To all the genius-level deep thinkers who are dissing RMS: put your code where your mouths are. Get every bit of GNU software off your
systems. Then see what your "linux" system is worth.
I use BSD mainly. Should it be called 'GNU/BSD'
if I like to use Emacs? What do I do when I
use gcc in favor of cc? Do I have to call it something different when I use Berkely make,
then rename it when I use gmake?
NOBODY is disputing RMS's contribution
to the cause. What is being disputed is his
sense of entitlement and his attempts to brand Linux under the strictures of his definition and
his definition only.
If it wasn't for GNU and the FSF, Linux would not be as widely used as it is today. Samba, gcc, glibc, gpg, bash and and other _vital_ programs (that are free today thanks to RMS and the FSF) would not be around at least not in the same capacity.
Having made significant contributions to an endeavor != ownership of that endeavor. The
term 'GNU/Linux' is a brand name. That RMS seeks
ideological cachet, rather than market share does
not absolve him of the charge of being pernicious
and off the mark. He is neither pope nor prophet
here.
"I think equating RMS to M$ for him refusing to speak to a group of users with whom he disagrees is very wrong. "
RMS is being equated with M$ not because he refused to speak to a group of users, but rather
because he is attempting to 'brand' the Linux
kernel with the same ferocity as M$ does windows and with as little regard to actual technical merits and history as does M$.
M$ dominance comes about by the same type of
branding, the motives may be different, (greed&power vs ego&ideaology) but the tactics are similar and are as heavy-handed as they are egotistical: M$ did not singlehandedly create the PC revolution and RMS didn't singlehandedly create the open-source revolution.
Slashdot Mirror
To all the genius-level deep thinkers who are dissing RMS: put your code where your mouths are. Get every bit of GNU software off your systems. Then see what your "linux" system is worth.
I use BSD mainly. Should it be called 'GNU/BSD' if I like to use Emacs? What do I do when I use gcc in favor of cc? Do I have to call it something different when I use Berkely make, then rename it when I use gmake?
NOBODY is disputing RMS's contribution to the cause. What is being disputed is his sense of entitlement and his attempts to brand Linux under the strictures of his definition and his definition only.
If it wasn't for GNU and the FSF, Linux would not be as widely used as it is today. Samba, gcc, glibc, gpg, bash and and other _vital_ programs (that are free today thanks to RMS and the FSF) would not be around at least not in the same capacity.
Having made significant contributions to an endeavor != ownership of that endeavor. The term 'GNU/Linux' is a brand name. That RMS seeks ideological cachet, rather than market share does not absolve him of the charge of being pernicious and off the mark. He is neither pope nor prophet here.
"I think equating RMS to M$ for him refusing to speak to a group of users with whom he disagrees is very wrong. "
RMS is being equated with M$ not because he refused to speak to a group of users, but rather because he is attempting to 'brand' the Linux kernel with the same ferocity as M$ does windows and with as little regard to actual technical merits and history as does M$.
M$ dominance comes about by the same type of branding, the motives may be different, (greed&power vs ego&ideaology) but the tactics are similar and are as heavy-handed as they are egotistical: M$ did not singlehandedly create the PC revolution and RMS didn't singlehandedly create the open-source revolution.