Slashdot Mirror
Feature:On the Subject of RMS
The Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English defines ``eccentric'' to mean ``peculiar; not normal''. Is RMS eccentric? Yes, most definitly. He has got a meaning in his life and this alone would make him eccentric. True, he is also peculiar in many other ways. Who else would carry around his battered computer in a cloth bag? He does not care about what people think; he is on a mission. A mission to create a completely free operating system for everyone to use.
In his ideal world, all software is free software and sharing your code with your neighbor is standard practice. RMS lived in this world for some time when he was active around the AI lab on MIT. In some ways he lives in that world still. He is an eccentric idealist with a mission. It is not so surprising that normal people look at him strangely.
Someone once said to me that to be a hacker, you had to give up your normal life. Not true. There is a strong line between beeing a hacker and beeing a socially unfit hacker. Hackers like RMS, Alan Cox and Linus Torvalds are very clearly not socially unfit.
A few years ago, Linus got married with his wife Tova and they now have several kids. Alan Cox is married to Telsa (more commonly known as ``hobbit'' after her login name and email address). Even RMS had a sweetheat once named Alix. They eventually broke up, but that could have been for any reason. Neither I nor you have any business questioning what a hacker does on his private time. In many cases, I have a feeling we really do not want to know.
Hating, or atleast disliking, RMS has become a gimmick, much like hating Bill Gates and Windows. Linus Torvalds has managed to stay clear of that area by avoiding politics. When we judge Linus, we do it only by his coding. When we judge RMS, we do not do it based on his coding skills but rather on how his philosophical ideas differs from ours. I suppose that if Linus would get himself mixed up in these philosophical discussions, he too would be judged accordingly. It is fine that Linus does not do this as long as we all remember that we should not compare him with RMS the way most people do.
Free SoftwareWhen we speak of free software we speak of the right to study the program, distribute the program freely and improve the program with your own code. You do not need to do this, and many people probably do not even want to study how the program works or make their own improvements. But would it not be nice to know that you have that option?
Should you care? I think you should, but neither I, RMS or anyone else can force you to. We will try to get your attention to what we feel is important, but you don't have to follow us blindly. We want you to read our texts on philosophy and come to your own conclusion. If after you have read what we've written, you decide to walk some other path, we do not stop you. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html is a good start. Read what is written there and then come back here.
I do not think the BSD license is a good idea, nor do I think that the artistic license is a good idea. However, I'm accepting that people want to use them because their values in life differs from mine. I dislike those licenses because I do not agree with the philosophical issues of them. The same way as when I vote, I do not vote for the socialistic party because I do not agree with their philosophical issues.
Thinking that everyone in the whole world could agree to one specific license would be naive. Unless we all suddenly start to think very much the same, that will not happen. RMS knows this. I know this. The BSD followers know this. Everyone should know this. Frankly, would you want to live in a world where everyone thought the same way?
When I was writing this, I got an email from someone who had read about me on my home page. The core of the email was "I find you interesting because you are not normal." For me, that is a great compliment.
I will not go any further on the philosophical issues. For me, it is enough that everyone is happy with whatever license they choose.
The Free Software FoundationThe Free Software Foundation has worked to support free software for 15 years now. The main project is the GNU project which aims at developing a completely free operating system. At least some of you should notice that 15 years is a very long time. Proprietary software companies get out new versions of their programs and operating systems almost every other year. What has taken the GNU system so long?
When RMS started out to create the GNU system, he began by publishing the GNU Emacs which is the standard text editor in the GNU system. He then needed a compiler, so he made the GNU C Compiler and the GNU Debugger. Pretty soon, there were utilities available for most standard tasks but you still needed a kernel to run them. So the GNU project started writing the GNU Hurd which is a kernel based on Mach.
While we were working on the GNU Hurd, Linus Torvalds released his Linux kernel and when people combined this kernel with the finished GNU utilities, they got a free operating system. For the first time, someone could run a completely free Linux-based GNU system. But it was still a system made by hackers, for hackers. To correct this, we sponsored the early development of the Debian GNU/Linux distribution which should enable everyone to use this Linux-based GNU system.
It might have taken some time to get this system done, but you should never rush software development. Doing so would result in bad coding and a bad design. We do what we think has to be done in order to create a completely free operating system; and we do it in our own time.
LinuxLinux is a great kernel and I use it every day. I will probably keep using it on some computers even after I switch to the Hurd. But it is important that people remember what Linux is; a kernel. It's not a complete system and it's not fair to the community to call it that. As a developer and user of both Linux, Hurd and the GNU utilities, I feel it is important that people understand the difference. Noone should come to me asking for help with the GNU Emacs just because I have said that I work with Linux; they should ask me for help because I have said that I am using several tools from the GNU system.
To help everyone understand this, I have made it a habit of calling my system a Linux-based GNU-system, in short a GNU/Linux system. This is not because I only use GNU-utilities, it is because I use programs that are part of the GNU system. Some people argue that XFree86 should be given as much credit as the GNU system. Those people do not understand that by calling my system a GNU/Linux system, I give credit not only to the GNU project but also to XFree86. Why? Because the XFree86 has been adopted by the GNU project for use in the GNU system, as has Lynx been which I use almost daily. So by calling it a GNU/Linux system I give credit to every program which are part of--or has been adopted by--the GNU project.
The specific name is not really important, though some people might want to think so. The importance is to give credit to the GNU project where credit is due. One way to do so is by calling the system a GNU/Linux system, but there are many more ways to do it and only your imagination will limit them.
Hmmm, I don't know exactly why we all should call it GNU/Linux just because GNU has adopted XFree86 as their windowing system? Instead why don't FSF make their own Linux distro and call it GNU/Linux? But there's no reason to call RedHat Linux for RedHat GNU/Linux.
Well I guess Debian comes pretty close to what FSF wants, and it is even called Debian GNU/Linux.
But I am *NEVER* going to refer the Linux as GNU/Linux when referring to the Linux OS.
This entire GNU/Linux/HURD/*BSD thing is making me dizzy. I really wonder what goes through the mind of someone who visits this site for the first time and reads THAT article. Myself, I think I'm going to become a member so I can filter out the GNU stuff.
Don't get me wrong... I like GNU stuff. I like Linux stuff, too. I just don't like reading about all the poo-poo wars over something that will be seen as trivial a year from now.
The Linux operating system does use lots of GNU tools, that's true, but, as it is distributed today, they are not the only ones being used. Red Hat's installation tools are not from GNU, neither are Debian's. Nor are the RPM and DEB package formats GNU. I can go on and on.
Stallman needs to pull his head out of his butt. Without the LINUX kernel, he would just be another pointy-headed chowd programmer from Bahstun who thinks he knows everything while making his living from "research grants" aka "academic welfare."
The sad part is that I happen to agree with a lot of his ideas, but he needs to quit being a dick about them. Nobody is going to listen to a guy with the personality of a brick in flight.
So all you have to do to get credit is get "adopted by the GNU project for use in the GNU system?" And just as soon as we run the Linux kernel over with Hurd all the confusion will go away.
Am I the first to coin the term "GNUcentric?"
Unlike much government-funded software, the GNU SW is not available for use by those that paid for it, unless they are willing to invect the product of their own work with the GPL virus.
I've wondered about this. Is a system defined by it's kernel, or by it's utilities, or both... The idea behind GNU/Linux is for recognition of the GNU effort in llinux distributions.
What if I had a MS DOS system in which I removed all the utilities from the dos directory and put my own in. Is it still MS DOS? I would say it is. What if I added a complete line of GNU utilities to it, is it GNU/MS DOS? I don't think so.
Systems are defined by what "operating system" is running the show. Even though this can be a small part of the system, it is the most significant. Linux is a great OS. It benefits greatly from the GNU utilities, but it is still Linux. I don't think calling it Linux takes away from the efforts of the GNU folks, but I do think it takes away from the recognition of what Linux is by forcing others to call it GNU/Linux.
You can go the other way too. Most of the free software available was written for Linux, by developers who use the Linux name.
The HURD is in fact using the Linux TCP/IP stack, the Linux filesystem, and the Linux hardware drivers. Therefore, giving credit where credit is due, one must call any system based on the HURD a "HURD-based Linux system", or Linux/HURD for short.
I've seen this "completely free" phrase several times lately. Apparently"Free" (as in freedom) wasn't stretching the truth far enough, although I don't know how any reasonable person can read the GPL and think that "free" applies. But "completely free"? That's evidence of either flat-out attempts at practicing "The Big Lie" or the kind of delusion that befalls zeolots.
Shame on those that practice it and on those that accede to it.
Hey, access to source code, cool! Non-dupication of effort, great! Creation of innovative software (where are Unix clones and C/C++ apps innovative??), excellent! Devaluating the hard work, blood and tears of fellow programmers, no way!
So we give the dummies/droids/yuppies free software. What do we get in return?
Either _everybody_ switches to communism, or forget it!
And what about the marketing, Linux sounds cool, easy to remember and to pronounce.
otherwise you get the Freex86openriscBSD problem.
For linuxadvocacy it would be a disaster to change the name.
tage@linux.nu
Compilers, debuggers, libraries, CASE tools, even OSes.
But no apps. No end-user tools should be given away (eg: GIMP).
People should be able to pay not only with money or programming, but also by writing documentation, for example.
I doubt they object either, but at the same time they're hardly FSF supporters. Most of the XFree86 team appears to be highly opposed to the GPL and RMS' ideology.
Fine. Linux now adopts Xfree86 and GNU and everything else. Now it is okay to just call it "Linux" and everything else is implied.
Seems to me that you either give credit to All that are reasonably involved, or you let the credit be implied. The term Linux implies credit to whoever else deserves it - like it or not. If you want to argue then let's start calling it BSD/GNU/Linux/Xfree86 (in alphabetical order of credit, of course). Yes, there are BSD utilities in use on my box, how about yours?
Who are they forcing? They are just asking us to call it GNU/Linux. Introducing the idea and promoting it are good. That's is exactly what they are doing.
Azul, who is in his brother's 'puter and forgot his password.
LGPL is more egalitarian than the GPL. Now
RMS is preaching against its use. You don't need to look too far to see that the FSF has gone out of control..
Judging from the history of free software, Marx was right: he was just off-target by a couple of industrial revolutions. (And you can forget that Lenin fellow, with his ideas about vanguard parties.)
-- charlie at antipope dot org
Great idea! Is this pronounced lin~ux?
Nanotechnology will be at least as expensive to develop as biotech if only because of the need for FDA (or equivalent) approval.
`gray goo' is scarier than `The End' or any similar bio-inspired movies.
How is this different from e.g RedHat adopting GNU? When someone refers to the system as RedHat Linux, they are, by your logic, crediting GNU since RedHat has adopted GNU.
I believe that conveys the point - I don't run M$!
I know yours was probably a joke but this is what is scaring: Most people nowadays use GNU/Linux (or however you call it) merely because it doesn't crash as often as most propietary operating systems (ie. Windows). That's sad. GNU/Linux is not just a bugless version of Windows. Puhlease! When RMS asks us to call it GNU/Linux he is not doing to get creddit for himself but to remember everyone the realle important difference between GNU/Linux and the propietary operating systems: Freedom.
The fact that it is rock solid and lightning fast is just a consequence, as Eric Raymond pointed out.
Azul, who forgot his password and is in his brother's computer.
Damn I never really thought about it but its true. They got a free ride and now act pious about it. The Bastards.
Thanks for bringing this up. Its important.
If this were true, we'd be telling J.Random Newbie the story of the Free Software Foundation. Instead, most seem to want to hide it like a dirty little secret.
And windows is easy to say too.
If Linus T. is the 'spokesman' and the 'spokesman' has said the official name is GNU/Linux, than thats the offical name.
Like Minnesota Mining and Manufactoring is the offical name of 3M.
Face it, you are just being lazy.
Apparently the lesson RMS should learn from Linus is not to have an meaningful goal, because then people will go out of their way to avoid helping with it.
But I don't understand why it seems obvious to you and others that the GNU project is the only one that deserves explicit recognition at the name level. Why, for example, not XFree86, BSD, etc? What am I missing here?
This anonymous coward is Tom Morrisette.
How would that be any different from now, when most stridently refuse to even mention the name when describing their system?
The problem is that it's not a GNU system. The Linux operating system includes a number of tools and utilities. Granted, some are GNU. But you have to consider that many of the tools included are from other sources. Others could be replaced from other sources if so desired.
What we really have is the Linux OS + GNU + XF86 + BSD + Redhat/Debian/Slackware/Stampede/others + Many others.
To say that, for example, XF86 doesn't need acknowlegement because it has been adopted by GNU/FSF is absolutely absurd.
Also absurd is the idea that the name is the place to give due credit. Take this example: if someone asks what types of systems I have, I say "I have Linux and Win95". I would never say "I have GNU/XF86/.../Linux and Corel/Borland/Netscape/id/Windows" One thing I will grant you is that I occasionally say "MS Windows" but only because MS created the *OS*.
Despite the fact that most of my (other) system *as a whole* is, in fact, NOT MS or Windows, I still call it Windows because *that* is the OS. If the person wants to hear about my tools/utilities, then I'll tell them my word processor is Corel, and my compiler is Borland, my games are id, and my browser is Netscape. Likewise, if the person wants to know about my Linux tools/utilities, I'll tell them I use gcc, XF86, Emacs, etc. It is here where the credit for GNU belongs.
As others have said, if you want a GNU/Linux distribution, then make your own and call it GNU/Linux. We have made our own and called them Linux, please respect that.
If the lower score was for the atrocious spelling and grammar, it was well deserved.
You claim you do, but you won't say the name. How do you meet your responsibility for spreading the word?
Did Corel's crusade to create a truly free OS give rise to the creation of your truly free OS?
Code should be judged on meeting its specs. Licenses should be judged on the rights and responsibilities they guarantee. Humans should be judged on their goals.
I think it is ashame that RMS wants so much credit for cloning the work of others.
Ron
We can't have their code at all, but they can have ours for free? Come on - LGPL is just corporate welfare.
To emphasize its essential quality. After all, what DOS does (very little), it does fairly well.
What's the point of advocating Linux without advocating Free Software? That's just M$-bashing, and we have more important things to do.
IMHO, RMS really cares about personal credit. He's really upset that the FSF and the ethical argument for Free Software are being ignored and forgotten.
He doesn't want to be paid with money, he wants to be paid with credit.
So, is it being altruistic when he gives up on something he doesn't care about (money)? Or is he (unknowingly) exploiting other people to gain his place in history?
Maybe idealistic people are being misled into wasting their anonymous lives in another Revolution, for the glory of their leaders, and against the greed of the establishment?
I think he was pronouncing the syllable "/".
If you won't stoop to actually uttering the name in public, what are you doing to spread their ideas and give them credit?
No, but you can see a great deal of Linus in Linux and a great deal of GNU in RMS.
A corporation can run its G$ operations on GNU
software, modified or not internally (even if you say they are `distributing' inside, that would mean the source would have to be available to their internal customers, but then their employment contracts mught forbid the individuals all exports of software (this does not contradict the GPL)).
Meanwhile, two guys with a little shoestring operation cannot use 2 routines from some GPLed library.
Nice, eh?
GPL emulates RMS' ideal world, in which those rights would not exist.
RMS wants to spread knowledge of the FSF and the ethical argument for Free Software, not his own name.
You could say Red Hat made an OS.
In the beginning it was SLS and MCC.
Then came Slackware.
What did GNU do? They made components.
What matters? The compiler and the license.
Everything else is available from BSD.
The compiler and license are no more important
than the kernel, which the FSF has yet to produce.
(oh, maybe 42 people run the Hurd)
"...the first truly free BSD source release..."
Obviously people will argue the phrase "truly free", but the BSD license existed and was used on code developed at Berkeley before they purged the code base of AT&T derived code. You may not have been able to trivially use it without the AT&T code, but it was available. The same goes for many GNU tools, without the OS enviroment things like gcc, gdb, emacs, etc. are all useless. Sure they are easier to make useable on a new platform than, for example, the BSD IP stack, but they are not stand alone.
HA! Gnu adopted the Xfree86 project. Next thing you know RMS and his band of idiots will start inisting we call it the GNU/Internet, and make claims that the internet wouldn't be what it is today without GNU products. Heh, yeah: just as linux is *just* a kernel, and the presence of GNU products made it an *OS*, then certainly the internet prior to GNU products was just raw bandwidth. Please. These guys really are starting to annoy me.
If it's your code, you can release it under as many licenses as you want. If it's somebody else's code, you can only refuse to release source if their goals (which seem to differ from yours) permit that.
I'm not an altruist, and my labor is not a corporate subsidy. I do not give aid and comfort to hoarders. I'm fair- if you derive from my published code, you must publish your code in return.
(And the Qt license was despised because the rhetoric around KDE implied rights that weren't there. Otherwise Qt would be just another expensive half-proprietary toolkit.)
Considering the FSF's apparent opposition to intellectual property, doesn't it seem strange that they want to claim the idea of a "free unix"? The entire justification for calling Linux, GNU/Linux is that the idea and primary components of a free unix were specificed (not necessarily implemented by) the GNU project and the FSF. So, if they truly believe in the freedom from IP that they preach, why do they want to claim credit for the idea? I would bet that RMS isn't the first person who decided that he would like to have a free unix, probably every hacker in the late 70s and early 80s had the idea that it would be nice to run unix at home.
When RMS says it, it sounds rather like a demand to me.
Hmm... so I guess you like RMS so much that everything he says is an order in your eyes, although it's meant as a suggestion ?
>I assume that you want to give the GNU project credit, otherwise this discussion is just silly.
Of course, gcc was essential to the development of Linux, and the rest of the tools are extremely useful. The question is how is this credit to be given.
IMHO, a good way to give credit to something is calling it by its name... so call that system "GNU", don't call it "Linux"... BTW, I don't like that past form ("gcc was essential")... it still is one of the most essential parts of the system
>So when you then call a system "Linux", you assume that all users will automatically pick up on and understand that there are quite a few GNU utilities they are using.
Don't be absurd.
Now this is a reply I really don't understand. You're actually saying this perfect reasoning is "absurd" ?
When I say Linux, people who have never heard of it before don't instantly think of GNU. Nor do they think of Linus, Alan Cox, the X project, BSD, etc. It's a name, not a list of credits. Yes, the name is derived from Linus's name, but that seems more an accident of history, not an attempt by Mr. Torvalds to usurp all the credit.
Well... that's exactly why you shouldn't call it "Linux"... The name "GNU" covers the entire system, and people will instantly know what they're using. It might be interesting to add "/Linux" to the name, so the name of the kernel is known too. After all, the kernel is an important part of the system, maybe the most important piece of it.
The GNU/Hurd project has been assisted greatly by the existence of Linux (at least if the FSF goal of using free software rather than proprietary is being followed). Yet there is no insistence that it be called Linux/GNU/Hurd, nor will there be.
The number of users of the GNU system has increased a lot because of the Linux kernel. That's a fact. There are no legal reasons why the system should still be called "GNU". After all, the General Public License implies that distributions can use software of the GNU project without annoying forced credits or copyright messages such as you can see in the BSD license.
However, I do think that the people who wrote the software can choose how it's called. And I mean the people who wrote the essential things, not just everybody who wrote some application. XFree86 isn't essential. Netscape isn't essential. Even Gnome isn't essential =).
Linus doesn't care. His point of view is that the name doesn't matter. A lot of hackers do care however. They want to add "GNU" to the name. I'm tired of these boring discussions, but I just don't understand why you want to call it "Linux" without the "GNU/"... The only real reason to call it "Linux" it because that's shorter. However, you can pronounce "GNU" as "gnoo" instead of "G - N - U" so i don't think it's a real problem. After all, what's the most difficult thing to say : "Mi - cro - soft Win - dows nine - ty - fi - ve" or "gnoo / li - nux"...
WildeBeast [wilde_beast@usa.net
aka Jon Sneyers
GNU/Linux, (>) Copyleft 1999 - All Rights Reversed.
Didn't he resign from MIT and avoid writing GNU on their time, just so that they wouldn't own it? Doesn't that mean they did not pay for it?
The way I like to put it: Project GNU is RMS and friends laboring for a decade making tools they'd need to make a completely Free Software system. Linus and friends wrote a kernel, used Project GNU's tools, and - surprise! - made a completely Free Software system. But it, um, isn't GNU. Right.
You have exercised the right to do that. Nobody thinks they can stop you. Why do you want respect for concealing its origins?
nobody
is
forcing
anybody.
forcing everyone to say "GNU/" is just plain silly (and a bit late).
more than once, i have actually physically injured myself by laughing so hard at people who post stuff like this -- and it seems to happen most in response to RMS and GNU. every time anybody at GNU says anything, dozens of angry villagers carrying torches pop out of the woodwork to flame them -- but most of them flame things that were never said.
it's amazing.
remember the GPL/LGPL announcement a while back? everybody was livid about how glibc was going to be GPL'd! and they posted reams of this dreck on the very same page as an announcement from richard stallman where richard stallman said in very strong terms that glibc would remain under the LGPL -- in fact, he brought up the subject of glibc only as a canonical example of something that would, and should, always remain under the LGPL.
so, RMS may well be a pain in the ass, and while I don't often agree with his views. on the other hand, RMS is coherent and rational -- while most of his self-appointed nemeses can't read, can't think, and don't care to learn.
Well, RMS does advocate the end of intellectual property, which would of course change things. I'll support this when we have an alternate way to make sure all our authors get paid.
I run GNU, with a kernel from a bunch of ingrates.
The LGPL is indeed wonderful, and it isn't
limited to libraries. It strikes the perfect
balance between the BSD and GNU licenses.
Like the BSD license, others can link with
your code.
Like the GPL, nobody can produce a proprietary
version of your code.
This is good. This is freedom and fairness
in almost perfect balance.
If nano ever arrives, whoever invents it first can immediately control the world. Without blue goo, what's the FDA going to do about it?
He wants to spread the ethical Free Software meme, not his own name.
When did he claim to be an altruist? I thought he did the work because users need rights they don't have, simply because somebody must.
Let alone... The X Consortium.
I have a new system using my new interface called BOB. It sits on top of the Linux kernel, uses XF386, GNU tools and other tools like Lynx.
I have made it a habit of calling my system a Linux-based BOB-system, in short a BOB/Linux system. This is not because I only use BOB-utilities, it is because I use programs that are part of the BOB system. Some people argue that XFree86 and GNU should be given as much credit as the BOB system. Those people do not understand that by calling my system a BOB/Linux system, I give credit not only to the BOB project but also to XFree86 and GNU. Why? Because the XFree86 and GNU have been adopted by the BOB project for use in the BOB system, as has Lynx been which I
use almost daily. So by calling it a BOB/Linux system I give credit to every program which are part of--or has been adopted by--the BOB project.
-Bill
Yes! Talk about freedom. Spread the word. Convince the people you talk to to spread the word further. The name is simply the easiest way to do that.
"I've heard a number of people mispronounce the word Linux, but that seems to be happening less and less."
:P
oh man -- no you're really starting a flamewar.
the almighty linus himself hath proclaimed that there is no single correct pronunciation of linux.
You mean Subterranean-African Person.
IMHO this simply isn't true anymore. It's really easy to install a kernel, utils, X, and start using apps without seeing "GNU" or "FSF", at least in ways that don't lead you to think they're pointless cryptic TLAs talking about your hardware. Unlike shrinkwrap licenses, you don't have to agree to the GPL just to run the code; Joe User doesn't have to read anything important and never hears about the rights he's been given unless he reads /. in detail. It's a shame. (Sure, hackers see licenses, but hackers already knew what the FSF is about.)
Because the people who do know can't be bothered to talk about it. Freedom is being forgotten and it's our fault.
Gnu my ass
It's not in THAT article, but I can point to /. which mentions that
an article referenced on
RMS would not even allow a person to present
a question unless he used "GNU/Linux".
Think "free" as in free speech.
BTW: It's ironic that RMS fights so hard for
us to have free software, then turns around and
screams because we freely name that free software.
If that's what he wanted, he should have updated
the GPL to include a clause "You have to name it
what I say, or I'm gonna fuss and kick and scream"
GNU deserves plenty of credit, GNU gets plenty of
credit. But RMS' uphill battle to rename a popular
OS is NOT helpful --neither philosophically nor
politically.
Please note that none of this comment is intended to belittle the work of anyone. I have a great deal of respect for the efforts of RMS, Linus, and many others who have created "free software". But as someone who is at least older than many of those active in this community (I was in one of those 1% categories in the poll on age), it seems worth commenting on "ideas whose time have come" and some history.
While the GNU project has produced many outstanding pieces of software, many of which I use every day, there have been a lot of other sources of free software. Even a decade ago, the SIMTEL archives were extensive. Dr. Dobbs' Journal has published source code, much of placed in the public domain, for a very long time. Before their were ISPs and general access to the Internet, there were networks of bulletin-board systems that distributed code. Free software was an idea whose time started when personal computers got cheap enough that programmers could own their own.
The gcc suite is outstanding. However, it wasn't the only, or as I recall, even one of the first free C compilers available. The fact that gcc turned out to be so good probably led to the demise of some of the "competition". Who wants to spend nights and weekends extending your own compiler when gcc already does it better? I would argue that free compilers were also an idea whose time arrived early on, and that if gcc had never existed, there would still have been free compilers adequate to Linus' original task.
Personally, I believe that a free UNIX-like OS is an idea whose time arrived with the Intel 80386 family of processors, the first cheap widely-available 32-bit parts with the necessary memory management hardware. The existance of Linux and the whole *BSD* family seems sufficient to demonstrate that. Linus may have been first, and possibly best, but if he hadn't done it someone else would have and I would still have something that looks, walks and quacks like UNIX in my office at home.
Michael Cain
So the corp. can improve the software themselves, or hire anyone competent to do so, and isn't locked into whatever a vendor feels like doing with it. These are Good Things.
And the shoestring operation that wants to make more proprietary garbage has to do their own work, because the library author believes helping them would be wrong. Unless you're one of those two guys, this is also a Good Thing.
You're blaming the license because you don't like the adherents' goals, namely marginalizing proprietary software.
Here's what the "FreeLinux" (Tom Christiansen) thing is about:
Stallman said something that Tom Christiansen doesn't feel like hearing. It's unpopular with a lot of other people, too.
Christiansen, being a reasonable person, must therefore punish Stallman. After all, you can't go around saying unpopular things, can you? Christiansen has a perfectly sensible desire to exert total control over the public statements of everybody in the free software community.
So Tom Christiansen wants to get the whole community together to "shun" Stallman and the FSF until Stallman obediently recites whatever party line Christiansen approves of. He wants to show Stallman who's boss.
This is "justified" by some talk about how by speaking his mind, Stallman is "forcing" people to do what he wants. Indeed, if Stallman were in some way forcing people to say "GNU" every time they said "Linux", that would be a problem -- but Stallman is not trying to force anybody to do that, and he would not be able to force anybody to do that even if he tried. Both of those facts are so obvious and well-known that to ignore them may as well be taken as a deliberate declaration of dishonest intent.
In short, Tom Christiansen feels that his mission in life is to silence dissent. Stallman seems to thrive on debate; this is a large part of why he's so damned annoying. Christiansen, by contrast, believes that debate must be stamped out wherever it appears. He's a McCarthyite. When people disagree with Stallman, he talks and talks and talks and talks. When people disagree with Christiansen, he flames them, throws a fit, and (so I hear) bans them from the perl IRC channel -- or applies whatever other sanctions he may have at his disposal.
Do we need this?
Free software politics are bad enough. A free software Politburo is not acceptable.
Yeah who needs another os? I'm still running TOPS-20 on my PDP-7 sitting right next to my Honeywell. 1960's forever man! As a matter of fact I say we enforce strict laws against those dirty kernel hackers. Every time someone is caught working on a new kernel they get one limb severed. I can't wait until they catch Linus on his fourth offense, typing with his one remaining leg. :)
we're just sharpening our claws on each other so we can rip anyone who attacks us from outside to shreds.
The Free Software Foundation (FSF) has for quite a while now been arguing that the operating system known as Linux should rightfully be called GNU/Linux.
Their reasoning is that the FSF was on a mission to create a "free" Unix system, and since Linus Torvalds used the GNU utilities to help create his Linux kernel, credit should be given to the FSF.
First, Linus himself stated that he was not interested in making a "free" Unix, he was interested in creating a version of Unix that would run on his 386!
Second, the FSF argument that every system or program "adopted" by the GNU project is automatically given credit - XFree86 and Lynx are among the more notable programs the GNU project lists as "adopted" and therefore given credit - is ludicrious. Linus can say that by calling his system Linux, he gives credit to all GNU programs used plus any others he used.
Thirdly, Nowhere in the GNU Public License (GPL) does it state that the use of the program (and license) forces the creator of the program to call it something specific. If Linus wanted to call his code "Nepalese Yak Code", he would certainly be within his rights to do so.
Lastly, the point cannot be underscored enough that just because the FSF had an idea to create a 100% "free" Unix system, if someone comes along and actually creates it and is a member of the FSF, the FSF cannot claim it to be theirs! Linus was not a member of the FSF in 1991; it is highly likely that he, being in Finland at the time, did not even know of its existence!
The bottom line is that creator of a software gets to name that software. Linus was the original architect of the program, he used tools to help him in his quest for a new kernel. If Joe User uses Microsoft Visual C++ to create a program, Microsoft does not get to name the program, nor do they own the rights to the code. The FSF did not create Linux, therefore they get NO say in the naming of the program.
The Free Software Foundation (FSF) has for quite a while now been arguing that the operating system known as Linux should rightfully be called GNU/Linux.
Their reasoning is that the FSF was on a mission to create a "free" Unix system, and since Linus Torvalds used the GNU utilities to help create his Linux kernel, credit should be given to the FSF.
First, Linus himself stated that he was not interested in making a "free" Unix, he was interested in creating a version of Unix that would run on his 386!
Second, the FSF argument that every system or program "adopted" by the GNU project is automatically given credit - XFree86 and Lynx are among the more notable programs the GNU project lists as "adopted" and therefore given credit - is ludicrious. Linus can say that by calling his system Linux, he gives credit to all GNU programs used plus any others he used.
Thirdly, Nowhere in the GNU Public License (GPL) does it state that the use of the program (and license) forces the creator of the program to call it something specific. If Linus wanted to call his code "Nepalese Yak Code", he would certainly be within his rights to do so.
Lastly, the point cannot be underscored enough that just because the FSF had an idea to create a 100% "free" Unix system, if someone comes along and actually creates it and is not a member of the FSF, the FSF cannot claim it to be theirs! Linus was not a member of the FSF in 1991; it is highly likely that he, being in Finland at the time, did not even know of its existence!
The bottom line is that creator of a software gets to name that software. Linus was the original architect of the program, he used tools to help him in his quest for a new kernel. If Joe User uses Microsoft Visual C++ to create a program, Microsoft does not get to name the program, nor do they own the rights to the code. The FSF did not create Linux, therefore they get NO say in the naming of the program.
Its funny that the author mentions that he has come to terms with the fact that people can have different opinions on licenses and he can't change their minds, but he thinks he can change people's minds on what to call Linux. First, its a linguistic thing, GNU/Linux is 5 syllables, compared to 2 of just Linux. Secondly, as everyone else has said, GNU's contribution, while great, isn't the majority of the system. GNU is just alienating itself from its supporters by attempting to impose this name change. People who use Linux do eventually find out they are using GNU componenets. The damn licsence is blastered everywhere. At one point or anther they will see it adn they will recognize the FSF. Recognition of the FSF is present in the current nomenclature. The only reason remaining for a name change is an ego problem. And lets face it all human actions are based on simple motivations, in Mr. Stallman's case, its his bloated ego (almost as bloated as Emacs).
GNU/Linux is quite a mouthfull. It's not catchy. Still, to appease the needs of RMS for GNU to be properly recognized, and to promote free software generally, many Linux distributions officially include GNU in their Distribution name
For example, Debian GNU/Linux and Stampede GNU/Linux. Perhaps others do or will do the same. They should..This is important in several ways. Mostly, it emphasizes the GPL licensing of the distribution and of Linux generally. This needs to be emphasized "officially" by distributions and others.
For us to feel obligated to use the name "GNU/Linux" in email, converstation and other informal give and take, and in representing Linux to the general public, is absurd. Doing so will not help GNU in its quest to free as much software as possible, and will not help get Linux and other GLP products into the hands of more people or keep free software free. Free software is not really free so long as it is only usable by professional programmers and sysadmins and is not in the hands of the public at large in a form they can use.
The simple name "Linux" is catchy. It is already widely recongized by people who have never used unix or Linux but who may now give it a try now. Let's not confuse them and turn them off with a forced, phony-sounding name-change, even if the motivations by those who want that change are sincere.
a house divided will fall.
It sure is. He has the nerve to pull off this naming stunt while criticizing the BSD advertising clause.
If Stallman's not interested in publicity, then why isn't he insisting that the various BSD flavors be called GNU/FreeBSD, GNU/NetBSD, etc. All of these use just as much GNU code as Linux.
The reason is, in my opinion, because *BSD doesn't have the media exposure and popularity as Linux and, therefore, RMS doesn't give a damn.
What's important to acknowledge is that the system is Free Software and its users have real rights. People just hear "Linux" and all they know is that it doesn't cost anything.
How, exactly? The community hides them every chance they get! They certainly wouldn't lower themselves to using the name in public.
Agreed on both points. I've never tried any *BSD but I think the press shows how completely ignorant they are by focusing on "Linux". They obviously don't understand why free software is important, instead most journalists just jump on whatever the currently hyped bandwagon is. The fact is that the world probably wouldn't be any different now if Linux didn't exist. The same thing doesn't hold true if the GNU or BSD projects never existed.
>Is America named after Columbus? No. That's just >too bad.
:-))
Erh... No, it was actually named after Amerigo Vespucci, who didn't discover America, but (IIRC) funded Columbus
Hehehe, makes you think, right?
>To call it GNU/Linux we also make people aware of some greater things than just a cheap OS, it's about so much more.
Who's GNU?
so you think , just because the GNU project was the first attempt to create a "free software" operating system, that gave the GNU project the right to have its GNU name on any other "free software operating system" project? I didn't know that the GNU project has a monopoly on the "free software" operating system.
Not when dick publically bitch people around in public (remember GNOME launch) until they say gnulix. That's what I call verbal force.
so you have a gnu/linux/gnu/linux/...-->infinity/ :)
.../linux/gnu/linux/gnu/linux system. make sure to get the biggest HDs in the world to install it.
More moderator abuse. This comment also appears to have been moderated back to zero for no valid reason. It is well and truly on topic, not abusive. Geez, it's not even particularly opinionated!
Comment returned to its rightful place.
CT will be mailed with the CID
so, Jonas, can you show us the paperwork that said XFree86 is part of the GNU system?
so we can filter out whiners like this...
well, I guess you can, but it really shouldn't happen. Maybe english is a second language or something... people should be looking at the message conveyed and not blasting people for errors that are not essential to communication.
Umm, linux is based on a monolithic kernel...
NT is based on a microkernel...
But I suppose you don't care, it's okay to misrepresent the facts and spread FUD as long as it's against microsoft.
Heh, damn right...
Linux is Linux people there is no bullshit GNU/Linux, without Linux where would GNU be?? Just because someone uses Linux as an webserver running apache only does not mean it is Apache/GNU/Linux, thats just retarded to even consider so drop the GNU and get on with your lives there are better things to discuss and complain about...
To add more content to this,
here's a conversation I had with RMS:
From: ac42@sdot.com (A. C.)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 11:36:03 -0800
To: rms@gnu.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: GNU/Linux vs. Linux
----
Rich,
Why do you feel compelled to demand name recognition for GNU software in the Linux OS name,
but not the author/origin of the other 67%?
-ac
----
> Sender: owner-linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
> From: Richard Stallman
> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 18:17:02 -0700 (MST)
> To: ac42@sdot.com
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
> Subject: Re: GNU/Linux vs. Linux
> -----
> My pants are getting rusty.
>
> the restriction applyed is that you cant apply a restriction. you fail to see this?
That's one of many I see. Read the thing, please.
I think you're mistaken about this. 'GNU Tools' were not just added to Linux to make a complete system; Linux was written to be usable with existing software, including both that from the FSF and from many other sources. This is how a complete GNU system became possible - by scrapping together software from all over, like a patchwork quilt. No one peice is overly important, not the compiler (or anything else from the FSF), or the kernel, or a windowing system -- What's important is that there *is* a quilt. And that exists because of GNU.
Richard has always stressed the reason for it being GNU/Linux to him is to remind people they are part of a bigger community. One that predates Linux by about 30 years. I guess it doesn't really matter whether you think of it as GNU/Linux, OpenSource/Linux or FreeSoftware/Linux. What is important is to remember Linux is one piece of the Open Source/Free Software world. True Linux shines above many others in scale of achievement - but so does Gimp, so does gcc.
Im probably the only person who did a public Linux port - the beginnings of anyway (Linux 8086) to a platform without gcc, gnu utils and glibc. You
suddenely realise what you are missing then.
Maybe Richard's method isnt idea, but his intention is good.
Alan
Screw this. I'm going back to my Amiga.
At least that way I know when I say, "Amiga" I know that I'm referring to the whole machine. Of course, no one else will have any idea what I'm referring to, but that's their problem...
Jones Oberg writes:
" I might have taken some time to get this system done, but you should never rush software
development. Doing so would result in bad coding and a bad design. We do what we think
has to be done in order to create a completely free operating system; and we do it in our
own time."
The cathedral and the bazaar!
It has been well shown that a micro kernel brings little advantage to an OS, but degrades
performance.
If "our own time" ever sees the linux/HERD delivered it will lose the benchmarks.
If "out own time" ever sees the linux/HERD delivered in will not have mind share.
If "our own time" ever sees the linux/HERD it will still be controlled by the cathedral development model, development will still just plod along, upgrades coming in " our own time".
It looks as if a surviving Unix will have to implement the linux API. No doubt the linux/HERD will do so.
Why would you use it? Is it going to be faster? Is it going to be more reliable? Is it going to offer more software? Or is it the name? I think the FSF needs to start asking some hard questions. We have started so we may as well finish is not really a sound argument.
The cathedral has lost, the bazaar has delivered. Why is the cathedral still trying to create a "completely free operating system"? What do they think it will offer that linux doesn't?
Why are there solders coming down the road insisting we change the name of the bazaar, to that of the cathedral?
control. Period. Whether GPL, BSD, MPL or whatever. Anyone who releases code runs the risk of losing her baby.
If you turn your code over to the public then it's mob rule. Not to say it's a bad thing. But if you have a vision that's not compatible with the mob, you are lost. If you're a good leader, the mob will tend to rally behind you. If not, well you know.
So RMS worked on this huge GNU project and lost control. Now he wants it back, or at least some recognition for his contribution. It's nice to want it, but if the mob won't give it to him, he should go home, massage his bruised ego and chalk it up to life. The culture has shifted and his black and white idealism no longer has a place.
Don't take this as advocacy for close source. What I'm saying is that when you release your code understand the implications. And if the code (and your mob) grow beyond or away from you, be prepared to adapt or let it go.
> Remember that there is always room for more than > one model, and everyone starts from a different > place.
Sadly, many fail to see this key point and insist that their way on (INSERT FLAMEBAIT HERE) the only way things should be done. Most often, the hybrid is the best (a lesson learned long ago by farmers).
heheh...I assume you mean "morals" and not "morels", otherwise, when did mushrooms become an issue? :)
On a more serious note:
The biggest problem comes about when the people who aren't in it for the money collide with those who are in it for the money (at least to a certain extent). Who is to say who is right and who is wrong? Neither group wants the other telling them how to do things, and yet somebody ends up having to make a decision and ends up pissing people off.
And what if you're one of those two guys, and you have a really high quality idea you want to implement, but want greater ROI than complementary emails? Remember: Not everyone is in it purely for the academic challenge.
I agree totally but thought I would add something.
I sometimes forget that RMS is the one who came up with emacs, gdb, and gcc,...all of which I use an enormous amount every day. How much of his code is left in the program _I_ am using is questionable (I am using egcs, XEmacs, and gdb), but he laid the foundation, and it must have been a very good one or I wouldn't be using some form of his program today.
Why do I forget? No, not because I call it Linux and not GNU/Linux, its because with all his complaining about it being GNU/Linux and not Linux,...what he has actually done is lost in the polatics. The more he tries to take credit for other's accomplishments, the more he removes the focus on what he DID accomplish. And yes he is doing that when he tries to call it GNU/Linux because simply put, GNU programs make up a very small portion of the programs used on the system (they may be one of the biggest contributers, but there are many).
If I wern't so bussy being so adamantly against him philosophically, I might think more about the program I am using..for now I have to remind myself sometimes.
Simply put, Linux is a mariad of programs from different sources,...and my Linux does not look like your Linux at all (mine is probably more BSD and X then GNU). Him claiming to have invented the idea of free software, and claiming to be the sole cause of Linux's existance is,..to put it in his words "just like, extreem."
Linus wanted to learn about the i386 hardware.
Later, he wanted a terminal program that he
could use to dial up his school. Next, he
needed to download and save files, so he wrote
a filesystem driver and an IDE driver.
Typing with his (hunt 'n) pecker
-anubis
>GNU/GPL makes sure that we continue to have >free systems
Don't be so naive. Even if someone uses the code in a propietary project, the original code is still there...
-T
What if the corporation does _not_ make any changes? They are just parasites. Meanwhile,
the little guys maybe would have used _and_ improved the library!
The problem is that saying "I am using a Linux-based GNU system or GNU/Linux in short" sounds like penny-shitting political overcorrectness and manic. It is extremely uncool. RMS will not understand this. People exposed to him for too long obviously won't either.
Of course, the correct way to say this without blasting on anyone's toes is to say
"I am running GNU on Linux".
Ignorance such as this is exactly why RMS started calling it GNU/Linux in the first place!
'Linux' is the name a CD vendor will choose to identify his product. The company could call the CD anything they like.
They just need something to identify what's in it.
By linux, they reflect:
- POSIX compliant Os.
- Binary compatibility with other 'linux' distributions.
Another good example is like:'linux/libc6'
AND NOT GNU/X/BSD/Linux
That is what we want. It could be 'CrappoSoft 1.3,
including linux kernel, GNU utils, blah blah'
That is not the way we pay respect to anyone.
If RMS wants to have respect paid to someone he should have the names of the major programmers who wrote gcc and other stuff in a visible place 'Hall of fame' thing and not hide them behind GNU.
Bye
Hey, wanna buy some Tommy bread|? Great looking designer loaves. Just think of the profit margins!
One of the beauties of the whole gpl software thing is that it can be:
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. - Hmm, NO!
From each according to his desires (limited by his abilities,) to each according to his wants (again possibly limited by his abilities.)
I believe we have to come up with a much better way to compare and contrast physical vs non-physical items. They are just different and our current thinking about intellectual property muddies the waters and leads to wonky situations!
A Nony Mouse
Well, as much as I might like to spend my money as I see fit, my friendly uncle, or his counterparts around the world, has friends with guns. If I don't give him my money to spend on my behalf, he sends them to look for me and take it from me to spend on my behalf.
A Nony Mouse
May as well get rid ouf your country's laws as well.
I see merrit in thinking about the issues you raise, but I think it goes a bit deeper.
There are also many old sayings that relate to the matter at hand.
Fight fire with fire.
Hoist by his own petard.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Sometimes, it is the very plans/devices/laws/etc which oppressors desigh to keep us down which trap them instead.
A Nony Mouse
Now, what I really said:
The point is, you took my comment entirely out of context and replied to something I never even said...and noone who replied to your post even caught on to that fact. Go back and read it again, or maybe your mind is too locked in RMS worship to even get it.
BTW, if you wish to know here is the real point of my post:
I said if the code is a result or US GOV'T FUNDING then you shouldn't restrict what people do with it. The reason the US Gov't gives funding is so that the ENTIRE population can benefit in ANY WAY THEY SEE FIT. Period.
You want to develop something with someone else's money, you play by THEIR RULES. If you develop with your own money, we play by YOUR RULES. If you GPL'ers don't like that then you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.
Of course you have the right to dictate what happens to your code -- IF IT'S YOUR CODE. If it's gov't funded, then it belongs in part to everyone in the United States.
It's not about passing code off as your own. Well in a way it is. Gov't funded GPL code is being passed off as owned by the creator (who is able to put the code under the GPL). A noble thing but it's no different than some yahoo who tries to sell it as his own. It's a question of morals, not rights because both should have a right to do what they do. When it's taxpayer code, you don't have the right to choose what freedom I have and don't have. That's my gripe. (Some of us pesky US citizens actually do care about fairness for ALL.)
Freedom is complicated. To keep it, you have to accept the good with the bad. Times change. What seems like a good idea now can be perceived as a terrible mistake with hindsight. Fine. Just do it with code I didn't pay for.
But the proprietary version will then be better, because it benefits from what the hoarders wrote *and* all the work that went into the free version. Everyone who wants to run the better version will have to give up their right to share and reuse the code they run, and GPL advocates don't want anyone to have to do that.
Do you think rewarding authors is inherently unjust, or just the way we've chosen to do so? What if there really is no other practical way?
Well, that's really hard to say,because the Hurd is progressing in a strange way.
Often, there is a long time nothing visible happens, and then we make huge progress in a few days.
Well, the FULLY functionality of todays Linux will not be reached this year anymore (esp. in the hardware driver area).
But for applications, like X and such, we will.
Please also note that the hurd does offer things that Linux doesn't have, that may worth examination before Hurd is 100% ready.
brinkmd@debian.org
Someone gets his quickening.
there can be only one
>I think the compiler is the hard part. You could >use egcs, but that's essentially gcc. libc is >also a problem.
No, libc is not 'GNU' as we say 'RMS'
libc is like linux - GNU/Linux, libc - glibc.
Only with libc RMS got it the way he wants.
The point is "who is doing all the work"?
The FSF people? Is HJLu and Drepper the FSF people?
Somebody would have it done even if is was not 'adopted' by our good GNU.
....just can't escape nick naming. Can't remember the last time I used "Coca-Cola" for "Coke". Or "Sears and Roebuck Company" for "Sears", etc...
In the past, when the GNU project was started, there was a lack of free software.
I'd disagree with this. When the GNU project was started, Usenet provided a pretty healthy mechanism for the distribution of source code. People like Henry Spencer and Doug Gwyn posted implementations of useful routines to mod.sources and its descendants without so much as a license agreement. The GPL was invented precisely to prevent software released in source form from being used in proprietary programs.
When it comes down to it the GPL is just one of a number of licenses which you can choose from (and more seem to be coming along day by day). But this makes sense because they try to explain what the author sees as been reasonable use and what they don't. If I write a small but functional library (to implement the ftp protocol, for example) I'd probably release it into the public domain (i.e. no restrictions on it) because I don't really care if someone makes a bit of money out of it. If I write something pretty sizeable I'd probably put it under the GPL to prevent someone from adding a splash screen and selling it for big bucks. You see, the GPL works for some authors and not others depending on their circumstances. It fills a useful purpose.
Well, history proves you wrong. In fact, it's kind of funny, considering that you're posting on the (European-government-created) web portion of the (US-Government-created) internet. What you probably don't realize is that there were several different hypertext formats before the WWW: there was Hypercard on Macs, FrameMaker, even WordPerfect had non-web hypertext abilities. But none of them could be as great as the web, because they were tied by corporate greed.
Granted, private individuals do often make contributions, but relying on these contributions is relying on the kindness of strangers. It reminds me of what I've heard from republicans about how, if we would only stop taxing them, the rich could do a better job of feeding the poor, educating the illiterate, yadda yadda yadda. That's such BS. Rich guy gets a tax break, and that money has "new golf clubs" written all over it. The same is true about for-profit corporations, whose M.O. is getting as much as possible by giving as little as possible.
Someone on Slashdot put it best: "RMS is just as opinionated as anyone else, he just says what he things without using qualifying statements, and watering it down for the mainstream."
That is neither here nor there, however. What is disturbing is that a fairly blatant abuse of moderation has taken place here.
Hating, or at least disliking, RMS has become a gimmick, much like hating Bill Gates and Windows. Linus Torvalds has managed to stay clear of that area by avoiding politics. When we judge Linus, we do it only by his coding. When we judge RMS, we do not do it based on his coding skills but rather on how his philosophical ideas differs from ours.
That's because Linus Torvalds is not constantly in everyone's face insisting that they recognize him on his own particular terms. He just keeps on coding and coordinating and working and the recognition follows naturally.
It is perhaps worthwhile to note the similarity between Bill Gates and RMS insistence that things be done their way with no choices. Bill says totally proprietary, RMS says absolutely only free. Either way, to me they are both trying to constrain my choice and tell me what to do.
I deeply appreciate all of the work that RMS, GNU and the FSF have done. I even forgive the Emacs monstrosity (vi rulez!). But I'm beginning to be just sick and tired of this argument that we prepend GNU/ to everything. If RMS and his ilk would just shut up and get back to work, the same recognition that they largely already have would continue and grow just as naturally as that of Linux.
Cynicism against one of your own spokespersons is the disease that can cause Open Source to FAIL.
/. was about COMMUNITY, and community is about supporting each other, not cutting each other up. so start acting like a community.
x .html
get healthy and constructive folks - you don't know what you've got until you lose it. i think that's the point esr's trying to make.
stop taking things for granted.
nobody's perfect, but hey, don't kick 'em while they're down -> that's a M$ tactic.
it's easy to criticize; it's a lot harder to find constructive positive comments to make. i thought
And this is the law of the wild,
As old and as true as the sky.
And the wolf who keeps it will prosper,
But the wolf who breaks it will die!
Like the wind that circles the tree trunk,
this law runneth forward and back.
The strength of the pack is the wolf,
and the strength of the wolf is the pack.
(Rudyard Kipling)
http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner/socialLinu
That's just what the GPL does. It applies the restriction that to use this code, you have to give away your code. This is fine unless I've funded the code with my tax dollars. Then I want to do whatever I want with it.
Gov't funded code should be open, unequivocally and with no strings. Gov't funded means it was funded by your dollars, my dollars and business dollars. It's only fair. In other words because it's gov't funded, you can't take my rights and give them to someone else. That's what makes freedom and rights so complicated. You have the right to source. I have the right not to give it to you. We meet in the middle. In the case of gov't funded projects, that's what you have to live with.
Besides don't worry about closing up software. If I take it and sell binaries but don't give away the source -- it's my business. It hurts no one except maybe me when my customers see they can get the same software (source and all) for free elsewhere. Give me a break. If I released a binary only distro of Linux tomorrow, how would that affect Red Hat, Debian, SuSE, etal? Would they somehow be magically barred from continuing their operation? No. Would Linux disappear? No. What I go out of business? Maybe. But then again, maybe a binary only release is important to a small segment of the population that don't care about source.
To sum it up. GNU/GPL on nontaxpayer funded code = GOOD. GNU/GPL on taxpayer funded code = BAD.
He's arguing against non-published source and restrictions on use and copying, not against funding software development.
Freedom is the most important thing we can talk about - far more so than any particular piece of code. What's the point of taking over the world, if not to fix it? If the market doesn't care about freedom, they deserve to be ripped off by M$ for eternity.
If it wasn't for GNU CC, GNU Debugger, GNU textutils and gnu binutils, Linux would not have _existed_ today. It would most likely have been terminated as a little 'cool thing' in Torvalds old 386 just before he got a job at the University. Gnome/KDE/Gimp/Gtk/bla bla would not have existed today w/o GNU software.
I think that this 'so called' Linux community should be very thankful for what the FSF/GNU project has produced. The GNU products are high quality software and is _MUCH_ better than proprietary software. Give the GNU guys some gratitude.
Hmmm, my ISP which is FreeBSD based has the same GNU tools (gcc and gdb) that my Linux box at home has. Let's really tick off those BSD'ers by calling their product GNU/FreeBSD !!!!
... and many many others.
Just like Linux, it seems that GNU is also out for world domination, the problem is that the GNU folks are all insane. If Linus knew how bonkers RMS would get, I'm sure he would not of choosen the GPL or gcc!!!
The name GNU/Linux is insulting. It be-littles the efforts of all the other fine packages that make up Linux. I'm talking X-Windows, Apache, Netscape, FTP, ppp, fetchmail, sendmail, tin, gimp, x11amp, xosview, KDE,
In fact only a tiny fraction of Linux is GNU based. Since the GNU folks think they are better than everybody else and they are trying to steal more than their fair share of fame. I motion that all Linux users band together and cleanse their OS from this GNU parasite.
Because of the recent actions of RMS and the GNU foundation I have choosen NOT to release my code with the GPL, I will choose some other license. I will not contribute to this GNU'y madness and I hope that other "open source'rs" out there follow me in a protest of all that is GNU.
I love my gcc compiler, but this whole GNU/Linux thing has made me disgusted with the concept of GNU.
Thank you GNU, and goodbye.
Yes, (or perhaps not,) but it has never been about free beer - it has always been about free speech.
Free software is abouts rights and not about costs. It may be expensive to develop, it may be inexpensive to develop, but it is set free under the gpl.
Talking about who pays misses the point. If I invest millions and find a cure for cancer, I can choose to keep the info secret and sell the cure for a lot. I can choose to publish the info and sell the cure for a reasonable amount and allow others to use the info freely as well. I can also choose to simply publish the info and let others freely use it.
In each case, the free beer aspects are the same, but the free speech aspects are different.
A Nony Mouse
There seems to be an endless amount of RMS-rationalization in the online forums. A small number of people revere the guy unconditionally, a small number dislike him outright (and disagree with him), but the vast majority seem to be of the "RMS may be a jerk but you've got to respect him for (whatever)". The guy has more teflon than Reagan and Clinton put together. I think this is because everyone still seems to clinging to the mythology of the free software "community" and ESR's hacker mythology, and they just don't want to evict any more deities from their insanely over-idealized free software pantheon.
I maintain that the more exposure the guy gets, the harder it will be for everyone to rationalize continuing to give the guy credibility. He's sort of like Rush Limbaugh (IMO), he's been around for a while but he's got a short shelf life. Everyone goes through a few years thinking that "RMS is a jerk, *but*...". Mark my words, at some point (maybe in a few months, maybe in a few years), you'll stop appending that "but..." to every analysis of RMS' character. By that time he'll have a new generation of protohackers screaming about jihads and flaming everyone in sight, but after a while they'll learn too.
It's unfortunate that there aren't more leader types in the free software world. It seems like most of the ones we've got are extremist, pathologically unsocialized, short-sighted, or some combination of all three. There's no rational center. If any such person ever materialized, he or she would probably be instantly flamed to cinders by the zealouts anyway. Too bad...
XFree86 has been adopted by the GNU project for use in the GNU system, as has Lynx been which I use almost daily.
Ok, well then, I'll say that the Linux kernal community has adopted the GNU tools. Now it is completely correct for me to call the entire system Linux.
Hm... there are a few issues that I have with RMS's demand that it be called a GNU/Linux system. The big one is that not all Linux systems are based on the GNU system.
While all Linux systems contain the vital GNU utils (like, for example, gcc), not all of them were derived from the GNU system as envisioned by RMS. (This GNU system also came with other free software, like BSD stuff.) While, AFAIK, Debian was based of GNU, I don't believe any of the other distros were. They may have wound up containing most of the software from GNU, but this software was easily available from other sources. As a result, some distros are GNU/Linux, while others are Linux + GNU + BSD et al.
But wait - what he was saying is exactly what you are glossing over! We use the roads! We benefit directly from spending on medical research! However, like he said, if the government finances something and then we don't get anything out of it, we are being abused as taxpayers.
On a philosophical level I agree comepletely that "If the DOD wrote [software x] using 'my' money, I should have at least the right to use the product"
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
Just tell RMS that the real name is "lignux", but the 'g' is both silent and invisible. That should pacify him. ;)
HSJ$$*&#^!#+++ATH0
NO CARRIER
*bzzt* Wrong.
The kernel doesn't link against glibc. It doesn't link against any libraries. It has it's own versions of any utility funcs it needs - try reading the source before you comment.
That aside, I agree with your point. Try building the kernel with anything other than gcc / egcs and see what happens.
Hmm, my one of Debian CD's says GNU/Linux on it.
Thanks. Feel free to moderate me higher. :-)
:-) I think it would have had a much better chance of being adopted.
I'm not so hung up on the GNU/Linux name myself. I believe one reason why Stallman insists on it is because he feels that many new users of it are not exposed to the free software philosophy of GNU. Instead, they pick up on the "anything is fine with me" philosophy of Linus. Unfortunately, Stallman does not always pick the best venues for his suggestions about GNU/Linux. (For example, the linux-kernal mailing list was quite a bad choice). And the fact that he corrects anyone who uses an unadorned "Linux" is surely annoying to some. And let's face it, GNU/Linux isn't a very catchy name. If he had something better (NOT Lignux
I personally don't use the term GNU/Linux much because it is such a mouthful. However, I do think it is important to understand why the GNU people feel so strongly about it.
In 1983 when Richard Stallman founded the GNU project, his goal was to produce a 100% free Unix-like operating system. This was a difficult goal because a Unix OS contains many components: the kernel, the shell, compiler tools, editors, windowing systems, etc. Because the task was so big, he looked around for components that were already free that he could use in the GNU system. He found, for example, TeX and the X-Window System, which then fulfilled the system requirements for a typesetter and a windowing system respectively.
For some components, there was no free implementation, so the GNU project set out to write them. GNU Emacs replaced the proprietary vi editor (though a free vi clone was eventually written by someone else). The GNU C Compiler replaced the proprietary pcc. Bash replaced the Bourne shell. Etc. These tools were all written because there was no other free program that did the job. Nobody at the GNU project wanted to re-write free tools that already existed. The goal was a 100% free operating system, not a 100% free operating sytsem written 100% by the GNU project.
Like many complex projects, the GNU system took a long time to develop. Rather than wait until the entire system was complete before releasing it, various components were released as they were developed. (Call it the Bazaar model if you will). They put their available code into a repository. This was the master GNU ftp server at prep.ai.mit.edu. This archive contained the GNU system as a work in progress, including many tools that were ready for production use.
When Linus developed his kernel, people obviously needed the rest of the operating system components to go along with it. So how did people get these? They simply ftp'd to the GNU archive and downloaded all of the GNU operating system components that were availble. They combined these with the kernel, to produce the system they called Linux.
While you might not agree with Richard Stallman, I think it is easy to see why this would upset him. If someone downloaded the CVS archive of the free software project I am working on, finished it off before I could finish my version, then released it under a name that gave me no credit, I would probably be angry too. I think the reaction of the community if someone did this would be very negative. The GNU ftp site was their code repository and the builders of the early Linux distros did exactly this. They built a system that was largely GNU code (especially in the early days before distros got loaded up with lots of user level applications) but did not give credit to the GNU project.
Again, you might not see it this way. But I think that if the GNU project was something that you had founded and invested years of effort into, you might be a little bit miffed someone did this to you. While Stallman is often accused of being a bit strange, I find his attitude on the "GNU/Linux" issue quite normal.
As usual I see many postings that show confusion over why the GNU project wants the "GNU/Linux" name to be used. These imply that the reason is because there is a large number of GNU components in the system. This is not the case. The reason is because the GNU Project had the vision and the goal of a completely free operating system, and systematically went about building it. Without the goal of a free operating system by the GNU project, Linux most certainly would not be what it is today.
The GNU project identified all of the major components of the operating system: the kernel, utilities, the shell, compiler tools, windowing systems, networking, and so on. It then found or built tools for each of these areas. When Linus wrote the Linux kernel and people looked around for the components necessary to build a complete operating system, they found them because that is what the GNU project set out to build.
It is tempting to say that the GNU Project did not write some of these tools - such as the X-Window system - and thus say that the GNU influence on the GNU/Linux operating system is exaggerated. However, the GNU project never set out to build every component themselves, nor did they ever claim that all components of the free operating system were there because of their efforts. Instead, they looked first for existing free tools to do the job, and wrote a replacement if one could not be found. X existed already, so a replacement was not needed. However, had the X-Window system not existed, or had it been proprietary, the GNU project would have developed a replacement for that too, just as they developed a replacement for the C library, and m4 macro processor, and many other things.
Call it GNU/Linux (if you choose) because the GNU project built ane operating system, not because they wrote any number of individual components. Without the GNU project, disjoint components is all that would exist.
> Sadly, the title is enough to sum up what most of this article is going to promote...
Yeah, tell me about it... Even the most well-thought-out, reasonable posts on this topic don't rise much above the level of flame-bait. I couldn't resist trying to make a point or two, though...
> Ah, but it's the same kernel as Redhat/debian/SuSe/whatever linux (or at least from the same source tree). You are actually contradicting yourself here! What makes slackware is the collection of tools bundled with the kernel including the installation tool(s).
Actually, I thought this point through before making my post... just wasn't going to muddle issues by bringing it up if no one called me on it. Slackware is the vendor in this case - it's equivalent to Microsoft or Apple in my examples, not to Corel or Adobe. Linux is a little odd because the vendor isn't necessarily the organization that wrote the code, but I think the analogy holds (MS and Apple buy, beg, borrow, and steal code from other organizations, too). If the FSF were to release a Linux distribution of their own, I'd be happy to call it GNU Linux or FSF Linux or whatever-they-want Linux... but GNU would be the vendor... the OS is still Linux.
As for code weight... even discounting the 10%/90% split - we've got an Enterprise 5500 in the server room here that (after I got done with it ;) ) has almost as much GNU software on it as my Linux boxen do... but I've never heard anyone suggest that it be called GNU/Solaris, and I suspect that most people would dismiss the idea out of hand. Is it installing things in /opt or /usr/local rather than / and /usr that makes the difference? Or is it that the proprietary kernel can't be "adopted" by the FSF? And if it's the proprietary kernel, doesn't that mean that it's the kernel that's the defining portion?
> However, how would you feel if you got NTOSKRNL.EXE on its own and got told that was your operating system?
Pretty disappointed. I'd much prefer to have vmlinuz, thankyouverymuch. ;)
Seriously, though... I'm not saying that the kernel is enough to make a computer useful. What I'm saying is that it's the kernel that defines what the computer is. It seems to me that there's a line between the OS and the apps. The only place it makes sense to me to draw that line is between the kernel and everything else. Anywhere else creates grey areas. (If we include gcc, do we include perl? If we include bash, do we include X? If we include ls, do we include xfm? et cetera, ad nauseum...)
I won't touch the economic issues around free software (I'm not an economist, nor do I play one on Slashdot), except to say that, in my current job, I don't get paid for programs, I get paid for programming...
My two bits on RMS and GNU/Linux (not that anyone cares):
;) ), not Corel/Windows. If I'm using a Mac exclusively to run Photoshop, it's still Apple MacOS, not Adobe/MacOS. And if I'm using my Linux box exclusively to run GNU utilities, it's still Slackware Linux, not GNU/Linux.
RMS is an extremist - I don't think anyone could deny that. Extremists, by definition, look weird to more moderate folks... but we need extremists to show us where we can go. We don't necessarily want to follow them blindly, though. And most people, if they decide they want to go where he's leading, can't make it in one leap... that's where people like Linus and ESR come in, to show us how to get there the slow, easy way.
As for "GNU/Linux"... as I see it, it's the kernel that defines the OS. If I'm using Win95 exclusively to run Corel Office, it's still Microsoft Windows (or MS-DOS
And, those of you who think that saying "GNU/Linux" is appropriate... think about this one: what's wrong with "Linux/GNU"?
Posted by atf2:
An intelligent post. I agree completely.
-- an ex-RMS-worshipper.
The only way I can imagine that they'd object is that it seems like the FSF is trying to use their "adoption" of XFree to claim more credit for their share in Linux. The way that article is phrased, it seems as if the FSF is trying to take credit for someone else's work (The XFree86 team.)
It seems to say, "While we don't like the XFree86 license, we'll adopt it just so we can take more credit for Linux."
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Well, RMS doesn't force you to say GNU/Linux, he
just asks you to do so for the reasons that we
all know. And just because you're not required to
do something, does that mean that you shouldn't
do it? You should give credit to RMS and the FSF
for what they've done not because you have to,
but because it's the right thing to do.
Please alter my pants as fashion dictates.
GNU/Linux has a consonant following a vowell, which for me is easier to pronounce and sounds nicer than Linux/GNU. On the other hand, you could argue that the free-flowing (think beer, not speech) GNU/Linux wrongfully blurs the distinction between the underlying system software and the kernel--against the desires of the essayist.
I agree that the essayist's comment about XFree86's relation to the GNU project was unfortunate, and can only hope we're all taking it the wrong way. However, several heated comments you make later in your post are completely wrong.
There is a difference between your proposed distribution and calling the system GNU/Linux, on which I don't wish to concentrate here.
My main point is that people _would_ care about FSF without Linux. People cared before Linux. I expect that people will care _after_ Linux (Linux Torvald's ideal world sees Linux replaced maybe 20 years from now--I'm taking this from an interview). I used GNU tools under DOS, Win95, and OS/2. GCC is an important compiler across many platforms, helping with portability and standards. GNU's impact far exceeds the Linux domain, because its fruits are more than a single kernel.
For balance, I'll mention that the Linux kernel is damn important to me and many other people. Also, it is the driving force behind the massive attention drawn away from Microsoft products lately. But Linus and others agree that popularity isn't their target, as this would in all probability detract from quality and the freedom to make choices (hopefully the right choices).
I don't actually see your comment as relevant. How does the fact that the US government committed public funds to a project which helped people, all around the world, affect the quoted statement? Remember the definition of 'free' here does not mean 'appearing out of thin air'. And anyone mad about funding the war in Vietnam would be happy, I expect, to find out some of their funds were diverted to some long-hairs at MIT.
As far as any of this goes, the US Govt's defense spending is probably the only reason the US gained an early lead in computing. And many of the early advances in computing came from sharing of information _enforced_ by the Fed Govt. Take for instance AT&Ts disclosure of transistor research, or later UNIX. Or perhaps IBM's disbundlement of its software and hardware. Government spending _often_ encourages 'free' products--i.e. products that are shared in such a way to help everyone in the US, and sometimes (with GNU, for instance) around the world.
Of course, although I'm now on your topic, I'm off the topic for this article.
First, I'm surprised that your article isn't scored higher (2 just now) since I think it's a marvellously clear, consistent and concise explanation of why the FSF take the stance they do on the name "GNU/Linux". It seems to me basically correct to argue that it's primarily because of RMS's vision back then that we can now run computers using entirely software libre, even though the job has been made vastly easier by software written for purposes other than fulfilling that vision, and in that sense it's true to say that my computer at home is basically running a version of the GNU system.
However, I *don't* think it's the job of the name of the operating system to give credit; it's to convey information. What I'll answer when someone asks what sort of computer I'll have will depend on how much I think they know about computers; I might for example say Unix, Linux, Debian, or Slink. However I'll certainly avoid any cumbersome or inconvenient descriptions when a shorter one will convey the same information.
I think it's genuinely important that Stallman, the FSF, and the shared vision of liberating software be given proper credit in making the operating system we have today possible. But trying to change the name is the wrong way to do it - it's doomed to failure, and far from advancing the debate it seems to be distracting people from it.
It might also help if Stallman had done half as good a job of explaining his point of view as you did.
--
Xenu loves you!
On the other hand, as several posters point out above, without the impetus of Linux, the FSF project would be a little-known software island in the isolated Unix lake (as the Internet itself was, until a few years ago when ppp and the Web took off).
Anyone who looks into Linux at all -- even superficially -- cannot miss the ubiquitous references to the GPL and the GNU project. Ten million users, more or less, have had the opportunity to read the GPL (which they may or may not have done) and to study the FSF philosophy. Calculate the publicity value of that by, for example, figuring out how many full-page trade paper ads or CNN spots it would take to achieve the same exposure; the FSF certainly has no grounds for complaint about the spread of Linux -- which indeed represents a substantial victory for their vision; for that the FSF deserves congratulations, but not necessarily sympathy.
It is interesting to realize that one of the FSF's principal objections to the BSD license is that it requires (or used to require) crediting each software source -- The Regents of the UC, etc. etc. -- in all advertisements. Yet the GNU/Linux proposal essentially requires that one (admittedly major) software source be credited in ordinary speech, where we don't have the luxury of small print at the bottom of the page!
As to RMS himself, he deserves both our admiration as a fantastically gifted hacker and our respect for his utterly sincere and total dedication to his moral principles. Granting this respect, though, does not necessarily require that we agree with him totally on these principles -- I have a great respect for the Amish for the same reason, but I use computers and automobiles and toasters and dress colorfully (too colorfully, according to my wife). And it certainly does not require that we avoid pointing out that allowing the FSF sole authority to determine what constitutes "free" (speech) software is equivalent to allowing the Pope (or the Baptists, or ....) sole authority to determine what constitutes Christianity.
RMS is a valuable resource in the open software movement. He is also eccentric, colorful, and (to some of us) maddening. What we need to do to keep the suits from being frightened of us is simply tell the truth: that there are many strains of philosophical thought in the hacker community that produced Linux, and RMS represents one of them. So does Bob Young, carefully groomed to avoid shocking them, and what the suits need to do is simply look at Linux itself and decide, as a technical and business question, what it can do to help them solve their problems.
Craig
I don't think you have any ground to stand on there. RMS is not constraining your choice in any way. You are always free to choose any other method of licensing the software you produce, or choosing the software you use. This will never change, no matter what he says.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
That is neither here nor there, however. What is disturbing is that a fairly blatant abuse of moderation has taken place here.
Get used to it. Look at the example CT and Hemos are setting. People bitched and moaned about Katz so CT created a filter so people could not read him if they wanted too. Well now so many people DON'T read Katz that CT and Hemos have resorted to posting stuff FOR him just to bypass the filters.
Moderator abuse is not the only abuse going on around here.
If you can read this message, your threshold is too low.
>As for our "demand"; we don't make demands, we make suggestions.
When RMS says it, it sounds rather like a demand to me.
>I assume that you want to give the GNU project credit, otherwise this discussion is just silly.
Of course, gcc was essential to the development of Linux, and the rest of the tools are extremely useful. The question is how is this credit to be given.
>So when you then call a system "Linux", you assume that all users will automatically pick up on and understand that there are quite a few GNU utilities they are using.
Don't be absurd.
When I say Linux, people who have never heard of it before don't instantly think of GNU. Nor do they think of Linus, Alan Cox, the X project, BSD, etc. It's a name, not a list of credits. Yes, the name is derived from Linus's name, but that seems more an accident of history, not an attempt by Mr. Torvalds to usurp all the credit.
The GNU/Hurd project has been assisted greatly by the existence of Linux (at least if the FSF goal of using free software rather than proprietary is being followed). Yet there is no insistence that it be called Linux/GNU/Hurd, nor will there be.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
>Do you remember all the excitement when the MS-Office for Linux rumour spread? I got to see some comments/mails like "YES! We are winning!". Or the excitement with Oracle supporting Linux? Why should we care?
Even if you don't like those applications or any proprietary applications, the above actions are indicative of the growing importance of Linux. At least some of us like to work on Linux and open source because we want our programming to help as many people as possible; this is a sign that this is succeeding.
Oh, and plenty of us are perfectly happy with proprietary applications, some of us make them. I can like the work of "Habitat for Humanity" without condemning homebuilding companies as immoral; likewise I can appreciate freed* software without labelling proprietary vendors as immoral.
* "freed" as in freed from restrictions.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
>mm... so I guess you like RMS so much that everything he says is an order in your eyes, although it's meant as a suggestion ?
Don't be ridiculous. You can make demands without having any way to force compliance. If I say "I demand that you apologize for your response to my slashdot posting", is that a suggestion or a demand? Webster's defines "demand" in part as
"something claimed as due" -- which fits here perfectly.
>IMHO, a good way to give credit to something is calling it by its name...
I do, I call it the GCC -- for Gnu C Compiler.
>The name "GNU" covers the entire system
No it doesn't. If in 1982 I had decided we should have a free Unix-like OS (I first used Unix in 1980...maybe I did come up with that idea!), would that make everything that comes after the Eccles Operating System? I think not. GNU is a part, not the whole.
>The number of users of the GNU system has increased a lot because of the Linux kernel.
That's a deceptively phrased fact. No one used a GNU operating system before Linux because there wasn't one.
>...I just don't understand why you want to call it "Linux" without the "GNU/".
A) Because it's shorter, B) because people know what I'm talking about, whereas if you just call it GNU like Richard has, no one knows what you're talking about, C) it sounds like I'm talking about a particular distribution, D) I hate the "gn" sound, E) without a kernel, you don't have an operating system at all, so it isn't the GNU operating system anyway, F) I dislike demanding horn-tooting, G) I disagree with the "no proprietary software" stance of the FSF, especially RMS's remarks about piracy (particularly since that is "free beer, not free speech."), H) I dislike the belittling of the difficulty of writing a kernel, given that the FSF hasn't managed to build a stable one over the past 16 years, I) I dislike this belief that GNU is somehow entitled to be the overarching name of everything.
Oh, and I call Microsoft's operating systems "Windows", unless I need to clarify what version.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
The FSF and GNU project gets a ton of credit. I had this discussion with a friend about a week ago in fact. He's on the GNU/Linux side, I still call it plain old Linux.
My point is that anyone who uses Linux can't go very long without GNU popping up somewhere. So on the basis of your argument, which is summed up at the end, giving credit where it's due, isn't the GNU project getting enough? I like RMS, I like the FSF; the world would be much less interesting without either one. But calling it GNU/Linux based on your argument of "giving credit" does nothing but give a cheap ego boost to those involved.
If you want to call it GNU/Linux, go ahead, I won't try and stop you. Just don't try and stop me from calling it Linux.
Since nobody can agree on the name or why, let's just invent a new one that's politically neutral. FreD stands for FREeDom. It doesn't contain GNU. It doesn't contain X. It doesn't contain BSD. It doesn't contain Linux.
:-) :-) :-)
Just to avoid any confusion, this is
:-)
That's rediculous, and here's why. Granted, as everyone already mentioned, the kernel is Linux, some of the tools are GNU - but what about everyone else? Everyone deserves credit and to put the GNU moniker on it is a slap in the face. I use a lot more than just GNU stuff. I even use my own software. Hey, let's call it Mike/GNU/Linux. How'd that be?
I believe in the FSF and most of RMS's ideals, but this is taking it too far. As a long time user of Linux and a developer for same, I'm offended.
As for "idolizing" RMS or Linus and Co. as someone pointed out, that's bullshit. I personally don't idolize any of 'em. I'm grateful and thankful for the great code they've produced and what they've done for the community, but then we all contribute to the revolution in our own ways - some more than others, but nevertheless. I'm not gonna cheat myself, others or the GNU project(s).
I USE LINUX AND I'M DAMNED PROUD OF IT.
It should be pretty obvious to everyone that the problem here isn't GNU software. The real problem is the idiots who make up the FSF.
It is and it isn't. I suspect most people (myself inclued) who refuse to use the term "GNU/Linux" would say Linux is a branch of the GNU tree which is really the heart of the matter.
The FSF never gave a damn about Linux either untill the people who used linux got it the attention it deserved. The FSF's big thing was HURD, and it was never really intended to be used by the people who were using low-end PC's like the linux crowd were at the time if I recall.
Your "impression" is flat wrong.
If you're wanting to make a proprietary implementation, you rewrite those 2 routines, or you use the BSD-licensed equivalent. Expecting the author(s) of the GPL library to let you make their code proprietary is a bit hypocritical if you're expecting people to not share your proprietary stuff.
I personally think that the BSD and GNU licences and systems complement each other well. GNU/GPL makes sure that we continue to have free systems, BSD lets us have a free base from which to code for vertical markets, etc. If either one of them "compromised", I think the benefits inherent in each would be lost.
We see this thread every day on debian-devel and linux-kernel and every slashdot forum mentioning free software. I completely agree that I should call my linux based os Debian GNU/Linux. But some people don't, so let them. GNU has a web site. It has it's ideas posted. People who want to follow them will. Those who don't, wont. Some ideas take time. You cannot force common exceptance of an idea just because you know it to be true. Introducing the idea and promoting it are good. Forcing it's exceptance is futile at best.
Adam
Giving credit where credit is due? More like riding a popular wave as means of self promotion.
Linux is just a kernel, no argument there. That kernel, though, is quickly turning into the most popular piece of software in the world. Were it not for Linux' popularity, GNU would still laboring in relative obscurity. Yes, you guys are famous in the Unix world, but thanks to Linux, your name is being noticed by the wider world.
And you're still not happy.
Although I'm a big fan of GNU (gcc is my friend), I'm beginning to understand where the FreeLinux guys are coming from.
"Thinking that everyone in the whole world could agree to one specific license would be naive. Unless we all suddenly start to
think very much the same, that will not happen. RMS knows this. I know this. The BSD followers know this. Everyone should
know this. Frankly, would you want to live in a world where everyone thought the same way? "
Quite true, however there's a discontinuity between what you just said, and the stated GNU philosophy, from my perspective.
That philosophy is that "software should not have owners", and that copyright law should be amended to reflect this belief (I'm referring to RMS' essay on copyright on gnu.org).
However, if one modifies the copyright laws to reflect the spirit of the GPL, by enabling free copying/redistribution, aren't we living in a society that "thinks one way - the RMS way" ?
-Stu
I sincerely doubt that Linus looked at the FSF, and said "Wow, look at all these tools. Maybe I'll write a kernel to use them with! Then the FSF can complete their dream!".
Why on earth do you doubt it? I was there at the time, and my impression is that that's *exactly* what happened.
I find it interresting (but hardly surprising) that GNU have yet again
:)
stated that the GPL is THE license, and should be used in preference to
other options such as the BSD licence.
Now don't get me wrong, I believe in much of what GNU stands for, and I
recognise the role the GPL has played in getting us to the stage we are
at today. However, because of this, I think it's time to start thinking
about tossing out the GPL and moving on to the next stage.
Now why would we want to do this? Have I gone crazy? Am I just trying
to subvert the goals of GNU? No, I just think the time for the GPL has
passed. In the past, when the GNU project was started, there was a lack
of free software, and a lack of knowledge about the issue. Thus the GPL
was essential in establishing the initial momentum, without having the
developers be disheartened at seeing their code incorporated into
commercial products that made substantial improvements over the free
versions.
But times have changed. People (at least programmers) now know about
free software (or open source). The general community is becoming aware
of it also. Yet they are becomming increasingly less aware of GNU (as
evidenced by GNU's attemps to gain publicity with the whole GNU/Linux
thing), and also less aware of the true freedom aspect, rather than the
free beer aspect.
I percieve the major problem here to be that the GPL does all the
protecting of free software for people. Instead of having people who
are aware of the benefits of free software, why it is good to have it,
and why it should be preferred to closed alternatives, it is instead
taken for granted by the wording of the GPL.
What I think needs to be done is to make free software an education
rather than a legal issue. Don't restrict the source code from being
included in proprietry applications - instead educate people on why
free software is supperior, and when you have achieved that, people
will use the free software over the closed alternative anyway. But the
key distinction with this as opposed to the GPL situation is that the
users will be taking their freedom for themselves, rather than being
handed it to them via the GPL.
There's an old saying, that goes something like: "You can untie the
dog, but it will still just be anather dog dragging along a chain
around it's neck". It's one that makes a very good point - the only
true freedom is one that is self earnt, people can not be given
freedom. They wont fully appreciate it, they won't value it, and above
all they wont know how to defend it.
Education is a far better solution than law, for reasons that largely
should be obvious, but also for other reasons. The law and the courts
are largely controlled by the rich. As we all know, in the software
industry, the rich are those who have an interest in keeping their
proprietry cash cows. Do you really want to trust the law to be able to
stand up to them, or would you rather see an educated user base that
will tell the proprietry companies where to stick it if they try
peddling their closed versions of free works?
Not to mention I find one of the few areas where RMS is a hypocrit is
in the area of using copyright (or copyleft). If he is so against the
copyright system, then surely he shouldn't be using it against the
companies, as two wrongs does not make a right. Instead, I think it is
a battle that would be much better faught without resorting to the
methods of the enemy.
Don't get me wrong, the GPL is vastly better than anything proprietry,
but I think it's time to look towards the future, and ask ourselves
what form do we want free software to take - free software because
people understand why free software is the way to go, or free software
because some license says it is so?
On a final note, doesn't RMS himself say in that free software song of
his, "When we have enough free software, we'll kick out those dirty
licenses evermore"? Well, I think we're starting to see a critical mass
of free software, and it's time to start kicking out licenses. So why
not start with the one we can most easily kick out, the very one GNU created,
the GPL?
Although, as Supertramp told me: I better watch what I say, or they'll be calling me a radical, liberal, fanatical, criminal
"Now watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical, liberal, fanatical, criminal." - Supertramp, The Logical So
Personally I take an even more extreme view of intellectual property. I think that intellectual property law is unjust, and I don't think software "piracy" is immoral.
--
...and to some people, free is all that matters.
I use Sparc Solaris at home. I have flex, bison, gzip and gcc installed yet I still use a Solaris machine. I refuse to call it a GNU/Solaris machine. At what point will RMS quit? I respect the work he has done. I respect his ideals, but this naming thing upsets me. I think RMS took a hint from ESR and became power hungry!
Mike Mangino
mmangino@acm.org
In your model, GNU is just below Linux (everything rests under GNU, except Linux which is one level above). So it _still_ applies that everything can come under the Linux name.
The credit is there. We all appreciate GNU tremendously. But shouting for recognition doesn't get anyone on your side.
Matt. Want XML + Apache + Stylesheets? Get AxKit.
Why would XFree86 want to be part of the GNU project? That would imply it works only w/ GNU software
No, it would imply that it is part of a Free operating system. gcc and fileutils work on Windows.
(I am curious to know what XFree thinks of being part of the GNU system but I can't really imagine that they'd object)
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
I didn't see him trying to force it anywhere...mainly he was trying to point out that RMS isn't a complete ego-driven lunatic for considering Linux to be GNU.
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
What percent of a Linux distro is kernel code?
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
So what? More of it was done by Cygnus than by Richard Stallman. I'd call it Cygnus/Linux long before I'd ever call it GNU/Linux
I use NT at work. I've adopted it. I'm sueing ms. It should be called Foaf/Windows NT. Or windows Foaf...
my blog: good times, man, good times
I've suggested something similar to the FSF.
/) would be any linux distro that the FSF has blessed with the GNU moniker. Trust me, there WILL be less-free (in the FSF's opinion) Linux distros out there.
It is VERY difficult to compete with the coloquial moniker for something, even when the coloquial use is ambiguous and requires context to resolve the ambiguity. Witness that it is normal to call both the Linux kernel AND a complete O/S distribution Linux. Natural language is like that. I think that RMS is wasting his breath pushing the "GNU/Linux" moniker and his efforts would be better spent elsewhere.
That said, as Linux O/S distributions and other "Open Source" software become more popular, it WILL be important to distinguish between free (in the GPL sense) and not-so-free software. Here's where the GNU moniker, as an adjective, can come in handy.
I've proposed that the FSF authorize the use of the GNU moniker (trademark it, damn it! With an appropriate free license for use) to mean: that whose existence was facilitated by GPL software, and that is entirely consistent with the GPL.
Thus, "GNU Linux" (and drop the
Of course, because the Linux kernel is GPL, it is the "GNU Linux" kernel, by definition.
In Liberty, Rene
The FSF had a dream. They started developing the HURD. Linux comes in, works pretty well, and slaps on the GNU tools. years pass, and all of a sudden the FSF starts wanting people to call it "GNU/Linux". Why? Check the status of the HERD, and I believe that you will find your answer...
I call it "Linux", "emacs", or whatever.
I prefer licenses in which credit to the author must be preserved. This is how I release all of my music (http://www.mortmain.com). I don't think it is unreasonable to have an application screen with a couple of hundred lines of authors listed. I have talked with numerous GNU license users about this and they all think that is burdensome. BSD license users (the few I know) don't seem to think about it much. I have read Bruce's writings on the subject and his preferences definitely lean away from mandatory author credit.
Yet isn't that what RMS wants when he asks that we call it "GNU/Linux"?
I'm not sure I get it.
Berkeley, MIT, etc. want to spread knowledge of their research efforts and the contributions *they* make to society. I still don't see the difference.
Here's how I see it. Linux did in fact adopt the GNU tools. However, Linux is still the operating system, so regardless of the adoption issue the operating system is still Linux.
Now, I'm not trying to make light of GNU's contributions. GNU code makes up roughly 10% of a Linux distro. But that is it; only 10%. I don't see that as enough of a contribution that GNU gets to decide the name of the OS.
Well said. There is no free lunch. Someone always pays whether in cash, time, effort, etc. This is a prime example of how important perspective is when looking at an issue like free software. It has many facets and you've got to take them all in to account. Get the whole story.
----------------
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein
Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com
He was once involved with one Doctress Neutopia, and was a candidate for the position of Gaia Messiah. For more information, see this page.
A lot of good arguments here - I wish I had time to continue the discussion. An annoying thing on my to-do list called "work" keeps getting in the way.
Boiled down in a few unreflective seconds, though, I am suggesting that two overall themes deserve some thought:
* What were the conditions (infrastructural conditions, if you will) that allowed the GNU tools and the FSF to develop? Did hidden subsidies play a role in a way that some of the "official history" fails to discuss? If so, why does the offical history not discuss those points?
* Is there really a sharp distinction between "free speech" and "free beer"? RMS says so, and "free speech not free beer" has become an argument-ender along the lines of "defensive" (throw it into the argument first, and the other side is assumed to have lost by definition). But it's not so clear to me. Just as an example (and an unfair one, as I am not going to discuss in detail), in the examples given in the post to which this is attached, it would appear to me that the free _beer_ aspects are different, but the free _speech_ aspects are very similar.
As I said, sorry I can't write more. This is one of the most engaging discussions I have seen in a long time.
sPh
"In his ideal world, all software is free software and sharing your code with your neighbor is standard practice. RMS lived in this world for some time when he was active around the AI lab on MIT."
Without dissing or flaming, I would like to gently point out that both MIT and the AI Lab have received massive subsidies from the US Government over the years, particularly the DoD. So, much of that "free" (as in "free beer") software really was paid for by the US taxpayer. And there were many taxpayers who objected strongly to some aspects of that taxation, such as DoD funding during the Vietnam war.
This isn't a trivial issue in the story of GNU, but I have yet to see it discussed in any great depth.
sPh
"To help everyone understand this, I have made it a habit of calling my system a Linux-based GNU-system, in short a GNU/Linux system. This is not because I only use GNU-utilities, it is because I use programs that are part of the GNU system"
Shouldn't that be a Thompson-Ritchie/GNU/Linux system? Or a von Neumann/Thomson-Ritchie/GNU/Linux system? A Hopper/Thomson(many other names/GNU/gcc? Very little in the world of computing is really, absolutely new. Where do we draw the line at claiming seminal credit via naming conventions?
sPh
"Isn't that all the more reason why the software, once it's written, should be freely distributed - at the very least within the US?"
:-).
That's certainly a valid line of argument, although I suspect there will be a few counter-arguments
However, I was trying to open up a somewhat different line of discussion. It just seems to me that the various histories and write-ups of GNU and FSF make the assumption that the original GNU tools appeared out of nowhere, with no antecedents, no support framework of infastructure, tools, etc., no souce of funding, etc. An act of spontaneous generation, as it were.
Whereas in reality the "AI Lab culture" was heavily subsidized by the DoD, and the buildings, computers, grad student salaries, overhead charges, and so on came from the U.S. taxpayer in the first place. And primarily from projects dedicated to finding better ways of killing people, although I realize that line of argument is very controversial and somewhat at cross-purposes to my point.
So it isn't quite as easy to create "free" things (whether free speech or free beer, although I have a hard time following RMS' argument on that one also) as RMS and FSF would have one believe. Invisible sources of funding always make life seem easy.
I do consider the GPL a work of genius, for what my opinion is worth (much less than 0.02 USD I am sure), and RMS' ideas very worthy of discussion. But this subtopic seems to get a free ride.
sPh
He didn't say he didn't like them because they were less free, he just said that he didn't like them. There are a lot of (philosophical) reasons why you would like the GPL over the BSD license or vice versa, it basically comes down to personal preference. Search Dejanews for threads with "BSD" and "GPL" in the subject.
> And in fact, the BSD concept of free software predates GNU.
(Not meant as a flame)
Are you *sure* about this? The FSF dates back to '83, and the first truly free BSD source release (4.4-LITE) didn't happen until the early 90's (93?). Previous to that you could get an academic license by signing various forms and sending them to AT&T or whatnot, but that's not quite what I would call "free."
Eh?
They're entirely free to do whatever they want with the software and the code (including charge for it) except to remove anybody elses rights to do the same.
-- At rest in the information super layby.
It might just be that the GNU stuff is so ubiquitous that it needs no introduction... ?
-- At rest in the information super layby.
Utter bollocks.
You don't have to give your code to anyone, you can keep it entirely to yourself.
However... when you come to distribute/sell on GPL code, you are not allowed to remove the rights of the original authors that they used (by applying the GPL) to ensure that other users would have access to the source code, and the right to change it (and distribute it) as they see fit.
If you are worried about not wanting to distribute source, then don't distribute under the GPL. This may mean that the derived work that you wanted to charge for can no longer be distributed, but that seems entirely fair to me (i.e. respect the original authors rights, or write your own code).
The only rights you have over the code are those that the original authors have given to you (which, I reiterate, is the right to do anything you want to the code, except restrict anyone elses right to do the same).
The only right you are losing is the dubious one of being able to profit from other peoples hard work (or the right to charge people for things that they have already payed for, if your assertion about U.S. government funding is correct), passing it off as your own. I don't get what you're complaining on about.
-- At rest in the information super layby.
????
You have the right to use the roads, and you have the right to use GPL software- you even get to modify it (you're certainly not, as far as I am aware, given the right to alter the route of the Interstates to suit your convenience).
One thing you are not allowed to do is set up your own toll both on the federal highways and start charging people for their use. Does this analogy shed any light on the issue? Or have I _entirely_ missed the point of this discussion?
-- At rest in the information super layby.
Also, assuming my understanding of the GPL is correct, it is designed to:
a. protect your code from being sucked into proprietary software and then copyrighted (which, strictly speaking, software in the Public Domain is not protected from- you could end up in the ludicrous position of being sued over the right to code you wrote otherwise).
b. protect the users of your code from any change of mind that you might have. If you hold the copyright to the code, then you can make new releases under whatever license you like, but you can't remove the GPL from code that has already been distributed.
-- At rest in the information super layby.
It is in the man page: do a `man ls' and scroll to the bottom of a page:
FSF GNU File Utilities 1
Well done! Keep up the good work.
It seems to me that FSF has a serious case of sour-grapes and a consistent problem with understanding How the World Works. In the begining of the essay the author cedes that Mr. Stallman is an eccentric and that normal people look at him and his "mission" strangely. He then proceeds to elaborately express why he feels that Linux should be called GNU/Linux, that without GNU, Linux would have never come into existance.
Perhaps. From what I've read thus far, however, GNU software would have never found its way onto the harddrives of anyone but FSF members had it not been for Linux. The Linux kernel was written about nine years ago as I understand it. It's taken this long to reach critical mass so that businesses and some non-hackers are using it. The FSF is fifteen years old, and their own kernel was just released. From what I hear, it's not as usable as the Linux kernel. That's vaporware to exceed the fog from Redmond. At least they manage a release every five years.
Why has Linux become all the rage? Because it answers people's needs. The PC never was more than a hacker's toy until Visicalc made it a tool for business. How did Linux become something that people needed faster by eight years than Hurd? More people were developing it. Thousands of people, all over the world, with Linus at the wheel. There's a lot of work involved in coding a stable, powerful OS. By being so incredibly fanatical about the "Free software" cry, Stallman and crew alienate developers. How much has the FSF done to make Linux a viable desktop alternative? It takes more than a kernel, and I don't think the FSF has any developers on GNOME or KDE. (Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)
So the bottom line is, as the trite saying these days goes, "It takes a village" to write an OS that everyone can use, that is powerful and stable enough to leap over tall buildings in a single bound. GNU software is not the be all and end all of UNIX and/or good computing. So I say from my FreeBSD laptop, which has no functional dependance on the GNU tools furnished for the sake of compatibility. The FSF serves an important role in the community, but in the end, it's only one part of the whole community. They would do well to remember that
That first sentance should read "These divisions tear us apart and give weight to the idea that linux is not ready for the mainstream." Sorry folks.
The divisions that tear us apart and give weight to the idea that linux is not ready for the mainstream. "Look at them, they can't even agree on a name, how can they code a decent OS." While it is true that we are a bunch of coders and disillusioned users, not marketers there needs to be a united front. If the big names in the Open Source community keep beating the horse (the very not dead Linux in this case), there will be nothing left. Go with what you have. If you want personal fame, found your own software company and make a million. If you believe in Free Software find a soapbox and sing its praises, rather than going after the politics and things you can't change. I always called Linux Linux. Yes, linux is made up of many different parts. What is linux's true name? It is too long to list all the people who have contributed. Yes the GNU tools are the foundation, but the name Linux has stuck. Can we get back to taking over the world now?
> And i've been running linux for 3 or 4 years now. Just to let you know.
I am at a loss for words, why your relatively lengthy (relative, to most slashdot readers) experience with GNU/Linux would justify your harsh, and offensive opinion.
> Why should I use BSD just because RMS is, IMHO, a twit? I'm happy with Linux. I really think RMS
> needs to learn a lesson from Linus, Linus never receives this much heat because he's smart
> enough to earn respect and recognition rather than demanding it.
RMS has already earned respect. RMS already has recognition. What he wants so badly, is for his IDEALS to be recognised, for the freedoms he helps bestow on others through the FSF to be recognised and respected. This is what you do not understand.
This is not something Linus cares much for. A year/year and a half ago it could have been possible for a closed source commercial word processor such as the one published by Corel, to take a monopoly of X-Windows user based WP's. But it's Linus's opinion that commercial support of Linux by application developers is a Good Thing, I've never seen him do anything but welcome commercial support with open arms. This is dangerous, and something RMS has been campaigning against for many, many years.
Before you take it upon yourself to bash the reputation of RMS and the FSF to the ground with your aggressive, inflated ego, please do try to at least witness RMS speak, and take up an argument with him in person. You may be in for quite a surprise.
You may learn that RMS is not, as you believe, a 'twit', nor is he on a selfish crusade for his own self gratification. Perhaps you may just learn he's trying to make the world a better place.
Paul.
What I find ironic is that this same logic could be used to say that Redhat has chosen to use the GNU untilities and thus one can call the system Redhat linux, something which Stallman dispises. So I guess I run Nomad linux, although my system no longer really looks like Nomad, and differs in perhaps half of its packages, so I guess I run Scola linux, since more or less, I've adopted a mixed bag of utilities. Has a certain ring to it.
If you removed all the utilities from the dos directory in MS-DOS, especially if you ran a new shell (Bash?), you would no longer be running MS-DOS. You would be running a hybrid system. GNU/MSDOS doesn't make sense, because non-free MS-DOS can't be part of GNU system. GNU/Linux makes sense only because Linux is free, so it can be part of a GNU system.
Not that I'm advocating calling it GNU/Linux, but I'm not advocating not calling it GNU/Linux either. I do think Linux will win out as the right name.
You're sure? If John Doe and XYZ are meant as any coder and code, you're surely wrong. That's more or less what I mean when I license code under GPL.
... and be done with it. Then everyone would call it "GNU Linux".
support gun control: take guns from cops
What is going on in the hacker community regarding Open Source and Linux reminds me of the song by Creedence Clearwater Revival. Now, bear with me, because there is a definite connection.
On the radio this morning, they had an interview with one of the members of the band about their motive behind the song that went like: "Has it ever rained, while the sun was out?" and he described it as a song made during the turmoil of the band, when they had finally made it big, yet there was tremendous back-stabbing, gnashing of teeth, etc. within the band for various reasons. There was a storm brewing but the sun was out.
The same thing is happening with Linux and Free Software. We're on the verge of making it big, and we're doing the same thing they were. I suppose this happens often when something succeeds.
I think this is what could possibly slow or even stifle the growth of Linux and Free Software. We need to remember our roots, and remember that the destination isn't as important as the journey.
We need to uphold the ideals of free software, because if we've succeeded in the end, and have redefined software forever, but have given up what really gave us the strength in the beginning, we've just instituted something new that has the same drawbacks as the old system.
So, we cannot forget what RMS tells us. Because he is right.
But, I think that Free Software and proprietary software can succeed and work together. Let those companies make those licenses that are close to free, but not quite free, I say. The developers will decide. Don't let the infighting break us apart and divide us. All software that is free enough for a coder to contribute is good enough. If some people get burned by companies, they will learn their lesson, and work on software that is Free Software in the future.
The thing we _cannot afford_ to do is further fragment our community, because that will mean its death. We should embrace what they give us, and give code to the projects that fit our ideals.
P.S. I don't mean free as in free beer when I say Free Software. But if you think that, you've missed the whole point of my diatribe.
What you have to bear in mind is just how much of linux is linux and how much is actually GNU software. Much of what goes into /bin and /lib on a standard installation is GNU software; only the kernel (and its sources) can really be considered to be "linux". Where would linux be without glibc, sh-utils, gcc etc? However, the second point for this has to be does this justify calling it GNU/Linux? Which is more important, the kernel or the apps on top of it? My opinion on the latter question is that the kernel has to be more important, because without it, you couldn't run the apps. However, how would you feel if you got NTOSKRNL.EXE on its own and got told that was your operating system? There are several arguments for and against the labelling of linux (and I'm playing devil's advocate again...) and it would seem that general opinion is against RMS in this.
Anyways, my opinion of RMS is that he needs to mellow out a bit. I think he has done a lot for the open source community and I doubt anyone can seriously deny him that. Unfortunately, he seems rabid about his ideas, making somewhat less than popular with others. The idea of all software being free is unlikely to ever happen, as if there is no reward for becoming a programmer, less people will takeup the profession, lowering standards over time.
--
It's a grey area of what defines an OS; your view is obviously the kernel (it's the kernel that defines what the computer is). I don't think changing the name to GNU/linux is going to bring things forward in any case.
--
There are a number of comments here that seem to think that the FSF is trying to force them to call it GNU/Linux and force them to use the GPL - despite Mr. Oberg directly addressing that issue and carefully explaining that is not the case.
/.'ers take that to mean the opinion-holder is trying to force them to agree.
It seems that whenever someone states an opinion, some sensitive
Most people who hold an opinion would probably like it if everyone agreed with them. If you think you are right, then its only natural you want others to think the way you do. But that's a far cry from *forcing* others to agree.
So Mr. Oberg thinks it should be called GNU/Linux, does so himself, and puts forward his reasons for thinking so. How is the forcing anyone to do anything? Its a statement of opinion, and only the most easily swayed of individuals could call such a thing 'forcing'.
So Mr. Oberg thinks the GPL is the best license (doesn't explain why, but the GNU pages do that at great length). And this forces you to release your software under the GPL how?
One comment compared the term GNU/Linux to newspeak. There is one critical difference: in 1984, you were forced to use newspeak in any publication or face the Thought Police. In this case, its just a strong suggestion, with no penalties at all for not using, other than pissing off RMS if you ever speak to him in person, which might qualify as coercion to the spineless.
I realize this is fairly redundant, as I'm basically just repeating what the author said: Specifically, that while he holds these beliefs he is neither trying nor *capable* of forcing us to agree. Sure, it'd be nice (to him) if we did - that's why he's presenting his opinion, in the hopes that we might come to agree of our own free will.
Whether you do or not is your own business.
The enemies of Democracy are
I wasn't aware the GNU project could claim that XFree86 fell under its purview just because of a license. This is nifty.
I should write the Garrett New World Order License. All software that's licensed under the GNWO I can now call "my software". Wow.
I respect RMS's contributions but reserve the right to think he's a nutball for the same reason I respect the socialist party's contribution to the idea of human equality and fairness without voting them into office.
Nothing worth doing is worth doing today.
...that private individuals and private industry would _never have come up with these things_ on their own...if they had been given their tax dollars back and been allowed to invest them where they saw fit. I would argue just the opposite, that they would have come to fruition either (A) faster or (B) more efficiently (in terms of capital allocation) without government "aid."
In economics, this is known as "opportunity cost." You can either spend your money how you see fit, or give it to Uncle Sam to spend on your behalf.
shane
GNU and FSF started as a project to create a FREE unix clone and RMS (among others) are getting worried that this issue is being forgotten. Today we don't think about this but still it is one of the most importent things about this. A free OS. To call it GNU/Linux we also make people aware of some greater things than just a cheap OS, it's about so much more.
who shot the cat in the hat to experiment is insane
Uh... gcc is just a "C" compiler, albeit a very good one. However, you could use some other x86 based compiler (go out and buy a commercial one) and build the kernel. Heck! I was compiling "C" programs long before RMS came up with gcc. They just weren't "free".
Having said that, while it is possible to create a non-GNU Linux kernel, it'd be a pretty lame system without any of the other FSF tools!
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Here is my litmus test: go to an advanced OS class, look at what is studied, and note which piece of the linux distribution is where those things are realized. It's not in any of the apps nor the libraries. It's the kernel.
..., we are in full agreement.
So I claim that the Linux OS *is* the kernel.
Regarding what was said about the apps (GCC, etc.) You *can* plug in many different alternates and still have a working system. I am not saying that it is easy or painless, just that it is possible.
Regarding the POSIX interface, great, wonderful,
But I think the really important point is this: you cannot force people through word play nor force of personality to name something after something else that you hold dear. It's like trying to force people to like you. It doesn't work that way. Language and names are defined by common usage (despite what prescriptive linguists say) and bullies have been notoriously unsuccesful in changing this basic fact.
The Computational Beauty of Nature
There are at least two other annoying facets to this situation that I haven't seen raised. First, the GNU tools have been ported to and packaged for many other operating systems (e.g., Solaris, BSD, Ultrix, HP-UX, and, yes, even Windows and arguably DOS). Does RMS insist that we call these by a mangled GNU/XXX name? Of course not. The GNU tools are only tools, after all, and giving them such an unnatural level of prominence would be obviously silly.
So, the cult of GNU would say ``See the GNU tools are an essential and defining piece of Linux, ergo it is GNU/Linux!''
Not true. If you take your favorite Linux distribution, there is no reason why you couldn't replace the entire suite of tools by alternates (and without ever rebooting the machine). If you did this, what would you have? Why an altered Linux system, of course, but still a Linux system.
Now take your favorite Linux distribution and substitute in a new kernel. What do you have? Well, err, a new operating system. My point is that one piece (the kernel) actually defines the properties of the entire operating system while all other pieces (a superset of the GNU tools) can be replaced without changing the underlying structure.
As to the second point that I promised, I am disturbed not by the cult of GNU's desire for credit (they deserve credit, and a lot of it) but by RMS's insistence that the credit be noted by changing how we speak. Can you say ``double plus good?!?''
The Computational Beauty of Nature
taxpayer money should be used to benefit taxpayers -- there's no doubt about that. It is a leap, however, to say that this gives taxpayers the right to use and understand everything the government does. keeping stealth bomber technology a secret (supposedly) benefits taxpayers more than giving it out and thereby giving unstable governments and terrorists access to it -- so that's what the government should do.
giving us taxpayers the most bang for our buck is not equivalent to giving us access to all the information the governement has.
(of course, at $1e9 a pop, i think abandoning the technology would give taxpayers the greatest benefit in this specific example.)
Well said. =:)
We give credit to Gnu by using their utilities. Ditto the developers of all the software I use. Even if I had a 100% GPL system, why is the liscence so important? I'm quite fond of my Pentium proscessor. Should I call it an Intel/Creative/Nvidia/Western Digital/AmiBIOS/GNU/Linux system, just in case one of them feels left out too?
My opinion: If it's that important to acknowlege that you use only GPLed stuff, then go ahead and call it GNU/Linux, but this is *totaly* different from RMS's yelling at anybody who leaves out the GNU part, regardless of whether they use just GPLed stuff or not.
I take it you don't use any of the following:
ls, cp, mv, rm, sed, awk, grep, ps, X, startx, glibc/libc, gnome, or Afterstep?
None of those are on your system?
Wow.
--
First, good essay. But it neatly avoided issue of personalities here. The FSF has been so badly damaged by the "personality" wars of late it's hard to see that any progress can reasonably be made in the near future. Anyway, back to the issue. My proposals for recognition of the GNU utilities in linux.
:)
o Put it in the man page. I have yet to find a gnu utility that was self-explanatory on the command line.
o Incorporate it into the kernel system startup. Why not? We have a penguin logo, why not put GNU in the background of it, or something *stylish and eye catching*. Or have a short "credit" on system startup.
o Put "gnu" in the version number and README files. Seems to be the most popular choice, I won't go any further.
o ASK for recognition! If you're really that concerned that GNU be recognized, go to the current community leaders - ESR, Linus T., RMS(duh!), Alan Cox, the *BSD developers, and ask them point blank - do you use the gnu linux utilities, and how useful do you find them? In this community - you are judged by what you contribute. If GNU has contributed as much as it boasts to have, this should be the easiest, and most effective, recognition.
In conclusion, I think the community knows how valuable the gnu utilities are, but all utilities have one thing in common - people take them for granted. Don't be suprised if nobody brings up the gnu utilities - they're UTILITIES!
--
...why XFree86 is licensed not under GPL but under (surprise) the X license. I don't think the FSF and XFree team are as cozy as the FSF might like us to think.
"that bunch of stuff
I load on my Solaris box so I can have a compiler for free,"
Please amend that to read "so I can have a compiler that works." "Free(beer)" is often irrelevant in Corporate America.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Do you really think there are people who know
"GNU" means "Free" who don't know "Linux" is "Free" as well?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
It also points out that TANSTAAFL must also be long-range; all of those government $$$ which, however indirectly, launched GNU in practical terms were the payment for the GNU "free lunch" which the computing world now eats. GPL needs to remain current, and prominent, in the software world, even if only to "keep the blighters honest."
Most importantly, their approach "this is our view, we'd like you to adopt it BUT WON'T FORCE YOU TO or even yell at you for not adopting it" is the core and essence of working civilisation. As well as the software impact, who has analysed the _social_ impact of the very existence of the GPL?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
So XFree86 has been "adopted" by GNU, so that makes it ok to lump it in with the GNU name, but the Linux kernel's adoption of GNU software doesn't allow it to do the same thing?
It's a Unix system - I know this.
What atrocious spelling? The grammar may not be of a writing standard but it's in conversational style, so I let it stand.
It's a Unix system - I know this.
At the time I made the post there was no other comment similar to mine. By the time it was posted, there were at least two others. Those are the breaks.
It's a Unix system - I know this.
How many years have you been running linux?
I propose this: Since RMS' ideology is so repugnant, use BSD.
Even Linus refuses to use the term GNU/Linux.
I propose this: if RMS is your god, then use Hurd or GNU/Hurd
Oh, BTW, I've been using Linux for 5 years (why that's relevant, I don't know)
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
Don't forget "Oog", the caveperson who invented cave-drawing.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
I agree.
Indeed, why don't we call Windows "Windows/Dos"?
2) I agree with the article: RMS' personal life is completely irrelevant here...unless of course you think it has some bearing -- in which case you really ought to say why.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
No one is saying that RMS or anyone else can't call the OS whatever they wish. But when RMS can't even allow a reporter to ask questions about Linux without repeatedly interrupting him to correct his usage, other people of a less...committed mindset than he will be turned off. No one, I submit, becomes impressed by Free Software when Free Software advocates browbeat them over such petty little things. Indeed, I suspect the exact opposite is what happens. Your message appears to indicate that I am correct.
The only remaining question is: how many other coders are joining you because of this? FSF, take note of what RMS' brand of advocacy has the potential to do: alienate developers who might otherwise have used the GPL.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
>Try this, remove all GNU tools from your "Linux" system, maybe then you will give some credit to GNU for
>what it actually does.
And your point is?
The problem with RMS insisting that everyone calls the OS ``GNU/Linux" is this: he is monomaniacal about this, just like a certain Sea Captain. His obsessiveness about people using only this phrase for the OS is beginning to make him appear to be a net.kook.generic. And harming his ability to explain the idea of Free Software to a larger audience.
If it's more important for the FSF/GNU to get credit for their contributions to Linux than to explain & promote the idea of Free Software, then RMS should continue this tactic. If he truly wants to reduce the use of proprietary software, then I advise him to change this tactic. He has better ideas that will frighten the suits, & I would like those to get attention.
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
Uh no, the THEORY is out there. The actual IMPLEMENTATION is a quite different matter. This is why without very advanced guidance systems tightly integrated to the subtleties of your physical design, your medium or long range missile will be off by many miles.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
why don't we just go back to calling it Freax?
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
I can't believe someone is still flogging Hurd. FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Linux, blah blah blah - who needs *another* OS?
As for discussions of RMS,ESR,LT,AC, etc - Slashdot is turning into a gossip site. Its rather petty.
It seems that nitpicking the personalities in open source is more important than talking about software. Oh well.
Priestess wrote:
If taxpayers money is used by the DOD to make some ultra-safe encryption algo or whatever then shouldn't the tax-payers get access to that code?
If taxpayer money is used by the DOD to make nuclear missles, shouldn't taxpayers get access to the blueprints?
The government does some things that depend on secrecy. As much as we like to make the CIA, NSA, etc. look like boogiemen (and I do think that they deserve some criticism), there are others out there who are even worse, and we shouldn't give them our plans.
--
Let's just call it God/Adam&Eve/Ada/Turing/Kernigan&Ritchie/XFree86/G NU/Linux ;-)
Twelve-and-three-quarter inches. Unyielding. This wand belonged to Bellatrix Lestrange.
Here's an idea. Why don't you remove every GNU item from your system and see what you have left. Of course, you're linking your kernel against GNU libraries, so at some point you're going to have to find a way to compile your kernel without glibc. You won't have bash, grep, ls, awk, sed, chmod, chown, du, mv, cp, rm ... well, maybe now you're starting to get the picture.
Anyway, prove me wrong. Remove all that GNU stuff that's "not so important" and post the resulting "system" here.
mp
michael@trollope.org
"The secret to strong security: less reliance on secrets." -- Whitfield Diffie
Right. It's always easier to pick the fruit than to plant and nurture the tree.
What really gets me is that the proliferation of these ideas (like Jesus's Mustart Seed parable) seems to have engendered so much distaste for their origins. I guess that if you run a business, and you can get an OS for $0, but sell your own "open source" output for $0+X, you suddenly get really interested in picking apart those origins.
Without purists like Stallman, we won't have free operating systems for long. Instead, we'll have *pieces* of *formerly* free operating systems that have *somehow* managed to wind up in Corporation X's copyright or patent portfolio.
--------------Rev. C.C.Chips---------------- For the real truth, visit
Well, of course you pronounce the slash! Otherwise, you wouldn't be giving Slashdot the recognition it deserves...
--
--
#define private public
Call it Linux. Call it GNU/Linux. Call it RedHat. Call it Debian. Call it whatever you want. The fact remains, it's a kick-ass kernel with very useful utilities, a great windowing system, and lots of freely available support for it.
People in the media who don't have the savvy to know what this all means will continue to choose the simplest name... Linux. Yes, it means a lot of different things, but it's similar to using the generic term "Windows" to mean one of Microsoft's operating environments (which one? 3.0, 3.11, WfWG, '95, '98, NT 3.51, NT 4.0, 2000?).
Requiring the use of GNU/Linux, or "Linux, courtesy of the massive effort of a lot of people, including Linus, RMS, Alan Cox, and others too numerous to mention" (to point out how ridiculous this is getting) is just silly.
Ahhh... I'm preaching to the converted.
Can we have a day on Slashdot where this silliness isn't re-hashed yet again?
--
"May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"
Yes.
However, if my memory serves, the head of the AI Lab still let him stick around and use their equipment/offices without obligation. So, like it or not, the work was still indirectly paid for by the folks who funded the AI Lab.
D
----
Hey dvdeug,
It's great if that's what you intend. You write code, you place it under the GPL license believing and knowing that you are giving it over to the FSF under the GPL. So long as it is understood as such, I've personally no problems with it.
BUT, and a big but here. But, if someone writes code and GPL's it believing that they are giving it to the world, but was not under the impression that it meant their code will be placed under the banner of FSF, then that is a problem. Yes, they should read the GPL.
I'm not saying that everyone is mistaken. You are obviously not. If that is your intention, then that is great. But for the time being, my intention is not to give code over to the FSF. Just as it is not my intention to give code over to a large corporation.
Thanks for listening,
- Wing
- Reap the fires of the soul.
- Harvest the passion of life.
- Wing
- Reap the fires of the soul.
- Harvest the passion of life.
Was just thinking.. GPL'd code is basically open code, yes? Then by that token, code that is freely released would say.. contain the credits and names of authors and what they contributed in the various notes files and source code files?
Isn't credit being giving where it is due? In the source code? The past is not lost, but preserved with every copy of every utility being used and installed. What more can one ask than one's name and credit in every copy of source code?
A thousand names in a thousand places and yet, the one which everyone fights over is the title.
If we were talking about something Microsoft made, I'd agree, that maybe more effort should be made to determine where credit is due.
But with Linux and with the GNU portions of the distributions, and a variety of components from various developer groups, isn't enough credit given where it is due? In the code?
I still think RMS could benefit greatly from perhaps a more gentler approach to spreading his beliefs, but then again, every one has their own way of doing things. The fruits of his work are continually rippening and spreading. The GPL license is spread far and wide.
And yet, there is the complaint of not enough visibility, of no credit where credit is due.
What one calls their OS hardly depreciates any value from the beliefs behind it.. except perhaps in the case of MS Linux.. that would just plain suck.
All this fighting over a title and credit, I think, is pretty petty. And the two major persons who shines above it all because they are doing what they do best, coding and working with people to continue improving code, would be Alan Cox and Linus Torvalds.
I don't mention their names because I worship them. I pretty much don't worship anyone. No one deserves worship. But people do deserve respect.
I call my box a Linux box. I refer to the OS by the term Linux. When referring to distributions, I refer to them by the groups who put them out. Redhat, Debian, Caldera, Slackware, etc. I don't use the GNU portion of the name because it is already a given that GNU is there. The presence of GNU/FSF code in most distributions cannot be denied. But the works of so many others who have contributed work can't be denied either. That while they have GPL'd their code doesn't make their work a part of the GNU project. I am sure that at least a few people did not expect an organization to take credit for their work when they GPL'd their code.
I mean.. when John Doe writes code XYZ and GPL'd it, I'm sure he didn't mean to say, "I give this code to the GNU and FSF folks."
Because if that's what GPL means, then maybe it might be time to look for another licensing agreement.
Just my two cents.
- Wing
- Reap the fires of the soul.
- Harvest the passion of life.
- Wing
- Reap the fires of the soul.
- Harvest the passion of life.
There's a lot of value in a good name. The name "Linux" (by itself) now has a lot of weight behind it and is becoming marketable.
It really doesn't matter at this point whether the correct term is GNU/Linux, or how much RMS and the FSF complains about it. People will continue to refer to it as Linux because that's what is being marketed by word of mouth, media, and television.
It's too late people, live with it.
People talk about how cool Linus is, he's "The man", now RMS is really popular... Why? No one says anything about all of the other people who make GNU / Linux possible. Linus isn't Linux and RMS isn't GNU.
I think GNU / Linux rolls off the tounge better.
Perhaps, but we should give credit where credit is due.
I think this whole GNU/Linux thing is academic. While I have a certain amount of respect for RMS, he is only human. To me 'free software' means just that, free. He is, atleast in theory, giving something the community. Not so he can improve his reputation, but so the world can benefit. Demanding recognition is to me not much different than demanding money for services provided. While RMS may have little need for money, he does have an ego just like the rest of us. I do not believe his demanding recognition is 'wierd', I think its human. But human motivations do not strike me as being entirely in accord with the whole GNU philosophy.
I could appreciate his being concerned about what will happen to the GNU philosphy if people continue to call Linux Linux. If he believes that Linux is entirely contrary to 'free software', that would be one thing. That would be a selfless concern. That has not been that primary argument for naming Linux 'GNU/Linux'.
I think even this argument is weak. Even if people start adopting 'GNU/Linux', it will not change people. The corporate world, if forced to call it 'GNU/Linux' are not going to suddenly have an epiphany. To them, Linux and GNU seem all too similar anyways.
While Linus may not be entirely in accord with RMS' views, Linus' product is pretty damn close. People are collaborating, it is free, etc. The fact of the matter is that Linux has succeeded where Hurd hasn't. It has found a wide audience and increased the appreciation for GNU many times over.
Where do we stop splitting hairs. Is Hurd honestly going to be called "GNU/Herd". One can easily make the same argument. That while Herd might be GNU, it does not acknowledge all the other people who have produced essential GNU tools that are part of the Herd package. And how about certain contributions made to Linux by the BSD community. Does it become GNU/BSD/Linux/etc.... Its all strikes me as being rather pointless.
My univ uses Solaris. Should we call that GNU/Solaris also? They use GNU utilities....but I don't think Sun would approve.
jove:/home/jove/stu/mev0003 & bash --version
GNU bash, version 2.01.1(7)-release (sparc-sun-solaris2.6)
Copyright 1997 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
jove:/home/jove/stu/mev0003 & emacs --version
GNU Emacs 20.2.1
Copyright (C) 1997 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
GNU Emacs comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
You may redistribute copies of Emacs
under the terms of the GNU General Public License.
For more information about these matters, see the files named COPYING.
jove:/home/jove/stu/mev0003 & uname -srv
SunOS 5.6 Generic
So, are we going to call every OS which utilizes GNU utilities, "GNU/"? That seems silly.
Let Linux be Linux. Common useage dictates that it remains that way. To get in a spat about something so silly is, well, silly. What's wrong with using a CREDITS file? Oh, wait, don't all GNU utilities print out their versions if you ask the right way? Hmm, must be something there...
Matthew Vanecek For 93 million miles, there is nothing between the sun and my shadow except me. I'm always getting i
This anonymous coward has shown the point. Most newbies out there don't realize how vital the GNU software has been for GNU/Linux.
Nah.
When you get MacOS or Windows, you don't get just the kernel, you get a lot of things such as the Files Explorer, Notepad, Paintbrush, the command line utilities, their buggy telnet program, even the Browser, it seems.
Instead, Linux is *JUST* the kernel. With just Windows or just MacOS there is a lot of things you can do. With just Linux, there is nothing you can do. This is where GNU comes in.
I have been reading most of the posts here and there are a few things I would like to point out. I certainly have not discussed about this with Richard as much as Jonas has, and I could get some things wrong, but, well, lets see.
First, I would like to point out that the reason why Richard asks us to call it GNU/Linux is not to get credits for himself but to draw the attention to the really important thing about Linux: the fact that it is free.
Its sad to see that most supporters of GNU/Linux (or however you call it, I'll stick to GNU/Linux in this post) today seem to use it only because of reasons other than the fact that it is free. They use it because it never crashes on them, because it doesn't cost them a dime, because it's lightning fast. Others are more radical and seem to base their actions around the silly I-Hate-Microsoft argument (the FAQ of my LUG states "Q: What is the reason for you to create Linuxcol? A: First: We are tired of Guindow$ shit being the only alternative in the Operating System market for PC's", hell, it even repeats that seven times in UPPERCASE (see)). True, the stability and performace of the GNU/Linux is a consequence of the fact that it is free (as Eric Raymond pointed out), but most users don't see the freedom as the final goal. They used Windows before, they will go back to it if Microsoft sucks the bugs out, lowers the prices and manages to create a better (from this technical point of view) operating system (heheh, as if they could).
Do you remember all the excitement when the MS-Office for Linux rumour spread? I got to see some comments/mails like "YES! We are winning!". Or the excitement with Oracle supporting Linux? Why should we care? True, we will be able to play with more applications in our operating system, but most people seem to forget those are still propietary applications!
When Richard asks us to call it GNU/Linux, he just wants to reminds us about the freedom. Nowdays GNU/Linux is getting more attention than ever. Most propietary software companies are starting to develope and port to GNU/Linux. We are appearing in the press. Richard just wants to be sure we won't forget it is the freedom what made this possible, something most GNU/Linux users seem to have forgottem already.
From this point of view, Richard would never be happy to listen someone say GNU/Solaris, GNU/MacOS, GNU/Windows unless Solaris, MacOS and Windows became Free software (perhaps GNU/BSD).
cat flames >/dev/null
Azul.
Umm.
RMS isn't asking everyone to call it GNU/Linux to get creddit himself. If you knew him better, you'd understand all he cares about is freedom. Most recent GNU/Linux users and supporters fail to see how the important thing of what they call Linux is the fact that it is free. They just use it/support it because it is rock solid and lightning fast. When he asks us to call it GNU/Linux, RMS is doing it to remind everyone how GNU/Linux isn't just another operating system, it is a free operating system (like the BSDs, yes) and that's the important thing.
He doesn't want publicity for himself, but he wants to be sure we won't forget what the point is and turn the GNU/Linux world into just another community full of propietary software, specially now with all the attention it is receiving.
Alejo.
I know this is not the topic of the essay, but I'm interested in your reasons for not liking these licenses. To me BSD/Artistic seem MORE free than GPL (because they are less coercive).
I thought (probably delusionally, but never mind
I like "Lignux" because it lets me get the "GNU" in there without hammering anybody over the head with it in print, and without having to change the way I pronounce it. No extra syllables! Very important.
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
This argument has been going on for a while now, and I can understand why the FSF would feel it's not getting enough credit in the Linux community and in the mainstream press for what it's done. I think that every free software group that's not Linux feels the same way; I know that the BSD crowd certainly does, becuase there's a lot of BSD code in Linux, too. (And in fact, the BSD concept of free software predates GNU.)
But I think that we're making a mistake by insisting that we can't call the typical package of Linux kernel and applications someone installs on her computer `Linux.' For a long time it's been a word with multiple meanings; in some contexts it means just the kernel, in others it means the entire distribution.
There is plenty of precedent for this. Take, for example, the term `classical' as applied to music. It has two distinct meanings that parallel the two distinct usages of Linux above. The broader meaning is as a general term for music in the European, non-folk tradition. The narrower meaning is for a specific period (between baroque and romantic, mostly falling in the 18th century) of that music. Certainly in the more precise definition of the term it's wrong to refer to J. S. Bach as `classical'; without question he's baroque. On the other hand, if you're looking for Bach in a record shop, it's not at all considered unreasonable to ask for the `classical' section (as opposed to `folk' or `rock'); you'll end up at the right place.
And in the article, you yourself seem to think that it's fair that one project (GNU) can `adopt' another (XFree86) as a part of it. If you've done that, why cannot Linux do the same?
There is, too, a real benefit to gathering all of this stuff under one name: it helps a lot with the press coverage. One of the reasons Linux has been able to do so well in the mainstream press is that it is simplifiable to a sound byte: `Linux with BSD and GNU userland, XFree86 as the GUI, and fvwm95 as the window manager' gets reduced to `Linux,' which works well in media because it reduces something complex to something apparently simple. You may not like that, but that's how news coverage works: subtlety gets removed because simplicity gets attention and complexity gets ignored.
That still leaves those of us who who build and use free software that's not Linux with a bit of a problem. As a NetBSD developer and user, I get just as annoyed as anyone when someone starts talking about `Linux drivers' for a video card rather than `XFree86 drivers,' since NetBSD uses the exact same drivers and has the exact same capabilities. Now that Linux folks have gotten the idea of free software in the public's mind, how do the rest of us get our fair share of the spotlight?
We're not going to do it by trying to redefine terms that the press (and most of the rest of the world) have already decided on the meaning of. Asking the press to abandon the term `Linux' for free software just isn't going to wash; they've invested a lot of time and effort into into making that term into what it is. And it's not going to be by picking fights with the Linux folks, either. They're the ones in the spotlight; they have the power.
I don't have a good solution to this problem, unfortunately. I think that part of the solution will be setting up the educational resources so that those who are interested or get involved can find out the true depth and diversity of the free software world. And part of it will be convincing the Linux advocates to help us spread the word. Part of it may even be gentle reminders, when appropriate, to the Linux folks that there is something out there besides Linux. But is all that enough? I don't know.
cjs
The world's most portable OS: http://www.netbsd.org.
Yes, the software that UCB produced was free; it just depended on non-free software (the AT&T code) to run. Much as GCC won't run without other code (an OS).
In fact, I'm not laying the idea of free software at the feet of the BSD folks, either. Around the same time (late '70s) in CP/M world (which was pretty much entirely independent), lots of people wrote programs and gave them away, source code and all. And I doubt that they were the first, either.
I also don't want to make light of Stallman's contribution to free software. He did an incredible vision, did a lot of work to move it foward, and free software has received huge benefits from it. Gcc is without question one of the most important things making free software what it is today.
What I'm saying, I guess, is that there are a lot of people involved here, and the idea of free software goes back a lot further than most people appear to think. Linux just happened to be lucky enough to get the press attention, and be the one word the press chose to print. I think the whole discussion would be much better off if certain people would try to understand just why Stallman is pushing this `GNU/Linux' thing, rather than just dismissing him as a moron. I don't think it's a good (or even practical) idea to start calling what we currently call `Linux,' `GNU/Linux.' But I think that Stallman does have some pretty good reasons for being upset, and I think the Linux community should sit down and listen to them.
The world's most portable OS: http://www.netbsd.org.
Well, this really gets to the heart of the problem, though I'm sure the poster didn't realise it.
Most likely, without Linux, the world would be just as it is now except that the press would be talking about FreeBSD or NetBSD or 386BSD or something similar. In fact, had it not been for the USL lawsuit holding back the BSDs, Linux might not even be where it is now anyway.
What many in Linux community don't seem to realise is that it's frustrating to be marginalised, but even more frustrating to be marginalised by a group that managed to make its way out of the margins. How did you feel two years ago when the press never paid any attention to Linux, but just said `there are no OSes other than MS ones out there'? Well, that's what it feels like the Linux crowd is doing right now.
cjs
The world's most portable OS: http://www.netbsd.org.
His point is, he'd consider calling linux GNU/Linux if rms called the GNU system the X/GNU system.
You forgot Babbage.
If this is true, I don't know, it shoud have been explicitely stated. The way I read it was that GNU decided to incorporate XFree86 w/o XFree86's permission. Why would XFree86 want to be part of the GNU project? That would imply that it works only w/ GNU software, but last I checked it ran on BSD and OS/2 just fine. If someone knows if XFree86 requested to be lumped under the GNU title please enlighten us all.
-matt
Actually XFree86 isn't GPL'd. It's under their own license.
-matt
I wasn't aware that Debian was started by the FSF. And they can call it debian GNU/Linux if they like. They can call it RMS IS A GOD/Linux. I'm calling my box Linux. I don't tell you what to call your system, don't tell me what to call mine. Hey if I wanted to I could modify the kernel to be mst3kix.
And i've been running linux for 3 or 4 years now. Just to let you know.
Why should I use BSD just because RMS is, IMHO, a twit? I'm happy with Linux. I really think RMS needs to learn a lesson from Linus, Linus never receives this much heat because he's smart enough to earn respect and recognition rather than demanding it.
-matt
I'm not saying that theey don't deserve credit. They do. But by demanding credit and coming up with terms like "GNU/Linux" and "correcting" people at press conferences, the FSF and RMS are making them selves look like absolute twits. I respect RMS's work, but not him.
I agree that most of us do want the same thing. But I think RMS's method of going about it is 100% wrong. I prefer Linus' method. With RMS everything is political or it's about recognition and credit. Linus seems a lot more laid back, pretty much just code great software and people will GIVE you recognition and credit. RMS isn't doing much more than pissing people off.
I really hate to make the comparison but RMS is a lot like Bill Gates. Neither one of them seems to have written any code in the last few years. Neither one of them wants to give you any choice, Bill Gates wants everything to be proprietary, RMS wants everything to be free. They both seem to want to own everything, Bill wants to litterally own everything, RMS wants everything to be "GNU". I really think RMS needs to calm down a bit, and step back from the scene for a while and rethink his public behavior.
-matt
I think the compiler is the hard part. You could use egcs, but that's essentially gcc. libc is also a problem. But other than that there are replacements for just about everything. Also, GPL != GNU. If you removed all GPL software you wouldn't even have the kernel. You'd have uhm...netscape and xv?
-matt
Actually isn't egcs just gcc minus RMS?
-matt
XFree86 falls under the title GNU because GNU adopted it? Fine, I now adopt all software that compiles under Linux. So you don't use Linux or GNU/Linux, you use Matt/Linux. You're going to like it or I'll spam the linux kernel mailing list complaining that you aren't giving me the credit I deserve. Sure I had nothing to do with 99.999999% of the software anyone uses (I have written some stuff and released it into the wild, just most of it wasn't widly used). This sounds really stupid but no more so than the FSF claiming that XFree86 falls under the title of "GNU Software" just because the "adopted" it. Last I checked XFree86 was in no way related, it isn't even GPL'd. As for lynx, it was developed by a group of people working at the University of Kansas (from the man page). I don't see FSF listed as one of the authors.
I'm really sick and tired of the FSF for trying to take credit for things that aren't theirs to take credit for. Linux is the prime example of this. Linux uses some FSF owned tools, but it's perfectly useable w/o them. The Demon Linux project is an example of this (they are supposedly making a distribution with no FSF owned software). They don't deserve any credit for the kernel. They do deserve credit for helping the free software movement and for any tools developed by the FSF.
It's because of arogance like this that I will NEVER call Linux GNU/Linux (or even worse lignux, atleast people say RMS was kidding with that one, I really hope so). To me it seems like RMS is just miffed that Linus/Linux is stealing all of the show. Guess what RMS, w/o Linux no one would give a damn about the FSF. Hurd has been vaporware for a long time now, and it will probally be quite sometime before it's completely useable.
I would prefer if RMS and the FSF would just shutup and stop trying to force their ideology on us. I don't care what you think I should call my system. I use Linux, I have for years, and I will continue running Linux for years. If you really want GNU/Linux start your own dist called "GNU/Linux". Until then shutup.
-matt
Disclaimer: I don't call my system a GNU/Linux system.
You should have a fun time without: gcc, make, autoconf, emacs, g77, g++, gas, egcs, gdb, gmp, at least (a quick check through me RedHat 5.2 system).
Now, if you want to discount all software under the GPL, you're in for a really good time.
Anyhow, how do you plan to make your GNU-free distribution without a compiler?
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
What would your replacements for gcc, g++, g77, autoconf, make, gdb, bash, and egcs be, out of curiosity?
:-)
Btw, you're wrong about switching the linux kernel changing things entirely. With the exception of a few linux-specific tools (like ifconfig, route, init, etc.), you could rip out the Linux kernel and have nearly the same computer. That was how Linux was written, it implemented the POSIX API, so it is inherently replaceable. Any other SYS V implementation of UNIX would be virtually identical.
Of course, the same thing could be said for anything, uncluding the GNU tools. If you replace them with replacements, you're not going to see much of a difference.
We're all really on a UNIX operating system, or more truthfully, a GNU operating system. Remember, GNU's Not Unix. It's a free Unix, which is what we're really all using. We're using a Linux kernel, but it's more a GNU system than it is a Linux system, except that it's a Linux implementation of the GNU operating system.
Of course, that's all mostly academic. I'm using a system built around Linux, so I'll call it Linux. It has a better name. I'll still GPL what I write, and Linux is GPL'd. As Long as the GPL is in public view, calling it GNU/Linux just makes speaking harder.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
He said that he thinks that the proper name is GNU/Linux. In some ways, the right name is Linux. In others it's GNU.
In the end, though, he said this:
"The specific name is not really important, though some people might want to think so. The importance is to give credit to the GNU project where credit is due."
He said that the name isn't important. He said it would be nice, but it isn't important. The whole tone of the article suggests that the important thing is the freedom. They want to spread the message of freedom, and publicity is a great help in that. Considering how much we owe to the FSF (The GPL, gcc, make, autoconf, bash, gdb, emacs, and many more), it's not asking much to get some publicity. After all, there probably would be no Linux if it weren't for the FSF. There'd be something, but nothing like what we know today.
And in the end, it doesn't matter much what we call it. I don't call it GNU/Linux. But I do explain the GPL to anyone I talk to about Linux. Credit where credit is due.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
Can you point to someplace in the article where he prohibited you from calling it Linux?
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
Actually, Linux is a kernel and GNU is an operating system. Of course, I call my system Linux, shorter names are easier, and Linux just sounds better than GNU/Linux.
However, Linux is just one implementation of UNIX, when you get down to it. The kernel is the kernel, but do you say that you're on a Linux 2.2.4 system? Why not? That's the kernel.
Because you're talking about more than the kernel, but the sytem type. But the system type is hard to define. The idea of GNU is a free unix implementation. When you slap everything together into a debian distribution, isn't that what you have? A Free (as in speech) unix?
I'll sometimes just call what I'm on UNIX because that's what it really is. A specific implementation of UNIX, yes, but it's UNIX. You call it windows because of what the system is, not because of the kernel. I bet that the window's kernel name isn't windows, but probably something like "windows95 kernel". So do you say that it's Windows95 Kernel?
In the end, there's really no one thing to call it, and we can all use whatever nicknames that you want. The kernel isn't called GNU/Linux, but debian's dist is called Debian GNU/Linux. redhat's is called RedHat Linux. They all mean the same thing, and they all should probably be used at some point.
I just go for Linux because it's easier to say. but I always explain what the GPL is to those who don't know.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
Actually, egcs is owned by the FSF too. if you don't believe me, check out egcs.cygnus.com - everyone who contributes has to sign forms assigning their work to the FSF if they want it to be included in egcs.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
What you're saying is a nice sentiment, but we happen to live in the world. People are fallable, and noone is perfect. Sure, in a perfect world we'd educate people instead of having prisons, there would be no laws because everyone would act in everyone else's best interests, etc.
However, we're not there yet, nor will we ever be. Paradise is never going to happen on this side of death. We'll find out about the other side when we're there.
Until then, trusting in the white-as-snow goodness of human nature is just simply foolish. History has demonstrated quite effectively that people will almost always trade freedom for material benefits, and eventually lose both. Why do you think that human nature has improved so much in the last 50 years?
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
What you're saying has its true elements, but then again what thing in the world hasn't been tainted? The railroad monopolies, when they existed were basically given to the railroads by the US government. The trucking industry was mostly paid for by the US government (the roads). A huge amount of the technology that we currently use has been developed by the milatary. Much of the medical practice in the US was funded by gov't research.
And some good can come out of tainted things. If the world for RMS was a freer place for the artificiality of government subsidies, the lessen isn't to chuck the freedom, it's to chuck the government subsidies. And he did, to a degree. He earned money, at least for a while, selling GNU software. I'm not sure what RMS is currently doing, my understanding is that he's an expensive independent consultant.
And the current FSF isn't subsidised by the government. It's an interesting historical detail that they were, but then again, much of the valued things in the world have been funded by governments. Where would we be without the roads in the world? Where would we be without all that money poored into medical science? Into mechanical technology? The internet was based on the ARPAnet, which was a government (military) network. Should we abandon the net because it has a tainted origin?
Everything grows. We're living in a world somewhat like the MIT AI labs of twenty years ago. And Migael de Icaza isn't recieving government funding, nor is Linus, Alan Cox, etc.
The MIT AI lab wasn't perfect, but neither is anything else. Government subsidies don't really have anything to do with the modern Open Source/Free Software movement.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
Do we really want to FOG ("F"SF/"O"SS/"G"NU) up our movement with petty bickering? We are on a threshold that may get us closer to the Open/Free source world than we've ever been. Will we let FOG become fodder for MS FUD? How does it look when our "fearless leaders" are arguing, fighting, quiting and starting their own groups, acting like a bunch of idiots in front of the media... (GNU/Linux corrections... Obi-Wan costumes)? If we want our ideals to spread, if we want to see a day when Microsoft will not dominate the world, then we must get our act together.
What do I mean? How many flames a day do you think ESR gets from people who have never written a line of code, maybe never even compiled their own kernel? Look at the comments posted here. How many posts come from people who have no understanding of what GNU has done for Free/Open software? Or,how many simply follow GNU without thought... and fight OSS without understanding?
How many times have those that set themselves up as our leaders (to the media, at least) embarassed the whole community? Once or twice is too many times. We're no longer in our comfortable basements/labs/cubicles hacking code. Our creations are being reviewed by the entire industry. And we ourselves are being put on a stage as it were... viewed under a microscope. Our actions can and will overshadow our code.
When it was faceless hackers writing the kernels, compilers, etc. the community was judged by the quality of their code. Now, our code will be judged by the quality of the community. In the real world, uptime and reliability don't apply to just systems, they apply to the business/vendor/community that produced those systems. Our community needs to be as tight and clean as our code!
Remember, MS is waiting for a chance to exploit one mistake into a major FUD-Fest. Let's not give them that chance.
Get a life, not a lifestyle. - Hikem Bey
What's being discussed, at least most of the time isn't freedom. It's who's version of freedom is right. There's nothing wrong with discussing which freedom is best, as long as it doesn't make the community look like a bunch of self-serving whining misfits. Changing the world is good, but as Mark Twain said:
"Clothes make the man, naked people have little influence over soicity"
Until we have some "clothes" on, we won't change anything for the better. Our discussions, thoughts and ideals will perish with our movement. And our movement will perish if we don't present ourselves to the public as a unified community. Could you imagine the US "Founding Fathers" fighting and bickering over the design of the US highway system, or leaving and writing their own constitution before they won the war?
Or did Franklin want the Declaration of Independence called Franklin/Declaration of Independence, before the US of A became its own country?
We'll never know for sure how the FF felt toward each other... you see they kept it behind closed doors. Outside they were unified, no matter what may have been happening on the inside!
It's fine that we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the various ways to implement freedom... just do it in the privacy of our community. Don't do it for the world to see.
Get a life, not a lifestyle. - Hikem Bey
Every thing that you need to know about missles can be found in publicly availible forums ( libaries and textbooks...) About the only thing you can't easily find about fusion/fission devices in the same way are the high yield designs. The information IS out there, it's the materials that are hard to find.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I'm using the Linux/GNU C Compiler to build stuff. How's that? The guy in the next office is using Linux/GNU Emacs to edit some code. Since the FSF can demand that Linux be renamed, why can't the Linux community demand that the GNU tools be renamed? The Linux community has adopted many of the GNU utilities.
The unsig!
That being said, I know a number of folks who would find huge amounts of fault with your statement with respect to g++. egcs has a nice c++ compiler, but that's not g++....
Sun's development system, while expensive, works.
The unsig!
But again, if RMS/FSF had WANTED that level of control over their creation - so that they could prevent that type of thing from happening - why did they spend so much time developing the GPL which explicitly ALLOWED that activity?
You see, the FSF and RMS want to have it both ways. They want control of their creation and its offspring (Linux) and to still have "freedom". Uh-uh. The two are mutually exclusive.
If they had wanted that ability to control it after they put it on the FTP server, they should have worded the license differently. Instead, they released it to the world, for all and sundry to do with it as they will --- and they did.
But its NOT the right thing to do. GNU (GNU's Not Unix) is an Operating System in and of itself -- an operating system that until Hurd is finished is not yet complete.
Saying "GNU/Linux" is like saying "Unix/MacOSX" because some of the features of Unix were incorporated into OSX. Its just dumb.
i think you are being very unfair. The world today likes people to hide their opinions, to keep how they feel to themselves, even to change their opinions without understanding the changes. You most certainly are _not_ encouraged to stand up for something you believe. RMS basicly says screw that. He stands up for what he believes, you _have_ to credit him for that. Like anything that is good we need people who are maybe a little over the top to keep reminding us what we are really about, especialy now that "the indestry" have noticed GNU/Linux and start buzzing "open source". Too many people seem to have lost the morels that made the Free Software community and GNU/Linux what it is
Scott Aaron Bamford (vpp) "We`re giving you the chance to skrew it up in a whole new and exciting way" sab@clara.net
the restriction applyed is that you cant apply a restriction. you fail to see this?
Scott Aaron Bamford (vpp) "We`re giving you the chance to skrew it up in a whole new and exciting way" sab@clara.net
how is it forced on you? i agree we should give credit where credits due. I`m sorrie but noone is forcing it upon you. If you look at the majority of these comments they seem to still call it Linux and not GNU/Linux. So if its forced its not very forcefully forced. Also the "dick" has a point, wihtout GNU we would only have a kernel.
Try this, remove all GNU tools from your "Linux" system, maybe then you will give some credit to GNU for what it actually does.
Scott Aaron Bamford (vpp) "We`re giving you the chance to skrew it up in a whole new and exciting way" sab@clara.net
many people who come into the Linux world dont know what GNU is for a long time. Some know what the GPL is, but it often takes a long time, especialy with all this "open source" hype some of which is so not open its sickening. Alot of a Linux system is GNU, so why not say thanks? I meen Linux is based on Linus' name. Yet no one objects to crediting him. GNU is not based on RMS' name, so lets give the poor guy some credit? hes worked 15 years for what we have, lets say thank you at least once.
Scott Aaron Bamford (vpp) "We`re giving you the chance to skrew it up in a whole new and exciting way" sab@clara.net
Um...
Linus gets his credit from the kernels name. Am i the only one whos noticed this? why sint GNU called RMS? yet you all call RMS the big head, shesh, reading all these comments is really getting me worked up. Morels really are nothing in todays world are they.. i want a new world
Scott Aaron Bamford (vpp) "We`re giving you the chance to skrew it up in a whole new and exciting way" sab@clara.net
in the same way the fundermental morels of a Church nor should they of the GNU. Maybe some people aint in it for the money?
Scott Aaron Bamford (vpp) "We`re giving you the chance to skrew it up in a whole new and exciting way" sab@clara.net
all they ask is a little credit is that too much???
i sat here and read almost all these comments and to be blunt, i am sickened by them.
just remove all the GNU stuff from your system, then see if you feel more like giving them the credit they desurve? now remove everything under the GPL since thats made by GNU, feel more like it now???
give the GNU credit, they have made what we have, in software, in liecnse, in morels, so blasted say thank you!!!!!!!!!!!
grr
sorrie i _really_ had to get that out
Scott Aaron Bamford (vpp) "We`re giving you the chance to skrew it up in a whole new and exciting way" sab@clara.net
Because it was always about the philosophy first. Unfortunately many do not realize that. Guess they are simply used to being able to run a completely free system.
Well golly gee whiz maybe cause XFree wanted to become part of the GNU project and linux is merely a kernel, not a project. Then again we could pull a microsoft and say screw microkernels, lets just run everything in kernel space.
It was a joke, NT 3 was an attempt at a microkernel which was so horribly slow that MS went in a totally opposite direction and sucked nearly everything, including much of the GUI into kernel space making it pretty much as far from a microkernel as you can get.
HURD is a microkernel thus the reference to microkernels. Don't always take things so seriously.
anyone who has taken a course in logic can see that this is perfectly valid logic.
GNU adopts other software.
Calling linux "GNU/Linux" gives credit to the
adopted software.
Linux adopted GNU software.
THEREFORE
Calling Linux "Linux" gives credit to GNU.
heh
"All that glitters is not gold"
The kernel is a tiny percent of code without which my computer would never do more than POST.
-tak
Following that logic, why is it so unreasonable to then assume that, had the GNU tools not already existed, substitutes would've been developed for use with the Linux kernel?
-tak
[* software can check in, but it can't check out]
I hope you were trolling when you wrote this.
Without continued development in different directions by people with different needs Linux would not be around. Who knows a new better operating system might be jsut around the corner.. Oh but i forgot why would anyone use another OS what ever you use must be the best and we should all just use that and be happy.. Many of us are excitd to see Hurd and I don't mind people talking about different technologies. Some day i may have to use one of those technologies and if people didn't talk about them then I may never have know about them.
Lets encourage different OS's, editors, compliers; who knows we might end up with something we like. -7021
Linux is Linux people there is no GNU/Linux, without Unix/Linux where would GNU be?? Because Linux is a derivitive of Unix does not mean that we have to call it Unix/Linux. When someone uses a Linux box running Apache as their webserver do we call it Apache/GNU/Linux? That is to retarded to even consider so drop the GNU and get on with your lives there are better things to discuss and complain about...
Thank you! That's just what I needed to make me feel better today. I like it! :-)
But you shouldn't be calling it just "Windows". You should be calling it "Microsoft Windows" to give MS the credit it deserves. I'm not a MS supporter, but even the people who think Mr. Gates is a god don't go around calling it Microsoft Windows all the time. Billy still answers questions if somebody asks him a question about Windows instead of Microsoft Windows. I mean, sure, you can call it Microsoft Windows if you want to, but the term Windows works equally well.
Disclaimer: I'm running a Microsoft-less system, and I'm proud of it.
o Put it in the man page. I have yet to find a gnu utility that was self-explanatory on the command line. :)
Unfortunately, GNU dislikes man for some reason. Many of their man pages refer the user to info documentation which is supposedly more up to date or complete. I don't know because I have never installed info.
On the Linux vs. GNU/Linux issue, I don't use bash, I use pdksh. I don't use EMACS, I use VIM. I use lprNG instead of whatever lpr Linux distributions include. In short, there ain't a whole lot of GNU utilities in my Linux box.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
But, of course, Linus has not called the system GNU/Linux. The GNU folks have.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
I didn't say that I had no GNU content. X/startx is not GNU software despite the claims here. I don't have either gnome or Afterstep installed. I do have GCC and the GIMP installed which you didn't mention. With the exception of GCC and the GIMP, I don't use the packages that GNU has put the most work into.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
So what's the ETA on a real release of Debian GNU/Hurd? I'm talking about something that's functionally usable at the same level as the current Linux and *BSD distributions.
The government paid for many of the computers at universities in the US (esp. at state universities like the UC schools or UMd or UWisconsin) In some countries, virtually all of the universities are state-funded. Should the computers be used by the students they were bought for, or should any citizen have automatic access to those machines? Try getting your work done in your friendly campus computer lab with every 15-year old boy in the neighborhood downloading porno and uploading warez. After all, it's their right.
RMS is someone who lived off public funding, and misses it. Now he wants EVERYONE in the software industry on public funding (says so in the GNU Manifesto) and takes it as a personal offense that there are people who resent taking welfare. Go figure.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
You don't think computers for everyone has value? Walk down the street today and ask people if they'd like a free (or heavily subsidzied) computer and Internet connection. 90% will say yes, I bet.
Think of tax money as an investment. You expect a return, right? You payed for that government research, you ought to have rights to it.
Taxes aren't an investment and I'm still not sure where "rights" enter into it. I don't remember a clause in the Consitution which enumerates the right to all products of government expenditure, except for private stuff and military secrets. I don't even think it's implied. You're saying that everyone has equal rights to the benefits of every penny the goverment distributes. Social Security? Medicare? Farm subsidies? I'm not sure how that would work. The government allots funds to different groups for different uses on purpose. Claiming that you have a "right" to that money (or its results, which are the same thing) is silly.
RMS did AI research, and then started the GNU project on that public funding. I'd say you got back much more than payed for (assuming you were alive and paying taxes at the time). If that's "welfare", we should encourage more people to get on the dole. :)
Most AI research was/is dreck (speaking as someone who nearly got a PhD in AI), so that was no bargain. I don't know what RMS did, specifically. Maybe his stuff was good; I dunno.
I'm not sure how much GNU has changed my life, personally. I used gcc and gdb when I was in school (because that's what was provided), but professionally I've used commercial compilers. I don't run Linux. At home, I compile with CodeWarrior. I hate EMACS. I can't imagine that the cost of commercial compilers would have increased my tuition all that much.
My objection to RMS is that he wants EVERYONE to work the way he works (and at public expense, no less). I don't see the difference between putting all software in the public domain and putting all intellectual property in the public domain. Heck, taking apart a toaster to find out how it works is easier than taking apart Windows NT. Why not put all toaster makers on the dole, too, and all Americans could then contribute to making the best possible toaster! If this sounds like a good idea to you, we can move on to whatever industry employs you. Profit margins collapse when products become commodities, and everything will be a commodity under this model. That's just a wee bit scary.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
Such non-sequitur's show the fallicy of the whole GNU/LINUX nonsense... I don't expect the XFree86
people share this opinion, or many others.
Here are several messages I've sent RMS on the general topic.
- Jim Gettys
> Sender: owner-linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
> From: Richard Stallman
> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 18:17:02 -0700 (MST)
> To: fizban@tin.it
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
> Subject: Re: Article: IBM wants to "clean up the license" of Linux
> -----
> Please show a
> bit more respect for Linus and all the other people and their efforts...:
> call the linux kernel "Linux" as Linus wanted to call it
>
> I always call the kernel Linux, for precisely that reason. Linus
> Torvalds started that program, and he says the name is Linux, so I
> call it Linux out of respect for him.
>
> I ask people to do the same thing for the operating system as a whole.
> It was started in 1984 by the GNU Project. For years, before Linux
> was written, we developed many components (not just "tools") of this
> system, and we did so as steps in the development of the system as a
> whole. (See the GNU Manifesto.)
>
> Linux (the kernel) doesn't come from the GNU project, and we never try
> to claim any credit for it. When people say that the GNU project
> "developed important parts of Linux", we explain that we don't deserve
> that honor, because none of Linux is our work. And we never call
> Linux a GNU program. (Some people have misinterpreted this as a
> gesture of rejection of Linux; actually, it is because we're not
> entitled to say so.)
>
> But while the GNU project played no role in the writing of Linux, it
> started the development of the operating system as a whole. That's
> what the GNU project was and is about. Writing dozens of programs
> such as GCC, Bash and libc--not only "tools"--was just a part this
> larger project.
>
> The system version most of us are using is the combination of Linux
> and the GNU system. "GNU/Linux" is a good way to describe that
> combination, and when I write that, it always means the whole
> combination. The kernel is simply Linux.
>
One might as well also say that the whole system should be called
"GNU/X/Linux"; the X Window system contribution, in terms of number of
lines of code of software, is very large. People should remember that
not only "hackers" contributed, but a number of major companies, including
my own, contributed large amounts to that code base, under fully free
terms (where the UNIX vendors went wrong was stuff built on top, and the
silly GUI wars of the beginning of the decade). In terms of total effort
and number of lines of code, both GNU and X represent much larger efforts
than the base operating system.
But the reality is that this is too cumbersome, whether you say "GNU/Linux"
or "GNU/X/Linux. The market and men on the street now associates "Linux"
with the whole combination, for better or for worse. I'm personally very
gratified that our (in this case, the X Window system community, GNU
community, and Linux community) are affecting a large and growing number
of people, rather than withering and dying from the effects of Redmond.
So long as Linus gives credit where credit is due to the various groups
that make up this community, there is little to be gained (and arguably,
much to be lost) by confusing people with a more complex nomencature.
Obviously, when writing for a technical audience, (rather than the mass
audience), being more clear what you mean may make sense and give credit
where credit is due. But lets not confuse the mass market, which
has enough trouble understanding Linux as it is.
- Jim Gettys
From: jg@pa.dec.com (Jim Gettys)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 11:36:03 -0800
To: rms@gnu.org
Cc: allbery@kf8nh.apk.net, fizban@tin.it, linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: Article: IBM wants to "clean up the license" of Linux
For better or worse (I believe for the better), the term Linux has grown
to cover the merged result of a large number of efforts of the last 15 years.
The components of the Linux system include (at least) in NO particular order:
o the Linux Kernel effort,
o BSD UNIX development,
o X Window System,
o Perl, Python, TK/TCL,
o and the large efforts that go under the GNU banner.
All of these are major efforts, by MANY talented individuals and corporations
(some of whom put many millions of dollars into the development of the
code, whether it be Digital/Compaq, HP, IBM, Sun, Red Hat, SuSE, Netscape,
Cygnus, and many others). They represent many man years of sweat, often under
very hard deadlines (at least in the X Window System and Netscape cases,
and probably others, at great personal cost). If you tried to remove any
one of them, you would end up without Linux (though some substitutes for
some pieces exist).
Calling out any particular one or subset of these efforts for particular
praise in a common term, when the current general term connotes all of the
contributors, slights the contributions of the others; this is why I believe
it is divisive. I have emotional scars left from the last round of
divisiveness (the UNIX GUI wars), and CANNOT condone any action that would
condone such divisions, and the results of such divisions, particularly
at a time when unity is needed.
I therefore believe that uses of the term GNU/Linux are divisive and wrong.
Therefore, I will not personally condone any such usage, and WILL NOT
make such distinctions, and strongly discourage others in doing so. Lets
spend our time giving credit to each other for what they have done for
us, rather than asking others to give credit to us for what we have done
for them. (to paraphrase Kennedy). One is inclusive, the other is divisive.
This is my final comment on this thread.
- Jim Gettys
As much as I love the GNU utilities and the FSF, I think the naming thing is just plain tough and that they should let it go. Is America named after Columbus? No. That's just too bad.
The word GNU has no unix ring to it whatsoever. Yes, it's a clever acronym. Yes, I even like the name very much. But if you talk about GNU to a non-unix person, chances are they'll reply, "Your what hurts?"
By contrast, the name Linux is quite uncanny; it contains all the letters that are in the word unix, plus it's the creator's first name with the last letter changed to an x. It looks and sounds like the name unix, but it also looks and sounds like the name Linus. It's a strange coincidence, but it works extremely well. I've heard a number of people mispronounce the word Linux, but that seems to be happening less and less.
The article says that RMS is eccentric. Many people likewise consider the name GNU eccentric, especially compared to the more familiar-sounding Linux - which of course is based on the eccentric name unix. I repeat, to them GNU is eccentric, but Linux is normal because it sounds like a well-established name, a name that just happens to be eccentric.
To be honest, marketing is just not RMS's forte - but that is meant as a compliment; it isn't Thompson's or Ritchie's forte either. IMHO, the name HURD resembles the sound of blowing chunks more than it does a stampede of free-running antelope-like animals. Eccentric indeed. And a man of great integrity, and a great hacker who will forever be close to our hearts regardless of the name we settle on.
Has the world forgotten Columbus? Neither will it forget RMS.
I have decided to call my system simply this:
!MSWindows
Takes care of it all. Have a nice day and eat more bran, will ya?
Do you really deserve it?
I am a relative Linux Newbie And therefore to a certain extent representative of part of the new "Linux faction". First, admittedly this discussion is really obtuse, since there are much much bigger fish to fry then whether or not Linux is GNU/Linux, but IMO the XFree86/GNU is an interesting parallel.
I think what it boils down to is whether or not Linux could exist without The GNU utilities. Admittedly, being a newbie, I do not know for certain, but I believe that yes, it could. I use emacs almost daily, and gcc just as much, but I am sure there are alternatives, and I am sure there are people who do not need any of the GNU utilities.
Therefore, GNU is simply a part of Linux, just as XFree86 is a part of linux. Linux runs just fine without XFree86.
Besides, with GNU being such an integral part of the OS, why does it need to be touted at every mention? Surely, if we use GNU utilities daily, we read the titles, and know how much we rely on these utilites just because we are users of Linux.
...And if we don't, then we don't need them, and they don't deserve the hype.
Once I thought I was wrong...I was mistaken.
But I don't use Debian, so why should I be told I should even think about calling it GNU/Linux? The OS (as a whole) is made by the distributor, and they can call it what they please. I use SuSE Linux 6.0, and that's what I call it, because that's its name! If the good folks at SuSE had decided to call it GNU/Linux, then so would I. For that matter, were I to switch to Debian, I would also switch to saying GNU/Linux, at least when referring to my own system.
No, I used that term about 2 years ago in a discussion with some friends. We were discussing a licensing scheme for open software that wasn't so GNU-centric for some software we were/are going to write.
:P
;)
Heheh...
Anyway, you can have it.
--C
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
Just because Xfree was "adopted" by GNU doesn't make it GNU. Just what does this adoption process entail. Is it simply a matter of GNU wanting something, then deciding it's theirs?
Perhaps Linux could adopt GNU, then it would be okay to just call it Linux.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
It's quite a stretch to lump those items under the term "operating system." These are tools, not OS components. And the typical user would do quite fine without them.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
> please do try to at least witness RMS speak, and take up an argument
> with him in person. You may be in for quite a surprise.
I personally think Emacs (I use XEmacs --with-mule), GCC and all the GNU tools are just great and I really apreciate their authors work just as I apreciate anybody's work that contributed to my Linux box. For software that I write, I'd choose the GPL, but it is not perfect for every situation. Having many different licences makes life more complicated, but the GPL can't be perfect for everything.
And yes, I did listen and talk to him "live". The was at the Linux Conference'98 last December in Kyoto/Japan . I had heared a lot about RMS and was very eager to talk to him. But having met him and after talking to him, I was disappointed. I asked him if he'd come to the "Linux Conference" the following day. He answered that he had heared there would be a "GNU/Linux Conference" but as such a thing wasn't scheduled, he would stay at the GNU booth (at the InternetWeek 98, LinuxConf. being part of it) all day.
I think everybody should call their Penguin the way they want it (like the pronounciation issue), but that reaction of RMS was kind of childish. Afterwards he tried to convince me why it was GNU/Linux for half an hour. I still like him as a figure and am very thankful of what he has achived, but as a person, my impression is that he is just one guy being good in getting on somebody's nerves.
Not liking RMS as a person doesn't mean one has no respect of the GNU project. Those issues should be strictly seperated.
As much as I admire the FSF (and I do), and think the GPL is a Good Thing, their philosophy is contradictory:
They speak of freedom of the press, and say they they do not want to constrain software to IP laws. And yet, they also have one of the most viciously restrictive licenses in existance. Let's not argue about software leases or the rights of the user... the GPL is a straitjacket to that most important 1% of the computing community - the coders.
I will *never* release software under GPL - I don't trust it. Either I'm coding for profit or for the community, and I do not see how giving up the rights to your code helps either. If you want to be altruistic, do so. I've released plenty into public domain or copyrighted freeware (after giving up on the "shareware" concept), and I've sold/coded for profit. If I write a program, it is *mine* until I say it it yours (because you paid me), or I give it to everybody (I like public domain and freeware). That freedom, to do anything you want with your own creation, is what the GPL removes.
The GPL removes my freedom as an author to choose the terms of distribution and/or publication of my code. Once you've chosen the GPL path, it cannot be backtraced, while paths exist that provide the same results without the restrictions that the GPL forces you into.
The GPL makes it easy for users and middle men. "It has GPL" now equals "it can be burned onto a CD and sold". The Qt license was despised merely because it wasn't GPL, and people actually had to *READ* the thing to figure out their rights. If it was GPL, the users could have gone on their merry way without having to think about what they were running.
--
Evan "The JabberWokky" E.
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
These are all very interesting ideas. I won't lie and say that this article is unbiased, because it very clearly is biased towards the GNU project. The reason I like to think of Linux/Xfree86/whatever as adopted by the GNU project is that the GNU project was the first attempt to create a "free software" operating system. Thats why I tend to think of GNU as the base which supports most GNU/Linux distributions. You can think of this as a pyramid. The top is the Linux kernel and under it is things like XFree86, LaTeX and in the bottom is the GNU utilities (think glibc, fileutils and more here). When you're in a helicopter above the pyramid, you only see portions of each layer, but they all rest upon the GNU base.
Yes, you're probably the first to say something is "GNUcentric". What do you suggest that it would mean?
You're right that we have much to thank the Linux kernel developers, after all, they were the first to make it possible to run a free software operating system. As for our "demand"; we don't make demands, we make suggestions. There's a strong difference there. We suggest that the whole system is called GNU/Linux, but we won't and can't force you to do so. One of my points were that the GNU project should get credit, the exact way to do it in is not important. Don't stress the GNU/Linux issue more than necessary, instead come of with new creative ways to credit everyone where credit is due.
I assume that you want to give the GNU project credit, otherwise this discussion is just silly. So when you then call a system "Linux", you assume that all users will automatically pick up on and understand that there are quite a few GNU utilities they are using. I don't think this happens unless you're very interested in your system, which is why I choose to make the GNU credit more prominent.
True. Why is this you think? I don't know but I assume it has something to do with our desire to have a leader that can guide us.
You're right in that the GPL might not be the ultimate good. I think noone but RMS would be happier if we could kick out all licenses and still have free software.
These are good suggestions. I will incorporate the GNU message into my /etc/motd right away.
As a final note, I would like to thank everyone who took the time to read this essay. I have found all your commments very interesting to read.
When you license something under the GPL you give the users of your program certain freedoms that benefit the world. You don't give it away to the FSF, doing so involves more paperwork. If you intend for your code to be part of the GNU System, you should contact us.
I believe the slash is pronounced also.
Having written an RTOS for the 68000, and studied the subject of OS's, I do understand that Linux is not "just a bugless version of Windows". I'm actually a little insulted by that, but I don't think you meant to, so that's okay.
Linux (or GNU/Linux) was started by hackers with the right intentions, and continues to be supported by a community that views Linux as its child, which makes them really want to make it perfect. That's not the case in any commercial operating system (except, perhaps QNX, whose micro-kernel is maintained by just one person) because programmers writing code because they like what they're writing, create code that is 10 times more efficient than a hired programmer.
However, getting back to the name recognition, here's my 2cents:
What kernel do I use? Linux
What compiler? GNU gcc
What Gui? Xwindows
What word processor? Corel WP8
What "system"? hmm, could you be more specific?
Since a system (particularly Linux based) is infinitely reconfigurable, perhaps we shouldn't be naming systems anything, unless they are off the shelf distributions such as RedHat, Debian, etc... I don't really know.
Disclaimer: I'm running a Microsoft-less system, and I'm proud of it.
Really? I'm in the conversion process right now, but it doesn't help that everyone I know uses MS Office... WordPerfect is better than Word 97 and it's compatible, but I still haven't found a good spreadsheet that could communicate with Excel. In my work, you need an Excel compatible spreadsheet. Any ideas? email me!
Sorry I'm off topic -- end of thread!
I would just like to say that this article is well written and composed. It was honest, to the point, and not flamboyant. Thank you for the quality literature.
;)
As to a "system", do I have to call mine a Corel/GNU/Linux system because I use Corel WordPerfect for Linux now? How about Mozilla/Corel/GNU/Linux? I think that names are used to differentiate systems... so if I say I run Linux, I believe that conveys the point - I don't run M$!
I also think that GNU is great, and it will get the recognition it deserves, but isn't it kinda shameful to go around "donating" software out of the "goodness of your heart", and then begging for recognition?
After all, hackers should be judged by their coding, and not their political views.
They are less restrictive, but
any code under them is unprotected
from proprietary vendors as it is under
the GPL.
linux;
kmj
kmj
The only reason I keep my ms-dos partition is so I can mount it like the b*tch it is.
Also, he says himself that the name really isn't the important thing, that GNU gets credit is. Every proficient user of linux knows the contributions of the GNU. Even I, a "newbie" (ugh, ugly term), know quite well. So the GNU does get the credit it deservesd.
kmj
kmj
The only reason I keep my ms-dos partition is so I can mount it like the b*tch it is.
Hmm, that's not how I remember learning it from my 5th grade history teacher. As I remember, Amerigo Vespucci was the one who figured out that it really was a seperate continent rather then the East side of Asia as originally thought, and he then named it after himself and convinced everyone else to call it America. Of course, that was several years ago, and although I'm a slight history buff, I'm much better at 19th and 20th centrury history then I am at 16th century history.
-skullY
When I was able to do my own spam-armoring, you got a chance to email me. Now you can only hope I see your reply.
Try this, remove all GNU tools from your "Linux" system, maybe then you will give some credit to GNU for what it actually does.
Actually, that's exactly what the Daemon Linux project is setting out to do. Of course, the people working on it have a variety of reasons. Some are doing it because of RMS and how he forcibly corrects people in person (from accounts in this very forum). Others, like myself, have other reasons for working on the project. Personally, I prefer BSD tools and the way BSD generally does things, however the BSD kernels don't seem to incorporate support for newer devices as quickly as the Linux kernel does. Hence, a hybrid system where I can use the Linux Kernel with the BSD tools is in order. And frankly, trying to what most of the world calls Linux is tantamount to Eisner insisting that Disney Land doesn't give proper credit to the current person in charge of the company, and instead should be called Eisner Land. It's very unlikely it will happen.
When I was able to do my own spam-armoring, you got a chance to email me. Now you can only hope I see your reply.
How do you meet your responsibility for spreading the word?
Respecting somebody does not put you in charge of "spreading the word". Believing in somebody (Stallman or anyone else) might require doing the missionary work. But respecting and believing are different. I respect Marc Andreesen, but I do not go around talking about him all the time...
You need to install an RTFM interface.
Richard Stallman then:
"10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author to ask for permission."
Richard Stallman now:
"The most serious practical problem in the NPL is that it is incompatible with the GNU GPL. It is impossible to combine NPL-covered code and GNU GPL-covered code together in one program, not even by linking separate object files or libraries; no matter how this is done, it has to violate one license or the other."
Oh, they have adopted XFree86 and now it is part of GNU. May be they should have adopted Linux kernel too? "Oh we give credit to XFree86 and Linux by calling them GNU since we have 'adopted' them and now have the right to say that everything is GNU." Doesn't that sound silly to you.
I still belive that the OS Kernel is the ESSENTIAL part of an OS and not the easily replasable GNU components that perform secondary tasks. I prefer calling an OS after its Kernel not a bunch of utilities of secondary importance. And why people always mention Emacs and bash ? I mean these are definetely replaseable by other free non-gnu programs. Why should a (bloated) text editor be considered as a part of an OS at all? MOST GNU software can be replaced by corresponding BSD progies.
RMS claims on www.gnu.org that the kernel is the lest important and the last components of an OS. May be this is WHY they have misserably failed with their own "hurd" kernel. It does not matter how many Lines is Linux source code. It took 100s of programmers, contributors and testers and 8 years of hard work to bring Linux where it is right now.
I don't like the whole idea of giving "credit" by changing the name of a program. How many people have developed their programs completely independently of GNU and then called it GNU something (gimp comes to mind). Just because there
is a bunch of GNU programs does not mean that RMS or other GNU members wrote them all.
>If you really want GNU/Linux start your own dist >called "GNU/Linux". Until then shutup
It's called debian GNU/Linux: www.debian.org
How many years have you been running linux?
I propose this: Since RMS' ideology is so repugnant, use BSD.
Of course, I might be completely misinterpreting the various licences, but that's how I see them.
-- A wealthy eccentric who marches to the beat of a different drum. But you may call me "Noodle Noggin."
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
No credit, huh?
Nah, we don't need no steenkin' compilers, right? And without compilers, we don't need no steenkin' debuggers.
And we don't need any of the GNU tools that are generally regarded as superior to the competition, because Free alternatives to these exist, and we're kind of annoyed with RMS so we should go and spite him, right?
And we're sure that nobody gives a damn about the FSF, because only a few commercial companies sprang up mainly to support GNU software before Linux was even started!
Ok, good; I just wanted to make that clear.
The people who have written GNU have done so not just because they like technology, but because they believe in what they're doing. They want to make the world a better place. They have a mission, and they want to further that mission. They've also done a lot of work worthy of credit; by demanding credit for the work they've done, they're both trying to get what's due to them as well as trying to further their cause. Both are worthwhile goals.
Having said that, there are certainly things that he FSF could and should have handled better; pushing acceptance of the GNU/Linux label is only one such thing (although probably the the most noticable and noisiest one, since it tends to attract a lot of semi-clued people into the fray). Jonas' article here certainly could have been better written; the XFree bit was definitely a mistake.
What frustrates me is that most of us generally want the same thing, but we still can't agree how what the best way of going about getting it is.
You're a suburbanite.
You're missing the point completely (and the above article articulates it well for once). The GNU/Linux name is not about ideology at all, it is about vision. It is about the GNU Project, which although fueled by ideology can easily be considered on its merits alone.
The GNU Project has always been about creating a 100% free (in GNU terms) computing environment. The kernel is only a small (albeit important) part of that. The project "adopted" non-FSF free components because they were good solutions and contributed to the overall goal. They have never claimed credit for them.
There is no doubt that Linux has been a key component of the realization of the GNU project (although RMS will argue that it is by no means complete). But frankly, it has always been the GNU project, and was for long before Linus Torvalds came along. Free software existed before the FSF, but RMS and the FSF created the "free software movement" that you are so fond of. This is about easily verifiable history folks. And its not rocket science to check it out.
What amazes me about this whole debate has been the bile directed towards RMS and the FSF over this issue when all it really comes down to is the question of credit. There has never been any attempt to take credit for Linux away from Linus in any way. The system, as a whole though, has never been his and he has never taken credit for it all. What the FSF claims credit for has always been the vision, the plan, and the creation of free replacements for what essential non-free components of the system.
And if you'd actually pay attention rather than going off half-cocked whenever you hear the GNU/Linux moniker, this would be obvious.
What you get on your SuSE, RedHat, Debian or Slackware CDs is the GNU system as RMS articulated it 15 years ago. All most hackers ask for is credit where credit is due, and here it is definitely due.
The Linux project identified all of the major components of the operating system: the kernel, utilities, the shell, compiler tools, windowing systems, networking, and so on. It then found or built tools for each of these areas.
So, it should be the Linux/Hurd now, too? I really have trouble understanding how identifying the missing pieces and then waiting for someone to write them (as in XFree86) allows the FSF to claim them as part of GNU.
Sounds more like our favourite software giant's sort of deal...
I must insist you call it RMS/Gnulix, and I will interrupt you and correct you if you don't, and I will play with my hair and pick scabs the whole time.
RMS is simply someone who is willing to step on people's nice comfortable ideas to make change in the world around him.
We need people like him, whether you like him or agree with him is irrelevant if he makes you understand your own positions and reasons clearly.
Running from his ideas because they make you uncomfortable is intellectual cowardice.
Confront his ideas, think carefully for yourself,
and if you disagree with him defend your position.
If you find you cannot defend your position adequately, maybe there is a flaw in it. Remember
that there is always room for more than one model,
and everyone starts from a different place.
Your examples are a different catagory. Neither of them have any value if they were public property. (Well, your tax information might, but privacy concens limit that, just as national security concerns limit nuclear technology).
:)
Think of tax money as an investment. You expect a return, right? You payed for that government research, you ought to have rights to it.
RMS did AI research, and then started the GNU project on that public funding. I'd say you got back much more than payed for (assuming you were alive and paying taxes at the time). If that's "welfare", we should encourage more people to get on the dole.
Damn, there goes someone tossing in reality right in the middle of a good illusion : )
Funny how that aspect never gets mentioned. I guess it's the same as "free" medicare here in Canada. Let's just hope development doesn't go the way of our health care system.
Yes, but linux and Hurd both use GNU software, or software that was "adopted" by the GNU (BTW, Microsoft could "adopt" netscape for use in their OS, but Netscape wouldn't become part of windows) Because of that the name would have to be GNU/Linux/Hurd or a Hurd based GNU/Linux System.
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
Debian IS the GNU's Linux Distribution. It is sponsored byt the GNU project, which is also why they gave in to calling it GNU/Linux. I only know one other distribution that calls itself GNU/Linux, and i think that is Stampede. I'm not sure though.
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
If RMS and his ilk would just shut up and get back to work, the same recognition that they largely already have would continue and grow just as naturally as that of Linux.
This is very true, maybe if they would get to work, they could turn GNU/HURD into a great piece of software and EARN the recognition that they want. Linus Gets recognition for creating the Linux kernel (and BTW, the kernel is he OS, so the OS is definitly linux, not GNU/Linux) which is/was a really great job on his part, and he deserves recognition for it. GNU tries to steal recognition for things that they didn't do (eg. Linux, Xfree86, Lynx, & other "adopted software")
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
Are the GNU tools a "part of the operating system", or are they "bundled applications"?
Seriously, "GNU/Linux" will just never catch on. People are always going to call it "Linux". It's a linguistic thing.
But it would be nice if distributors started giving "GNU tools" better visibility on the boxes and on their web sites.
It's nice giving credit to anyone who deserves it - and by now, there must be quite a lot of folks who contributed to OSS -, but "Linux" is an established name, it even appears in mainstream media. So, with all the different GNU software out there, the OS had to be called GNU operating system, because simply GNU is not enough to determine that one is talking about the operating system part. But GNU operating system is too long. Linux is short, established and has this Unix-like sound in it. Let's just keep it! Most people on this planet have no idea what's behind all this and they probably never will, but they might be able to make the Linux=operating system association if we stick to the name, like anyone on the street (well, almost) knows that Windows is computer software. It's become common knowledge, one day the same should be the case for Linux!
I think the part of an OS which is most central in defining its identity is not the kernel but the libc. In fact, GNU/Hurd may end up being binary-compatible with GNU/Linux because both use the same (GNU) libc. Isn't that the most important thing, i.e. what name you look for when you have a list of OS choices for a binary package? I suggest the term GNU/ELF :-).
We don't speak of GNU/BSD because BSD has its own ls, cp &al, programs. The GNU programs go in /usr/local/bin under BSD. Whereas Linux is just a kernel, it doesn't come with ls or anything like that, and therefore the GNU tools go in /usr/bin.
Also, I don't think ``what you can't change without rebooting'' is a good definition of ``central''.
beegle wrote:
If taxpayer money is used by the DOD to make nuclear missles, shouldn't taxpayers get access to the blueprints?
To be honest, I think quite possibly, yes. I doubt there is anything that would be so bad should "the enemy" find out which wouldn't be well over compensated for by the value gained for the people in knowing everything the government does and being able to evolve goverment tchnology.
There are others out there who are even worse
There are indeed, but how many of those people do you think are actually prevented from making a nuke becasue they don't know how? Out of those that could understand the blue-prints I mean. Heck, if I really wanted to get a nuke my best bet would probably be to buy it from whoever got those old Russian ones that have disapeared.
If the real boogie men haven't got nukes it's not becasue the blue-prints were'nt leaked. We're back to security through obscurity which, as has been shown time and time again, simply doesn't work. Espscially if there's power or money to be make by breaking that secret.
Priestess.......
(Who's about to go home so if anyone wants to continue this discussion with me you'll have to take it to Email, it's WAY off topic anyway)
sphealey wrote:
both MIT and the AI Lab have received massive subsidies from the US Government over the years, particularly the DoD. So, much of that "free" (as in "free beer") software really was paid for by the US taxpayer.
Isn't that all the more reason why the software, once it's written, should be freely distributed - at the very least within the US?
If taxpayers money is used by the DOD to make some ultra-safe encryption algo or whatever then shouldn't the tax-payers get access to that code? Reguardless of whether or not the money should have been used in the first place surely everyone would agree that it's better to use the stuff once it's payed for than lock it up where nobody can get at it.
A private company or indeed an individual has every right to make propriatory code, but does a government have the right to lock the fruits of taxpayers contributions away from the taxpayers themselves? I wonder if governments should be allowed to write ANY non-free, secret software at all, let alone impose restrictions on other people's code (EG exporting it).
Priestess....
Ok, I can pretty much follow "Free speech, not free beer."
Now.. does free speech = free plagerism? I don't think so. In fact, the GPL requires acknowledgement.
But, let's take a look at the bad analogy:
If I take the Gettysburg Address, even though all copyrights may have expired, it may be public domain, etc, etc.. if I re-release it with my name as the author, well, then I'm a jerk. I'm also not fooling anybody.
However, if I take the Gettysburg Address, and put a copy into a book called "Famous American Speeches" I'm OK.
Why? It's a matter of giving credit, of giving acknowledgement.
So which side of this issue am I on? I want to call it simply Linux.
If I write the above book, I don't have to, and shouldn't be expected to list Lincoln as a co-author.
Linus(x?) makes no attempt to claim the g* tools are his. The distributions carry the appropriate acknowledments. Nobody has been fooled into thinking the Linux people wrote gcc.
I think what RMS is looking for is not proper acknowledgement, but rather thanks and appreciation. He deserves it, too. Unfortunately, thanks can only be given, and not taken.
Other threads are insinuating that GNU is nothing without the Kernel. That's BS. I was using gcc long before Linux. I've got a whole bunch of GNU stuff on my Solaris box.
Other threads claim RMS is out of control, perhaps hurting GNU. Sadly, I think he's hurting GNU. Why? Look at all the people here who have been insulted by his demand, and are looking to dump the GNU tools. That's bad.. they're good tools, and there is no reason to divide the number of open source developers between competing projects.
The same goes for pushing hurd instead of Linux..
I think everyone needs to get over what the distributions are called, quit feeling hurt if they think they aren't getting enough recognition, and get on with the coding.
Ryan
>I've read most of the comments up until now and
>it's time I made another note. A lot of you are
>focusing on the GNU/Linux issue. Don't.
I think one could interpret this as evidence about what the Slashdot readers are concernced with. Heck, they're even posting about it in thread where RMS, FSF, etc.. weren't originally mentioned.
Your article can be interpreted as being at least partially in defense of him and his insistence that Linux be called GNU/Linux. The "attacks" the FSF is undergoing here can't be fun, but if nothing else, I hope the message gets back to RMS that some people don't care for his insistence that it be called GNU/Linux.. even if it might be deserved.
Ryan
Ok -- when I'm forced to use Windows, I spend most of my time in a Netscape browser. So I call it "Netscape/Windows", right?
Of course, when I use Windows at home I'm either (1) testing Java code or (2) playing Quake. So I guess it's "Java/Windows" or "Quake/Windows".
I would LOVE to see a magazine refer to a computer as a "Java/Windows" computer.
(I'm just having fun here. I actually do use "GNU/Linux" most of the time.)
BTW -- I enjoyed the article. Thanks.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
For many (most?) people, the usefulness of an operating system depends on how much software is available for it. Unfortunately, ideology sometimes must take a back seat to getting stuff done.
That's not to say I don't favor free software tools at every opportunity.
OTOH, I agree completely that the philosophy behind free software should be emphasized. If
nothing else, it will reinforce to people the idea that free software DOES work and encourage companies to try a different model.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
So, GNU doesn't have to be called "XFree86/GNU" because it has "adopted" XFree86, yet Linux should be called "GNU/Linux" ? That seems like a pretty weak argument there.
Guh-Noo, the first syllable being very short.
I think that the whole "GNU/Linux vx. Linux" thing is just getting silly.
GNU Tools are just that "tools". I don't go call my toolbox downstairs "Craftsman/Toolbox" because I bought some of my tools at Sears.
If I really wanted to get technical with my computer, I'd have to call it GNU/Linux/Win95/Alpine/NEC/Netscape/StarCraft/Diab lo/X11Amp/WinAmp/Lynx/any other piece of software on my computer..., just to give credit where credit is due, because we all know how incredibly important giving proper credit is.
The poster probably meant "RMS in the news" not "RMS in his software".
We all love GNU software...
This whole discussion is tiresome, everybody with a clue loves the _work_ the GNU project has produced... We all use it.
But forcing everyone to say "GNU/" is just plain silly (and a bit late).
Will you?
From Clause 6 of the GPL :
"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
How is this consistent with an employment contract restricting the rights granted by the GPL?
And how does the GPL restrict "two guys with a little shoestring operation"? They can use the code on the same terms as anyone else.
I just don't get your point. You seem to be saying that the big corporation can get the software, use it, and not have to distribute it - so what? In that scenario the software is just as widely and easily available as if the big corporation had never appeared on the scene. The big corporation gets no advantage that isn't also available to everyone else.
The "little guys" also get the software on the same terms as everyone else. They can use the software, modify it and distribute it, provided that if they distribute it, modified or not, they do so also under terms of the GPL. This is the same for them as for the big corporation, for an individual, or for a government, so what's the problem?
So far as I can see in the scenarios you describe the GPL acts exactly as intended, so how can it be "broken"?
If you want a licence that discrimates against big corporations, or in favour of shoestring operations then write one. That's simply not what the GPL is for.
Except, of course, that the Linux kenel and almost all applications and utilities--everything from gzip to bash to KDE--are compiled with gcc or egcs. Like it or not, gcc is integral to Linux and has been from the beginning.
More than anything, the Linux kernel has been adopted by the GNU project as its free OS kernel.
The logic people are using to say that since "GNU"
incorporates "Xfree86", then "Linux" now incorporates "GNU" have it backward; "GNU", now in addition to incorporating "Xfree86" should also incorporate "Linux".
And therefore, most everyone reading this is running a "GNU" system, not a "Linux" system.
We can make this whole controversy go away simply by changing the name to "PNGWN/Stallmux."
---- "When I grow up, I'll know far less"
Really funny =)) This points out how much arrogant GNU people are.
You should send this to RMS.
I'm personally not in the GNU/Linux camp, if anything it should be Linux/GNU. I mean the gall, not only to change the name of somebody else's project, but to try to take top billing too! That's just rude.
If you're in the GNU/Linux camp, then you should break out your checkbook and make your check payable to:
Free Software Foundation
59 Temple Place - Suite 330
Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA gnu@gnu.org
Until you've put your contribution in the mail, even $1, I don't want to hear you say GNU/Linux again.
Out.
So if my system contains something non-free (like a non-free Netscape) does that mean I'm now NOT allowed to call it GNU/Linux anymore?
GNU/Linux implies "Free Software"
My system is not "Free Software"
Therefore my system cannot be GNU/Linux.
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"
Maybe it was due to the exact point being made earlier.
"read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply
duplicating what has already been said"
Of course the other message was only 2 minutes earlier, so it's hardly fair, nor do I think it is within the moderation guidelines.
However if the idea is to have moderation pick out those articels which are really good, then having duplication is annoying.
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"
"Look at them, they can't even
agree on a name, how can they code a decent OS."
I agree with you.
"Windows. Everyone shall move to NT5. No wait, let's call that Win2000. Not wait, everyone we'll let you stick with your consumer level windows for a while yet"
That sort of indecision is what we poke fun at. Yet the Free Software community is falling into the ame trap.
People can and will call the Free OS built on the Linux kernel whatever they like. But you have to be aware that arguing over it creates a certain impression in the mainstream, and I'm not sure its one we want.
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"