may not exist at all except perhaps on Linus' own computer. So take it easy on RMS people. If you don't agree with him, fine. Don't. it's plain silly to get riled up about it though. We all owe him a lot for initiating the 'radical' notion that made this all possible. Just think, what would YOU be doing now if not for the work of
'the wild radical' and his 'cohorts' ?
-bun
>A lot of FSF/GNU software is bloated and slow.
If You know where and why -- send patches, suggest improvements. Otherwise -- shut the F%$K UP !!!
Good points on the heritage that spawned gcc. :-)
You didn't mention pcc, written by Steve Johnson.
This was the first portable C compiler. Has anyone
noticed that Steve now works with Linus at Transmeta?
Coincidence? Maybe not. Perhaps we'll see an SCJ/Linux
coming out next.
It doesn't make sense to call binaries free software,
in any sense. They're just hardware on a disk.
Without Intel, there would have been no Linux.
Therefore, let's just call it "Intellinux", and
pronounce it "in TELL inicks", the operating
system for intelligent people.
bsd + dmr + rms + sin + intel + linux = :-)
bsdmrsintellinux
which has a nice ring to it, but it looks
like Linux is married to Intel.
Debian, accept on substitutes.
When Tom writes software, is it free, or does
he charge for it? Or does he shackle it with
restrictive licenses? Does Tom even support
free software at all? Who the hell is he, anyway?
Free software, but you have to buy a book for each utility.
You talk about RMS's place in history, but it's
clear that he's not as important as either Bell
Labs was, or Berkeley was. Why do you dishonor
those who did the most for us by ignoring them?
That's what the GNU HURD project is doing...
The mechanism of the GPL ensures that you can't make money that way. The code is available to users for free; who would pay for it? Also, because it's been released under the GPL, other people will take the code and make improvements to it which will also be under the GPL and which you cannot sell. All you can sell is the older, obsolete version. In short, by releasing your code under the GPL, you have killed any opportunity you might have had to make a profit from it.
Bruce Perens referred to this "license lock-in" phenomenon in his talk at LinuxWorld. In a sense, the GPL is the Roach Motel of software licenses. Code checks in, but it can't check out. (Except, perhaps, via the awkward process of "clean room" reverse engineering, which only large companies can afford to undertake.)
What's worse, if the code you release under the GPL reflects your unique expertise in a particular area, you've just permanently forfeited any benefit you might have gained from that expertise. You will have to go enter a new field where your skills are less unique or where you are no longer expert, and climb the learning curve again. You may never recoup the business or income opportunites you've lost -- or the chance to create and be rewarded.
Be seems to think they benefit from Linux, since by gaining so much market share mindshare for a non-Microsoft product, it has opened the technology world to the possibility that non-Microsoft products might be better for certain tasks. I agree to some degree; I think at least that their odds would not be any better if Linux never existed.
Their odds are worse. They would have had an opening -- because of the DoJ case -- this year. But Linux ruined that opportunity. They are realizing that now.
But even if they are wrong and you're right, let's say FreeBSD (supported primarily by admitted CD-ROM foundry Walnut Creek) had been the one to make it big instead of Linux. Would that make Be's position any stronger?
Absolutely. Because they could start with the code from the BSDs and improve it.
I personally don't mind that this is happening.
I'm very concerned about it -- not only as a developer but as a consumer. By displacing new commercial software, GPLed software limits my choices -- in many markets, it's already getting down to Microsoft or GPL. Nothing novel; no chance for a new small, innovative company to enter the market.
Really, what you are arguing is that a critical mass of GPL software will doom most proprietary software to oblivion. The only way this could be stopped, according to your theory as I understand it, is for the mass of people working on GPL software to give up and go home.
No -- they merely have to realize that the license under which they're publishing their work is destructive and use one which does not harm their fellow programmers. In short, one that's really free -- not one whose author gives lip service to freedom but wants to deny the software to folks whose way of making a living doesn't meet with his approval.
That's not going to happen.
I certainly hope it happens. The article above reflects a growing recognition that it's necessary.
So businesses today need to deal with the market reality that GPL code is out there, and find a business model that deals with that fact.
The only business model that deals with that fact is to pick a different business. VCs are already denying funding to companies whose markets have been invaded by GPLed software. Why? Because no business model, no matter how clever, can deal with the fact that the market has been destroyed. The well has been poisoned. We need to stop before there are none left from which to drink.
--Brett Glass
The GPL is more like a bomb than a hammer: a tool crafted primarily to destroy. In fact, it's rather like a nuclear weapon in that its destructive effects may never completely go away.
--Brett Glass
Did you mean "GNU/FreeBSD" or did you
mean "GNU-Free BSD"?
Since when does something having the GPL
make it `GNU software' as you put it?
I thought `GNU Software' was `software written
by the FSF'.
What do you mean that RMS set the software free?
Wasn't it already free to begin with? All RMS
did is add the GPV, which makes software less
free than it had been previously.
But that's a peripheral issue (pun intended) to what we're discussing here. What's key is that so many brilliant commercial products are based on BSD code. The BSDs have encouraged innovation; the GPL forecloses it.
As for opportunities for small guys to write software: they're there -- but only where the GPL has not poisoned the well.
---Brett Glass
Why did Corel choose Linux for their distribution?
Are they calling it GNU/Linux by Corel?
Why did Apple choose BSD for their distribution?
Are they calling it GNU/BSD by Apple?
Why not?
Are you saying that RMS *chose* to contribute
his efforts to Linux, that he was trying to
make Linux? I don't think so.
RedHat and SuSE produce Linux distributions.
It seems only sensible to call it RedHat Linux, etc.
I was unaware that the FSF produced Linux distributions.
When they do that, of course that would be FSF Linux or
GNU Linux, or whatever.
>Why don't you quit bitching and just run HURD if
>you're so into GNU philosophy?
... you can also run it if you just happen to like cool, extensible, object-oriented software. Watch for CORBA and PThreads to replace MiG and CThreads, then see the technophiles chase the Hurd (running Berlin, of course).
GNU Hurd home page
Debian GNU/Hurd homepage
If the purpose of the FSF is to help people,
then why do they spend so much time promoting
themselves? The reports to Wired and the NYT
belie that statement.
But free PC software was tiny, and not representative of the time. Free minicomputer software was very very common at the time that FSF was formed. Thus the notion that FSF was the only group that could have carried us through the dark times of the 80's is absurd. They were the first group I can think of that merged free software with political idealogy though...
Linux is in favor of making money off of software. :-) So is Larry
Or rather, Linus Torvalds is.
Wall. So is Erick Raymond. So is Tim O'Reilly.
That's why they're all on the FSF shitlist. The
only one RMS doesn't bitch about in Linus, because
it's politically incorrect.
He doesn't hide it. Stallman wants to GPL
books now, too. I can't wait to see the
next Tom Clancy technothriller rewritten by
Richard. That'll be a blast. What's next?
Madonna's songs? It's clear that the FSF is
anti-intellectual property of all sorts, and that
this is dangerous.
You said that the "rewrite everything in perl"
effort is not successful. I looked at their
page, and it seems clear that most of it is
done. It also seems like they're doing it to
have a good time. Where did you read otherwise?
I don't see why it gains us anything to cast
of the Evil Capitalist Pigdog in Redmond
to replace it with the Evil Communist Pigdog
in Cambridge. Both masters have their own
form of evil to spread in the world. Serve
no master.
Where in the license does it say that using FSF's code requires "GNU/" to be appended to the larger works name?
You'll have to pry it out of my cold, dead fingers! :-)
Yeah, this just sounds like Tom's personal crusade against RMS. Hey, tell you what. You start, and get back to me when you've made some progress...
I thank RMS every damn day, for all that he has done for me, the software community, and the Linux community. If GNU/Linux weren't hard to say, I'd probably say it... But it is, so the hell with it.
Some thoughts:
1. I think it is a little out of the spirit of things to start excluding programmers, especially good ones from FSF. I plan on using the best software available, regardless of secular principles.
2. Who's confused by GNU/Linux? If that is a big stumper for somebody, they probably should be using an iMac. Connecting to an ISP under Linux isn't trivial.
3. Maybe we could let them keep their GNU but take away their top billing. Linux/GNU?
4. I really don't care if people want to call it GNU/Linux. I will still call it Linux because I prefer 2 syllables to the overwhelming 3 1/2.
5. Maybe all this "credit taking" is out of perspective. In ten years, Linux and GNU software will look like punchcards. Let history books sort out who did what, in the mean time, I plan to keep on playing with computers because they are much more fun than socializing with real people.
The only way to fight an army of individuals, is to please their respectiv ego, and hope they will fight each other. All this pressure around Linux, the recognition that some people get, and the anonymousness of the others... don't get fooled friends. Why should Linux be named GNU/Linux ? To confuse newbies ? To show that we can have our own patent style trials ?
GPL wares are cool, either they're made by the FSF or individuals !
let's have a beer, and don't get too nervous about this kind of paternity stuff.
So are you saying that you agree with him,
or that you disagree?
Does it matter? Was he even being serious?
This did not teach you anything, did it?
Every time somebody makes secret or public
modifications which are not allowed to be
merged into the original he wastes his time.
And hacker time should not be wasted.
--P
1. OS = The core system software (kernel, compiler, shell, file utils, ...) In the old days (everything before let's say QP-DOS) this was the usual meaning of "OS". Microsoft also seems to use this definition.
FSF/GNU wrote most of the OS in this view. Except for the kernel, there's almost no core software that is NOT written by GNU. It would be logical to call this system "GNU". However, the kernel is very essential, so "GNU/Linux" might be a good name too.
2. OS = the kernel only
This is the definition used in e.g. Q-DOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System, which resulted in MS-DOS). If you're using this definition it's clear that the name of the OS should be "Linux".
Now, the question is : what's the definition of OS ? ... In my opinion, when you describe the system you're using, you should include both "GNU" and "Linux". There are lots of examples of this principle. There's SunOS, the kernel, but the system that uses SunOS is called Solaris. "Unix" isn't the name of the kernel, it's the name of the SYSTEM. I'm the first one to say that the kernel is the most important part of the system. But look at M$-DOS... do you call it MSDOS.SYS/IO.SYS ? I don't... I'm not saying you have to mention each important piece of software in the name of the system. Please don't call my system "X/Linux" or something... X might be important, but it's not essential. There are lots of people that don't use X. You can do a LOT of thing without a GUI. You can do a LOT of things without Netscape, or without KDE, ... But you can't do a thing without a compiler, gcc. I don't know anyone that doesn't use a shell, bash. Try using your system without cp,rm,mv,ls,make,...
Well, IMHO the first one is the best. I know the kernel is EXTREMELY essential, but with just a kernel you can't do that much. There are some things that are very important too : a shell, a compiler, file utilities, applications,
But there's more. Let's not just look at the number of lines of code. Let's take a look at the philosophy of things. "GNU" is a good way to describe the hacker-spirit, the copyleft/GPL way of creating software, as opposed to proprietary software. After all, GNU invented the GPL. GNU is an attitude. I'm calling my system a "GNU/Linux" system. The GNU stands for the community spirit, the essential utilities and a lot of user-space non-essential things, like Gnome, Gimp, mc, .... Linux is the name of the kernel, which is of course the most important part of the system, the core.
If you want to call it "Linux", no problem for me. But you seem to miss the point. It's not about giving a name to the kernel. The kernel already has a name. It's "Linux". It's about giving a name to what you're using. And I hope you're using more than just the kernel.
BTW, don't be so ignorant and stop calling RMS a neo-hippie who needs to get a life. He's got a life. He created gcc, gdb, emacs and a lot of other ESSENTIAL (well, emacs isn't that essential... but it IS the queen of the editors =)) things. He also invented the GPL. He's the one who reminds us of our roots. Don't bash RMS.
wb [WildeBeast]
What do you mean the FSF "started this whole thing"?
That they started free software? No, that's not true.
That they started Unix? No, that's not true.
That they started free Unix? No, that's not true.
That they started Linux? No, that's not true.
So what is it that the FSF started when they "started this whole thing"?
It doesn't seem fair to say that "GNU" is
a good name for the hacker-spirit. The FSF
is about certain political causes, not about
cool hacking. If they like cool hacking all
that much, they wouldn't put all these restrictive
viral lisenses on their stuff.
What's a teckla?
It's not a jhereg.
there weren't any programmers 50 years ago. what makes you think that the 1980s economics of software would be eternal anyway?
intellectual property is an oxymoron.
how can a person "own" an idea without keeping it to him/her self?
and because I'm broke, I can't benefit from any of those glitzy commercial products that are based on BSD code. so what good does it do me? none.
A whole lot of BSD-based stuff is free or very reasonably priced. And remember, the BSD code itself is still free. If you pay, you're paying for the author's enhancements only, which means you pay a more reasonable price than if the author had to rewrite everything.
Also, if the enhancements are not worth the price, NO ONE will pay.
--Brett Glass
A whole lot of BSD-based stuff is free or very reasonably priced. And remember, the BSD code itself is still free. If you pay, you're paying for the author's enhancements only, which means you pay a more reasonable price than if the author had to rewrite everything. It's a win/win.
Finally, if the enhancements are not worth the price, NO ONE will pay. So you're likely to get good value.
--Brett Glass
NetBSD, OpenBSD and FreeBSD depend on GCC, do they not?
And replace them with BSD libc, ls, sh and sed?
We have to weight the importance of the
particular component, rather than counting
'raw percents'.
A kernel is a key component.
What's then?
Compiler: gcc or egcs (incidently, egcs is kind
of spin-off of gcc, and they provide feedback
to gcc as well. For all practical purposes
egcs is still GNU)
Editor: emacs or xemacs. emacs is gnu. xemacs
at this point exists on its own but still attempts
to allign some of its features with emacs.
X-server: XFree86 - no relation with GNU.
Windows Managers or Desktop Environment:
GNOME (GNU), or KDE (not GNU), or various
windows managers like Windowmaker, FVWM(95) etc.
Someone can continue this list.
My point is that probably calling Linux Linux
rather than GNU/Linux is a right thing, however
everyone should be aware Linux comes with
some important GNU ingridients, and some equally
important non-GNU ingridients as well. This is
what general public doesn't get and this is
probably why RMS gets so upset.
I call it Linux, if RMS wants to call it GNU/Linux he can. He is free to say that I should call it GNU/Linux, but I doubt I will.
That said, although when some people look at me they see a conservative, "right-wing" kind of person, I tend to see many (most?) things relating to free software (FSIGEWDNOSS) from RMS's perspective. (Also, I don't tend to see myself as conservative or anywhere on the bird for that matter - or is that on the stage?? Well, wherever those proverbial wings are!)
The social aspects are important. Feeling good about giving away software is great. We need more of it, not less.
.. WONT argue and bicker about?
g er, Makefiles vs IDE's, KGI & accels in the kernel .. to name but a few .. it's a veritable battlefield out here.
:)
KDE vs GNOME, vi vs Emacs, commandline vs GUI, Proprietary software vs OpenSource vs Free Software, Jon Katz vs Slashdot, software licenses, my-window-manager-is-better-than-your-window-mana
Stop the infighting! Where's the good old MS-bashing?
Harmful infighting, or constructive Darwinian "territorial" evolutionary disputes?
Well, if compiling foo.c w/ gcc _requires_ that I call it GNU/foo, I guess I will call it GNU/foo. But, is gcc then "free" (as in freedom)?
I see this as a pathetic attempt by RMS to jump on the band wagon. The GNU kernel is Hurd. Was before, is still today. Linux is popular and successful because of the development style. It was that popularity that made millions of people aware of RMS and GNU. You'll see that awareness increase with the further spread of Linux unless he encourages more of us to leave his "free" bits alone.
there is a demon tux at
http://www.satanic.org
> The mechanism of the GPL ensures that you can't
:)
> make money that way. The code is available to
> users for free; who would pay for it?
Why did I buy 3 copies of Red Hat Linux on CD then?
> Also, because it's been released under the GPL,
> other people will take the code and make
> improvements to it which will also be under the
> GPL and which you cannot sell. All you can sell
> is the older, obsolete version.
You expected to get people to fix your mistakes for free? You do you think you are, Apple?
> (Except, perhaps, via the awkward process of
> "clean room" reverse engineering, which only
> large companies can afford to undertake.)
Why is this process limited to large companies? It's a computer program, not the damn Space Shuttle.
> Their odds are worse. They would have had an
> opening -- because of the DoJ case -- this year.
> But Linux ruined that opportunity. They are
> realizing that now.
Why should I care?
> Absolutely. Because they could start with the
> code from the BSDs and improve it.
Take code from an OS with an entirely different architecture and design philosophy? I think that would be a waste of time and effort.
> By displacing new commercial software, GPLed
> software limits my choices -- in many markets,
> it's already getting down to Microsoft or GPL.
And in the market for PCs with pre-installed OSes, the choice used to be Microsoft, period. Now there is more choice, thanks to Linux.
> Nothing novel; no chance for a new small,
> innovative company to enter the market.
Why do you seem to believe that the only entities capable of creating anything original are companies? Many of the most famous and original ideas were the work of a single person.
> Because no business model, no matter how clever,
> can deal with the fact that the market has been
> destroyed.
There is more to life than businesses and markets.
Hey,
*my* good olde MS-bashing is better than yours
(sorry coudln't resist)
That's right: BSD uses the GNU C compiler
and development environment. That's why
the truth-in-advertising of free software
requires that it be called "GNU/BSD".
Hypocritical? It's you guys who are running around insulting nearly everyone in sight who's ever contributed anything to linux. This GNU/Linux bullshit is just that a massive insult, if you FSF guys only had the common sense to realize it for what it is and the general reasons for the reponses to it and drop the whole stupid issue.
Demon Penguin.
This is silly. Leave things alone. This is the most assinine thing I've heard since Petreley wrote that he wants us to join the "I don't care" movement (or camp or whatever the hell he called it).
Sounds like the IDG and O'Reilly boys are gettin' a bit fed up with the "ethics" involved with the FSF/GNU. That's it, replace those FSF tools. We could be makin' tons of cash if we do that! Binaries only! Then, let's get a 'better' license than the GPL for the stuff that HAS the source. Yeah. Good Idea. Sheesh.
The true beauty is that if you want to replace the FSFs tools you can. If you like using only GNU stuff, you can. Do what you want. Let everyone else do the same.
When is O'Reilly going to release it's Linux Distro? I'll bet it's polluted as hell with proprietary crap too.
GNU/Linux - accept no substitutes, or watered-down "equivalents". There are none.
THEY ArE nAzi JEWS HAVinG SODOMY PArTiES in THE PuBlic SWiMMinG
POOl WiTH VOluPTiOuS YOunG BOYS
He wrote some fine documentation, and is very generous to distribute it free of charge... that doesn't excuse his childish rants on gnu.misc.discuss.
In that pointless flamewar, ALL of his points (which you repeat above) were refuted by rational arguments from well-known personalities of g.m.d... rather than responding with logic or reason, he just kept flaming. He made Brett Glass (who behaves similarly when the GPL is mentioned) look like Mr Spock in comparison! I haven't seen as much electronic carnage since my last game of freeciv.
If you really think "no one except Tom seemed to care about or understand" the argument, try picking out some of the better posts from among the flames using dejanews. Hint: to avoid flames, skip all of Tom's posts.
eep.. sorry about the repeat.
URL: www.fsf.org
RANT:
There are many different ways of looking at Linux and it's origins. Most people (by this I mean: my opinion, this is what I believe, and what I tend to hear from people whom I talk to on the subject) see the history of Linux as we now know it as the GNU project, which was started by RMS & Co, and the combination of the kernel, as brought to us by his most esteemed holiness, Linus Torvalds. RMS began the GNU movement, and started working on apps, i.e., Emacs, ls, cp, all of the ones listed in previous comments, and listed at the fsf web site. What was missing, up until circa 1990, was the core component, the kernel. Enter Linus. The GNU movement semi-adopted Linux as a stand in for the kernel that they had not written yet. The HURD kernel (the GNU kernel project), was designed to be somewhat experimental in OS design. From my LIMITED research on the subject (I don't understand half of what I read), it looks as if the HURD was designed to be the most daring, cutting edge technology in what we currently know about OS's. Hence it's repeated delays until a viable release. GNU was/is doing something that had never been done before (at least not fully and well, again, AFAIK). Linux, while it is a wonderful OS (I use it. Debian 2.0 v2.0.36), and while I fully respect Linus and his ability, what he did was not neccessarily the "best" of what could have been done at the time. For God's sake, he was only a student then. For Linux to implement the changes that HURD has in it's basic design would be impossible at this point (backwards compatibility and whatnot). Alright. Enough out of my uneducated spout.
Rant off.
This is the first time I have heard of the "demon penguin". But the very same issues raised here would bother me down deep in an unknown place whenever I heard of "GNU/Linux". It sounds like that linux was written by two people, i. e. Linus and RMS. I think that is not the entire truth.
I think 10 percent is very doable - A ANSI C compiler should be straightforward.
I do not think that the GPL requires a work to be trademarked with the name of the tools used to create that specific work.
This really does in the end make code "less free".
Imagine if that was the case with commercial compilers. Every single application would have to have Borland, Symantic, Watcom, Sun, Microsoft in their title name/part of the trade mark. Granted, Microsoft has their name prominently in anything they create and sale, but I wouldn't call them open source/free software advocates either. Even then I don't have to put the words "Microsoft Visual C" in the name of the application I create.
Curious, I have always found that the quality of tools speak for themselves, and the programmers who use the tools know the names that are important. Other people (non-programmers) should not have to be concerned with the tools used to create the application they are using, and wouldn't bother if the information was given to them anyway. Forcing this "GNU/Linux" name can in the end only be devisive, confusing for non-programmers, and a really, really poor attempt at branding.
phillipkennedy@email.com
Maybe the #perl crowd on EFNet IRC is like that. From my experience they're a bunch of self-glorifying bastards. No, I haven't been kick/banned there, but, I did experience the channel for a bit. Compare the number people on the EFNet irc's #perl to the number of people who use Perl overall and you will get a more representative example of us. I'd be willing to wager the number of people like what you're describing would be about as high as the denominator of the fraction of a percent of us who even care whether it's Linux, GNU/Linux, or Gnulix...
I don't call my car a Lotus/Isuzu because the suspension is by Lotus.
Hm, try this: /usr/src
NO YOU DON'T
System: FreeBSD
Base:
bin/ls/ls.c:
This code is derived from software contributed to Berkeley by Michael Fischbein.
bin/cat/cat.c:
This code is derived from software contributed to Berkeley by Kevin Fall.
bin/mv/mv.c:
This code is derived from software contributed to Berkeley by Ken Smith of The State University of New York at Buffalo.
bin/cp/cp.c:
This code is derived from software contributed to Berkeley by David Hitz of Auspex Systems Inc.
lib/libc/*:
Too numerous to list. Funny, I don't see anything GNU listed here.
I'm sure these people listed would be glad to hear about you attributing THEIR work to the FSF.
Think before you post.
I was wondering how long it would take somebody to make this parallel!!
:)
Call it GNU software or not is up to your wish. It is the GPL philosophy that matters. It ensure the source will always be freely available and that is a major strength in the Linux or GNU/Linux system. I think the GNU term here mainly refers to this free spirit.
"Collected"? "*Collected*"?? You mean if the
FSF "collects" SomeThing, it becomes GNU/SomeThing? Please tell me you're kidding.
Perhaps the evil high priests at Cambridge could please
"collect" my mother-in-law so I can have a
GNU mother-in-law. God knows I've been asking
for one long enough!
"Collect". What a lovely word.
XEmacs is HEAVILY based on the GNU Emacs work. Hardly a re-implementation. If that counts, then Tom's points are even less valid. And I'm not going to start using JED or Jove for no good reason...
And I already mostly use XEmacs anyway.
Cheers! Happy St. Patrick's day.
no doubt gnu tools got major boost in user base due to linux. but gnu tools do not depend on linux - linux, like it or not, currently depend on gnu for several major components. gnu tools are used on whole bunch of non-linux boxes.
HOWEVER, EVEN THAT'S NOT THE POINT!!
RMS stated that he want people not to gloss over the spirit of GPL/GNU. don't matter what the hell you call the thing, as long as you emphasize that nature (GPLed, open source, "free" software) about linux, you are giving him the due he asks for. face it, linux is still behind solaris and other commercial unices in many ways. the thing special about it is the way it's developed, and the spirit of the people behind it.
Oh please!
Xemacs is a decent editor, and the best free editor for development that I know of. It allows me to view multiple files in one window, compile, trace compilation error to source file, is a good front end to gdb, and etc. Even the key strokes (in fact everything) are highly customizable. Ok, it takes up quite a lot of memory esp runned with gdb, but its convenience far outweighs its shortcoming.
I love vi too, but emacs is still preferred in long development session.
That is, indeed, another reason.
What you fail to realize here is that if free software destroys proprietary software, it is because it is better. Period.
It does not have to be better. People will put up with a lot of shortcomings in a product if it's free! It doesn't have to be great or even that good.... Just adequate.
Let's look at GCC, for example. As a compiler, it's nowhere near as good as those made by PowerSoft, Borland, Symantec, or even (though I admit this grudgingly) Microsoft. It's slower and more awkward and is missing key features. Yet you'll notice that none of these vendors is publishing a compiler for Linux; in fact, the only other compilers available for Linux are the results of research projects where profit was not a concern. Why? No market! GCC is adequate. When it's free, the mediocre drives out the good.
You can't make it stop by complaining about losing your work; the lamp-oil manufacturers lost their jobs when gas became commonly used, and gas when elecrical lights became common.
Not analogous. Those were superior technologies. In this case, a GPLed product is actually destroying the market for worthy commercial products -- even superior ones. Hence, the GPL "poisons the well."
You can NOT put the genie back in the bottle. Deal with it.
The best way to deal with it, alas, is prevention. The long-term damage done by the GPL is akin to the damage done to the environment by a nuclear warhead. It's awful, it's messy, and it takes a long time to resolve itself. The ideal solution is not to set off the bomb in the first place -- which requires cooperation and understanding.
How does one deal with it? A common answer is to go with the free software flow, but use a license that's less restrictive than the GPL. The LGPL works decently well; Perl's Artistic licence is good. The Open Source movement has prospered because of people who, I think, see this coming.
I think we agree here. I recommend the MIT X license or BSD license (the two-clause version). Perl's Artistic License isn't bad. The eCOS license (used by Cygnus) is another approach that people who are more "GNUish" would probably find acceptable. But we must advocate against the GPL before we do irreparable damage to the software ecology.
--Brett Glass
It means you're free to choose what you speak, including stuff based on what you've heard.
For the plastic or the books. Or maybe because you just really wanted to pay Red Hat money? ;-)
But what you paid for wasn't Linux; that's available for free. You bought media with Linux inscribed on it. You can't buy Linux itself, because Red Hat can't sell it; only copies of it. It's important to distinguish the container from the thing contained.
You expected to get people to fix your mistakes for free? You do you think you are, Apple? :)
Ah, but they did fix the mistakes for free. They can't get money for their fixes either, because their code has been "infected" by the GPL.
At the same time, they further prevented the original author from making money from his work.
Why is [clean rooming] limited to large companies? It's a computer program, not the damn Space Shuttle.
Because, in order to do it, you need several programmers on staff and lots of lawyers to supervise the process. A small shop can't afford this.
Why should I care [about Be]?
As a consumer, you should care about the availability of options, so that you are not locked into one solution. You shouldn't be forced to choose any product -- whether it's Linux or anything else -- because options are not available.
Take code from an OS with an entirely different architecture and design philosophy? I think that would be a waste of time and effort.
I guess you don't realize it, but BeOS can load Linux device driver modules. They've saved years of development by going this route. Take code from an OS with a entirely different architecture and design philosophy? I think that would be a waste of time and effort. ;-)
And in the market for PCs with pre-installed OSes, the choice used to be Microsoft, period. Now there is more choice, thanks to Linux.
Linux is actually foreclosing other choices. It's keeping Be from being preloaded. Ditto New Deal, NeXTStep, QNX, Solaris, etc. Having to choose between Microsoft and Linux still isn't much choice.
Why do you seem to believe that the only entities capable of creating anything original are companies? Many of the most famous and original ideas were the work of a single person.
Who says that a company has to be more than one person? I'm a one-person company. (If I wanted to do some real marketing and make some decent money on a product I created, I'd probably get a temp or hire some students, but that's another issue.)
There is more to life than businesses and markets.
True, but without them, one can't put food on the table or keep a roof over one's head. At which point, those other things in life seem somewhat less important. ;-)
--Brett Glass
...because I do not toally submit my will to that of RMS, the One True Profit (oops, I mean Prophet). Horrors.
--Brett Glass
there's a difference.
grow up. read the GPL. read stallman's writings.
don't take Christiansen's word for anything. he's got a personal grudge against stallman. ignore him. if you want to find out what stallman thinks, read stallman's writings. he writes a lot, and (in contrast to Christiansen) he's generally lucid, logial, and factual.
Some things about economics do change, but others have remained pretty much constant since time immemorial. For example, most people think it's fair to earn an honest day's pay for an honest day's work.
--Brett Glass
Receiving some GPL'ed code is like when you were a kid, and your other grandma gave you a $10 gift certificate for Underwear World.
Blah Blah Blah
/. demanding a "FSF-free" Linux. For the sake of code TC, Abigail and company you are starting to sound like Microsoft community-killers. If you dislike RMS statements... ignore them, but TC is getting to be just as annoying and arguably more destructive than RMS.
The same crew that fille gnu.misc.discuss for weeks on how horrible RMS is for suggesting the need for a free Perl manual is now on
So true! I love it!
I use the GNU tools on my lame WindowsN'T system.
I think that means I'm really using GNU/NT.
Tomorrow I'll try to convince my co-workers
that I'm running GNU/NT (or is that gnun't?).
Do you think they'll buy it? Will Mr. Bill?
--not provably a Microsoft contractor
SunOS is SunOS and Solaris is Solaris. It has nothing to do with Openwindows.
The point is not that you (the person who wrote the documentation) cannot release code. It is that you (the reader of the documentation) cannot take code examples from that documentation and put them in a proprietary program.
Tom wants people to have the freedom to do the latter.
Regards,
Ben
The case is really made when you see that there are lots of others contributing 1-2% pieces. The above is only a partial listing. Stallman does not seem to have an arguement for calling it "GNU/Linux" because someone happened to use the GNU compiler to write a kernal.
This is the kind of thing that makes me NOT want to contribute free software. I am working on free software now, and I don't want to see two groups fighting over whether it's "theirs".
Shut up already...
HEAR HEAR!!
HEAR HEAR!!
Damn good post.
Ok! Who's going to make the Tom Christiansen ate my balls webpage? I think it would be pretty fun to see
n
http://www.fsf.org/ate_my_balls/tom_christianse
and, of course
http://www.fsf.org/ate_my_balls/ed_muth
for good measure!
Absurd absolutes deserve absurd arguments.
I sure hope the FSF doesn't push the issue. Who cares, actually, who the majority contributor is. Isn't the whole point that the software was written, not who gets credit? Demanding that Linux gets named GNU/Linux is as bad as demanding money. The only difference is that the payment is an ego/reputation boost.
"Give credit where credit is due," and LEAVE credit where credit is given -- in the credits.
Just the name GNU/Linux makes the whole thing less user-friendly.
--TIntern, to lazy to log in.
I also think that IF the name had to be changed, it should be lignux for the following reasons :
1) It at least sounds more like the original linux than gnulix
2) since all linux distributions have gnu utilities "embedded", embedding "gnu" inside "Linux" seems appropriate
3) it is just one character more, and the FSF deserves at least that much recognition.
I don't suppose you've ever seen some of the code GCC will spit out.
movl %eax, %eax
Plus I've seen GCC set up a stack frame, and then not even use it. While it's true that GCC usually creates fairly decent code (probably even moreso on non-x86 platforms), it is not a best compiler by any means. It does do a pretty good job for supporting most platforms, although how slowly GCC progresses these days is a little disturbing.
GNU is the operating system; FSF is the organization which has worked to built it. Not all of GNU is GPL, but it is all free.
Don't make that kind of non-sense please.
>I don't suppose you've ever seen some of the code
>GCC will spit out.
> movl %eax, %eax
-O
/twq
Why do you say that I can not use codes in a GPL'd
document? AFAIK, copyright laws allow fair use of
the contents of any copyrighted documents as someone
already pointed out above. Now please justfy your
point.
No. That is the debian distribution of the GNU/linux. Hurd is a different kernel (much
more sophisticated than linux), based on
the mach microkernel.
I actually think that RMS & co. have a point. Without FSF software, Linux would not be in the position it is today? Which compiler has been used since time dot to compile the kernel? (Old timers may remember the discussion in 0.1x days about BCC vs. gcc)
:-)
Which shell has been the default since the beginning?
Which set of command line utilities has been standard since the beginning? Whose implementation of AWK, yacc, lex and suchlike?
Another thing to consider is exactly how much software that is installed on the average distribution that uses the GPL/LGPL. How many software projects are released under the GPL?
So, it would in fact seem fitting to give recognition where it is due.
Then again, I don't really care. If its GNU/Linux... thats fine with me. Heck, if it is RedHat Linux, Caldera Linux, SuSe Linux.... thats fine too
/me hands the chill pills about
You fucking unix moron. If you don't know, shut up. Don't pass semi-rumors.
Perl has good documentation my ass, and fucking Tom C. is there to fucking peddle Perl and himself.
Xah
xah@best.com
http://www.best.com/~xah/PageTwo_dir/more.html
RMS has stabbed himself in the back again with his own words.
I wish he would shut-up and get on with the code.
This issue should not exist as we shouldn't care who gets the credit for Linux, GNU/Linux what ever you want to call it.
Linux isn't just the name of a kernel. It is an ideal let it stay that way.
I wish RMS would stop trying to take credit for something that he is but a small part ot wether he started it or not.
He could better serve the ideal he started and we are all continuing by finishing the HURD. But quitely producing something of value seems to come second to standing on soap box these days for RMS.
Sad but true.
It is the pride in producing something good not the praise one recives for it that makes our contributions truly great.
You buch of fucking stupid unix weenies. Don't open your mouth. Read every article by RMS on www.gnu.org, and read everything Tom C. has written. Then, write your opinions carefully.
For those who havn't done this, let me set the record straight: in my opinion, Tom C. is a fucking moron.
No, I don't care what you bunch of unix weenies have to say. I know how your pitiful brain thinks down the the last firing neuron.
Xah
xah@best.com
http://www.best.com/~xah/PageTwo_dir/more.html
Long long time ago....
in a village call LinVillage, like a normal village. People work day and night.
One day, an old man who live there found a magical seed. He planted the seed on a hill.
Days after days. The seed grew into a great big tree. Everyone in the village like the tree so much. Children plays under the tree, villager rest under the tree, they held festival under the tree and sometimes even fight under the tree. It was like the tree was the open house to them. Everyone enjoyed the tree so much. Everyone thanked the old man the joy he bring to the village and the old man keep contantly remind people the important of the tree.
Many generations later, new generations emerge. The tree was still there but the old man wasn't.
There still some people (the same one who play under it) who was still enjoying under the old tree. People do not live in old wooden house anymore, they live in high tall concrete building. They discos, party and try to make more money as soon as possible.
One day, a man named tom from a company call perl coperation limited decided to build a tall building on top of the hill. But there are one thing that stop him, the tree. So, against the will of them people there, he bought the hill and he remove the tree from its root sell it to furniture store to make a fortune. Then, he build his tall building on top of the hill. He was very happy cause now he is rich and famous.
Couple months later, the tall building on top of the hill collapes killing thousand people. People was furious and mad with tom. Many people started to sue the hell of tom. Tom do not get it.
"What am i doing wrong ", he said.
"I build house for people to live and they treated me like this", said the sad tom.
Under some investigation, authorities found out that the tall building collapes because there was not tree there to hold the soils.
Till today, tom still do not get it.
Today, we do not see children play under the same tree, people laugh , festival, fight under the tree anymore. Its now just a graveyard.
the old man = rms
the tree = GPL
villager = GNU/Linux community
tom = who else ?
P/S: I know my english suck but you get the idea.
>RMS may foam at the mouth in person sometimes, but at least his writings are well-reasoned and level-headed - you have to admit that much at least even if you don't agree with his premises.
I have to admit nothing that is not true.
>The idea of naming a complete Linux system GNU was that the GNU project was the project for generating an entirely free operating system by taking all that is available freely already, add what is needed, and lobby for people releasing other important things.
>
>Existing Linux systems are the completion of this initial GNU dream, in the spirit of the GNU dream, using components planned for the GNU dream.
Let's see if I have this right. GNU promised to create an object of class X, but never really got (metaphorically) beyond the stage of sitting in some basement jerking each other off. Someone else comes along and actually _does_ create an object of class X, and now GNU gets to take the credit because they made the _promise_ first?
When it comes to an OS, whether you're talking about the kernel or about common basic utilities (ls, tar, that kind of thing - not so much cc or emacs) GNU has promised the world, reinvented a few wheels that were working perfectly well, and produced SQUAT that was truly innovative. Their fumings are just as vaporous as the hot air that comes out of Redmond.
Sure, give GNU/FSF/RMS credit for the things they have done, both technically and otherwise. Their contributions in areas _other_ than creating an OS are immense. But that doesn't mean we have to swallow their BS (GS?) about how they deserve credit for things they never actually got around to doing.
You still don't get it.
RMS did not invent free software.
RMS did not invent Unix.
RMS did not invent free Unix.
RMS did not invent Linux.
Substitute "GNU" for "RMS" above if you prefer.
For these reasons, it is wrong to call Linux
by "GNU/Linux". Linux is Linux. This idolatrous
worship of Richard Stallman and the myth that
he is responsible for free software is a dangerous
lie.
Please get back to writing free software and
cut the political bullshit.
Why are you trying to fragment the community?
Tom doesn't really want people to stop using
GNU tools. If you send him private mail, he'll
admit this. He has a hidden agenda here. You
can make him admit this if you try. By posting
that absurd message, we can all see how stupid
the whole thing really is.
By calling it
GNU/Linux, we fragment our community as badly as has happened with BSD and the rest of Unix.
By pushing for that name, it is the FSF that is
fragmenting us, driving us to fight each other.
Render unto Linus the things that are Linus's,
and render unto Richard the things that are Richard's.
Just leave it as Linux, and we'll all be happier.
that RMS invented free software, and that
without him, software wouldn't be free.
Have they been putting something in your
water or what? Software was free before
the FSF, and remains so despite their efforts.
Tom's big objection was that if you GPL documentation, then you GPL code examples in that documentation. If those examples are GPL'd, then you can't use them if you want to release you work under, say, the BSD license.
That means, the GPL license PREVENTS you from doing as you wish with your code. That means, the GNU GPL does not promote freedom, because it restricts people's actions - namely in the act of releasing code under a different license.
If this was TC's "big objection", then he's a bigger fool than even the above rant against RMS would suggest. As everyone knows, the copyright holder is not restricted by any licenses under which he issues his work, so if he wanted to make the Perl examples in his book also available under a less restrictive license than the GPL, he could easily have done so.
It all becomes more interesting if you think of the GPL as applying to IDEAS within the documentation. Suppose the canonical Perl documentation is GPL's and it explains what a closure is in Perl. Does that mean you can't use closures unless you GPL the code with closures in?
Again, as anyone with a rudimentary understanding of copyright law will tell you, it does not apply to ideas (only their "expressions"), so this is another a specious argument. Patent law makes some attempt to control ideas (very repugnant notion, imho), but the GPL certainly does not try to do so.
If his hatred of RMS and the GPL is based on a false understanding of how it applies, TC should spend his time brushing up on IP law, rather than attacking RMS.
Alex Berkman
GNU/Linux Community,
:-)
what i means is
what i means,
GNU/LINUX community,
GNU community (the FSF group)
Linux Community (Linux users)
an old man = RMS
should i call
an old man=FSF ?
I do not wordship RMS, but i do respect what he did although i cannot tolerate his *rude* behaviour, grumpy old man. At least he is much better than that tom *perl* guy.
as i say before, my english is sucks. so you misunderstand.
All of this crap is obviously irrelevant to the question at hand, namely whether the OS we're all talking about, which includes all the GNU utilities (and to which GNU has made the single largest contribution, apparently) should be named "Linux" or "GNU/Linux".
It has nothing to do with some hypothetical OS which consists of the Linux kernel and some yet-to-be-invented/borrowed tools to replace all the code contributed by the FSF. We'll name that operating system as soon as you get around to creating it.
Thanks for the clarification guys; I now have a decent sense of what is going on here...
It seems to me, more that anything, that ego IS the factor here... not necessarily that RMS wrote it himself, but that RMS's foundation wrote it. Well, I guess that, no matter how magnaminous you appear to be, one would ALWAYS like to have credit for a job well down. Although, I cannot see how RMS's group could not be pleased with the work that have done; don't they get a lot of recognition for it? Oh well... such is what happens in the world when egos take over...
As for me... keep it linux... it has been Linux for several years now, is known as Linux, and I cannot see a viable reason to change it beyond some organizations's collective ego (maybe just one man's ego)...
What do you mean that Stallman doesn't like
O'Reilly books? They're great! What is his
beef? That someone is making money off of free
software without tithing the FSF? I though that
consulting and writing books was one of the
things that the FSF thought were reasonable
ways to make money from free software. Has that
changed?
Is that really his solutions -- not to use FSF
software -- or is he just saying this to draw
attention to an important issue? With Tom, it's
hard to tell sometimes.
Freedom means not forcing other people
to do things that they don't want to do.
First of all the SuSE is very packed and only about 10% are the real system, the rest is optional. If you go by what is actually required for the system you'll find that most of it is GNU Software. Second the SuSE 5.2 was missing some great GNU Projects ... like GNOME which will add a lot to the percentage. If 10% aren't enough to warrant using the "GNU" in "GNU/Linux" why does the Linux Kernel (which doesn't even appear on the list) warrant using it's name for the complete system ? The kernel is just one component of a Unix System, after all... If you were really applying your reasoning without prejudice, you would end up with "GNU" instead of "Linux" or "GNU/Linux" because if you only compare code sizes the Linux Kernel is pretty irrelevant compared to all the GNU components. As a lot of women will tell you: Size isn't the only thing that matters... P.S. This whole discussion is pretty obsolete. Without the GNU Project Linus Thorvalds might just be an author of a Minix Harddisk driver... there would be no Linux kernel we could argue about.
'Nuff said.
BSD became a distribution when? (Early 70's)
And it was compiled with what? (Gasp, a COMPILER!)
RMS began the GNU project when? (Early 80's)
And he used what OS & COMPILER for his work before GCC was complete? (SUN's version of BSD)
You didn't know these basic facts? (Oh yeah, you're an idiot!)
efforts to make the world a better place. Why is that so much to ask?
If they had the recognition, they'd get enough money to continue in
there great mission, just like what we see with Linux. Doesn't the FSF
deserve some of that money?
How many of you listen to public radio? Do pay for it every quarter the
way they'd like you to, or are you just a freeloader? It's the same thing
with free software, you know. Remember, it's free speach, not free beer!
It's time to pay up. Anyone who uses freeware should voluntarily
contribute to the Free Software Foundation to help pay for more free
software. You proabably use alot of free software everyday. Think how
much use emacs, God's Own Editor, and gdb, and gcc, and X Windows, and
Pearl, and Linux, and all the other wonderful GNU software. How much is
each of those worth to you? How much would you have to pay Microsoft
if it wasn't free? Why don't you right a check to the FSF for, oh,
maybe 10% of it's fair market value?
My guess is that it's value is at least $100 to you, and maybe more,
even $5,000 or $10,000. If every body payed 10% of the value of there
freeware to the FSF -- even a misely 1% -- then the FSF would have
the recognition they need to stay alive. If they die, it's you're fault!
And that's just paying for the free tools. It's time for the companies
to pay there share too. I'm talking about the companies like IBM and
BSDI and Sendmail Inc and Redhat and Suse and Apple and Corel and Sony
and even Sun. They all make a shitload of cash leeching off of freeware,
and they don't pay anything to the FSF. THAT'S WRONG! If you
work there, get you're boss to pay up. If you don't work there, you should
write a letter asking these imoral comanys to send in they're 10% to!
These free software consultents are the worst. They make 100% of there
incomes off of things like Linux or Apache, but what do they pay the FSF?
I bet those freeloaders don't pay a thing. It's time they do. I think
10% of there gross income would be only fair. They've been taking
for a long time. It's time they give something back to the FSF!
If all this comes to pass, the FSF would finally get the recognition they
deserve, and the money they need. Can you imagine how much great free
software they could make if they could pay more programmers to write it
and then give it away? Do you part! Pay the FSF 10% of you're share,
either for the fare price of the tools, or if you're a business
or consultent making all you're money from freeware, then 10% of
you're real income.
Remember: it's free speach, not free beer! Give something back
to the foundation that made you're life better. Do it today. It's the right thing to do, and you know it!
if you really want to give credit
where its due, call it "stallmix".
at least your honest then.
. . . and "tangerine" and "gangrene" and "olivine" and "mescaline" and "dexedrine" and . . .
yeah!
this is the lastest post evah!
But if you look at the Linux potition.. the Linux OS IS nothing more than the kernel (and a shell.. such as bash) With that little ;) )
bit, you can have a functioning copy of Linux (abid it might be a pain in the ass to use...
considering the apps you would have to put on would have to be pre-compiled.. like those
you get for WinBlowz). The rest is fluff software to make life easier.. but isn't actually
NEEDED to make the Computer function (hence.. are not part of the OS).
As an example.. look at the computer's Basic OS.. the ROM Basic (CMOS/BIOS). It has nothing more than a "OS" to get the computer components (hardware) functioning and keep them that way..
So your point about the kernel not being an OS, just a low level interface for software to access hardware.. then basically you're saying the BIOS/CMOS is nothing but a mere interface... and not the "OS" it is (and that command.com with himem.sys isn't an OS.. just an interface.. WRONG
You have your head so far up your butt you should put a window in your stomach so you can see out.
I am sorry for that knee jerk reaction to this completely off-topic white pride snide. I realize that any hate (even torwards skinheads) can be out of place.
It hate that produces the "trail of tears" that we see in Kosovo now, or Rawanda a couple years ago.
These are living, breathing fellow human beings that need our respect and our compassion as part of God's wonderful creation. It never is about 'us' against 'them', just 'us together', cherishing every breath of life breathed, including your breath.
"GNU/Linux" ?
"scummy"
"repugnant"
Methinks the adjectives chosen say more about their authors than they say about the moniker "GNU/Linux" itself.
What
A
Nice
Kernel
That'll make a nice acronym....
"You know you want me baby!" - Crow T Robot
If you want a useful system with no GNU software, you _have_ to replace all these.
---
---
Also, the FSF has willingly adopted non-FSF packages for the GNU system. This includes BSD and X code.
---
---
If the legal system didn't allow people to copyright ideas, this would not be an issue.
---
---
Read before you post. Unless you're such a deep thinker that you have a priori knowledge of what other people have posted.
---
-Brett.
While I'm personally against the GNU/Linux name for purely phonetic reasons, I think there are some issues to be resolved before I'd explicitly support the Demon Linux movement.
1) FSF is the largest single contributer of code to Linux. Why must they represent over half the code before they get credit? If they did have over 50%, I'd think it would be more 'fair' to drop Linux and just call it GNU.
2) The number of lines of code does not reflect the actual value of the code. Specifically, things like gcc are worth far more than its LOC value since it begets almost all the other code. Besides, I thought a good programmer was one that did much with few lines of code. This chart _could_ mean that the FSF represents 70% of the core functionality with only 10% of the code.
3) The whole purpose of the FSF is to help the community and is thus a very altruistic organization. Now oddly enough, this group of people has a human as their leader and even more strange is that this human appears to be less than perfect. I can understand not being completly enamoured with the FSF's leader but does that really force us to actively attack the organization he happens to run? Why are we trying to snub a group of people who are trying to help?
4) There are no compeling technical reasons for replacing all the work that the FSF has contributed to Linux. Their code is, above all, free code. Also of importance, I find a great deal of their code to be valuable. Now, if I have complete control of my own code (they gave it to me) and no one can take that right from me, it makes no sense for me to rewrite it from scratch. Instead, when I've got a problem, It would be much more effective for me to work with the existing code. Of couse this obvious as it is the foundation of Open Source software. But what this does mean is that Demon Linux is a purely political movement not based on reason but emotions.
Look, this is really not that complex.
Linux is GPLed because Linus wanted to contribute back to the community. Get it? Both RMS and Linus are part of the SAME community so they solved a problem together that they could not have solved apart. This IS the goal RMS was striving for. We, the people, help each other out. The whole beauty of this is that RMS didn't have to personally organize and code a Unix kernel by himself.
Just because Linus' kernel was picked over the Hurd doesn't mean that we somehow cleverly defeated RMS and kept him from world dominiation. We helped him gain the world! And, in the process, we helped ourselves.
I'm glad someone prominent decided to speak up on this. I've always felt that the term
GNU/Linux was pretty scummy, and its quite obvious
from all the argument over it that it's certainly
not very catchy. Credit where credit is due is
one thing, but credits in the product's name is
another.
What did you eat today? http://www.atetoday.com/
Go do a DejaNews search on Tom and his rants about Richard Stallman and the "GPV". For example, his "GPL Documentation == unspeakable evil" thread (he says it is a "creeping poison").
Based on his postings, I would say he is a person with a lot of hatred towards Richard Stallman, the FSF, the GPL, anything "GNU". I highly suggest that you read up on his history before supporting anything that Tom Christiansen does. You want want to help him anyway, but you should at least understand where he is coming from first.
Is that you, Tom? John?
There's a lot more than "questioning" going on with Tom. Review his posts, note his liberal use of vitriol and pejoritaves, then get back with me. There is certainly nothing wrong with questioning Stallman, but he takes it a few levels beyond that.
What's not true? I didn't say anything about the Perl documentation.
Umm, what are you going to do for a compiler, if you want a completely FSF-free distro? egcs certainly won't do, since it's merely some enhancements to gcc. The core of the compiler is still FSF code, so if you use it, you still have tons of FSF code in a crucial part of your system.
Write your own compiler? That seems a bit much to do merely to spite the FSF.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Agreed. Linus is down at around 0.02%, so obviously it would be ludicrous to name the entire OS after something that is less than 0.1% of the total code (even counting everybody other than Linus that's contributed to the Linux kernel).
Since the FSF is the single largest author of the OS, it makes sense to call it the GNU OS. In fact, it is the same GNU OS that the FSF has been working on for quite a few years now, except that the still-not-finished HURD kernel was replaced by the Linux kernel. As such, it's the GNU OS with the Linux kernel, or GNU/Linux for short. If anything should be dropped, it should be the "Linux" portion, since that's just a temporary replacement until HURD is done, not GNU, which is the OS that is here to stay.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Tom's big objection was that if you GPL documentation, then you GPL code examples in that documentation. If those examples are GPL'd, then you can't use them if you want to release you work under, say, the BSD license.
That means, the GPL license PREVENTS you from doing as you wish with your code. That means, the GNU GPL does not promote freedom, because it restricts people's actions - namely in the act of releasing code under a different license.
Actually, that's incorrect. You can release your own code under the BSD license, even if you have previously released it under the GPL. You are free to do whatever you want with your code, including releasing it in separate instances under different licenses, even mutually incompatible ones. The GPL does not prevent you from re-releasing your code, documentation, or anything else, at a later time under whatever license you wish (even a non-Free Software one).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The problem is that he tries to prove that it shouldn't be called GNU/Linux by showing percentages of code contributions. However, his percentages show that the FSF contributed more code than all the Linux kernel people combined. That sorta counteracts his point. If we are to choose a name by percent of code contributed, then it should be the GNU OS, since the FSF is the single largest contributor.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Ok, go ahead, make an FSF-free distribution. It'll take you years, but it's possible. Write your own compiler from scratch (egcs will not do, since it's heavily based on gcc), use a bunch of BSD utilities, and by 2005 or so it might be stable. Let us know when it's done.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I think it depends on what you call "Linux". If you mean the entire contents of a distribution, it's obvious that GNU software is a minority. But if you mean the "core Unix" (think Unix V7, guy), the GNU software is almost everything except the kernel. :-).
The question of where the OS ends and the applications begin is a tricky one. Just ask Microsoft and the Department of Justice, which are currently squabbling over exactly that question
-- Eric
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
depending upon the type of licenses chosen by the contributors. It would also be a big expenditure of time rewriting all those tools! :)
This "Free Linux" idea, purveyed by this Tom Slick guy, sounds like a commercial ploy to me. It may be one of those attacks on the freeness of Linux and any other GNUly appointed system. After all, Linux is already free!
The FSF or Free Software Foundation is basically THE FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION of Linux; take away the foundation and the building discorporates.
Stallman is interested in Linux remaining free (see FSF definition of free). The GPL is the protection afforded to free software against being coopted by non-free (proprietary) entities. Stallman is sometimes referred to as the prophet. Ok, so maybe he acts like one sometimes. He has a vision and wants to make sure it doesn't get lost in growing commercialization of Linux. You may not like what the so called prophet has to say but it's got to be said.
GNU/Linux as a name? I could care less. It doesn't matter much to me as long as it remains free - truly free.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
...is what he was counting as OS code; Not stuff purchased separately.
It _is_ rather a good question -- how much of the bundled tools are actually part of the OS? After all, Unix relies heavily on non-kernel stuff to make it what it is...
Hell, if it ain't kernel, it's userspace -- and of all the bundled userspace stuff, most of it's not from GNU.
Little thought experiment:
If I removed ls, cp, mv, rm, ln, bash and the like and put a new GUI with no shell on top, would it still be linux, or would it be My/Linux?
I'd still think of it as linux, just with some very different stuff on top.
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
They're not calling it GNU/Linux because it was produced by the FSF. They are calling it that because much of the software is released under the GNU Public License.
In any case, it makes no sense to ask "who created this tool" because the point is that EVERYONE can contribute to existing code.
It would be a lot less misleading to partition by license rather than original programmer. If you do that I believe you will find much justification for calling it GNU/Linux.
Posted by Nick Carraway:
The FSF is the single largest contributing organization in that S.u.S.E. distribution, according to his numbers. And let's not forget which compiler and binutils generated the code that makes up the remaining 90%. EGCS? I don't think so.
Have fun rewriting GCC, binutils, emacs and all the rest, boys. It's sure a lot easier than thinking of something original, isn't it? Oh, and lest you think I'm some huge RMS fan, I'm not. He's goofy and he makes us all look like dorks by association. Still, I won't begrudge the man his props...
Posted by mrcl:
Whenever I use gcc or gdb, or gmake or countless other important apps in linux, I know that the FSF is behind them. Its right there in the name. I appreciate what they have done, and I wouldn't want to have to rewrite their code.
I think that they are getting plenty of credit, and they don't need any more.
Whenever you use linux, you are using the kernel, which Linus wrote, and so it should remain named linux.
The name stays as "linux", and we leave in the FSF code.
mrcl
Posted by Art Pepper:
>This rant is just stupid.
Agreed. B-O-R-I-N-G.
RMS is controversial. You agree with his point of view or not. All of these "discussions" about GNU/Linux vs Linux are the same thing over and over again. I will never be resolved.
It is one thing for informed people to disagree. But I read replies from people who obviously don't know anything of the history of free software/open source.
That's all. Back to work!
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
Duh
Posted by Alf Alpha:
How about:
Gnulix -- gah-new-licks
or
Gnulinux -- gah-NEW-lin-ucks
I think either one would be pretty rockin'
Or you could go the other way with
Lingnu -- Lin-gah-new
or
Linignu -- Lin-eh-gah-new
or even
Linugnux -- Lin-ah-gah-nucks
Posted by !ErrorBookmarkNotDefined:
>> And it's not 10%
Gosh, you're right.
It's 9.958% on that link you gave us.
Good point, Tom. That's not 10%.
You nailed that one, boy.
I can't imagine how FSF can have any comeback to that one.
-----------------------------
Computers are useless. They can only give answers.
Posted by !ErrorBookmarkNotDefined:
.
Me fragment the community? Am I the one posting nonsense like:
9.958% is not 10%
No. Look in the mirror, pal . .
Oh, wait, you're an AC. Guess you don't have a face, eh?
In any event, Tom's little missive actually convinced me to give RMS' arguments another look. Tom was so absurd, so prone to hair splitting that I actually think RMS has a point now.
Oh, one last gob of spit in your face. If you don't want to use an OS because of its name (witness ol' Tommy, ever the fount of reason: "rename Linux to the repugnant 'GNU/Linux'"), then, well, you got real problems.
-----------------------------
Computers are useless. They can only give answers.
RMS himself has claimed in a recent interview that about 30% of the code in a basic Linux distribution is from the FSF (although he may have meant that it's under the GPL; one problem in this discussion is that the distinction is not always clear). 30% may be a plurality, sure, but it would have nothing to run on if it weren't for the kernel -- and the kernel couldn't be built without gcc.
So? Linux is obviously a complex product and the distro people deserve whatever money and egoboo they make. FSF software is a central part of any distro. That doesn't mean we're all morally obligated to do whatever RMS says -- or indeed to pay any attention to him at all -- but on the other hand RMS has earned the right to try to make his case for the moral necessity of the GPL -- which he is doing, and taking advantage of the sudden industry interest in Linux to evangelize as much as possible.
Our movement -- and I don't care what you call it, we all know what it is -- includes revivalist RMS, PR specialist ESR, politician BP, executives at Red Hat, SuSE, Caldera, and VA, and thousands of hackers and hundreds of thousands of testers, advocates, and kibitzers. That's just the way it is; millions of people doing their own thing on Planet Linux for their own reasons, and none of us has the authority to exile anybody else from the movement.
I personally think this effort -- to replace FSF software purely out of spite, or out of disgust with the press attention paid to RMS, or out of fear that clueless business executives may shy away from Linux because of RMS' mystical advocacy of his particular brand of freedom (or the misunderstanding of the GPL apparent in the rantings of some of its more immature supporters, whose mouths are substantially bigger than their brains) -- this effort is fundamentally misguided.
We're not about "reading anybody out" of the movement. (Some people, like Bruce Perens, periodically read themselves out, then back in again. That's their privilege.) We're about producing high-quality software with a completely open and cooperative development model. If we don't do that, we might as well spend our time and resources collecting baseball cards or playing golf.
So instead of reinventing the FSF's wheel, let's go on to making GNOME reliable, getting KDE 2 out the door, expanding The Gimp's capabilities, bulletproofing our NFS routines, writing USB drivers, perfecting LessTif and WINE, or other things that need doing. Wasting development time just because we're ticked off at what someone says is silly, bordering on the childish. We're supposed to be grownups.
Craig
One point that I don't understand about the whole license debate -- GPL vs the freer BSD/X/Artistic etc. -- is that GPL people keep repeating this sort of thing as though they have lost something they were entitled to if somebody takes the available source, makes some secret improvements, and makes money selling it -- which is prohibited by the GPL but allowed (one way or another) by most of the others.
If you have some freely-available source, and so does somebody else, and that somebody else makes changes to it without giving them to you, what precisely have you lost? Can you no longer make the same use of the source you always could? What exactly have they deprived you of? How have they "torn apart" the program?
And if this could happen so easily and inevitably, why is all the FreeBSD stuff still doing so well?
Craig
I like it, it has the string "gnu" embedded in it.
Of course the One True Name is... GNULIX!
;-)
Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.
www.satanic.org
Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.
It makes me sad to see all of this animosity over a mere label. I accept "Linux" and "GNU/Linux" to be equivalent terms, and don't feel offended by either. Call it "Lavendar FistCheese(tm)" for all I care. Let's have a holy-war against holy-wars for a change.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
No, no, it is a sign that like him we must think not of the things of the body, but of the face and head!
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
The fulfillment of RMS's dream is not a FSF-copyrighted kernel (Hurd) but a copylefted-kernel (Linux). That FSF does not hold the copyright is irrelevant. That linux is GPL'd is.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
I wrote: That linux is GPL'd is [what matters].
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Thank you Caleb, for putting it in terms that anyone should be able to understand. Anyone who, after reading your post, persists in their nomenclature-jihad (from either side!) simply isn't up to the task of understanding.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
That's a good point (about gift-giving), and it should hold equally well for Linus -- who should have no qualms with me, from this point forward, refering to GNU/Linux as "Tux". Although I still like "Lavendar FistCheese(tm)".
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Hi, Brett. I think you're being disingenuous here. The GPL does not prevent money-grubbing programmers from making money from their own labor. Nay, it doesn't even prevent them from making money from GPL'd software! I say, as respectfully as I can muster, that you're talking straight out of your ass.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
In response to infidel LetterJ, I'd like to initiate a project to recreate those parts of the English language that came from Latin, French, Norse or Spanish. Then we'll be free at last!
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
I agree there with you there, but what you're saying is only trivially true insofar as there's no such thing as a one-size-fits-all license. All you are saying is that there are some problem-domains where the GPL would be a poor choice of licenses. That's a far cry from Brett's claim.
A license is just a tool. You're saying that a hammer isn't very useful when you need to drive a screw. Brett may grok this, but he's obviously holding a grudge against the hammer anyway.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
You want to replace all the GNU tools because you think RMS has too much of an ego? This is not just a waste of time but destructive.
One of the GOOD things about Linux is that, even though there are lots of distributions, there is a lot of commonality in the toolsets people use. If common utilities start behaving differently on different distributions then the FUD mongers will suddenly be right about splintering and infighting.
Grow up.
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
>Nobody complains when Caldera, Redhat, Slackware, Debian, Suse, or any of the other dists put their name or spin on linux. "Open linux", "Turbo linux", "Debian Linux" '
Those names clarify a variant, they don't (intend to) claim credit for the whole thing.
>If people want to call it GNU/Linux then let them.
That is not the issue. It's people getting on my case if *I* don't.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
According to the review from ArsTechnica:
"The retail version of SuSE 6.0 comes with enough software on the included five-CD set that even those of you with cable modems will feel lucky."
Since the kernel and GNU utilities are the same size no matter how much extra crap is thrown in, won't their percentage go down as bloat goes up? 300 Meg is ~9% of five CD's, while 45% of one CD (like Redhat). And I'm sure a lot of that "uncredited author" code that's #1 is the crap that SUSE throws in on the 4th or 5th CD's.
While I agree that GNU/Linux is a crappy name, I have real problems with this methodology of proving it.
Agreed, agreed, and agreed again. If RMS' numbers lie, Tom's are no more honest. I mean, seriously -- GCC. Compiler technology is some of the most difficult stuff in computer science, and the free software movement is built (literally) wiht GCC. Good luck, Tom, and shut up until you have TCC for us, and Temacs as well.
Please do tell us -- what is your gripe with RMS? So he wants credit for his vision and his excellent work. I'm more than happy to give it to him.
Here's the real question -- could Linux have reached critical mass without the GNU utilities?
That is still the wrong question. Could Linux have reached critical mass without Intel CPUs? Since Linus wrote the first version on an Intel chip should we call it Intel/Linux?
How about ING/Linux (ING = ING's not GNU)?
The real question is -- why change the name when it already had a name?
in 1948th place with 0.002% of the code. That is a very interesting chart.
The answer to this is simple. I'll come up with my LYING distribution
(Linux, Yes, Isn't Named GNU)
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Here's some favorite companies and there breakdown
~ ~^~
#2 Sun Microsystems 7.43% (and a little tiny bit mislabeled as Sun Microsystem)
#587 Apple Computer 0.017% (curious)
#2270 Microsoft Corporation 0.001% (Thanks Uncle Bill)
#3483 IBM 0.001% (what about the Apache/NT patch?)
nothing from AOL, but there is a rather large personal contribution from an AOL address.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^
Yep sure enough I misposted above. He actually shows up about four times. I suppose my number involves some of his earlier code left around.
^ ~
And I think you are right, they don't fear Linux as much as they fear the GPL's hungry nature. Linus's origional copyright wasn't GPL but he changed it to GPL becuase "it worked better" whatever that means.
I like the GPL, it is enough of a marker. I'd hate to have to name every application I release under the GPL as GNU/Nosepicker, etc...
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~
Do a search of the above subject on slashdot and you'll see this is one of the most contested ideas dating back to Bits and Chips.
~ ~^~
But I'll agree with it. The GPL would not be able to protect my code if it allowed others freedom to use of it or allowed me freedom to use anothers GPLed code. But it does protect it, in some very strange public limbo where alls fair as long as it stays in that state (of GPL). The GPL may not be freedom but it is fair! And that is more than any other Liscence out there.
The GPL is in itself an owner of the code, not the writer or the person who adds to it. But at least it is free as in it won't ever *have* to cost you money. And it is free speach. But it is not freedom.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^
Yep, I counted four entries if you include a cooperative contribution, after I posted it. The entry I found (I don't know why it was the only one I found) seems to be some of his oldest legacy code. Way to go Linus! It would be interesting historicaly if people had said what version of the program they were contributing to.
^ ~~^~
I searched for a few names I knew and didn't pull up anything.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~
The FSF has still contributed the largest single share. And I suspect that if one looks at the core -- /bin, /usr/bin, libc, and such -- the fraction is much higher.
More to the point, though, the FSF provided the real impetus behind the free (speech, as opposed to beer) software movement, and devised the framework (GPL) in which free software could be created and be guaranteed to remain free. Whether someone else would have had the same insight is anyone's guess, but it's certainly not obvious that that would have happened. This, to me, is more important than any piece of software, other than gcc, libc, and to a lesser extent emacs.
Finally, the Demon Penguin gang really shouldn't talk about using egcs if their intent is to produce an FSF-free Linux distribution. egcs is quite directly based on gcc, even if it has diverged. The egcs team quite openly acknowledges that fact through the name (Experimental GNU Compiler Suite).
GNU/Linux may be an awkward name, and names may not always be fair, and Richard Stallman may be very annoying, but that does not make his point invalid. Eric Raymond, who is no particular friend of the FSF's position (he's generally regarded as a, if not the, leader in what I refer to as the "pragmatic" camp of the free source movement), took pains to acknowledge that fact at Linux World.
you idiot. completely independant of fsf
Why doesn't Stallman release his own distro (with only FSF software) and call it Official GNU/Linux (tm)?
Let the marketplace decide the preferred distro/name.
RMS claimed that nearly half the code on a Linux distribution was GNU code. Ergo, using his own stats is the way to defeat him.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
He made the comments about a single install from a single distribution with a specific set of options. Probably had the box setup as a programming box.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
Things that I like ...
:-)
That Richard Stallman doesn't like:
KDE
O'Reilly Books
Tom Christiansen
That Tom Christiansen doesn't like:
GNU/Linux
GPLed Documentation
Richard Stallman
But I can like all of these things, and so can you
Mike Greaves
-- Mike Greaves
That you, pots?
--
W.A.S.T.E.
W.A.S.T.E.
Where can I get one of those t-shirts?
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
You beat me to it. For example, gcc is a VERY big part of Linux (or, GNU/Linux, if you must). Without gcc, where would we be? I doubt Linux would've gotten as far as it has without gcc. RMS also wrote the initial Emacs and also wrote gdb. I view those as VERY significant contributions, and that doesn't include the other software that the FSF has donated.
Seriously, Tom---what's your gripe with the FSF? RMS wants his ego stroked, he wants people to appreciate his contributions. If no one ever told Linus "thanks" and "good job", he may have stopped working on the kernel long ago.
ESR points out in the good ol' C&B paper that ego is a big part of free software development. RMS wants a piece of that, he wants appreciation.
I, for one, greatly appreciate RMS's contributions, and I recognize them. I still don't call it GNU/Linux, my habits are otherwise, but when I explain Linux to someone, I explain how the FSF contributed greatly with all of the classic UNIX utilities (sed, awk, grep, etc.) as well as a pretty darn good C/C++ compiler, debugger, and GNU make.
I think it'll take Tom quite a while to write all of that himself. We can have Tom/Linux with Tom CC, tdb (Tom's debugger), and Tom Make. Have fun, Tom, come back in ten years when you've finished those and we'll see what else you can waste your time on.
No, we want to call it Linux. You know the name of the kernel. You never see "Sun Microsystems/Solaris", or "AT&T/Unix", or "IBM/OS/2" There is no reason to recognize a software contributor in the name of the OS, if you're going to do that you might as well call it "GNU/Linus Torvalds/Sun Microsystems/University of California/Washington University/Donald Becker/Alan Cox/AT&T/Aladdin Enterprises/X Consortiom/XFree/Red Hat Labs/Cygnus/I'm sorry about people I forgot/Linux." That's rediculous. I have no problem with "RedHat Linux" or "SuSE Linux" because when you get down to it they decided what goes in the OS, they created the OS, they can call it whatever the heck they want. Debian can call it "GNU/Linux" if they want, but FSF should expect me to.
The only way Tom is ever really going to happy
is when we have, eg,
awk.pl
ls.pl
all the way up to
emacs.pl
gcc.pl
gdb.pl
xf86_svga.pl
and, of course,
linux.pl
But seriously, haven't we got enough *real*
problems to solve?
Sure, the FSF doesn't have so much of the code.
:-)
I think the FSF would reply that they started the whole idea, and kept it going during the long dark times of the 80's.
It's probably fair to say that if the FSF had never written a line of code, Linux would not exist, whereas if one of the other contributers (except Linus, obviously) had not written their code, someone else would have filled their place.
Of course that's not to say that those 'other' coders have contributed less to the body of code. It's simply a comment on how the Open Source tradition has been built, and who laid the foundations.
That said, I don't think the GNU/Linux thing makes any sense at all. The FSF should be credited, but not like that.
Also, while this GNU/Linux thing is indeed a very public and a very petty squabble, I think RMS and the FSF are going to be an increasingly important counterweight to what is happening with ESR et al. at the other end of the scale.
I see RMS as a constant against which measurements can be made
-----
Hmm.. From what I remember of Free PC software, it was almost all free beer and no free speech (i.e. all binaries, no code).
The point is that the FSF built foundations. Writing a C compiler is hard. Lots of people who later wrote free code in C would not have done so if GCC hadn't been available. Also, if the FSF hadn't written GCC, I don't think anyone else would have done. It's a massive task that requires deep committment and competence. If zlib didn't exist someone would get fed up and write it. If gcc didn't exist, people would have bought more proprietary compilers.
-----
Please don't call people idiots, and please use whole sentences. It makes you look smarter.
Anyway, last I checked *BSD systems use gcc. So, BSD did not create a C compiler. Also, the roots of BSD are in an academic organisation that paid people nice yearly salaries to work on code full time.
The fact remains that the kind of people who churn out jolly jelpful things like majordomo and xv and so forth are simply not in the same business as the people who created gcc.
And, many (most?) of those that created jolly helpful things like xv would not have been able to do so without gcc or another excellent 100% free c compiler.
Imagine if Perl was commercial. What would be the point in anyone creating Majordomo if you had to go out and buy Perl to run it? Instead, whoever wrote Majordomo would more likely have spent the money on a commercial listserver.
It is the fact that the _foundation_ software is free that has promoted the massive amount of software apps and utils built on those foundations. And it is the early, idealist groups like the FSF that built much of the foundations.
-----
No, you are all missing the point of the thread.
Tom wanted a BSD/Artistic style license. FSF wants a GNU style license.
Tom objects to the viral nature of the GPL.
Tom's big objection was that if you GPL documentation, then you GPL code examples in that documentation. If those examples are GPL'd, then you can't use them if you want to release you work under, say, the BSD license.
That means, the GPL license PREVENTS you from doing as you wish with your code. That means, the GNU GPL does not promote freedom, because it restricts people's actions - namely in the act of releasing code under a different license.
It's not the only view point, but Tom is certainly not outrageous in his concerns.
It all becomes more interesting if you think of the GPL as applying to IDEAS within the documentation. Suppose the canonical Perl documentation is GPL's and it explains what a closure is in Perl. Does that mean you can't use closures unless you GPL the code with closures in?
This then becomes a debate on whether the GPL covers the _text_ (ASCII) of the documentation, or the sense of the documentation. At this point it becomes obvious to me that the GPL is not defined in such a way that it applies usefully to documentation.
With source code, the ASCII of the code is inextricably linked to the function the code performs. This is simply not true of documentation.
It's an important an interesting problem, that no one except Tom seemed to care about or understand, much.
-----
Yes, but the license covering documentation is:
1. Still viral in nature (requires that derived documentation retains the same license)
2. Appears to have been designed on for documentation explaining the function and use of programs, which is not at all the same as documentation explaining, say, the finer points of socket programming in Perl.
So, the issue remains that:
1. The FSF has an unhealthy (in Tom's opion) fondness for viral licenses.
2. Neither the FSF nor anyone else is really thinking hard about copyright concerns for documentation that includes significant bodies of source code.
You say:
"Perhaps that is also why copyright covers expressions of ideas rather than ideas themselves."
However, I think you will find that the distinction between an idea and its expression is so subtle, complex and disputed as to make your sentence (and, I dare say are large amount of copyright law) rather unhelpful.
And yes, clues are good things, but a miserable replacement for intelligence, and dare I say it, politeness?
-----
Hmmm.
Those are good points, but I'm not sure the analogy is quite good...
"One who believes in free speech _ought not_ to speak in a way that hinders the free speech of others." That's OK, but what is NOT OK is:
"One who believes in free speech _ought not to be able to_ speak in a way that hinders the free speech of others."
Now, I think the GPL believes in the second statement. The first statement says that it is wrong (in a moral sense) to limit free speech of others. The GPL would go further an enforce that morality by making it impossible.
I think Tom objects to that imposition.
Intersting stuff tho...
-----
Won't the creation of an FSF-free Linux (BSD/Linux or Whatever/Linux) automatically create the need to call the current Linux GNU/Linux due to the need to differentiate the two? So they end up actually creating what they were trying to destroy? Oh, boy, fragmentation - what a contribution.
Tom
Why not call the OS by the name of the distribution? That means Debian is 'Debian GNU/Linux' and Redhat is 'Redhat Linux' and something else might be 'Joe-Bob Monkey/Linux'.
If you want to use an OS called 'GNU/Linux', use Debian.
(If you want an OS with real package management, use Debian, too.)
--
Linux deserves to be named not because Linus wrote/edited a good chunk of the code, but because ever single line of code in the kernel was contributed willingly to a project named "Linux".
It's a matter of kernel code lines vs. fsf code lines -- not Linus's code vs. fsf code.
One important tip I learned from a few years
of perl5-porters was that if you didn't
strictly have to read a Tom Christiansen
post, it was often easier to ignore it and
save yourself the karmic hassle of feeling
dirty at the end of a mailreading session.
Tom's a moderately smart guy, but he's so full
of bile now, for whatever reason, that it's
no longer worth the effort.
They only require you to be on topic, RTFM and ask questions in English. If you expect them to spend time on your problems you better spend enough time to satisfy the above.
/mill
Spot on. Nicely put.
:)
If *I'd* made those comments, I'd want to take credit for them
--
Then why does it matter whether you replace the GNU utilities? Personally, I have no problem with people running a BSD/Linux system. But this article seems as hypocritical to me as the position it claims to find "reprehensive". Counting total lines of code (as he did) seems to me to be rather silly. Unless you want to count Apache, Netscape, and LyX (not to mention innumerable mail clients, news readers, IRC clients, games...) as part of the operating system. Microsoft deja vu...
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
The argument isn't that the FSF has contributed to Linux. The argument is that Linux _is_ GNU. Once the HURD is finished we'll have a GNU/Hurd system. And I heard of some discussion of a GNU/BSD or even a GNU/Solaris system (which is IMO stretching it a bit but you get the idea)
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
Actually, no; I believe that FreeBSD uses its own replacement for most of the standard GNU utilities (not sure about libc tho). I saw a thread in the Debian mail archives about creating a GNU/FreeBSD distribution, though. Don't know what happened to it.
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
Where? Could you please give me a reference to a quote by RMS that says "I created the notion of free software"?
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
Perhaps most of the stuff in a Linux distro isn't from the GNU project but most of the core system is. Comparing GNU/Linux to Apache/Linux or X/Linux is silly; my system runs fine if I do a dpkg --purge apache. Rather than lines of code, I'd like to see what's commonly installed on systems and what's installed by default.
IMO, saying that Linux system's are NOT GNU at the core is almost attempted theft.
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
I agree. After reading the postings by the Horde here, I think I'm going to start calling it GNU/Linux.
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
Linux is GNU.
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
"If you pick up a starving dog and give him food, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man."
-- Mark Twain
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
How about purging (however your system does it) libc, ls, sh, and sed?
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
They started GNU. People like to forget about GNU, even when they're using it. I find that to be somewhere between amusing and depressing.
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
Yes, then it wouldn't be GNU/Linux anymore. Your point?
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
I think you need to get a grip on what GNU is. It is a project to build a UNIX system based on FREE software. Not on GPLed software. (They seem to be concerned that the core system is primarily GPL) Therefore, if they find a sufficiently good piece of free software, they include it. They would be fools to rewrite X when XFree is out there.
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
I always did say RMS was full of shit. This kinda' proves it. ;-)
Hey Richard, comb your hair, take a shower, and get a life.
- Randy
- Kate
"DNA is life. The rest is just translation."
(He also discusses the problem of competing against free software.)
What you fail to realize here is that if free software destroys proprietary software, it is because it is better. Period. You can't make it stop by complaining about losing your work; the lamp-oil manufacturers lost their jobs when gas became commonly used, and gas when elecrical lights became common.
You can NOT put the genie back in the bottle.
Deal with it.
How does one deal with it? A common answer is to go with the free software flow, but use a license that's less restrictive than the GPL. The LGPL works decently well; Perl's Artistic licence is good. The Open Source movement has prospered because of people who, I think, see this coming.
The GPL is bad, I believe, but not for any of the reasons you list. Rather, it's bad because it's hostile to perfectly good licenses.
-Billy
I would be supremely annoyed if some of the GPLd programs I wrote were called GNU software.
For some I wouldn't care, but for most, it's not more GNU software than it is extraterrestrial software (ie: not much).
Brett Glass, it is ridiculous for you to comment on the foundation of the Free Software movement. It is like a fox telling a farm owner how to keep his chicken farm secure. You have done your best to discredit the concept of Open Source, and what you want is a source of free code to profit from. And now you are pretending to be a friend of Bruce Perens and tell him about RMS?
Come on. Behave with more honesty.
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!
Enough said.
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!
RMS deserves his place in history. He gave us a great big whopping pile of nifty utilities that hackers world-wide use everyday. Every Linuxer who can read (which probably covers us all) knows who RMS is, and what he stands for.
Even more importantly, however, RMS gave us the GPL, which allows us to write software and give it away without fear of having our contributions hijacked. The GPL is one seriously cool hack, and for this contribution, perhaps more than anything, RMS should be thanked.
But the only thing worse for marketing than GNU/Linux would be if Linus's original name "Freax" would have stuck. RMS may not care about this, but some of us want to use Linux and still have a life.
The second Linux is ubiquitous I will be the first to praise Saint Ignucious as the saviour of all computerkind. I will even promise to use words like gnu-riffic and gnu-licious. In the meantime it's all about marketing, and GNU/Linux doesn't stand a chance.
OK if we follow tchrists philosophy we shouldn't call our favorite OS Linux either, as the Linux kernel itself constitutes a far smaller percentage of the code on a "Linux" system than the that attributed to the FSF/Gnu people.
If we're going to try and give credit to all the uncredited contributions then I personally vote to rename the system to JRH OS.
for J. Random Hacker OS.
- The Rokhed
Gnu tools are used everywhere.
Does anyone refer to GNU/Solaris? GNU/AIX? GNU/DU? Hell, I even have a copy of the Cygnus tools for win32 on this here NT box. Do I call it GNU/NT? No, no, no, and no. The os is typically named by the creator with whatever name they so choose. As it turns out even our beloved LT did not get his wish and the kernel was named by a sysadmin.
After that, the users choose. Have you _ever_ seen M$ refer to itself as M$? No, of course not.
I call it Linux. You can call it whatever you want.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
It's a perfectly good English interpretation to read your intro as ``[Christiansen] argues, with the FSF and RMS, that...'' (note the added commas), which means he agrees with them. In fact, that's what I expected to read, and was taken aback when the article said the exact opposite. :-)
English is wonderful, not least due to its openness to the well-place ambiguity, but when you're writing blurbs, make sure there are none you didn't intend.
</nitpick>
I refuse to believe corporations are people until Texas executes one. -- desert rain on http://www.dailykos.com/user/
I see a total sum of 0% that is attributed to either Linus Torvalds or Linux. So why call it Linux when that is such a misrepresented name?
Why not come up with a name that envelops all the percentages on Tom's list. Or why not just call it "Redhat" or "Suse" as opposed to "Redhat Linux". This naming scheme would rely on the the vendor and less on the actual contents, which I think would be a good strategy in differentiating the distributions.
If the Free Software Foundation wants credit, let them package their own distribution and call it "GNU Linux", or just "GNU". It seems this is their ultimate goal anyways. GNU is not Unix. And GNU is not Linux either.
Joseph Elwell.
It's butty-ugly. Isn't that enough reason?
-russ
p.s. if it isn't enough, then what do you call Solaris with the GNU utilities installed? GNU/Solaris? Heck no -- you call it Solaris.
If Linux is really GNU/Linux, then FreeBSD is really GNU/FreeBSD.
-russ
Well, yes, RMS deserves his place in history. the kicker is he FUCKING HAS IT. Everybody and their mother's brother knows who the hell he is, and who/what GNU is. RMS just has his undies in a bundle because the HURD didn't get out the door before Linux did. It is called Linux because that is what Linus wanted to call it (after Freax). Everthing else came after. If the underlying OS was really such a pittance, as some of you GNU zealots claim, then one would have to conjecture that some other kernel would have come out sooner.
Yet there is the HURD, still sitting on release 0.2 for forever... Not such a trivial addition, even if it looks that way when comparing lines of code (a rather stupid comparision anyways.)
Some of you people have way too much time on your hands to be bickering over this. Let RMS call it what he wants. Everyone with sense will just call it Linux, 'cause that's the way it is. There is just one caveat: All you "gnulix" idiots ought to be kicked in the head.
I'm making note of this in my palm III right now.
My karma thanks you.
btw, what utility is in calling it GNU/Linux other than to be an advertisement for the FSF, and isn't that counter to the higher purpose?
Actually, SunOS refers to the parts of Solaris that are not graphical. This would include all of the standard UNIX utils, etc., not just the kernel.
SunOS + XWindows = Solaris
I find it interesting that he used SuSE (which has to be the most massive distribution out there) to get his numbers. What I would really like to see is the figures from Redhat, Slackware, and Debian.
linus called his kernel something like "freax" i believe.
it was another hacker who came up with the name linux and persuaded linus to use that.
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
the numbers for the minimal set of packages necessary to build and run the OS.
Sounds like the RMS Titanic to me...
Since the kernel is GPLed, I don't see the point. Short of replacing the kernel, you'll never have a completely non-GPLed Linux distribution.
Besides, if you want non-GPLed, one of the BSDs would be a better choice.
If it was a democracy, then everyone would have to concur with the majority's decision. Linux is an anarchy, which means you can call it whatever you like.
Why couldn't Yggdrasil have called the L/G/X distribution something pronounceable, like ...
GLiX? It would probably have caught on. Oh well
Seems like Linux is FSF's best advertiser. I wish talented programmers would abandon political hairsplitting for programming. GCC and the Linux kernel didn't get created in this manner.
:D
Oh well.
P.S. Nearly everyone has been kicked by Tom from #perl except for Larry. Larry doesn't IRC.
Log
This is the kind of mindless drivel that complete brainwashing results in.
According to the majority of those who use free or open source software as a viable system, the only way to profit should be through selling support and documentation. According to your post, Tom should apparently be some sort of pauper, since he obviously shouldn't contribute to books that are sold for *gasp* money.
RMS ironically criticized Tom Christiansen once as well. While I was not there, I heard about the incident. Apparently RMS was complaining to Tom that the good Perl documentation must be paid for, and similar topics along that line. For those people who don't know, the standard perl distribution comes with hundreds, if not thousands, of documentation. Free, with the source. RMS was completely unaware of this, but chastised Tom reguardless. Someone had the intelligence to show RMS some of this wonderful documentation, at which point he shut up.
RMS wants it called GNU/Linux to give prper credit
to the FSF utils that lie atop the kernel.
As you rightly pointed out, trying to judge the contributions to GNU-Linux in terms of source-code lines of a commercial distro is absurd.
This is like counting the fuzzy dice that hang from a 57 Chevy rear-view mirror as part of the core Chevrolet distro.
RMS seems to be complaining that more media attention should be paid to the _freedom_ that the GNU-GPL brings to software development. Let's not get into a personality/popularity contest. Linus is a great guy, but he is no RMS.
RMS has set the software development process free.
Can we all get along?
Lets all just keep on writing excellent code.
cheers
smithdog
Tom has a good reason to be pissed. RMS seems to think that the Perl Docs should be redistibutable by any means nessisary. Tom is sick of people copying his work without permission and republishing it in their books on Perl.
What RMS seems to want is REPUBLISHABLE free text, without having to be concerned with who wrote it or how those people support themselves. Much of how Tom supports himself is through his writing. If someone said that you should work for free against your will, it would stick in your craw as well.
RMS's biggest problem is that his ego is taking over. He is trying to take credit for things that he is only minorly responsible for. The FSF is not responsible for most of Linux. I also wonder how much of the FSF code was written by RMS himself.
If there is a cult leader in the Open Source community, it is not Linus or Larry Wall (even though that may be on his business cards) or Eric Raymond. It is RMS. Cult leaders prey on the delusions and gulibility of their followers. So, it seems, does RMS.
GNU this!
"Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
Why can't a demon penguin be associated with something I agree with!
All this politics is tripe. I don't see a strong argument anywhere here other than that the author feels that RMS and the FSF are power tripping... and if they are, I don't really care!
Personally, I don't think Linux would be at all strong as it is today if it were not for the GPL. But I'm not going to call it GNU/Linux either. If the GPL was not tough enough to demand intellectual property rights, there would be no end to the bickering and in-fighting.
Am I insane?
It all makes sense now!
Erm, it's Debian GNU/Linux already...
Did Tom Christiansen actually read what he wrote and think about it? Because by his reasoning, Linux should not be called "Linux."
After all, how many lines of code needed to build a typical running "Linux" system are actually part of the Linux kernel source? I bet it is a much smaller number than the number of lines accredited to the FSF.
This rant is just stupid.
Umm, am I mistaken or are the splits between the Linux distributions far more friendly than the rifts between the *BSD camps? I really think that *BSD people complaining about this issue ate too many red herrings for lunch :-)
Oh and about Corel, aren't they going to base their "distribution" on an already existing distribution, contributing back their improvements? I heard rumor of just that.
Since, without all of those and many more, English wouldn't be what it is today, we should change the name of the language. And for that matter, we should be sure to give credit to the European Catholic monks for keeping the Western writing system and literacy alive during the dark ages. Every time we use the Latin character set we should give credit to those monks and we should become Catholics, because that was the belief of those who kep the system alive.
We don't necessarily need to take on the beliefs of those to whom we are indebted. I'm thankful to William the Bastard for bringing the French infusion into England and increasing the vocabulary of the language. However, I think he was a jerk for doing it as well. I'm going to continue to use the words his actions infused, but I don't have to give him credit every time I use one.
The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
Agreed, RMS deserves credit for his vision and work. But who defines "credit?"
When I buy something, I decide how much I can afford. There are plenty of car dealers who ask how big of a monthly payment you want. They then decide how long you should pay. Give RMS credit but do not allow him to define it!
# Why waste your time on political bullshit?
# Shut up and write some code that we _need_, not code so you
# can justify creating your own non-FSF distribution.
Why waste your time telling him he is wasting his time?
It is his time to "waste", not yours. If he wants to do spend his valuable time doing it, why the hell should you care?
I am always annoyed by people who care what other people do with their time. When you are Tom's slavemaster, you can care what he does with his time. Until then, his time is his to do with as he pleases, and his time, wasted or not, does not concern you.
That's mostly irrevlent
FSF's contrbution is less the C compiler, and more their licence. However I don't plan on claiming that only RMS could have come up with that licence. Progrmmers are by and large inventave people, witness the many licences they have come up with. I find it likely that a GPL style licence would have been invented by someone else if RMS hadn't made it.
While I agree that Richard's pissed off some people with his rhetorical style, we have bigger problems to solve than this.
Bruce Perens
Bruce Perens.
It means that Tom causes friction and conflict wherever he goes.
A lot of meaningful contributions to Perl have been aborted/stalled
due to Tom's capricious nature. Tom often hides behind logic that is totally based
on his perception of reality. Those who question that reality are often subject to insults and ridicule.
Only thick-skinned people survive on p5-porters. At least he doesn't control
the mailing list membership.
Slashdot: Where nerds gather to pool their ignorance
Solaris is also SunOS
Its a Marketing thing to distinguish SunOS (BSD)
From SunOS (SVR4)
$ uname -sr
SunOS 5.5.1
(Solaris 2.5.1)
Even when the Marketeers catapaulted to Solaris 7
it is still SunOS 5.7
Slashdot: Where nerds gather to pool their ignorance
You're right and wrong. The GPL obviously doesn't explicitly set out to keep people from making money. But for a large number of applications, it is next to impossible to make enough money writing (or supporting, customizing, or whatever) GPL'd software to support themselves.
Since RMS doesn't really care if people make any money writing software (and he is obviously content with making under $10k/year), he conveniently ignores many commercial factors when making his "moral" arguments. People like me would rather not live in poverty, so we need also need to address the commercial side of writing software and making a profit.
RMS doesn't seem to be anti-commercial - just anti-proprietary - but he leaves no room in his "world-view" for people to survive while writing free software as their primary job. I think that is what the original poster was trying to say.
Since when has an IRC channel been a place to pop in, irritate the hosts and not expect to get flamed/kicked/banned? What planet have you been doing IRC on?
Netiquette is dead. Long live the kick/ban/ignore/killfile.
Like anything else on the 'Net: lurk, stay on topic, don't ask FAQ's, don't annoy the hosts/moderators and you will be treated nicely. Don't like it? Start your own channel. #cowards_perl maybe.
Get off my lawn.
Mr. Christiansen should be aware that it is far easier to run a Perl-free Linux than a GNU-free Linux.
s/Linux/GNU\/Linux/g
rpm -e perl
---------------------
John 3:16 - God's Public License
Lots of people have commented that gcc is far different from most utility contributions, because a good compiler is simply much more difficult to write. That assertion is certainly a true one.
However, writing a compiler is not an impossible task, by any stretch of the imaginaton, and the pay off in reputation more than makes up for the limited number of people willing and able to take on such a project. Even though there may only be a few thousand people capable of writing a decent C compiler, the motivation to write a free one would be huge if one did not already exist.
As an example, I present to you lcc, a compiler developed at Princeton that is mostly free. I know that its license is not as free as gcc's, but it is free enough to show that the creation of a free compiler is not an unrepeatable task.
Because nothing did.
Just another person saying that you got it right on spot! ;)
Most people now and then tends to act a little bit egomanically when they think they're not given the credits for what they have done (and I agree with RMS that he and FSF have not been given the credit they deserve in mainstream articles, although I think that renaming the system is a BAD idea).
The sollution to this is simply to ignore their claims (or even better, think the situation over and give them the credits we think they are worth which not necessarily mount up to what they claim), NOT to try to crush their ego by replacing their code with new one!
If we would do that we would most likely be stuck in an eternal loop where we constantly replace perfectly working code with new one when we think the original creator goes a little bit over the top...
'nuff said.
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars. -- Oscar Wilde
I was being sarcastic. I love Emacs. I love XEmacs. I know that XEmacs is based off of the emacs19 sources, but from what I understood they splintered quite a bit towards the end of 19 development (because of RMS), and have splintered even more since then. Personally I use Emacs more than XEmacs, but that's just because it's what's installed.
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars. -- Oscar Wilde
Clearly
L(unix)
Over
NT
Everyday.
How about this for another distro name??
It'snot linux but a flattering copy of unix.
or
L.U.N.A.T.I.C
Linus
Understands
Not
All
The People Can Be
In
Control
Cheers,
Myrhillion
myrh@javanet.com
I'm looking in /bin right now, and yes, technically the programs I use daily are smallish and should be easy to recreate - in Perl even, as one effort is doing.
The fact that they're smallish and easy programs to write individually doesn't invalidate them.... cat, gawk, cp, bash, chmod, dd, df, mail, gunzip, login, grep, etc.... These are programs we'd mostly be lost without (or at least suitable replacements for....)
--- http://foo.ca
Writing a compiler from the ground up may have academic utility, but I don't think it makes a better compiler. Where are they going to get the poeple to test a buggy compiler when everyone else is using GCC? And you can't just use egcs because it was based on GCC. ARRHGH The GPL may be a bit restrictive and based on an extreme philosophy, but rewriting almost 10% of the applications just so you can say there's no GNU software on the system is much worse. If its not broken, don't fix it.
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
Why did you go to all this trouble? A byte count is not really a fair way to assess someone's contribution.
In your valuation system Linus' role is completely trivial, for example.
I wonder what the real reason for your grudge against the FSF is.
So, Christiansen wants an FSF-free Linux distribution, but he's not above using FSF-derived tools like the EGCS compiler? Please.
The fact is, according to his own data, FSF is the largest single contributor of code to the S.u.S.E. distribution. The Linux kernel itself is just a tiny (though important) fraction of this.
And it's not like anyone is FORCING us to credit GNU for their contribution (apart from keeping their copyright notices intact), since there is no advertising clause in the GPL. It's purely a matter of conscience.
If Tom Christiansen wants a totally "Artistic" distribution, nothing is stopping him except the massive time investment of thousands of people that would be required. It wouldn't accomplish anything especially useful, though.
Tom should stop whining.
Peace and love, y'all
til Corel, Apple and all those other open source "supporters" finish doing their number on Linux.
What was FSF's motivation? Why did the FSF write all these great tools? If they don't like what's going on, they should make steps to change it. If RMS doesn't like Linux being called Linux insted of 'GNU/Linux', he can get fuct and go off and work on his little happy hurd kernel thingy .... The point I'm trying to make is simple, If RMS et al doesn't approve the current situation, they should make steps to correct it. I'm actually shocked that everyone is saying that the FSF is responsible for all the great things that have happened with linux because they wrote the C compiler?, I thought these 'I started it so I own it' ideas were resricted to the corporate world, and everything that I thought RMS was against ... guess I was wrong. They should write their own kernel or something, I don't care if they go take a flying fuck, I think this whole thing is stupid.
Stupid People Piss Me Off
-- Hawk Newton
I came. I saw. I coded.
Before I use software, I research the author(s) to see if my personality meshes with his/hers/theirs. If it doesn't, I have to use something else -- no matter how good the sofware is.
That's just the way I am. Idealism for the sake of idealism. Peace, my brothers.
-Sarcasm Boy
Why add GNU to the name ??
Do we want to start naming products Water/Coke, Fat/Dougnut and Plastic/Computer ?
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Yes,
GNU/RedHat, GNU/Caldera, GNU/Mozilla.
Since the argument is gone that OSF Software makes up >50% of all Linux distributions, the only argument left is that Linux was "inspired" by the GPL Idea..
Give credit where credit is due, like Documentation/Thanks, but don't change the product
name.
Linux distributions may be based heavily on GNU software but the thing we love and admire is still "Linux".
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Linux is just a kernel. The kernel is the operating system, therefore the operating system is called Linux. Yes, to make it useful, you need several utilities, many made by GNU, and wonderful they are, but that in no way implies that Linux isn't Linux without GNU. While Tom's idea is a bit radical, he makes an excellent point, in the blunt Tom Way. BSD style utilities are not the right idea, that's Bad For Linux. So is GNU/Linux. What's right for Linux is for people to respect it as a collection of the minds of everyone across the world, contributing solely for the cause of making a better mouse trap. This mine is bigger philosophy has got to go.
If not for GNU foundation and GNU GPL license
Linux would not be where it is now.
GNU GPL is viral and that is GOOD.
Greedy Perl documentation writers can go and
screw themselfs, not that is matters too much
for Linux.
p.s. I'm very sorry I bought his book, I need to
check with the store if I can return it. I paid
$$$ for that stuff, so him pissing on GNU/RMS
pisses me off!
Vassili Leonov
But all the program were availble and free long before GNU where started. And could easy be replased by an alternative. I have had plans to make a BSD / Linux installation, starting from Debian. The replacemant shuld not be that hard i think, I got the idea when i read rms article but have not had time to create a test host yet.
/ Balp, Tierd of GPL....
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If you question RMS, GPL etc. then you're automatically not a nice person?
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
GNU == RMS's ego. Despite the fact that many people from different non-GNU projects contributed to Linux, RMS INSISTS that his project be given the credit with GNU/Linux.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
So how do you know it's the "right thing to do" then?
Oh, wait, I know, let me guess. "Because RMS said so!"
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
Unrelix?
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
If you want to call it GNU/Linux then go ahead, but I find it objectionable that RMS and his minions keep insisting that I call it GNU/Linux because they wrote some of the code. Others have written some of the code as well.
RMS has a long rant on the FSF site about the BSD "advertising clause" where each of the authors of portions of BSD licensed code can put their little copyright notices/messages/whatever. Yet RMS seems to want a GNU-only advertising clause in the Linux name.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
This way you can achieve freedom. Freedom from the FSF software politics that will ultimatly marginalize Linux
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
jon, i suggest you re-read your MIT history. yep, rms formalised and evangelised the notion of free software, but hand-me-down open source projects were the lifeblood of MIT (and probably every other University with a decent computer lab in the 60s and 70s). open source is just the continuation of the culture surrounding academic minicomputers, particularly the DEC and PDP.
and if writing a C compiler is hard then why do they make CS graduates do it?
-- need more time?
I highly agree. I read that thread "GNU == unspeakable evil" on gnu.misc.discuss. It was completely ridiculous: Christiansen got rubbed the wrong way by the FSF claiming that there was no free Perl documentation. He went on long raves and rants to show how stupid the FSF is and that the Perl doc was free. Problem was he was talking about free beer, they were talking about free speech. But no matter how many people pointed that difference out to him, he wouldn't stop complaining. And complain he did, in the most hideous ways.
From that whole incident, I got the impression that Christiansen might be the worlds greatest programmer, but outside of technical matters it's almost impossible to reason with him on a logical basis. This posting is just more of the same: come to a conclusion, scurry around for some arguments and season with a lot of insults (like 'scummy').
I am not the biggest RMS fan in the world, but I'd rather think about RMS arguments (which at least contain some logic) than Christiansens hodge-podge of mainly enormous anger. It's very sad to see somebody of great technical talent like Christiansen foam from the mouth so much.
No, we don't want to call it "Unrecognized/Linux". As others have said, we want to call it Linux. It's the FSF jihad that wants to add to the name. By their own argument, it's time for them to start calling it "Unrecognized/Linux", right? After all, credit where credit is due, right? We wouldn't have a system without that contribution, right?
See, this is all nonsense. People can call it what they want. If Stallman wants to call it "GNU/Linux" or "MyLinux" or even "RMS/Linux", go ahead. But he now ought to stop trying to force his ludicrous viewpoint on others.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
People can call it what they want. They don't need RMS or anyone else berating them because they use common terms to refer to Linux.
What you have demonstrated is the absurdity of the jihad's position. Linus is way down there at 726, yet we all call it what he says. And where is the moaning and complaining of the other authors who play such a big role in the success of Linux? Why doesn't Don Becker demand that it be called "Don/Linux" or "NASA/Linux"? Why doesn't Alan Cox or Ted T'so cry for recognition?
Because they are grownups. Because they don't have this jihad mentality of the FSF.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
Sorry, it's afternoon. I just ate lunch, and I guess I'm a little sluggish. What does this have to do with what I said?
(BTW, I like that "Fettered Software Foundation" thing! I'll have to remember that...)
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
Which is a lot more than we can say for RMS and the FSF jihad, sadly.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
>in 1948th place with 0.002% of the code.
Actually Linus is mentioned under three different entries, with a total of roughly 0.02% of the code.
I didn't see any entries for Alan Cox, & offhand I don't know the names of any other important contributors/maintainers of the Linux source.
How does that saying about figures, calculations, & liars go?
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
Sure we appreciate what the FSF have given us. Linux wouldn't be where it is today without their contribution. But that doesn't mean we have to hand them the deeds to the family jewels. Linux has evolved and spun away from tight association with the FSF's code. They're just going to have to get used to that, if it really does bother them that much.
Macka
It seems liek a lot of work to do just so you can be smug about a name.
This is a great example of how ineffective the free software community can be. Are you willing to spend time replacing components just to snub someone?
The work done by the FSF should be considered DONE.
Build some applications or something else that Linux actually NEEDS.
Even if Stallman were the devil himself, replacing all FSF packages with non-FSF packages would still be a colossal waste of time, with no performance improvments from the work, and perhaps even performance degradation.
Meanwhile, Linux still has very few applications to draw Windows users to the platform.
This whole point is moot anyway - no one is going to bother following through on Tom's proposal, so there's no point in anymore inane discussion.
And Linus used FSF tools.
Could he have used another group of tools at that time? Maybe, maybe not.
The fact that someone else out of sheer luck could have decided to develop what was needed in the absence of FSF can not be used to dimish their role.
"Who's this Newton guy anyway? He did almost nothing, if he hasn't come out with those laws someone else would." Now we can invalidate Newton's contribution based on this phrase, can't we?
It was not my intention to compare RMS/FSF and Newton point by point. I was just trying to say that if someone DOES a thing, it is not fair to dimish the effort just by saying that "if X haven't done it someone else would certanly have done"
I'd like to see a /. poll on this one. How many people support RMS's insistence that it be called "GNU/Linux", and how many people think that "Linux" is the proper name?
- dria
not a Spaniard.
Columbus was also Italian.
Only a minor correction of fact.
As any Philosophy, Math, or Science professor and they will tell you that the idea 'freedom' exists only in you mind.
Everytime there is a requirement, rule, axiom, necessary condition, etc., one's freedom has been limited.
One can say, 'as free as possible.' One can even say 'the best (freeest)(sp?) of all possible worlds.' One cannot say 'freedom exists' without forgetting a lot of facts that negate that assertion.
For me, 'free of charge' is about as good as it gets, and I go with that. But then again, I'm just a dirty stinking blood sucking lawyer (law student). So what do I know? I made hypocricy my career, and hypocricy constraint in itself.
Yogis say, freedom in meditation. Coders say, freedom of code. Romantics say, freedom of spirit. There is no absolute freedom.
You won't get that in any dictionary. You have to think first...
For ease of comprehension, I'm going to write things phonetically.
if most of the users-space tools *were* from GNU, that *still* wouldn't make it GNU/Linux.
Hrm.... I do wonder why you say "from GNU"--are you indicating Noo, or do you mean G'noo? If you mean G'noo, then I find your comments about Microsoft and Windows very confusing--
Look at Microsoft Windows: most of the applets that ship with Windows, for instance, are not written by Microsoft at all.
If you were consistent, wouldn't you mean to say that `most of the applets that ship with Windows are not from Windows'? That doesn't make much sense, does it? Well, it seems to make about as much sense as saying that `most of the system components of the G'noo OS are not from G'noo'. Sure, many parts of G'noo may not be made by FSF-members, but they are part of G'noo. All parts of G'noo are parts of G'noo--saying something else doesn't make a lot of sense.
The misunderstandings that people keep presenting as indications of their own illiteracy are absurd enough to make me wonder what's wrong with the world's water supply. Do you really think that `XXX/YYY' means `YYY, created by XXX'? Can someone explain to me which English text-book/dictionary/writers' guide/whatever you pulled that meaning of "/" out of?
Also:
The OS is truly the kernel...
No, it's not. A kernel is something low-level for software to interface. An OS is a system, which contains much more than just this one thing (typically).
I have to go to class.
-rozzin.
An anonymous user wrote: In point of fact, this entire discussion was started by RMS, who decided that Linux should be referred to as GNU/Linux. Tom deserves kudos for pointing out the fallacy in that argument.
Should everything compiled with GCC and debugged with GDB be referred to with the 'GNU/' prefix? Maybe everything anyone has ever viewed on paper should be referred to with a 'Gutenberg/' prefix.
The fact is, that the GNU suite without Linux was not an operating system. It wasn't until Linux came along that you had an operating system. Credit is definitely due the FSF, but it does not own Linux. The community does.
Ami Ranguli wrote: I don't see that it's either. Free software contributors do what they enjoy doing. Code gets reused. It's something of a weak link that this community only has one compiler. Diversity is great, let's have more.
Nobody has to use a new tool if they don't want to. We've got at least two free makes, at least two free lex's, I can't see that it will hurt us to have more tools.
It's not your right to tell other people how to spend their coding time, or what motivation is "acceptable".
An anonymous user said: If everything with a GNU license is prefaced with 'GNU/', RMS and FSF will certainly get a lot of free advertising. It's true that without the GNU utilities Linux would not be an operating system; however, it's equally true that up until Linux came along, the popularity of the GNU suite didn't hit anything like its current levels. No operating system, a lot less exposure to the world.
Perhaps GNU utilities should be referred to as Linux/GNU utilities.
An anonymous user wrote: No Unix has ever had the popularity and growth rate of its user base that Linux enjoys. Unix installations have always had a much smaller market share than Windows installations, and Linux is the only POSIX OS that has shown any chance of challenging Windows much at all. So I guess I would have to stick with my viewpoint.
'Universally popular', sure, but in a very small universe.
I agree, the mature and productive thing to do here is let it slide.
Personally, I am a great fan of both the GNU project and Perl. I own several of Christiansen's books and I think he's a great author. But I am sad to see this petty response to Stallman.
I switched to Linux largely because I've been a daily user of Emacs for the last 10 years; without it, I might have stayed with M$ and never known better!
Am I the only one who's noticed that the column of percentages up there only add to about 50? Doesn't really change the argument but, seems fishy... or is there a good reason why 50% of the code is unaccounted for?
-- Moderation in all things, exceptions to all rules --
I agree with Tom, but for different reasons. I don't call it GNU/Linux (a) because I'm lazy, and (b) because I'll call it anything I damn well please. It's all about freedom, baby!
But that's the problem, isn't it? FSF appear to feel they're getting less "name recognition" than the Open Source guys, and try to compensate by "hijacking" a project they're contributing to. It would be as if Tom Christiansen insisted Perl should be called Tom/Perl because of his contributions.
No disrespect to Tom intended, etc. :-)
BTW, is there a good moving BSD linux project yet? I like BSD, but am getting really tired of the splits in the BSD groups.
What splits in the BSD groups?
FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD. BSDi as well. And the most recent of those (OpenBSD) was years ago.
Splits in Linux dists are far more numerous (RedHat, Debian, Caldera, Slackware, SuSE, Corel (soon to be released). . .)
N
Tom's example of a "well-loaded RedHat Linux server" doesn't quite cut it. Instead, look at a MINIMAL system, with just the absolute essentials. Count only what you need to survive. You don't define an OS by how many applications you install (and you certainly don't give weight to extra bytes), but by what is absolutely required.
Remove gcc and make and and tell me how far your system goes.
Tom, I say, put your coding where your mouth is and replace everything from the FSF and see how easy it is.
Linus has said that every single line from his original kernel has been replaced. NOTHING remains from the orignal. If you replaced all the FSF utilities, RMS would still deserve credit for making it possible in the first place.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
egcs: experimental GNU compiling system
At least they know how to give credit.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
> how much [...] did [RMS] actually right [sic]
He wants it called GNU/Linux, not RMS/Linux.
> If you wanted credit, it should have been a requirement in the GPL. Sheesh.
He's not suing anyone or forcing anyone to call it GNU/Linux, he's just stating his belief that the FSF deserves credit based on its accomplishments.
For all those who keep saying "freedom means I can call it what I want," it also means he RMS can ask for credit if he wants.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Wake up folks. It's a name. Arguing over this only makes you look like a bunch of PHB's.
Davo -- Free speech, free software, AND free beer.
prefix Linux with GNU - this makes no sense. Linux *is* the kernel, not the utilities. If someone wanted to re-write all the FSF utilities and create a Linux distro it would *still* be Linux so long as the Linux kernel was used - in other words, the lcd that separates all OSes is the kernel. So really, the wrong question is being asked. How much of a Linux distro is FSF doesn't matter - instead we would need to ask how much of the *kernel* was written by FSF. Even if FSF wrote Linux kernel code, it wouldn't make much sense, no more than calling Beowulf NASA/Linux. Good thing we are protected from the FSF by the GPL (isn't that ironic)
\forall code \in C, \frac{\Delta readability(code)}{\Delta t} < 0
So the FSF wrote 10% of the code, which is the most. It is arguambly the most critical part of the system, and it certainly "deserves" recognition on the order of Linus himself. Therefore, (I claim) this "survey" is essentially meaningless.
You dismiss the fact that most of the software that is under the GPL is irrelevant. Certainly it may make them able to claim less credit, but it isn't irrelevant.
The thing that's silly here is the name game. GNU, as a name, is essentially meaningless. Linux, as a name is also meaningless. Everyone who cares knows that Linux == GNU/Linux. Even people who don't care recognise the importance of FSF in the role of the development of Linux.
But RMS is not the only one who is guilty of the name game. The silly Open Source people can also be accused of it.
In the end, I really wish RMS would just give up. It's an essentially meaningless debate, and for all intents and purposes can be ignored, except when talking directly to RMS. The way RMS is acting stikes me as fairly immature, but people on the other side of the issue are giving me fewer and fewer reasons to side with them.
This is all very very stupid. Linux needs GNU (despite idiotic claims to the contrary), GNU need linux, let's all recogize that and get on with it.
Maybe if someone
(i.e. Linus) would say: yes Linux is really GNU/Linux, but we're sticking with the old name for convention, and we're declare a special linux holiday devoted to recognize RMS and the FSF, like say "GNU Awareness Month."
Or how about that the nux in Linux stands for GNU.
Yes, it's all very silly, but really, it's all silly.
I don't care, please just stop this nonsense.
Linux is an operating system comprised of a kernel maintained by Linus Torvalds and a few others, with contributions from hundreds (thousands?) of people from around the world, and some utilities distributed/freely available from GNU sites, which have been written by a plethora of individuals, and contributed to/improved on by many thousands of others. This is a team effort, people! Heck, I've made and sent patches to my kernel, and to various other programs as well.
;) ), and stand back in awe of this great creation which has grown from the minds of thousands of thousands of programmers around the world, and not just from a few people or one or two organizations. Bleh!
Let's let Linux be Linux!. For me, it's easier to say than "GNU/Linux". Linus + thousands of people maintain the kernel source. RMS/FSF + thousands of people maintain the source for the various utilities, and there are utilitities based on BSD code, and many programs are written from completely original code.
Let's just call it "Linux" (it's easier to say, and we all know that the best programmers are the laziest people!
Let's be bi-partisan and not quibble about names.
Matthew Vanecek For 93 million miles, there is nothing between the sun and my shadow except me. I'm always getting i
Bad example. RedHat does not require all distributions of Linux to be called "RedHat Linux" (otherwise we'd have "Stampede Redhat") whereas RMS wants all distributions to call themselves "GNU/Linux."
While I agree that GNU/Linux is a crappy name, I have real problems with this methodology of proving it.
You're missing the point. Here's an explaination:
A) "GNU/Linux" is a bad name, RMS is a bad person, and the FSF is a bad organization. These things are so obvious as not to require proof. In fact, your desire for proof indicates a dangerous lack of faith. I'm not at all sure that there's a place for you in Christiansen's free soft^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hopen source movement.
B) Since we know the conclusion already, any evidence or logic which tends to support that conclusion is, ex post facto, valid.
Therefore, your objection is fallacious and deceptive and you should be ashamed of yourself.
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
That goes to show you just how mentally secure a lot of the Slashdot readers are. And don't bother flaming, or calling me a troll, you'll just further prove my point.
"You're all 'mentally insecure', and if you call me a troll, that proves me right!"
You're assuming that anybody will accept your bizarre "logic". Well, I don't. You're a troll. You've got a perfect right to be a troll, of course, but that is indeed what you are.
By the way, if people called you an idiot for suggesting this, and now they call Christiansen an idiot for suggesting the same thing, I'd say they're just being consistent.
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
. . . and that's why he's so important to this movement.
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
BTW, is there a good moving BSD linux project yet? I like BSD, but am getting really tired of the splits in the BSD groups.
What, you'd like those same problems better if Christiansen succeeded in porting them to Lignux?
Hmm . . . Maybe that came off a bit too sarcastic.
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
The primary goal here is to pursue a personal grudge against Stallman, right? And the secondary goal is to port BSDish fragmentation, forking, and petty personal bullshit to Linux.
So what would Christiansen accomplish by quietly going and using another OS? Nothing. The port-everything-to-perl gambit seems not to have attracted much support, so he's trying another tack. I applaud this. Christiansen apparently has nothing to offer the community but his grudges and his rage, so he's doing everything in his power to bring us the benefit of those qualities as often as he is able.
Here's a point that illustrates Christiansen's wisdom as a leader, and his commitment to good software: In a discussion on the perl mailing list about the port-everything-to-perl idea, it was repeatedly stated that the point of this was to make the full set of common unix shell utilities easily available on all platforms. So at some point, somebody pointed out that the unix versions of these things all expect globbing to be handled by the shell, while not all shells in other OS's do that. Well, Christiansen got a bit pissed off about that, and slapped this guy down. You see, globbing is a "shell issue", and therefore Christiansen has a good excuse for blowing it off. Apparently, it's "anti-unix" to write "portable" code that works wherever it runs. The solution to the problem is to deny responsibility: "We're porting this so you can use it everywhere, but if you can't use it somewhere, that's not our problem". Fine, it's his code and he can do as he likes.
But you know what?
When I build and run gawk in dos (where the shell does not glob), gawk globs. My scripts behave predictably, on Lignux or dos or BeOS. I just can't see why Christiansen would bother writing code that doesn't work -- except, maybe, that the porting thing is an excuse, and the real reason is his little grudge against Stallman. If you "don't feel like" writing the code that needs to be written for the program to do what it was designed to do, that's fine -- but don't pretend that you're a programmer.
Stallman has ideological motivations, which often prompt him to do things which may not be necessary. Christiansen has ideological excuses, which he invokes to blow off things that are necessary, or else to give rein to his petty personal animosities. There's a very big difference there.
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
Look, hardly anybody calls Linux "GNU/Linux" -- and why not? Because there's no non-GNU Linux to distinguish it from. Right? Right.
But if this twit creates a Linux with all the GNU stuff replaced by BSD stuff, then there will be a need to distinguish the two. So, we'll have "BSD/Linux" and "GNU/Linux". The two will have the same kernel, but they'll be differentiated by the shell, etc. ("sufficient unto the shell are the utilities thereof"
I don't give too much of a shit, personally, but the only way that the term "GNU/Linux" will ever be generally used is if Christiansen gets his way with this little tantrum of his -- and I, for one, get off on the irony enough to put up with the extra syllables.
Go, Tom! Throw that tantrum! Wave those statistics! You're on a roll, don't stop now!
:)
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
it seems clear that most of it is done. . . Where did you read otherwise?
I just assumed that if he now wants to use BSD utilities, then the perl thing must have dried up and blown away.
It seems as if that was a bad assumption.
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
Software was free before the FSF,
That's true, but no attempt had been made to implement legal safeguards for that freedom, and nobody had clearly defined what that freedom meant, or why it was worth keeping.
The guys who wrote the U.S. Declaration of Independence didn't invent a single one of the ideas in it. So by your logic, it's completely irrelevant . . .
and remains so despite their efforts.
In plain english, you're a paranoid idiot. What you mean by "freedom" is probably something like this: "freedom for proprietary developers to screw users". Stallman is talking about freedom for the users, and for the code itself. If you can't grasp that, don't bother trying to comment on it. Of course, you may have no clear idea at all of what you mean by "free". You may just be a yapping cretin with a yawning void between his ears.
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
I grew up on PCs too and remember jacks about free compilers, linkers, editors etc (free as in source code freely available). I remember a lot of crappy *shareware*!
Anyways, the FSF and GNU were started at about the same time that the PC was born, so your point is somewhat moot.
And to answer your first point: anybody *could* have filled its place, but nobody did. Whereas in the case of kernels e.g. there are a couple of alternatives to Linux...
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
FSF is anything but free. I'd rather give money than my intellectual property.
That wouldn't mean a thing because you don't seem to have much of the latter to contribute.
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
I WISH FOR NUTTYX 2.2!
http://www.yellow5.com/nuttyx
So, let me get this staight: You think MS, Apple, Sun, etc. have the right to claim part ownership of any software I created\compiled with one of their compilers, or link to their libraries?
Give me a break.
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
> gcc, on the other hand, supports every architecture under the sun. gcc also compiles and runs on
> every architecture under the sun. Finally, it optimizes on all of those architectures, in most cases only
> slightly worst than the best compilers out there.
NOW. I have little experience with gcc, but you can't expect me to believe that the first public release had all these capabilities.
gcc has (obviously) grown and matured over the years. No doubt the first version was a decent compiler, but people (largely folks outside the FSF, I'd wager) have spent a lot of hours and a lot of sweat improving it.
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
It's called irony, a literary convention often used to make a point in a way that exposes the absurdity of a previous comment.
You might get to it in your next high school Engish Lit class.
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
I think the problem is that it's always been a little ambiguous what Linux actually is. To Linus, when he began it, the kernel had no name; it was called Linux when it was released. When Linux distributions really began to appear, Linux was always the kernel, and the apps that were used with it were generally limited to the GNU utilities and apps such as Emacs. However, now that the OS --- in which I include the kernel, utilities and apps --- is becoming more popular, we're talking less about the kernel and more about the whole system. I therefore use "Linux" to refer to a complete Linux-based system, such as a Debian installation, and "the Linux kernel" to refer to the kernel. I for one don't want to have to say "GNU/Linux" or "GPL/Linux": GNU have done great things for the free software community, but, as this article shows, they weren't the only ones.
And please don't complain about Richard Stallman. The guy's given us a lot --- looking a gift horse in the mouth has never been a profitable strategy.
A plurality of the software is FSF stuff. OK, it's not the majority that FSF'ers would like us to think...
I'd bet if you looked at Solaris, etc. a majority of the software would not be written by SUN, but only a plurality.
Besides, do we really want to call it Unrecognized/Linux?
That's a very good point.
However, no one has an intellectual stake in fat/doughnut. It is reasonable, IMO, to have Bose-Einstein condensation, Bogoliubov-deGennes equations, etc (yes, I am a physics geek). Calling it GNU/Linux simply respects the fact that FSF software was/is an absolutely essential ingredient in both the creation of and the everyday use of the operating system known as Linux. Perhaps we should come up with some fancy symbol to replace the name alltogether ; )
This is the only lgit reason to call it just Linux.
.01%)... why not acknowledge that most of the software is GPL'd and openly acknowledge other's contributions in the name? Well, the counter to this is as you stated. It is the penultimate argument- what can I say to 'it sounds butt-ugly'? It does!
My objection to calling it just Linux are the ones stated in the article as reasons not to call it GNU/Linux. Linus has maybe 0.01% to do with my system as a whole (granted the most important
lignux?
Yes, the plurality is unrecognized, but that's just like saying that the plurality of something is 'other'
Just because that is what is accepted in society doesn't mean it's either the right thing to do or what should be done.
BTW- I don't know what to do. This is a forum, so people debate. People have an opinion and defend it, by definition.
In response to because RMS said so- many people who oppose GNU/linux monikor do so exactly because RMS, an egomaniac, said so. I throw those people out with the 'because RMS said so' crowd. With the people remaining, let's have a debate.
Why does the 'marketing angle' matter?
So, what's wrong with n% of us calling it Linux, and the other (100-n)% of us calling it GNU/Linux, with both parties arguing consistently about RMS this and butt ugly that?
Maybe they just don't want rms deciding wether a piece of software is free or not.
One should give credit where credit is due! To all us selfless minions! Free shared software was around before the FSF and it will be around long after.
Actually, GPL documentation is just like GPL code. You can change the text and redistribute, but it's got to be GPL'd to. The idea is identical to code, and there is an explanation of this by RMS around somewhere (it may be in the book Open Sources). To my knowledge, it has nothing to do with concepts, and it has been stated that way.
Btw, that part about restricting your freedom to take freedom away from other people "relicense the code under a different license", if you are talking about binary only, etc. is a bit fallacious. The laws to free speech take away my freedom to restrict other's speech. But that's misusing the word freedom. It's more like the GPL takes away your license to take away other people's freedom.
As a counterpoint, without the GPL, you are taking away the author's freedom to have his code freely distributed and modified in an open source fashion. You can't give everyone absolute freedom under any system, even public domain. It's all a matter of what freedoms you think more important. Frankly, I, like other people who have released code under the GPL, think that the freedom of knowledge is more important than the freedom of other people to make money off of my code.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
FreeBSD uses very little GNU software outside of the toolchain, although there is quite a bit of GPLed software (e.g. Perl, CVS, Taylor UUCP). GPLed code (GNU and non-GNU) represents about one-sixth of the source tree; I'd say about half of it is GNU. Feel free to download the source tree and verify this on your own.
As to Tom's article, the only thing that surprises me is that RMS' claim surprised the Linux community. Wake up, people, you've been preaching this guy's gospel (by using and promoting his license) for how many years before you discovered he was a self-centered jerk with a political agenda?
SunOS does *not* refer only to the kernel. Solaris refers to the "operating environment" and also includes OpenWindows and CDE and...prolly some other stuff. But SunOS refers to the BSD (4.x) or SVR4 (5.x) *operating system*. That's what the 'OS' stands for.
The windowing system for Linux isn't written by the FSF. The desktop environments aren't written by the FSF. Hell, the *printing system* isn't written by the FSF. Not that Linux has much of a printing system.
I don't really care what people call Linux. I don't, really. (Of course, I'll call it Linux, because two syllables is really the limit of my vocabulary). But this particular argument is pretty damned facetious.
-k. ^-^ ^D
I agree that RMS deserves some credit, if for nothing else than creating the GPL (which the Linux kernel is covered by), and all the GNU utilities, which are so good that they are not only used in combination with Linux, but also with many other OSes, too. No doubt RMS should be recognized as ONE OF the leaders of the open source movement. I do think he may not be getting the recognition he deserves. But his attempt to force everyone to call it GNU/Linux is simply ludicrous. I am sure RMS would take credit for Linux if he could, because the fact of the matter is, FSF is having trouble getting the Hurd finished (it doesn't even have a random device yet), and I understand that the university of Utah, which originally created the microkernel that the Hurd was based on, has discontinued it. But I say, if RMS wants more recognition, why doesn't he:
1. Try creating his own distribution, calling it GNU Linux... Not GNU/Linux... But a DISTRIBUTION of his own, called GNU Linux, just like Red Hat Linux, SuSE Linux, or Stampede Linux. This would definitely associate Linux with The Cause.
2. I think he should shake hands with Linus, and recognize Linus's contribution to GNU... After all, though GNU may have ended up being a contribution to Linux, I think it could easily have been done the other way around--that is, Linux could have been considered a contribution to GNU. This would also give RMS more recognition.
Not even any of the free BSD distributions are 100% free of FSF software. Removing the GNU stuff would take a damn lot of work in addition to being pointless and counterproductive. Heck, the first thing I do on a BSD box is install the GNU utilities, just like on any other non-Linux Unix system.
As a separate point, the FSF is responsible for the exsitence and/or freedom of a lot of code they don't hold copyright to. For instance, everything owned by the X Consortium would not have been free if it weren't for the work of the FSF. The same goes for many other entries on that list.
And finally, shouldn't that be the Daemon Penguin? The BSD mascot is not a "Demon".
Actually, the name of the Solaris kernel is SunOS. The name of the operating system as a whole is Solaris. You don't see it called by just the kernel name any more, do you. Hmmm.
RMS may foam at the mouth in person sometimes, but at least his writings are well-reasoned and level-headed - you have to admit that much at least even if you don't agree with his premises. Everything I've seen of TC's public writings has been vicious flamage. Now, maybe that's not a representative sample, but that's all I've personally personally seen.
Interesting. Perhaps that would be the reason the FSF does not use GPL for it's documentation, but rather a different, much simpler license.
Perhaps that is also why copyright covers expressions of ideas rather than ideas themselves.
Clues are good things.
GCC was designed from the start to support multiple target architectures, multiple hosts, and a wide array of optimizations. Designing a framework for an optimizing compiler so that you can compile something from the same code base that will optimize well for many architectures, and can be extended in the future to architectures and languages totally different from anything around when you started, is very impressive.
Trust me, extending the average undergrad project compiler to do good optimization and output code for multiple targets would not really be feasible.
Yes, but for the most part they all suck - not very portable, poor support for even one language standard let alone many, rather crappy optimizations, etc. If you have ever worked in a Unix or embedded software shop, you'd know why the world's proprietary compiler vendors all consider GCC their biggest threat.
Sorry, I get sick of people flaming about the same points over and over again when they are untrue. Since when has courtesy been mandatory at Slashdot High School? :-)
The FSF takes the position that programming examples in manuals are covered by the fair use exception and thus a specific exception for them would be redundant. I'm not sure if I agree with this, I think an explicit exception would be good. But in any case, they don't GPL their docs and don't even particularly try to encourage others to use any specific documentation license, AFAIK.
The difference between an idea and an expression of an idea is in fact fairly clear as far as copyright law is concerned. If I hold copyright on a paper about a particular scientific theory, that gives me no rights whatsoever in the theory itself; I may not preclude others from applying, writing about, or extending my theory.
When the distinction between an idea and expression of an idea is unclear to the point that the idea could not be expressed without effectively copying a copyrighted text, the copyright holder has no standing (at least in US court) to sue over even a literal copy.
So there is no way someone could copyright the concept of socket programming in Perl.
The only form of intellectual property protection that covers an idea rather than an expression is patent law, which the FSF opposes applying to the software domain at all. So no fear of finding patented manuals for FSF software either.
Popular though Linux is today, I bet there are still more total non-Linux installations of GNU utilities and tools than total Linux ones. Pretty much every Unix shop has GNU stuff installed. A very high proportion of embedded developers use GNU tools.
In fact, I think one of the biggest technical wins of Linux in the early days was that you didn't have to install all the GNU utilities and tools on it by hand. Every time I have to deal with an arbitrary limit, or type "gzip -dc somefile.tar.gz | tar xvf -" instead of "tar zxvf somefile.tar.gz", or deal with multiple differently broken vendor C++ compilers in a multiplatform environment, I am reminded of this.
"It absolutely does prevent those things. The best a programmer can do, once he or she has released a product under the GPL, is make money doing peripheral tasks such as making CD-ROMs or consulting. He or she cannot make money from the software itself; it's available for free!"
Nothing in the GPL prevents you from also offering your code under other licenses at the same time (assuming all the GPL'd code is yours). If it's not all yours, you have no business whining that you have the way to license your code anyway you want, so how dare these other people license their code in any way they want, such that if you use it you must follow certain conditions! Why, the very gall!
We're seeing this now. Be, a would-be challenger to Microsoft, can't get a foothold; vendors are looking at installing Linux instead.
Be seems to think they benefit from Linux, since by gaining so much market share mindshare for a non-Microsoft product, it has opened the technology world to the possibility that non-Microsoft products might be better for certain tasks. I agree to some degree; I think at least that their odds would not be any better if Linux never existed.
But even if they are wrong and you're right, let's say FreeBSD (supported primarily by admitted CD-ROM foundry Walnut Creek) had been the one to make it big instead of Linux. Would that make Be's position any stronger?
Of course, you can pretend that this isn't happening if you'd like, but you'll only be ignoring the mounting evidence.
I personally don't mind that this is happening. Really, what you are arguing is that a critical mass of GPL software will doom most proprietary software to oblivion. The only way this could be stopped, according to your theory as I understand it, is for the mass of people working on GPL software to give up and go home. That's not going to happen. So businesses today need to deal with the market reality that GPL code is out there, and find a business model that deals with that fact. Asking GPL programmers to just go home, or to relicense their code under X-like licenses, is not going to change anything.
You mean that the FSF created the C library? Wow, and all this time I thought it was the ANSI C committee who formalized that.
I bet a pretty small proportion of the GNU C library is an implementation of the ANSI standard. A lot of the other stuff is POSIX, BSD, SVR4 and GNU extensions, various "traditional" Unix stuff, I18N support etc. If you think writing all that stuff to be thread-safe, efficient, multi-architecture, multi-platform, and conformant to more standards than you can shake a stick at is easy, you're wrong.
RMS wanted the OS called GNU/Linux and NOT FSF/Linux, referring only to the liscence itself. While you may not agree with the philosiphies RMS is pushing, go ahead an build an OS with a different liscence. Or, you can agree with him and put together another liscence. While Tom does say "A GPL does not GNUware make" he gives little evidence to support this. Whether or not the FSF put in much effort, the GNU name has fame/greatness/guilt by association. RMSs motives can probably not be easily summed up in writing, but he does have them, whatever they are. And they seem to be, on the surface, getting some of his ideals out. And while you may not agree with him, you have to give him credit for his effort and perserverance.
Look somewhere else for a sig.
I don't think anyone can stop the world from calling it Linux now, the cat's out of the bag, the point is moot.
I also would like to see what percent of several distributions falls into the following categories:
GPL'ed
LGPL'ed
other licences
I mean, even if FSF did not write the software, they wrote the license, the advocated for the concept, and they inspired thousands.
And how much of this software would have been written so efficiently, beautifully, or quickly, if there were no Emacs?
Bravery, Kindness, Clarity, Honesty, Compassion, Generosity
...Nothing interesting here. Just move along...
Looks as though being a perl god does not
imply sanity.
RMS deserves a lot of credit, for both the C
compiler, and the gnu public license, and
sticking to his guns and living according to
his ideas while the rest of the world
(including me) thought he was nuts.
I think I'm switching to the "Call it
GNU/Linux" camp, but I can understand if most
people feel that name changes are stupid, and
they'd rather stick with "Linux", just because
it's an already standardized name. (Though,
it is not true that names are meaningless,
arbitrary symbols, but let's leave that
argument for another day.)
But, the idea of re-writing all of the FSF
code just for the sake of spiting RMS, this
is a completely bug-nuts idea, far crazier
than anything I've ever heard from RMS.
I suggest sticking to the project of
re-writing Unix in perl. That's a pretty
beserk project too, but at least there's
some point to it.
I bet Tom Christiansen uses vi. That's
what the RMS wars are *really* about.
(I can't beleive I read all this drivel just
so I could post my own drivel with a clear
conscience...)
GNU/HURD == GNURD "g-nerd"
You can add GNU to almost anything. A little cuter anyway.
If what counts is who contributed the most, well that'd be the FSF, as the biggest _single_ contributer. But RMS isn't saying it should be named after the FSF. People use the GNU GPL as a contribution to the GNU OS (they could have just made their own). And the GNU GPL exists for the _GNU_ operating system. It has always been about the GNU OS.
If what counts is who contributed most, it certainly isn't Linus. Tom's little list tells is that. But the general public sure gets that impression by the name Linux.
If RMS were just egotistical, he would want it called RichX or RMSOS. I really don't see any part of his name in GNU, do you? But Linus has his name on 99% of what he did not write.
And what does BSD have to do with this anyway? Hey, did everyone who contributed to FreeBSD work for BSD or UC Berkeley? It's still called BSD.
Tom's logic is a little hard to follow.
I agree that the FSF has been selective about what is part of the GNU OS. And maybe they regret not jumping on the Linux kernel and waiting for HURD. I would regret it too.
This sort of thing has cropped up before. And it has always been due to human error.
--
This sort of thing has cropped up before. And it has always been due to human error.
HAL9000
10's of millions of users
Main-stream media coverage
It's too late now.
But I do like GNUX and GNURD!
This sort of thing has cropped up before. And it has always been due to human error.
--
This sort of thing has cropped up before. And it has always been due to human error.
HAL9000
I see a lot of comments of the theme "RMS is just whining 'cause he's not getting enough credit."
That may or may not be true, but it is really besides the point. There is a deeper reason for RMS trying for brand-name inclusion. He is scared to his bones that the ideal he has strived so hard and so long for will get sloughed off. From where I sit, that fear is valid.
Personally, I say "Linux" because everybody else does and it's easier to say. If somebody can come up with an ingenious new label which can match "linux" for simplicity and honour the myriad of contributors, I'll use it. But to be honest, I don't think it'll happen. Something like that has to be spontaneous, not calculated.
RMS' battle to include GNU in the brand name will not be won. But maybe there's another way to honour it's spirit.
Why do people assume that if the FSF didn't exist nothing else would have filled its place? I remember growing up in the PC world and there was plenty of "free" software and not a single person knew who the hell the FSF was.
Doesn't the FSF claim that one of the reasons software patents are bad is because of the high probability of independent discovery of ideas in the software field? Why do they think no one else would have come up with the free software idea if they hadn't?
"Linux" to me means the software that I use most. That is apache, vim, X11, ppp, lynx/netscape, xv, gimp, python, perl, and various compilers that have nothing to do with gcc. Which of those did the FSF write?
Why waste your time on political bullshit? Shut up and write some code that we _need_, not code so you can justify creating your own non-FSF distribution.
Ummm...why does the FSF waste their time on political bullshit? Tell them to "shut up and write code that we need", not code so they can justify creating their non-proprietary distribution.
Like the world really needed Yet Another TAR, or C compiler, or C debugger.
Bell Labs has done a lot for us all (or do you think Linux would exist if they hadn't come up with C and unix?), should we name it BellLinux?
Maybe we should rename it Locke/America or Smith/America. After all, why is the country named after some Spaniard? Don't those enlightenment philosopher types have an intellectual stake in equality and natural rights of men. And what about those economists and their capitalism?
why not acknowledge that most of the software is GPL'd and openly acknowledge other's contributions in the name?
Because the name isn't the right place to acknowledge contributions. Have you even gone to a movie named after the lead cinematographer? The only time you see director's names in titles is as marketing propaganda. Having GNU in your name is hardly good marketing.
Without gcc, where would we be?
Without an IDE driver for linux where would we be? Oh wait, that's right. When they discovered one didn't exist they just wrote it.
If gcc hadn't existed someone would have wrote a C compiler. Didn't/doesn't minix come with its own (non-gcc) compiler anyway?
But for our situation we only need one architecture for the target and one architecture for the host. I don't recall that Linus was cross compiling linux to Alphas on Day 1. It doesn't have to be optimal for what we are talking about here either. Linus was writing something for fun to learn about x86s (IIRC). Why would be need an optimal compiler for that?
But for our situation we only need one architecture for the target and one architecture for the host. I don't recall that Linus was cross compiling linux to Alphas on Day 1. It doesn't have to be optimal for what we are talking about here either. Linus was writing something for fun to learn about x86s (IIRC). Why would he need an optimal compiler for that?
My bad :-). If I had remembered Amerigo's last name I probably would have clued into his being Italian.
10% is infact FSF,
and thats the biggest contribution, isnt it?
Besides, one must judge contribution not just by sourcecode lines,
but rather on what it does.
the most important part of the os, is infact the linux kernel,
but there are many other important parts, such as bash or X or GNOME (for me anyway).
Not only that but there are many important useful GNU utilities that may not be important if
you wish to run linux, but are when you want to do things with it, such as gcc, make, tar, gzip, many others.
When I use linux (for home use, anyway) i use mostly GNU software, and i compile them with gnu software, so if I want to judge my linux by usage I'll have to call it GNU/Linux.
The point is, imho, not that linux is a product of GNU, but that it is not ONLY made by Linus,
as many people tend to think.
These people regard OS as everything they get on their RedHat CD, just like in Windows you get
the kernel, window manager, and file exploder.
This is wrong, and I'd prefer the name "many anonymous contributors' UNIX" rather than linux myself, but its just too long.
Also, you may be correct to say that GPLed software is not a part of FSF,
but it was inspired by it, and thus FSF deserves some [tiny] credit also for "ideaology".
If Linus named Linux differently I'd agree with you,
but the name Linux is confusing,
and one may assume that Linus coded every part of it by himself.
---
---
I'm going to live forever, or die in the attempt.
I think that even if the FSF is "credited" for 100% of it, GNU/Linux just plain SOUNDS STUPID. Seriously. Just another thing Linux has going for it -- a cool name. Don't wreck it.
Just in case though, an enterprising person might go register gnulinux.com
It seems that snatching and selling domains is en vogue this season......
Yea, we know, FreeBSD is the answer to everything. I've been told this many times before. It seems that freebsd users simply want people to not use linux. I've used FreeBSD, and I chose to stay with linux for whatever reason, lets just say its because "linux" has less characters so that I dont start a war.I dont go around saying "FreeBSD sucks, use Linux" and I rarely hear Linux users doing so, why can't FreeBSD users stop nagging us? Some people use Macs, some people use Windows, everyone has a personality, everyone is different and has different tastes. Why cant we just accept that and stop bitching at everyone.
OK, so without GCC & the rest of the GNU tools we probably wouldn't have Linux.
Just because I use somebodys compiler to develop a product I'm not going to stick their name in front of the product I write and compile using their compiler.
In other words I'm not going to name my house after the name of the drill I use to put a few shelves up, or the manufacturer of the cement mixer I used to make my patio.
..and so I'm certainly not going to use the term GNU/Linux!
P.S. Just in case anyone wonders, I think GCC and the rest of their tools are very nice, do a wonderful job and I would like to thank anyone who has assisted on them for their efforts.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
That Torvalds guy comes in at #726 in the Suse count, at 0.012%. That ought to give rms 100 times the bragging rights!
You all realize, of course, that the Politically Correct way out of this is some meaningless acronym for our OS?
Please. This "Feature" hardly rises above the level of a flame. How about a TC-free distro (no perl I guess).
-- THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -- --
Linux is about software quality, people, not politics. We can't lose sight of that.
-- Brian Trammell
I call it Linux b/c Linus started it... GNU/Linux is OK b/c GNU started a lot of it, too... but that's not what I call it. Call it what you want. I'll call it what I want.
We're both talking about the same thing.
OK?
Linux is a kernel, not a OS. What makes the OS is the kernel, the compilers, the utilities and the applications. That's why we should call it Gnu/Linux. Gnu compiler + Linux kernel. Change it to BSD - don't matter - it then should be named BSD/Linux. (Argh) :-) )
When Gnu releases the Hurd, it will not be called "The GNU Os", it will be called Gnu/Hurd. And also, it is just the name. It doesnt matter. If an apple was called gnapple it would continue to be an apple (a cheaper apple, of course
Also, Gnu software are fisically 10% of the distro, but are the most used. Disk space is nothing, it does say nothing. I can have 100 programs from lalalasoft in my distro and not use them. But sure that the most useful software on the distro are GNU - who don't use gcc, binutils, textutils, bash, sh-utils, and even ls?
Since the 80's Gnu was supporting and making the free compiler and utilities, and RMS was the first that believed on free software. Was not him, Gnu/Linux would not exist today neither those bunch of free software.
Why? Because Linux (the kernel) depends on the compiler. And the OS depends on the compiler and on the utilities (binutils, fileutils, etc.). Linus Torvalds would not be motivated to grow his Minix into Linux if he had not found Gnu and joint with them.
Also, Gnu/Linux quality depends a lot on the compiler quality, and we all know that gcc is the best free compiler. (And also better than most of the non-free).
So, what's the problem with GNU? They are not charging anyone for the software. They make little money from the donations and investing it all back again on free software. FSF and RMS are good. They mean no harm to free software. No harm at all. They just add to it and makes it greater. They do not control their programmers neither their software. It is all written in the GPL. If it was a evil license, Linux and the other 80% linux software would not be GPL.
You should fight against Red Hat! They are the evil ones. They are trying to monopolize free software hiring all good FS programmers and to make their pack manager the "default" for free software. They are selling the free software and making a lot of profit on work from GNU People and Linux People and other FS programmers that are not being paid. Red$at Capitalists! Die in pain!
--------------
Well, sorry about the grammar - I from Brasil andy dunot spike inglish
--
"Basically the message is: Steal It!
You cannot have a Linux OS without a Linux kernel but you can have one Gnu/Hurd OS with Hurd kernel.
The compiler is the main part of an OS, not the kernel. Without the compiler you cannot run on your machine. Well, you may say that you get the binaries direct from RedShit Distribution, but anyway, there would be no binaries without the compiler. There would be lines and lines of code doing nothing.
Any other C compile that you would use would be one of these things:
1) not free
2) not open-source
3) not as good as gcc
So, remove GNU from Linux and you get an empty box. Maybe Windows is better than Linux w/o GNU.
--
"Basically the message is: Steal It!
This was a big argument in #linux yesterday, for which a bunch of people got kicked in the typical childish IRC manner.
It would seem to me that Linus could have called it "KerSplat!Nix" for all he cares, being the perpetrator of this wonderful os!
Get over the petty semantics and focus on more important things like making it desktop-friendly and easy to install without having to be a programmer!
bnf
this space intentionally left blank (oops)
Oh-oh...
This is one of two things:
1. You are a Troll. In that case you are a fairly weak troll for I am the only one responding to this message. And also you should not say things like "I do not care what you say" in a troll message cause you will lose audience. Anyway you are a weak, stupid, senseless and ignorant troll.
2. You are serious. In that case you are trying to make a point by being rude, which is ridiculous, because, for example, me, after reading this message of yours, doesn't want to read either your more.html or TC's or RMS's articles to find out if you are right or wrong, because I am offended badly enough as it is. So, you do not generate any sane conversation or make a valuable argument in any case.
Summary:
You are a lousy stupid bastard/bitch ( see case #2)
or you are a fcsking troll and therefore a moron ( see case #1 ).
So, just shut the FCSK up!
Everybody Lies. But it doesn't matter since nobody listens.
You condem Tom for political bullshit, why not condem the FSF for revisionism in trying to claim credit for the work of others.
There is a difference between saying "FSF/Linux" and "GNU/Linux." What Tom has done with his numbers is essentially to discount GNU contributions of people who did not write their code as FSF employees. Tom even goes so far as to claim that egcs, a compiler project where the contributor are actually assigning their copyrights to FSF still does not qualify as a "GNU project." A few years ago, I released some numbers indicating that counting GNU software as the software on the GNU FTP site (and that is not all of the GNU software really, but, then again, Perl is also on their FTP site), this software constituted that largest contribution to Plug and Play Linux, larger than the X Consortium (including Sun, DEc, etc. in that block), and larger than BSD, and over eleven times larger than Linux (kernel + some linux-specific stuff).
While it is difficult to document, it is also generally acknowledged that FSF people and the example of the GNU project were important factors in the decisions to make BSD and the X Window System free. Without FSF, it is likely that the state of free software on unix-like platforms would be about the same as it is on Microsoft Windows.
No one should publish such hateful, harmful, ill-informed articles. Tom Christiansen is one of the less reasonable persons I ever met, and publishing such bad words does only harm to the cause of freedom and (or) good software.
I do not think CmdrTaco can reasonably justify having published this.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
The FSF lives to support the "freedom in software" idea, so every ad for GNU or FSF is evangelizing for freedom.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
Obviously that is the truth of the particular moment when and distribution about which RMS was talking.
He was never a liar.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
1. FSF started this whole thing.
2. FSF tools are essential to the system, less so than the kernel but there's more code in FSF tools than in kernel, FSF probably deserves as much credit as Linus.
3. RMS is trying to keep the concept of free software alive. GNU/Linux may sound silly, but does RMS really think the name will be changed? I don't think so, most likely he just tries to remind everybody about the concept that lays in the foundation.
4. Before attacking RMS like this, he should probably write as much essential linux system code as RMS.
-- ATTENTION: do not read this sig. It doesn't say much.
The thing that I believe the writer of the article forgets is that GNU in GNU/Linux means that it is a GNU tool, i.e.GPLed, not necessarily contributed solely by the Free Software Foundation. I'd say that the large majority of that Unrecognized code is GPLed as is a lot of the other stuff. Anyway, 10% is the largest portion by any entity. Linus himself only contributed .012 percent according to the link. I think this guy is too quick to shoot his mouth off (or kickban good guys from #perl :) without thinking.
-- atomly
right, but even if most of the users-space tools *were* from GNU, that *still* wouldn't make it GNU/Linux.
Look at Microsoft Windows: most of the applets that ship with Windows, for instance, are not written by Microsoft at all. The Defrag utility is written by Symantec. Wordpad, Solitaire, Calculator, and many other tools are actually written by ISVs and supplied to Microsoft under license. Even Internet Exploder is based on Mosaic, and as such isn't 100% Microsoft code by any measure.
The OS is truly the kernel...Windows' kernel is written by MS, and Linux's kernel is written by Linus and all the Linux contributors.
My journal has hot
Besides, do we really want to call it Unrecognized/Linux?
I still fail to see what is wrong with just calling it "Linux". No other Operating Systems (or pieces of software) are named based upon who's contributed to it. The presedent for this isn't very similar, ie. we do call "windows" "microsoft windows" fairly frequently (atleast people I know do) but in our case, what company name do we have to tack onto Linux, attaching GNU to it isn't quite the same. I do believe the GNU project does deserve reccognition. I appriate all they've done for the software world. I don't believe "GNU/Linux" is the correct way to give that reccognition.
I think the MIT AI Lab is a good place to look =)
how is this different than BSD?
-n
Fine, so spell it Li'nux. The 'g' is missing
and silent. And drop the apostrophe too.
As for RMS's bitching, how much of gcc and the
other FSF utilities (not counting Emacs, which is a waste of disk space as far as I'm concerned) did he actually right, vs all the other uncredited authors of FSF code? Didn't a founder of Cygnus do about half-a-dozen ports of gcc himself?
I've heard it said "it's amazing what you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit", and there's a lot of truth to that. What has RMS/FSF accomplished in the time they've been whining about credit?
If you wanted credit, it should have been a requirement in the GPL. Sheesh.
-- Alastair
"Free bee ess dee".
"Lin ux".
Nah, FreeBSD just has too many syllables. Unless you want to pronounce it "freebased".
-- Alastair
absadamnlutley!
who cares?
scoundrels accusing cads...
When I first started programming, the equipment I had access to was a bunch of Datapoint minis (you know Datapoint - the people who invented ARCnet - they were actually pretty innovative for their day - back in the 70s they had networked micros, only they never realized what they had and never escaped the proprietary mindset. Ted Nelson (Xanadu, "hypertext", etc.) worked for them for a while). Anyway, the Datapoint OS was called "RMS" ("Resource Management System"). Probably still hold the trademark too. Datapoint nowadays (at least till very recently) branched into video equipment and makes such money as they make mostly through patent infringment litigation. So, I might stay away from "RMS". Bad vibes.
So, the statistic used is the size of the packages in bytes. Is this reasonable? Are there some things which are large, easier to program, less essential? Also, are there things which are more central to the development? Instances of the latter might be gcc or emacs.
More interestingly why does everyone care so much? The explanation offered by Christiansen is that it is disrespectful of the FSF to minimize the contributions of the many who have contributed. I can accept that as a legitimate reason. But is that why everyone is keen on it? It is serendipitous for the "Open Source" zealots and ideologues that this attack should come at a time when they are attempting to leverage their way into the business world.
That, at least, would make sense
RMS is going against the entire spirit of free software. The ONLY thing that matters in OSS is giving your code away for the greater good of mankind. By trying to claim credit, politically or socially, and for money or for fame, he is destroying the entire spirit of the OSS community. I used to look up to him, but now I just look up to Linus.
Look, realistically, Linux will continue to be called Linux by the users, even if the name were officially changed to GNU/Linux, because we all tend to shorten unnecessary verbiage. (Y2K?)
I call my computer an operating system an "OS", microsoft "MS", or "M$", or whatever I want to because they can't force me to call it something else. Same with Linux -- Linus called it Linux, and Linux is catchy, punny, etc. Get over it RMS... practice what you preach.
I'm not arguing that it *should* be called GNU/Linux. Hell, I don't care what it's called (just don't call me late...never mind). But a new GNU-free distribution is just stupid. At a time when the Free/Open/Whatever community needs to work together more, a move towards fragmentation serves nobody's interests. Not Tom's, not the FSF's, and especially not the end user.
Let the FSF holler all they want. If distributors agree, they'll call it GNU/Linux. If they don't (and most of them don't seem to agree with the FSF), they'll call it whatever the heck they want.
By the way, to get the FSF's viewpoint, read Linux and the GNU Project on the GNU website.
RMS isn't a lunatic. Eccentric, yes. Very. But behind every revolution there's an eccentric. By being so leftist, he pulls those leaning to the right back towards the middle. Like RMS or not, he serves an important purpose, and has been a major (positive) influence on what Linux is today.
And let me reiterate my earlier position: a GNU-Free distribution serves nobody. Reinventing a *massive* codebase (despite what TC will have you believe) is wheel-spinning. Putting out Yet Another Distribution is wheel-spinning, and further fragments the Free/Open/Linux community. And by encouraging these divisions, TC is essentially fragmenting the same community that RMS has been helping to create. So who's the real lunatic here?
> So what? Being dependent on one code base is
> bad. Choice is good. Just because something is
> GPL-ed, or has an FSF stamp on it doesn't mean
> other alternatives can't be better (for
> whatever value of better you prefer; what's
> better for one can mean worse for someone else).
Improving the codebase for the sake of improvement is a good thing. If you want to write a better compiler than gcc, then that advances the state of the technology (=good). But if you're writing a compiler for the *sole* purpose of not using gcc, then you're wheel-spinning (=bad). You are wasting a tremendous amount of resources that could have been better spent advancing the state of the technology.
I don't advocate that GNU/GPL tools are the best. In some cases they're not the best. Perl is a prime example. But I'd be crazy to set out and create a GPL version of Perl, for the sole purpose of avoiding Artistic License. That's really what we're talking about.
RMS's point about changing the name is not that he's trying to brainwash his fellow coders/hackerz into repeating "GNU...GNU..." like a mantra. His point is that the 99.5% of the world who don't read /. don't understand that without the contributions of the FSF, none of this would matter. Of course, Linus' kernel was the key that created "Linux", but without the GNU software, you don't have an OS either.
I think he's unlikely to manage a name change at this stage of the game. The masses & the media call the entire system (wrongly) "Linux" and that's pretty much the way it'll stay. Thank you Mr. Stallman, and keep up the fight for freedom, but "Linux" is what everyone but the cognoscienti is going to call the whole ball of wax.
Death to Argument by Slogan!! (This post twice-encrypted with ROT-13. Replies not using same will be ignored)
Yes, I think that RMS is a little off-base with his "GNU/Linux" crusade, if only because ruthless self-promotion leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But let's not forget that RMS has written MANY more lines of code than Tom, and has been far more active as an advocate of free software. And even if current Linux distributions may only have 10% (or whatever) FSF-written packages, the fact remains that Linux would not be the OS it is today if it weren't for GCC and other free, open tools. Even if everyone changed to egcs tomorrow, that wouldn't change the fact that the GNU tools have made a LOT of quality software possible over the past few years. Give credit to those whose shoulders you stand upon.
We all (including, I imagine, RMS himself) know that RMS can be a bit bull-headed in his fanaticism at times, but what some call stubbornness, others might call integrity - one of the things that I genuinely admire about RMS is that he consistently sticks to his guns, even when it totally flies in the face of social convention. I may not agree with everything he says, but I have a lot of respect for his motivations and ethics.
RMS may be a little headstrong (in my opinion) regarding the GNU/Linux issue, but so what? If it bothers me that much, I've still got the source code and can edit the offending terminology out of /etc/motd. Tom's proposal to castrate the GNU bits out of Linux, on the other hand, reminds me of nothing so much as a tempermental third grader on the schoolyard, rallying his classmates with taunts that "Richie's a dork! Let's nobody play with HIS stupid toys!" This does not demonstrate the cooperative spirit that, to me, is the real foundation of the free software movement. Not to mention that doing away with *all* GNU code based on the opinions of one person is a slap in the face to a *LOT* of people who have put a lot of time and effort into furthering the cause of free software. (And remember folks, the GIMP, Windowmaker, etc. are all part of the GNU bannerhead and therefore PROHIBITED by the DARK COMMANDMENT of DEMON PENGUIN).
Please consider that sometimes it is genuinely beneficial to overlook the quirks in people's personalities in order to concentrate on their actual efforts. It shows maturity, and in the long run, in most cases, people's personalities don't matter as much as what the person has actually DONE.
-hh
(BTW, I've informally started referring to my distro of choice as "Debian/GNU Linux"... gives credit to the FSF contributions and just seems more aesthetically satifying... :D)
"...the seats and sound system make it nice"!?! I thought we were talking about cars, not living rooms. Point being that many of us do in fact get passionate about the lower-level technical stuff (powertrain, OS).
Who cares indeed.
Come on, this is just a stab at RMS. If people want to call it GNU/Linux then let them. Screw that, it's not a matter of letting them or not, it's the way it is and is going to continue to be. If you're really serious about replacing all the gnu code then I wish you luck, competition is good for everybody. I'd be particularly interested in seeing your emacs, gcc, and gdb replacments. To my knowledge their isn't a compiler of similar capability for linux that isn't based on gcc.
This is my signature. There are many signatures like it but this one is mine..
CS graduates write compilers that spit out highly sub-optimal code for one architecture, hosted on one architecture. Mine was a pascal-like language on SGI/MIPS.
gcc, on the other hand, supports every architecture under the sun. gcc also compiles and runs on every architecture under the sun. Finally, it optimizes on all of those architectures, in most cases only slightly worst than the best compilers out there.
My point is, gcc is not just any compiler -- it is the best compiler!
CS graduates write compilers that spit out highly sub-optimal code for one architecture, hosted on one architecture. Mine was a pascal-like language on SGI/MIPS.
gcc, on the other hand, supports every architecture under the sun. gcc also compiles and runs on every architecture under the sun. Finally, it optimizes on all of those architectures, in most cases only slightly worst than the best compilers out there.
My point is, gcc is not just any compiler. Anyone with any doubts as to RMS's programming ability should look at gcc, imho the best piece of free software ever written, imho (although a bit too lispy for my taste).
Okay. Here, to the best of my understanding, is a history of GNU.
:)
A long time ago, Richard Stallman was a student at MIT. At that time, all software was free and open, and RMS really dug that. Then he ran across some proprietary software, and it pissed him off that it was proprietary.
It really pissed him off.
It REALLY REALLY pissed him off.
So much so that he dedicated his life to replacing all proprietary software with free alternative versions.
He decided that Unix was a pretty popular thing, so he sat down to make a free version of Unix. He called it GNU, recursively meaning "GNU's Not Unix," because it wasn't Unix, it was a free clone of Unix. (Unix was owned by AT&T. Currently, as a bit of trivia, the name "Unix" is owned by SCO.)
So GNU was supposed to be a full-fledged free Unix clone. That was the idea. RMS and company started making a lot of software, leaving the kernel until last for some reason. All the other GNU OS components were pretty cool, such as EMACS and GCC and such. So people would use them in proprietary versions of Unix. But still RMS's dream was to make a free system, GNU.
Then Linus Torvalds, in 91, decides to fuck around with making a kernel based on Andy Tanenbaum's MINIX. Because, hey, don't we all want to make our own kernel.
So he makes his own kernel which he calls "Linux." People convince him to make it as compatible as possible with the GNU utilities, and to license it under the GNU license.
Keep in mind that at this point, GNU (RMS's free Unix clone) is almost done except for a kernel. Linux is released, and bam, fills in the missing link.
So from RMS's point of view, it's as if this decades-long project -- his life's work, really -- was taken away from him at the last second. This work of his, GNU, this free version of Unix he had planned out, was being called Linux by everyone because that was the kernel it was based on.
This, it should be noted, is hilarious. The whole idea of free software is that it isn't owned by anyone. In such a system, it is necessarily difficult to give credit where credit is due. So RMS is mad at his own creation -- unownable software.
Linus Torvalds, as far as I can tell, could not care less about who gets the credit, or what the damn thing is named, or whether all proprietary software is killed or not. He mostly seems to care about seeing that his family is well-cared for and that he has a stimulating job.
www.fsf.org for more info.
"Whatever happened to fair use?"
-- Duff-Man
So are you going to want to call it BSD/Linux? :-)
Unless someone could suggest reasonable technical reasons why this is a good idea and not just `political' ones it seems like a waste of time to me. I don't call it GNU/Linux (if only to save saying one syllable), but if other people want to, who cares?
I think Tom raises good points in this article. GNU is co-opting Linux. (Anyone remember the nice little "Ignore Linux, think Hurd" moniker?
After all, 90% of all perl dists are compiled via GCC, does that mean that Perl should now be "GNU/perl?"
It does indeed come down to the free beer vs. Free speach issue.
BTW, is there a good moving BSD linux project yet? I like BSD, but am getting really tired of the splits in the BSD groups.
Gee, do you think that this diatribe might have something to do with the fact that Tom's ridiculous effort to rewrite the GNU suite in Perl is failing to attract much of a following?
Nothing like starting a flame war with bogus numbers to get some attention, eh?
Tom is one of the primary reasons I have switched to Python (though the excellence of that language is why I have not switched back). The Python cognoscente are actually decent people.
Information is not Knowledge
RMS cannot force us to call Linux what he wants rather than what we want, and Christianson cannot write a Perl Unix all by himself. Let's just ignore them both and be about our business.
Information is not Knowledge
Right. Says one thing, clearly means something else. Disingenuous.
Information is not Knowledge
Surely with Tom's pathetic arguement this means it should be called "The Uncredited OS".
Stick to Perl Tom. Politics is best left to those who do it well.
Richard Stallman has every right to want his team to get some credit. Its not like their in this for the money. (Unlike some...)
Phill
The OS is not the kernel. Or should Mac OS X, Digital UNIX (Sorry, Compaq TRU64) both be called Mach now?
Phill
Tom is one of the primary reasons I have switched to Python
Silly me, I choose a language based on its suitablilty to get the job done. D'oh, I should be basing my choice on the personality of my creators. Another lesson learned from
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Anyone know of a Web site with a piccy of the Demon Penguin? I'd kinda like to see what it looks like :-) Tux with a trident, I guess.
>"Linux" to me means the software that I use most.
That is indeed RMS' point: the name "Linux" is terribly misused. That in turn hurts, amongst others, FSF -- which is why the GNU/Linux war started in the first place.
Sphincter person has a point here. This is just a war of egos, where the dominating rms ego (admittedly very annoying) is being challenged by tc. Linus was right - Linux is just a "cool name". Let's use it.
without the foundation that the fsf laid, linux would have been much less likely to evolve to what it is today. could all the fsf stuff be replaced - certainly, but could the influence, the empowerment, be ignored. i do not think so. if tommorrow microsoft wrote there own implementation of the traditional unix stuff, so a distribution could be 75% ms, would ms/linux be appropriate. no. it isn't about percent. it is about spirit and legacy. it is, and always should be, gnu/linux - ie. one implementation of the vision that we should all thank rms for having.
My blog
Then does Linus? I mean, look at the numbers Tom posted -- the FSF contributed more code than any other named person. Certainly more than Linus. So maybe we shouldn't call it Linux, either. I propose that it be renamed HASH (Highly Accessible System HASH) to reflect the sheer number of contributors.
Which is, of course, a stupid argument. But that's the argument Tom's using -- that the mere percentage of code contributed should determine the name. That's pretty specious. Thanks, Tom, for introducing spurious logic into the matter... pretty soon we can be just like Usenet!
Here's the real question -- could Linux have reached critical mass without the GNU utilities? Sure, there's a lot more there now. But look back to the old pre 1.0 days, and ask yourself how much of the Linux code was from the FSF then? I don't think Linux would have happened if Linus had needed to write all the FSF utils from scratch. And in the end, that's what really matters.
The fact that Tom went so far as to use the word, "hypocritical," is precisely why this is news. Finally, a prominent contributer in the open source community has the balls to call RMS what he is.
The FSF gave us the GPL. Perhaps now they should read it.
I'm seeing some parallels here....
One thing is to write a compiler... Another thing (and a very different one) is to write a half-decent compiler. An almost impossible task is to write an EXCELLENT compiler.
> Should everything compiled with
;)
>GCC and debugged with GDB be referred to with the
>'GNU/' prefix? Maybe everything anyone has ever
>viewed on paper should be referred to with a
>'Gutenberg/' prefix.
Well... So printed Linux manuals could be abreviated as "GNUtemberg/"? Sounds neat
Try with LiGNUx... Well, it's a bit harder to pronounce than it is to spell...
Well... If we want to give credit where credit is due to great contributions, maybe I should state I'm working on a Babbage/Eniac/Univac/Multics/Unix/Linux machine, and that most PC users use a Babbage/Eniac/Univac/Multics/Unix/CP\/M/DOS/Window s machine? (I don't know the exact order and derivation of systems, but this can get ridiculous...)
That is the point. Stallman is one of the most influential guys in this movement. He is one of the main coders - And we all know that gcc is his work. Now, if it were scc (stallman C compiler), it would still stick. The thing is, his name will be inscribed in any and all of the FSF utilities, as well as the HURD kernel. NOT in any currently available OS. And, as you say - ESR got famous thanks to the Cathedral and the Bazaar. RMS got famous thanks to the GPL - one of the finest works we live with.
Well, I was not logged in, sorry. I don't want to be an anonymous coward, just a stupid0 poster !
I'm GDON from France.
gdon
Why do revolutions always inspire counter-revolutions in which the leaders of the previous revolution are immediately placed against a wall and shot?
Nobody can force you into calling it GNU/Linux or Linux. No clause in the GPL asks for a "GNU" label. So calling the thing GNU/Linux (or anything else) depends on the people. If you don't like it, just refuse to do so.
On the other hand, it would be a stupid move to start rewriting things just because somebody asks you to call it something else (and without much chance in succeeding). The energy of free software comes from its users: the more people using it, the stronger it is. To rewrite things means to break up the user base into two camps, the FSF camp and the non-FSF camp. Now the number of testers for each camp is halved, the efforts needed to add more features is doubled, and so proprietary software companies have twice or more chance to divide and conquer them.
If you don't like it to be called GNU/Linux, just ignore RMS. Don't rebel in such a way which makes everybody lose.
The man says what we've known all along, but never took the time to prove.
Perhaps now we can do away with the travesty of "gnulix" as well.
-----------------------
To understand recursion, one must first understand recursion.
Don't give credit to anyone in the title. Just give it a name that reflects the idiotic infighting by you retards.
ANother Unix System (ANUS)
-Beat em like a rented mule-
Firewater
I was cursing while you tried to pray to an idol with feet of clay. -firewater
Get a life Todd. By splitting the code base you're hurting Linux's hard-won position. If Uncle Billy wanted to screw up Linux, he could do no better than to hire someone to do exactly what you're doing.
If you don't like the phrase GNU/Linux, just call it Linux like 90% of the population. Slander Stallman all you want. Flame me. Just don't sabotage Linux -- we've all worked too hard to get it where it is.
Steve Litt
slitt@troubleshooters.com
It doesn't change the message -- don't mess with Linux
Steve Litt
slitt@troubleshooters.com
Well... The ms/Linux part is quite interesting :)
If Microsoft did a distro based on Linux (And they could do it if they wanted to) I think it would be called MS/Linux.
But the points of all this (as I see it) is:
The name used for the OS is Linux... Nothing more and nothing less.
The name of the bundle (distro) is made up of the distromaker and Linux. Example: [Long] Red Hat Linux, [short] RH/Linux.
Now, if only FSF did a distro of Linux I would gladly call it GNU/Linux (or FSF/Linux if they wanted me too).
The GPL is an important part of Linux, yes, but not THE most important part... Without the cooperation and devotion of hundreds of user/developers Linux wouldn't exist, period.
//Patrik Graeser
Agreed! I've called it Linux since 92 (that was when I started installed Linux on my PC), and everyone was happy and called it Linux as the OS grown to what it is today. So why all the fuss about whether to call it Linux or GNU/Linux now ?
It seems that politics play as big of a role in the open source movemement as in the corporate world. There are a lot of people contributing to the open source world, and have been contributing for years. The press has jumped on Linux and made it and Linus the poster child for the movement, this has obviously effected other people's egos.
I have been using open source code for years and I am thankful to all including the FSF for their efforts. I could almost agree with the Copyleft, but feel much more comfortable with a Berkely copyright. If the press would just focus on Open Source Code and give recognition to all open source efforts it would help. I have used/supported many of these tools, I even used Linux before BSD became free, and I'm sure I will
switch back to it when the 2.2 kernel is out on CD rom just to check it out again. I just don't feel that there is legitimate reason to call it GNU/Linux. The FSF deserves recognition but this
reminds me of what I find wrong with the copyleft,
and that is that the FSF is infringing on other peoples freedom to decide how they want to release their code. There are more ways to be free than just the copyleft!!!
This is such a waste... True, FSF owns very little of the software, and most
people don't call it GNU/Linux, but so what if some people do? Is that a
reason not to use perfectly good, well-developed, well-tested, free
software? I've found GNU's software to be some of the best. I take
everything Stallman says with a grain of salt, but he's an awesome hacker
with a lot of motivation. I proudly run GNU software on my system. I don't
have to; I could walk into the other room and run that copy of Watcom C++ I
paid a bunch of $$$ for on a Windows machine. But gcc is just as good, if
not better. Stallman can gripe about Linux's name all he wants, and he's
welcome to call it GNU/Linux if that pleases him. It doesn't mean anyone
else has to.
This is such a superficial issue. These people are taking much-needed
resources away from progress in their attempt to rewrite the wheel over a
brand name dispute...
-Reeves
-- Linux. Because blue screens are for video editing.
Linux, Perl, GNU tools, and all the other goodies we enjoy are free. But even better, they're great tools. I don't actually mind paying for MS products as much as I mind putting up with the endless, senseless bugs. Good Enough is not. For now, it looks like the bazaar is making headway against the bizarre (and broken, code and applications.) But then the Marxists jump in. No offense intended to RMS, but his words leave me with the impression that he's more interested in getting glory than in getting free/open-source/whatever-you-call-it programs. I would like to know more about the scores of individual contributors who made all this possible, and I'm glad Tom shed some light on the subject.
> The real question is -- why change the name when it already had a name?
I agree completely. What you seem to be forgetting is that the original name was GNU. Linus and company created a kernel before the Hurd was finished. Counting all the software bundled with the operating system as part of the OS is a bit odd, and GNU refers only to the OS.
Jon Peterson wrote:
> It's probably fair to say that if the FSF had never written a line of code, Linux would not exist, whereas if one of the other contributers (except Linus, obviously) had not written their code, someone else would have filled their place.
That's silly. The FSF isn't the only initiative to write free software. If there hadn't been GNU tools, Linus might have used BSD based tools. Some other group of people would have written a C compiler.
It's absurd to assume free/open tools wouldn't be available if there wasn't FSF/GNU.
-- Abigail
rlk wrote:
/bin, /usr/bin, libc and such.
/bin and /usr/bin are filled with trivial programs. Not all of them, but most of them.
> And I suspect that if one looks at the core --
While I'll grant you that libc is a major effort, one should realize that
-- Abigail
AC wrote:
> Shut up and write some code that we _need_,
Why the fuck should Tom write some code *you* need? Write your own code. Come back by the time your contribution to the software community is as large as Tom's.
-- Abigail
MoxCamel wrote:
> Reinventing a *massive* codebase is wheel-spinning.
So what? Being dependent on one code base is bad.
Choice is good. Just because something is GPL-ed, or has an FSF stamp on it doesn't mean other alternatives can't be better (for whatever value of better you prefer; what's better for one can mean worse for someone else).
-- Abigail
Pac wrote:
> The fact that someone else out of sheer luck could have decided to develop what was needed in the absence of FSF can not be used to dimish their role.
I am not dimishing their role. However, to follow your analogy, physics wouldn't have stopped advancing if Newton had died as a toddler.
-- Abigail
I'm not demanding an FSF-free Linux.
I don't even use Linux....
-- Abigail
You go and write a working kernel from scratch sometimes.
Even if you succeed in 5 years, Linus already did. How long has FSF been working on their kernel?
-- Abigail
Just what exactly is he counting? All of SuSE, with every package available, or just a "base" system? I would guess that a base system (consisting of shell, editor, utilities, compiler, maybe even X11) would have a much higher percentage of FSF software. The rest of the packages are optional applications, not OS. Not to mention that, by his count, the OS shouldn't be called "Linux" either, since Linus obviously had little to do with it.
Suggest Massa Gates is up at the BIG HOUSE
giggling whilst one of his girly boys read
him this article an all the comments it
generates. Look up the word and see if
it don't fit.
j.
Nope. They rely on a compiler. That is currently gcc.
GNU/FSF doesn't have a monopoly on the name just because their stuff is used.
Part of Free Software is not re-creating what already exists.
No one has seen a need to replace gcc. So they haven't.
GNU provides the compiler that they use (at the moment). But the system is BSD.
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"
Why duplicate effort? Isn't that one of the things open software is supposed to eliminate?
Why fight yet another religous war?
Who cares if RMS wants to rant about a name?
free speech means that you are free to speak (if you so choose). it most definately does not mean that your speech is free (whether you like it or not).
now i've forgotten how i was going to explain that. oh well.