The Stallman Factor 610
An anonymous reader sent us linkage to a LinuxWorld story about Stallman's Position
in the Linux World. Talks a lot about RMS's tacticts for getting his
acronym included with the kernel's name. This has been a long-running debate,
but personally I just don't care. I respect the GNU Project's involvement. But
I'm not gonna spit out extra syllables and keystrokes just to appease anyone.
In the beginning... (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyone who hasn't read Neal Stephenson's essay
In the Beginning... Was the Command Line [spack.org] should do so now. He treats this subject in his trademark enjoyable style. This essay can also be purchased as a thin little paperback. I love the car-lot analogy(although it harks back to the glory days of Be).
well, at ut austin (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I see (Score:3, Interesting)
Public domain is the best license, IMHO. Screw the hoarders who'll take it and keep their changes, that can be their bad karma
What I found most interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
"Quite frankly, I don't _want_ people using Linux for ideological reasons. I think ideology sucks. This world would be a much better place if people had less ideology, and a whole lot more. I do this because it's FUN and because others might find it useful, not because I got religion."
Given that Linus has a rep for being a bit of an egotist, I was a bit suprised by this. There seem to be two camps of Linux users: those who use it because it's Free Software (the RMS camp), and those who use it because it does what we need to do better than Win2k.
But this isn't a problem, per se, as long as each camp recognizes the other's right to exist. There is no need for "controversial figures" in the open-source community. There is very little need for evangelism. There IS a need for people from each camp to put their effort into developing Free Software which is as good as (or better than) commercial software. Doing so will further both causes.
RMS is an odd duck (Score:0, Interesting)
First we're supposed to get our panties bunched up about licenses. We do, so he figures he can push naming conventions on us. It's nuts.
Confusion (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course, Stallman being Stallman,
a) His speech will cause problems with some people
b) His not giving a speech with cause problems with some people.
whether or not the name is changed.
The author seems to be accusing him of using his influence to advance his political goals. Well, no shit. The man is RMS for Christ's sake! the whole reason the GPL and it's concepts exist is because of this man using his influence (GCC and emacs and others) for political purposes. He's as much a politician as a programmer and pretty damn good at both.
This is about Freedom. Is that important to you? (Score:0, Interesting)
If we don't protect and promote the *most important aspect* of Gnu/Linux, THE FREEDOM, it will disappear. If you look carefully, you'll see it already is in many places. It's a slippery slope once we weaken our resolve.
I'd rather have freedom than save the extra keystrokes. I'm not that lazy.
But then again, the way Taco types, it would probably end up as "Gmu>Linuz" anyway and nobody would know what the hell he means.
Zoober
Exactly (Score:5, Interesting)
You think he's in it for the personal fame and glory? Hell no. Or the money? RMS, I really don't think so. (Yes, ESR seems motivated by fame and money, but then again I don't have the same sort of respect for ESR that I do for RMS.) He isn't looking to call it RMS/Linux; he never called it the rcc compiler or the remacs editor. He wants people to know who provided the huge mass of software surrounding the kernel, who provided the means and methodology to enable the kernel to be developed and supported and used, and most importantly, the infrastructure and enormous amount task of coordinating the individual efforts (particularly the early efforts when risk of failure was highest) and supporting those that keep it all going.
He wants people to recognize that the FSF provided GNU and that the FSF has a specific idealology that has provided you with a tangible benefit. He wants you to use more of their software, to modify and distribute their software, and to contribute to their cause. He realizes that the strength of FSF relies on you and others that believe in his goals and want to see them succeed.
He carefully separates his personal agenda from his FSF agenda. If you don't believe me, look at his web page (stallman.org) and it will become 100% evident to you that he is not in it for selfish motives.
Lost my love (Score:5, Interesting)
Free software is good. However, some people can take it to extemes and just piss everyone off.
I will be damned if I call anything GNU/Linux or use that damn editor emacs.
As one of the 'Precious Few' (Score:5, Interesting)
No one will deny RMS' dedication to the cause of Free software, nor his contribution to the *nix world. When we have defeated the evil demons of closed formats and binary-only distrobutions, the FSF will be rightly honored as a group that started the revolution. Furthermore, GNU software has a well-earned reputation for being the most stable in existance.
That said, putting GNU/ before everything smacks to me as the sort of brand-naming that goes on in the commercial software world. It's the equivalent of saying, "It's not Acrobat, it's Adobe Acrobat." Surely we are able to give credit where credit is due without putting the name of an organization on it.
You could say that RMS is stubborn and unwilling to change, but that is precisely what made it possible for him to do what he did.
Stallman is not on the left (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the reason you think he's on the left is because he looks like a hippy and he doesn't support government subsidies for the corporate masters of programmers.
And how can you say the author of emacs has no practical value?
Freedom won, lets go back to hacking (Score:1, Interesting)
In fact, RMS won his real battle when Linux started becoming popular and "Open-Source"/Free Software became something more than a minor footnote in the history of software development but he doesn't want to admit that he can win and Linus can win and the only losers are the ego attached to three letters.
RMS - You won the war. Software is freer now than ever before. Thanks, Now can we keep moving forwards and not have the Uninary Olympics over three arbitrary letters?
Humbly,
A fan
GNU/LInux (Score:5, Interesting)
But is it really that much to ask for, that in official things, high ranking members of the community call it GNU/Linux?
Linux would be nowhere without the FSF / GNU. Most of the apps in Linux were made by the FSF. The license that protects Linux from corporate raiders was pioneered by Stallman.
I'll admit, I don't say GNU/Linux regularly. In normal-day life, I simply say Linux. And I don't think that Stallman's asking that we always refer to it as GNU/Linux, even in casual talk -- just in formal discussions or conferences, etc.
When I introduce myself to one of my friend's friend's, I say, "Hi, I'm Dave." My e-mail tag says "--Dave H." But neither of those situations are formal. When I'm on a job interview, I say, "Hello, I am David Heinrich".
We recognize that there is a time to be casual and a time to be formal when speaking of ourself, clothing ourselves, and so on and so forth. Why can't we recognize that for software too?
Really, people are trying to write this guy out of the history of GNU/Linux, because they think he's that radical that scares everyone away from their cause. But without him -- or without someone strongly maintaining the ideals of Free Software -- it all falls apart.
I don't agree with everyone Stallman says. Anyone who agrees with everything someone else says (i.e., a religious person who goes to church) is a complete fucking moron. But just because I don't agree with him on everything -- even alot of things -- doesn't mean I don't respect the man and his ideals.
Stallman represents the idealist any movement must have. And he's not some wacky guy saying stuff and doing nothing. He does things to bring his ideals closer to reality. Linus and others like him represent the pragmatic wings of the movement; the idea should be to bring what is possibly in reality closer to what ideals demand.
Re:I see (Score:3, Interesting)
If people were taking the BSD user land, which includes a few GNU utilities but isn't GNU per-se, Stallman wouldn't be asking you to do anything. He hasn't asked for OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, Mac OS X/NextStep, etc, to be named GNU/OpenBSD etc, which are also built using GNU tools - they do not include and rely on the full GNU user land as their non-kernel parts of the OS.
I do wish people would read what RMS actually has to say instead of repeating the same-old "I'm going to call it GNU/Slashdot" "He's forcing everyone to give out their code for free!" etc bullshit.
Re:We need Stallman (Score:2, Interesting)
I know I am not looking forward to the day RMS is unable to continue his mission with the open source movement
That's "Free Software Movement". The Open Source Movement is concerned more with saying "This is better because it works better" (which is often the case), the Free Software Movement is concerned more with saying "This is better because you have more rights" (which is always the case). Making that distinction is what gets so many people het up about it.
Problems with moderation (Score:3, Interesting)
If there was a group of free software developers who wanted to convert people to the "free" religion, but didn't want to force, they would work passivly.
They would build good software, easy to use. They would let people use it.. promote ease of use in expanding it with new modules and the like. They would make it profitable, for people have to eat. They would show the advantage/functionality of "free".
They would believe no less than the ones wishing to "force" the beliefs. Their efforts would pay off, but they would never be recognized as paying off.
The press likes controversy, and so they would focus on the conflict. The "moderates" sympathizing with the "extreamists" would make comments and those opposing the "extreamists" would accuse the moderates of being being "extream" in their views.
With the lack of attention on "moderates", the conflict would continue, ripping a group of people who were having a poisitive influnce, apart. Even the "moderates" would begin to question themselves, as even they read the media and are not immune to its effects.
This, is what I think is happening.
Control the conflict
give exposure to the moderates
stay smarter than the situation
stay humble
and things will work out for the best
(one can be extream in views, but moderate in expressing their views. Humbleness is they key)
I wish Stallman would drop the GNU/Linux crap (Score:3, Interesting)
There was a time that I thought everything Stallman said was golden (actually there was a time before that when I thought everything he said was junk, but after high school I realized using proprietary software really did mean giving up freedom).
There was a time that if Stallman said: "If you believe in Free Software, you need to take of all your clothes and run through the streets screaming my name." I probably would've done it, assuming that he probably thought logically through every consequence and it was a good idea.
But the GNU/Linux thing is just really disappointing. It's embarrasing. It makes me feel silly to quote Stallman or refer people to the FSF.
I know people make fun of other things Stallman says, but usually they are making fun of what they WISH he said, rather than what he actually said. Like when people made fun of Al Gore for saying he invented the internet when he never actually said that. People like to find holes in armor, I suppose.
The GNU/Linux position is impossible. Why call it GNU when there are so many other components. And I get the feeling Stallman doesn't want to back down because, well, he doesn't want to back down, not because of any rational reason. Like a spoiled boy who can't admit he's wrong and yells his position a little louder hoping that he'll convince himself.
Stallman should drop the GNU/Linux thing. Devote more time to preaching about Freedom. Why doesn't the FSF use some of its cash hoard to buy some advertising or something? Why not splatter "Free Software means Freedom" all over magazines and web pages?
Oh well. I hope the FSF and Stallman don't become marginalized because of this, because their moral clarity on Free software and information freedom is vital.
Hackers will never be called crackers, and Linux will never be called GNU/Linux by every Linux vendor. It will never happen, and more importantly, it doesn't NEED to happen! The FSF should use their own means to advertise themselves, and not highjack other people's choice of names.
Re:Kernel vs. Distribution (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmm...let's see what I generally use on my systems:
- Apache - number one webserver, not under the GPL
- OpenSSL/SSH - provides secure access (or do you not believe in security)? Also not under the GPL
- XFree86 - allows me to see pretty pictures on the localhost or remotely, also not under the GPL
- vi - multi-purpose text editor, *not* under the GPL
- XEmacs - because RMS claims it's not GPL, & it was forked from GNU Emacs, & JWZ is cool
I could go on & on, even naming some closed-source & commercial (gasp!) software that I need & use to get my job done. My point? When you call a distribution "Linux", most people know you are referring to the complete collection of kernel, software & utilities.Re:Stallman is not on the left (Score:4, Interesting)
Draw a diagram with four quadrants, like this:
^ ----
| |1|2|
Y ----
| |3|4|
| ----
0---X-->
The X-axis represents "financial freedom" (this goes along with "free-as-in-beer").
The Y-axis represents "personal freedom" (this goes along with "free-as-in-speech").
We have four main areas:
1 = "left-wing"
2 = "libertarian"
3 = "authoritarian"
4 = "right-wing"
So, you're both wrong. He's in quadrant 2.
Re:You cannot deny GCC is the heart of free softwa (Score:5, Interesting)
Hopper, for instance, moved "compilers" from Howard Aiken's Harvard lab to the commercial world (the UNIVAC in particular). Before here came devices that translated from languages similar to Algebra into code for a particular machine (for instance, for the Harvard Mark III). It has been suggested (Ceruzzi, "A History of Modern Computing", pp. 84-86) that Hopper's definition of compiler is in fact quite different than the current common definition. Hopper's idea was something closer to a linker. Thus Hopper's work is not particularly relevant to the ideas behind GCC (though it may be more relevant to GNU ld). I hope I've made it clear that Hopper did not "invent" the "idea" of a compiler. Hell, she didn't even discover the "idea". She took it from Harvard to UNIVAC.
All of this said, I thought I made it clear. I'm talking about running code that is still in widespread use. Stallman's work was by no means a clone of Hopper's work, nor of anyone else's work. Of course his ideas were influenced by other C compilers, as well as his own work with lisp. And certainly the language definition was not his own.
Stallman *wrote* GCC. From scratch. By himself. This was not a researcIt was not funded by anyone but him. Thus it is entirely reasonable to describe GCC solely in terms of RMS. The *work* was original, even if the idea was not. I'm not sure why you're trying to raise a point about the idea of GCC was not original -- of course it wasn't.
Also, GCC is not a "descendent" of C. C is a language specification, derived from B and others before it. GCC is a program. They aren't even the *same sort of thing.* We owe K&R kudos for a great language. We owe RMS kudos for writing GCC, the heart of Free Software.
-Paul Komarek
Obligatory nitpick (Score:3, Interesting)
Any idea, once fully implemented, is fine and dandy.
It's the difficult periods of transition that fuck everything up. And this applies to government (see France's five subsequent revolutions post 1776), medicine ("wash hands?" "trans-plant?"), and a lot of hard sciences too ("ooh, nuklear eNergy!" "Why's Kyle dead?").
If hard-line Islamics, hippie anarchists, regular people, or man-hating lesbian feminazis ruled the world, the world would get along just fine--but since there's opposition between all these groups, there's stress and problem.
Now, I do agree with you. It's nice to dream about changing the world, but until you can you need to know how to live in the one you've got. Failing to accept this (like Christ, Ghandi, and Linus have) leads to much suffering, and distracting the person between what's really important. (And in order, that'd be "telling people to be cool," "telling people to be cool," and "coding Linux.")