Slashdot Mirror
Richard Stallman Interview
Richard Bottoms from
LinuxSoft wrote in to say that "Our interview with
Richard Stallman is up for those interested in
his thoughts on Free Software and freedom. " Its actually
one of the better RMS pieces lately. Check out
Jay Salzberger's interview if you haven't already as well.
IMO there is no other side of the argument. Many of you are fighting to keep the word "Linux" as the name for the collection of libraries and software while RMS is fighting to keep freedom.
Let me explain. RMS was a hacker way back in the days. He grew up with the notion of software being free. Everything was fine until people found out you could make money off software. Then proprietary software was born (since no one had the foresight to find a open source way of making money). Imagine seeing everyone around you "selling out". Instead of wanting a better world, people wanted a faster buck. RMS later created GNU. Everything has been perfect. There is a complete and _free_ operating system for anyone to use, modify, and redistribute at will. But, RMS made one small error. A way to get future people to NOT forget what free software is all about. The GPL protects users rights, authors rights, but is worthless in educating future users and authors. Future authors and users will go back to proprietary ways. Its easier to draw a straight line (go directly to a proven method of making money) than to draw a curve (figure out a way to make money with free software). American's, like myself, can be very lazy.
I believe we should jump out of the way, and let RMS create a path of freedom for us. If we don't, we will once again be living in a proprietary world where key choices are made behind the doors of corporations. If you don't want to really own your computer--thats fine by me. But, please don't keep me from owning my computer.
Tim
I heard GNU is changing their name to GNL.
GNL = GNL's not Linux!!
So RMS believes in freedom of software, huh? What about QUALITY of software?? Proprietary, or not, quality software is worth paying for. RMS is so paranoind, does anyone really think a company, who makes a product, is just going to drop support, or change direction radically, or go out of businiess for the fun of it?? I think not.
Second, GNOME sucks!! Bottom line. RMS is so concerned with the evil intent behind a business that he is so blind to the fact that the GNOME team is no better than M$. Serously, that GNOME 1.0 release was a SIN!! They only did that so they can have headline bragging rights on every tech page. More political than technological. Meanwhile you have a mature, and stable, KDE, but because of a minor, senseless issue, KDE is bad. But GNOME, despite the hard installation and constant core dumps, gives you freedom!! Big deal!! So I have the code, and freedom to do what I want with it, to hundreds of lines of crap. Oh, I get it, I am supposed to debug it all, yeah right!
RMS is way to righteuos, a little realistic thinking may not hurt once in a while. Third, make money off of support, like Red Hat?? If that where the case then no company would be pulling the billions of dollars of revenue like M$, Oracle, and others. Realistically, I really mean realisitcally, with the way human beings are, with the way human nature is (unfortunately), does any one really think that people are going to settle for millions when they can make billions?? RMS, and anyone else who thinks so, please get your head out of your ass.
especially from a far-left wacko like Stallman. They buy products and services that work so they can perform work. Linux is such a product.
Stallman's biggest problem is that he has never held a private-sector job, just in academia (read: institutional welfare), from ultra-left Bahston, no less. I'm not questioning his ability as a programmer, but his far-left politics turn everyone off.
BTW, Linux is not a political movement. It is a computer program. I wish that Linus would sic his black-belt wife on Comrade Stallman and kick his ass over to where he belongs, in Red China!
This is funny; but our censors have no sense of humor; too bad; nothing comes back from -1.
Is it a coincidence rob's ietters are RM? I think not! he should RM all this BULLSHIT about RMS ERS XYZ ABC 123 and all these other sissy ass acronym freaks! I mean WTF who gives a shit the whole political scheme of things has needed revamped for a long ass time and get some real bluecollared ballbusting marketing people in there and get these coding speed freaks out! they can write code like a mofo but suck ass at marketing and politics! you joke about linus for prez but i bet he'd be one of the worst presidents ever! most of the people who post this shit couldnt do half the job as the people who are at least attempting they just sit at home and preach to the choir and tell all the other linux cult freaks how bad microsoft is. I admire Bill Gates for being smart enough to corner the market like he did! I think most of us are jealous and are only spiteful because he was smart enough to sell his shit to a toilet!dont curse him curse the dumb bastards who buy it and curse yourselves for not coming out with something that can compete with it and not have to read 10 trillion page books to use it!
The thing is many new Linux users do not understand GNU. They usually associate GNU with cost-less software (if anything at all). GNU stands for freedom to use software the way you want (all while allowing the authors to have freedom too).
About proprietary libraries.. in a company you don't have a choice what to use. Of course, free software world can make better libraries, but certain companies will use proprietary tools. People in charge of selecting tools for the job are not always aware of other possible choices.
Another thing, RMS is right when he says free software has nothing to do with money. You mention purchasing a FTP program for $100. Well you still can purchase a free software FTP program for $100. If I create a GPL FTP program and you wish to buy it and I ask for $100, you either have to give me the money or you don't get the software. Even if this software is around on the internet, or whatever (and you still for some odd reason want it from me). Even if I have an internet connection and I could let you download it in 5 minutes. GNU does not impose rules against software distribution cost. But, it does give freedoms when you receive my software. Once I give you my FTP program for $100 and (provided its GPL) you can redistribute it over the internet, modify it and give it to friends, etc. You can even charge a distribution cost from the software I created (this is what Red Hat does.. but they also provide tech support as an extra service). Also, I must allow you access to source code when you give me the $100.
I'd recommend reading around on www.gnu.org to really understand what RMS is trying to do.
Tim (the original AC which is too lazy for a login =] )
That's getting to be one damn long /. poll if we include all the different international political parties. I don't even know what Finland's political parties are -- they could be fascist anarchists for all I know...
Why does the average Citizen need Democracy? It's not like they all vote or anything, most of them don't even bother.
He wants freedom for everyone. If I never hear about my rights, I can't exercise them, so I effectively don't have them. All people hear is that Linux might not cost anything, but nobody talks about *why*. Mentioning GNU is a good start.
This is the problem. Even the few people who have heard of GNU just associate it with RMS, forgetting the message of freedom. Nobody else hears anything about freedom at all, and that's wrong.
And do you think we'd be in this mess if Stallman were able to manipulate the perceptions of the public eye?
Actually, he wouldn't have any problem paying so long as they weren't selling themselves into slavery by doing so. And because that's what they're doing, he wouldn't like it.
He's long since answered that. The license permits distribution because Stallman believes being prohibited from sharing with his neighbors is wrong.
As far as making money from free software, IMHO we need to arrange work-for-hire at scale. We've only been forbidding copying (stripping information of one of its most valuable features) and charging for copies because charging for the labor is less convenient. Isn't it time to fix that, find a better way to pay our authors, and make sure our civilization gets all the use it can out of everyone's work?
Funny, I felt like I was being preached to...
I also got the ditinct impression that I was being preached to. I am also more convinced that Richard is simply jealous of Linux.
I am Jay Sulzberger.
p orts.html
For the rest of the interview see Nick Moffitt's
extraordinarily accurate four part series at
http://linuxworld.com/linuxworld/expo/lw-showre
Start at the bottom.
For further information go to HotWired and search for "Sulzberger" and or "sexpot" and or "Net Skink".
He is not acting like a childish dork. He is
acting consistently with his beliefs. He can
not be true to himself and to what he publically
encourages others to do, to call the complete
operating system GNU/Linux, if he does not
interrupt and correct those that talk to him
publically. As far as I am concerned, RMS has
no choice but to do what he does. To do otherwise,
he has to change his mind about the issue altogether.
Elef
lf@amath.washington.edu
Question to the assembled masses: did you know you were using GNU software? No way, and it's our fault for not bringing it up.
RMS wants the users to be aware of, and able to exercise, the rights he's so laboriously granted them. I'd be amazed if he cares what the suits think.
The only ways currently are to provide an extra service (which can sometimes be accused of making software obfuscated.. where you need the service to use the software), or provide a convenience. I bought my Linux CD from cheapbytes.com because its a convenience to do it that way rather than download 100's of megs on a modem. Of course, if I were new to Linux I would have probably bought the Red Hat CD from Red Hat and gotten tech support. There is also a web site devoted to paying programmers to make free software (Free software bazaar I think). Of course none of these are perfect to bring in large amounts of money. Maybe software was never meant to cost as much as it does today. Bill Gates became the world's richest man from selling software alone. Maybe free software is fate's way of evening out things.
He twists the definition of "freedom" to mean that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" just like Karl Marx.
His attitude is "power to the proletariat" as long as he is the Premier.
May I suggest that he move to Cuba. He'll feel right at home there.
Reference to hitler/nazis!
Actually, I'm 99% sure that both spellings are correct, but "kernel" is far more common.
I think Netscape, WordPerfect, and StarOffice could be taken away from you (they simply won't). And WindowMaker is part of GNUStep.
/*Also, I would like to point out the fact that writting a compiler, even a
cheap one is a task much greater that writting a kernel.
Just try writting a program that dies basic semantic checks. It is not a trivial task. */
This is a bit of an exaggeration. A relatively usable compiler can be written in a semester in an undergraduate class. Doing basic semantic checks, while not trivial, is certainly not a major project if you use bison and flex. Furthermore, developing a recursive descent parser to serve as a rpn calculator is a common freshman CS assignment.
/* Keep in mind also that the intel architecture has MANY odd limitations to keep backward compatibility. */
This is true. One of the important problems in developing an x86 compiler that does even basic optimization is the ridiculously limited register set.
/* Take bash for example. Compare it with any other shell. As a command editor, and for scripts, it creams them all. */
I'd rather not take it, thank you. tcsh has a rich C-language scripting style that I much prefer to bash. Plus, it has many of the conveniences like tab completion that were introduced in bash are now part of tcsh. The significant advantage to using a c-shell variant is that it is a shorter learning curve for a C language programmer. The advantage of bash is that its popularity in the Linux community makes a passing acquantance with it necessary to work with the numerous bash scripts that get installed in a normal distribution.
Will
unless of course we're hiring him a dominatrix, in which case it would be the other way around
At this point, I'm also of the opinion that RMS should take a visit to the lower dominion, but for the exact opposite reason. I think RMS has a point about his work not being appreciated. After all, the human tendency is to attribute work to one individual - it's simply easier to credit all the work to Linus, rather than going through the history of Linux and give every contributor his due. So I respect RMS's right to bitch and moan about his lack of recognition (at the same time, I'd say a MacArthur genius grant is recognition aplently).
As for RMS's ranting on freedom, this is where he should shut up. The rest of us, who are working in the real world, have to make money to support ourselves. And if we have a bright idea how to do something, and we implement it in a software program, it's certainly justifiable that we sell it, without applying the GPL or anything else. If RMS or anyone else doesn't want to use it, fine - write something yourself if you're so philosophically opposed to using my software! Don't ask me to put my blood and tears into something, and then give it out for free to the rest of the world...anyway, just my thoughts on the matter (not anyone else's, just mine)......
Freedom is political, and it's a damn sight more important than money.
Yep, -1 /. comments are the original!
Civil forfeiture. Gun control. The CDA. Undeclared wars.
The US government has long been obviously out of control - the Constitution is just an old piece of paper until we force the people who run the government to start obeying it again.
We should make sure RMS is armed. People who stridently, publically remind us we have rights and don't k'ou t'ou to big business run an ever-growing risk.
Maybe you're thinking of War Games.
I agree he's obviously too strident and undiplomatic to be the poster boy for Linux. But what makes you think he wants to? His years-long crusade is to spread the message that users should expect and demand freedom, and it's being drowned out by pointless hysteria over the non-ethical benefits of the system his ethics required him to help create.
IMHO his ideas deserve far more serious attention, and there's no rational reason he should squander what little they do get just to further *your* agenda.
What RMS does not realize yet is that he has become largely irrelevent. What I see is a desparate attempt by someone is fourteen-and-a-half minutes through his 15 minutes of fame running around screaming "Look at me! Look at me! I still matter!" The fact, however, is that Open Source has moved on, and while RMS' top-quality programming output will live on, all of the political nonsense will quickly become a historical curiosity.
To me GNU == an excellent set of tools, not an operating system, not a way of life, not political rhetoric.
how 'bout that Jay Salzberger interview!
I pronounce it "gnoo".
That's what I am expect to call GatesCrap whenever I am using the GNU tools from Cygnus for W95, right?
And if I am using those same tools in DOS mode then His Majesty King Richard commandeth us commoners to calleth thine OS GNU-DOS, right?
For the record, the operating system software (spelled K-E-R-N-E-L, for you Dan Quayle fans out there) that I use on my PC is called Linux.
The Free Software Foundation, which is run by Premier Stallman provides software tools for that system and others, including some for an OS owned by The Evil Mister Gates, called GNU. These programs are very good, indeed.
I also run other tools on this OS called Linux. Many of these were not written by Comrade Stallman and his band of merry men. These include Netscape Communicator, XFree86, WindowMaker, AfterStep, FVWM2, WordPerfect 8, StarOffice, etc., etc. The owners/creators of these programs cannot take them from me for any reason. I did not pay one thin dime for any of them. These programs are also very good, although they don't adhere to the bizarre definition of "freedom" as defined by Comrade Stallman.
This guy sounds just like Karl Marx. He needs to be a little more like Groucho, or better yet, Harpo (he didn't say anything).
Linux would be "truly free" if its users knew their rights with regard to free software. At the moment all they hear is that they may not have to pay for it.
And I have a feeling that both Stallman and Gates will be sorely disappointed. I wouldn't be surprised that the Judge will define an Operating System to be the kernel and maybe device drivers and other programs that directly control the hardware. This would not include shells (either bash or command.com), utilites (which would rule out almost anything from GNU or the old external DOS utilities), accessories, or applications (including Internet Expoliter).
The Xfree86 servers might be included since they control video hardware directly, but not the individual window managers.
The GNU tools are certainly useful, but they are not an integral part of the OS since they are also available for Windows and DOS. GCC and G++ may be the main C/C++ compilers available for Linux right now, but who's to say that Imprise/Borland won't port over C++ Builder one day?
I really think that Stallman should lay off the GNU/Linux garbage because it could bite him on the ass just as much as the "IE as part of Windows" idea is about to take a large chunk out of the posterior of one Mr. Bill Gates. It's basically the same argument and it's a very weak one.
"To each according to his need" is the foundation of an ethical society. Capitalism, being an exclusively self-reinforcing system implemented by selfish animals, only rarely rises to the challenge.
"From each according to his ability" would obviously be the optimum way the world could possibly work. But without a measure of selflessness we simply lack, it will never really happen, and attempts to force it are doomed (slaves fight, and never do their best work).
Stallman's agenda is about freeing the "proletariat", not fame for himself.
These are my thoughts, too. I was so disappointed in this interview, I wondered if it was another April Fool's joke.
RMS comes across as a theologian talking to other theologians -- and a *bad* theologian at that.
Try this on for advocacy: "I support free software because I want to have the freedom to Read and learn from the source code, to Modify the source, and to Share the source with others. I think this is morally right. And I also think these good morals lead to good benefits for software customers, for both business software and personal software."
See? Positive. Connects it to something that will sell the message to more people. Doesn't drone on about some "freedom" that alienates a lot of people ("hey I don't feel like a slave when I run my Oracle, this guy must be a lunatic!"). Shows a benefit to customers -- that gets people's interest. And so on.
Also this whole name thing is getting to me. I wanted to believe that RMS was genuinely interested in the name "Gnu/Linux" to promote the cause of free software. But this whole "he just happened to bring a few pieces to *my* jigsaw puzzle" attitude sucks.
RMS needs an attitude adjustment. He needs to come to a Linux convention and bring a keg of fine beer and raise a toast to Linus Torvalds for writing such a useful kernel and choosing to GPL it. I am 100% serious. He needed to do that 5 years ago.
If I tell you I'm running Windows or MacOS, it means something - that I can run software designed for that OS. The same goes for Linux - it identifies the OS. RedHat Linux can run the same software as Debian Linux because they're both Linux. "Debian" is not an operating system.
The name GNU/Linux or Debian is simply confusing. Perhaps if I run development tools from Borland I should say I'm running "Borland/Windows"?!
Still, I can sympathize with RMS feeling that Linus is getting all the glory, and certainly he could publically share a little more credit. I think it was Slackware that was recently analyzed to contain 0.12% code actually written by Linus.
> RMS claims he believes in freedom, but apparently that doesn't include freedom of speech, for Linus call an OS kernel which he designed, whatever he wants.
So, what makes you think that his complaint on what other people called Linux is against freedom? If you believe that his disagreement is against free speech, wouldn't your disagreement also be against free speech too?
> Not to mention that the GPL is more restrictive in some respects than some commercial licenses.
It is easy to argue GPL is more restrictive because it requires derivative works to be free. However, BSD licence's lack of enforcement of freedom means derivatives may no longer be free in long term (which had happened), ending up less overall freedom. To minimize the abuse of freedom caused by making derivatives of free software non-free, GPL was created to restrict such attempts, thus making future software in overall, more free.
> God bless GNU, for without them, Linux would have taken longer to develop, but I'd wager money that it still would have been developed. Or how about the BSDs? Complete, fully functional, free operating systems without all of the GNU BS^H^Hbaggage.
If you read the FreeBSD FAQ item 1.3, you will find that some of the FreeBSD codes are licensed under GNU GPL. In other words, if it is not because of Richard Stallman and the GNU, FreeBSD may not be as well developed as it is today.
militia / survivalist / white supremacist
Not all militia groups or survivalists are white supremacists...ever hear of the Black Panthers? They were definately a militia group, though not survivalists. Weather or not they were black supremisists is questionable, I am sure some were. But at least the founder did not seem to be from what I know of him.
The "militia groups" are not what they are talked about in the press. The right to bear arms was NOT to protect the country from an invading england! It was so that the people could protect themselves against a tyronous government, be that external or internal. It was put in so that the government could never become a police state, the people would have the right and the arms to overthrough such a government.
Some of the militia groups believe that it is time for that already, I don't know if I agree with them or not. The current government is already obviously extreemly corrupt, and of course the militia groups would be the first to get a bad rep from such a government, and the right to bear arms will be abolished....when that day comes, you can bet your life that the constitution is dead and with it our way of life.
Many malitia groups are patriots in the true definition of the word, which many people do not understand. I am not ready to say their methods are right, but they have the right to do what they do and say what they believe...which is what many wish to protect by bearing arms.
How about a /. poll with:
democrat
republican
liberal
militia / survivalist / white supremacist
freedom party / ross perot wacko
Libertarian (US) / anarcho-capitalist
anarchist / libertarian socialist
socialist
communist
This is actually plausible. I especially like the description of the operating system kernel: " ...
turned out hard to debug. It was multiple processes sending messages to each other asynchronously." Man, do I know the feeling"
I don't think you remember Linux is GPL.Now for proprietary libraries, I don't give a damn.
If it doesn't work people will make something better!
You see if people really start buying millions of RedHat Linux , then they will also start learning of free software, gnu etc...
I am a new Linux user. It's been a year now.
Two years ago I would have bought FTP Pro for 100$.
Do you really think I would do it now?
Also, just to make a small point, this was the same answer I gave a crazy journalist (can't remember where on the net) who said HOW CAN YOU MAKE MONEY WITH LINUX?
My answer was and is the same as I gave you.
Using Linux educated me a bit! Now I know enough not to go buy crappy software for nothing!
Ciao
Why do you say KDE isn't GNU. It ships with
GNU license, and it is totally free.
Your argument doesn't make sense at all.
Is it so hard to add 4 letters, to give
someone 15 years of credit, instead of
none?
RMS has not "lost" the battle, people who
don't recognize the work he has done, are
not moral.
That is silly. Your packets to SlashDot are probably going over a portion of the Internet that is using proprietary software for the routing, therefore, you should stop using the Internet. I guess you do not mind, otherwise, you would not have posted here.
Just because a person disagrees with someone does not mean they have to dislike the product of that person.
Sean Farley
I think Stallman sometimes is a strange person, he thinks non-free software is an outrage but doesn't seem
to have the same feelings about general economy. A lot of GNU supporters are always fast to state that they
are not socialists. Well, that's ok, and I bet a lot of them support the GNU project for purely technically reasons. But wouldn't
the BSD-license (with the license-clause) be a better, more "free" option then?
I for one, am very interested in how many GNU/Opensource/Linux/BSD supporters are socialists or communists, I know
that I use and develop Free Software for technical as well as Economical reasons as well.
A Slashdot poll about this would be cool...
But how good is the optimizer? And what about Fortran 90? Someone needs to work on it some more.
You are forgetting that there is another person who is equally egomaniacal: ESR. I think that's why both always end up on opposite sides - there is space only for one of them. Linus, together with man others (the creators of Perl, UNIX and C, to name but a few), do more than those two, yet do not try to take credit for everything.
We are too concerned about making the suits, the press and everybody else in the mainstream accept us, that we are forgetting what we really are: hackers.
Hackers don't like suits, period. Don't try making it sound better for them. Yell with all the power of your lungs, 'we are gonna make free programs, even if it will kill your market, because we want _freedom_'.
Check out www.news.com (and maybe later, jwz.org) for details.
i await that day... peoplesoft is shite, it's main property seems to be racking up consulting fees while not doing anything useful
What flame bait!! you nerds need to learn to pick and choose your battles! you Read one totally bullshit story and go off and think if all of you write your whinings on a website then it will all suddenly change and you will set some XYZ bastard's ways in stone! quit bitching if you think someone isnt doing a good enough job then replace his pimpled ass with your own!
Well put, AC #1.
I think we are fortunate to have someone like RMS - who IS as good a hacker as he is, who has done all that he's done and who is willing to repeatedly stick his neck out for what he believes is right.
There does seem to be some confusion as to the man's purpose - I can see how it is possible to interpret RMS as trying to grab credit for Mr. Torvalds' and others work.
I think what he's trying to do is draw attention to GNU - he's not saying he wrote the kernel. He's trying to focus attention on what is important in society as a whole. We should be able to help our neighbors.
Those who say the system shouldn't be called GNU/Linux have their point - it's awkward, it creates confusion, a lunatic wants us to call it that so that's reason enough not to.... etc...
But - would Linux be Linux without GNU? Don't think in terms of software contributed by GNU -
think of the license - where did that license come from? Why did Mr. Torvalds (whom no one here would call a madman) decide to use that license in the first place?
I agree that gcc is hugely important, and possibly
more important than the kernel. I don't think it is fair to say that it better than any of the alternative though.
For example, compiling scientific codes using the Portland group compilers generally gives 30% or more speedup on the same x86 machine.
I haven't tried pcc - that might redress the balance a bit.
I don't know about the people that you hang out with but most socialists I know of would never, ever call themselves a "Liberal" and reserve that name for what they consider to be pretty mild left-leaning democrats. Similarly, "Liberals" don't much like being called socialists. Militia I threw in there as a joke, but even still I don't really see the intersection between it and Libertarian Party members. Maybe you're not too clear on what all of the political groups I mentioned actually believe in?
Obviously RMS should not have used the GPL when he created all that software. I especially like the part were he says something like "What they didn't realize was they were taking the GNU system".....
Ok, I guess we all beter appologise for stealing all the GNU software now. Maybe we should replace all GNU created software now and be done with the whole ordeal. Fuck, unless they shut up about all this shit, I would be ready to boycott the shithead.
RMS is so full of shit he is about to explode.
That's a much worse insult -- telling someone that doesn't agree with you "you must be brainwashed". What's next? You and your psychiatrist reprogram him with Gnu Aversion Therapy until he sees the light and runs only the software *you* think is good to run? /etc. Or open up the case and add a disk drive. That's what makes it a *personal* computer.
I thought Stallman's claim that "running proprietary software is like agreeing to be enslaved" is ludicrous. But your claim is worse.
I run Microsoft Windows sometimes. I paid for it. Hey, maybe I'll overclock my CPU if I feel like it too. Or mess around in
Posted by ExpPiI:
:)
Some guy above made a Score=1 reply to a Score=-1 thread (in an adjoining thread to this message) and it doesn't turn up.
Or is it a feature which I am too dense to undersand?
Am I the only one experiencing it?
Sorry for the offtopic message - feel free to demote it. Hopefully not to -1.
Simple enough ?
"Pray arm me further by your reply" Winston Churchill
There is no RMS, this is all another APRIL FOOLS joke!!! Open your eyes and smell the C++ (or Java, if you prefer), everything posted today is a rotten, stinking HOAX!!!
-Eric
The GNU way would be, if you don't like Richards attitude, simply fix the bug and release the source, because it's 'open'.
Supplant another GNU spokesman in RMS's stead? Just how feasible is that?
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
He really isn't. Plenty of people, in his time, were writing code and releasing the source for use on the Internet.
All Stallman did was get on the bandwagon, codify it a bit, formalize the process a bit, and then direct the energies of a bunch of people (who were doing it anyway) towards creating a free Unix.
Sure, that's a commendable contribution to the computer using community. But on this basis alone, I don't find any reason to accept Stallman's inability to prove the success of his dogma in a business world.
I think he's gotten on this soapbox because he's lazy. If he were actively writing code and organizing new and exciting projects for the greater good, I'd have an easier time appreciating his perspective.
For example, if he'd gotten involved in the GNOME or KDE projects, or something similarly needed in the "Liberty Unix" world, then it'd be a hell of a lot easier for a productive person to appreciate his views.
But as it stands, he's not producing anything other than controversy. In my view, he's the "Dennis Rodman" of the software world, riding whatever controversy he can stir up in order to prolong his 15 minutes of fame and get more face-time in the corporate scope.
Calling him this doesn't demean the community as a whole. His own free radical inability to communicate his ideals and demonstrate success of his principles of free software ultimately confuse the perception of the free software community in the eyes of investors, marketers and strategists - a lot of whom this industry could actually use.
Thus, this community need to replace RMS with a re-write.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
My point was that RMS is, right now, being promoted as a figurehead for the Open Source movement - in magazines and other media, usually in the context of "Linux as a tool for business" or "Linux as a product to invest ___ in", where ___ is either money or other resources.
And the problem with this positioning of RMS is that he's unable to function in that environment as a reliable and safe source of information.
It takes but a simple misuse of "Linux" over "GNU/Linux" in an interview to set him off on what is being perceived (and, in alarmist reporter fashion, being *reported*) as a lunatic rant against a product *NAME*. Rather than focussing on what Linux can do as a tool, the media take the easier route - to report about how mad RMS is as a 'leader' of the Open Source revolution.
This is a tack that requires less study and understanding on a reporters behalf because its about human emotion and reaction, not protocol implementations or reliable performance spec comparisons, etc.
As a point-of-contact for media types, RMS should not be allowing the media to have the option of taking that easy route - he should be promoting the benefits of the Open Source cause and making headway in terms of establishing 'mindset' in the realm of those being reported to - the readers of the media he's being interviewed by... That's the role of a figurehead/leader type in this modern media-fed world.
RMS' hissy fits and temper tantrums are not exactly the best way to get the word out there and promote the pro's of Open Source as a movement and tool for business.
If you're going to be in a position of figurehead, then learn how to play the game of being a figurehead for the cause, rather than being a figurehead for ones own self or ones own moral and philosophical beliefs, which is how RMS comes off 80% of the time. Either that, or create a band of similarly inclined folk, give them a title, and head off in that direction...
But to presume that anyone in the OSS noosphere these days automatically agree's with his own ideals, and therefore it's acceptable for him to vigorously and millitantly promote them as part of the general OSS "movement", is ludicrous on RMS' part.
I'm a software developer too, and I have a strong philosophical background myself, with my own set of equally valid and strong morals, but I don't greedily use face-time with reporters in order to propagate those beliefs - I use it to promote my products in order to gain market share and stronger product penetration, to attract more interested parties to the area that my software is attended to address (music/media software tools) - which ultimately results in my philosophical views being represented by the use of those products in the marketplace.
RMS' over-promotion of his philosophical and moral approach to GNU overshadows the true work that needs to be done - to explain and enlighten the media (and thus, the 'masses') on the pro's of using Linux as a tool for whatever endeavours it fits the role.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Academics.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Then he starts sounding like that one guy we all knew (gnu?) in high school who seemed really smart about everything except any sort of social interaction. You know, the guy who could code really well and program mandlebradts into his TI-81, but to whom even the geeks wouldn't talk because he was such a pain in the ass?
Like that guy, Stallman needs to lighten up, maybe talk to some girls or something. I understand that he feels underappreciated for the work that GNU put in before Linux came on the scene, but that's still no excuse to act like a total smeghead.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Just like we can form the opinion that he's turning into (well, has been forever, I guess) an arrogant whiner.
I don't think that anyone said that we ought to gag RMS to make him shut up, we're just pointing out that he's actively digging his own grave 'o obscurity. Who wants to listen to a crackpot?
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
The cost of SAP, PeopleSoft, and Oracle Financials are dwarfed by the consulting fees that purchasers pay out to consultants to install and configure it. Also, the fact that huge corporations are willing to pay for the software, doesn't mean that it cannot be free. An industry consortium could collectively fund the development, with the result being free software.
While Richard Stallman doesn't control Debian, I would like to point out that the Free Software Foundation (which he is the president of) did provide early funding and support for the Debian project. In light of this, I think saying a "user and nothing more" is not warranted.
The Free Software Foundation also runs other free operating systems besides Debian GNU/Linux on their machines. For example, NetBSD. So they are not exclusively Debian users.
Your own belief in free speech apparently does not extend to allowing Richard Stallman to say what he thinks.
More importantly, Richard Stallman is not aiming to take away your freedom to call the system whatever you want. He is simply making his argument in an attempt to convince you do see things his way and to call it GNU/Linux voluntarily. This is a far cry from how proprietary software vendors operate.
You seem to think that freedom also equates to not having to listen to opinions which make you uncomfortable.
Linux is not an OS. Linux is a kernel. Your analogy is correct - you say "I run Mac OS X" or "I run Windows 95," not "I run win32" or "I run Mach." Calling the GNU/Linux OS "Linux" would be as preposterous as calling Mac OS X "Mach."
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Read it again. He did not mean "taking" as "stealing," he meant it exactly as it is written. The various GNU/Linux OS makers did take the GNU system, combine it with the Linux kernel, and release it as a complete OS. They took it, but did not steal it.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Why is an obvious flame and ad hominem attack, with very little real content, promoted to 4? I thought moderation was supposed to be based on the content of the posts, not the bias of the moderators.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Bruce Perens's Open Source Definition (and the nearly identical Debian Free Software Guidelines) are perfectly fine - they are completely in concurrence with the ideals and goals of Free Software. The problem arises when licenses which are clearly not Free Software, such as the first version of the APSL, are certified as Open Source. If the APSL is indeed Open Source, it is still not Free Software, so it does a good job of highlighting the difference between the two terms.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
It is the GNU System. The GNU project has been developing it since the mid-80s, and the only portion still not finished in the kernel. Since the kernel is still in the development stages, you can use the Linux kernel together with the rest of the GNU OS to get a stable, working OS today. Either that, or you can wait for the GNU OS to be completely finished, and just use that.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I still luv RMS, but this has gotten out of hand. Too many people take this "controversy" as some sort of license (no pun intended) to tee off on the old guy. It's time for us to move on. That includes you too, Brother Stallman.
--
--
=8^
Businesses explicitly buy into the BS when they're offered goodies by pols - payroll tax cuts, for instance, or a look-the-other-way ethos towards regulation, as some US locales (and many Third World countries do). They buy into the glorification of business by politicians; they even shell out campaign bucks to the pols who brown-nose the best.
If you think "People and businesses don't buy political BS", then you've probably swallowed a truckload of it. Your little piece of folk "wisdom" only shows that you don't have the wherewithal to pursue the causes and the effects. You must be an American.
--
--
=8^
It means the software is free, as in wild horses.
This means source code must be modified. Since when is programming a simple skill that anyone can learn, or would want to? The average computer user needs to be able to do their email, web browsing, word processing, and maybe some accounting. As long as they are not restricted by the capabilities in the current choices for these programs, RMS is wasting his breath and our time.
The average user doesn't exist in a vacuum. There might be a case where that user's neighbor, cousin, barber, or priest is savvy enough to make sense of the code; there might be a desire, a year or two down the road, where that user might want new functionality for a piece of software. In the proprietary model, he/she would have to buy an upgrade or a competing product, and still not be satisfied. If the desired new functionality were just something that could have been hacked (by the barber) using the existing code, it would come faster and in a made-to-order fashion.
So there's one impromptu example of the usefulness of sharing the code. As far as "RMS wasting his breath", he only wastes it when he obsesses about the name of Linux. His other efforts seem more oriented towards keeping those wild horses free. It's not necessarily about winning popularity contests or gaining acceptance from a hostile audience. It's about the horses.
Disclaimer: I really need my nap :)
--
--
=8^
>I personally like not having to worry about restrictions being placed on me by other people.
But you mention working. Doesn't your employer place restrictions on you, basically requiring your butt be on a chair at their place for ~40 hours a week? Doesn't he/she specify what you must working on during that time? In exchange, you get something of value (salary), just as you get the use of the software in exchange for agreeing not to distribute it and paying a share of the development costs.
If you don't like the deal, don't take it.
And ever see "No trespassing" signs? Physical property (real estate) imposes a heck of a lot of restrictions on freedom for all of us.
P.S. I wonder how many IP-haters would change their mind once it became apparent that movies like Star Wars would no longer be made without IP laws...
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
>I'm starting to think that Richard actually hates Linus so much that any word that sounds like Linus is repugnant to him. Either that, or this is another hoax.
I doubt it's so much hate of Linus as it is vehement disagreement with Linus's publicly stated position on intellectual property. I could see that it would be rather galling if you spent years on a project that in large part was meant to spread your philosophy, and then the other fellow comes along, provides a key component to the project, is the person most closely associated with the project -- including the name tie-in -- but he doesn't buy in to your philosophy.
I must admit that Richard is consistent with his philosophy: no job, no kids, few possessions -- none of those things that restrict the freedoms of most of us at some point in our lives.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
>In the spirit of April 1st questioning everything ... Are you sure Linux isn't what he had in mind all along?
Even if was, it's irrelevant, since Linus was perfectly within his rights to name the kernel whatever he wanted. Naming the whole system after the kernel was a shortcut taken thereafter.
Subsuming Linux into GNU, however, seems like *intentionally* trying to transfer the credit the other way.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
>GCC and G++ may be the main C/C++ compilers available for Linux right now, but who's to say that Imprise/Borland won't port over C++ Builder one day?
Metrowerks CodeWarrior for Linux is already in beta. If it's as good as their Mac compiler, it has better template handling than egcs.
Also, a compiler is a tool for building an OS, not an OS itself. You use hammers to build houses, but a hammer is not part of the house. Likewise gzip and tar are tools for installing an OS, again not part of the OS itself.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
OTOH I couldn't care the least if no one volunteers to make corporate software. And so SMP support in Linux doesn't excite me, nor do the Big Databases.
Does RMS ever ask anything to be named after himself? He wants GNU to get some of the credit it deserves, as well as let new and potential users understand that GNU is a significant part of Linux. GNU is a lot of people, most of which seem to be pretty quiet. But most of them worked for the GNU ideal, and that ideal deserves a bit of credit, a bit of publicity.
There is a big philosophical difference between the two. For Free Software the license issue is largely solved -- GPL -- but for Open Source it's a constantly renewed question.
So, if I was going to make a list of criteria for a Free Software license, it would be: It should be the GPL, or LGPL if there's a compelling reason. So simple, leads to little confusion, will not cause dillution...
Of course, that's just me.
They do this because they feel they can better defend the license if they hold complete copyright over a piece of code -- i.e., if someone inappropriately uses some GNU GPLed code the FSF can sue them and they don't need to collect all the original authors for the suit. It's strictly for legal, not philosophical reasons.
Actually GPL stands for General Public License.Wouldn't you be annoyed if you and a group of other people worked long and hard, doing as much work as the Linux kernel people, the distribution people, and all the other people who brand Linux, but the name of your group never showed up anywhere? Might almost be enough to make you wish you had a BSD license... :P
(And to his credit, Linux was named after Linus, not by him)
RMS needs to stop using the word free in his interviews. The word free hangs over every one of his interviews. They should be the Liberty Software Foundation. He should say that the GNU System, his new way to railroad Linux's name, is a libery OS. It guarentees your freedom. I usually don't like his interviews. He tends to focus on the name. Now he is attacking the freedom/free beer problem. I think he is doomed until he changes the word.
(Of course, when I first saw the story, I wanted to know what the joke was.)
Lets say you buy a license for a piece of software
that has an expiration date
and every year you need to renew the license
Then the company that makes the software
goes out of business or you forget to renew the license
What are you stuck with now, bits that do nothing.
This happened recently at my work
The compilers, f77, f90, cc all had the licenses run out
People using those programs very quickly got extremely unproductive (and annoyed too)
While other people using GNU free alternatives did not experience this problem
I personally like not having to worry about
restrictions being placed on me by other people
Check out the reports of interviews & appearances. He interrupts to "correct" those who say "Linux," and refuses to answer questions when someone doesn't use his version.
Note: I am *not* writing this to knock g77.
g77 still relies on gcc and c optimization. Also, it is incomplete. It seems to me that it is missing support for parts of f77, though I forget which. And it only has tidbits of f90, missing showstoppers such as operations on full matrices, WHERE, and other things that new fortran work is likeley to use on a daily basis.
Current projects that don't need either the modern fortran features or hard-core optimizing are unlikely to choose fortran for the language. Part of Fortran's ability to optimize come from what is left *out*, allowing the compiler to make assumptions that would range from invalid to fatal in c. Dynamic binding of functions, arrays of pointers (though f95 got these), and the like.
Not answering questions can be classified as simply bizarre/eccentric/whatever.
Interrupting another speaker is not free speech, but the interference with the other speaker's speech.
If your application really calls for fortran, gcc is not a substitute in that usage, nor are any of the free fortran-like programss (g77, f2c . . .). Fortran is generally used for it's numeric optimizations; while a good c compiler can sometimes produce comparable performance, this only happens after hand-optimization.
Perhaps you should put a little (US) next to liberal, too.
:)
In the US, it has come to mean dogmatic moral relativist (which itself sounds pretty silly, which explains quite a bit), in Europe it's closer to what you're calling "anarchist / libertarian socialist"
And, "Libertarian (US) / anarcho-capitalist" don't really have anything to do with each other unless you're Ayn Rand. The idea of anarchy / capitalism is a bit of an oxymoron. In order to have capital, the establishment of what capital is (Laws pertaining to property rights) are required. And, in order to maintain individual liberty, it needs to be protected.
I think they should draw a box:
<-- (economic freedom)
2 1
3
5 4
(social freedom) -->
6 Oustide the box
7 I'm a bitter little ball of flaming and whining
2 is economic freedom,
4 is social freedom,
5 is no freedom,
1 is both economic freedom and social freedom,
3 is centrist (let's all just compromise!!),
6 is anarchist (laws are evil, leave me alone),
7 is self-explanatory.
Click on which most closely matches.
(you'll have to use a bit of imagination on the box part.. I tried to draw one, but it just didn't want to be formatted nicely.)
When early settler farmers in the US got together and built barns, they did not have a MacroBarn Corporation. Perhaps if Bill Gates had been around, he would have been able to pull something off where he built all the barns, had it made illegal to modify them, or to share the design with a neighbor who wanted to build his own.
Instead, they, the farmers, worked together to help make their own. This from what has been hailed as the Free world. The anti-communism. Notice that no one was forced to help, and no one was forced to give up anything to use the Barn for as long as it stood upright.
Regarding the "personal glory" aspect, RMS has gone to *great* lengths to codify his philosophies along with detailed explanations of *why* he believed in them.
Contrast this to ESR, who writes eloquently, but has a wheeling-dealing tendency.. And when criticized, instead of fighting reason with reason, talks about resigning, and calls into question the public discussion of the matters at hand. This isn't meant as an attack on ESR, but to show a concrete example of how RMS has gone to lengths to document what his ideals, instead of "The rules today are what I say they are"
RMS is doing his best to keep momentum going in the free direction by keeping attention focused on it. I do agree with you that that saying "G-noo slash Linux" is silly, and generally not worth the all the fuss it has been stirring up. I consider it taken somewhat in desperation over the turn things have taken lately, and even as such, not something that even comes close to cancelling out the huge benefits GNU has bestowed upon us. And, the price of freedom *is* eternal vigilance...
I think the "We include credit for ..." postings that had Linux implicity including credit for GNU have the right idea. Then you can see that as the boiler-plate prepended to every single intro article "The free unix-like operating system written by a college student in finland ... In order to work its magic, it uses the potent reagents of GNU, XFree86, and <insert your project of great importance here>"
Although the kernel is GPL'ed, the FSF does not own the copywright. The FSF insists on owning the copywright for all the code. You can get it straight from the horses mouth here.
--
Man is most nearly himself when he achieves the seriousness of a child at play.
****Gfx Scrollbar Special case hit!!*****
On the contrary. Linux is not an OS; Linux is a kernel. The kernel by itself won't even boot you up to the point of being able to log in. You need utilities, libraries, and so forth in order to make up a usable OS.
... Turbo Pascal for DOS is a development environment. Pascal is a language. Pascal by itself isn't a development environment. In fact, even a Pascal compiler by itself isn't.
A distribution is an OS. Debian GNU/Linux is an OS. Red Hat Linux is an OS. Slackware Linux The fact that these OSes have the word "Linux" in their names does not mean that Linux itself is an OS.
By way of comparison
The most famous part of a system does not equal the whole system.
OS: Operating System.
;) ] This set of code is certainly not a bare kernel and probably has a significant FSF contribution, not to mention GNU. It's certainly not just Linux. Linux by itself doesn't let me operate a computer at all, unless you count turning it on and saying "It runs!". :-) The other option is to take everything on the computer and cram it into the OS; I don't like this but it makes sense then to call it Debian. In fact, we have three levels of size here--distribution, OS, kernel. Debian GNU/Linux. :-)
I take this to mean a system with which I can operate my computer--more generally, a small set of code chunks which together will allow me to bootstrap an operating system onto my computer. In the case of Linux, this probably means the kernel, shellutils and fileutils, getty and login, gzip and tar, and probably ftp, along with some system-specific stuff (mk*fs for example). [ actually, the programs might be statically linked so there would be a little libc in all of them and we could drop it
The three levels just happen to be separate here (as opposed to how things work in proprietary systems and *BSD), so it's not surprising that people get the term "operating system" mixed up with the other two. (probably the earlier MS-DOS versions were just operating systems and kernels..they came on a few floppys, as I recall, and provided a minimal set of utilities--copy, dir, etc. These days, Microsoft is basically producing a distribution)
That said, I call the whole mess Linux just because the GNU/ part is not significant for compatibility (since all systems are GNU), the Debian part is only slightly significant, most people look blank if I tell them I use GNU or Debian, and Linux is shorter.
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
I can see you haven't grasped the most essential point of human interaction:
Stallman's ideas are unpopular. Therefore it is perfectly legitimate for people to attack and discredit him in any way that they feel necessary so that they don't have to be bothered with him any more. Blatant misrepresentations of his statements and flat-out character assasination are perfectly legitimate.
</cynicism>
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
That owuld work better if those were non-intersecting groups (eg, militia seems to be a subset of libertarian, while communist would be a subset of socialist and socialist would be a subset of liberal, and those are only the easy cases..)
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
I'm sorry, but are we supposed to pray to him to not lead us into (Oracle) temptation, and deliver us from evil (corporations/proprietary code/calling Linux Linux)?
Hmm, where have I heard that before.... religion class! I think they called it "The Lord's Prayer". Am I the only ex-Catholic who noticed this?
Doesn't this seem a little, well funny for a rational person? Why yes, Bob, in any other human being, you'd say it was a Messiah complex. But RMS is different they say. How? He has integrity, and is willing to live his life that way. So do cannibals. There are plenty of functional nuts who believe in what they do. It doesn't make them RIGHT. Logic is NOT just for CODE, people.
Do you need to wait until he sticks his hand in his jacket and annouces he's invading Russia for somebody to see he's off the bloody deep end?
Substitute "Bill Gates" for RMS and "competition" for philosophy and the posts that defend him uncritically would sound like a ZD Talkback forum where people root for "MS ability to innovate".
The revolution will NOT be televised.
It seems to me most of the people (including myself) who disagree with him actually take pains to point out that they're appreciative of the work he's done. He is clearly getting plenty of recognition; if he wasn't he wouldn't be the subject of so many interviews, would he? Isn't that recognition? What definition would you use?
He deliberately uses terms such as slavery to demean people/companies/concepts he doesn't agree with. Do you think anyone who's experienced REAL slavery would equate it with using Oracle? Oh sorry, I forgot you can actually make a living doing Oracle admin - at $90/hr! Some slavery huh?
While calling him a crackpot doesn't help anything, you can't expect people to listen to what amounts to an insult of your intelligence without getting something of that back. Y'know, like instant karma gonna get you.
What moderately intelligent adult is worried that Oracle will "tempt" him or her into buying it? What is this, Eve with an apple? We shouldn't be allowed to make that choice? If it's not crazy, it's certainly not freedom, either.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
I don't NEED to be free to modify Oracle. I need to be free to decide whether or not I can use it, and if you accept their terms, fine. If not, fine, you're free to wait for a "free" alternative. I don't need anyone to keep "the temptation" of using it from me. I can make the decision based on my own needs. That's freedom.
If you want to be a slave to passion and develop a free Oracle clone the existence of a non-free Oracle shouldn't stop you, because that version doesn't exist for you.
Oracle isn't denying anyone's freedom by not releasing their source. This concept is simply wrong and is used to justify a desire to remove the options (sometimes know as freedom of action) from people who don't agree with your political viewpoint because you don't actually have much faith in the process you espouse. If you did, you wouldn't worry that the existence of "non-free" apps would "naturally" create complacency. Why "naturally"? Your acknowledgement of that strikes at the heart of the argument. It's natural for people to not want to do work that's already done, or we'd all still be busy inventing wheels.
As for Oracle and your "hacker" (can't anybody just be a programmer anymore?), simply put you have no right to demand other peoples property! It's theirs to give you or not. Enforced virtue is no virtue at all. It's like the Jon Katz thing, if you don't like his content or terms just don't follow the link, or don't buy his book. If it's not about money, then just tell the Oracle folks you'll buy their stuff if they provide the source or tools you want. If they get enough people doing this, they'll give it up. Or they'll be free to decline your business.
Besides, the whole concept is a moot point for anyone outside the small subset of computer users who are competent programmers. So this "freedom" is only for us high priests; the vast majority of users will never know it anyway. Why deny them the opportunity to buy what they want? What kind of freedom is that?
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Re: point #1: You said no one would have the "itch" to write a Free ERP package. An announcement is all that is needed to disprove that. The fact that there is no code is irrelevant.
Re: point #2: is a question which asks me to engage in conjecture, not a statement with which I can agree or disagree.
Re: point #3: As to the fact that the announcement says that they are targetting small to medium sized companies is irrelevant. You are trying to narrow your original definitions.
Also, there seems to still be some confusion between "Free" and "free". "Free" means that users are not restricted in what they do with the software. "free" means for no remuneration. As I said, I write Free software that is not free.
Finally, thanks but this this not my project. When I read your original letter I thought "that can't be right" so I went to Dogpile and searched for "GPL" and "ERP". The project announcement was the first item that came up.
By the way, the first two people I mentioned this project to develop banking software during the day and have already written at least one general ledger. They are both enthusiastic about the possibilities and asked me to send them copies of the announcement.
Why are they interested? Because they see an opportunity to collaborate with others for "free" to produce a base package they don't have the resources to complete themselves which they are then "Free" to customize for paying customers.
The reason that the customer will be willing to pay for Free software from a small company rather than SAP/BAAN/PeopleSoft is that for the comparitively small price of some custom programming (and as you pointed out, all ERP packages require customization) they meet their needs and have complete control over their futures.
The fact that they have the source code frees the company from being at the mercy of a vendor. For example, support cannot be used as a lever to coerce them into pointless and expensive upgrades. Instead, the company can play one consulting firm off another to get the best deal.
See http://acsys.anu.edu.au/~tpot/hypermail/cola/1334. html for an announcement of a free ERP project.
Also, "Free Software" doesn't mean "no charge software". All the code my company writes is Free Software but we charge for it.
Sorry to be such a Marxist about this, but slavery has nothing to do with compensation. It has do with free will and the absence of, yes, freedom.
Oracle is non-free. Administers of Oracle may recieve high salaries, but few of them have the freedom to modify Oracle and distribute those modifications. To deny a hacker the freedom to modify and create programming tools, is to deny her freedom.
Oracle is positioning itself as a standard-- a closed standard. Such a standard in the Linux world will naturally create complacency and draw resources away from efforts to create a free alternative.
A lot of people have turned to Linux for purely selfish reasons-- Linux was and continues to be more stable than its major competion: Windows 95/98/NT. These same people could care less about the philosophy of free software.
To those who insist on equating slavery with iron manacles and the middle passage: many philosphers have talked of "being slaves to passion," and "slavish devotion" is not an uncommon turn of phrase.
RMS must not believe in free speech since he disagrees with others who are exercising their free speech right to call it just "Linux".
How does disagreeing with others who are excercising their free speech right, makes him not believe in free speech? In other words since when disagreeing means prohibiting free speech? Think about it.
If RMS wants a GNU distribution, he can do one. But for him to insist that all other distributions be called GNU, not Linux, is beyond reason. Why not GNU/Solaris? Why not GNU/Freebsd?
-russ
-russ
What gives him the right to make a statement like that?
Free speech. Please read my post before responding to it.
Haha because that would cover all of about 3% of the GNU/Linux users. I guess I could say I use the used-to-be-Slackware-about-a-year-ago-before-I-cle aned-everything-off-and-borrowed-stuff-f rom-about-4-different-distributions-and-wrote-my-o wn-software operating system, but it's even harder to say than GNU/Linux I'm afraid.
Isn't part of freedom the freedom to call a given piece of software whatever the hell **I** want to?
Yes, he's many times before that he doesn't want to, and can't, force people to call it GNU/Linux. He's aggressive, but he's not forcing you. It would seem odd that you would have a problem with *him* calling it whatever he wants, though. In this interview, there was *none* of his infamous "call it GNU/Linux or I won't listen to you" talk, but rather he simply called it what he wanted to call it. Just because you don't agree with him, doesn't mean you can force him to call what you want.
Oh gee doesn't this agrument sound familiar.
It's colonel, as in Colonel Sanders of Kentucky Fried Chicken fame.
:-)
i agree. personally, i think he's right. he did get shit on. i couldn't do what he did, which is basically starve so that we could be free, so i can't take anything away from him. i'm enjoying the benefit of his work and i ain't done shit!
"The lie, Mr. Mulder, is most convincingly hidden between two truths."
--
And Justice for None
I'm told he had a grilfiend once.
Okay, what's the problem with g77? It is a native compiler from (fairly standard) Fortran 77 to native code. It's not a converter to C.
If you think that, you _still_ don't get RMS's point.
One reason why a single company cannot make an OS as well as applications for their OS.
Because if their operating system becomes ubiquitous, then they can use their knowledge of the operating system to shut out competitors that encroach upon them.
What it really comes down to is that no one company should own the operating system that most people use. It should be owned by the community. That is the only way to avoid a monopoly, because the lines between what an operating system is and what its applications are can get very blurred.
> The term "software piracy" is considered
> inappropriate because illegal copying of
> software is not comparable to robbery of a ship
> at sea.
> Using propriety software, however, is comparable
> to "slavery".
Note that the former metaphor is implicit, the latter is explicit (a simile, really).
What's so insidious about the former is that it is the normal term used in this case. Anyone using has to incorporate the implicit metaphor into their mental framework, and it DOES colour your thinking.
As for the latter, even RMS doesn't use "slavery" as a normal term for proprietary software. There, even he uses the (relatively) neutral term.
Explicit metaphors influence people's thinking too, of course, but they sink in at a much more conscious level, giving you a better opportunity to think about it and say, "hey, that really isn't right..." (as you did)
DNA just wants to be free...
Perhaps it is slightly "better" to give than receive, but both of these words imply a kind of disrespect of others, a kind of something-for-nothing shell game. I prefer a third alternative, one that respects the rights of all those involved: free, voluntary trade of value for value.
Dream
Just call the whole thing "NotBob"
(BTW, anyone know where I can get a copy of Bob?)
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
I think by calling RMS a crackpot or a crazy only serves to demean our community as a whole.
Right on. If there is anybody the Free Software community, or society as a whole should be paying more attention to, it's RMS. This recent bashing makes me think people are forgetting what this whole big thing is all about, and how much non-free solutions hurt people.
It's simply due to short-term thinking, a problem that is affecting not only Free Software, but everywhere in society. Everybody wants what suits them best, right now, everybody and everything else be damned. Selfish, is what I call it.
All the site was designed to show was, how much of a typical Linux system is actually GNU code. Because Stallman claims that more or less all the important stuff save for the kernel is GNU.
Now, it seems to me they didn't do a bad job of showing that there is a lot of other code there that has nothing to do with GNU. They weren't arguing what Linux should be called; just that the justification for Stallman's claim was off-base.
I don't think one can argue that GPL'ed code becomes part of GNU. The GPL is just what it says, a license. Am I wrong in thinking that FSF = GNU, and vice versa? Anyway, the kernel itself is GPL'ed, so by that logic, we should just call it GNU.
I recall seeing an analysis of an actual Linux system not so long ago, that displayed the percentage of programs orginating from each code base -- GNU, BSD and so on. What struck me was, that while some of the most important stuff was GNU, it was by no means even the largest %. Anyone see this too? Got a URL maybe?
And promoting Linux as a free, open source project would serve exactly that purpose. Insisting that it be named GNU/Linux simply because it makes use of GNU software (even heavy use of GNU software) makes GNU look like a collection of egomaniacs who want credit for writing software, not a community of revolutionaries who truly believe in free software.
If RMS were truly interested in free software and not in shameless self-promotion, he'd be less interested in what it's called, who wrote it and who gets credit for it than whether or not it's free software.
April Fool's or not, this stupid GNU vs. Linux argument is really getting on my nerves.
To write a Free ERP is a task that will be what you makes it to be. You could writte for just a specific market or try to make a new SAP R/3 (which I don't recommend *s*)
One major problem with a Free ERP is that I think very few corporations are willing to take a chance with a new ERP system, not tested or anything else. Nad you can't sell a ERP system and don't have all parts working by the time.
ERP isn't easy ,it takes a long time to develope and test.
who shot the cat in the hat to experiment is insane
"The same thing that gives you the right to state your opinions. If you can work out what that is, just recognise the same rights for him."
/. posts seem to have an interesting way of obscuring the meaning of one's words. I never said he can't state his oppinion. If it seemed that way, my mistake. However, this is really far from the point I was attempting to make.
Hmmm...
"But of course he insists that he's right and that people who disagree with him are wrong - by definition his views are the ones that he considers to be right. Just like you insist that you're right and he's wrong. "
Quite true. But I am not going about telling the world they should be calling a product something else. I'm not calling everyone else down for not calling it what *I* think it should be called. I'm just saying that I think it should be called "Linux" for a number of reasons that are important to me. I am also saying he can call it whatever he wants, but should afford that same right to others instead of correcting them every time they say "Linux" rather then "GNU/Linux" or "The GNU System". As has been reported here and in other places. I have never spoken to him myself, but the GNU press releases and various interviews have him consistantly acting in this manner.
"Do you seriously believe that Linux / Free Software / whatever you believe in is in danger from it being found out that people in the movement (even prominent people) act like humans? "
There is a difference between acting like a human and acting like a spoiled, petty, child. To have a professional disagreement is one thing. To run about causing all the noise RMS has is another. This is, of course, my oppinion and you may feel differently.
As to the bit about Linux/Free software being in danger. It is, if the goal is mainstream acceptance. If the goal is free software for the sake of free software, then I doubt it will ever be in real danger. It's a matter of perspectives. I would like to see free software and Linux become accepted in the industry at large. Perhaps so far as to be the "standard". I have purely selfish reasons for wanting this, like being able to work on STABLE systems for a change. NT is driving me crazy.
"Like i said, i think he should give up on the name because "Linux" has too much momentum as the name for the system, not just the kernel, for him to succeed. but important as he and the FSF are to the movement, I think the idea that the movement will be wrecked by his views on the name is totally implausible."
Fans of OS/2 didn't see it getting marginalized at it's peak either. A few key mistakes by IBM killed it, as a mainstream product. It was "implausible" to us that a great product would be basicly killed by a few mistakes. It was.
And it's not his views on the name I'm concerned with. It's his behaviour regarding his views on the name. I don't think it matters what anyone calls it, if you want to run arround calling it "StupidiX", fine. But to cause this uproar over such a silly, petty, thing as the name, makes us all look bad. Remember, the people making the decisions on what software to deploy are PHBs. They know only what they read in the papers. To see this going on sends the message that we can't even figgure out what to call the damn thing, how could we write decent software?. This damages the credibility of Free Software and Linux in thier eyes. Those who know the benefits of Free Software and Linux are not the people we need to convince. It's the people that sign the checks, the PHBs.
I don't recall the poster saying that RMS can't call it whatever he wants. He objects to RMS spouting off about it to the press. It doesn't help that he is saying stuff like: "The GNU system, whether you call it GNU or whether you think it's Linux". THINK it's Linux?? The world has been calling it that for YEARS. What gives him the right to make a statement like that? This is basicly saying that it's not Linux, and nobody should be calling it that.
Now, that said, I will be the first in line to praise RMS for what he has accomplished. All the GNU tools are great, I use them and like them. And if he wants to reffer to Linux as GNU/Linux or "The GNU system", then more power to him. I object to his insistance that the rest of us are wrong and HE is right, that HE should set the name for this system.
At this late satge of the game this type of thing is dissasterous. Regardless of your stance on the name issue, this infighting makes all of us look like petty, stupid children. The press is going to pick up on this and it could deal a nasty blow to the Linux momentum. I can see the M$ FUD now, "Linux is going to splinter just like the old UNIX systems, then you will have to worry about all kinds of incompatibilities. With M$ software you don't have that problem, we control it all."
If RMS wants to kill the free software movement, this is a damn good way to start. If he really wanted it called GNU/Linux or whatever, he should have said something in the begining, before we started gaining market acceptance. It's too late now. We need to project an image of unity to the outside world. We need to show them we can avoid the problems that created all those different, incompatible UNIX systems, and to some degree the different flavors of BSD. Or we lose.
Is the goal here Freedom? "World Dommination"? If we are to get there, we need to be able to grant everyone the freedom to call it what they want. If Debian wants to call it GNU/Linux, fine. But those who want to call it that need to grant the same right to those of us who preffer "Linux". There is room for everyone. But this petty squabling needs to come to an end.
I want to say "gunnew" because if you say it
"gnu" it sounds like "new" which doesn't really
help the cause (the OS is MATURE.) But
GUN-NEW sounds STUPID in my dialect of English.
I just don't like it for Aesthetic reasons, not
political.
Mr. Stallman, do you want FREEDOM, or do you
want CONTROL? I don't think you get both in the same word.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Another thing, RMS is right when he says free software has nothing to do with money. You mention purchasing a FTP program for $100. Well you still can purchase a free software FTP program for $100. If I create a GPL FTP program and you wish to buy it and I ask for $100, you either have to give me the money or you don't get the software. Even if this software is around on the internet, or whatever (and you still for some odd reason want it from me). Even if I have an internet connection and I could let you download it in 5 minutes. GNU does not impose rules against software distribution cost. But, it does give freedoms when you receive my software. Once I give you my FTP program for $100 and (provided its GPL) you can redistribute it over the internet, modify it and give it to friends, etc. You can even charge a distribution cost from the software I created (this is what Red Hat does.. but they also provide tech support as an extra service).
Also, I must allow you access to source code when you give me the $100.
That is all nice and well in an ideal world. The question I'm wondering about though is this:
Supposed you do sell your GPL'ed FTP program. You sell it once. What on earth is stopping the rest of the world from getting it from the first buyer - without you ever seeing a $ again? The GPL allows this and it's one of its strengths, no doubt. But to actually expect being able to make money from selling GPL'ed code (I mean from selling the code itself, not from distributing, supporting, etc.pp.) seems slightly naive to me (or let's say: idealistic). Nonetheless - I'm glad GPL/GNU exist, that's for sure, but I'm not so sure if GPL can realistically be seen as not related to the money problem at all.
Argathin
Funny that - judging by the German "Liberal Party" (F.D.P.), I'd think "liberals" to be extreme capitalists - nothing could be further from communism of socialism...
Argathin
P.S.: Where were the "Greens" in the poll list?!
On the interrupting, you obviously have a different notion of free speech to me. Do you seriously feel that freedom of speech is violated every time someone is interrupted?
Most certainly yes! If somebody consistently interrupts me to correct me, (s)he is obviously trying to change what I'm saying - thus curtailing my right of free speech.
Mind you: Constantly interrupting somebody to "correct" someone is a hell of a lot different from letting the person finish and then saying something along the lines of "I think it should be... , but
Argathin
You are very wrong, claiming after being brainwashed by propaganda as making YOUR choice?
The whole point is that in the modern world it's extremely easy to use zomby techniques on people, as a result you will do something THEY need, and consider it as YOUR desicons, that what the GNU fellow was trying to tell you and other dudez who thins they do their own desicions.
In the modern world, your only true desicion is whether to make a pi-pi.
AtW,
http://www.investigatio.com
alexc
Join Majestic-12 Distributed Search Engine
Lx writes:
/. yesterday), did you? Read (or re-read if you did) the bit about how MS Word held all his older work "hostage" in its proprietary file format.
"Do Linux users actually follow the philosophy that once you use proprietary software, you're somehow 'enslaved' to the company that made it? Somehow I'm prevented from throwing the software away and using something else?"
Yeah, right.
You didn't read the recent essay by SF writer Neal Stephenson (on
Or consider for a moment the small- or medium-size company that has its transactional database systems built for it around Vendor X's RDBMS -- and its proprietary X-SQL dialect. The system is built for them by consultant A... is further developed for them by consultant B... new functions are added for them by consultant C... And after a few years they have such a mess of X-SQL procedures that they can't migrate to another RDBMS without a massive (and costly; possibly *prohibitevely* costly) re-write.
Yes, people (or companies) can very easily become "trapped" using proprietary software -- it is often NOT as easy as "throwing the software away and using something else".
Lx goes on:
"The guy can't figure out that people want software that works well, and that its freeness is just a perk."
And then, at the end of his post:
"Those are just my thoughts. Maybe I'm just one of the unwashed masses that 'don't care about freedom.'"
Yeah, well... I think you've answered that already.
Christian R. Conrad
Christian R. Conrad
MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
Christian R. Conrad
mail me at iki.fi ; same user ID as here
Uh huh.
Is it just me, or does there seem to be a lot of bitterness in the top end of that interview?
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
Silly rabbit, tricks are for prosti....
ummm.
RMS is quite the serious fellow from what I've read about him. I don't agree with him on alot of things and I don't think I'd want to hang around him either, but he's done some great work.
By the way when people see my computer screen and ask "Whats that?" I just say Linux. Its difficult enough to explain what Linux is to normal Joe or Jane, let alone explain GNU, Linux the kernal, ect....
Linux the kernal? Sounds like a puppet from the Muppet show.
Beaker rocks!
Kernel is spelled with two E's right? No A? sorry for the misspelling in my above comment.
If you read the FreeBSD FAQ item 1.3, you will find that some of the FreeBSD codes are licensed under GNU GPL. In other words, if it is not because of Richard Stallman and the GNU, FreeBSD may not be as well developed as it is today.
Maybe. But you don't hear RMS bitching and crying about calling FreeBSD GNU/FreeBSD, do you?
This sig is false.
FreeBSD,Linux,Hurd,minux,... all need GNU no exceptions
Okay. Theyn why isn't RMS bitching about people not calling FreeBSD GNU/FreeBSD?
Point is, this is all about attention--and being pissed off about not getting it.
Now, don't get me wrong, I respect RMS, (and I certainly couldn't get any usefull work done without much of the software released by the FSF).
But this all comes down to the bottom line: Linux is getting attention as the "free" OS in the media. RMS wants the attention since he started GNU before Linux was was started. If he didn't want people using his software in other systems, he should not have released it to the public.
This sig is false.
True, RMS does want the attention GNU/Linux has gained but not for himself. He wants it for the ``cause''.
Good point (and probably the best argument I have heard for calling it GNU/Linux), but...
If this is so, I don't think RMS is going about it the right way. Let's assume he wants the attention Linux is getting to go to all Free Software, and the Free Software philosophy. Fine.
But I don't think that being a childish about it (See original post) is going to help. This whole thing about "if you don't agree with me, you just haven't been shown the way" is not going to help "the cause."
This sig is false.
As I read the posts to the RMS interview is see people complaining about how RMS is a fool and the misconseptions of freesoftware.
Personally I do not agree that Linux should be called GNU/Linux. The kernel was a project started by Linus and since its the heart of the OS it should be called Linux. Windows 98 was not called explorer not was OS/2 called presentation manager.
What people do not understand about free software is software itself is NOT FREE OF CHARGE the source code is reusable and distributable. Unix in general was founded on this modular paradigm. Yes MONEY has nothing to do with free software. The reason for this misconception is because not many people have read the GNU license. How can someone logically disagree with something he/she has never read. The idea that companies (especially hardware manufacturers) are afraid the freesoftware model will allow opposing companies will steal their technology is disturbing. The sad thing is companies have been doing it for years via reverse engieering. If computers can run the software it can be reversed engineered. Another problem companies have with free software is that it promotes piracy. When you release the software via the GNU license you do not have to release the corresponding resources like sounds,graphics, or data files. Just the source code. Piracy will happen no matter what model you use.
An example of the problem with non-free software:
-You have a brand new printer.
-The printer requires a driver so software communicates with printer.
Problem one:
- If the driver has bugs, you must wait for bug fix. (Problem whether free or non-free)
- If the comany goes under, while bug fix is being developed you have a problem.
Problem two:
- Say your printer is old and the OS company changes the architecture, your printer most likely will not be supported for the new OS.
The bottom line is the current model of commercial software hurts companies as well as end users because people lack the freedom they need to modify the product they spent money for.
Maybe for Redhat it's about money but not for RMS. For him its a political statement (like it or not).
RMS started the FSF for political not money making reasons and that is where he is coming from. Why do you think Debian is only $3 or what ever you can get it from Cheapbytes.
Just my $.02
He needs to lighten up, and I think some prostitutes would help him out a lot there.
Cody--http://www.howstrange.org
Yes, but if the "GNU System" didn't happen to exist when Linus developed his kernel, there probably wouldn't be anything called a "Linux OS Distribution".
Rather you'd see things like "FreeBSD with the Linux kernel", that is, if anyone even bothered. I doubt the kernel would have been developed as extensively if it was an alternative on another OS distribution.
(I don't call it GNU/Linux myself, I just think that RMS made a pretty good case that the Linux project used a lot of code from the GNU Not-Unix project. Of course, RMS gave all this code away under the GPL, which is why he's a hero. Instead he gets called names and is treated dismissively on slashdot.)
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Anyway, then, people who saw (Linus') kernel said, "Well Lets see what we can put together with this kernel, see if we can make a whole system." Low and behold, everything they needed was there. What they found was the GNU System. It wasn't all written by us, because since we had a higher order goal, "We're gonna make a whole system", which means, probably hundreds of programs.
By "GNU System", he's pretty clearly talking about the HURD + GNU user space stuff + everything else project. He's not refering to the Linux kernel.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
When Lotus 1-2-3 or MS Word came out in the early eighties, I'm sure most thought word processors and spreadsheets would never reach the status of commodity/free software. (Gnumeric is free or even the mighty 1-2-3 is sometimes discounted down to $50 or less.)
Enough corporations are pouring money into ERPs that sooner or later someone is going to scratch that itch. For example, wait until some university department decides that they need Peoplesoft (which isn't an ERP, but is still big $) but can't afford it. It wouldn't be that hard to homebrew something.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Just because I buy proprietary software doesn't mean I'm giving up any freedoms. I can always go get a different piece of software tommorrow if I choose.
One could argue that I give up _some_ of my freedom because I am more inclined to stay with the program I start with... and that likelihood only increases for things like operating systems, development frameworks, application servers, etc.. However, you could also argue that I give up some of my freedoms by going out and getting a job. I now have to be somewhere for a certain amount of time every day and can no longer stay home and play with my lego.
That doesn't mean that I've given up my freedom though. I can still quit!
Life is all about these kinds of compromises.
It is not as black and white an issue as RMS believes.
Edu. sig-line: Choose rhymes with lose. Chose rhymes with goes. Loose rhymes with goose.
Comparing? THEN use THAN.
If your business's productivity is based on a specific set of packages that can't be easily replaced with similar packages then you take on a great _risk_ by using proprietary software. Not to mention that timed licenses are just dumb and even more risky.
However, the business didn't give up its _freedom_. There is nothing stopping it from switching to GNU tools today. It may incur an expense doing so, but that's because it failed to skate unscathed through a risky venture.
I too like not having to worry about restrictions being placed on me by other people. When I _choose_ a software package this is an important consideration. As long as there is a choice then I can evaluate the software based on whatever criteria I choose.
It is not a question of freedom (in the true sense) though. No more than it would be for me to consider my television "unfree" because they don't provide me a book of detailed schematics.
Of course, now we are starting to get into the differences between proprietary software and proprietary interfaces. That is the topic of a whole different discussion and is, in my opinion, the real issue.
Edu. sig-line: Choose rhymes with lose. Chose rhymes with goes. Loose rhymes with goose.
Comparing? THEN use THAN.
I think that IP hating started by people being fed up with the abuses. Todays definition of IP is _way_ too encompassing.
I'm more of an IP moderate. Software copyright, yes. Software patents, almost always no. The rare cases where software patents are appropriate just doesn't justify their existence.
Star Wars copyright, yes. Star Wars patent, no. Essentially the same thing.
Edu. sig-line: Choose rhymes with lose. Chose rhymes with goes. Loose rhymes with goose.
Comparing? THEN use THAN.
Amen, Brother Stallman! You are the way and the light!
If this is one of Richard "my way is the true way" Stallman's better interviews, I'd hate to see the bad ones. Are most Linux users like this? Is this how you want to be perceived? Do Linux users actually follow the philosophy that once you use proprietary software, you're somehow 'enslaved' to the company that made it? Somehow I'm prevented from throwing the software away and using something else? The guy can't figure out that people want software that works well, and that its freeness is just a perk.
Even to me, someone who supports and uses free software, RMS comes off as a loon. This is not someone I personally would want to represent the Free Software/open source movement. I can see it now - I try to tell my boss I'm using GNU tools for a certain task, and having him say "GNU? Isn't that the stuff made by that Stallman freak?" I can't see why he would entice anyone to use linux or gnu software. He's condescending, has an ego from hell, and has the social skills of a gnat.
The man should have stayed a programmer instead of turning into a philosopher. His programming was great, his philosophy sucks. If the man just stayed in his house all day and programmed, he'd do far more than he does now. Right now, I think he just does more damage than good.
Those are just my thoughts. Maybe I'm just one of the unwashed masses that "don't care about freedom."
Sigh.
-lx
RMS is excercising his free speech by correcting and not answering reporters. However, he's also acting like a childish dork, and that's the point. The man is a crackpot.
-lx
I'm a BSD-user with socialist tendencies. I agree with using free software in part because of philosophy, in part because of its technical merits, and partly because it's free. But I still think RMS is a looney. Free software isn't always the best solution.
-lx
Ok, so I did my research, and, sure enough, the Merriam-Webster dictionary agrees with you. However, I searched the GNU website, and found this -
"To avoid horrible confusion, please pronounce the `G' in the word `GNU' when it is the name of this project. "
So, I guess I've been mispronouncing the name of the animal for all these years, and getting the project name right...:)
-lx
you pronounce it "guh-new", like the animal.
-lx
-If RMS or anyone else doesn't want to use it, fine - write something
yourself if you're so philosophically opposed to using my software! Don't ask me to put my blood and
tears into something, and then give it out for free to the rest of the world..-
I think this is RMS' point. that's exactly what he did and advocates doing, write his own rather than use the proprietary options available.
THat sa8id, I agree, he has gone over the top one th GNU/Linux issue. Linux' not GNU! It's it's own OS that uses some GNU tools and elements, but it uses a lot of other stuff as well.
The really wonderfull thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.
While the statistics were probably true, they were done very poorly. First off, the % was for FSF code, not GNU code. Next, it was done by bytecount. At which point Linux is something like .2% of the total Linux distribution. Using that sort of metric, the last thing that a Linux dist should be called is Linux. Especially since Linux is named after Linus, and his contribution is only about 10% of the code, if even that. So going by bytecount, Linu shouldn't even appear in the name.
All that stuff was nonsense. More importantly, one can argue that anyone who uses the GPL for their application is implicitly making it a part of the GNU project (A Free UNIX, +-). Now, if you figure out the %s even by bytecount, GPL'd software makes up a really big portion of distributions.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
I have heard from RMS that the FSF encourages individual people to hold the copyrights of software so that if the FSF was sued or some such thing then the software would not be in danger as no one person held the copyrights - you can't sue the masses.
Remember RMS considers BSD and X consortium to be part of the GNU system and so do I. FSF is also in favour of individuals writing the software so that as little as possible is needed to be written by the FSF.
Licensing your code under the GNU GPL shows your agreement the the GNU philosophy and that you are willing for your software to be considered part of the GNU system: after all the first word in the license is GNU.
Hence I belive that Linus has gifted Linux to the GNU system but I dont think he should hand over copyright (which he cant) and I dont think the FSF would want him to.
So as for me I will say my machine is running GNU.
---
---
I probably think RMS should conceed he has lost this battle and go on to fight other battles so as to not lose the WAR!
---
---
Although I was using a GNU system with a 386BSD kernel well before I starting using GNU with a Linux kernel.
Free software is built on GNU not Linux. You don't need Linux to create Free Software but you sure do need GNU:
flex + bison => gas+gcc/egcs => Free Software.
FreeBSD,Linux,Hurd,minux,... all need GNU no exceptions
---
---
The GNU System does exist now. One implementation uses the Linux kernel. Another implementation uses the FreeBSD kernel.
Linus said himself: ``the best thing I did was put the kernel under the GNU GPL'' (paraphased)
---
---
Lets look at the bigger picture and try not to focus who gets the fame. Its not about fame, its about ``spreading the word'', telling the world that Freedom of knowledge needs to be protected. That unless we keep the issue at the forefront of peoples minds it will be lost.
Oracle and Apple etc are starting to cause the burying of Free Software. Lets not let them get away with it. Lets inform people of what software freedom is.
And thats what the name GNU does! Its impossible to say GNU without either knowing what it means or asking what it means. Its the catalyst that gets people thinking about Freedom of knowledge!
Lets all focus on the GOAL.
---
---
---
---
Absolutely GCC and glibc are incredibly important.
But before any of this was even an issue scores of other programers and projects were making important contributions to Linux as well. If we want to give credit, what we should be doing is giving credit to everyone. Take a look through some of the kernel source and read the history behind Linux, there's alot of invisible people with whom Linux as we know it now would have never existed. I applaud RMS and GNU for their work. I also applaud BSD. I also applaud Linus, MCC and SLS and TAMU, the people at nic.funet.fi, sunsite.unc.edu and tsx-11.mit.edu.
-Rich
"So really this conference is about the GNU System, but they're calling it Linux, and whats happened is, because those people put everything else together with Linux, didn't realize what
they were doing was taking the GNU system, nobody knows that now."
"We've produced the GNU system. Even though people call it Linux, they still have the benefit of freedom when they use this system."
Sounds like GNU + Linux to me. After all, the LinuxWorld Expo wasn't about GNU + HURD.
All my dictionaries say gnu is noo or nyoo. Guh-new just sounds like you're trying to be funny, like saying guh-nat, guh-nome, kuh-noe, kuh-not.
Businesses don't buy political BS they sell it
(through their middle men, WJC for one). As for
Linux is it isn't political why are you even
discussing it, doing so reveals the contested
(and hence political) nature of the project.
Linux is only a program in as far as bananas and
bombs are just themselves.
BTW Prior to capitalist restoration people in the
PRC knew how to deal with people like you
defenestrate a capitalist roader today kids!
Remind me not to bring you along next time I plan a war. You have no concept of stealth, or subtlety, or subversion. You have no concept of winning without ever decisively engaging the enemy. Go read the Art of War.
Why would you want to go to the effort of putting the suits out of business by writing free software to replace what they offer? Of all the programmers in the world, how many believe in freedom? I think we're in the minority. By the time we replace all of today's binaries, there will be ten times as much, and we'll be worse off than before. Better to convert the suits to our side, encourage more and more bosses to pay more and more programmers to write more and more free software. Minorities rarely win through open conflict. They win by exposing the absurdity in the enemy's position, and forcing the enemy to change it.
If he really wanted it called GNU/Linux or whatever, he should have said something in the begining
Got that right. I've said before, and I'll say again: as soon as RMS realized that Linus Torvalds had created afree, GPLd kernel that would work with GNU software, he should have held a press conference, issued a press release, gone on the lecture circuit, given interviews to anyone who asked, all for the purpose of announcing to the world "THE ERA OF GNU IS AT HAND! AT LONG LAST, GNU IS A COMPLETELY FREE OS! THROW OFF YOUR CHAINS AND USE GNU!"
This article actually pushed me over the edge as well. If people THINK they are coding to Linux, and call it linux, then it seems that they are not creating a GNU system, but a linux system. Sure, it might a GNU system at heart, or a Intel Sytem, but in the end we can all call it Linux...
Oh Richard, are you there? Isn't this supposed to be about *freedom*? Isn't the fact that Linux is Free Software more important that what it is called? Isn't part of freedom the freedom to call a given piece of software whatever the hell **I** want to?
I agree totally. If he were really that concerned about freedom, he wouldn't give a damn what it was called. He's just bitter cuz Linus is much more adept at this PR game than he is.
RMS: Lighten up!
Mike
--
Mike
--
"Wi nøt trei a høliday in Sweden this yër?"
Hmm, that might be true and I must admit that I've never used they're compilers.
But, try again with -O2 (the best level, as higher ones might screw up, at least before 2.8.* versions). Gcc is a little odd on this. For instance, if you declare a variable register, it will not consider it unless you explicitly ask for optimization. And, it doesn't inline functions if no optimisation is asked for.
The reason for this is quite simple. You want to debug your code before really using it, and some times, during debug, you have to recompile a few (mabe many) times. That way, compiling takes less time, and you can spend more time actually working, instead of waiting for gcc all the time.
If you still think that your other compiler is better, please tell my where how to get one for my self. And in this case, I want it to be clear that I was not bad mouthing other products, just trying to bring some light on gcc's high quality and value as a working tool..
Papi
- Chernobyl used windows
Ok, we could do that, but there is an issue left. Male or female. Maybe we should ask him first.
Papi
- Chernobyl used windows
OK, a compiler could be written in a semester by some students. But a C compiler ?? I don't think so.
Also, sementic check isn't a trivial task at all. When you look at all the implications. Sure, C's sementic is fairly simple, but consider the sementic check of ADA (I know that ADA is addition by gnat, but heck it must be hard to implement all of the static checking it does...), or C++. You must know that gcc doesn't compile just C. And, for some reason, I don't think the gnu people used bison, or flex to implement gcc, what do you think ??
So maybe a compiler could be written in a trimester by a bunch of students. But, I know the kind of compiler you are talking about. The kind that bearly understands 3 instruction and stuff. Hmm, now ask those students totake their 3 instruction compiler, stess it out a bit, and ask them to make it a cross compiler (that can compile code for half the platforms that gcc supports) with 9 levels of optimization, and half the features of gcc and make it compile on half the platforms gcc compiles on. They'll probably take over a year to finish.
When I was talking about bash, I was just trying to point out the fact that most of the gnu tools have a UNIX equivalent. And in most cases, the gnu version is completly compatible with it's UNIX version, but, it adds features. If you compare bash, with sh.. I just could have mentionned gmake, gawk, etc, etc. The point is that gnu produces some of the best software around (depending on what you look in a piece of software, of course), and is all free.
About tcsh, it is not a standard UNIX shell. I think it now comes even with commercial UNICES, but, the standard is, UNIX uses 3 shells, sh, csh and ksh. All others are additions, just like pico isn't shipped with solaris, but you can install it. The official editor under UNIX is vi.
Anyway, anough said...
Papi
- Chernobyl used windows
Good point. Also, I would like to point out the fact that writting a compiler, even a cheap one is a task much greater that writting a kernel.
Just try writting a program that dies basic semantic checks. It is not a trivial task. And you should keep in mind how many languages gcc can compile, and all the optimisation it does.
You should also realize that most compilers available for windows have grater limitations. Like, turbo c. It cannot handle more that a few global variables. Because that would require it to use too many segments. Keep in mind also that the intel architecture has MANY odd limitations to keep backward compatibility.
If you like to take a test, take any compiler you know (other than gcc) and check the assembly output that it produces (this can be achieved with the -S flag under gcc, and SUN's cc). You will soon realize that gcc produces the best output (less stupid instructions like movl eax, eax) especially with wierd algorithms and interminable data structures.
The reason Linus used gcc is probably because IT IS JUST THE BEST. I've heard dozens of people with PhDs saying it is the best, and to my experience, it is the best. Gcc is not the only tool that should be valued. Take bash for example. Compare it with any other shell. As a command editor, and for scripts, it creams them all.
Papi
- Chernobyl used windows
Wouldn't work for people like myself.
:-) where would I go? My views often conflict with one another, and I usually pick the "winner" on a case-by-case basis. There is no way that I could be easily represented on the sort of poll that Slashdot usually has.
1. Far right wing economically. (government should keep out of economic matters entirely; privatize gov't (crown) corporations.
2. Far left wing socially (money priorities should be education, health and social/welfare).
3. Anti-libertarian in matters of personal estate (a little bit of censorship can be a good thing; not all things should be private).
4. Small government in essence (cut spending (and taxation!) entirely except for social stuff mentioned in pt. 2).
Aside from the fact that some of my views would raise eyebrows here at Slashdot
--
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
Naming something after GNU is essentially the same as naming something after RMS. The two are pretty much synonymous in the public eye, and Stallman doesn't seem to have an interest in correcting that perception.
OK then do the right thing.
If you don't like Richards attitude don't use GNU.
Yep, there's freedom for you; all you have to do use "free software" is mindlessly follow dictator Stallman.
As much as it grates "his highness", I like the convenience of varous GNU utilities, and often find them preferable to their proprietary counterparts. I think the GPL is a great idea to keep the software free for future innovation, however I don't find it enslaving to use proprietary software if the software is well-written.
I don't care for RMS's attitude, but it doesn't change my appreciation for free software. As he mentions, there's a lot of different aspects of it to like; however much he wished the contrary, people will like it for the reasons that suit them.
Regarding the Linux operating system name controversy: most Slashdotters claim that the Linux operating system is only the kernel (and probably headers, modules and source). RMS's claim is that the operating system includes the utilities distributed with the kernel, including the shell, window manager, Emacs text editor and gcc compiler.
I notice a strong similarity here between RMS and Microsoft's position in the anti-trust trial. (That's probably the FIRST time a free software advocate has EVER agreed with Microsoft! ) Microsoft claims that its Windows operating system includes everything from the kernel, to the Notepad and Calculator applications, to the web browser. The DOJ's position is fairly ambiguous, except that the web browser is not part of the OS.
The way to resolve both of these issues (the Microsoft trial and the "GNU/Linux" controversy) is to develop a community definition of an "operating system." Does it include solely the kernel (the individual bzImage file)? All the components packaged together in a distribution? Is the line somewhere in between? If so, where?
Ryan
KDE depends on a toolkit known as QT, which is not, and has not ever been, licensed under the GPL. Originally QT's license was not, so far as I know, considered Open Source; recently a new version has come out under something called the QPL, which if I understand correctly RMS has seen and pronounced it tolerable. Nevertheless, it still isn't GPL.
I still haven't decided where I stand on the philosophical issues, but I try to stay on top of the technical details, so I know what's which when I'm ready to take a stand.
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
"The so-called Linux system", as he puts it, is not "so-called", but it actually exists.
Good point! And it got me thinking:
Back in the dark ages, lo these dozen years ago, RMS and his dedicated folk were working on creating a free OS. They did some great work, but for reasons that aren't important, they didn't ship a working OS. The early days of the *BSD movement, right after the opening of the BSD license, felt (at least to me at the time) like the same story: "Hey guys, look at my 80% of a car! Well, no, it doesn't exactly roll yet..."
Linus's key contribution, in the end, was'nt the kernel, but the _methodology_, the way of leveraging the emerging breadth of the Internet to get everyone working on the same goal. Despite the volume of GNU's contribution to Linux, it's not the _code_ that defines the OS; it's the culture of teamwork that got it to actualy GO!
Despite all the best intentions and a brain the size of a 1966 Cadillac, RMS is (IMHO) uniquely UNqualified to inspire the kind of work it took to get Linux integrated. Everyone involved in GNU should get kudos for their great code, but the defining, name-worthy characteristic of Linux -- what got it to "actually exist" -- is Linus and his people-skills.
St.L.
St. Lucifer's Institute for Moral Studies
Defending Alternative Morality since 1995
Yes, but if the "GNU System" didn't happen to exist when Linus developed his kernel, there probably wouldn't be anything called a "Linux OS Distribution".
If you remember, there was (and continues to be) no "GNU System" (unless you are talking about the Hurd). There are "GNU tools" which work in the "Linux" operating system. When RMS says there is such a thing as a "GNU System" he is taking credit away from the people who wrote the Linux kernel (in particular, Linus).
"GNU/Linux" chafes me, but I absolutely take offense at RMS trying to remove reference to Linus' (significant!) contribution.
While that's certainly an option for some of us, it would be quite a pain to chase down all the GNU components on every Linux setup I have (currently at four, only one of which is somewhat Debian-based (LRP)).
I will admit GNU Emacs and GIMP are great, if nothing else. I consider both to be the first two killer apps of free (open source) software.
I will also admit that sometimes RMS is too political for his own damn good. I may use his software but I'll be damned if I'm going to bend over backwards to call my setups "GNU/Linux boxes" instead of just Linux boxes.
-- Shawn K. Quinn
When I say "nothing more", I mean with regards to Debian. Not a slam on RMS.
Last I checked, RMS was a user of Debian, and nothing more.
Of course, he's free to call it Debian GNU if that makes him happier.
That's what I think this is.
I use plenty of GNU (and other Open Source) software on top of proprietary operating systems. And I use proprietary software on top of Linux. So what?
I can choose to use whatever software under whatever license on what ever O/S I choose. That is freedom.
I appreciate the role that GNU has played in allowing me that freedom, but this whole "GNU/Linux" thing is childish, idiotic and counter-productive.
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
I guess an argument could be made that prostitutes are SHAREware, but i'm sure he would argue that they should give up their 'product' for free for the benefit of the community. Maybe he'd be willing to pay for the documentation from them to figure out what the hell to do.
> Like i said, i think he should give up on the
> name because "Linux" has too much momentum as
> the name for the system, not just the kernel,
> for him to succeed.
What we have here is a bunch of people who are campaining against a man who, for the last decade or so, has devoted his life to fighting for "lost" causes. Now that his earliest visions see some fruit, people decry his latest Jihad simply because "he can't win"!!! If he gave things up whenever they looked impossible, I wouldn't have Emacs, or gcc, or a GPL.
Thank you RMS, please don't ever quit. (Espescially when you're not going to win.)
>> "Your own belief in free speech apparently does not extend to allowing Richard Stallman to say what he thinks."
Ahh, yes. The infuriatingly maddening "recursive disagreement".
Follow closely here -- RMS must not believe in free speech since he disagrees with others who are exercising their free speech right to call it just "Linux".
But the poster must not believe in free speech because he disagrees with RMS who is exercising his free speech right to disagree with others who are exercising their free speech right to call it just "Linux".
And you must not believe in free speech because you disagree with him while he is excercising his free speech right to disagree with RMS who is exercising his free speech right to disagree with others who are exercising their free speech right to call it just "Linux".
And guess what? I must not believe in free speech either because I'm sitting here disagreeing with you while you are exercising your free speech right to disagree with him while he is excercising his free speech right to disagree with RMS who is exercising his free speech right to disagree with others who are exercising their free speech right to call it just "Linux".
Wow -- Dizzy yet?
It kind of reminds me of the "I know you are, but what am I?" arguments children have. There's just no winning.
Or was it that I remember the crew of the Enterprise destroying some computer with this kind of logic .
Come on, try something people might fall for - "one of the better RMS articles" :)
If you thing anyone will thing RMS sounds at all reasonable or logical, you're the April Fools.
If Linus hadn't come along and did what he did, we'd be using the fantastically wonderful GNU tools on somebody's proprietary operating system, and that would probably have extended the life of those proprietary OS's that got GNU'd. Linus didn't just add a kernel to GNU, he made it truly free. Does RMS aver acknowledge this? No! The Evil Gnomes in his head won't let him.
Here, I'll play the RMS part:
Hmmm.... I could finish The Hurd! Then GNU would have it's own kernel, and I wouldn't have to dodge kicks from under the Linux table as I try to grab crumbs of respect off the floor.... We could all move on!
Nahhh...
GNU! GNU!!! Quit calling it Linux! You don't get it!!! LISTEN TO ME, DAMMIT, I'VE BEEN COOL AND UNKEMPT SINCE BEFORE THAT PUNK ATE HIS FIRST HERRING!!!!!! {frothing at mouth}
...neither does communism (to each his needs...). No system has ever worked that way, except within an organization.
But capitalism (and this application, sale/licensing of proprietary software)is the best model we have for fairly compensating developers while placing the costs on the shoulders of those who gain the benefits.
Capitalism, of course, would work a lot better with an informed public who doesn't, say, continue buying minor upgrades to a crappy OS for a ridiculously high profit margin (relative to dev cost/sales) without even considering the many alternatives. Branding and ignorance have a way of destroying the logic of capitalism (similar to buying a Club Monaco shirt for 3X the price of an identical unbranded shirt).
I like FSF-style free software, but it only makes sense for 1) mature products which are really commonly used, like UNIX and spreadsheets, and 2) products which are not all that hard to develop (meaning 1 person could complete the inital product on his own, not that it would be easy for him) and people probably wouldn't bother with unless it was free, like Perl (regardless of how indispensible it has become, do you really think anyone would have bothered with the original Perl with a sticker price of $250 and no source?).
An ideal model would be to compensate all software developers in direct relation to the value of their code. Of course, determining the value is impossible. Market value is a fiction, a number which varies from person to person and from second to second within each person. Real value is even less tangible, if it is, in fact, even defineable. Capitalism is the best we can do, until the cost of development drops below the "Oh, what the hell, (I/we)'ll do it for free" threshold.
I have never been impressed with the honesty of the FSF.
It takes either an exceptionally stupid (which RMS ain't) or blatantly dishonest person to say "free software has nothing to do with money" (quoted directly from the article).
Realistically, FSF/GPL free software is unavoidably free as in "free beer."
For example, I use RedHat Linux, mostly because of rpm binaries all over the place (I know, I could use rpm without RedHat, but it was simpler this way), but I don't pay for it. When you pay for a linux distribution, you are paying for 1) the media, and 2) support. If you are paying more than, say, 150% the cost of the media, you are definitely in support land, because competition will obviously spring up and kill any higher profit margins otherwise (this is what happened with me & RedHat, I didn't want the support so I found the media for about $3).
Stepping back from the business view, you could also call paying for a commercial distribution a form of donation to encourage development. But if I decide to donate money, I'll decide exactly how much I want to give and when I want to give it. I will not have donations required of me.
The only real money to be made in free software is in support or slim profit margin distribution. These are activities of large companies, and do not directly reward the originators or developers of software projects.
A small company or individual which creates a software product can not profit from releasing GPLed software, unless it is tied to sellable proprietary stuff (ex. hardware, other software, or documentation; profit through documentation is risky, risky business, esp. for a small company, O'Reilly could eat you for breakfast).
If it wasn't about money, the licence would not allow free redistribution to all and sundry, but only to others who had purchased the product. It would require the distribution of source at cost only to customers who paid for the binaries. This would be "free" software as in free to maintain, and free to modify, but not as in "free beer." It would deal with every gripe about proprietary software except the price (of course, if the user base is limited because of the price, other gripes would follow, but those apply to unpopular free software too). But you don't exactly see the FSF supplying and promoting a legally valid licence that works like this, do you?
I agree. The free speech/free beer distinction is bogus. Once the software is free, it is "free beer" because copying it costs next to nothing. So how does the programmer or software company make any money here? Supposedly support, but anybody with enough smarts can offer support for free software.
> If you don't like Richards attitude don't use GNU
Sounds like a Software Licensing Agreement to me...
While I agree that there is an inherent evil in the limitation of freedom for software that individuals use, what about software that only gigantic companies use? Oracle's Financial and HR applications, for example, are never going to be used or paid for by an individual. They are built specifically to handle the business management problems of running a company with thousands - ne, tens of thousands - of employees. Software like this would never be built unless huge companies needed it and was willing to pay for it. So why shouldn't Oracle be paid for developing proprietary software for big corporations? Ditto SAP, Peopleware, Baan, JD Edwards, etc.?
While that might be considered "dwarfed," when you're talking about an installation that costs $25 million the license cost is still quite significant. I've seen and read about many implementations in which the total cost of the licenses approaches 50%.
Who'da thunk it - a valuable AC post.
Stallman has a bug up his butt for one (1) and only one reason: Linux came along before the FSF finished HURD (the GNU kernel).
Now Linux has the spotlight. Rightfully so. Linux is a kernel, something that allows you to turn on your computer without paying another company (whether it be in Redmond or wherever) to do so. Before Linux existed, the GNU project had created several useful tools (especially GCC), but in order to use them, you still had to pay a company for a Unix kernel.
Linux eliminated that problem and grabbed the spotlight Stallman assumed would go to him once HURD was finished. Now Stallman complains that GNU is not getting the proper credit. "Linux was written with GNU tools, and you use GNU tools with Linux to create a complete system, therefore GNU is the star, not Linux! You should call it GNU/Linux or Lignux, or just GNU!"
Hogwash. It's obvious that the whole reason Stallman created the FSF was for recognition - or he would not be so sore that it's all going to Linus. Linus didn't create Linux for recognition, he just wanted to be able to turn on his damn computer.
Stallman needs to grow up. He has contributed LOTS to Open Source/Free software, and for this reason I MIGHT be willing to call my system a "Linux+GNU Tools" system. But it was Linus and Linux that freed us from Redmond, et al, and no one will ever forget that.
Free software isn't about technical or economic goals; communism is irrelevant. It's about social goals. Yes, so is communism, to a certain degree, but free software is more about freedom and less about equality, though it has the side effect of increased equality.
Amusingly, ESR's stance (availability and technical merits) is more communistic than RMS's (freedom).
Stallman managed to set a nice tone:
* No preaching.
thus
* More convincing.
"Sure, that's a commendable contribution to the computer using community. But on this basis alone, I don't find any reason to accept Stallman's inability to prove the success of his dogma in a business world."
What on earth is that supposed to mean? His philosophy is based entirely on moral choices. You may well disagree with his views on the morality of proprietary software (plenty of people do) but success or otherwise in business is irrelevant. Under most schemes of morality it's easy to find activities that are immoral but profitable or moral but unprofitable, because there's no intrinsic link between morality and "business success".
If you don't understand that his position is based on (his) morality then I think you fail to understand his position completely.
Not answering questions is simply a choice you / he / I can make.
On the interrupting, you obviously have a different notion of free speech to me. Do you seriously feel that freedom of speech is violated every time someone is interrupted?
"I don't recall the poster saying that RMS can't call it whatever he wants. He objects to RMS spouting off about it to the press. It doesn't help that he is saying stuff like: "The GNU system, whether you call it GNU or whether you think it's Linux". THINK it's Linux?? The world has been calling it that for YEARS. What gives him the right to make a statement like that?"
The same thing that gives you the right to state your opinions. If you can work out what that is, just recognise the same rights for him.
"This is basicly saying that it's not Linux, and nobody should be calling it that."
That's right, he thinks people shouldn't call it that, and he's stating his opinion.
Personally I think linux is the easiest name, simply because it's the name that already has dominant usage. I think the main reason he should give up on the name issue is that he won't succeed. But that doesn't mean that telling people that he thinks it shouldn't be called Linux is forcing them not to use that name, and I don't understand why people so often say he is trying to force them to follow his views.
"Now, that said, I will be the first in line to praise RMS for what he has accomplished. All the GNU tools are great, I use them and like them. And if he wants to reffer to Linux as GNU/Linux or "The GNU system", then more power to him. I object to his insistance that the rest of us are wrong and HE is right, that HE should set the name for this system."
But of course he insists that he's right and that people who disagree with him are wrong - by definition his views are the ones that he considers to be right. Just like you insist that you're right and he's wrong.
"At this late satge of the game this type of thing is dissasterous. Regardless of your stance on the name issue, this infighting makes all of us look like petty, stupid children. The press is going to pick up on this and it could deal a nasty blow to the Linux momentum. I can see the M$ FUD now, "Linux is going to splinter just like the old UNIX systems, then you will have to worry about all kinds of incompatibilities. With M$ software you don't have that problem, we control it all." "
Do you seriously believe that Linux / Free Software / whatever you believe in is in danger from it being found out that people in the movement (even prominent people) act like humans?
Like i said, i think he should give up on the name because "Linux" has too much momentum as the name for the system, not just the kernel, for him to succeed. but important as he and the FSF are to the movement, I think the idea that the movement will be wrecked by his views on the name is totally implausible.
Interrupting to "correct" those who say "Linux" is exercising his freedom of speech, not restricting others from doing so - they can even "correct" him back if they like.
Refusing to answer questions unlees others comply ith his conditions would likewise be exercising his freedom of speech (or freedom not to speek).
I cannot see how you can possibly consider the behaviour you describe to involve force or coercion of others.
p.s. that's not to say that his philosophy necessarily cannot work in a business environment, just that his position is just as valid or invalid either way.
erm.. how is that anything like his position?
He doesn't argue that people with the ability to program "should" program, and he thinks that code should be freely available to everyone, not just those that "need" it. I can see nothing in his arguments that favour the proletariat either, his arguments, and the GPL, treat them the same as everyone else, no better no worse.
Maybe you could elaborate?
. . . but it's going to be hard. From now on, I'll refer to my system as my GNU/Wall/Ousterhout/XFree86/Linux box. Obviously, I may have to add to that as my awareness of my debt grows.
This system's going to have more names than the Andy Williams Golf Tournament.
---- "When I grow up, I'll know far less"
I haven't paid much attention to RMS before. Now that I have read one of his interviews I will not pay any attention at all. He is an idiot. Why does the average computer user need free software? By his definition, free software is freedom to customize the software to do as you wish. This means source code must be modified. Since when is programming a simple skill that anyone can learn, or would want to? The average computer user needs to be able to do their email, web browsing, word processing, and maybe some accounting. As long as they are not restricted by the capabilities in the current choices for these programs, RMS is wasting his breath and our time. I realize that there is a place for free software. I use Emacs, gcc, gdb, etc. on a semi-regular basis. They are great pieces of software and well written. I just don't think the average user needs free software.
What I'm confused about is the reference to "The GNU System". Wouldn't it be easer to just say, "Yeah, I'm running Linux and Hurd on a dual boot with GCC and X and about 30 other GNU tools that access an Oracle DB that I use for an address book." every time you referenced your particular OS???
April Fools!
censorship is a form of noise, which actively seeks to drown out content with silence - Crash Culligan
Most of the replies to this article said something about RMS trying to get "recognition" or all hes doing is "self-promotion", etc. I think all of you are missing what RMS is saying. Hes not talking about getting recognition, hes talking about remembering freedom.
A little scenario:
Microsoft is gone. Linux is THE OS for computers.
Five years from now Red Hat will be selling a Unix-like operating system called _Linux_. People by the millions will be purchasing Red Hat Linux. An unknowing company will use Linux, but will add on a closed source proprietary software package for whatever reason. This company is not aware of freedom of software. One of you (the knowledgable free software users of today) will have to work at this company. The proprietary software is a database library which the company hired you to develop a interface for. Everything is fine--until you run into your first bug. This bug is in the proprietary library. Its nothing you can fix. It gets worse--this library is no longer being sold and has no upgrades. Your interface has to have the bug fixed because it depends on the certain bugged function to work properly. You just lost 13 months of development time and a job--all because you thought a guy back in 1999, named Richard, was a greedy bastard who only thought of himself.
Please read and _understand_ what Mr. Stallman is saying--instead of commenting on what you imagine he is saying.
The man is a bulldog, once he sinks his teeth into something, he never ever lets it go - and it seems that this whole "It's not Linux! It's GNU!" thing is _really_ under his skin.
Oh Richard, are you there? Isn't this supposed to be about *freedom*? Isn't the fact that Linux is Free Software more important that what it is called? Isn't part of freedom the freedom to call a given piece of software whatever the hell **I** want to?
The funny thing about leadership is that you have to "lead by example" even/especially when it may run counter to your own personal best interests. You can't just preach freedom when it benefits Richard Stallman, you have to preach freedom whenever it is Right.
And Richard, this whole "GNU/Linux" thing is not Right.
I wish you could see that.
DG
Geez, all I'm seeing here is criticism of one of the most important people in free software. For a community that supposed to be all about peer recognition, we certainly aren't giving Stallman his fair share.
Without FSF and GNU there simply wouldn't be any Linux system to speak of. Linus most likely wouldn't have even started if gcc wasn't available. In fact, Linus himself (I believe) said that the most important thing on any platform is it's compiler, and nothing beats a free compiler.
The only reason I don't call my system GNU/Linux is because I call it Debian (or Debian GNU/Linux). However I think that RMS definitely has a point when he asks people to acknowledge the FSF contribution to Linux. (After all, Linux by itself wouldn't be very interesting at all).
Of course, then comes the obvious question of "If we're going to call it GNU/Linux, then why not BSD/GNU/Apache/Artistic/Linux?" I think the real reason is because those other groups haven't asked for the recognition, whether they deserve it or not.
I think by calling RMS a crackpot or a crazy only serves to demean our community as a whole. May tend towards outspokenness, but he is still created some of the most important software that we all use everyday, and I for one thing we should give him the recognition he deserves.
I am not aware of any plans to change the name from "Debian GNU/Linux". Additionally, Richard Stallman does not control the name of the Debian system, though the Free Software Foundation did provide early funding for it.
Debian is currently building a variant of the GNU system using the Hurd (the GNU project's kernel) in place of the Linux kernel. This will be called Debian GNU/Hurd.
Just because you give up a freedom voluntarily (in a legal contract, in this case) does not mean that you aren't less free as a result.
To be honest, it rather disturbs me that a lot of people don't seem to understand that.
DNA just wants to be free...
That ranking and the previous GNU/Linux vs Linux poll show that the majority of
These
Some people realise that the only way to make this world a better place is to help each other. That is the philosophy of Free Software, but if a lot people are allowed to take advantage of other people, society becomes corrupt. That is the danger of propriety software; it corrupts our Free Society.
We are starting to see this happen with Oracle and Apple worming (pardon the pun) their way into the Free Software community. Their goal is not to help the community, but to take advantage of the community so as to increase their wealth.
This is why I see RMS as one of the most important people (if not the most) of this century and the next. He is the voice that keeps people focused on the GOALS of the GNU project. He is the reason I quit my job (a very good job) in the top electronics company of my country (New Zealand), so that I could create software for the good of the community, rather than working against the community. I now have very little income to support my family, but I am much happier because I have freedom to help my (Free Software) community.
To help promote my community, I'm not going to call my computer system Linux or even GNU/Linux. Im going to call it ``GNU''. This name promotes Free Software, and, in my opinion, it is more aesthetic and catchy than Linux.
Long live Free Software.
---
---
When I got into linux around 0.99pl4/SLS not as much software was GNU as you'd think. Yes the libc was an offshoot of GNU libc, yes GCC was of monumental importance, but there was a heck of a lot of BSD code in there as well. Almost all the inetd services were BSD, much of the networking stuff was hand-rolled and/or BSD based. Does GNU even have a vi clone in the GNU project? Just offhand I can think of ps, w, vi, finger, last, login, getty, kermit, elm, mail, smail, and xc, which were all BSD ports, existing non-GNU Open Source, or hand rolled programs some of which were vitally important to the operation of Linux. As Linux became a more popular OS, and started to become the predominant GNU system more stuff became GPL'ed and more GNU code was brought in for it's functionality, but the early days it was take what you can port, and GNU's code spaghetti was not always the easiest thing to get working.
My point is RMS has no right to hoard all the credit anymore than anyone else does. While RMS was still concentrating on HURD before he started blabbering about credit there were alot of other programmers making incredibly important contributions to Linux and ultimatly the Open Source movement as well. If he wants to assume credit he'd better be willing to share it with everyone else who gave his GNU software the kernel and low level utilites ultimately leading to it's success.
Dont get me wrong, I'm not anti-GNU, as I said GNU was paramount to the existance of Linux. But so was BSD. So was Linus, So were the folks involved in MCC. So was Peter MacDonald with SLS. So were alot of people other than RMS.
-Rich
I don't think this was an April fool, at least
I didn't find it funny. RMS did make an
important point which is lost in a lot of the
GNU/Linux debates. Which is that fundamentally
adding the prefix GNU isn't about crediting the
FSF (though that should be done) but to restore
the political context in Linux. Linux is just an
OS like Solaris, *BSD etc and people who dislike
the FSF promote is a just that, a better enginneered
OS because of the magic of open source, GNU/Linux is a political statement about freedom
those people put everything else together with Linux, didn't realize what they were doing was taking the GNU system, nobody knows that now
:) Don't go around telling them we're going to make free versions of their software and run them out of business (I've read quotes from RMS that amount to this). Instead, teach them how to make money selling, serving, and supporting free software.
RMS is flat wrong here. This is so obviously incorrect as to make me question either the man's intelligence or integrity.
Question to those who created Linux distributions: did you realize you were including GNU software?
Question to the assembled masses: did you know you were using GNU software?
Question to the suits: have you ever heard of GNU?
I believe that RMS is actually worried about question three here. It's too bad he's not articulate enough to say so. Freedom is good, and I support him 100% on that, but he reminds me a little of Hitler (the military strategist, not the whacked-out genocidal dictator), who thought it would be a bright idea to attack the Soviets. Richard's battle should not be with anyone else in the open source / free / liberated software movements; it should be with the suits. Make sure THEY know about GNU. Make sure THEY know that while Linux is the brain heart of the system, GNU is the lungs and heart and muscle of the system (not to mention the liver, kidney's and spleen
The battle is not here, it's out there.
From the interview:
If you're using a non free program, you've given up your freedom, your freedoms been taken away
Taken away? Huh? If I buy a licence for proprietary software I know what I'm getting into. Nope can't have that, people entering into legal contracts and all that..
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
When somebody asks me what I run on my system at home, I say Debian, not Linux, not GNU, and certainly not GNU/Linux. When they ask what Debian is, I say it's a unix-like operating system. If they ask "Is that linux?", I say "It uses the linux kernel."
Why can't we just say we run Debian, Redhat, S.u.s.e, Slackware, or whatever? My system has a lot more on it than just Linux and GNU. It would be inaccurate to call it anything else but Debian.
Josh
--- A Jesus Fish eating a Darwin Fish only proves Darwin's point.
1) An announcment is vastly different than a working app. Not even an alpha exists.
2) ERP installs are eventually totally customized to the business's needs. Many features and improvements people might contribute to the system over time would be a reflection of a business's proprietary processes, revealing their competitive advantages. How many companies would allow their internal processes and competitive advantages to be contributed to a free (speech, not beer) code base?
3) The announced system is specifically targetted to "small and medium sized businesses." Still nothing for Boeing, which uses Baan, or GM, which uses Peoplesoft (nevermind MS, which uses SAP). Somebody would still need to be building systems capable of supporting their needs, and I contend that it would be impossible to do so on a free (no charge AND no restrictions) basis.
It's an interesting idea, and if you can get other backers than more power to you. As a final point, though, I'd point out that most Linux contributors today (with the exception of some of Red Hat's staff a few others) aren't paid for their contributions, and don't need to be. They do it because it's fun, helps them solve a problem they're facing, or fulfills some other type of desire/need they have. How many developers will want to spend their time worrying about the general ledger effects of an accrual accounting style on a complicated, industry-specific supply chain?
Two quotes:
> "The GNU system, whether you call it GNU or whether you think it's Linux, right now offers you an alternative with freedom."
and:
> "People should take a look at www.gnu.org. and they'll find out the reasons why the so called Linux operating system exists. It's not just a matter of engineers having fun doing engineering, it's a political force that actually has an idealistic cause, that has actually had practical results. "
Well, on the first quote - from the way he phrases it, Stallman is not even willing to admit that the other side of the argument even exists, much less that they have a point! I can call it GNU, or I can think (erroneously, it is obvious from context) that it is Linux. It is exactly that attitude that really bugs me - that I am too dim to really figure out the truth according to RMS. I am quite willing to admit that GNU utilities run on my Linux system, that without GNU utilities it would have been much more difficult to develop the Linux kernel, and that the availability of the GNU utilities made a complete OS package happen that much sooner. But to insist that I adopt a nomeclature dictated by RMS is really asking much more than is appropriate. If he had wanted the right to name the whole system, he should have put it in the license. I think that if the GNU utilities had NOT existed, there would have been something developed to replace it. The development model that Linus popularized (maybe even invented - I don't know) would have helped build the critical mass to make it work. It would have put the development effort back several years, but I believe that it would have happened.
On the second quote - its not the 'so-called linux' bit that bothers me, its the whole thrust of the quote. Once again, it assumes that he knows the motivations of the developers better than they do themselves. My experience with the Linux community in the last four or so years is that people have contributed their time, code and other resources is not because of some particular political goals. It is because they were engineers who enjoyed doing engineering. I installed Linux because it was FUN. I worked to get a device driver for my SCSI card because it was FUN, and when I got the driver going I could have MORE FUN. I have never had ANY political purposes or motives. If what I did had political side effects, well so be it - I don't disagree with those effects. But I knew why I was doing it when I did it. Maybe in RMS's mind we all are deluded, or ignorant, or whatever, and don't understand what our motives really are, or ought to be. I find that attitude incredibly condescending and insulting to those whose motives are different than his.
In a way, I think this second quote can show the two camps in the disagreement clearly - The GNU camp, that insists that it is more than just an OS, more than just a pile of programs, it is an entire political agenda you must buy into. On the other side, are the 'engineering for engineering's sake: or the "I like it cause it does what I want" or whatever camp, who contribute just as much or more, but don't feel the need to toe RMS's line of 'this is politics, not just engineering'. They just want to build an OS, because they like the control they get from it.
Very good interview. It's definitely one of his best.
But not one mention of GNU/Linux. Instead it's referred to "The GNU System." He's dropped the word Linux altogether. I thought that the real GNU system was supposed to use the Hurd kernel. Will Debian 2.2 be called "Debian GNU System?"
I'm starting to think that Richard actually hates Linus so much that any word that sounds like Linus is repugnant to him. Either that, or this is another hoax.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Every time I read an account of RMS's thoughts, my belief that he is a crackpot, is strengthened.
"The so-called Linux system", as he puts it, is not "so-called", but it actually exists. I know that is hard to comprehend for someone who failed to complete his own OS, but why must he constantly malign Linus' (and hundreds of other developers') accomplishments??
RMS claims he believes in freedom, but apparently that doesn't include freedom of speech, for Linus call an OS kernel which he designed, whatever he wants. Not to mention that the GPL is more restrictive in some respects than some commercial licenses.
God bless GNU, for without them, Linux would have taken longer to develop, but I'd wager money that it still would have been developed. Or how about the BSDs? Complete, fully functional, free operating systems without all of the GNU BS^H^Hbaggage.
In short: RMS, grow up.
The term "software piracy" is considered inappropriate because illegal copying of software is not comparable to robbery of a ship at sea.
Using propriety software, however, is comparable to "slavery".
Hmmm....
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
This was a pretty good RMS interview. Whoever transcribed it did a good job (aside from the grammatical and spelling errors, I digress). I could almost hear RMS' voice. The style was quite typical of the way RMS speaks.
I've been sitting on the fence about the whole RMS/GNU/Linux issue, but this interview really pushed me over to the "ahh, go to hell, RMS!" side.
Don't get me wrong, I respect RMS' work on Emacs, gcc, gdb, and his vision to create a free UNIX-alike. He's an incredible coder and I truly appreciate the work he's done. But the comments he made about "so-called Linux" and "the GNU system, but they're calling it Linux". Perhaps I get pissed about this because I see how humble Torvalds is about having created Linux---he always plays his accomplishments down. RMS on the other hand is trying too hard to get the credit he deserves and it comes across as though he's being egomanical.
I feel that RMS should be quite proud of what he's done, and I'll be the first to stroke his ego by saying that I use his software on a daily basis and praise him every chance I get.
Begging for recognition and playing the ego game just isn't something I thought I'd ever see RMS do, and I've been reading his Usenet postings and compiling his software for every UNIX machine I get near for many, many years. I'm very sad to see RMS get so excitable about this---it's just a name.
As ESR said, ego is part of what drives the free software movement. Getting recognition for your work is what makes us write and give away more software. I think it's important to feed RMS' ego as much as anyone else's in the movement, but when he distorts things in this way, it rubs me the wrong way.
To me it's just Linux, but I know that without RMS, Linux probably wouldn't be on my computer.
A pat on the back for RMS for a job well-done, but it's really time to calm down about the name issue. I'd like to see RMS stick to his freedom ideology, that's where he really shines!
These people don't care about freedom. It's not surprising they don't care about freedom because nobody ever talked to them about freedom.
That is basically saying that the only people who disagree with you, are those who have not been educated in your ways. That is utter crap. Some people really just want to browse the web. They don't care what they use to do it.
So we've succeeded. We've produced the GNU system. Even though people call it Linux, they still have the benefit of freedom when they use this system.
snip
The GNU system, whether you call it GNU or whether you think it's Linux...
(Bold tags added by me.)
Boy, it is a good thing we have RMS around to take credit for everything. We wouldn't want him to be left out of the spotlight would we? No body could possibly disagree with him. If they do, they just don't understand.
Heh
Sorry about all of the sarcasm.
I sure hope the call the HURD kernel Linux/HURD, since from what I understand, HURD uses parts of the Linux kernel.
This sig is false.
It's truly a shame that RMS has such an abrasive manner. Part of it is certainly due to his passionate belief that software should be free of proprietary constraints. The fact is, he is fighting for something that can be nothing but *good* for both the software industry and for users.
Linux *is* a GNU system whether anyone admits it or not. The GNU project has always been about gathering free software together into a cohesive, free OS. Linus provided the final piece, giving us the first complete operating system by the GNU project. Few of us use this particular distribution.
Distribution? Yes, absolutely. GNU/Linux is simply another distribution of "Linux". Other distributions have much in common with the actual GNU/Linux (Debian being the closest), but all add non-GNU pieces to the puzzle, and thus create their own versions of this Linux-based OS.
The unfortunate reality is that this multitude of versions dilutes the message of the GNU Project and RMS. Open Source has actually become a rival to the FSF in the fight for media attention. The ideology of the FSF has for the first time in its life a sibling movement promoting freedom in software--but not the same freedom.
RMS sees this very clearly, as do others of us who have been around long enough to appreciate the persecution (not all of it undeserved) that the FSF has received since it was founded. He is terribly afraid that his hard-won freedoms will be taken away, and his fears are not totally unfounded. Not because there is a conspiracy to morph free software into something a little less free (the slippery slope problem), but because the rapidly growing base of free software users are no longer dependent upon the FSF for major pieces. Dilution is occuring, and RMS is fighting hard (and not always in a wise manner) to make sure his message is at least heard if not heeded.