Re:Well, now I expect freedom
on
Kylix in Limbo
·
· Score: 1
exactly.
If porting borland apps to GNU/Linux was important to anyone, there be an LGPL'd BoredLand project (or some other pun-ish name).
5 years ago, I used the Borland compiler in college, and it was great. For the last three years, I've used only Free Software, and it's great. But this year I've returned to college, and I'm faced with the Borland compiler again, and it SUCKS!
So what changed? I accepted what I got back then. Now I expect:
to use my editor of choice, and still have access to docs & tools
the compiler to come with *all* useful docs, not just docs specific to the extra-money extension parts of the compiler.
to use the same documentation system for all apps, and not have to relearn the borland help system
my other apps to interoperate with the compiler.
etc.
A copy of the source code would be no good to me, I wouldn't have time to make any changes. The important thing is that everyone should have access to the source code (and permission to change & redistribute it). When a package is Free Software, it must be as usable as possible, or someone will fork it. GNU/Linux users are treated too well to accept what Borland are offering, for $1000 or even for $0.
The "digital providers" will offer "Enhanced TV+", at a low cost initially. These boxes will allow recording of non-feature shows (95% of TV), and won't let you fast forward through ads. A few other trinkets will be thrown in.
Basically, Big Business will provide the lowest level of service *that they know users will put up with*.
DVDs: can't copy them, can't fast-forward through ads public reaction: "great picture quality"
Twenty years ago, when the majority of software changed from being Free to being proprietary, there was no revolution, despite the public no longer being able to see what the software was doing, modify/fix it, or share it.
Today, people think "stupid hippies want everything to be free". In twenty years time, people will laugh at you for expecting to be able to record a TV program.
It's going to take a lot of work from a small number of people to prevent digital TV etc. from spoiling modern culture/freedom.
Call me a cynic, but I get the feeling we won't agree today:)
Of the Free Unices, GNU/Linux has the most commercial interest, the most users, and the most developers.
This is fact. So any theoretical arguments about BSD creating a more productive atmosphere, are automatically incorrect. All that's left is to figure out why the GPL-based community has been more effective. I'll stake a guess it's because copyleft levels the playing field.
> one that the FSF completely ignores, is simply > that it's the right thing to do
The right thing to do is to give freedom to computer users. Permission to create software that doesn't pass on these freedoms is of no use for this goal. So the GPL trades this in return for securing freedom.
> isn't this dangerous for BSD developers when looking at GPL software
BSDers can look, and learn (or laugh). They just can't copy the code.
> could arguably be derivative from Linux
Copyright covers work of an author, not ideas. So as long as they only borrow ideas, they'll be fine.
> I would think FSF would get their panties that much
That's not much of a sentence, is it:) FSF own no FreeBSD-kernel code, and only own bits of Linux. I don't see any problems here.
> read quite a bit from Stallman who seems to have an axe to grind with the GPL linux
You're probably talking about proprietary binary-only modules being linked to Linux at runtime? Nothing to do with a cross-reference.
> let alone the closable BSD's
[Free|Net|Open]BSD is Free Software, but the freedom isn't protected by copyleft, so anyone can make a modified version and not contribute their modifications back to the original developers. This situation encourages companies *not* to contribute their code, because if they keep it proprietary, they have an advantage over the original developers.
For the mozilla folk to accept code into their tree, it has to use the standard mozilla tri-license.
Lindows could release their enhancements under the tri-license, but instead they have decided to only release them under the MPL, therefore blocking the mozilla crew from benefitting from the Lindows enhancements.
Yes, it's all legal. But it's a sub-optimal contribution from Lindows.com, when an optimal contribution would cost them zero extra.
I smell a bad egg... The FAQ says Nvu will be "covered under the MPL".
Mozilla is tri-licensed MPL/GPL/LGPL, so the user chooses which license they wish to use the software under.
Lindows.com can't alter the licensing situation of existing mozilla code, but if they only make their improvements available under the MPL - it will be Free Software, but the mozilla folks won't be able to merge improvements into the mozilla codebase.
So basically, Lindows.com are fulfilling the bare minimum legal requirement, and purposely blocking cooperation (so they can have the best version).
Either that or the FAQ is wrong, but Lindows.com have a shakey record in terms of community spirit.
I would have thought 5ux0rz would be more appropriate for most people that call themselves hackers, especially ones that think it would be c001 to have a logo:-p
In a monolith such as Linux, drivers run in kernel mode. This gives them the highest level of permissions available.
We verify the stability of such drivers? And if bugs are found, we cannot do anything about them until our driver providers decides to fix them. How could we check what else it might be doing? If we grow to depend on these proprietary additions, how will we fight overactive-DRM?
I think it is short-sighted to see this as a solution.
Although Blender was always available zero-cost, it only became Free Software in September 2002. Since then, the new developer community have improved the documentation along with the code.
The interface is indeed quite unusual, but when you get used to it, it's very efficient with key bindings for most tasks.
It will pay off. They're giving away nothing substantial - it's a crippled piece of software, and in return they'll get publicity from the watermarking, and more users because people can learn Maya at home now.
Tinkering with an array of apps is cool, but I'd tinker with Blender instead of this piece of cripple-ware. Blender is Free Software (GPL), so you get the full version, no loaded marketing tactics. It works on all major platforms (M$, GNU, MAC, and others).
The diference between Maya and Blender, is that you can give someone a complete copy of Blender, rather than just recommending it. OpenOffice.org is a similarly cool thing to give to people. M$ users always think there must be a catch:)
I haven't used Maya, so I'm no authority, but it looks like it's in the same realm as blender. Blender is free as in freedom (GPL), available for GNU/Linux, M$ Windows, MacOSX, FreeBSD, and a few Unices. It's maintained by it's user community, and it's 100% Free Software, so it'll never be crippled etc.
Yes, porting a *BSD libc to Linux is certainly a non-trivial task, and yes, it has never been done.
Also, like you say, the libc5 used on GNU/Linux systems was a fork of glibc. After a few years, the Linux hackers realised that FSF were doing a better job, so distros all moved back to glibc. GLibc was still using version number 2 though, so it got the alias "libc6".
It's funny. People love pointing out that a fork of GCC did well, but no-one points out that a Linux-hacker fork of GLibc flunked.
We could go round in circles, but in short, I disagree that Linus is "the creator of Linux" when the term "Linux" is used to refer to the platform made from Linux + GNU Libc + GNU shell & utilities. I see RMS has having more claim to being the creator, although instigator would be a better term.
But it's a matter of informing people about freedom. "Linux" doesn't carry this message very clearly, so I say GNU/Linux.
You have to draw the line somewhere. In the end, the lines are artificial. The GNU project designed GNU. GNU/Linux is a variant of GNU. *BSD make extensive use of GNU software, but I think they've done easily enough work of their own.
> GNU is awesome and has pumped quite a bit of > good code into the Linux distributions
!? GNU pumped code into the GNU project. "Linux distributions" took the GNU code, stuck Linux in and called it an OS.
> GNU in front of Linux, a cheap advertisement > for something that gcc users already realize
Most people aren't gcc users. The GNU/ prefix is important to give all users a chance and discovering why we have this OS, and the full value of what they get.
Ok, we disagree about what an operating system is, but I think we agree that most people that say "Linux" are refering to, what we could call "the platform": a kernel + libs + standard tools (+ some would say desktop).
I think we can also agree that Postgres and Apache are software packages that run on top of this platform. (yes these are artificial lines in the sand but I think they broadly encapsulate what we both intend)
Most of the platform is GNU. It was RMS that decided to organise the GNU project to write all the boring bits so that we can have an OS.
Saying "Linux" is convenient, but I think this is a false economy. If people don't get told about the GNU project, and Free Software in general, they'll miss the point of the OS, they'll trade away their new freedoms before they realise they have them.
A good term for distros would be "Free Software distributions", but more precisely, they are organised into an OS + software packages. So "GNU/Linux based Free Software distribution" would be good also. If we have to make it short, I think GNU/Linux sums it up.
> An OS is a bit of code responsible for the allocation > of resources: CPU, RAM, disk, hardware
That's the definition of a kernel.
Applications written for GNU/Linux, require glibc. And they need GNU ld so that they can dynamically link with glibc. To an application, libc is the OS. You can replace the kernel, GNU has been ported to the FreeBSD kernel, applications don't care.
I agree that calling the system a "Free Software OS" is a good way to give correct attribution and make users aware of what exactly they have. I disagree with calling it an "open source OS", because the OS was complete before "OpenSource" ever existed.
If this were true, he'd want to call it Stallmanix, he would have started the Stallman Foundation, and there would be a "Richard Stallman Song".
> What has GNU done for me lately?
GNU? as in the GNU projecteers? They only maintain glibc, gcc, gdb, bash, savannah.gnu.org, gzip, tar, wget, ld, fileutils, shellutils, findutils, grep, arch (version control system), emacs, hordes of documentation, the auto-tools, byonne, bison, yacc, gnupg, make, classpath, GCJ, guile, smalltalk, windowmaker, GNU chess, getopt, DotGNU, mailman, aspell, nano, speex, parted, grub, etc. . ..
> What has Stallman done of importance since his MIT days?
Organised campaigns against software patents in the US (late 80s), and in the EU (now). Represented Free Software at the World Summit of Information Society. Talked to countless politicians in the US, EU, India, and China. Given countless talks about Free Software. He still actively develops GNU Emacs. Organises FSF, who are defending the GNU GPL as well as working on other licenses. etc. etc. The man doesn't stop.
> Stallman can cry all he wants to about > how GNU tools are used on top of Linux
This is not the case. Applications written for GNU/Linux don't talk to the kernel, they talk to GNU libc. They can do this be cause they are dynamically linked using GNU ld.
GNU/Linux is a POSIX-compliant OS. This makes certain requirements on the kernel, libraries, and standard utilities. Most of this is handled by GNU software.
It was the GNU project that decided to make an OS. Nobody thinks it's exciting to write ld or tar, but the GNU projecteers wrote them anyway, because they are essential to a Free Software OS.
> Richard Stallman has made significant contributions to the open-source community
His work has been of great benefit to the open source community, but he doesn't contributed to it. The open source initiative simply decided to rebrand his work under their name.
> [RMS] DEMANDS freedom - as long as he can dictate what you do with it
Demands? demands from who? what terrible thing does he do to people that say "no" to him?
He can't dictate what you or an author does. If they want him to give his time, he asks that they get their facts straight. (sometimes they get in a huff about this and write nasty things about him.)
Stallmans' time is in great demand, he has to turn down stuff regularly. So he turns down media sources that don't bother to get their info straight. That's a reasonable criterion.
> unless the article used "GNU/Linux" instead of "Linux" throughout
I'm sure he only required that the term "GNU/Linux" be used for the operating system. The journalist decides what he's going to focus on, it seems he's focusing on Linus. Calling the OS GNU/Linux, can't change this.
Since Netscape and the last few remaining proprietary applications have been removed, Mandrake Linux 9.2 is a "100% Free Software" product. This means that everyone is granted the right to access the sources, modify and redistribute the software. This also means that Mandrake Linux 9.2 can be deployed on as many machines as desired.
The stupidity of this article makes it hard to write a decent response, but here's what I came up with:
--8----------- I think the Free Software Foundation were treated very badly by your magazine in the article "Linux's Hit Men". A loose-knit team of thousands of developers have spent the last 19 years writing a completely free operating system (free as in freedom/speech). The deal is simple, anyone can use, alter, and share the software. The only thing you can't do is deny other people these rights.
Now, someone has decided to take this work, make improvements, and not give others the freedoms they were given. Someone has to defend our freedoms, and it's Free Software Foundation stepping up to the plate. --8--------------
Three cheers to SUN for being one of the few companies to "get" Free Software licensing. I think it was the then CEO, at a gnome confernce: "I have three letters to describe our licensing scheme: G - P - L!" [to much applause]
Slashdot Mirror
5 years ago, I used the Borland compiler in college, and it was great. For the last three years, I've used only Free Software, and it's great. But this year I've returned to college, and I'm faced with the Borland compiler again, and it SUCKS!
So what changed? I accepted what I got back then. Now I expect:
- to use my editor of choice, and still have access to docs & tools
- the compiler to come with *all* useful docs, not just docs specific to the extra-money extension parts of the compiler.
- to use the same documentation system for all apps, and not have to relearn the borland help system
- my other apps to interoperate with the compiler.
- etc.
A copy of the source code would be no good to me, I wouldn't have time to make any changes. The important thing is that everyone should have access to the source code (and permission to change & redistribute it). When a package is Free Software, it must be as usable as possible, or someone will fork it. GNU/Linux users are treated too well to accept what Borland are offering, for $1000 or even for $0.The "digital providers" will offer "Enhanced TV+", at a low cost initially. These boxes will allow recording of non-feature shows (95% of TV), and won't let you fast forward through ads. A few other trinkets will be thrown in.
Basically, Big Business will provide the lowest level of service *that they know users will put up with*.
DVDs: can't copy them, can't fast-forward through ads
public reaction: "great picture quality"
Twenty years ago, when the majority of software changed from being Free to being proprietary, there was no revolution, despite the public no longer being able to see what the software was doing, modify/fix it, or share it.
Today, people think "stupid hippies want everything to be free". In twenty years time, people will laugh at you for expecting to be able to record a TV program.
It's going to take a lot of work from a small number of people to prevent digital TV etc. from spoiling modern culture/freedom.
Call me a cynic, but I get the feeling we won't agree today :)
Of the Free Unices, GNU/Linux has the most commercial interest, the most users, and the most developers.
This is fact. So any theoretical arguments about BSD creating a more productive atmosphere, are automatically incorrect. All that's left is to figure out why the GPL-based community has been more effective. I'll stake a guess it's because copyleft levels the playing field.
> one that the FSF completely ignores, is simply
> that it's the right thing to do
The right thing to do is to give freedom to computer users. Permission to create software that doesn't pass on these freedoms is of no use for this goal. So the GPL trades this in return for securing freedom.
Ciaran O'Riordan
> isn't this dangerous for BSD developers when looking at GPL software
:)
BSDers can look, and learn (or laugh). They just can't copy the code.
> could arguably be derivative from Linux
Copyright covers work of an author, not ideas. So as long as they only borrow ideas, they'll be fine.
> I would think FSF would get their panties that much
That's not much of a sentence, is it
FSF own no FreeBSD-kernel code, and only own bits of Linux. I don't see any problems here.
> read quite a bit from Stallman who seems to have an axe to grind with the GPL linux
You're probably talking about proprietary binary-only modules being linked to Linux at runtime?
Nothing to do with a cross-reference.
> let alone the closable BSD's
[Free|Net|Open]BSD is Free Software, but the freedom isn't protected by copyleft, so anyone can make a modified version and not contribute their modifications back to the original developers. This situation encourages companies *not* to contribute their code, because if they keep it proprietary, they have an advantage over the original developers.
Ciaran O'Riordan
For the mozilla folk to accept code into their tree, it has to use the standard mozilla tri-license.
Lindows could release their enhancements under the tri-license, but instead they have decided to only release them under the MPL, therefore blocking the mozilla crew from benefitting from the Lindows enhancements.
Yes, it's all legal. But it's a sub-optimal contribution from Lindows.com, when an optimal contribution would cost them zero extra.
Ciaran O'Riordan
I smell a bad egg...
The FAQ says Nvu will be "covered under the MPL".
Mozilla is tri-licensed MPL/GPL/LGPL, so the user chooses which license they wish to use the software under.
Lindows.com can't alter the licensing situation of existing mozilla code, but if they only make their improvements available under the MPL - it will be Free Software, but the mozilla folks won't be able to merge improvements into the mozilla codebase.
So basically, Lindows.com are fulfilling the bare minimum legal requirement, and purposely blocking cooperation (so they can have the best version).
Either that or the FAQ is wrong, but Lindows.com have a shakey record in terms of community spirit.
Ciaran O'Riordan
I would have thought 5ux0rz would be more appropriate for most people that call themselves hackers, especially ones that think it would be c001 to have a logo :-p
Don't forget that GNUcash and SQL Ledger already exist and are both GPL'd.
In a monolith such as Linux, drivers run in kernel mode. This gives them the highest level of permissions available.
We verify the stability of such drivers?
And if bugs are found, we cannot do anything about them until our driver providers decides to fix them.
How could we check what else it might be doing?
If we grow to depend on these proprietary additions, how will we fight overactive-DRM?
I think it is short-sighted to see this as a solution.
Nice review. Non-FreeBSD users can get a feel for where FreeBSD is in the FreeBSD 5.1 i386 Release Notes
Ciaran O'Riordan
Glad to hear a friendly voice.
e =documentation&file=index
Although Blender was always available zero-cost, it only became Free Software in September 2002. Since then, the new developer community have improved the documentation along with the code.
The interface is indeed quite unusual, but when you get used to it, it's very efficient with key bindings for most tasks.
You'll what you're looking for at:
http://www.blender3d.org/Education/
And there's more tutorials, articles, and docs linked from:
http://www.blender.org/modules.php?op=modload&nam
Ciaran O'Riordan
It will pay off. They're giving away nothing substantial - it's a crippled piece of software, and in return they'll get publicity from the watermarking, and more users because people can learn Maya at home now.
:)
Tinkering with an array of apps is cool, but I'd tinker with Blender instead of this piece of cripple-ware. Blender is Free Software (GPL), so you get the full version, no loaded marketing tactics. It works on all major platforms (M$, GNU, MAC, and others).
The diference between Maya and Blender, is that you can give someone a complete copy of Blender, rather than just recommending it. OpenOffice.org is a similarly cool thing to give to people. M$ users always think there must be a catch
Ciaran O'Riordan
I haven't used Maya, so I'm no authority, but it looks like it's in the same realm as blender. Blender is free as in freedom (GPL), available for GNU/Linux, M$ Windows, MacOSX, FreeBSD, and a few Unices. It's maintained by it's user community, and it's 100% Free Software, so it'll never be crippled etc.
Ciaran O'Riordan
Yes, porting a *BSD libc to Linux is certainly a non-trivial task, and yes, it has never been done.
Also, like you say, the libc5 used on GNU/Linux systems was a fork of glibc. After a few years, the Linux hackers realised that FSF were doing a better job, so distros all moved back to glibc. GLibc was still using version number 2 though, so it got the alias "libc6".
It's funny. People love pointing out that a fork of GCC did well, but no-one points out that a Linux-hacker fork of GLibc flunked.
We could go round in circles, but in short, I disagree that Linus is "the creator of Linux" when the term "Linux" is used to refer to the platform made from Linux + GNU Libc + GNU shell & utilities. I see RMS has having more claim to being the creator, although instigator would be a better term.
But it's a matter of informing people about freedom. "Linux" doesn't carry this message very clearly, so I say GNU/Linux.
> addressing other OSes that ship with GNU tools
You have to draw the line somewhere. In the end, the lines are artificial. The GNU project designed GNU. GNU/Linux is a variant of GNU. *BSD make extensive use of GNU software, but I think they've done easily enough work of their own.
> GNU is awesome and has pumped quite a bit of
> good code into the Linux distributions
!?
GNU pumped code into the GNU project. "Linux distributions" took the GNU code, stuck Linux in and called it an OS.
> GNU in front of Linux, a cheap advertisement
> for something that gcc users already realize
Most people aren't gcc users. The GNU/ prefix is important to give all users a chance and discovering why we have this OS, and the full value of what they get.
Ok, we disagree about what an operating system is, but I think we agree that most people that say "Linux" are refering to, what we could call "the platform": a kernel + libs + standard tools (+ some would say desktop).
I think we can also agree that Postgres and Apache are software packages that run on top of this platform. (yes these are artificial lines in the sand but I think they broadly encapsulate what we both intend)
Most of the platform is GNU. It was RMS that decided to organise the GNU project to write all the boring bits so that we can have an OS.
Saying "Linux" is convenient, but I think this is a false economy. If people don't get told about the GNU project, and Free Software in general, they'll miss the point of the OS, they'll trade away their new freedoms before they realise they have them.
A good term for distros would be "Free Software distributions", but more precisely, they are organised into an OS + software packages. So "GNU/Linux based Free Software distribution" would be good also. If we have to make it short, I think GNU/Linux sums it up.
> An OS is a bit of code responsible for the allocation
> of resources: CPU, RAM, disk, hardware
That's the definition of a kernel.
Applications written for GNU/Linux, require glibc. And they need GNU ld so that they can dynamically link with glibc. To an application, libc is the OS. You can replace the kernel, GNU has been ported to the FreeBSD kernel, applications don't care.
I agree that calling the system a "Free Software OS" is a good way to give correct attribution and make users aware of what exactly they have. I disagree with calling it an "open source OS", because the OS was complete before "OpenSource" ever existed.
> a self-centered egomaniac
.
If this were true, he'd want to call it Stallmanix, he would have started the Stallman Foundation, and there would be a "Richard Stallman Song".
> What has GNU done for me lately?
GNU? as in the GNU projecteers?
They only maintain glibc, gcc, gdb, bash, savannah.gnu.org, gzip, tar, wget, ld, fileutils, shellutils, findutils, grep, arch (version control system), emacs, hordes of documentation, the auto-tools, byonne, bison, yacc, gnupg, make, classpath, GCJ, guile, smalltalk, windowmaker, GNU chess, getopt, DotGNU, mailman, aspell, nano, speex, parted, grub, etc. . .
> What has Stallman done of importance since his MIT days?
Organised campaigns against software patents in the US (late 80s), and in the EU (now). Represented Free Software at the World Summit of Information Society. Talked to countless politicians in the US, EU, India, and China. Given countless talks about Free Software. He still actively develops GNU Emacs. Organises FSF, who are defending the GNU GPL as well as working on other licenses. etc. etc. The man doesn't stop.
> Stallman can cry all he wants to about
> how GNU tools are used on top of Linux
This is not the case. Applications written for GNU/Linux don't talk to the kernel, they talk to GNU libc. They can do this be cause they are dynamically linked using GNU ld.
GNU/Linux is a POSIX-compliant OS. This makes certain requirements on the kernel, libraries, and standard utilities. Most of this is handled by GNU software.
It was the GNU project that decided to make an OS. Nobody thinks it's exciting to write ld or tar, but the GNU projecteers wrote them anyway, because they are essential to a Free Software OS.
> Richard Stallman has made significant contributions to the open-source community
His work has been of great benefit to the open source community, but he doesn't contributed to it. The open source initiative simply decided to rebrand his work under their name.
> [RMS] DEMANDS freedom - as long as he can dictate what you do with it
Demands? demands from who? what terrible thing does he do to people that say "no" to him?
He can't dictate what you or an author does. If they want him to give his time, he asks that they get their facts straight. (sometimes they get in a huff about this and write nasty things about him.)
Stallmans' time is in great demand, he has to turn down stuff regularly. So he turns down media sources that don't bother to get their info straight. That's a reasonable criterion.
> unless the article used "GNU/Linux" instead of "Linux" throughout
I'm sure he only required that the term "GNU/Linux" be used for the operating system. The journalist decides what he's going to focus on, it seems he's focusing on Linus. Calling the OS GNU/Linux, can't change this.
From: http://www.mandrakelinux.com/en/9.2/features/#13
Since Netscape and the last few remaining proprietary applications have been removed, Mandrake Linux 9.2 is a "100% Free Software" product. This means that everyone is granted the right to access the sources, modify and redistribute the software. This also means that Mandrake Linux 9.2 can be deployed on as many machines as desired.
The stupidity of this article makes it hard to write a decent response, but here's what I came up with:
--8-----------
I think the Free Software Foundation were treated very badly by your magazine in the article "Linux's Hit Men". A loose-knit team of thousands of developers have spent the last 19 years writing a completely free operating system (free as in freedom/speech). The deal is simple, anyone can use, alter, and share the software. The only thing you can't do is deny other people these rights.
Now, someone has decided to take this work, make improvements, and not give others the freedoms they were given. Someone has to defend our freedoms, and it's Free Software Foundation stepping up to the plate.
--8--------------
I give me a C-, "could do better".
Ciaran O'Riordan
Three cheers to SUN for being one of the few companies to "get" Free Software licensing. I think it was the then CEO, at a gnome confernce:
"I have three letters to describe our licensing scheme: G - P - L!" [to much applause]
Here's the original announcment.
Ciaran O'Riordan