You know, RMS's crowning achievement wasn't anything coded - it was/is/will be the GPL.
Damn right. He's one of the greatest hackers on the face of earth yet his crowning achievement isn't... well, you said it. GPL and the free software movement.:)
I don't care about freedom in software. I like open source software because I can do more with it, it's more useful to me.
Yes, one should care about software because it is useful. The great advantages of Open Source (ie. stability, speed, features) are merely a consequence of the freedom. In the end, Open Source Software (according to the Open Source Definition) is just another name for Free Software. The problem is that the important thing, Freedom, is getting ignored by many.
The freedom. When you donate free (GPL) software, anyone can use it in anyway they want (except to restrict other people's freedom). They can even modify your product or incorpore it in their own programs. They have no restrictions on what they can do with that free software (except the one I mentioned) and there is now no incentive to reimplement things but to improve the existing (free) software. The feeling of contributing free software is great. Everyone has a new piece of software, the whole humanity advances. You may say I'm exagerating, but there are thousands of hackers writing free software nowadays and I believe this to be a real motivation.
I think there are a lot more important areas in society where we should focus on freedom and morality than software. Who cares? It's just code.
I just wanted to say I strongly agree with this feeling.
Perhaps the whole society is changing in special ways towards freedom and the individual (as opposed to the mass) is gaining power. Perhaps the changes are becoming evident in the software (and music) world because they are very related with the thing that made the change possible (the internet). Or perhaps I'm talking to much.:)
In the end, Open Source (according to the Open Source Definition) is Free Software. But the point of the Open Source movement was not to scare people off with the ideas of freedom and give them something else they will be more likely to accept. So, in definition, the Open Source Software is Free Software, but in many person's minds it is a different thing. The Open Source movement has managed people to go "open source", but the cost is that it, as I said in my other message, has hidden the Important Thing from many persons. Open Source is Free Software according to its definition, but that's not in many persons minds.
The real reason for the re-labeling [of Free Software] is a marketing one. We're trying to pitch our concept to the corporate world now. We have a winning product, but our positioning, in the past, has been awful. The term ``free software'' has a load of fatal baggage; to a businessperson, it's too redolent of fanaticism and flakiness and strident anti-commercialism.
[...] In marketing appearance is reality. The appearance that we're willing to climb down off the barricades and work with the corporate world counts for as much as the reality of our behavior, our convictions, and our software.
The reason is marketing. Lets hide the freedom from them. That's not good.
With all due respect to RMS, I think it's clear that the GPL significantly retarded acceptance of Open Source software.
With all due respect to O'Reilly, I think its clear that the GPL has significantly contributed to the acceptance of Free Software, while the Open Source movement has hidden the important things (Freedom) from many persons' eyes.
We don't want Open Source software, we want free software.
I *hate* to see someone who hasn't donated a single line of code criticize the GPL.
The Good Thing of the GPL is it lets you do anything with the software except limit other people's freedom. You are saying that's a bad thing because it scares people off, but if they are just developing propietary software, no one cares.
Instead of criticizing the GPL, people should start to develope their own nonGPLish code and try to outcome us. Developers are free to do whatever they want and choose whatever license they like. Users who complain and whine should be ignored.
Typical O'Reilly anti-GNU stuff. Anyone else getting tired of them?
I have been reading most of the posts here and there are a few things I would like to point out. I certainly have not discussed about this with Richard as much as Jonas has, and I could get some things wrong, but, well, lets see.
First, I would like to point out that the reason why Richard asks us to call it GNU/Linux is not to get credits for himself but to draw the attention to the really important thing about Linux: the fact that it is free.
Its sad to see that most supporters of GNU/Linux (or however you call it, I'll stick to GNU/Linux in this post) today seem to use it only because of reasons other than the fact that it is free. They use it because it never crashes on them, because it doesn't cost them a dime, because it's lightning fast. Others are more radical and seem to base their actions around the silly I-Hate-Microsoft argument (the FAQ of my LUG states "Q: What is the reason for you to create Linuxcol? A: First: We are tired of Guindow$ shit being the only alternative in the Operating System market for PC's", hell, it even repeats that seven times in UPPERCASE (see)). True, the stability and performace of the GNU/Linux is a consequence of the fact that it is free (as Eric Raymond pointed out), but most users don't see the freedom as the final goal. They used Windows before, they will go back to it if Microsoft sucks the bugs out, lowers the prices and manages to create a better (from this technical point of view) operating system (heheh, as if they could).
Do you remember all the excitement when the MS-Office for Linux rumour spread? I got to see some comments/mails like "YES! We are winning!". Or the excitement with Oracle supporting Linux? Why should we care? True, we will be able to play with more applications in our operating system, but most people seem to forget those are still propietary applications!
When Richard asks us to call it GNU/Linux, he just wants to reminds us about the freedom. Nowdays GNU/Linux is getting more attention than ever. Most propietary software companies are starting to develope and port to GNU/Linux. We are appearing in the press. Richard just wants to be sure we won't forget it is the freedom what made this possible, something most GNU/Linux users seem to have forgottem already.
From this point of view, Richard would never be happy to listen someone say GNU/Solaris, GNU/MacOS, GNU/Windows unless Solaris, MacOS and Windows became Free software (perhaps GNU/BSD).
When you get MacOS or Windows, you don't get just the kernel, you get a lot of things such as the Files Explorer, Notepad, Paintbrush, the command line utilities, their buggy telnet program, even the Browser, it seems.
Instead, Linux is *JUST* the kernel. With just Windows or just MacOS there is a lot of things you can do. With just Linux, there is nothing you can do. This is where GNU comes in.
RMS isn't asking everyone to call it GNU/Linux to get creddit himself. If you knew him better, you'd understand all he cares about is freedom. Most recent GNU/Linux users and supporters fail to see how the important thing of what they call Linux is the fact that it is free. They just use it/support it because it is rock solid and lightning fast. When he asks us to call it GNU/Linux, RMS is doing it to remind everyone how GNU/Linux isn't just another operating system, it is a free operating system (like the BSDs, yes) and that's the important thing.
He doesn't want publicity for himself, but he wants to be sure we won't forget what the point is and turn the GNU/Linux world into just another community full of propietary software, specially now with all the attention it is receiving.
This is what I sent to AT&T using their Feedback page. If you agree, you could let them know, I suppose they'll consider these ideas more if more people tells them about them.
I have not read the AT&T Source Code License, but I just wanted you to know that, in my opinion, you should drop it and try to find an already existing license that suits your needs well. The hacking community does not see with good eyes the creation of new "open source" licenses other than the already existing, such as is the case with the Netscape's Public License or the Apple Public Source License.
Besides, I suppose it probably doesn't suit your needs well, but if you had released your code under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL), developers could then incorporate any GPL'ed code distributed under to your software, greatly enhacing it (GPL'ed code includes Emacs, GCC, Guile, Linux (the kernel), WindowMaker, GNU Internet Utilities and much, *MUCH* more, particularly all GNU software).
I'd add more. This may seem like a joke but it is serious and shows how many recently converted linux users don't get it.
- They all think RMS is a stupid lunatic who is asking everybody to call it GNU/Linux just cause he wants to get credit for something he has not done.
- They all say vi and emacs suck! Pico is their one and only! They all tell me: No, Alejo, vi? Are you CRAZY? Emacs? That's the worse program I've seen! Pico is perfect. (This coming from 7th semester computer science students such as se-gonza and ser-garc).
- Linux sucks. I was on my windows machine, telneted to a Linux box, started Pico and started to hit keys randomly. The connection froze and there was no way I could get it working again. The operating system froze. I had to close that window and reopen my connection. This is from a 7th semester computer science student, e-mirand.
Well, we don't need that kind of users. We don't need to conquer the world, it may make things bad.
I have slackware and I once tried to install the RPM thing so I could get RPMs working on Slackware. You can download that from RH but it has no documentation at all.
And I hate to see the RH-Specific things. Hated that "Installing from source for a RedHat system" on Gnome. RH keeps the GPL but is using dirty tricks to get us to run their distribution.
I always thought Slackware ruled but... I'm moving to Debian.
Those libraries come with the nspr package. You need to download nspr and install it before building Mozilla. You can pass the parameter to the libraries location to configure.
See the building instructions at mozilla's site.
Even when RMS is right he gets dissed :`(
on
RMS on APSL
·
· Score: 1
I agree with your feeling.
If there is someone who is *always* very coherent is RMS.
Most people don't get to read directly from him. They just hear "RMS is asking you to call it GNU/Linux because it has more GNU software there" but never get to read his reasons. Some even think he has a big ego and is doing it to get the credits for him self. Puhlease.
RMS is right on point!
on
RMS on APSL
·
· Score: 1
Me too.
100% with GNU/RMS. We want Free Software.
0% with OSI/ESR. We don't want Open Source.
Alejo.
Reporting modifications to Apple
on
RMS on APSL
·
· Score: 1
How the hell does it make the APSL non-Open Source?
It does not make it non-Open Source. It makes it non-Free Software. It is Open Source, as defined by ESR, but it is not Free Software, as defined by RMS.
All the people who are writing about the E window manager have very little minds, forget about them. They have to find something to flame on. And critizicing your writing based on such a trivial error is like critizicing music because there's a typo in the writings of the lyrics.
Some free software purists object to the commercialization of open source software. They believe that the most important aspect of open source software is that it is free; by this standard, any association with proprietary products tarnishes the software.
Free software purists don't object to the commercialization of free software / open source software.
The most important aspect of free software is that it is free. As long as it is remains free, it can be commercial and no one has a problem with that.
Free doesn't mean $0. Free software can, of course, be commercial.
And yes, any association with proprietary products tarnishes the software.
Ousterhout should read the definition of free software as stated by the Free Software Fundation.
The (lack of) speed of this site (if any) is due to bandwidth problems and pages being big and requiring the whole page to download before most (all?) browsers display them (because everything goes inside a big table). It has nothing to do with the site's operating system.
It is very sad to see that many suits seem to think the way you do and take decitions based on irrelevant stuff.
We don't need to "dominate the world" to keep MS from destroying our standards. I agree with the other guy, who says only fools care about world domination. Let the sheeps use MS crap, we developers don't need them using our free software.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, RMS's crowning achievement wasn't anything coded - it was/is/will be the GPL.
... well, you said it. GPL and the free software movement. :)
Damn right. He's one of the greatest hackers on the face of earth yet his crowning achievement isn't
Alejo.
I don't care about freedom in software. I like open source software because I can do more with it, it's more useful to me.
:)
Yes, one should care about software because it is useful. The great advantages of Open Source (ie. stability, speed, features) are merely a consequence of the freedom. In the end, Open Source Software (according to the Open Source Definition) is just another name for Free Software. The problem is that the important thing, Freedom, is getting ignored by many.
The freedom. When you donate free (GPL) software, anyone can use it in anyway they want (except to restrict other people's freedom). They can even modify your product or incorpore it in their own programs. They have no restrictions on what they can do with that free software (except the one I mentioned) and there is now no incentive to reimplement things but to improve the existing (free) software. The feeling of contributing free software is great. Everyone has a new piece of software, the whole humanity advances. You may say I'm exagerating, but there are thousands of hackers writing free software nowadays and I believe this to be a real motivation.
I think there are a lot more important areas in society where we should focus on freedom and morality than software. Who cares? It's just code.
I just wanted to say I strongly agree with this feeling.
Perhaps the whole society is changing in special ways towards freedom and the individual (as opposed to the mass) is gaining power. Perhaps the changes are becoming evident in the software (and music) world because they are very related with the thing that made the change possible (the internet). Or perhaps I'm talking to much.
Alejo.
In the end, Open Source (according to the Open Source Definition) is Free Software. But the point of the Open Source movement was not to scare people off with the ideas of freedom and give them something else they will be more likely to accept. So, in definition, the Open Source Software is Free Software, but in many person's minds it is a different thing. The Open Source movement has managed people to go "open source", but the cost is that it, as I said in my other message, has hidden the Important Thing from many persons. Open Source is Free Software according to its definition, but that's not in many persons minds.
Read The Technie/Hacker's Case for Open Source:
The real reason for the re-labeling [of Free Software] is a marketing one. We're trying to pitch our concept to the corporate world now. We have a winning product, but our positioning, in the past, has been awful. The term ``free software'' has a load of fatal baggage; to a businessperson, it's too redolent of fanaticism and flakiness and strident anti-commercialism.
[...] In marketing appearance is reality. The appearance that we're willing to climb down off the barricades and work with the corporate world counts for as much as the reality of our behavior, our convictions, and our software.
The reason is marketing. Lets hide the freedom from them. That's not good.
Alejo.
With all due respect to RMS, I think it's clear that the GPL significantly retarded acceptance of Open Source software.
With all due respect to O'Reilly, I think its clear that the GPL has significantly contributed to the acceptance of Free Software, while the Open Source movement has hidden the important things (Freedom) from many persons' eyes.
We don't want Open Source software, we want free software.
I *hate* to see someone who hasn't donated a single line of code criticize the GPL.
The Good Thing of the GPL is it lets you do anything with the software except limit other people's freedom. You are saying that's a bad thing because it scares people off, but if they are just developing propietary software, no one cares.
Instead of criticizing the GPL, people should start to develope their own nonGPLish code and try to outcome us. Developers are free to do whatever they want and choose whatever license they like. Users who complain and whine should be ignored.
Typical O'Reilly anti-GNU stuff. Anyone else getting tired of them?
Alejo.
I have been reading most of the posts here and there are a few things I would like to point out. I certainly have not discussed about this with Richard as much as Jonas has, and I could get some things wrong, but, well, lets see.
First, I would like to point out that the reason why Richard asks us to call it GNU/Linux is not to get credits for himself but to draw the attention to the really important thing about Linux: the fact that it is free.
Its sad to see that most supporters of GNU/Linux (or however you call it, I'll stick to GNU/Linux in this post) today seem to use it only because of reasons other than the fact that it is free. They use it because it never crashes on them, because it doesn't cost them a dime, because it's lightning fast. Others are more radical and seem to base their actions around the silly I-Hate-Microsoft argument (the FAQ of my LUG states "Q: What is the reason for you to create Linuxcol? A: First: We are tired of Guindow$ shit being the only alternative in the Operating System market for PC's", hell, it even repeats that seven times in UPPERCASE (see)). True, the stability and performace of the GNU/Linux is a consequence of the fact that it is free (as Eric Raymond pointed out), but most users don't see the freedom as the final goal. They used Windows before, they will go back to it if Microsoft sucks the bugs out, lowers the prices and manages to create a better (from this technical point of view) operating system (heheh, as if they could).
Do you remember all the excitement when the MS-Office for Linux rumour spread? I got to see some comments/mails like "YES! We are winning!". Or the excitement with Oracle supporting Linux? Why should we care? True, we will be able to play with more applications in our operating system, but most people seem to forget those are still propietary applications!
When Richard asks us to call it GNU/Linux, he just wants to reminds us about the freedom. Nowdays GNU/Linux is getting more attention than ever. Most propietary software companies are starting to develope and port to GNU/Linux. We are appearing in the press. Richard just wants to be sure we won't forget it is the freedom what made this possible, something most GNU/Linux users seem to have forgottem already.
From this point of view, Richard would never be happy to listen someone say GNU/Solaris, GNU/MacOS, GNU/Windows unless Solaris, MacOS and Windows became Free software (perhaps GNU/BSD).
cat flames >/dev/null
Azul.
Nah.
When you get MacOS or Windows, you don't get just the kernel, you get a lot of things such as the Files Explorer, Notepad, Paintbrush, the command line utilities, their buggy telnet program, even the Browser, it seems.
Instead, Linux is *JUST* the kernel. With just Windows or just MacOS there is a lot of things you can do. With just Linux, there is nothing you can do. This is where GNU comes in.
Umm.
RMS isn't asking everyone to call it GNU/Linux to get creddit himself. If you knew him better, you'd understand all he cares about is freedom. Most recent GNU/Linux users and supporters fail to see how the important thing of what they call Linux is the fact that it is free. They just use it/support it because it is rock solid and lightning fast. When he asks us to call it GNU/Linux, RMS is doing it to remind everyone how GNU/Linux isn't just another operating system, it is a free operating system (like the BSDs, yes) and that's the important thing.
He doesn't want publicity for himself, but he wants to be sure we won't forget what the point is and turn the GNU/Linux world into just another community full of propietary software, specially now with all the attention it is receiving.
Alejo.
This anonymous coward has shown the point. Most newbies out there don't realize how vital the GNU software has been for GNU/Linux.
This is what I sent to AT&T using their Feedback page. If you agree, you could let them know, I suppose they'll consider these ideas more if more people tells them about them.
Azul.Why would we Slashdot readers want to download that stupid Transmetta page? It pops out a window with an advertising, now that sucks.
Azul.
I haven't read their spec, but I'm sure this will come with some authentication mechanism.
For example, I can shutdown my servers whenever I want, wherever I am. Now, can you?
With the printers it will be (is) the same. I (and my friends) can print on my printer whenever we want, wherever we are.
Anonymity. Any moderator who posts that they are a moderator will probably have their access revoked.
:P
Will this article get a -10 score?
Yeah!
I'd add more. This may seem like a joke but it is serious and shows how many recently converted linux users don't get it.
- They all think RMS is a stupid lunatic who is asking everybody to call it GNU/Linux just cause he wants to get credit for something he has not done.
- They all say vi and emacs suck! Pico is their one and only! They all tell me: No, Alejo, vi? Are you CRAZY? Emacs? That's the worse program I've seen! Pico is perfect. (This coming from 7th semester computer science students such as se-gonza and ser-garc).
- Linux sucks. I was on my windows machine, telneted to a Linux box, started Pico and started to hit keys randomly. The connection froze and there was no way I could get it working again. The operating system froze. I had to close that window and reopen my connection. This is from a 7th semester computer science student, e-mirand.
Well, we don't need that kind of users. We don't need to conquer the world, it may make things bad.
Exactly.
This is what I dislike of RH.
I have slackware and I once tried to install the RPM thing so I could get RPMs working on Slackware. You can download that from RH but it has no documentation at all.
And I hate to see the RH-Specific things. Hated that "Installing from source for a RedHat system" on Gnome. RH keeps the GPL but is using dirty tricks to get us to run their distribution.
I always thought Slackware ruled but... I'm moving to Debian.
RH is for suits.
Those libraries come with the nspr package. You need to download nspr and install it before building Mozilla. You can pass the parameter to the libraries location to configure.
See the building instructions at mozilla's site.
I agree with your feeling.
If there is someone who is *always* very coherent is RMS.
Most people don't get to read directly from him. They just hear "RMS is asking you to call it GNU/Linux because it has more GNU software there" but never get to read his reasons. Some even think he has a big ego and is doing it to get the credits for him self. Puhlease.
Me too.
100% with GNU/RMS. We want Free Software.
0% with OSI/ESR. We don't want Open Source.
Alejo.
How the hell does it make the APSL non-Open Source?
It does not make it non-Open Source. It makes it non-Free Software. It is Open Source, as defined by ESR, but it is not Free Software, as defined by RMS.
Thanks for that wonderful essay.
All the people who are writing about the E window manager have very little minds, forget about them. They have to find something to flame on. And critizicing your writing based on such a trivial error is like critizicing music because there's a typo in the writings of the lyrics.
Keep up the good work.
it'd be nice if that effort had gone into a frontend for Guile, rather than ports of yet another limited language.
That would have been very nice.
Forget about TCL, Guile is the answer.
AFC.
Some free software purists object to the commercialization of open source software. They believe that the most important aspect of open source software is that it is free; by this standard, any association with proprietary products tarnishes the software.
Free software purists don't object to the commercialization of free software / open source software.
The most important aspect of free software is that it is free. As long as it is remains free, it can be commercial and no one has a problem with that.
Free doesn't mean $0. Free software can, of course, be commercial.
And yes, any association with proprietary products tarnishes the software.
Ousterhout should read the definition of free software as stated by the Free Software Fundation.
Forget about TCL, try Guile.
AFC
The (lack of) speed of this site (if any) is due to bandwidth problems and pages being big and requiring the whole page to download before most (all?) browsers display them (because everything goes inside a big table). It has nothing to do with the site's operating system.
It is very sad to see that many suits seem to think the way you do and take decitions based on irrelevant stuff.
AFC.
I don't know who's better, but I know who will be better in some months.
A GNU/Linux box with GNU SQL searches and a few Perl scripts.
Azul.
Yeah!
Both of those products are propietary software. I couldn't care less about who wins.
GNU SQL will beat them all once its ready. Yes, GNU is creating its own SQL database.
Azul
Oh, puhlease.
We don't need to "dominate the world" to keep MS from destroying our standards. I agree with the other guy, who says only fools care about world domination. Let the sheeps use MS crap, we developers don't need them using our free software.
See Figure 1.
Alejo.