Developers working for companies develop free software
That's the way I think it will go.
I may end up developing propietary software. But that will not prevent me from writing free software. It will also not prevent me from demanding free software. Many people must develop propietary software. There is nothing wrong with that. The revolution has only begun.
There are at least two major innovations of the FSF. First is a multi-language cross platform compiler. I know of no other that exists. The second is the copyleft and the GPL.
Calling a system GNU/Linux means that it is the GNU system based on a Linux kernal. I see no insult to that. What greater insult it there in calling a system GNU/Linux than just Linux? I would say it is just the opposite.
Can I ask to to back up some of your wild assumtions?
Your company can sell all the software you want. I just ask it to be free (as in free speech). If you don't, I will buy my software elsewhere.
Also you assume (college == get a good job).
If you can make a living fliping hamburgers than why not? My plan is to get my degree and do exactly that. Or perhaps some other job. But I will still have my free time and perhaps I will do something I love other than making a superfluous amount of money.
There is nothing insulting about saying GNU/Linux. I have looked at all the GNU software I use and it makes sense to call it GNU/Linux. But if people want to call the system Linux, go ahead. I just fear people will forget about GNU and freedom if we all called it just Linux.
Please don't speak of GNU, GNU/Linux, or Debian in a derogatory manner.
If you don't already know this, propietary software isn't the same as commercial software. And ask how the people at Red Hat feed their children.
You are seeing software as a product to be sold. I see software as knowledge to be learned and experimented with. Yet scientists all over the world are being hired and are feeding thier children. At no point does a scientist say, "Let me propietize my discoveries and forbid anyone sharinng this information."
That means BSD is good at being useful. GNU/Linux is good at giving users freedom.
If BSD had all the hype right now instead of GNU/Linux, wouldn't you think that Corel would be propietizing the entire operating system right now? Making incompatible changes for their software to work on it but no other version of BSD to give them a competitive advantage.
If I at some future point and time use a BSD-derived system, I have no guarentee that I will have source code, freedom to modify, or freedom to redistribute. With GNU and Linux, I have that freedom.
Copycenter is an interesting concept. Could be used for textbook examples. BTW, what is the difference between the BSD license and public domain?
So, the FSF is about all open source software (which you equate to free software)? Is that really true?
Yes. Absolutely. Freedom to users is the entire reason for the FSF of being.
There's a lot of free software out there that the FSF doesn't seem to care to have anything to do with. Certainly there's a lot of free software that would very strongly prefer that the FSF have nothing to do with them.
You are confusing software with developers. The FSF's goal is for their to be more free software and more users of free software. Strategicly, projects that encourage less software or more users of propietary software is not in free software's best interest and the FSF is right for encouraging otherwise.
I wouldn't say that. The BSD system is hardly viable for much more than serving by itself AFAIK. One of the FSF's most significant contributions was probably the GPL. Not to mention that gcc and bash is helpful for BSD as well.
Wow. You people are quick with the submit button:)
No, my main system is a Sparc running OpenBSD. Scant little FSF software there. Just the compiler. The rest is free.
Very well.
More importantly, you have a logical fallacy. Just because the Linux kernel is free software, and just because the FSF is about free software, does not mean that Linux is about the FSF, nor vice versa. Aristotle would not be pleased.:-(
I didn't mean to make a logical implication or any other implication. But if you want a syllogism, then very well.
FSF is about free software. Linux is free software. Therefore, FSF is about Linux.
Is that a fallacy? I hope not. I don't think so. Given that Linux is a subset of free software I think that it is valid. But I will not say and didn't mean to imply that Linux is about the FSF. But I repeat my question: What is Linux about? Linux is a kernal, it can't be about anything. So your fallacy is in implying that it could.:)
But I do give the FSF the credit for the Free Software and Open Source movements as we know them. If it wasn't for the FSF, none of this would be possible.
True, every Linux-based operating system uses some of the FSF's software; viz. the compiler. But some uses far less than you allege. Consider David Parsons's work, for example.
I will not claim that all Linux based systems use GNU but the vast majority do. All major distributions use vast amounts of GNU software. I am certain that your main system use a lot of GNU software.
Linux is hardly about the FSF, you know.
This depends on what you think Linux is about. The FSF is about free software (open source). I would say they are about similar things.
I was very careful to say "after everything went propietary". They invented the term "free software".
Apache, Perl, Python, Sendmail, Tcl, and XFREE86 are just a few of the important projects that are unrelated to the FSF.
These are free software projects. Some of these sprang from the free software movement. Some of these sprang from the open source movement which came from the free software movement. Some of these just wanted a "you do whatever you want with this just keep my name on it" license.
Okay. I guess saying that the FSF invented free software is somewhat less than correct but it is close. I am sorry. No need to be hostile.
In sum, HURD seems to be a failed attempt of the FSF to totally conquer the Open Source world, an attempt doomed from the start. In truth, they are about five-ten years too late.
I doubt the FSF are trying to conquer. In fact they *invented* open source/free software after everything turned propietary. And every Linux-based system uses GNU so they in fact have conquered the open source world as much as Linux has. So I don't think the FSF need to conquer the "open source world". They already have.
Hurd will hopefully provide a worthy successor to the great kernal Linux is.
That is hard to beleive. GNU is so pervasive in "Linux" operating system that it makes more sense to call it GNU/Linux. Besides, Linux is a kernal, the rest is mostly GNU.
Take a look at http://www.gnu.org/software sometime. I counted well over a hundred commonly used software packages there sometime in just the GNU section. Including GNU Bash, GNU Window Maker, GNU Emacs, GNU elvis, GNOME, glibc, etc. Are you sure you don't use any of these or other software on the GNU software map?
GNU is a complete system except for the kernal. That doesn't mean added software makes it not GNU.
This is one the reasons free software/open source is so much more like knowledge. Didn't Isaac say that he could reach new heights by standing on the shoulders of giants... Let me see that happen with propietary software:)
Microsoft tends to ignore security holes whenever possible.
I don't want to pick on you in particular but this has gotten out of hand. Microsoft has not ignored any security hole and they don't do it whenever possible! Their fixes on their web page for the security issues.
Dang it people Microsoft is not evil! Guess what? They do care about their customers. You just don't give them a chance by declaring everything they do as FUD, marketing, or incompetence.
Microsoft is not a perfect company and have made many mistakes. But if you are going to accuse them of something then make sure you are rightly accusing them. Otherwise your FUD is far worse than anything from Redmond.
XUL seems cool and all but just think what harm it can cause in the hands of AOL. I would hate to have five or so ad buttons on the button bars when I visit so-and-so site. The less control the web site has the better.
It's suppose to be (by someone's standard) that Linux is simply the kernal of GNU. FreeBSD is an entire system and has its own kernal. But nowadays people refer to Linux as the whole system and not just the kernal. Which notably brushes GNU aside.
I have never used BBS. Mostly because I never had a modem until we were well into the internet era. But I am interested. I am also interested in other forms of telecommunication if anyone knows of any.
Okay, I know this is childish. But if there were any protocals or something that forms an internet *underground* or something similar. It sounds like BBS may be what I am talking about but I think there might be something else out there.
I think the internet is overpopulated. Now that it is all the buzz and hype on the news and such... I want to escape.
It is helpful when you are speaking of either the operating system (GNU/Linux) or the kernal (Linux). I know I have been confused a number of times when the difference wasn't made clear.
The reason that KDE is so vastly superior to Gnome is because it's commercially backed.
Then why is Linux, GIMP, and Emacs so vastly superior?
Because QT is controled and maintained by a real commercial enterprise. Free software is really good at making little hacks and apps, but fails almost completely when it comes to framework.
Free software is great at making large hack and apps and at making frameworks. GNOME is a good example. I use it daily. Red Hat does contribute to it though. KDE is arguably better and comercial corporations have had less direct intervention.
QT is superior to GTK simply because it's rigidly controled by a commercial enterprise rather then a bunch of weekend hackers.
The reason QT has theming is because they have let go of some of that rigid control. And who is to say that GTK is inferior. It has many many language bindings, had theming first, and is used in many advanced applications.
Since GTK is inferior to QT, Gnome is inferior to KDE and it will stay that way until the Gnome developers wise up, change the license of all their code to LGPL, and hookup with the only kind of group that can produce framework code of quality: A commercial group.
Gnome is somewhat inferior to KDE because it had a headstart and didn't let a thing like freedom get in its way (Note: KDE and Qt are free now). I have noticed it more and more that Gnome is introducing things about 6 months behind KDE. But I am confident they will catch up.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the way I think it will go.
I may end up developing propietary software. But that will not prevent me from writing free software. It will also not prevent me from demanding free software. Many people must develop propietary software. There is nothing wrong with that. The revolution has only begun.
There are at least two major innovations of the FSF. First is a multi-language cross platform compiler. I know of no other that exists. The second is the copyleft and the GPL.
Calling a system GNU/Linux means that it is the GNU system based on a Linux kernal. I see no insult to that. What greater insult it there in calling a system GNU/Linux than just Linux? I would say it is just the opposite.
Can I ask to to back up some of your wild assumtions?
Your company can sell all the software you want. I just ask it to be free (as in free speech). If you don't, I will buy my software elsewhere.
Also you assume (college == get a good job).
If you can make a living fliping hamburgers than why not? My plan is to get my degree and do exactly that. Or perhaps some other job. But I will still have my free time and perhaps I will do something I love other than making a superfluous amount of money.
There is nothing insulting about saying GNU/Linux. I have looked at all the GNU software I use and it makes sense to call it GNU/Linux. But if people want to call the system Linux, go ahead. I just fear people will forget about GNU and freedom if we all called it just Linux.
Please don't speak of GNU, GNU/Linux, or Debian in a derogatory manner.
Otherwise, I think we have reached an impasse.
If you don't already know this, propietary software isn't the same as commercial software. And ask how the people at Red Hat feed their children.
You are seeing software as a product to be sold. I see software as knowledge to be learned and experimented with. Yet scientists all over the world are being hired and are feeding thier children. At no point does a scientist say, "Let me propietize my discoveries and forbid anyone sharinng this information."
That means BSD is good at being useful. GNU/Linux is good at giving users freedom.
If BSD had all the hype right now instead of GNU/Linux, wouldn't you think that Corel would be propietizing the entire operating system right now? Making incompatible changes for their software to work on it but no other version of BSD to give them a competitive advantage.
If I at some future point and time use a BSD-derived system, I have no guarentee that I will have source code, freedom to modify, or freedom to redistribute. With GNU and Linux, I have that freedom.
Copycenter is an interesting concept. Could be used for textbook examples. BTW, what is the difference between the BSD license and public domain?
So, the FSF is about all open source software (which you equate to free software)? Is that really true?
:)
Yes. Absolutely. Freedom to users is the entire reason for the FSF of being.
There's a lot of free software out there that the FSF doesn't seem to care to have anything to do with. Certainly there's a lot of free software that would very strongly prefer that the FSF have nothing to do with them.
You are confusing software with developers. The FSF's goal is for their to be more free software and more users of free software. Strategicly, projects that encourage less software or more users of propietary software is not in free software's best interest and the FSF is right for encouraging otherwise.
BTW: Software doesn't prefer anything
I wouldn't say that. The BSD system is hardly viable for much more than serving by itself AFAIK. One of the FSF's most significant contributions was probably the GPL. Not to mention that gcc and bash is helpful for BSD as well.
No, my main system is a Sparc running OpenBSD. Scant little FSF software there. Just the compiler. The rest is free.
Very well.
More importantly, you have a logical fallacy. Just because the Linux kernel is free software, and just because the FSF is about free software, does not mean that Linux is about the FSF, nor vice versa. Aristotle would not be pleased.
I didn't mean to make a logical implication or any other implication. But if you want a syllogism, then very well.
Is that a fallacy? I hope not. I don't think so. Given that Linux is a subset of free software I think that it is valid. But I will not say and didn't mean to imply that Linux is about the FSF. But I repeat my question: What is Linux about? Linux is a kernal, it can't be about anything. So your fallacy is in implying that it could.
But I do give the FSF the credit for the Free Software and Open Source movements as we know them. If it wasn't for the FSF, none of this would be possible.
I am sorry. I will change it.
True, every Linux-based operating system uses some of the FSF's software; viz. the compiler. But some uses far less than you allege. Consider David Parsons's work, for example.
I will not claim that all Linux based systems use GNU but the vast majority do. All major distributions use vast amounts of GNU software. I am certain that your main system use a lot of GNU software.
Linux is hardly about the FSF, you know.
This depends on what you think Linux is about. The FSF is about free software (open source). I would say they are about similar things.
I was very careful to say "after everything went propietary". They invented the term "free software".
Apache, Perl, Python, Sendmail, Tcl, and XFREE86 are just a few of the important projects that are unrelated to the FSF.
These are free software projects. Some of these sprang from the free software movement. Some of these sprang from the open source movement which came from the free software movement. Some of these just wanted a "you do whatever you want with this just keep my name on it" license.
Okay. I guess saying that the FSF invented free software is somewhat less than correct but it is close. I am sorry. No need to be hostile.
I think we should all donate a bunch of money to the FSF or other free software project. We users can do our parts.
In sum, HURD seems to be a failed attempt of the FSF to totally conquer the Open Source world, an attempt doomed from the start. In truth, they are about five-ten years too late.
I doubt the FSF are trying to conquer. In fact they *invented* open source/free software after everything turned propietary. And every Linux-based system uses GNU so they in fact have conquered the open source world as much as Linux has. So I don't think the FSF need to conquer the "open source world". They already have.
Hurd will hopefully provide a worthy successor to the great kernal Linux is.
The only FSFware I ever use is the compiler.
That is hard to beleive. GNU is so pervasive in "Linux" operating system that it makes more sense to call it GNU/Linux. Besides, Linux is a kernal, the rest is mostly GNU.
Take a look at http://www.gnu.org/software sometime. I counted well over a hundred commonly used software packages there sometime in just the GNU section. Including GNU Bash, GNU Window Maker, GNU Emacs, GNU elvis, GNOME, glibc, etc. Are you sure you don't use any of these or other software on the GNU software map?
GNU is a complete system except for the kernal. That doesn't mean added software makes it not GNU.
This is one the reasons free software/open source is so much more like knowledge. Didn't Isaac say that he could reach new heights by standing on the shoulders of giants... Let me see that happen with propietary software :)
:)
plug:
I wrote about this very thing in The Rise and Fall of OS Empires. It was also a subtle argument against BeOS
/plug
Microsoft tends to ignore security holes whenever possible.
I don't want to pick on you in particular but this has gotten out of hand. Microsoft has not ignored any security hole and they don't do it whenever possible! Their fixes on their web page for the security issues.
Dang it people Microsoft is not evil! Guess what? They do care about their customers. You just don't give them a chance by declaring everything they do as FUD, marketing, or incompetence.
Microsoft is not a perfect company and have made many mistakes. But if you are going to accuse them of something then make sure you are rightly accusing them. Otherwise your FUD is far worse than anything from Redmond.
XUL seems cool and all but just think what harm it can cause in the hands of AOL. I would hate to have five or so ad buttons on the button bars when I visit so-and-so site. The less control the web site has the better.
Mozilla team, please don't do this to us.
It's suppose to be (by someone's standard) that Linux is simply the kernal of GNU. FreeBSD is an entire system and has its own kernal. But nowadays people refer to Linux as the whole system and not just the kernal. Which notably brushes GNU aside.
Wasn't there something about one question per post?
I have never used BBS. Mostly because I never had a modem until we were well into the internet era. But I am interested. I am also interested in other forms of telecommunication if anyone knows of any.
Okay, I know this is childish. But if there were any protocals or something that forms an internet *underground* or something similar. It sounds like BBS may be what I am talking about but I think there might be something else out there.
I think the internet is overpopulated. Now that it is all the buzz and hype on the news and such... I want to escape.
Oh well, I'll cower my foolishness now.
Wow. That sounds like a reduced form of the copyleft. Hmm.
It is helpful when you are speaking of either the operating system (GNU/Linux) or the kernal (Linux). I know I have been confused a number of times when the difference wasn't made clear.
The reason that KDE is so vastly superior to Gnome is because it's commercially backed.
Then why is Linux, GIMP, and Emacs so vastly superior?
Because QT is controled and maintained by a real commercial enterprise. Free software is really good at making little hacks and apps, but fails almost completely when it comes to framework.
Free software is great at making large hack and apps and at making frameworks. GNOME is a good example. I use it daily. Red Hat does contribute to it though. KDE is arguably better and comercial corporations have had less direct intervention.
QT is superior to GTK simply because it's rigidly controled by a commercial enterprise rather then a bunch of weekend hackers.
The reason QT has theming is because they have let go of some of that rigid control. And who is to say that GTK is inferior. It has many many language bindings, had theming first, and is used in many advanced applications.
Since GTK is inferior to QT, Gnome is inferior to KDE and it will stay that way until the Gnome developers wise up, change the license of all their code to LGPL, and hookup with the only kind of group that can produce framework code of quality: A commercial group.
Gnome is somewhat inferior to KDE because it had a headstart and didn't let a thing like freedom get in its way (Note: KDE and Qt are free now). I have noticed it more and more that Gnome is introducing things about 6 months behind KDE. But I am confident they will catch up.