Feature:On the Subject of RMS 377
On the Subject of RMS
The Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English defines ``eccentric'' to mean ``peculiar; not normal''. Is RMS eccentric? Yes, most definitly. He has got a meaning in his life and this alone would make him eccentric. True, he is also peculiar in many other ways. Who else would carry around his battered computer in a cloth bag? He does not care about what people think; he is on a mission. A mission to create a completely free operating system for everyone to use.
In his ideal world, all software is free software and sharing your code with your neighbor is standard practice. RMS lived in this world for some time when he was active around the AI lab on MIT. In some ways he lives in that world still. He is an eccentric idealist with a mission. It is not so surprising that normal people look at him strangely.
Someone once said to me that to be a hacker, you had to give up your normal life. Not true. There is a strong line between beeing a hacker and beeing a socially unfit hacker. Hackers like RMS, Alan Cox and Linus Torvalds are very clearly not socially unfit.
A few years ago, Linus got married with his wife Tova and they now have several kids. Alan Cox is married to Telsa (more commonly known as ``hobbit'' after her login name and email address). Even RMS had a sweetheat once named Alix. They eventually broke up, but that could have been for any reason. Neither I nor you have any business questioning what a hacker does on his private time. In many cases, I have a feeling we really do not want to know.
Hating, or atleast disliking, RMS has become a gimmick, much like hating Bill Gates and Windows. Linus Torvalds has managed to stay clear of that area by avoiding politics. When we judge Linus, we do it only by his coding. When we judge RMS, we do not do it based on his coding skills but rather on how his philosophical ideas differs from ours. I suppose that if Linus would get himself mixed up in these philosophical discussions, he too would be judged accordingly. It is fine that Linus does not do this as long as we all remember that we should not compare him with RMS the way most people do.
Free Software
When we speak of free software we speak of the right to study the program, distribute the program freely and improve the program with your own code. You do not need to do this, and many people probably do not even want to study how the program works or make their own improvements. But would it not be nice to know that you have that option?
Should you care? I think you should, but neither I, RMS or anyone else can force you to. We will try to get your attention to what we feel is important, but you don't have to follow us blindly. We want you to read our texts on philosophy and come to your own conclusion. If after you have read what we've written, you decide to walk some other path, we do not stop you. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html is a good start. Read what is written there and then come back here.
I do not think the BSD license is a good idea, nor do I think that the artistic license is a good idea. However, I'm accepting that people want to use them because their values in life differs from mine. I dislike those licenses because I do not agree with the philosophical issues of them. The same way as when I vote, I do not vote for the socialistic party because I do not agree with their philosophical issues.
Thinking that everyone in the whole world could agree to one specific license would be naive. Unless we all suddenly start to think very much the same, that will not happen. RMS knows this. I know this. The BSD followers know this. Everyone should know this. Frankly, would you want to live in a world where everyone thought the same way?
When I was writing this, I got an email from someone who had read about me on my home page. The core of the email was "I find you interesting because you are not normal." For me, that is a great compliment.
I will not go any further on the philosophical issues. For me, it is enough that everyone is happy with whatever license they choose.
The Free Software Foundation
The Free Software Foundation has worked to support free software for 15 years now. The main project is the GNU project which aims at developing a completely free operating system. At least some of you should notice that 15 years is a very long time. Proprietary software companies get out new versions of their programs and operating systems almost every other year. What has taken the GNU system so long?
When RMS started out to create the GNU system, he began by publishing the GNU Emacs which is the standard text editor in the GNU system. He then needed a compiler, so he made the GNU C Compiler and the GNU Debugger. Pretty soon, there were utilities available for most standard tasks but you still needed a kernel to run them. So the GNU project started writing the GNU Hurd which is a kernel based on Mach.
While we were working on the GNU Hurd, Linus Torvalds released his Linux kernel and when people combined this kernel with the finished GNU utilities, they got a free operating system. For the first time, someone could run a completely free Linux-based GNU system. But it was still a system made by hackers, for hackers. To correct this, we sponsored the early development of the Debian GNU/Linux distribution which should enable everyone to use this Linux-based GNU system.
It might have taken some time to get this system done, but you should never rush software development. Doing so would result in bad coding and a bad design. We do what we think has to be done in order to create a completely free operating system; and we do it in our own time.
Linux
Linux is a great kernel and I use it every day. I will probably keep using it on some computers even after I switch to the Hurd. But it is important that people remember what Linux is; a kernel. It's not a complete system and it's not fair to the community to call it that. As a developer and user of both Linux, Hurd and the GNU utilities, I feel it is important that people understand the difference. Noone should come to me asking for help with the GNU Emacs just because I have said that I work with Linux; they should ask me for help because I have said that I am using several tools from the GNU system.
To help everyone understand this, I have made it a habit of calling my system a Linux-based GNU-system, in short a GNU/Linux system. This is not because I only use GNU-utilities, it is because I use programs that are part of the GNU system. Some people argue that XFree86 should be given as much credit as the GNU system. Those people do not understand that by calling my system a GNU/Linux system, I give credit not only to the GNU project but also to XFree86. Why? Because the XFree86 has been adopted by the GNU project for use in the GNU system, as has Lynx been which I use almost daily. So by calling it a GNU/Linux system I give credit to every program which are part of--or has been adopted by--the GNU project.
The specific name is not really important, though some people might want to think so. The importance is to give credit to the GNU project where credit is due. One way to do so is by calling the system a GNU/Linux system, but there are many more ways to do it and only your imagination will limit them.
Richie Stallman (Score:1)
Message from a Moderator. (Score:1)
That is neither here nor there, however. What is disturbing is that a fairly blatant abuse of moderation has taken place here.
It's irritating (Score:1)
Hating, or at least disliking, RMS has become a gimmick, much like hating Bill Gates and Windows. Linus Torvalds has managed to stay clear of that area by avoiding politics. When we judge Linus, we do it only by his coding. When we judge RMS, we do not do it based on his coding skills but rather on how his philosophical ideas differs from ours.
That's because Linus Torvalds is not constantly in everyone's face insisting that they recognize him on his own particular terms. He just keeps on coding and coordinating and working and the recognition follows naturally.
It is perhaps worthwhile to note the similarity between Bill Gates and RMS insistence that things be done their way with no choices. Bill says totally proprietary, RMS says absolutely only free. Either way, to me they are both trying to constrain my choice and tell me what to do.
I deeply appreciate all of the work that RMS, GNU and the FSF have done. I even forgive the Emacs monstrosity (vi rulez!). But I'm beginning to be just sick and tired of this argument that we prepend GNU/ to everything. If RMS and his ilk would just shut up and get back to work, the same recognition that they largely already have would continue and grow just as naturally as that of Linux.
/. Cynicism = A Disease (Score:1)
get healthy and constructive folks - you don't know what you've got until you lose it. i think that's the point esr's trying to make.
stop taking things for granted.
nobody's perfect, but hey, don't kick 'em while they're down -> that's a M$ tactic.
it's easy to criticize; it's a lot harder to find constructive positive comments to make. i thought
And this is the law of the wild,
As old and as true as the sky.
And the wolf who keeps it will prosper,
But the wolf who breaks it will die!
Like the wind that circles the tree trunk,
this law runneth forward and back.
The strength of the pack is the wolf,
and the strength of the wolf is the pack.
(Rudyard Kipling)
http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner/socialLinu
Bah! Can't apply restrictions to US funded code (Score:1)
That's just what the GPL does. It applies the restriction that to use this code, you have to give away your code. This is fine unless I've funded the code with my tax dollars. Then I want to do whatever I want with it.
Gov't funded code should be open, unequivocally and with no strings. Gov't funded means it was funded by your dollars, my dollars and business dollars. It's only fair. In other words because it's gov't funded, you can't take my rights and give them to someone else. That's what makes freedom and rights so complicated. You have the right to source. I have the right not to give it to you. We meet in the middle. In the case of gov't funded projects, that's what you have to live with.
Besides don't worry about closing up software. If I take it and sell binaries but don't give away the source -- it's my business. It hurts no one except maybe me when my customers see they can get the same software (source and all) for free elsewhere. Give me a break. If I released a binary only distro of Linux tomorrow, how would that affect Red Hat, Debian, SuSE, etal? Would they somehow be magically barred from continuing their operation? No. Would Linux disappear? No. What I go out of business? Maybe. But then again, maybe a binary only release is important to a small segment of the population that don't care about source.
To sum it up. GNU/GPL on nontaxpayer funded code = GOOD. GNU/GPL on taxpayer funded code = BAD.
My emphasis slightly different (Score:1)
petty? (Score:1)
GNU/Linux forever... (Score:1)
I think that this 'so called' Linux community should be very thankful for what the FSF/GNU project has produced. The GNU products are high quality software and is _MUCH_ better than proprietary software. Give the GNU guys some gratitude.
GNU/FreeBSD ??? Thank you GNU, and goodbye. (Score:1)
Just like Linux, it seems that GNU is also out for world domination, the problem is that the GNU folks are all insane. If Linus knew how bonkers RMS would get, I'm sure he would not of choosen the GPL or gcc!!!
The name GNU/Linux is insulting. It be-littles the efforts of all the other fine packages that make up Linux. I'm talking X-Windows, Apache, Netscape, FTP, ppp, fetchmail, sendmail, tin, gimp, x11amp, xosview, KDE,
In fact only a tiny fraction of Linux is GNU based. Since the GNU folks think they are better than everybody else and they are trying to steal more than their fair share of fame. I motion that all Linux users band together and cleanse their OS from this GNU parasite.
Because of the recent actions of RMS and the GNU foundation I have choosen NOT to release my code with the GPL, I will choose some other license. I will not contribute to this GNU'y madness and I hope that other "open source'rs" out there follow me in a protest of all that is GNU.
I love my gcc compiler, but this whole GNU/Linux thing has made me disgusted with the concept of GNU.
Thank you GNU, and goodbye.
Free beer - ~ (Score:1)
Free software is abouts rights and not about costs. It may be expensive to develop, it may be inexpensive to develop, but it is set free under the gpl.
Talking about who pays misses the point. If I invest millions and find a cure for cancer, I can choose to keep the info secret and sell the cure for a lot. I can choose to publish the info and sell the cure for a reasonable amount and allow others to use the info freely as well. I can also choose to simply publish the info and let others freely use it.
In each case, the free beer aspects are the same, but the free speech aspects are different.
A Nony Mouse
Richie Stallman (Score:2)
There seems to be an endless amount of RMS-rationalization in the online forums. A small number of people revere the guy unconditionally, a small number dislike him outright (and disagree with him), but the vast majority seem to be of the "RMS may be a jerk but you've got to respect him for (whatever)". The guy has more teflon than Reagan and Clinton put together. I think this is because everyone still seems to clinging to the mythology of the free software "community" and ESR's hacker mythology, and they just don't want to evict any more deities from their insanely over-idealized free software pantheon.
I maintain that the more exposure the guy gets, the harder it will be for everyone to rationalize continuing to give the guy credibility. He's sort of like Rush Limbaugh (IMO), he's been around for a while but he's got a short shelf life. Everyone goes through a few years thinking that "RMS is a jerk, *but*...". Mark my words, at some point (maybe in a few months, maybe in a few years), you'll stop appending that "but..." to every analysis of RMS' character. By that time he'll have a new generation of protohackers screaming about jihads and flaming everyone in sight, but after a while they'll learn too.
It's unfortunate that there aren't more leader types in the free software world. It seems like most of the ones we've got are extremist, pathologically unsocialized, short-sighted, or some combination of all three. There's no rational center. If any such person ever materialized, he or she would probably be instantly flamed to cinders by the zealouts anyway. Too bad...
XFree86 and Adoption (Score:5)
Ok, well then, I'll say that the Linux kernal community has adopted the GNU tools. Now it is completely correct for me to call the entire system Linux.
GNU/Linux vs Linux + GNU etc... (Score:1)
While all Linux systems contain the vital GNU utils (like, for example, gcc), not all of them were derived from the GNU system as envisioned by RMS. (This GNU system also came with other free software, like BSD stuff.) While, AFAIK, Debian was based of GNU, I don't believe any of the other distros were. They may have wound up containing most of the software from GNU, but this software was easily available from other sources. As a result, some distros are GNU/Linux, while others are Linux + GNU + BSD et al.
Re: So the world isn't ... (Score:1)
But wait - what he was saying is exactly what you are glossing over! We use the roads! We benefit directly from spending on medical research! However, like he said, if the government finances something and then we don't get anything out of it, we are being abused as taxpayers.
On a philosophical level I agree comepletely that "If the DOD wrote [software x] using 'my' money, I should have at least the right to use the product"
Compromise.... (Score:1)
In addition (Score:1)
The kernel doesn't link against glibc. It doesn't link against any libraries. It has it's own versions of any utility funcs it needs - try reading the source before you comment.
That aside, I agree with your point. Try building the kernel with anything other than gcc / egcs and see what happens.
This is just dumb. (Score:1)
Excellent response. But I disagree... (Score:1)
I'm not so hung up on the GNU/Linux name myself. I believe one reason why Stallman insists on it is because he feels that many new users of it are not exposed to the free software philosophy of GNU. Instead, they pick up on the "anything is fine with me" philosophy of Linus. Unfortunately, Stallman does not always pick the best venues for his suggestions about GNU/Linux. (For example, the linux-kernal mailing list was quite a bad choice). And the fact that he corrects anyone who uses an unadorned "Linux" is surely annoying to some. And let's face it, GNU/Linux isn't a very catchy name. If he had something better (NOT Lignux
Why GNU/Linux (Score:5)
In 1983 when Richard Stallman founded the GNU project, his goal was to produce a 100% free Unix-like operating system. This was a difficult goal because a Unix OS contains many components: the kernel, the shell, compiler tools, editors, windowing systems, etc. Because the task was so big, he looked around for components that were already free that he could use in the GNU system. He found, for example, TeX and the X-Window System, which then fulfilled the system requirements for a typesetter and a windowing system respectively.
For some components, there was no free implementation, so the GNU project set out to write them. GNU Emacs replaced the proprietary vi editor (though a free vi clone was eventually written by someone else). The GNU C Compiler replaced the proprietary pcc. Bash replaced the Bourne shell. Etc. These tools were all written because there was no other free program that did the job. Nobody at the GNU project wanted to re-write free tools that already existed. The goal was a 100% free operating system, not a 100% free operating sytsem written 100% by the GNU project.
Like many complex projects, the GNU system took a long time to develop. Rather than wait until the entire system was complete before releasing it, various components were released as they were developed. (Call it the Bazaar model if you will). They put their available code into a repository. This was the master GNU ftp server at prep.ai.mit.edu [mit.edu]. This archive contained the GNU system as a work in progress, including many tools that were ready for production use.
When Linus developed his kernel, people obviously needed the rest of the operating system components to go along with it. So how did people get these? They simply ftp'd to the GNU archive and downloaded all of the GNU operating system components that were availble. They combined these with the kernel, to produce the system they called Linux.
While you might not agree with Richard Stallman, I think it is easy to see why this would upset him. If someone downloaded the CVS archive of the free software project I am working on, finished it off before I could finish my version, then released it under a name that gave me no credit, I would probably be angry too. I think the reaction of the community if someone did this would be very negative. The GNU ftp site was their code repository and the builders of the early Linux distros did exactly this. They built a system that was largely GNU code (especially in the early days before distros got loaded up with lots of user level applications) but did not give credit to the GNU project.
Again, you might not see it this way. But I think that if the GNU project was something that you had founded and invested years of effort into, you might be a little bit miffed someone did this to you. While Stallman is often accused of being a bit strange, I find his attitude on the "GNU/Linux" issue quite normal.
It's Not Percentages (Score:5)
The GNU project identified all of the major components of the operating system: the kernel, utilities, the shell, compiler tools, windowing systems, networking, and so on. It then found or built tools for each of these areas. When Linus wrote the Linux kernel and people looked around for the components necessary to build a complete operating system, they found them because that is what the GNU project set out to build.
It is tempting to say that the GNU Project did not write some of these tools - such as the X-Window system - and thus say that the GNU influence on the GNU/Linux operating system is exaggerated. However, the GNU project never set out to build every component themselves, nor did they ever claim that all components of the free operating system were there because of their efforts. Instead, they looked first for existing free tools to do the job, and wrote a replacement if one could not be found. X existed already, so a replacement was not needed. However, had the X-Window system not existed, or had it been proprietary, the GNU project would have developed a replacement for that too, just as they developed a replacement for the C library, and m4 macro processor, and many other things.
Call it GNU/Linux (if you choose) because the GNU project built ane operating system, not because they wrote any number of individual components. Without the GNU project, disjoint components is all that would exist.
And let the flamewar begin... (Score:2)
> Sadly, the title is enough to sum up what most of this article is going to promote...
Yeah, tell me about it... Even the most well-thought-out, reasonable posts on this topic don't rise much above the level of flame-bait. I couldn't resist trying to make a point or two, though...
> Ah, but it's the same kernel as Redhat/debian/SuSe/whatever linux (or at least from the same source tree). You are actually contradicting yourself here! What makes slackware is the collection of tools bundled with the kernel including the installation tool(s).
Actually, I thought this point through before making my post... just wasn't going to muddle issues by bringing it up if no one called me on it. Slackware is the vendor in this case - it's equivalent to Microsoft or Apple in my examples, not to Corel or Adobe. Linux is a little odd because the vendor isn't necessarily the organization that wrote the code, but I think the analogy holds (MS and Apple buy, beg, borrow, and steal code from other organizations, too). If the FSF were to release a Linux distribution of their own, I'd be happy to call it GNU Linux or FSF Linux or whatever-they-want Linux... but GNU would be the vendor... the OS is still Linux.
As for code weight... even discounting the 10%/90% split - we've got an Enterprise 5500 in the server room here that (after I got done with it ;) ) has almost as much GNU software on it as my Linux boxen do... but I've never heard anyone suggest that it be called GNU/Solaris, and I suspect that most people would dismiss the idea out of hand. Is it installing things in /opt or /usr/local rather than / and /usr that makes the difference? Or is it that the proprietary kernel can't be "adopted" by the FSF? And if it's the proprietary kernel, doesn't that mean that it's the kernel that's the defining portion?
> However, how would you feel if you got NTOSKRNL.EXE on its own and got told that was your operating system?
Pretty disappointed. I'd much prefer to have vmlinuz, thankyouverymuch. ;)
Seriously, though... I'm not saying that the kernel is enough to make a computer useful. What I'm saying is that it's the kernel that defines what the computer is. It seems to me that there's a line between the OS and the apps. The only place it makes sense to me to draw that line is between the kernel and everything else. Anywhere else creates grey areas. (If we include gcc, do we include perl? If we include bash, do we include X? If we include ls, do we include xfm? et cetera, ad nauseum...)
I won't touch the economic issues around free software (I'm not an economist, nor do I play one on Slashdot), except to say that, in my current job, I don't get paid for programs, I get paid for programming...
And let the flamewar begin... (Score:3)
RMS is an extremist - I don't think anyone could deny that. Extremists, by definition, look weird to more moderate folks... but we need extremists to show us where we can go. We don't necessarily want to follow them blindly, though. And most people, if they decide they want to go where he's leading, can't make it in one leap... that's where people like Linus and ESR come in, to show us how to get there the slow, easy way.
As for "GNU/Linux"... as I see it, it's the kernel that defines the OS. If I'm using Win95 exclusively to run Corel Office, it's still Microsoft Windows (or MS-DOS
And, those of you who think that saying "GNU/Linux" is appropriate... think about this one: what's wrong with "Linux/GNU"?
Richie Stallman (Score:1)
An intelligent post. I agree completely.
-- an ex-RMS-worshipper.
Message from a Moderator. (Score:1)
It seems to say, "While we don't like the XFree86 license, we'll adopt it just so we can take more credit for Linux."
Why GNU/Linux (Score:1)
just asks you to do so for the reasons that we
all know. And just because you're not required to
do something, does that mean that you shouldn't
do it? You should give credit to RMS and the FSF
for what they've done not because you have to,
but because it's the right thing to do.
GNU/Linux vs. Linux/GNU (Score:1)
FSF is important without linux (Score:1)
There is a difference between your proposed distribution and calling the system GNU/Linux, on which I don't wish to concentrate here.
My main point is that people _would_ care about FSF without Linux. People cared before Linux. I expect that people will care _after_ Linux (Linux Torvald's ideal world sees Linux replaced maybe 20 years from now--I'm taking this from an interview). I used GNU tools under DOS, Win95, and OS/2. GCC is an important compiler across many platforms, helping with portability and standards. GNU's impact far exceeds the Linux domain, because its fruits are more than a single kernel.
For balance, I'll mention that the Linux kernel is damn important to me and many other people. Also, it is the driving force behind the massive attention drawn away from Microsoft products lately. But Linus and others agree that popularity isn't their target, as this would in all probability detract from quality and the freedom to make choices (hopefully the right choices).
Free beer (Score:2)
As far as any of this goes, the US Govt's defense spending is probably the only reason the US gained an early lead in computing. And many of the early advances in computing came from sharing of information _enforced_ by the Fed Govt. Take for instance AT&Ts disclosure of transistor research, or later UNIX. Or perhaps IBM's disbundlement of its software and hardware. Government spending _often_ encourages 'free' products--i.e. products that are shared in such a way to help everyone in the US, and sometimes (with GNU, for instance) around the world.
Of course, although I'm now on your topic, I'm off the topic for this article.
Excellent response. But I disagree... (Score:2)
However, I *don't* think it's the job of the name of the operating system to give credit; it's to convey information. What I'll answer when someone asks what sort of computer I'll have will depend on how much I think they know about computers; I might for example say Unix, Linux, Debian, or Slink. However I'll certainly avoid any cumbersome or inconvenient descriptions when a shorter one will convey the same information.
I think it's genuinely important that Stallman, the FSF, and the shared vision of liberating software be given proper credit in making the operating system we have today possible. But trying to change the name is the wrong way to do it - it's doomed to failure, and far from advancing the debate it seems to be distracting people from it.
It might also help if Stallman had done half as good a job of explaining his point of view as you did.
--
Public GNUisance ... (Score:1)
On the other hand, as several posters point out above, without the impetus of Linux, the FSF project would be a little-known software island in the isolated Unix lake (as the Internet itself was, until a few years ago when ppp and the Web took off).
Anyone who looks into Linux at all -- even superficially -- cannot miss the ubiquitous references to the GPL and the GNU project. Ten million users, more or less, have had the opportunity to read the GPL (which they may or may not have done) and to study the FSF philosophy. Calculate the publicity value of that by, for example, figuring out how many full-page trade paper ads or CNN spots it would take to achieve the same exposure; the FSF certainly has no grounds for complaint about the spread of Linux -- which indeed represents a substantial victory for their vision; for that the FSF deserves congratulations, but not necessarily sympathy.
It is interesting to realize that one of the FSF's principal objections to the BSD license is that it requires (or used to require) crediting each software source -- The Regents of the UC, etc. etc. -- in all advertisements. Yet the GNU/Linux proposal essentially requires that one (admittedly major) software source be credited in ordinary speech, where we don't have the luxury of small print at the bottom of the page!
As to RMS himself, he deserves both our admiration as a fantastically gifted hacker and our respect for his utterly sincere and total dedication to his moral principles. Granting this respect, though, does not necessarily require that we agree with him totally on these principles -- I have a great respect for the Amish for the same reason, but I use computers and automobiles and toasters and dress colorfully (too colorfully, according to my wife). And it certainly does not require that we avoid pointing out that allowing the FSF sole authority to determine what constitutes "free" (speech) software is equivalent to allowing the Pope (or the Baptists, or ....) sole authority to determine what constitutes Christianity.
RMS is a valuable resource in the open software movement. He is also eccentric, colorful, and (to some of us) maddening. What we need to do to keep the suits from being frightened of us is simply tell the truth: that there are many strains of philosophical thought in the hacker community that produced Linux, and RMS represents one of them. So does Bob Young, carefully groomed to avoid shocking them, and what the suits need to do is simply look at Linux itself and decide, as a technical and business question, what it can do to help them solve their problems.
Craig
It's irritating (Score:1)
I don't think you have any ground to stand on there. RMS is not constraining your choice in any way. You are always free to choose any other method of licensing the software you produce, or choosing the software you use. This will never change, no matter what he says.
Get used to the abuse (Score:1)
Get used to it. Look at the example CT and Hemos are setting. People bitched and moaned about Katz so CT created a filter so people could not read him if they wanted too. Well now so many people DON'T read Katz that CT and Hemos have resorted to posting stuff FOR him just to bypass the filters.
Moderator abuse is not the only abuse going on around here.
This whole FSF silliness. (Score:1)
When RMS says it, it sounds rather like a demand to me.
>I assume that you want to give the GNU project credit, otherwise this discussion is just silly.
Of course, gcc was essential to the development of Linux, and the rest of the tools are extremely useful. The question is how is this credit to be given.
>So when you then call a system "Linux", you assume that all users will automatically pick up on and understand that there are quite a few GNU utilities they are using.
Don't be absurd.
When I say Linux, people who have never heard of it before don't instantly think of GNU. Nor do they think of Linus, Alan Cox, the X project, BSD, etc. It's a name, not a list of credits. Yes, the name is derived from Linus's name, but that seems more an accident of history, not an attempt by Mr. Torvalds to usurp all the credit.
The GNU/Hurd project has been assisted greatly by the existence of Linux (at least if the FSF goal of using free software rather than proprietary is being followed). Yet there is no insistence that it be called Linux/GNU/Hurd, nor will there be.
Freedom. (Score:1)
Even if you don't like those applications or any proprietary applications, the above actions are indicative of the growing importance of Linux. At least some of us like to work on Linux and open source because we want our programming to help as many people as possible; this is a sign that this is succeeding.
Oh, and plenty of us are perfectly happy with proprietary applications, some of us make them. I can like the work of "Habitat for Humanity" without condemning homebuilding companies as immoral; likewise I can appreciate freed* software without labelling proprietary vendors as immoral.
* "freed" as in freed from restrictions.
This whole FSF silliness. (Score:1)
Don't be ridiculous. You can make demands without having any way to force compliance. If I say "I demand that you apologize for your response to my slashdot posting", is that a suggestion or a demand? Webster's defines "demand" in part as
"something claimed as due" -- which fits here perfectly.
>IMHO, a good way to give credit to something is calling it by its name...
I do, I call it the GCC -- for Gnu C Compiler.
>The name "GNU" covers the entire system
No it doesn't. If in 1982 I had decided we should have a free Unix-like OS (I first used Unix in 1980...maybe I did come up with that idea!), would that make everything that comes after the Eccles Operating System? I think not. GNU is a part, not the whole.
>The number of users of the GNU system has increased a lot because of the Linux kernel.
That's a deceptively phrased fact. No one used a GNU operating system before Linux because there wasn't one.
>...I just don't understand why you want to call it "Linux" without the "GNU/".
A) Because it's shorter, B) because people know what I'm talking about, whereas if you just call it GNU like Richard has, no one knows what you're talking about, C) it sounds like I'm talking about a particular distribution, D) I hate the "gn" sound, E) without a kernel, you don't have an operating system at all, so it isn't the GNU operating system anyway, F) I dislike demanding horn-tooting, G) I disagree with the "no proprietary software" stance of the FSF, especially RMS's remarks about piracy (particularly since that is "free beer, not free speech."), H) I dislike the belittling of the difficulty of writing a kernel, given that the FSF hasn't managed to build a stable one over the past 16 years, I) I dislike this belief that GNU is somehow entitled to be the overarching name of everything.
Oh, and I call Microsoft's operating systems "Windows", unless I need to clarify what version.
This accomplishes what? (Score:2)
My point is that anyone who uses Linux can't go very long without GNU popping up somewhere. So on the basis of your argument, which is summed up at the end, giving credit where it's due, isn't the GNU project getting enough? I like RMS, I like the FSF; the world would be much less interesting without either one. But calling it GNU/Linux based on your argument of "giving credit" does nothing but give a cheap ego boost to those involved.
If you want to call it GNU/Linux, go ahead, I won't try and stop you. Just don't try and stop me from calling it Linux.
Just call it FreD and done with, already :-... (Score:1)
Just to avoid any confusion, this is
:-)
Idolization, Names and More Bullshit (Score:1)
That's rediculous, and here's why. Granted, as everyone already mentioned, the kernel is Linux, some of the tools are GNU - but what about everyone else? Everyone deserves credit and to put the GNU moniker on it is a slap in the face. I use a lot more than just GNU stuff. I even use my own software. Hey, let's call it Mike/GNU/Linux. How'd that be?
I believe in the FSF and most of RMS's ideals, but this is taking it too far. As a long time user of Linux and a developer for same, I'm offended.
As for "idolizing" RMS or Linus and Co. as someone pointed out, that's bullshit. I personally don't idolize any of 'em. I'm grateful and thankful for the great code they've produced and what they've done for the community, but then we all contribute to the revolution in our own ways - some more than others, but nevertheless. I'm not gonna cheat myself, others or the GNU project(s).
I USE LINUX AND I'M DAMNED PROUD OF IT.
GNU/Linux Thread (Score:1)
Have a fun time without GNU software (Score:1)
Why GNU/Linux (Score:1)
That *is* what happened (Score:1)
that's what GPL is for! (Score:1)
If you're wanting to make a proprietary implementation, you rewrite those 2 routines, or you use the BSD-licensed equivalent. Expecting the author(s) of the GPL library to let you make their code proprietary is a bit hypocritical if you're expecting people to not share your proprietary stuff.
I personally think that the BSD and GNU licences and systems complement each other well. GNU/GPL makes sure that we continue to have free systems, BSD lets us have a free base from which to code for vertical markets, etc. If either one of them "compromised", I think the benefits inherent in each would be lost.
GNU/Linux Thread (Score:4)
Adam
Linux & GNU (Score:2)
Linux is just a kernel, no argument there. That kernel, though, is quickly turning into the most popular piece of software in the world. Were it not for Linux' popularity, GNU would still laboring in relative obscurity. Yes, you guys are famous in the Unix world, but thanks to Linux, your name is being noticed by the wider world.
And you're still not happy.
Although I'm a big fan of GNU (gcc is my friend), I'm beginning to understand where the FreeLinux guys are coming from.
I'd like a clarification (Score:1)
think very much the same, that will not happen. RMS knows this. I know this. The BSD followers know this. Everyone should
know this. Frankly, would you want to live in a world where everyone thought the same way? "
Quite true, however there's a discontinuity between what you just said, and the stated GNU philosophy, from my perspective.
That philosophy is that "software should not have owners", and that copyright law should be amended to reflect this belief (I'm referring to RMS' essay on copyright on gnu.org).
However, if one modifies the copyright laws to reflect the spirit of the GPL, by enabling free copying/redistribution, aren't we living in a society that "thinks one way - the RMS way" ?
That *is* what happened (Score:1)
Why on earth do you doubt it? I was there at the time, and my impression is that that's *exactly* what happened.
GPL is not in GNU's long term best interests. (Score:4)
stated that the GPL is THE license, and should be used in preference to
other options such as the BSD licence.
Now don't get me wrong, I believe in much of what GNU stands for, and I
recognise the role the GPL has played in getting us to the stage we are
at today. However, because of this, I think it's time to start thinking
about tossing out the GPL and moving on to the next stage.
Now why would we want to do this? Have I gone crazy? Am I just trying
to subvert the goals of GNU? No, I just think the time for the GPL has
passed. In the past, when the GNU project was started, there was a lack
of free software, and a lack of knowledge about the issue. Thus the GPL
was essential in establishing the initial momentum, without having the
developers be disheartened at seeing their code incorporated into
commercial products that made substantial improvements over the free
versions.
But times have changed. People (at least programmers) now know about
free software (or open source). The general community is becoming aware
of it also. Yet they are becomming increasingly less aware of GNU (as
evidenced by GNU's attemps to gain publicity with the whole GNU/Linux
thing), and also less aware of the true freedom aspect, rather than the
free beer aspect.
I percieve the major problem here to be that the GPL does all the
protecting of free software for people. Instead of having people who
are aware of the benefits of free software, why it is good to have it,
and why it should be preferred to closed alternatives, it is instead
taken for granted by the wording of the GPL.
What I think needs to be done is to make free software an education
rather than a legal issue. Don't restrict the source code from being
included in proprietry applications - instead educate people on why
free software is supperior, and when you have achieved that, people
will use the free software over the closed alternative anyway. But the
key distinction with this as opposed to the GPL situation is that the
users will be taking their freedom for themselves, rather than being
handed it to them via the GPL.
There's an old saying, that goes something like: "You can untie the
dog, but it will still just be anather dog dragging along a chain
around it's neck". It's one that makes a very good point - the only
true freedom is one that is self earnt, people can not be given
freedom. They wont fully appreciate it, they won't value it, and above
all they wont know how to defend it.
Education is a far better solution than law, for reasons that largely
should be obvious, but also for other reasons. The law and the courts
are largely controlled by the rich. As we all know, in the software
industry, the rich are those who have an interest in keeping their
proprietry cash cows. Do you really want to trust the law to be able to
stand up to them, or would you rather see an educated user base that
will tell the proprietry companies where to stick it if they try
peddling their closed versions of free works?
Not to mention I find one of the few areas where RMS is a hypocrit is
in the area of using copyright (or copyleft). If he is so against the
copyright system, then surely he shouldn't be using it against the
companies, as two wrongs does not make a right. Instead, I think it is
a battle that would be much better faught without resorting to the
methods of the enemy.
Don't get me wrong, the GPL is vastly better than anything proprietry,
but I think it's time to look towards the future, and ask ourselves
what form do we want free software to take - free software because
people understand why free software is the way to go, or free software
because some license says it is so?
On a final note, doesn't RMS himself say in that free software song of
his, "When we have enough free software, we'll kick out those dirty
licenses evermore"? Well, I think we're starting to see a critical mass
of free software, and it's time to start kicking out licenses. So why
not start with the one we can most easily kick out, the very one GNU created,
the GPL?
Although, as Supertramp told me: I better watch what I say, or they'll be calling me a radical, liberal, fanatical, criminal
RMS can teach us all something (Score:2)
Personally I take an even more extreme view of intellectual property. I think that intellectual property law is unjust, and I don't think software "piracy" is immoral.
--
XFree86 and Adoption (Score:1)
Naming conventions (Score:1)
On the subject of names... (Score:1)
The credit is there. We all appreciate GNU tremendously. But shouting for recognition doesn't get anyone on your side.
Message from a Moderator. (Score:1)
No, it would imply that it is part of a Free operating system. gcc and fileutils work on Windows.
(I am curious to know what XFree thinks of being part of the GNU system but I can't really imagine that they'd object)
Daniel
GNU/Linux Thread (Score:1)
Daniel
Credit where credit is due... (Score:1)
Daniel
In addition (Score:1)
GNU/Linux as an FSF distro (Score:1)
It is VERY difficult to compete with the coloquial moniker for something, even when the coloquial use is ambiguous and requires context to resolve the ambiguity. Witness that it is normal to call both the Linux kernel AND a complete O/S distribution Linux. Natural language is like that. I think that RMS is wasting his breath pushing the "GNU/Linux" moniker and his efforts would be better spent elsewhere.
That said, as Linux O/S distributions and other "Open Source" software become more popular, it WILL be important to distinguish between free (in the GPL sense) and not-so-free software. Here's where the GNU moniker, as an adjective, can come in handy.
I've proposed that the FSF authorize the use of the GNU moniker (trademark it, damn it! With an appropriate free license for use) to mean: that whose existence was facilitated by GPL software, and that is entirely consistent with the GPL.
Thus, "GNU Linux" (and drop the
Of course, because the Linux kernel is GPL, it is the "GNU Linux" kernel, by definition.
It's Not Percentages (Score:1)
The FSF had a dream. They started developing the HURD. Linux comes in, works pretty well, and slaps on the GNU tools. years pass, and all of a sudden the FSF starts wanting people to call it "GNU/Linux". Why? Check the status of the HERD, and I believe that you will find your answer...
naming, advertising, ego, and pride (Score:1)
I call it "Linux", "emacs", or whatever.
I prefer licenses in which credit to the author must be preserved. This is how I release all of my music (http://www.mortmain.com) [mortmain.com]. I don't think it is unreasonable to have an application screen with a couple of hundred lines of authors listed. I have talked with numerous GNU license users about this and they all think that is burdensome. BSD license users (the few I know) don't seem to think about it much. I have read Bruce's writings on the subject and his preferences definitely lean away from mandatory author credit.
Yet isn't that what RMS wants when he asks that we call it "GNU/Linux"?
I'm not sure I get it.
naming, advertising, ego, and pride (Score:1)
Berkeley, MIT, etc. want to spread knowledge of their research efforts and the contributions *they* make to society. I still don't see the difference.
Credit where credit is due... (Score:1)
Now, I'm not trying to make light of GNU's contributions. GNU code makes up roughly 10% of a Linux distro. But that is it; only 10%. I don't see that as enough of a contribution that GNU gets to decide the name of the OS.
Free beer (Score:1)
----------------
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein
Free beer & Stuff (Score:1)
Boiled down in a few unreflective seconds, though, I am suggesting that two overall themes deserve some thought:
* What were the conditions (infrastructural conditions, if you will) that allowed the GNU tools and the FSF to develop? Did hidden subsidies play a role in a way that some of the "official history" fails to discuss? If so, why does the offical history not discuss those points?
* Is there really a sharp distinction between "free speech" and "free beer"? RMS says so, and "free speech not free beer" has become an argument-ender along the lines of "defensive" (throw it into the argument first, and the other side is assumed to have lost by definition). But it's not so clear to me. Just as an example (and an unfair one, as I am not going to discuss in detail), in the examples given in the post to which this is attached, it would appear to me that the free _beer_ aspects are different, but the free _speech_ aspects are very similar.
As I said, sorry I can't write more. This is one of the most engaging discussions I have seen in a long time.
sPh
Free beer (Score:3)
Without dissing or flaming, I would like to gently point out that both MIT and the AI Lab have received massive subsidies from the US Government over the years, particularly the DoD. So, much of that "free" (as in "free beer") software really was paid for by the US taxpayer. And there were many taxpayers who objected strongly to some aspects of that taxation, such as DoD funding during the Vietnam war.
This isn't a trivial issue in the story of GNU, but I have yet to see it discussed in any great depth.
sPh
Naming conventions (Score:3)
Shouldn't that be a Thompson-Ritchie/GNU/Linux system? Or a von Neumann/Thomson-Ritchie/GNU/Linux system? A Hopper/Thomson(many other names/GNU/gcc? Very little in the world of computing is really, absolutely new. Where do we draw the line at claiming seminal credit via naming conventions?
sPh
My emphasis slightly different (Score:3)
That's certainly a valid line of argument, although I suspect there will be a few counter-arguments
However, I was trying to open up a somewhat different line of discussion. It just seems to me that the various histories and write-ups of GNU and FSF make the assumption that the original GNU tools appeared out of nowhere, with no antecedents, no support framework of infastructure, tools, etc., no souce of funding, etc. An act of spontaneous generation, as it were.
Whereas in reality the "AI Lab culture" was heavily subsidized by the DoD, and the buildings, computers, grad student salaries, overhead charges, and so on came from the U.S. taxpayer in the first place. And primarily from projects dedicated to finding better ways of killing people, although I realize that line of argument is very controversial and somewhat at cross-purposes to my point.
So it isn't quite as easy to create "free" things (whether free speech or free beer, although I have a hard time following RMS' argument on that one also) as RMS and FSF would have one believe. Invisible sources of funding always make life seem easy.
I do consider the GPL a work of genius, for what my opinion is worth (much less than 0.02 USD I am sure), and RMS' ideas very worthy of discussion. But this subtopic seems to get a free ride.
sPh
Licenses (Score:1)
Linux: One Word, Multiple Meanings (Score:1)
(Not meant as a flame)
Are you *sure* about this? The FSF dates back to '83, and the first truly free BSD source release (4.4-LITE) didn't happen until the early 90's (93?). Previous to that you could get an academic license by signing various forms and sending them to AT&T or whatnot, but that's not quite what I would call "free."
And funders aren't free to use the SW freely. (Score:1)
They're entirely free to do whatever they want with the software and the code (including charge for it) except to remove anybody elses rights to do the same.
GNUbiquitous... (Score:1)
It might just be that the GNU stuff is so ubiquitous that it needs no introduction... ?
Bah! Can't apply restrictions to US funded code (Score:1)
Utter bollocks.
You don't have to give your code to anyone, you can keep it entirely to yourself.
However... when you come to distribute/sell on GPL code, you are not allowed to remove the rights of the original authors that they used (by applying the GPL) to ensure that other users would have access to the source code, and the right to change it (and distribute it) as they see fit.
If you are worried about not wanting to distribute source, then don't distribute under the GPL. This may mean that the derived work that you wanted to charge for can no longer be distributed, but that seems entirely fair to me (i.e. respect the original authors rights, or write your own code).
The only rights you have over the code are those that the original authors have given to you (which, I reiterate, is the right to do anything you want to the code, except restrict anyone elses right to do the same).
The only right you are losing is the dubious one of being able to profit from other peoples hard work (or the right to charge people for things that they have already payed for, if your assertion about U.S. government funding is correct), passing it off as your own. I don't get what you're complaining on about.
Re: So the world isn't ... (Score:1)
You have the right to use the roads, and you have the right to use GPL software- you even get to modify it (you're certainly not, as far as I am aware, given the right to alter the route of the Interstates to suit your convenience).
One thing you are not allowed to do is set up your own toll both on the federal highways and start charging people for their use. Does this analogy shed any light on the issue? Or have I _entirely_ missed the point of this discussion?
GPL is "Free Beer" (Score:1)
a. protect your code from being sucked into proprietary software and then copyrighted (which, strictly speaking, software in the Public Domain is not protected from- you could end up in the ludicrous position of being sued over the right to code you wrote otherwise).
b. protect the users of your code from any change of mind that you might have. If you hold the copyright to the code, then you can make new releases under whatever license you like, but you can't remove the GPL from code that has already been distributed.
Recognition (Score:1)
It is in the man page: do a `man ls' and scroll to the bottom of a page:
FSF GNU File Utilities 1
I agree with cogent explanation of GNU (Score:1)
It takes a village :) (Score:1)
Perhaps. From what I've read thus far, however, GNU software would have never found its way onto the harddrives of anyone but FSF members had it not been for Linux. The Linux kernel was written about nine years ago as I understand it. It's taken this long to reach critical mass so that businesses and some non-hackers are using it. The FSF is fifteen years old, and their own kernel was just released. From what I hear, it's not as usable as the Linux kernel. That's vaporware to exceed the fog from Redmond. At least they manage a release every five years.
Why has Linux become all the rage? Because it answers people's needs. The PC never was more than a hacker's toy until Visicalc made it a tool for business. How did Linux become something that people needed faster by eight years than Hurd? More people were developing it. Thousands of people, all over the world, with Linus at the wheel. There's a lot of work involved in coding a stable, powerful OS. By being so incredibly fanatical about the "Free software" cry, Stallman and crew alienate developers. How much has the FSF done to make Linux a viable desktop alternative? It takes more than a kernel, and I don't think the FSF has any developers on GNOME or KDE. (Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)
So the bottom line is, as the trite saying these days goes, "It takes a village" to write an OS that everyone can use, that is powerful and stable enough to leap over tall buildings in a single bound. GNU software is not the be all and end all of UNIX and/or good computing. So I say from my FreeBSD laptop, which has no functional dependance on the GNU tools furnished for the sake of compatibility. The FSF serves an important role in the community, but in the end, it's only one part of the whole community. They would do well to remember that
Divisions (Score:1)
Divisions (Score:3)
You Are Wrong, and this is why. (Score:1)
I am at a loss for words, why your relatively lengthy (relative, to most slashdot readers) experience with GNU/Linux would justify your harsh, and offensive opinion.
> Why should I use BSD just because RMS is, IMHO, a twit? I'm happy with Linux. I really think RMS
> needs to learn a lesson from Linus, Linus never receives this much heat because he's smart
> enough to earn respect and recognition rather than demanding it.
RMS has already earned respect. RMS already has recognition. What he wants so badly, is for his IDEALS to be recognised, for the freedoms he helps bestow on others through the FSF to be recognised and respected. This is what you do not understand.
This is not something Linus cares much for. A year/year and a half ago it could have been possible for a closed source commercial word processor such as the one published by Corel, to take a monopoly of X-Windows user based WP's. But it's Linus's opinion that commercial support of Linux by application developers is a Good Thing, I've never seen him do anything but welcome commercial support with open arms. This is dangerous, and something RMS has been campaigning against for many, many years.
Before you take it upon yourself to bash the reputation of RMS and the FSF to the ground with your aggressive, inflated ego, please do try to at least witness RMS speak, and take up an argument with him in person. You may be in for quite a surprise.
You may learn that RMS is not, as you believe, a 'twit', nor is he on a selfish crusade for his own self gratification. Perhaps you may just learn he's trying to make the world a better place.
Paul.
Adoption (Score:1)
This chafes my skivies... (Score:3)
So, the cult of GNU would say ``See the GNU tools are an essential and defining piece of Linux, ergo it is GNU/Linux!''
Not true. If you take your favorite Linux distribution, there is no reason why you couldn't replace the entire suite of tools by alternates (and without ever rebooting the machine). If you did this, what would you have? Why an altered Linux system, of course, but still a Linux system.
Now take your favorite Linux distribution and substitute in a new kernel. What do you have? Well, err, a new operating system. My point is that one piece (the kernel) actually defines the properties of the entire operating system while all other pieces (a superset of the GNU tools) can be replaced without changing the underlying structure.
As to the second point that I promised, I am disturbed not by the cult of GNU's desire for credit (they deserve credit, and a lot of it) but by RMS's insistence that the credit be noted by changing how we speak. Can you say ``double plus good?!?''
Recognition (Score:3)
o Put it in the man page. I have yet to find a gnu utility that was self-explanatory on the command line.
o Incorporate it into the kernel system startup. Why not? We have a penguin logo, why not put GNU in the background of it, or something *stylish and eye catching*. Or have a short "credit" on system startup.
o Put "gnu" in the version number and README files. Seems to be the most popular choice, I won't go any further.
o ASK for recognition! If you're really that concerned that GNU be recognized, go to the current community leaders - ESR, Linus T., RMS(duh!), Alan Cox, the *BSD developers, and ask them point blank - do you use the gnu linux utilities, and how useful do you find them? In this community - you are judged by what you contribute. If GNU has contributed as much as it boasts to have, this should be the easiest, and most effective, recognition.
In conclusion, I think the community knows how valuable the gnu utilities are, but all utilities have one thing in common - people take them for granted. Don't be suprised if nobody brings up the gnu utilities - they're UTILITIES!
--
Hurd, RMS, etc. (Score:2)
What really gets me is that the proliferation of these ideas (like Jesus's Mustart Seed parable) seems to have engendered so much distaste for their origins. I guess that if you run a business, and you can get an OS for $0, but sell your own "open source" output for $0+X, you suddenly get really interested in picking apart those origins.
Without purists like Stallman, we won't have free operating systems for long. Instead, we'll have *pieces* of *formerly* free operating systems that have *somehow* managed to wind up in Corporation X's copyright or patent portfolio.
Is this all really necessary? (Score:3)
People in the media who don't have the savvy to know what this all means will continue to choose the simplest name... Linux. Yes, it means a lot of different things, but it's similar to using the generic term "Windows" to mean one of Microsoft's operating environments (which one? 3.0, 3.11, WfWG, '95, '98, NT 3.51, NT 4.0, 2000?).
Requiring the use of GNU/Linux, or "Linux, courtesy of the massive effort of a lot of people, including Linus, RMS, Alan Cox, and others too numerous to mention" (to point out how ridiculous this is getting) is just silly.
Ahhh... I'm preaching to the converted.
Can we have a day on Slashdot where this silliness isn't re-hashed yet again?
--
Credit isn't what's sought, apparently. (Score:3)
Isn't credit being giving where it is due? In the source code? The past is not lost, but preserved with every copy of every utility being used and installed. What more can one ask than one's name and credit in every copy of source code?
A thousand names in a thousand places and yet, the one which everyone fights over is the title.
If we were talking about something Microsoft made, I'd agree, that maybe more effort should be made to determine where credit is due.
But with Linux and with the GNU portions of the distributions, and a variety of components from various developer groups, isn't enough credit given where it is due? In the code?
I still think RMS could benefit greatly from perhaps a more gentler approach to spreading his beliefs, but then again, every one has their own way of doing things. The fruits of his work are continually rippening and spreading. The GPL license is spread far and wide.
And yet, there is the complaint of not enough visibility, of no credit where credit is due.
What one calls their OS hardly depreciates any value from the beliefs behind it.. except perhaps in the case of MS Linux.. that would just plain suck.
All this fighting over a title and credit, I think, is pretty petty. And the two major persons who shines above it all because they are doing what they do best, coding and working with people to continue improving code, would be Alan Cox and Linus Torvalds.
I don't mention their names because I worship them. I pretty much don't worship anyone. No one deserves worship. But people do deserve respect.
I call my box a Linux box. I refer to the OS by the term Linux. When referring to distributions, I refer to them by the groups who put them out. Redhat, Debian, Caldera, Slackware, etc. I don't use the GNU portion of the name because it is already a given that GNU is there. The presence of GNU/FSF code in most distributions cannot be denied. But the works of so many others who have contributed work can't be denied either. That while they have GPL'd their code doesn't make their work a part of the GNU project. I am sure that at least a few people did not expect an organization to take credit for their work when they GPL'd their code.
I mean.. when John Doe writes code XYZ and GPL'd it, I'm sure he didn't mean to say, "I give this code to the GNU and FSF folks."
Because if that's what GPL means, then maybe it might be time to look for another licensing agreement.
Just my two cents.
- Wing
- Reap the fires of the soul.
- Harvest the passion of life.
Splitting Hairs (Score:2)
I think this whole GNU/Linux thing is academic. While I have a certain amount of respect for RMS, he is only human. To me 'free software' means just that, free. He is, atleast in theory, giving something the community. Not so he can improve his reputation, but so the world can benefit. Demanding recognition is to me not much different than demanding money for services provided. While RMS may have little need for money, he does have an ego just like the rest of us. I do not believe his demanding recognition is 'wierd', I think its human. But human motivations do not strike me as being entirely in accord with the whole GNU philosophy.
I could appreciate his being concerned about what will happen to the GNU philosphy if people continue to call Linux Linux. If he believes that Linux is entirely contrary to 'free software', that would be one thing. That would be a selfless concern. That has not been that primary argument for naming Linux 'GNU/Linux'.
I think even this argument is weak. Even if people start adopting 'GNU/Linux', it will not change people. The corporate world, if forced to call it 'GNU/Linux' are not going to suddenly have an epiphany. To them, Linux and GNU seem all too similar anyways.
While Linus may not be entirely in accord with RMS' views, Linus' product is pretty damn close. People are collaborating, it is free, etc. The fact of the matter is that Linux has succeeded where Hurd hasn't. It has found a wide audience and increased the appreciation for GNU many times over.
Where do we stop splitting hairs. Is Hurd honestly going to be called "GNU/Herd". One can easily make the same argument. That while Herd might be GNU, it does not acknowledge all the other people who have produced essential GNU tools that are part of the Herd package. And how about certain contributions made to Linux by the BSD community. Does it become GNU/BSD/Linux/etc.... Its all strikes me as being rather pointless.
Why GNU/Linux (Score:3)
RMS isn't asking everyone to call it GNU/Linux to get creddit himself. If you knew him better, you'd understand all he cares about is freedom. Most recent GNU/Linux users and supporters fail to see how the important thing of what they call Linux is the fact that it is free. They just use it/support it because it is rock solid and lightning fast. When he asks us to call it GNU/Linux, RMS is doing it to remind everyone how GNU/Linux isn't just another operating system, it is a free operating system (like the BSDs, yes) and that's the important thing.
He doesn't want publicity for himself, but he wants to be sure we won't forget what the point is and turn the GNU/Linux world into just another community full of propietary software, specially now with all the attention it is receiving.
Alejo.
Stallman needs to put his massive ego in neutral (Score:2)
Well, this really gets to the heart of the problem, though I'm sure the poster didn't realise it.
Most likely, without Linux, the world would be just as it is now except that the press would be talking about FreeBSD or NetBSD or 386BSD or something similar. In fact, had it not been for the USL lawsuit holding back the BSDs, Linux might not even be where it is now anyway.
What many in Linux community don't seem to realise is that it's frustrating to be marginalised, but even more frustrating to be marginalised by a group that managed to make its way out of the margins. How did you feel two years ago when the press never paid any attention to Linux, but just said `there are no OSes other than MS ones out there'? Well, that's what it feels like the Linux crowd is doing right now.
cjs
This is just dumb. (Score:3)
I'm really sick and tired of the FSF for trying to take credit for things that aren't theirs to take credit for. Linux is the prime example of this. Linux uses some FSF owned tools, but it's perfectly useable w/o them. The Demon Linux project is an example of this (they are supposedly making a distribution with no FSF owned software). They don't deserve any credit for the kernel. They do deserve credit for helping the free software movement and for any tools developed by the FSF.
It's because of arogance like this that I will NEVER call Linux GNU/Linux (or even worse lignux, atleast people say RMS was kidding with that one, I really hope so). To me it seems like RMS is just miffed that Linus/Linux is stealing all of the show. Guess what RMS, w/o Linux no one would give a damn about the FSF. Hurd has been vaporware for a long time now, and it will probally be quite sometime before it's completely useable.
I would prefer if RMS and the FSF would just shutup and stop trying to force their ideology on us. I don't care what you think I should call my system. I use Linux, I have for years, and I will continue running Linux for years. If you really want GNU/Linux start your own dist called "GNU/Linux". Until then shutup.
Nice sentiment (Score:2)
However, we're not there yet, nor will we ever be. Paradise is never going to happen on this side of death. We'll find out about the other side when we're there.
Until then, trusting in the white-as-snow goodness of human nature is just simply foolish. History has demonstrated quite effectively that people will almost always trade freedom for material benefits, and eventually lose both. Why do you think that human nature has improved so much in the last 50 years?
So the world isn't either black and white (Score:4)
And some good can come out of tainted things. If the world for RMS was a freer place for the artificiality of government subsidies, the lessen isn't to chuck the freedom, it's to chuck the government subsidies. And he did, to a degree. He earned money, at least for a while, selling GNU software. I'm not sure what RMS is currently doing, my understanding is that he's an expensive independent consultant.
And the current FSF isn't subsidised by the government. It's an interesting historical detail that they were, but then again, much of the valued things in the world have been funded by governments. Where would we be without the roads in the world? Where would we be without all that money poored into medical science? Into mechanical technology? The internet was based on the ARPAnet, which was a government (military) network. Should we abandon the net because it has a tainted origin?
Everything grows. We're living in a world somewhat like the MIT AI labs of twenty years ago. And Migael de Icaza isn't recieving government funding, nor is Linus, Alan Cox, etc.
The MIT AI lab wasn't perfect, but neither is anything else. Government subsidies don't really have anything to do with the modern Open Source/Free Software movement.
petty? reply (Score:2)
"Clothes make the man, naked people have little influence over soicity"
Until we have some "clothes" on, we won't change anything for the better. Our discussions, thoughts and ideals will perish with our movement. And our movement will perish if we don't present ourselves to the public as a unified community. Could you imagine the US "Founding Fathers" fighting and bickering over the design of the US highway system, or leaving and writing their own constitution before they won the war?
Or did Franklin want the Declaration of Independence called Franklin/Declaration of Independence, before the US of A became its own country?
We'll never know for sure how the FF felt toward each other... you see they kept it behind closed doors. Outside they were unified, no matter what may have been happening on the inside!
It's fine that we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the various ways to implement freedom... just do it in the privacy of our community. Don't do it for the world to see.
Hurd, RMS, etc. (Score:2)
I hope you were trolling when you wrote this.
Without continued development in different directions by people with different needs Linux would not be around. Who knows a new better operating system might be jsut around the corner.. Oh but i forgot why would anyone use another OS what ever you use must be the best and we should all just use that and be happy.. Many of us are excitd to see Hurd and I don't mind people talking about different technologies. Some day i may have to use one of those technologies and if people didn't talk about them then I may never have know about them.
Lets encourage different OS's, editors, compliers; who knows we might end up with something we like. -7021
Huh? GNU adopted XFree86, ergo should be named GNU (Score:5)
people share this opinion, or many others.
Here are several messages I've sent RMS on the general topic.
- Jim Gettys
> Sender: owner-linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
> From: Richard Stallman
> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 18:17:02 -0700 (MST)
> To: fizban@tin.it
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
> Subject: Re: Article: IBM wants to "clean up the license" of Linux
> -----
> Please show a
> bit more respect for Linus and all the other people and their efforts...:
> call the linux kernel "Linux" as Linus wanted to call it
>
> I always call the kernel Linux, for precisely that reason. Linus
> Torvalds started that program, and he says the name is Linux, so I
> call it Linux out of respect for him.
>
> I ask people to do the same thing for the operating system as a whole.
> It was started in 1984 by the GNU Project. For years, before Linux
> was written, we developed many components (not just "tools") of this
> system, and we did so as steps in the development of the system as a
> whole. (See the GNU Manifesto.)
>
> Linux (the kernel) doesn't come from the GNU project, and we never try
> to claim any credit for it. When people say that the GNU project
> "developed important parts of Linux", we explain that we don't deserve
> that honor, because none of Linux is our work. And we never call
> Linux a GNU program. (Some people have misinterpreted this as a
> gesture of rejection of Linux; actually, it is because we're not
> entitled to say so.)
>
> But while the GNU project played no role in the writing of Linux, it
> started the development of the operating system as a whole. That's
> what the GNU project was and is about. Writing dozens of programs
> such as GCC, Bash and libc--not only "tools"--was just a part this
> larger project.
>
> The system version most of us are using is the combination of Linux
> and the GNU system. "GNU/Linux" is a good way to describe that
> combination, and when I write that, it always means the whole
> combination. The kernel is simply Linux.
>
One might as well also say that the whole system should be called
"GNU/X/Linux"; the X Window system contribution, in terms of number of
lines of code of software, is very large. People should remember that
not only "hackers" contributed, but a number of major companies, including
my own, contributed large amounts to that code base, under fully free
terms (where the UNIX vendors went wrong was stuff built on top, and the
silly GUI wars of the beginning of the decade). In terms of total effort
and number of lines of code, both GNU and X represent much larger efforts
than the base operating system.
But the reality is that this is too cumbersome, whether you say "GNU/Linux"
or "GNU/X/Linux. The market and men on the street now associates "Linux"
with the whole combination, for better or for worse. I'm personally very
gratified that our (in this case, the X Window system community, GNU
community, and Linux community) are affecting a large and growing number
of people, rather than withering and dying from the effects of Redmond.
So long as Linus gives credit where credit is due to the various groups
that make up this community, there is little to be gained (and arguably,
much to be lost) by confusing people with a more complex nomencature.
Obviously, when writing for a technical audience, (rather than the mass
audience), being more clear what you mean may make sense and give credit
where credit is due. But lets not confuse the mass market, which
has enough trouble understanding Linux as it is.
- Jim Gettys
From: jg@pa.dec.com (Jim Gettys)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 11:36:03 -0800
To: rms@gnu.org
Cc: allbery@kf8nh.apk.net, fizban@tin.it, linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: Article: IBM wants to "clean up the license" of Linux
For better or worse (I believe for the better), the term Linux has grown
to cover the merged result of a large number of efforts of the last 15 years.
The components of the Linux system include (at least) in NO particular order:
o the Linux Kernel effort,
o BSD UNIX development,
o X Window System,
o Perl, Python, TK/TCL,
o and the large efforts that go under the GNU banner.
All of these are major efforts, by MANY talented individuals and corporations
(some of whom put many millions of dollars into the development of the
code, whether it be Digital/Compaq, HP, IBM, Sun, Red Hat, SuSE, Netscape,
Cygnus, and many others). They represent many man years of sweat, often under
very hard deadlines (at least in the X Window System and Netscape cases,
and probably others, at great personal cost). If you tried to remove any
one of them, you would end up without Linux (though some substitutes for
some pieces exist).
Calling out any particular one or subset of these efforts for particular
praise in a common term, when the current general term connotes all of the
contributors, slights the contributions of the others; this is why I believe
it is divisive. I have emotional scars left from the last round of
divisiveness (the UNIX GUI wars), and CANNOT condone any action that would
condone such divisions, and the results of such divisions, particularly
at a time when unity is needed.
I therefore believe that uses of the term GNU/Linux are divisive and wrong.
Therefore, I will not personally condone any such usage, and WILL NOT
make such distinctions, and strongly discourage others in doing so. Lets
spend our time giving credit to each other for what they have done for
us, rather than asking others to give credit to us for what we have done
for them. (to paraphrase Kennedy). One is inclusive, the other is divisive.
This is my final comment on this thread.
- Jim Gettys
the naming thing (Score:3)
The word GNU has no unix ring to it whatsoever. Yes, it's a clever acronym. Yes, I even like the name very much. But if you talk about GNU to a non-unix person, chances are they'll reply, "Your what hurts?"
By contrast, the name Linux is quite uncanny; it contains all the letters that are in the word unix, plus it's the creator's first name with the last letter changed to an x. It looks and sounds like the name unix, but it also looks and sounds like the name Linus. It's a strange coincidence, but it works extremely well. I've heard a number of people mispronounce the word Linux, but that seems to be happening less and less.
The article says that RMS is eccentric. Many people likewise consider the name GNU eccentric, especially compared to the more familiar-sounding Linux - which of course is based on the eccentric name unix. I repeat, to them GNU is eccentric, but Linux is normal because it sounds like a well-established name, a name that just happens to be eccentric.
To be honest, marketing is just not RMS's forte - but that is meant as a compliment; it isn't Thompson's or Ritchie's forte either. IMHO, the name HURD resembles the sound of blowing chunks more than it does a stampede of free-running antelope-like animals. Eccentric indeed. And a man of great integrity, and a great hacker who will forever be close to our hearts regardless of the name we settle on.
Has the world forgotten Columbus? Neither will it forget RMS.
GPL is "Free Beer" (Score:3)
As much as I admire the FSF (and I do), and think the GPL is a Good Thing, their philosophy is contradictory:
They speak of freedom of the press, and say they they do not want to constrain software to IP laws. And yet, they also have one of the most viciously restrictive licenses in existance. Let's not argue about software leases or the rights of the user... the GPL is a straitjacket to that most important 1% of the computing community - the coders.
I will *never* release software under GPL - I don't trust it. Either I'm coding for profit or for the community, and I do not see how giving up the rights to your code helps either. If you want to be altruistic, do so. I've released plenty into public domain or copyrighted freeware (after giving up on the "shareware" concept), and I've sold/coded for profit. If I write a program, it is *mine* until I say it it yours (because you paid me), or I give it to everybody (I like public domain and freeware). That freedom, to do anything you want with your own creation, is what the GPL removes.
The GPL removes my freedom as an author to choose the terms of distribution and/or publication of my code. Once you've chosen the GPL path, it cannot be backtraced, while paths exist that provide the same results without the restrictions that the GPL forces you into.
The GPL makes it easy for users and middle men. "It has GPL" now equals "it can be burned onto a CD and sold". The Qt license was despised merely because it wasn't GPL, and people actually had to *READ* the thing to figure out their rights. If it was GPL, the users could have gone on their merry way without having to think about what they were running.
--
Evan "The JabberWokky" E.
Very well written. (Score:2)
As to a "system", do I have to call mine a Corel/GNU/Linux system because I use Corel WordPerfect for Linux now? How about Mozilla/Corel/GNU/Linux? I think that names are used to differentiate systems... so if I say I run Linux, I believe that conveys the point - I don't run M$!
I also think that GNU is great, and it will get the recognition it deserves, but isn't it kinda shameful to go around "donating" software out of the "goodness of your heart", and then begging for recognition?
After all, hackers should be judged by their coding, and not their political views.
On the subject of names... (Score:2)
Also, he says himself that the name really isn't the important thing, that GNU gets credit is. Every proficient user of linux knows the contributions of the GNU. Even I, a "newbie" (ugh, ugly term), know quite well. So the GNU does get the credit it deservesd.
kmj
Makes me wonder.... (Score:3)
Seriously, "GNU/Linux" will just never catch on. People are always going to call it "Linux". It's a linguistic thing.
But it would be nice if distributors started giving "GNU tools" better visibility on the boxes and on their web sites.
Free beer (Score:3)
both MIT and the AI Lab have received massive subsidies from the US Government over the years, particularly the DoD. So, much of that "free" (as in "free beer") software really was paid for by the US taxpayer.
Isn't that all the more reason why the software, once it's written, should be freely distributed - at the very least within the US?
If taxpayers money is used by the DOD to make some ultra-safe encryption algo or whatever then shouldn't the tax-payers get access to that code? Reguardless of whether or not the money should have been used in the first place surely everyone would agree that it's better to use the stuff once it's payed for than lock it up where nobody can get at it.
A private company or indeed an individual has every right to make propriatory code, but does a government have the right to lock the fruits of taxpayers contributions away from the taxpayers themselves? I wonder if governments should be allowed to write ANY non-free, secret software at all, let alone impose restrictions on other people's code (EG exporting it).
Priestess....