Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
GNOME GUI

Gnome Preliminary Election Results In 180

Posted by chrisd from the does-anyone-know-what-step-two-is dept.
makapuf writes "First results of Gnome Board elections have been issued. They include some well known gnome hackers, Miguel & others, along with Tesla Gwyne, but RMS has not been elected. Remember this is only temporary and see the results on Gnotices. You can see RMS' responses of the application form."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gnome Preliminary Election Results In More

Gnome Preliminary Election Results In

Comments Filter:

  • rofl (Score:2, Funny)

    by Shadowcaster ( 58728 )
    I wonder if it was like real (meaning american politics, voting booth and all that) voting, in that one could put down their own candidate. It would have been funny to see JarJar get in there somewhere..

    I wonder if JarJar would have beat out RMS for votes.. they can both be equally annoying at times:
    "Yousa call da system GNU/Linux-sa?"

  • Urgh (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous DWord ( 466154 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2001 @04:29AM (#2623707) Homepage
    It's actually Telsa Gwynne. Close though. :)

  • Why gee, that's a surprise ... (Score:4, Troll)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2001 @04:31AM (#2623711)
    "... but RMS has not been elected"

    RMS has acted as a intolerant stubborn donkey for so long with regard to software that he isn't taken seriously anymore. Even the FSF are getting really tired of him now.

    Don't get me wrong, his strong opinions *were* the right attitude when free software was something of a novelty, when the business world was taking the few free software people for lunatics. But that was years ago. Now the world at large at least takes free software seriously, and Stallman has become as useful as a fire hydrant in the middle of a bike trail.

    • Re:Why gee, that's a surprise ... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28, 2001 @04:37AM (#2623717)
      as useful as a fire hydrant in the middle of a bike trail.

      What kind of analogy is that? I'd say RMS is more of a one-legged cat trying to bury turds on a frozen lake....

    • Re:Why gee, that's a surprise ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Muggins the Mad ( 27719 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2001 @04:45AM (#2623730)
      > Now the world at large at least takes free software seriously, and Stallman has become as useful as a fire hydrant in the middle of a bike trail.

      I must disagree with you here. Stallman, or at least his strong views on the purity of free software are needed more than ever.

      Now people are recognising some of the benefits of available source code, they're not seeing the important difference between open source and free software (in GNU terms). And it's all being confused. People are going around thinking that just because it's publically developed, it's free.

      We need the FSF as much as we always have, as a voice pointing out why the "viral" clause in the GPL is so important, and why the BSD license gives developers more freedom but doesn't necessarily transfer it to the end users.

      - MugginsM
      • "his strong views on the purity of free software are needed more than ever"

        Okay, so take the example of the Linux kernel : it started as a project from a brilliant programmer geek for brilliant programmer geeks : RMS' message isn't very useful here (because of the small specialized audience) but I admit that it might be.

        Then, Linux grew bigger and started to show-up on company radars (namely Novell) : when Linux was at that point, RMS was key to keeping it from being taken over by rapacious companies. Linus also said many times that the GPL was a natural choice. So I say bravo RMS : directly or indirectly, he kept Linux independent, and he still does.

        Now, Linux has reached a critical mass : companies have vested interests in it, too many people have given time and effort to make it better, or simply to use it in solutions, it's not going to be adulterated by business thugs anymore. Nobody is going to take it over today. Does it need RMS' unbudgeable attitude to keep it safe ? heck no. What Linux needs now is $$$, and a steering committee able to make balanced decisions for the good of geeks as well as suits. At this point, RMS just drives businesses away, and even Linus admits that he steers clears of him for similar reasons (it's written in his book, quite bluntly).

        I'm a programmer, I maintain open-source projects, and because I used to be a hot-headed teenage geek long ago, I still feel a pang of disgust in my stomack when I hear or read about businesses doing this or that with the information that wants to be free. But I'm old(er) now, and what my head tells me differs from what my stomack does : at some point in every major OSS project, businesses have to bring in cash to keep the ball going. It might feel disgusting, but it's the truth. RMS' head thinks the exact same way his stomack does, and that's stupid.

        "We need the FSF as much as we always have, as a voice pointing out why the "viral" clause in the GPL is so important, and why the BSD license gives developers more freedom but doesn't necessarily transfer it to the end users"

        You're 100% right, we need the FSF. But there is a major difference between the FSF and RMS : they acknowledge the importance of the business world, even if they don't often shout it out loud, and they strive to work with them *and* keep the spirit of the GPL intact, which is why they drafted the GPL 3.0 that Stallman hates so much, and why they try to distance themselves from Stallman.

        • But I'm old(er) now, and what my head tells me differs from what my stomack does : at some point in every major OSS project, businesses have to bring in cash to keep the ball going. It might feel disgusting, but it's the truth. RMS' head thinks the exact same way his stomack does, and that's stupid.

          That's the way it is now, but not the way it has to be. At some point in the future, if the world abandoned propretary software, and all software available was free (as in speech), corporate backing wouldn't be necessary. Why would we need the help of the industry if there were no proprietary file formats or network protocols to reverse engineer or sign NDA's for.

          Sure, interaction with business on some level is necessary (businesses offereing tech support, etc.), but good software will happen with or without industry if it is universally accepted. And yes, we can still all get paid doing custom development for different companies (everything from web sites to customized POS systems). Stallman has said for years that that if the world consisted of all free software, we could still get paid, but not as much.

          Please note I am not arguing whether these cases are good or bad, I'm simply arguing alternative scenarios that others had presented.

          • "if the world abandoned propretary software"

            You may as well say "if the world abandoned that crazy hatred thing."

            It may be nice to picture a world where everyone gets along and where everyone runs Free (tm) software, but it's not likely to happen, regardless of the involvement of RMS or anyone.

            Corporate backing for software development includes such things as IBM paying developers to port free software to linux. It includes businesses having open sourced drivers written for their hardware. It includes college students writing code for open release as part of a project.

            Corporate backing isn't all Microsoft and One True Way. Sometimes it's ugly coding and someone needs to be paid to write it in one fashion or another.

          • That's the way it is now, but not the way it has to be. At some point in the future, if the world abandoned propretary software, and all software available was free (as in speech), corporate backing wouldn't be necessary. Why would we need the help of the industry if there were no proprietary file formats or network protocols to reverse engineer or sign NDA's for.

            *snort*

            You can survive without eating, I presume? Corporate backing will still be necessary, and corporate support. The bad part about Stallman's vision is that he wants everyone to work a support role. I, for one, ain't interested.

            I'm all for open-source; "free software" is just silly when it reaches this level of horse manure ("corporate backing wouldn't be necessary" indeed).

            -f

      • yeah right (Score:3, Interesting)

        by streetlawyer ( 169828 )
        Now people are recognising some of the benefits of available source code, they're not seeing the important difference between open source and free software

        Or possibly, they're seeing it, and they don't think it's important.

        In general, never assume that the reason people don't think things are important is because they don't understand them. Years of evolution has given us a sense of proportion which means that the mass of people is almost never wrong about what's worth bothering with. That's why turnout is so low in Presidential elections.

        • Years of evolution has given us a sense of proportion which means that the mass of people is almost never wrong about what's worth bothering with. That's why turnout is so low in Presidential elections.

          You know, two responses come to mind:

          The serious response

          You more or less make the case, with the "presidential elections" crack, that the mass of people can quite obviously be wrong about what's worth bothering with. There is nothing more important to the health of a representative democracy than choosing who represents you: if you don't take that responsibility seriously, you abandon it to the dwindling number of people who will be bothered to vote. This is precisely why campagin ads are so often repugnant scare tactics: the idea is to depress most voters out of voting, leaving only the ones who really believe, say, electing the Democrat will mean abortion clinics opening on every street corner to vote. And eventually we end up in a situation like we have now: where the best way to get elected to government is to campaign against government, and to bash anyone who believes that government can possibly be useful. And, gosh, when the government gets full of people like that, darned if it isn't a self-fulfilling prophecy!

          The flippant answer

          People watch Tom Green. Enough said.

      • Re:Why gee, that's a surprise ... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Get Behind the Mule ( 61986 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2001 @06:27AM (#2623914)
        I must disagree with you here. Stallman, or at least his strong views on the purity of free software are needed more than ever.


        ... and so on and so forth, but your post just keeps asserting that these things are all so important, without explaining why.

        Sure it's a Good Thing that the FSF exists, and of course RMS deserves respect for the dogged exercise of his rights (as everybody always says nowadays). And if he and others like him can convince more people, then more power to 'em. But a lot of us know and understand the message, are not terribly convinced by it, and aren't planning on doing anything particular to promote it in the foreseeable future. In the marketplace of ideas, you win some and you lose some.

        Incidentally, since you're evidently a supporter of the FSF and the free software concept, I'd like to advise you, probably for the umpteenth time, that RMS is an extremely poor ambassador for your cause. Let's once and for all be rid of the canard that it's everybody else's fault, because we're all just too lily-livered to cope with someone who is so strongly dedicated. RMS could be just as passionate without being such an insufferable jackass. It is possible to take a strong, principled stance, and nevertheless have some skills at diplomacy and just generally getting along with people. RMS's fans try to redefine his weaknesses as strengths, but that's just an argument born out of desperation, not to mention sheer baloney. He has simply failed to learn some lessons that his mother and kindergarten teacher should have taught him, and it is extremely damaging to the free software cause.
      • I'm not clear on the difference between open source and free software. Could you show me a piece of free software which is not open source, or a piece of open source software which is not free software?
        -russ
        • Russ,
          The shareware community on the mac is pretty vibrant. Alot of good small apps are given away for free, yet you don't have access to the source code.

          As for open source software which is not free, I can't come up with an example. Let me drink another cup of coffee..
        • Numerous examples of open source but non-free software exist or have existed until the FSF or other Free Software zealots hounded those with the ability to do so to license the software under the GPL or some other other GPL-compatible license. And when I use the phrase non-free, I mean that the software is somehow incompatible with the GPL, in that it has special requirements beyond the sharing of the freedom (things like: can only be re-distributed as-is, all changes must be distributed as patches, no redistribution as part of a commercial distribution, free for student, research, and non-profit, but corporations must pay a fee, etc).

          A not-exhaustive list: Qt (at one time), mpg123 (without which the program XMMS may not be so popular), qmail, Mozilla... or go to http://freshmeat.net/browse/13/ and look at the packages you get with 'Free for educational use', 'Free for non-commercial use', and 'Free to Use but Restricted'. Those categories include links to plenty of binary distributions, but also to plenty of source code distributions.
          • Do any of your examples use an Open Source license [opensource.org]?
            -russ
            • I cannot find any licenses on that list that are not listed on the free software licenses page at www.gnu.org, but *many* of them are listed as GPL-incompatible. Especially I would point to licenses like the QPL which requires that you distribute the original source and patches if you want to distribute a modified package.

              And yes, you caught me. If we're going to be picky about the definition of free software we may as well be picky about the definition of open source. But I prefer to use open source to refer to the large body of non-free software for which there is source code available-- as there is no better term for it. The source is there. It's open. But beyond that there is no guarantee.
              The words open source seem to hold as their priority the fact that I can look at the source code, not that I can use the package however I want, change it, distribute it, etc.

              And yes, I realize that free software could also mean no cost (and not free-dom), but because it doesn't require any additional explanation beyond "free as in speech" to define which sort of "free" we're talking about, this seems much more exact when talking about software that is not only "open source" but also "free" (as in speech).
              • Precisely why we took the time and effort (this time around) to establish a defendable trademark for Open Source Software, "OSI Certified". Yes, open source might mean anything. So could free software. But "OSI Certified" means something.
                -russ
        • Free is a proper subset of OSS. As for the other thing,
          Darwin (APL) is Open Source and not Free Software.

          (hmm, they mau have changed APL though).

          -velco
      • Now people are recognising some of the benefits of available source code, they're not seeing the important difference between open source and free software (in GNU terms).

        You are assuming that the fact that they are not adopting the GPL is proof that they don't understand the difference between Free Software and Open Source.

        I suggest that the fact that companies have begun exploring other licenses is proof that they DO finally understand that difference.

        They're trying to find a balance between the anti-capitalist FSF position, and the flaming they'd take for using a BSD-style license.
      • The viral nature of the GPL is anti-capitalist. It removes control of work from the creator and gives it to the community at large. Stallman is a kook, a kook that had a powerful message and a dogged rough edged style of delivering it. And as such is still a valuable member of our community.

        But to say that the end users freedoms are not only as important as the developers but superceeds them as well is just plain hogwash.

        Some software is opensourced becuase no one will buy it. Some is opensourced becuase one person does not have the ability to do it all and hopes there are people who will help them. Some software is opensourced becuase they want peer review, smart people looking at it and making it better. And some software is opensourced becuase the developers are hunting for an audience. Very little software is opensourced becuase the users deserve the software that is being produced, BUT we need these people as well, they are important.

        But I will not let that last group tell me that becuase they did it I must do it as well. I have a mortgage to pay and a family to support. Many "OpenSource" companies are working on closed soure versions of their software becuase the open ones don't make money. Mainly becuase the end users don't want good quality software, they don't want software that solves their problems. They just want free software. And so why should I as a developer give a shit about their freedoms with my work?

        Jer,
    • I totally agree, and it's good that more and more people are seeing this. I think anyone who wants to should be able to keep what they do free, those who don't shouldn't be haressed.

      Stallman couldn't care less about companies making real money to pay their workers. The situation today is vastly different. We are not talking about a driver for a printer that was close source so the printer became useless on a system, we are talking about a very high level software piracy, where nobody wants to pay.

      If open source is a viable way to make a business, there is just one way to prove it, companies that makes a profit. And don't tell me, go out and start one instead, because M$ is still making the most money and thus must have the best idea on how to make money.
      • We are not talking about a driver for a printer that was close source so the printer became useless on a system, we are talking about a very high level software piracy, where nobody wants to pay.


        Bull! There are plenty of closed source drivers for Windows that have no implemented equivalents on other OS's, and those keep people from using free software. Just because that's less of a problem today, don't pretend it isn't a problem. Think of all the people out there with WinModems that are totally screwed if they want to try Linux. There are such things as WinPrinters and WinScanners as well.

      • If open source is a viable way to make a business, there is just one way to prove it, companies that makes a profit.

        That's not the point. Free Software is free because it is free, not so someone can figure out a way to make money on it.

        Free Software is free (and thanks to GPL, *stays* free) for software developers and software users -- so they can use and improve the software into perpetuity without worrying about apple, ms, aol, etc throwing a bunch of lawyers at you.

        Free Software does *not* exist to provide a base of "acceptable" software for apple, ms, aol, etc to absorb into it's proprietary, binary black box for them to embrace and extend, without contributing the code back to the developer community.

        Without the GPL, apple, ms, aol etc can happily say: What's yours is mine and what's mine is mine. That's what they want to say.

        I, for one, am glad RMS does what he does.

        He is stringent enough in his standards that he is the endpoint of the long and slippery slope of free vs proprietary software. Most other people fall somewhere in the middle, which for good or bad is a fact of life.

        But without him anchoring the argument, I think we would all be in deep shit, because the other end of the slope -- apple, ms, aol -- aren't going away anytime soon, either.

        I thank him for it.

    • Yep (Score:2, Insightful)

      by jawtheshark ( 198669 )
      Yep, sometimes one needs "extremists" to show a point. You don't get public attention by being tolerant and staying in your corner: Stallman is what I would call a "extremist-opensource-advocate", he went out in public and showed his intolerance for proprietary software.
      I would nearly compare it to environmentalists back in the seventies that wanted to banish all industrial activity because of the pollution. (Anyone recall GreenPeace back then?) They made it clear to the world that we were on the wrong track. The world now has taken a moderate standpoint to environmentalism.
      I think that Stallman has done the same for opensource: the IT world now has embraced it but won't take it to the extreme.

      History repeats itself in some form or another.
      Note for potential flamers: I use the word "extremist" in the context of "someone with extreme viewpoints" not in the current context of "terrorist". Also I wish to note that I have nothing against environemntalists, they need to be there and I respect nature as much as I can.

      • Re:Yep (Score:1)

        by dda ( 527064 )
        You're "extremely" carefull .. good.
        Yep, sometimes one needs "extremists" to show a point.

        Extremism is never good anyway, under all the forms it can use.
        There's one thing I don't tolerate : the intolerance.
        (I nevertheless don't hate myself so much :)).

      • The issue with RMS' extreme pro-open source position is that, as an extreme position, it is easy to demonize and ignore, taking the more moderate, and reasonable, positions with it. Does he have the best of intentions? at times. But the harm done to the Open Source Community by his foolish guidelines and the juvenile Linux v. GNU/Linux debate is at least as strong.

    • Now the world at large at least takes free software seriously

      Serious enough to stop trying to patent code? Serious enough to ensure that all software comes with source on disc? Serious enough that you or I can have access to the language codes which drive our printers?

      The world has moved backwards in respect of free software. Ironically this is largely RMS's fault, AFAICS. His irritating manner has almost totally destroyed any respect for his ideas on free software, ideas which are valuable.

      The world hasn't stopped needing RMS's vision, it just really needs a new RMS.

      TWW

    • Has anyone else noticed that all anyone needs to do to get karma nowadays is one of:

      + Say how linux isn't all that great after all
      + Say how perhaps Microsoft aren't so bad
      + Criticise RMS, the more vehemently and ignorantly the better
      + Criticise ESR's state of mind.

      It also helps if you do this right under the main story instead of as part of an intelligent discussion.

      You are almost guaranteed several Insightfuls and Interestings, at least enough to offset the more accurate Overrated and Flamebait.

      I'm fed up with it, anyone else?
      • Perhaps people are beginning to get sick of the blind evangelism. Apparently, there are some views here that are not allowed to be expressed without being called a shit-disturber.

        I for one am sick of the self-satisfied Anti-MS trolling. And the fanatical pro-linux-anything stance. If it's not Linux, It's Bad©

        Get stuffed. I'm here to read about technology and news that affects Nerds. I didn't come here to push some twisted fucking agenda. Maybe I'm in the wrong place. I always thought /. was about tech. I don't remember seeing a sign above the door that said "Slashdot: A place to endlessly slam anything not Linux".

        • Re:Why gee, that's a surprise ... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by sydb ( 176695 ) <michael@NospAm.wd21.co.uk> on Wednesday November 28, 2001 @11:38AM (#2624653)
          In the past, pro-MS posters would generally get moderated down and flamed, whilst pro-Linux posters would generally get moderated up.

          At the same time, a vocal minority would complain about this lack of balance. Fair enough.

          But now, the pendulum has swung the other way. Fully. Now the balance is against linux and Free Software. You are part of the vocal majority.

          I'd rather have NONE of the flaming and trolling, the karma-whoring and bigotry on EITHER side.

          I came to Slashdot for intelligent discussion, about technical news and, specifically, about Free Software related happenings. The site has ALWAYS had a Free Software slant. Just because it's not written in lights at the top of page doesn't change that; but remember that Slashdot is part of the OSDN: Open Source Developers Network. "Open Source" may not be a drop-in replacement for "Free Software" but near as dammit. But it's not solely about Free Software, and I welcome that, and I don't troll or flame people talking about Microsoft products; in fact I try not to troll or flame anyone. If someone puts up an opinion, it's an invitation to a discussion, but most people here don't want to discuss, they just want to score points.

          Your kind and many more like you make me want to go elsewhere.
      • Yeah, it's pretty annoying. In fact, Slashdot's whole moderation system seems broken. Kuro5hin's works better imho, but even it has issues.

        You missed the best way to get karma.

        "I know some fanatical [anti-topic of post] moderator is going to punish me for this, but it needs to be said."

        or

        "I know I'm going to lose karma for this, but ..."

        Put either one of those in a post, the more flamebait the better, and prepare to be modded up.

        I've specifically asked for a new moderation "-1, mentions karma" specifically to get rid of that kind of troll. I really feel that the moderation needs to feel like it's not there, if people post because of it (especially if that works!) then there's an issue.

        I too would like a more balanced set of moderators. Even pro-MS fundies, though they piss me off to no end. I believe either ignoring them, or debating them is the answer, not knee-jerk moderations.
    • Urrgh. I dont give a shit anymore. I'm just gonna come out and say it, karma be damned.

      Free is free, not not necessarily Open.
      Ok, I can follow that.

      Open is free. Or not. But the source must be released to the public. Hmm. Sounds free to me.

      So. Software is free. No money to you. No money for food. Now you gotta get a job. You can hack in your spare time. Work doing what? Coding for Profit? If you get paid to code, then profit must be generated from the software, which means...Holdonaminute...what the FUCK is wrong with this picture?!?

      Does anybody else believe that this all-or-nothing Free Software attitude is fundamentally flawed? Now I know that someone is is gonna say that a completely Free model is not what "it's all about". So, if we don't like Sun, or MS, or Apple.. then just who sells software that we do like huh? Are game makers the only ones free of Open Source wrath?

      posting without +1...
      • So. Software is free. No money to you....

        Bzzzt! Wrong.

        Yesterday in 5 hours I made enough to pay my mortgage and all my monthly bills for the month.

        How much of that was license fees? Answer: None.

        It was for supporting Free Software --- My entire income comes from working with Free Software in one capacity or another.

        I manage to charge enough of my time to: pay my mortgage, pay my bills, fund the UK Debian mirror [debian.org], go on several skiing holidays a year, etc. etc.

        OK, I'm never going to be a millionaire, but that's not exactly unusual for a programmer.

        The myth that it is imposible to make a living from Free Software is patently absurd. Please don't attempt to peddle it again.

        Thanks, Phil.

  • Elections (Score:5, Funny)

    by loraksus ( 171574 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2001 @04:36AM (#2623715) Homepage
    However, RMS has demanded a recount in 13 counties, claiming that media bias that he is not a team player has offset the public's perception of him, and thus cost him the election.
    Reports have come from a source close to Stallman saying that he is stomping up and down his office and muttering " No? NO!?!!? I invented the fuckin' GUI!!"

    More at 10.

  • I was confused... (Score:4, Funny)

    by x136 ( 513282 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2001 @04:52AM (#2623747) Homepage
    ...I think I accidentally voted for Pat Buchanan!

  • What I found vaguely interesting (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Chuck Chunder ( 21021 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2001 @05:06AM (#2623774) Journal
    was that of the 11 people who voted and who have gnu.org email addresses only 2 people, including RMS, voted for RMS.

    Not that this necessarily means anything particularly significant, I have no idea about what having a gnu.org email address means for a start, it's just vaguely interesting.

  • Domination by a few companies (Score:5, Informative)

    by amorsen ( 7485 ) <benny+slashdot@amorsen.dk> on Wednesday November 28, 2001 @05:36AM (#2623827)
    In retrospect the protection against company dominations could have been stronger. Of those elected:

    4 are employed by Ximian
    3 are employed by RedHat
    3 are without affiliation
    1 is employed by Compaq

    As it is, Ximian and RedHat together have almost 2/3 of the seats. Both are respectable and honourable companies and I am sure that they will try to keep the viewpoints of the whole GNOME community in mind when they decide issues, but it is hard for them to represent important GNOME backers such as Sun Microsystems.

    One can hope that the GNOME Board will consult with the greater community when they are facing important issues. They could invite people with different affiliations as non-voting guests for select meetings, perhaps.

    • Re:Domination by a few companies (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It's a pity that noone from Sun got elected.

      I think it would have been more interesting to have at least 1 representative for Sun instead of yet another ximian guy or Telsa Gwynne (despite all the sympathy I may have for her and her husband).

      I wonder if this election is going to have any impact on gnome2 for Solaris, the use of bonobo or gtk in OPenoffice.org etc.
      • After seeing the vote numbers, I can't help but think that if the elections would have been based on lists (by affiliation) instead of individuals, Sun surely would have gotten one or more people on board. Perhaps I'm just used to Dutch (or European) election systems.. :)
    • Well, most Linux people have to earn a crust somewhere, and the tendency is for them to work of Linux companies, so not really that surprising.
    • Should the GNOME board consist of community members or GNOME hackers? If the latter, it's going to be impossible not to have strong representation by Ximian and Red Hat. If the latter, merely difficult.
      -russ
      • Should the GNOME board consist of community members or GNOME hackers? If the latter, it's going to be impossible not to have strong representation by Ximian and Red Hat. If the latter, merely difficult.
        It would be unfair if there was not strong representation by RedHat and Ximian, since those two companies contribute so much. 2/3 of the seats just seems closer to "overwhelming" than to "strong".

        Since I posted I was made aware of the GNOME Advisory Board. It seems that the Advisory Board ensures that other companies and organizations are heard, so I do not seem to have much to worry about.

    • I honestly feel that having some serious corporate representation on board is a good thing. There are many people in the Open Source/Free Software communities that want to see Gnome become the standard desktop out there, but until Gnome gets to a point where it can be popular with regular old users, and stable enough for use in serious business applications, it will never have a good chance at winning business from Windows. Perhaps with some serious attempts to make money involved (At least from RedHat and Compaq- the chances of Ximian ever becoming profitable seem pretty slim.), Gnome can become the free software desktop of choice and deserve it.

  • Board dominated by Ximian and Red Hat (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Florian Weimer ( 88405 ) <fw@deneb.enyo.de> on Wednesday November 28, 2001 @05:39AM (#2623830) Homepage
    Time will tell if this is a good thing. Perhaps the per-company limit should have been lower (two or three), so that some other companies would have been represented on the board. The current member's affiliations probably do not mirror a large part of the GNOME community.

    • First of all, members of the foundation board are not representatives of their respective companies -- there is a separate Advisory Board comprising representatives of companies on the foundation. Decisions are made by the Foundation Board though.

      Well, last year, the majority of the board was split over Red Hat, Ximian and Eazel. As Eazel went out of business, they aren't listed as the affiliation of any board member now.

      There are other companies that have been working on GNOME, such as Sun and CodeFactory, but their work on GNOME (or the company itself) doesn't seem to have as high a profile. The Sun hackers have been doing a lot of great work on accessibility and GNOME 2.0. CodeFactory hackers maintain a number of core libraries in the GNOME 2.0 platform (Anders maintains libgnome and libgnomeui), and work on various other libraries/applications such as gtkhtml2 and Mr Project.

      If you want to see more diversity in affiliation, try and convince more companies to pay for hackers to work on GNOME (the company doesn't need to join the Advisory Board though).

  • 1 vote (Score:1)

    by jester ( 8414 )
    Wonder if the guy in last place voted for himself ...

    • Apparently, yes... The only vote he received is his own.

      Ballot 114:
      From:Rhett Creighton <rhett@mit.edu>
      Member:rhett@mit.edu
      Token:1d95bd7ab3b22c3d8610f91487064af0
      Voted for 8 candidates:
      RHETT CREIGHTON
      MIGUEL DE ICAZA
      NAT FRIEDMAN
      TELSA GWYNNE
      FEDERICO MENA-QUINTERO
      HAVOC PENNINGTON
      ARIEL RIOS
      RICHARD STALLMAN

      This was taken from the preliminary results available from http://foundation.gnome.org/elections/2001-prelim- results.txt [gnome.org].

  • I'm sure Telsa won't be too pleased that you mis-typed her name! :-)
  • ..before the election [slashdot.org] about his suitability for the GNOME board. Seems the voters agreed with me.

    As I said I like what RMS is doing, but I don't think he would be able to dedicate the time GNOME deserves
  • the very first line at the preliminary results page [gnome.org] says "Ignoring ballot 0 from 'Richard M.Stallman...'"

    Too bad he didn't miss being elected by one vote..

    ---Oh.. oops.. Well, it looks like he did get his vote in later on. But it's still kind of funny that that's the first line.

  • I dont, but i can understand we care when GNOME a free desktop alternative gets some positive publicity or gets used by a major company like SUN, but i dont need to know anything about the election stuff, sertainly not if its just a RMS troll...

    RMS is my hero, no its not, but i respect that man cause he stands for something....and not a lot of people can say that, neither can i...

    Quazion.

    PS. and again i just had to say something...


  • Isn't Telsa Gwynne Alan Cox's partner?

    That must almost make it four RH employees on there - well, she's funded (indirectly) by Red Hat anyway!


  • 1. Havoc Pennington (215 votes) (Red Hat)
    2. Miguel de Icaza (191) (Ximian)
    3. Daniel Veillard (189) (Red Hat)
    4. Jim Gettys (182) (Compaq)
    5. Jody Goldberg (153) (Ximian)
    6. Nat Friedman (146) (Ximian)
    7. Jonathan Blandford (142) (Red Hat)
    8. Telsa Gwynne (139) (none)
    Federico Mena-Quintero (139) (Ximian)
    10. Michael Meeks (130) (Ximian) [*]
    11. James Henstridge (125 votes) (none)[**]
    George Lebl (125 votes) (none)

    (the following candidates were not elected)
    13. Glynn Foster (116) (Sun Microsystems)
    14. Tim Ney (112) (GNOME Foundation)
    15. Bill Haneman (103) (Sun Microsystems)
    16. Chema Celorio (102) (Ximian)
    17. Jeff Waugh (75) (none)
    18. Richard Stallman (50) (Free Software Foundation)


    Quick! Get Greta Van Susteren in here to tell us what this means. Will there be a re-count?

  • Havoc (Score:1)

    by Leimy ( 6717 )
    With a name like Havoc... how much order can he bring to GNOME?

    Just kidding... :)
    • I'd worry more about how much jello and cream lemon he'd bring to GNOME, not to mention the next default wallpaper and theme.

      Whoops, different Havoc. Nevermind.
  • Or "Good Network Object Model Environment".

    However they do it they really need to drop "GNU" from the name of the project. The rational is very simple. The GNU project has very clear and simple goals. The GNOME project also has clear and simple goals. These goals are not the same.

    Not by a long shot. Gnome advocates will tell you of the plight of the pore shareware author who must develop his nifty new application for Gnome as the competing desktop is built on a GPLed library. GNU will tell you that the LGPL should only be applied to libraries that provide a function that is already available on other none free operating systems.

    On an issue as basic as that, GNU and GNOME disagree. On whether a new proprietary application built on the Gnome foundation is worth mention in the main Gnome news source or promotion on the Gnome website the two organizations disagree.

    However GNU was here 1st and its position and ideology have not changed significantly in years. Therefore it's op to Gnome to either conform to that position, change it from within the organization or get the hell out of an organization to which they don't truly belong.

    The GNU way will not change. At least not this decade. Gnome will not abandon friendly corporations that happen to do proprietary apps for the platform (sometimes in conjunction with open apps). That leaves only option #3.

    Gnome needs to stop calling itself a GNU project because quite frankly it is not. It is worth noting that other massive Open source projects don't have the sort of conflict with GNU that GNOME dose. The Linux Kernel. KDE. Xfree86 and many more. All of them do the on GNU like things GNOME has done but none bring out RMS' fury.

    Simply because they don't use his pet project's name for marketing. Some don't even use his license but at least those who do honor the license enough to keep the goat at bay.
    • Gnome advocates will tell you of the plight of the pore shareware author who must develop his nifty new application for Gnome as the competing desktop is built on a GPLed library.

      Which Gnome advocates? I'm a Gnome advocate (Use Gnome!), but I would never say "Because it's great for shareware authors!", even though it in fact is.

      Have a look at the Gnome web site [gnome.org].

      Tell you what, I'll save you a mouse click. Some quotes:

      GNOME is part of the GNU project, and is free software

      The GNOME project was born as an effort to create an entirely free desktop environment for free systems.

      The GNOME project was the first to provide a fully free desktop environment for Unix-like systems. Free Software is about empowering users, and about granting them rights over the software they use. With Free Software, the user gets a number of rights:
      • The right to use the software.

      • The right to redistribute the software: if you have a piece of free software, you can share this software with other people (no license fees are required).

      • The right to learn from the software.

      • The right to alter the software (all source code, data files, images are included). For example, users can improve it, extend it, trim it down, fix problems, learn or experiment.

      • The right to redistribute your modified versions of the software. This means that once you have made changes to the software, you can distribute these changes to your friends, customers or anyone else.

      These rights and freedoms are at the core of the GNOME project. The side effects of Free Software are that the software tends to be of very high quality, it evolves very rapidly, problems are fixed quickly, and in general the system is better both for the user and the developer.

      Now stop trolling, understand what you are talking about before you open your underinformed cakehole.
      • Actualy I do understand fuly what I am talking about having been involved in free Software for the better part of a Decade.

        GNU is not very pragmatic. It dosn't belive there is much of a place for proprietery software.

        GNOME on the other hand thinks that the closed application has a definet roal to play in it's future.

        It is this basic disagreement that caused the 1st tosle betwean GNU and GNOME some months ago. Simply regorgitating a few pages of GNU doctrin on the GNOME website dosn't change the facts of how the project actualy operates and what it actualy seaks to achive.

        Forinstance. Being shiped with a future version of Solaris is considerd a major coop within the Gnome comunity. Ask around. To GNU that is an inconsequential side isue at best and at worst an atempt to undermine the free status of the project.

        GNU and GNOME argue and disagree. Any true GNU project would recognise that the license is a major feature and by virtue of writing it RMS is a major contributer.
  • Since you have to be a contributor to gnome to vote, is it really any surprise these contributors didn't go and elect an outside agitator to be a spokesman?
  • with the election results being reported early before they are really known. Do we need this kind of story? Is the point just to make fun of RMS? This is one of the worst Slashdot stories ever.
  • I wonder just how many ballots were discarded because RMS supporters complained on them that the voting method wasn't really "FREE"...

    Even with a ~150 vote gap, I smell a recount.

  • Funny this should come up. I was just thinking to myself earlier this evening about rms, the nature of free software, and his "political baggage".

    Here's my feelings: rms is a brilliant technologist. His software (namely emacs and gcc) is used by millions and have become the default tools of an entire industry. The original emacs (written in TECO for ITS) was the first editor of it's type- full-screen, modeless, expandable. A groundbreaking piece of software. Life without gcc is unthinkable.

    As a social engineer- a man attempting to create a change in society, he has been very successful. Certainly on the very short list of computer programmers seeking and successfully creating social change. He defined free software. Even if you prefer to call it Open Source (as I very often do. it's easier to explain, I think). Many if not most people who run Linux and (free|net|open)BSD agree that making software free can provide more value to the user, and in the long run, the programming community, than the type of proprietary software that became prevalent in the commercial software industry.

    As a Man With A Mission, he's brought hundreds of thousands of people (if not millions) around to his point of view. Whether they know it or not. Certainly, his aim to re-create the free software-oriented environment of the AI Lab/ITS community has succeeded beyond all imagination. He received the McCarther Foundation's Genius award, and those aren't just bandied about.

    Free software (built on Linux and other free OS's) have reinvigorated a form of hobbyist computing that had almost completely disappeared by the late 80's, early 90's. For me and millions of others, free software has made computing a fun hobby again. How can you be a hobbyist with nothing to tinker with? Proprietary software is boring.

    He gave us the GPL. The GPL is a brilliant legal document and a revolutionary manifesto at the same time. It's simple. It's elegant. Even a non-lawyer can understand it (something you can't say about the typical EULA that comes with windows, etc.) And it has provided a firm foundation for a free software movement. You can tell its working by how much MS hates it. It "breaks the virtuous cycle" of commercial companies building proprietary systems out of free developer's effort. Also, the GPL is the basis for free software companies like Red Hat, Mandrake, et al. Linus' first release of Linux was "for non-commercial use only". The GPL changed his mind.

    Even if you're a BSD/X11 license enthusiast, you should know that rms was instrumental in getting the BSD developers to re-implement the proprietary/AT&T-owned pieces of BSD 4.3. Their efforts became the basis for all the open source BSD's.

    Some of the credit for these breakthroughs and successful developments goes fairly to rms. If not as the direct player in all of it, then as a prime mover, inspirer, definer, prophet.

    Yes prophet. And like the old testament prophets of old, a "A prophet is not without honor except in his own country, among his own relatives, and in his own house." No one likes a prophet. Typically, they are scruffy, ill-kempt, and wild-eyed. They speak harsh truths no one wants to hear. They shake things up. People hope they'll just go away.

    The question of whether a prophet is right- is a different one. But no one can deny the effect of a prophet on his community. We're rms's community and the truth is he doesn't get a lot of respect here.

    Why? I've heard some say it's because of his "pedantic semantics" and "politcal baggage". Well, I can't disagree with them. Specifically the issue of his calling Linux, GNU/Linux (and in the emacs configure script: lignux) [google.com] lost rms a lot of political capital. The Linux community didn't want to hear him tell them that all their wonderful work (and it was wonderful. even back in '96 or so when this issue first came up) was dependent on the efforts of him and the FSF. And that they wanted credit.

    The disagreement on Open Source and Free Software was similar. Pragmatists liked open source as it is easier to explain, and not so scarey to the proprietary companies who they wanted on-board. rms' politics and insistence on freedom as the essence of free software is scarey. cf. my bit on prophets. :) But to give him credit, that brand of anarchist radicalism is important- I don't think Linux would have happened the way it has if it wasn't rms' inspirational message.

    Hmmm. This rant has turned into apoligism for rms. And rms needs no apologies. He's given us a lot. Probably, more than we'd like, or feel comfortable with.

    Although I personally am a tremendous advocate for free software (and even open source), I can't endorse rms' beliefs that proprietary software is by its nature immoral. I think it has a lot of disadvantages. I think free software is better for user's b/c they have a choice about how it gets developed. I think its better for developers b/c it gives us a common store of accumulated wisdom and solutions on which to build new software. But I won't say that proprietary software is evil and those who write it are at best dupes. I feel like people pay the rent however they can, and it is still much easier to do that writing closed source software. Will it be true in the future? Maybe. I don't know. But I'm not going to make it into a moral judgement.

    I didn't vote on the Gnome Foundation's board. I don't follow gnome's development really, so I didn't think it was right to involve myself. Would I have voted for rms? I don't know. As I've probably made clear, I admire the man and his work. He was an important factor in starting the Gnome project at its beginning. On the other hand, I think developments like the (purported) adaption of Gnome by Sun for Solaris could be very important to its future. rms probably doesn't like it. so, perhaps his losing is the right thing to have happened for gnome's future.

    but I think its not right to celebrate his loss. certainly not to label him as a fool or a dinosaur as I've seen some linux-ites do. not only is it ungrateful, but it's foolish to label your fore-fathers as fools. What does that say about those who've followed in his tracks?

    cheers, jem.

Slashdot Top Deals

And it should be the law: If you use the word `paradigm' without knowing what the dictionary says it means, you go to jail. No exceptions. -- David Jones

Close