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.
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.