Like most glorifications of any economy or economic event, I believe your post oversimplifies the situtation. Because the companies aren't starting from equal financial positions, they aren't competing on a level playing field. As an example, consider how much of a loss Microsoft could sustain now in order to put a competitor out of business. The reward is so large that they might decided they're able to take the risk of draining their bank account to prevent consumers from buying what they want (because they won't have any choices) in the long term.
Note that I don't necessarily believe this example, as Microsoft is a fairly careful business and going with Nintendo and Sony simultaneously would be foolhardy.
Your TI-89 has some mediocre numerical algorithms (I'm not insulting anyone -- simply, we tested their algorithms on the TI-89 and TI-92) for approximating the answers to some problems (notably absent was a good solver for eigenvalues and eigenvectors, at least not between 1994-1997). Of course, some of the newer TI calculators (and some of the older HP calculators...) have symbolic processing software which can, as the name suggests, do some limited symbolic processing -- you can think of this as logical arithmetic.
At any rate, the calculator is doing arithmetic. If you're thinking about solving a problem while using the calculator to reduce your arithmetic load, then you might be doing math (or engineering, or physics, or...). If you're using the calculator to avoid doing homework, then you're probably cheating. =-)
Even automated theorem proving algorithms aren't really doing math. What they do is a *LOT* of very simple deduction. We're still a long ways from (non-biological) thinking machines, in my opinion. Not everyone would agree with me, of course.
That's the nicest thing I've heard in a long time, enough to make a mathematician cry with joy. A sharp line between arithmetic (more-or-less algorithms for basic computation) and mathematics (thinking about what the hell you are doing).
Furthermore, computers are absolutely lousy at both. Sure they can compute with integers and approximations to floating point numbers, but the limits are appalling. Or maybe I'm just bitter, because I have to fight these stupid limits every day to get my work done (I'm a math/cs grad student studying AI).
I download all of my financial data and import it into Gnucash without any problems, using that broken Quicken format (QIF). Granted, it takes *two whole steps*: 1) download, 2) import.
It seems more likely that Hitler's cronies would be faster to pick up guns than Hitler's opponents. The "bad guys" are always more willing to threaten and kill than the "good guys" are.
Millionaire phds? Where? None around me, anyway, and when I finish my Ph.D., I expect I won't be a millionaire either. I'm definitely in the (eventual-)Ph.D. that has no money so he builds projectors for $300 catagory. =-)
Interesting. I recently saw a FreeBSD kernel developer say that anything over 1TB was dangerous on FreeBSD. Other research into using FreeBSD for our fileserver suggested that 2TB was the max size, but probably wouldn't work properly. We did end up with FreeBSD on our fileserver instead of linux (and several 1TB filesystems), but it was more-or-less a flip-of-the-coin thing in the end.
And what do you mean by "automatical"? Overall, I think your post probably has more propaganda than real experience behind it.
I was carrying an old-ish full-height SCSI drive (1/2 GB!) through airport security about a year ago. The drive came from the old days of CMU's Andrew network. I was worried what the security guy would say, because he was definitely over 50 years old, and maybe over 70 years old; thus decreasing the probability that he really knew what a disk drive was. Much to my surprise, when he pulled the drive out of my bag he hefted it, and simply said "they sure don't make 'em like this anymore."
From an art perspective, the Katz you've described is able to create brilliant reflections of today's life in America.;-) Maybe you'd feel better thinking of Katz's texts in the more general collection of "texts" that include paintings, etc.
Analyzing stories is an old and important tradition. Joseph Campbell didn't survey the mythologies of the world just to make sense of his own personal life. Campbell's publications have had a major effect on many academic fields, as well as having broader implications for religion in society.
Although you don't wish to put the pieces of this puzzle together, I do. Although I don't necessarily agree with all of Katz's assertions (Skywalker isn't really that complicated, he's just the focus of an ornate version of the death-and-transfiguration hero myth -- compare to Theseus and the Minotaur, esp. w/r/t the Minotaur's conception), I appreciate that Katz is making an effort to figure out the world around us and sharing his work.
I enjoy the study of humanities, and don't appreciate your comments which suggest we should all just shut-up and avoid discussion of where we are and what we are doing. Since most of life occurs within a social context (even when you're home alone), public discussion of myth, religion, and science has merit as we try to divine truth.
-Paul Komarek
Re:You cannot deny GCC is the heart of free softwa
on
The Stallman Factor
·
· Score: 2
Eek! Is he really pushing the GNU prefix for Linux (the kernel)? I don't wish to appear to be supporting that. I like "GNU/Linux" for the movement, and can tolerate "GNU/Linux" for the OS. But "GNU/Linux" for the kernel is inappropriate.
If you have a reference to RMS asking for "GNU/Linux" for the kernel, please post it. Not that RMS knows who I am, but I would want to send an email to him if this is the case.
-Paul Komarek
Re:You cannot deny GCC is the heart of free softwa
on
The Stallman Factor
·
· Score: 2
It seems to me you are being a bit too literal about "owe kudos to". I was simply suggesting that credit be given where credit was due. If you aren't giving credit to someone for Free Software, then I'm not sure why you're posting here.
I don't think RMS is suggesting you have an obligation to him. At best, it would seem he is suggesting that, in his opinion, you have an obligation to be neighborly and a good member of society. But I don't think anyone wants to bother arguing that with anyone else in particular; at least not in this thread.
I think RMS is worried about is a massive influx of users of Free Software taking its lessons about freedom for granted. Just like American veterens of the World Wars don't like it when American "kids" take the freedoms guaranteed to them as US citizens for granted (most people on the planet are "kids" for WWI[I] veterens;-). I don't want to argue about veterens and government in this thread, either; but I think the analogy is important. RMS fought damn hard to give us GCC and the GPL. He's worried that, through ignorance of history, the "spirit" (don't think of ghosts) that prompts such Herculean efforts will be taken for granted and lost. Maybe it's a bit like watching your grandkids come up spoiled and ungrateful.
Stallman's idea of encouraging with all his power the GNU/Linux moniker may be misguided and unpopular. But that doesn't mean his point is invalid. I believe it is important to understand what it took to reach where we are today, because I don't want to do it over again.
To anyone who reads this and is not familiar with the social history of Free Software, I recommend you take a little time and read about it. Read about the history of computing; read some biographies to help you understand the key players (I know that Torvalds and RMS have easily-read biographies); read about the splendid rise and sordid decline of UNIX. This is my request -- of course you owe me nothing.
-Paul Komarek
Re:You cannot deny GCC is the heart of free softwa
on
The Stallman Factor
·
· Score: 2
I hope I didn't claim that things compiled by GCC were GNU-ish. I believe that the original subject about GCC being at the heart of Free Software relates to its significance in the GNU project's history, as well as its significance to many programmers who have gone on to create Free Software.
In particular, it would be less tempting to apply the GPL to one's own code, if one hadn't benefitted directly from other GPL'd code such as GCC, GDB or Emacs.
The GPL was created for Emacs, after some companies "borrowed" heavily from Stallman's original Emacs but wouldn't let him see the improvements. Stallman's dissatisfaction prompted the creation of the Emacs license, which eventually became the GPL. Although Emacs was popular, I think that Stallman's release of GCC, under the new GPL, made a wide group of people take him and his GNU project seriously. GCC was also a business success for Cygnus Solutions a short time after. Thus GCC is a landmark in the Free Software world.
Since then, many people have used GCC when experimenting with programming. I certainly benefitted from a port of GCC and G++ to OS/2 when I moved beyond BASIC. I had tried to move beyond basic when I had a TI 99-4/A in the early 80s, but couldn't afford the $100 C cartridge (I was about 10 years old, and wasn't earning much at the time =-).
But nobody cares about me, so it's better to use John Carmack of id software as an example. He claims that GCC was a big part of his foray into programming. I would like to think that this is part of the reason he releases the engine for his games under the GPL after a while. And I'm sure that many other people who have made significant contributions to the Free Software world cut their teeth using GCC, and feel a need to return the favor.
I guess what I'm saying is that GCC is a big part of the Free Software world for developers. For pure users of Free Software, well, GCC probably doesn't mean as much to them. Maybe these threads about GCC are really split between developers and users. Maybe not.
-Paul Komarek
Re:You cannot deny GCC is the heart of free softwa
on
The Stallman Factor
·
· Score: 2
It is agreed that Stallman did not invent fire or the wheel, nor did he invent a language (why were you listing languages anyway?). He started the Free Software movement. With GCC. By himself. yadda yadda yadda.
As the subject said, GCC is the heart of Free Software. It was written by Stallman because he couldn't find a sufficiently free C compiler (he tried).
Do we disagree on anything?
-Paul Komarek
Re:You cannot deny GCC is the heart of free softwa
on
The Stallman Factor
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Please tell me what Newton's big ideas were? Derivatives, for instance, were known to his teacher Isaac Barrow. I am a mathematician, and using Newton as an example is great for my point. Every mathematician to whom I've spoken on the issue believes that ideas are discovered, not created. Furthermore, this discovery owes less to a single person than those that came before them. This applies to Newton as well. Newton, of course, was brilliant -- but giving him credit for modern calculus, or even the calculus of his time, is an oversimplification.
Hopper, for instance, moved "compilers" from Howard Aiken's Harvard lab to the commercial world (the UNIVAC in particular). Before here came devices that translated from languages similar to Algebra into code for a particular machine (for instance, for the Harvard Mark III). It has been suggested (Ceruzzi, "A History of Modern Computing", pp. 84-86) that Hopper's definition of compiler is in fact quite different than the current common definition. Hopper's idea was something closer to a linker. Thus Hopper's work is not particularly relevant to the ideas behind GCC (though it may be more relevant to GNU ld). I hope I've made it clear that Hopper did not "invent" the "idea" of a compiler. Hell, she didn't even discover the "idea". She took it from Harvard to UNIVAC.
All of this said, I thought I made it clear. I'm talking about running code that is still in widespread use. Stallman's work was by no means a clone of Hopper's work, nor of anyone else's work. Of course his ideas were influenced by other C compilers, as well as his own work with lisp. And certainly the language definition was not his own.
Stallman *wrote* GCC. From scratch. By himself. This was not a researcIt was not funded by anyone but him. Thus it is entirely reasonable to describe GCC solely in terms of RMS. The *work* was original, even if the idea was not. I'm not sure why you're trying to raise a point about the idea of GCC was not original -- of course it wasn't.
Also, GCC is not a "descendent" of C. C is a language specification, derived from B and others before it. GCC is a program. They aren't even the *same sort of thing.* We owe K&R kudos for a great language. We owe RMS kudos for writing GCC, the heart of Free Software.
-Paul Komarek
Re:You cannot deny GCC is the heart of free softwa
on
The Stallman Factor
·
· Score: 2
Don't forget that Linus doesn't own the kernel, which complicates the issue of who controls the name if you use ownership alone.
I think RMS would agree with your point that everyone should be allowed to name their own project whatever they want. IIRC, RMS doesn't want Linus' kernel to be called "GNU/Linux". I believe he wants the increasingly popular operating systems based on GNU software (and more generally, stemming from the GNU movement) to be called "GNU/Linux" instead of just "Linux".
I don't speak for him, of course, but my guess is that what he really wants is for the so-called "Linux Movement" to be called the "GNU/Linux Movement". I think it's pretty clear to those who know their history that the "Linux Movement" comes from several movements who owe their roots to the GNU Movement. My argument requires that we don't throw the BSD stuff into the "Linux Movement", which I believe is reasonable.
Aha, maybe this is our difference -- while I can accept that the "Libertarian" camp is for extreme freedom, I generally think of their method of achieving it (opposing gov't regulation of just about anything) is ill-informed and naive. Stallman, on the other hand, proved that even by himself, he could create his ideal of extreme freedom. Of course, the HURD slowed things *way* down...;-)
I guess that is why I don't associate RMS with libertarianism.
Without Stallman, though, we wouldn't have the GPL or the ideology debate. I don't think anyone else can replace those aspects of Stallman. And nobody else was forsaking employment to write Free code when Stallman was. We might have had BSD code from the U of C system. But as you say, other things could have happened. The Regents of the University of California might not have continued being so open with the BSD code, had Stallman not started pushing the Free angle. And where is the famous BSD C compiler?
Of course we don't know what might have happened, and hence making arguments involving what might have happened is a little silly. But Stallman is the one who made it happen.
Re:You cannot deny GCC is the heart of free softwa
on
The Stallman Factor
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
RMS wrote GCC. From scratch. By himself. GDB too. That's not the same as what Hopper did (which was paid research). It's not easy to appreciate what RMS went through to do this, especially given when it was done (mid 1980s).
Linus Torvalds wrote a kernel by himself, with very little usefulness (but heaps of promise) in the early 1990s. He was able to use the tools created by Stallman.
John Carmack (think Commander Keen, Wolfenstien, Doom, and Quake) claimed that he wouldn't have been a programmer had it not been for the tools created by Stallman. Once after Carmack won a large jackpot in Vegas (I don't know how often he does this =-), he donated the whole thing (>$10,000 I believe) to the Free Software Foundation (i.e. Stallman's group).
In the battle of the lisp machines, Stallman was afraid the highly-non-free side was going to win. To provide balance, he recreated their features and donated his code to the more free alternative company. He did this in real-time, by himself, unapid. His output equalled the output of a collection of commercial programmers hired from Stallman's lab (and others).
So GCC starts at Stallman. Free Software starts at Stallman. GNU starts at Stallman. The Open Source definition came about because of Stallman's work (and to some degree because of his contrariness and Tim O'Reilly's stupid decision not to invite RMS to his west coast summit that settled on the Open Source name). Stallman is where GCC started. Not Hopper, not Lovelace or Babbage, not Boole or Aristotle.
We're talking about running code that is still in widespread use after nearly 20 years, not paid research that was eventually perfected by others to resemble what we today think of as a compiler. Stallman is *the* person who started all of this, by himself, on his own time, taking part time jobs to survive until sufficient donations came in (for instance, the MacArthur Genius Award).
Stallman did this because of his ideology. Linus Torvalds' comments about the world being better with less ideology really seem stupid in this context, don't they? Torvalds' comments about only idiots or freaks or something choosing Free tools over superior proprietary tools really says something about Torvald's view of Stallman, doesn't it? Does Torvalds recognize that quality Free Software would not exist if everyone thought like that? Of course Torvalds has a right to his own opinions, but I wish he'd keep his mouth shut instead of revealing how shallow he is.
Remember that RMS doesn't do OSS. He does Free Software. Heck, Tim O'Reilly didn't even invite RMS to his west coast summit that spawned the OSS name. Of course, Mr. O'Reilly regrets this.
Given that RMS provided the definition of Free Software, and that others made a formal definition of Open Source Software, it isn't unreasonable to formally compare the two. The Free Software Foundation, which of course prefers Free Software over Open Source software, has provided their comparison here. As they point out, and as anyone following this issue can attest, the phrases "Free Software" and "Open Source Software" are very different.
-Paul Komarek
-Paul
Re:Stallman is not on the left
on
The Stallman Factor
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It's not so clear to me that Stallman would appreciate being put into quadrant 2. In fact, a biography of RMS suggests he understands and has a bit of every one of the quadrants, and more that doesn't fit into any of them. Just like any sufficiently interesting human.
One could disect each of his statements or ideas, and try to find the right place for it. But he has his own ideological system that is not a combination of the four corners of your diagram.
The only purpose of broad labels and sterotypes is to simply something. I think Stallman has made a simple statement in the GPL that doesn't really need to be expressed in terms of stereotypes used for those who govern society.
Perhaps the first thing to notice about the GPL is that instead of exploiting ambiguity as most writers of legal documents seem to do (a statement made by a lawyer), it is very precise and clear. There is no need to muddy Stallman's views with political stereotypes. He's a straightforward, careful, honest fellow who chooses freedom over convenience, and encourages others to do the same. If one wishes for a longer description, read his works; but applying catagories used in Washington D.C. won't help one's understanding.
I know how you feel, #33356. I was slow to sign up when they started logins, yet got a pretty low number. I was impressed when the numbers raced through 5 digits.
As far as I know, Switzerland is a true democracy. If this is true, does anyone know if Switzerland is the only true democracy?
I believe that the Swiss vote on *everything* that goes through their legislative body. Considering how many laws are passed in the US (think about changes to tax law, then add in everything else!), there is no way the US could deal with such a system. The US gov't would have to change significantly -- hopefully in a way that made legislation understandable.
Slashdot Mirror
Like most glorifications of any economy or economic event, I believe your post oversimplifies the situtation. Because the companies aren't starting from equal financial positions, they aren't competing on a level playing field. As an example, consider how much of a loss Microsoft could sustain now in order to put a competitor out of business. The reward is so large that they might decided they're able to take the risk of draining their bank account to prevent consumers from buying what they want (because they won't have any choices) in the long term.
Note that I don't necessarily believe this example, as Microsoft is a fairly careful business and going with Nintendo and Sony simultaneously would be foolhardy.
-Paul Komarek
Your TI-89 has some mediocre numerical algorithms (I'm not insulting anyone -- simply, we tested their algorithms on the TI-89 and TI-92) for approximating the answers to some problems (notably absent was a good solver for eigenvalues and eigenvectors, at least not between 1994-1997). Of course, some of the newer TI calculators (and some of the older HP calculators...) have symbolic processing software which can, as the name suggests, do some limited symbolic processing -- you can think of this as logical arithmetic.
...). If you're using the calculator to avoid doing homework, then you're probably cheating. =-)
At any rate, the calculator is doing arithmetic. If you're thinking about solving a problem while using the calculator to reduce your arithmetic load, then you might be doing math (or engineering, or physics, or
Even automated theorem proving algorithms aren't really doing math. What they do is a *LOT* of very simple deduction. We're still a long ways from (non-biological) thinking machines, in my opinion. Not everyone would agree with me, of course.
-Paul Komarek
That's the nicest thing I've heard in a long time, enough to make a mathematician cry with joy. A sharp line between arithmetic (more-or-less algorithms for basic computation) and mathematics (thinking about what the hell you are doing).
Furthermore, computers are absolutely lousy at both. Sure they can compute with integers and approximations to floating point numbers, but the limits are appalling. Or maybe I'm just bitter, because I have to fight these stupid limits every day to get my work done (I'm a math/cs grad student studying AI).
-Paul Komarek
I download all of my financial data and import it into Gnucash without any problems, using that broken Quicken format (QIF). Granted, it takes *two whole steps*: 1) download, 2) import.
Maybe I'm just lucky, though.
-Paul Komarek
It seems more likely that Hitler's cronies would be faster to pick up guns than Hitler's opponents. The "bad guys" are always more willing to threaten and kill than the "good guys" are.
-Paul Komarek
Millionaire phds? Where? None around me, anyway, and when I finish my Ph.D., I expect I won't be a millionaire either. I'm definitely in the (eventual-)Ph.D. that has no money so he builds projectors for $300 catagory. =-)
-Paul Komarek
Interesting. I recently saw a FreeBSD kernel developer say that anything over 1TB was dangerous on FreeBSD. Other research into using FreeBSD for our fileserver suggested that 2TB was the max size, but probably wouldn't work properly. We did end up with FreeBSD on our fileserver instead of linux (and several 1TB filesystems), but it was more-or-less a flip-of-the-coin thing in the end.
And what do you mean by "automatical"? Overall, I think your post probably has more propaganda than real experience behind it.
-Paul Komarek
I was carrying an old-ish full-height SCSI drive (1/2 GB!) through airport security about a year ago. The drive came from the old days of CMU's Andrew network. I was worried what the security guy would say, because he was definitely over 50 years old, and maybe over 70 years old; thus decreasing the probability that he really knew what a disk drive was. Much to my surprise, when he pulled the drive out of my bag he hefted it, and simply said "they sure don't make 'em like this anymore."
-Paul Komarek
From an art perspective, the Katz you've described is able to create brilliant reflections of today's life in America. ;-) Maybe you'd feel better thinking of Katz's texts in the more general collection of "texts" that include paintings, etc.
-Paul Komarek
Analyzing stories is an old and important tradition. Joseph Campbell didn't survey the mythologies of the world just to make sense of his own personal life. Campbell's publications have had a major effect on many academic fields, as well as having broader implications for religion in society.
Although you don't wish to put the pieces of this puzzle together, I do. Although I don't necessarily agree with all of Katz's assertions (Skywalker isn't really that complicated, he's just the focus of an ornate version of the death-and-transfiguration hero myth -- compare to Theseus and the Minotaur, esp. w/r/t the Minotaur's conception), I appreciate that Katz is making an effort to figure out the world around us and sharing his work.
I enjoy the study of humanities, and don't appreciate your comments which suggest we should all just shut-up and avoid discussion of where we are and what we are doing. Since most of life occurs within a social context (even when you're home alone), public discussion of myth, religion, and science has merit as we try to divine truth.
-Paul Komarek
Eek! Is he really pushing the GNU prefix for Linux (the kernel)? I don't wish to appear to be supporting that. I like "GNU/Linux" for the movement, and can tolerate "GNU/Linux" for the OS. But "GNU/Linux" for the kernel is inappropriate.
If you have a reference to RMS asking for "GNU/Linux" for the kernel, please post it. Not that RMS knows who I am, but I would want to send an email to him if this is the case.
-Paul Komarek
It seems to me you are being a bit too literal about "owe kudos to". I was simply suggesting that credit be given where credit was due. If you aren't giving credit to someone for Free Software, then I'm not sure why you're posting here.
;-). I don't want to argue about veterens and government in this thread, either; but I think the analogy is important. RMS fought damn hard to give us GCC and the GPL. He's worried that, through ignorance of history, the "spirit" (don't think of ghosts) that prompts such Herculean efforts will be taken for granted and lost. Maybe it's a bit like watching your grandkids come up spoiled and ungrateful.
I don't think RMS is suggesting you have an obligation to him. At best, it would seem he is suggesting that, in his opinion, you have an obligation to be neighborly and a good member of society. But I don't think anyone wants to bother arguing that with anyone else in particular; at least not in this thread.
I think RMS is worried about is a massive influx of users of Free Software taking its lessons about freedom for granted. Just like American veterens of the World Wars don't like it when American "kids" take the freedoms guaranteed to them as US citizens for granted (most people on the planet are "kids" for WWI[I] veterens
Stallman's idea of encouraging with all his power the GNU/Linux moniker may be misguided and unpopular. But that doesn't mean his point is invalid. I believe it is important to understand what it took to reach where we are today, because I don't want to do it over again.
To anyone who reads this and is not familiar with the social history of Free Software, I recommend you take a little time and read about it. Read about the history of computing; read some biographies to help you understand the key players (I know that Torvalds and RMS have easily-read biographies); read about the splendid rise and sordid decline of UNIX. This is my request -- of course you owe me nothing.
-Paul Komarek
I hope I didn't claim that things compiled by GCC were GNU-ish. I believe that the original subject about GCC being at the heart of Free Software relates to its significance in the GNU project's history, as well as its significance to many programmers who have gone on to create Free Software.
In particular, it would be less tempting to apply the GPL to one's own code, if one hadn't benefitted directly from other GPL'd code such as GCC, GDB or Emacs.
The GPL was created for Emacs, after some companies "borrowed" heavily from Stallman's original Emacs but wouldn't let him see the improvements. Stallman's dissatisfaction prompted the creation of the Emacs license, which eventually became the GPL. Although Emacs was popular, I think that Stallman's release of GCC, under the new GPL, made a wide group of people take him and his GNU project seriously. GCC was also a business success for Cygnus Solutions a short time after. Thus GCC is a landmark in the Free Software world.
Since then, many people have used GCC when experimenting with programming. I certainly benefitted from a port of GCC and G++ to OS/2 when I moved beyond BASIC. I had tried to move beyond basic when I had a TI 99-4/A in the early 80s, but couldn't afford the $100 C cartridge (I was about 10 years old, and wasn't earning much at the time =-).
But nobody cares about me, so it's better to use John Carmack of id software as an example. He claims that GCC was a big part of his foray into programming. I would like to think that this is part of the reason he releases the engine for his games under the GPL after a while. And I'm sure that many other people who have made significant contributions to the Free Software world cut their teeth using GCC, and feel a need to return the favor.
I guess what I'm saying is that GCC is a big part of the Free Software world for developers. For pure users of Free Software, well, GCC probably doesn't mean as much to them. Maybe these threads about GCC are really split between developers and users. Maybe not.
-Paul Komarek
It is agreed that Stallman did not invent fire or the wheel, nor did he invent a language (why were you listing languages anyway?). He started the Free Software movement. With GCC. By himself. yadda yadda yadda.
As the subject said, GCC is the heart of Free Software. It was written by Stallman because he couldn't find a sufficiently free C compiler (he tried).
Do we disagree on anything?
-Paul Komarek
Please tell me what Newton's big ideas were? Derivatives, for instance, were known to his teacher Isaac Barrow. I am a mathematician, and using Newton as an example is great for my point. Every mathematician to whom I've spoken on the issue believes that ideas are discovered, not created. Furthermore, this discovery owes less to a single person than those that came before them. This applies to Newton as well. Newton, of course, was brilliant -- but giving him credit for modern calculus, or even the calculus of his time, is an oversimplification.
Hopper, for instance, moved "compilers" from Howard Aiken's Harvard lab to the commercial world (the UNIVAC in particular). Before here came devices that translated from languages similar to Algebra into code for a particular machine (for instance, for the Harvard Mark III). It has been suggested (Ceruzzi, "A History of Modern Computing", pp. 84-86) that Hopper's definition of compiler is in fact quite different than the current common definition. Hopper's idea was something closer to a linker. Thus Hopper's work is not particularly relevant to the ideas behind GCC (though it may be more relevant to GNU ld). I hope I've made it clear that Hopper did not "invent" the "idea" of a compiler. Hell, she didn't even discover the "idea". She took it from Harvard to UNIVAC.
All of this said, I thought I made it clear. I'm talking about running code that is still in widespread use. Stallman's work was by no means a clone of Hopper's work, nor of anyone else's work. Of course his ideas were influenced by other C compilers, as well as his own work with lisp. And certainly the language definition was not his own.
Stallman *wrote* GCC. From scratch. By himself. This was not a researcIt was not funded by anyone but him. Thus it is entirely reasonable to describe GCC solely in terms of RMS. The *work* was original, even if the idea was not. I'm not sure why you're trying to raise a point about the idea of GCC was not original -- of course it wasn't.
Also, GCC is not a "descendent" of C. C is a language specification, derived from B and others before it. GCC is a program. They aren't even the *same sort of thing.* We owe K&R kudos for a great language. We owe RMS kudos for writing GCC, the heart of Free Software.
-Paul Komarek
Don't forget that Linus doesn't own the kernel, which complicates the issue of who controls the name if you use ownership alone.
I think RMS would agree with your point that everyone should be allowed to name their own project whatever they want. IIRC, RMS doesn't want Linus' kernel to be called "GNU/Linux". I believe he wants the increasingly popular operating systems based on GNU software (and more generally, stemming from the GNU movement) to be called "GNU/Linux" instead of just "Linux".
I don't speak for him, of course, but my guess is that what he really wants is for the so-called "Linux Movement" to be called the "GNU/Linux Movement". I think it's pretty clear to those who know their history that the "Linux Movement" comes from several movements who owe their roots to the GNU Movement. My argument requires that we don't throw the BSD stuff into the "Linux Movement", which I believe is reasonable.
-Paul Komarek
Aha, maybe this is our difference -- while I can accept that the "Libertarian" camp is for extreme freedom, I generally think of their method of achieving it (opposing gov't regulation of just about anything) is ill-informed and naive. Stallman, on the other hand, proved that even by himself, he could create his ideal of extreme freedom. Of course, the HURD slowed things *way* down... ;-)
I guess that is why I don't associate RMS with libertarianism.
-Paul Komarek
Without Stallman, though, we wouldn't have the GPL or the ideology debate. I don't think anyone else can replace those aspects of Stallman. And nobody else was forsaking employment to write Free code when Stallman was. We might have had BSD code from the U of C system. But as you say, other things could have happened. The Regents of the University of California might not have continued being so open with the BSD code, had Stallman not started pushing the Free angle. And where is the famous BSD C compiler?
Of course we don't know what might have happened, and hence making arguments involving what might have happened is a little silly. But Stallman is the one who made it happen.
-Paul Komarek
Geez. I wonder if RMS would think of that as a mistake in hindsight.
-Paul Komarek
I use the name GNU/Linux.
-Paul Komarek
RMS wrote GCC. From scratch. By himself. GDB too. That's not the same as what Hopper did (which was paid research). It's not easy to appreciate what RMS went through to do this, especially given when it was done (mid 1980s).
Linus Torvalds wrote a kernel by himself, with very little usefulness (but heaps of promise) in the early 1990s. He was able to use the tools created by Stallman.
John Carmack (think Commander Keen, Wolfenstien, Doom, and Quake) claimed that he wouldn't have been a programmer had it not been for the tools created by Stallman. Once after Carmack won a large jackpot in Vegas (I don't know how often he does this =-), he donated the whole thing (>$10,000 I believe) to the Free Software Foundation (i.e. Stallman's group).
In the battle of the lisp machines, Stallman was afraid the highly-non-free side was going to win. To provide balance, he recreated their features and donated his code to the more free alternative company. He did this in real-time, by himself, unapid. His output equalled the output of a collection of commercial programmers hired from Stallman's lab (and others).
So GCC starts at Stallman. Free Software starts at Stallman. GNU starts at Stallman. The Open Source definition came about because of Stallman's work (and to some degree because of his contrariness and Tim O'Reilly's stupid decision not to invite RMS to his west coast summit that settled on the Open Source name). Stallman is where GCC started. Not Hopper, not Lovelace or Babbage, not Boole or Aristotle.
We're talking about running code that is still in widespread use after nearly 20 years, not paid research that was eventually perfected by others to resemble what we today think of as a compiler. Stallman is *the* person who started all of this, by himself, on his own time, taking part time jobs to survive until sufficient donations came in (for instance, the MacArthur Genius Award).
Stallman did this because of his ideology. Linus Torvalds' comments about the world being better with less ideology really seem stupid in this context, don't they? Torvalds' comments about only idiots or freaks or something choosing Free tools over superior proprietary tools really says something about Torvald's view of Stallman, doesn't it? Does Torvalds recognize that quality Free Software would not exist if everyone thought like that? Of course Torvalds has a right to his own opinions, but I wish he'd keep his mouth shut instead of revealing how shallow he is.
-Paul Komarek
Remember that RMS doesn't do OSS. He does Free Software. Heck, Tim O'Reilly didn't even invite RMS to his west coast summit that spawned the OSS name. Of course, Mr. O'Reilly regrets this.
Given that RMS provided the definition of Free Software, and that others made a formal definition of Open Source Software, it isn't unreasonable to formally compare the two. The Free Software Foundation, which of course prefers Free Software over Open Source software, has provided their comparison
here. As they point out, and as anyone following this issue can attest, the phrases "Free Software" and "Open Source Software" are very different.
-Paul Komarek
-Paul
It's not so clear to me that Stallman would appreciate being put into quadrant 2. In fact, a biography of RMS suggests he understands and has a bit of every one of the quadrants, and more that doesn't fit into any of them. Just like any sufficiently interesting human.
One could disect each of his statements or ideas, and try to find the right place for it. But he has his own ideological system that is not a combination of the four corners of your diagram.
The only purpose of broad labels and sterotypes is to simply something. I think Stallman has made a simple statement in the GPL that doesn't really need to be expressed in terms of stereotypes used for those who govern society.
Perhaps the first thing to notice about the GPL is that instead of exploiting ambiguity as most writers of legal documents seem to do (a statement made by a lawyer), it is very precise and clear. There is no need to muddy Stallman's views with political stereotypes. He's a straightforward, careful, honest fellow who chooses freedom over convenience, and encourages others to do the same. If one wishes for a longer description, read his works; but applying catagories used in Washington D.C. won't help one's understanding.
-Paul Komarek
I know how you feel, #33356. I was slow to sign up when they started logins, yet got a pretty low number. I was impressed when the numbers raced through 5 digits.
-Paul Komarek, #794.
As far as I know, Switzerland is a true democracy. If this is true, does anyone know if Switzerland is the only true democracy?
I believe that the Swiss vote on *everything* that goes through their legislative body. Considering how many laws are passed in the US (think about changes to tax law, then add in everything else!), there is no way the US could deal with such a system. The US gov't would have to change significantly -- hopefully in a way that made legislation understandable.
-Paul Komarek