Linked by Michael L. Love on Mon 3rd Nov 2003 19:19 UTC
BSD and Darwin derivatives The GNU-Darwin Distribution is a free operating system and a popular source of free software for Mac OS X and Darwin-x86 users, but it is also a platform for digital activism. Founded in November of 2000, the Distribution has the stated goal of bringing software freedom to computer users of every stripe, and vigilantly defending digital liberties.
Order by: Score:
darwin
by not invented here on Mon 3rd Nov 2003 20:30 UTC

i couldnt work out if that was evangelicalism or advertising...

with that kind of evangellicalism, seems the author should be working on the hurd instead of darwin.. it wont be replacing freebsd on any of my machines in any hurry. but i will keep an open mind and an eye out for improvements in its kernel tree...

v ARGH! Not more anti-war crap!
by Jared White on Mon 3rd Nov 2003 20:39 UTC
Any technological advantage?
by Erik Terpstra on Mon 3rd Nov 2003 20:40 UTC

Is there any technological reason to use GNU-Darwin, or is activism the main reason for using it?

GNU
by Anonymous on Mon 3rd Nov 2003 20:45 UTC

I always have found FSF/GNU a bit hypocritical. They say that the old-style BSD license is bad, because it requires the software to print a certain message, yet they start yelling when I say Linux instead of GNU/Linux. Requiring a name-change seems allot worse to me than requiring your software to display a message. When I use Free Software, I expect a Free Name to go with it, which I can change if I want to.

Besides, saying Linux instead of GNU/Linux is lingually correct anyway. It is a pars-pro-toto-metaphore. Kind of like saying "look, the police", even if you only see 2 cops. You don't see a bearded police guy running around, yelling that a police department consists of more than just cops.

The GNU FAQ says that a pars-pro-toto metaphore is never used in the operating-system world. I'm sorry, but that's just a retarded reason to not do something. Besides, "Windows" is a pars-pro-toto-metaphore for the entire operating system, that consists of allot more than just windows.

And "Linux" is allot easier to pronounce than "GNU/Linux", so I don't think I'll ever say GNU/Linux..

I would suggest: make us an live cd, knoppix like, and we will see what darwin can do, and make it for lots of platforms. If we can see it, and run it, we might love it, if not then you need to go back to the drawing board. And believe me, i would like it to be true, that an nice new Operating System that does it all will arise. ;)

Digital activism ?
by Darius on Mon 3rd Nov 2003 20:57 UTC

I can't help but wonder why so many people are so concerned about their digital liberties, while at the same time they're being violently ass-raped by The Corporate Machine in every other aspect of their lives, but yet they don't seem to care?

Not so pretty
by David on Mon 3rd Nov 2003 21:07 UTC

I am sorry but I don't like to GUI. This is of course my personal opinion and in no way slams this OS. Is the GUI themeable?

Okay seriously
by Thebalrog on Mon 3rd Nov 2003 21:23 UTC

"Together we can stop the Englobulators!"

What's he talking about?

Re: GNU
by ThanatosNL on Mon 3rd Nov 2003 21:23 UTC

I always have found FSF/GNU a bit hypocritical. They say that the old-style BSD license is bad, because it requires the software to print a certain message, yet they start yelling when I say Linux instead of GNU/Linux. Requiring a name-change seems allot worse to me than requiring your software to display a message. When I use Free Software, I expect a Free Name to go with it, which I can change if I want to.

The problem with old-school BSD licenses was that the license required that derivative works pay heed to UC Berkely. Other software developers who adopted this license then replaced that line with their own organization, which resulted in a number of incompatible licenses. Large systems that used a lot of BSD licesnes had numerous text messages thrown at the end user telling them where all of the software comes from. NetBSD had (perhaps still has) 75 such obnoxious messages saying, to the effect, "This software makes use of code written by this organization."

That is not the same as software credit. GNU asks that people respectfully address the fact that they put as much time and effort in to your "Linux" system as the kernel hackers have.

Whether you agree with them or not, there is no hipocrasy.

Besides, saying Linux instead of GNU/Linux is lingually correct anyway. It is a pars-pro-toto-metaphore. Kind of like saying "look, the police", even if you only see 2 cops. You don't see a bearded police guy running around, yelling that a police department consists of more than just cops.

That's a brilliantly incorrect analogy. You're saying that the cops which the average person will actually interact with can be referred to as the police force in general. However, end users actually interact with GNU's portion of the operating system much more often than the kernel itself. Indeed, it is even a stretch to consider building one's own kernel interacting, since you're not doing the work, GNU's toolchain is. If anything, my operating system should be called "Gnome" by your argument, since that is what I interact with. Perhaps it should be called Gnome/Evolution/xchat/Gaim/etc.

The GNU FAQ says that a pars-pro-toto metaphore is never used in the operating-system world. I'm sorry, but that's just a retarded reason to not do something. Besides, "Windows" is a pars-pro-toto-metaphore for the entire operating system, that consists of allot more than just windows.

Microsoft chose a naming system that makes sense from a marketing standpoint. Besides, developers have a financial incentive. They don't need credit, just a paycheck. The GNU project, whether you'd like to admit it or not, represents a lot of work which goes largely ignored. By asking that people call operating systems which combine the Linux kernel with GNU's software, RMS hopes that people will acknowledge the work that he, and others, have done so that we can have a free operating system. While many argue that the same can be said for other software, such as X, or desktop environments, that argument fails to address RMS's political reasons for credit: without GNU software, having a 100% free operating system would be impossible.

You may disagree with his politics (I am neither for or against them personally), but you appear to be bashing his work and ideas without even understanding them. It is my hope that whatever stance you take, you take it for the right reasons, and not out of ignorance.

And "Linux" is allot easier to pronounce than "GNU/Linux", so I don't think I'll ever say GNU/Linux..

That's why I say "Linux" as well. Though I have made it a point to understand GNU's reasons for the stance that they have taken, as well as properly appreciate the work that they have done for all of us "Linux" users.

Re: Not so pretty
by me on Mon 3rd Nov 2003 21:45 UTC

"[i]I am sorry but I don't like to GUI. This is of course my personal opinion and in no way slams this OS. Is the GUI themeable?[i]"

Um... the GUI is XFree86...

Re: Not so pretty
by ThanatosNL on Mon 3rd Nov 2003 21:49 UTC

Um... the GUI is XFree86...

Really? An interface for what? Applications built against it? I think the original poster was referring to the whole desktop experience. You know, what an end user will deal with.

Re: Not so pretty
by David on Mon 3rd Nov 2003 21:51 UTC

Yes, I was referring to the whole desktop experence thing. I just personally don't like it and was wondering if it was changeable.

Re: GNU
by RJW on Mon 3rd Nov 2003 21:55 UTC

ThanatosNL:
It's not at all true that the most "interacted with" component of a "GNU/Linux" system is the "GNU" part of it. If a person boots directly into KDE, for example, there might be no interaction with GNU at all. RMS and his followers want credit for themselves without giving credit to the many, many other parts of most Linux systems such as X. The only GNU part of Linux that everyone uses is libc. People might give GNU more credit if RMS didn't constantly harp on his own role in the success of Linux. You see, most people don't want to give a guy like him what he wants because he is obnoxious.

Re: Not so pretty
by me on Mon 3rd Nov 2003 21:57 UTC

You asked "Is the GUI themeable?" I said it is XFree86. Yet you don't think that answers your question... so yes it's theamable, you can run anything from GNOME to KDE, to WinowMaker to FluxBox to Enlightenment. You name the window manager and it runs on GNU-Darwin as well. Each of those window managers are themable as well, thus making it even more themable.

Re: GNU
by Sagres on Mon 3rd Nov 2003 22:00 UTC

You could always use *FREE* software licences that are incompatible with the GPL, for example the hacktivismo licence or the original artistic licence. Not only do they have cooler names but you also get to piss off RMS, wich is always a plus.

Re: GNU
by Thebalrog on Mon 3rd Nov 2003 22:04 UTC

"GNU asks that people respectfully address the fact that they put as much time and effort in to your "Linux" system as the kernel hackers have."

I respect your opinion, but the GNU sometimes seems a little too demanding. Lots of people, corporations put time, effort and money into the Linux kernel and most of them are content to have it called Linux. If everybody who contributes to it gets their name or initials attached, it's going to be a long winded title for an OS.

Re: GNU
by ThanatosNL on Mon 3rd Nov 2003 22:07 UTC

It's not at all true that the most "interacted with" component of a "GNU/Linux" system is the "GNU" part of it.

My claim was that if we call the operating system by the most commonly used component, then "Linux" certainly doesn't qualify, NOT that because we use the GNU tools more often than any other programs, we should call the operating system "GNU."

If a person boots directly into KDE, for example, there might be no interaction with GNU at all. RMS and his followers want credit for themselves without giving credit to the many, many other parts of most Linux systems such as X.

You didn't read what I wrote. RMS wants GNU to get credit for bulding the tools that are required for a 100% free system. X can be thrown atop a not free system. Take X/Cygwin, for example. Without GNU's tools, no one would be able to have a 100% free operating system according to the GNU definition of "freedom." Since RMS places more value in the freedom of software than the functionality or usage, it is only logical that he considers GNU to deserve most of the credit.

I'm not saying he is right or wrong, merely that the person that I was replying to didn't understand GNU's reasoning whatsoever.

The only GNU part of Linux that everyone uses is libc. People might give GNU more credit if RMS didn't constantly harp on his own role in the success of Linux. You see, most people don't want to give a guy like him what he wants because he is obnoxious.

First of all, it is possible to substitute glibc with an alternative. It is theoretically possible to build a system on top of Linux without any of GNU's tools. However, that isn't the point at all. If the goal is to have a 100% free system, then we have GNU, more than anyone else, to thank for it.

I'm not saying that is your goal, or my goal; for many it is not. But that is, from what I understand, at least some of the logic to why GNU deserves credit here. Also, it is entirely incorrect to dismiss an idea with what's called an ad hominem attack, where you call someone names to refute their ideas, instead of thinking of reasons why they're wrong.

Re: GNU
by ThanatosNL on Mon 3rd Nov 2003 22:11 UTC

I respect your opinion, but the GNU sometimes seems a little too demanding. Lots of people, corporations put time, effort and money into the Linux kernel and most of them are content to have it called Linux. If everybody who contributes to it gets their name or initials attached, it's going to be a long winded title for an OS.

One thing I wish folks would understand that this isn't my opinion, it's GNU's. People bash GNU for a variety of reasons, but no one in this thread has shown that they actually know why GNU believes that it is within their right to ask for credit. They merely repeat a laundry-list of what they've heard others say, because bashing ideas is a lot safer and rewarding to one's ego than coming up with new ones.

@Sagres
by Great Cthulhu on Mon 3rd Nov 2003 22:16 UTC

Not only do they have cooler names but you also get to piss off RMS, wich is always a plus.

Isn't that a rather immature attitude? Now, I may not agree with RMS on all things, but one cannot denigrate his contribution. Without him, Linux wouldn't have become what it is today.

Of course, if you don't care about Linux, you wouldn't care much about RMS. Still, the GPL is a brillant piece of work; whether you agree with what it stands for or not, you can't deny the impact it's had on software development and licensing.

Re: GNU
by ThanatosNL on Mon 3rd Nov 2003 22:19 UTC

My opinions on the matter are rather different from most peoples. The best way to show your appreciation for GNU's hard work and the freedom which they have secured is to both use their software, and educate oneself about what they have done for the community. Basically, show those guys respect where appropriate, even if typing or saying "guh new slash leenocks" is a bit much. Also, I feel that if someon makes a statement arguing against GNU's position out of ignorance or the desire to bash, I should defend GNU's position and hopefully enlighten them as to why they are incorrect. If one makes a statement against GNU's position with facts and sane logic, then I don't feel such a need to fight on GNU's side.

Please, people. Try to understand their point of view, and the reasons they have for holding such opinions. They have done a lot for us, and deserve more than being called names like "hypocrite" or "obnoxious." They deserve their userbase to at least understand the importance of their software, and why GNU values freedom, even if we don't.

@ThanatosNL
by Great Cthulhu on Mon 3rd Nov 2003 22:24 UTC

People bash GNU for a variety of reasons, but no one in this thread has shown that they actually know why GNU believes that it is within their right to ask for credit. They merely repeat a laundry-list of what they've heard others say, because bashing ideas is a lot safer and rewarding to one's ego than coming up with new ones.

Very well said. It also seems to me there are a lot of persons (for various reasons) who'd rather just shoot the messenger than debate the ideas.

Re: GNU
by ThanatosNL on Mon 3rd Nov 2003 22:25 UTC

And one more thing (I know I'm talking too much here, sorry). You can't build the kernel without GNU's tools, so even if you don't have much GNU software on your system, you still need to thank them for that compiler and toolchain of theirs. Show me a free system that was compiled with any other toolchain than GNU. If you use such a system, then you have no need to even consider GNU as deserving any credit for your OS. Of course, you also then don't have much relevance in a discussion about GNU-Darwin.

Thank GNU
by Wayne Scotting on Mon 3rd Nov 2003 22:41 UTC

GNU has done so much for computing, without GNU we wouldn't have all of the BSD's, Linux, or Mac OS X. Thank GNU!!!

@Great Cthulhu
by Sagres on Mon 3rd Nov 2003 22:42 UTC

I use LGPL myself, as for RMS while respect his ideas i don't like his peculiar version of the extend & embrace tactics regardless if he thinks it's for the common good or not.

RE: GNU
by Anonymous on Mon 3rd Nov 2003 22:51 UTC

However, end users actually interact with GNU's portion of the operating system much more often than the kernel itself.

From a lingual point of view (and my argument there was based on lingual principles), it doesn't matter how much the part is used, or wether or not it's the primary interface. A pars pro toto metaphore just means that you refer to thing by only mentioning a part of it. It doesn't matter how important that part is.

And the comparison with the old style BSD license is valid IMO. What will happen if everyone starts saying GNU/Linux? The KDE people will be pissed that nobody recognizes their huge amounts of work. So we have KDE/GNU/Linux. Then we have the Gnome project, and the X11 project.

This is exactly as with the old style BSD license, where they started with a forced single printed message about how much work UC Berkely did, and ended up with 75 of such obnoxious messages. I think I will find it even more obnoxious to say Gnome/KDE/X11/Apache/PHP/MySQL/GNU/Linux Suse Professional 9.0.

RE:Thank GNU
by Jeremiah on Mon 3rd Nov 2003 23:00 UTC

>GNU has done so much for computing, without GNU we wouldn't >have all of the BSD's, Linux, or Mac OS X. Thank GNU!!!

BSD has been around alot longer than GNU so what did build the BSDs with before GNU or did they write directly to machine code? Also as another poster commented their is other userland's to be used with Linux I currently am running the 2.6.0test9-bk4 kernel with the FreeBSD userland and as for compiliers Intel and IBM both have free compilier's and generate cleaner code Granted I personally haven't tested this yet. Aside from formatting of the source I don't see why it would not compile. So yes GNU is nice but there are options.

Sorry, I'll try again
by Jared White on Mon 3rd Nov 2003 23:12 UTC

OK, my previous comment was modded down. I understand why, and I apologize for the harsh language.

However, what I said still stands. The GNU/Darwin project is shooting itself in the foot for making it a platform for political activism not even related to computers. Like I said, if they want to make a big deal about the DMCA, dumb software patents, etc., fine. But why drag the whole "war in Iraq" thing into it? Plenty of people who support the war, like myself, are going to be immediately turned off by their stance.

Best regards,

Jared

Re: compilers
by dpi on Mon 3rd Nov 2003 23:22 UTC

"Intel and IBM both have free compilier's"

URL?

I know a BSDL C/C++ compiler, which is called TenDRA.
http://www.tendra.org
I've heard various opinions about it.

"And the comparison with the old style BSD license is valid IMO. What will happen if everyone starts saying GNU/Linux? The KDE people will be pissed that nobody recognizes their huge amounts of work. So we have KDE/GNU/Linux. Then we have the Gnome project, and the X11 project."

GNOME/KDE/X11 have less ''market share'' than GNU. On servers, those aren't required and generally not used. While GNU is always used. I'd also like to refer to the history of GNU and Linux. The GNU system was already existing, then the Linux kernel was released under the GPL and the _2_ fitted _together_. Btw the FAQ at gnu.org actually mentions your opinion about GNOME/KDE/X11.

The GNU system is also used together with a (Net)BSD kernel and the apt utils (aka ''Debian''). Therefore you get: Debian GNU/NetBSD. How clear, isn't it? If GNU was replaced by BSD(L) utils it seems logical to me when the name became Debian NetBSD since BSD is already in the NetBSD name.

If one wants to call it like KDE/GNOME/X11/Mutt/GNU/Sex/Linux, it's their choice. Now, if we can all accept the fact that some people call the OS Linux instead of GNU/Linux and vice versa, put it under ''freedom of speech'' and get over it, RMS can sleep well next night! ZzZzZZZz...

no, KDE would not be included
by wing on Mon 3rd Nov 2003 23:27 UTC

XFree86 and GNOME/KDE aren't neccesary to run on GNU/Linux, the GNU toolchain is, therefore they it is not as imperative to give them credit because you can choose not to use it, but still run a functional system. Or if you wish, use the BSD toolchain under it!

RE: compilers
by Jeremiah on Mon 3rd Nov 2003 23:30 UTC

Intel's free compiler is http://www.intel.com/software/products/compilers/clin/noncom.htm

and IBM's is buried on there site somewhere I will post it

Re: GNU
by ThanatosNL on Mon 3rd Nov 2003 23:30 UTC

From a lingual point of view (and my argument there was based on lingual principles), it doesn't matter how much the part is used, or wether or not it's the primary interface. A pars pro toto metaphore just means that you refer to thing by only mentioning a part of it. It doesn't matter how important that part is.

Your analogy about police implied that what the end user sees dictates what becomes the "part."

If the name of any component of the system is a candidate for going on to become the name of the entire system, then who gets to decide what the component gets chosen? The users? While that may sound like an interesting idea, to say that users get to name a product built by many parties is a slap in the face at all of the parties, even the lucky one that get's "chosen."

Windows had a ruling body that was solely responsible for it's existence. Microsoft could name it whatever it wanted. In the case of free and open software, there is no ruling body that is responsible for all of the code. Hence, we're going to have different ideas of what the name of our operating system is going to be. The pars pro toto metaphore, while it does make you sound very educated, cannot apply fairly to how our operating system gets named in the case where many entities are responsible for it's existence.

GNU believes that they most certainly deserve to be in the name, since in their mind, they have provided the foundation for a 100% free system (as defined by them). There is some merit to this argument; before GNU came around, no one cared if software was free, and because of their software, we can have computers running nothing but free software.

They're asking everyone that appreciates the freedoms that their software provides to call systems built from their software "GNU." They are also asking that people respect the tremendous efforts of those who develop the Linux kernel, and add "Linux" in the name.

And the comparison with the old style BSD license is valid IMO. What will happen if everyone starts saying GNU/Linux? The KDE people will be pissed that nobody recognizes their huge amounts of work. So we have KDE/GNU/Linux. Then we have the Gnome project, and the X11 project.

Read what I've written, please. GNU wants credit because they're the real reason we can have free operating systems, not because free operating systems often use their software.

This is exactly as with the old style BSD license, where they started with a forced single printed message about how much work UC Berkely did, and ended up with 75 of such obnoxious messages. I think I will find it even more obnoxious to say Gnome/KDE/X11/Apache/PHP/MySQL/GNU/Linux Suse Professional 9.0.

Again, that is just not the case. I want you to really listen to me here, so I'm going to write it in italics:

GNU doesn't want to be in the name because they feel like they've done tho most work (though I extrapolated that from your faulty analogy because you implied it). GNU wants credit because RMS and the rest of them created free software, and without them, a 100% free operating system would not be possible.

Re: Jeremiah

To the fellow that believed that the Intel and IBM compilers could build the Linux kernel, you're absolutely wrong. Even if you did manage to build a system without any GNU software, RMS wouldn't ask you to call it GNU/Anything. Furthermore, while the name BSD is older than GNU, all of the BSD's use GNU software heavily.

RE: GNU
by Anonymous on Mon 3rd Nov 2003 23:46 UTC

GNOME/KDE/X11 have less ''market share'' than GNU. On servers, those aren't required and generally not used.

and

XFree86 and GNOME/KDE aren't neccesary to run on GNU/Linux

Well, it started like that with the old BSD style license too. It's just UC Berkley, no biggie. Without us you wouldn't have a system. Then others started to say, yeah, but without us you don't have a usable system, and so on and so on..

RE: GNU
by Anonymous on Mon 3rd Nov 2003 23:56 UTC

If the name of any component of the system is a candidate for going on to become the name of the entire system, then who gets to decide what the component gets chosen? The users? While that may sound like an interesting idea, to say that users get to name a product built by many parties is a slap in the face at all of the parties, even the lucky one that get's "chosen."

I think French is the only language where there is a committee which explicitly invents words and tell people to use those words instead of what they were already saying. Generally language is much more an evolution of what people say, than the result of an almost scientific debate over the pros and cons of a certain term. I can see how that may seem uncomfortable for people who only studied positive sciences, but that's how it is.

RE: GNU
by ThanatosNL on Tue 4th Nov 2003 00:20 UTC

I can see how that may seem uncomfortable for people who only studied positive sciences, but that's how it is.

There is a difference between words that are part of a language and words that are names. You find the former dictionaries, and the latter in encyclopedias.

RE: GNU
by dpi on Tue 4th Nov 2003 00:30 UTC

"Well, it started like that with the old BSD style license too. It's just UC Berkley, no biggie. Without us you wouldn't have a system. Then others started to say, yeah, but without us you don't have a usable system, and so on and so on.."

Then you call it: UCB/BSD/GNU/Gaia/God/Jesus/Thanksmomanddad formakingmeandalsothankyoumotherofLinus!/Linux if that's what you wish.

This is even technically correct, since one can fork/combine GPL/BSDL software and change it's name. It's actually done too: see the wide aspect of Linux distributions and their names.

So, if you agree with calling it GNU/Linux for any reason, do so. If not, don't. It's a choice on indivudual base.

Re: GNU
by anonymous coward on Tue 4th Nov 2003 00:31 UTC

#1: I think that the GNU zealots do not like BSD type licenses as modifiers of BSD licensed code are NOT required to share their source code and changes. Any other problems here are ancillary, I believe.

#2: go look on macslash re. earlier articles about this project and responses from their so called leader. The guy is one of the most rabid zealots that I have ever seen and/or heard of.

#3: Overall, it should be no worse off than any other Linux or *BSD distro, but I really doubt that there is anything extraordinarily technologically compelling about it. It may make a nice little benchmark project for someone to benchmark *BSD, couple of linux distros, OSX, Solaris, and GNU/Darwin...

Re: GNU
by dpi on Tue 4th Nov 2003 00:40 UTC

"#1: I think that the GNU zealots do not like BSD type licenses as modifiers of BSD licensed code are NOT required to share their source code and changes. Any other problems here are ancillary, I believe."

I think anonymous cowards, GNU zealots, christians, activists, nazi's are individuals who do not share the very same opinion on everything, since <doh> they're individuals. The homepage of GNU, gnu.org, does talk about the BSDL and their problems with it. However, it doesn't mean anyone over here who ''defens'' GNU agrees with it nor everyone who uses GNU nor everyone who eats cheese every day. Finally, i think your opinion is in no way scientificaly proven.

URL: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html

Perhaps you could post URL's of sources where you've drawed your conclusions from like for point #2?

Re: Sorry, I'll try again
by jmf on Tue 4th Nov 2003 01:45 UTC

@Jared White
Like I said, if they want to make a big deal about the DMCA, dumb software patents, etc., fine.
======
I think also.


However, what I said still stands. The GNU/Darwin project is shooting itself in the foot for making it a platform for political activism not even related to computers.

But why drag the whole "war in Iraq" thing into it? Plenty of people who support the war, like myself, are going to be immediately turned off by their stance.
=======
I understand what you mean. Even Richard Stallamn separates his personal opinions (http://stallman.org) to the ones realated to free softwares (http://www.gnu.org)

But frankly, the decision to go or not to go to ware is so important, the coverage (who said brainwashing ?) by some mainstream media like fox news so bad that I understand why some people feel they must use whatever mean they can to reach a small amount of public.

From time to time, I appreciate to have a reminder that the software I use are not only a huge suit of 0 and 1 which works (or not ;-), but that they are made by human being, who can have ideas, who act like citizens by expressing themselves. I honestly prefer that they say clearly what they think even if I don't agree, instead of restraining themselves to an hypothetical political correctnes of << what is allowed or not to say for a software developer >>

Finally, don't worry, it's not written in the EULA that you have to endorse anything that the project leader says. I use
fetchmail and find it great, but don't really like what
Eric S Raymond says here http://catb.org/~esr/guns/

RE: Sorry, I'll try again
by Azmeen Afandi on Tue 4th Nov 2003 01:49 UTC

However, what I said still stands. The GNU/Darwin project is shooting itself in the foot for making it a platform for political activism not even related to computers. Like I said, if they want to make a big deal about the DMCA, dumb software patents, etc., fine. But why drag the whole "war in Iraq" thing into it? Plenty of people who support the war, like myself, are going to be immediately turned off by their stance.

You, Mr White, are saying that this project is shooting itself in the foot merely for disagreeing with a cause that you support. While you might be selective in the causes that you support, please be aware that others, including this project's leaders are free to be just as selective of the causes they themselves support.

I don't see anything wrong with this at all, at least in this project nobody gets hurt or killed... And as long as it stays that way, I'll be fine with whatever activism they want to associate themselves with.

@Sagres
by Great Cthulhu on Tue 4th Nov 2003 01:57 UTC

I use LGPL myself, as for RMS while respect his ideas i don't like his peculiar version of the extend & embrace tactics regardless if he thinks it's for the common good or not.

Well at least his version of "extend & embrace" is entirely voluntary, unlike the original MS version.

But since we're on the subject, tell me which one you like better: a version of "extend and embrace" that's for the common good, or one that's for the good of a federal court-certifified monopoly?

Take all the time you need to answer...

RE: @Sagres
by Greg on Tue 4th Nov 2003 02:04 UTC

(I really didn't know what my subject should've been)

Anyway. I find it funny when people quibble over the long list of non-Free licenses on GNU's page, because the vast majority of them are really non-free! The Hacktivismo license, for instance, puts all sorts of fascist restrictions on the user/developer.

My opinion on the GNU/Linux thing: Someone did a review once, and found that the most code in the GNU/Linux OS belonged to GNU. However, GNU is not the only author of code. Therefore, I usually say GNU/*/Linux, which recognizes the fact that there are other authors without taking up too much space.

v Thanks for your support
by Anonymous on Tue 4th Nov 2003 02:05 UTC
RE: Anonymous (IP: ---.kuleuven.ac.be)
by Great Cthulhu on Tue 4th Nov 2003 02:06 UTC

I think French is the only language where there is a committee which explicitly invents words and tell people to use those words instead of what they were already saying.

That's not quite it - rather, it is introducing new translations for a volley of new words that have come with computing. Some are silly and are never used (such as "numérisateur" for scanner), others are nicer-sounding in french (such as "courriel" for e-mail, and the more recent "pourriel" for spam).

It's an undeniable fact, however, that from the very beginning the computing world has been dominated the by English. I am reminded of a very short-lived and quite funny attempt to translate BASIC, who contains a lot of natural language words, into french, back in the early 80's...needless to say that looked quite bizarre, even for a francophone.

Gnu/Darwin
by Cheapskate on Tue 4th Nov 2003 02:11 UTC

1. their server is as slow as a grampa turtle,

2. the screenshots look like Afterstep/WindowMaker from what little of it i could manage to get to load in my browser, i can get that desktop with my existing Linux install

all i can say about it is i wish GNU/Darwin lots of luck (cause they will need luck) if this is ever to get much userbase with that super slow server i can imagine people close the page before it even loads up, so i will close this by saying no thanks i will check back in a later when GNU/Darwin gets some decent hardware and a faster pipe and maybe they will have something worth looking at...

HappyTrails ;)

GNU-Darwin is what happens...
by Xenex on Tue 4th Nov 2003 02:56 UTC

...when a troll writes a software distribution.

Now, to quote myself:
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=74898&cid=6711172

GNU-Darwin is a project founded by a person that goes by the name proclus. This proclus character spends a fair majority of his time replying to valid criticism of his project on sites such as Slashdot and MacSlash.

Unfortunately, this time would be much better spent working on the actual GNU-Darwin project; GNU-Darwin has nothing to offer that hasn't already been done better by either OpenDarwin or Fink.


This "article" is merely another case of proclus wasting time advocating instead of coding.

Maybe GNU-Darwin should be focusing on important things: It's not part of MetaPKG, which Fink and DarwinPorts are. Even the newcomer Gentoo has been invited to take part, while GNU-Darwin hasn't. That can't possibly bode well for GNU-Darwin's future relevance on the platform. Maybe they should be working to become a part of that.

GNU-Darwin is totally irrelevant. If it disappeared tomorrow, no-one would notice. Mac users don't want it, and Free Software advocates don't want Macs.

This junk was http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/10/31/195841/90">rejected elsewhere.

@Cheapskate
by jmf on Tue 4th Nov 2003 03:17 UTC

1. their server is as slow as a grampa turtle,
Slashdot effect, I guess http://bsd.slashdot.org/bsd/03/11/03/2335222.shtml?tid=107&tid=187

v Darwin protests very Anti-American
by OldSpook on Tue 4th Nov 2003 03:18 UTC
RE:Darwin protests very Anti-American
by Great Cthulhu on Tue 4th Nov 2003 03:38 UTC

Actually, I think his point is that, since he's an american, he's in best position to criticize his own government, since he's the one he's most likely to be able to affect (however remote that may be).

It's not very effective to complain about a faraway dictatorship. Dictators aren't really bothered by protest, especially non-violent ones.

However, the U.S. government is a democracy, and as such can be influenced by its constituents. Activism here is more cost-effective than abroad. Also, since dissident networks seem to be international (like the effects of amercian foreign policy ;-), it's common usage for activists here to help out activists abroad. I'm sure the guys at GNU-Darwin decry what you've enumerated as much as any reasonable person would - it's just that they focus their activism on what they can most directly affect, IMHO.

v Huh? Anti-what?
by dpi on Tue 4th Nov 2003 04:21 UTC
v PostScript
by dpi on Tue 4th Nov 2003 04:25 UTC
RE: compilers
by chazwurth on Tue 4th Nov 2003 04:34 UTC

Jeremiah,
The compilers you're referencing are free of charge. They are not free software. You can't see the source code, you can't modify them/distribute modifications, and they come with extremely restrictive eula's.

RE: GNU
by RJW on Tue 4th Nov 2003 05:16 UTC

I'm not saying that is your goal, or my goal; for many it is not. But that is, from what I understand, at least some of the logic to why GNU deserves credit here. Also, it is entirely incorrect to dismiss an idea with what's called an ad hominem attack, where you call someone names to refute their ideas, instead of thinking of reasons why they're wrong.

Saying RMS is obnoxious is not name calling; it is a description of his behavior.

One thing I wish folks would understand that this isn't my opinion, it's GNU's. People bash GNU for a variety of reasons, but no one in this thread has shown that they actually know why GNU believes that it is within their right to ask for credit. They merely repeat a laundry-list of what they've heard others say, because bashing ideas is a lot safer and rewarding to one's ego than coming up with new ones.

I'm not just repeating what I've heard. I've gone to RMS' website and read a number of his writings. I think he has a right to receive credit for his work. I do not think he should insist that everyone call Linux The Operating System "GNU/Linux".

Not everyone in this world equates freedom of software, whether it be cost or ability to modify, with freedom of speech, religion, creed, etc. RMS has different concepts of freedom confused and expects everyone else to view freedom his way. He is a religious zealot and as such is ultimately a danger to freedom, regardless of the good work he has done.

His motive is not to make people's lives easier by making a system that is free and modifiable, it is to make a political system that will make proprietary software illegal and punishable, in fact limiting freedom. He can argue semantics all he wants and tell us What Freedom Really Means, but in the end it is just his opinion, and should not be shoved on the world.

RE: Okay seriously
by Dave on Tue 4th Nov 2003 05:41 UTC

Dr. Love has apparently been listening to Jay Sulzberger.

Mr. Sulzberger is an expert in cryptography, a resident of NYC, and one of the activists who protested at the FCC DMCA conference in Washington. He's also a distant relation to the NY Times Sulzberger family.

An interesting fellow, he loves the sound of his own voice and frequently makes up words like "englobulator".

Activist Distribution
by Roy Batty on Tue 4th Nov 2003 05:45 UTC

I can just picture this guy, Stallman, and the eight other GNU-Darwing users sitting around some place resembling a Cambodian re-education camp espousing the evils of proprietary software, singing Kumbaya, and trying to convince people if all software was GPL the world would be utopia.

Maybe if these people would code more and stop talking politics less Hurd would actually get done.

As someone else mentioned, Stallman has said that he would like to see proprietary software illegal. Smells like communism to me. Good thing that nobody takes him seriously.

RE: GNU
by ThanatosNL on Tue 4th Nov 2003 05:52 UTC

Saying RMS is obnoxious is not name calling; it is a description of his behavior.

It also doesn't make his opinions valid or invalid.

I'm not just repeating what I've heard. I've gone to RMS' website and read a number of his writings. I think he has a right to receive credit for his work. I do not think he should insist that everyone call Linux The Operating System "GNU/Linux".

I agree.

Not everyone in this world equates freedom of software, whether it be cost or ability to modify, with freedom of speech, religion, creed, etc. RMS has different concepts of freedom confused and expects everyone else to view freedom his way. He is a religious zealot and as such is ultimately a danger to freedom, regardless of the good work he has done.

1) How is he a danger to freedom (please answer without an analogy)?

When you get a physical product, the right to tinker with it is by and large never in question, except in a few cases. You can't modify certain weapons to the point where they're more deadly than many black market ones, and you can't tinker with your odometer. In those cases, by tinkering with the product, you can hurt other people. Furthermore, tinkering is only illegal in certain circumstances where there is no reason to tinker other than hurt others (there is no "Fair Use", since all use in, in essence, unfair). In fact, to take away the right to tinker with a physical product where it is not the case that modifications can only cause harm to others is absolute suicide. Customers would *hate* it.

If RMS never evangelized, he would have never enlisted the volunteers to get as far as GNU got today. Plus, the more homogenized the population is to proprietary software, the more threat that software poses to him, and those who share his beliefs. Take SCO as an example. They have a chance to prove the GPL is invalid. I don't believe that will happen, but that's beside the point. RMS needs everyone to value the freedom to modify software as they would anything else they own. In light of this,

2) Even if it is in an obnoxious manner to you, can you really blame him for wanting to convince others that the freedom to modify software as one sees fit, just as one would with any other product?

His motive is not to make people's lives easier by making a system that is free and modifiable, it is to make a political system that will make proprietary software illegal and punishable, in fact limiting freedom. He can argue semantics all he wants and tell us What Freedom Really Means, but in the end it is just his opinion, and should not be shoved on the world.

1) RMS doesn't ask the government to ensure these freedoms, he asks computer users to. This is an important distinction, because trying to change the laws *is* "shoving" one's ideas on the world. However, there is nothing imposing about me telling you "You're wrong. I'm right. Here's why." It's not imposing values, it's believing in something strongly enough to convince others that you are right through peaceful discourse. That is a Good Thing (TM).

So, he asks computers to not use proprietary software, and he asks them to use a free alternative. If the free alternative uses mostly GNU software on top of Linux, he asks you to call that system GNU/Linux, since the Operating System itself is merely comprised of those two components. KDE, Gnome, X, apache, etc., are all not part of the operating system, if you understand what an operating system is (hint: it's not every single piece of code sitting on my hard drive).

RE: GNU
by dpi on Tue 4th Nov 2003 06:13 UTC

Ah, i notice politics are beeing censored on this site. Fun!

"Saying RMS is obnoxious is not name calling; it is a description of his behavior."

Stating X (where X = a person) is obnoxious without any argument IS ad hominem attack. It's not worth anything for a discussion. Just state why you don't like X, or why you find (= opinion) him/her obnoxious. Far more better for a healthy discussion...

"I'm not just repeating what I've heard. I've gone to RMS' website and read a number of his writings. I think he has a right to receive credit for his work. I do not think he should insist that everyone call Linux The Operating System "GNU/Linux"."

Why not _insisting_? Insisting on something flows from beeing certain about a thing. May one not be? One can insist by asking people. But one cannot use appeal to force, to force people (ie. "you are with us, or without us" - which is besides an appeal to force also black vs. white thinking). He can only use valid arguments, most people can only be convinced with valid arguments - arguments, beeing valid or invalid, are stated on the gnu.org website for example. That's where his power lies; and he _cannot_ use his power as beeing one of the authors of GNU to give _you_ less freedom by _forcing_ you to call the OS in question GNU/Linux. That's where the power of Free Software lies. If you do not agree with calling it GNU/Linux, you can call it Linux - or whatever you want.

The GPL doesn't force you to call it X.

"RMS has different concepts of freedom confused and expects everyone else to view freedom his way. He is a religious zealot and as such is ultimately a danger to freedom, regardless of the good work he has done."

You don't HAVE to agree with RMS. One does not have to agree with another one's opinion to be his/her friend, to use a creative work from such a person, to (not) listen to arguments from one. Not listening to arguments because one is according to you a zealot is just zealotry too; used to not listen to one, used to ignore one, used to stay on your own ideals without going to a fruity discussion. Fallacy. It doesn't matter if one's communist, republican, nazi, liberal, gay or whatever. What matters is his/her arguments.

"His motive is not to make people's lives easier by making a system that is free and modifiable"

Well, it is what he has done, together with other people. Like i said already a million times the GPL does not mean you have to agree with RMS, Linus, or whoever.

"it is to make a political system that will make proprietary software illegal and punishable, in fact limiting freedom."

Source? What makes you think his political view is correlated to the GPL? What's your definition of freedom? Afaict he cannot use the GPL to ''make proprietary software illegal and punishable''. How can he?

"He can argue semantics all he wants and tell us What Freedom Really Means, but in the end it is just his opinion, and should not be shoved on the world."

Like i already explained, among other people, it CANNOT be shoved on the world with an appeal to force or any other fallacy.

Re: GNU
by dpi on Tue 4th Nov 2003 06:22 UTC

"This is an important distinction, because trying to change the laws *is* "shoving" one's ideas on the world."

Hehe, indeed. Good one! RJW are you also against authorities? Because authorities use appeal to force regulary. "Might makes right"...

Regarding the proprietary world. According to you, may software authors of product X argument their software is better than another product? May they argument their license/EULA is better than license Y? Don't they try to convince people just like RMS is trying to convince people?

Roy Batty
by dpi on Tue 4th Nov 2003 06:31 UTC

<snip imagination>

"Maybe if these people would code more and stop talking politics less Hurd would actually get done."

It's their choice to do X, right? That's their freedom. I'd say, go code on the Hurd yourself. They're not obligated to do so, like you seem to think.

Imo politics are unavoidable in this world. Even in software. Take software patents and DMCA for example. That's politics, freedom, and software in 1 mix. Even OpenBSD, which claims to be free from politics, cannot avoid it. See the 3.4 song at http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html about DARPA.

"As someone else mentioned, Stallman has said that he would like to see proprietary software illegal."

Where? Why? What were his arguments? Do you have a URL?

Are you against all people who have an idea of making something illegal by law? What consequences and actions do you draw when one does so? What is your opinion on proprietary software?

"Smells like communism to me."

Why?

I think it smells like apple pie.

"Good thing that nobody takes him seriously."

Can you proof this? I doubt you can, because you do not know everybodies' opinion on this matter. Therefore: fallacy.

Not too interested anymore...
by Anonymous on Tue 4th Nov 2003 06:36 UTC

The geeks in our culture easily adopt superior technology, but the household has been Microsoft's cash cow for about twenty years. Whether you like or dislike it, Darwin (via Mac OS X) enabled UNIX-like operating systems to find a home on millions of household desktops! That's quite an accomplishment that our geek culture wasn't able to itself perform as pervasively as Apple. Obviously Apple didn't do it without the help of BSD and GNU software, but they did it, non-the-less.

GNU/Darwin will succeed or fail based soley on its technical merits. That being said, I find it quite distracting to read about politics and religion when I'm looking for computer operating system distributions to test/use. I see the author's political rants and self-praises as a reach for new users. Obviously this gentleman has every right to express his political views on those who happen to visit his site, but I will find my visits much less freqeuent after reading this political discourse of absurdity.

%grep gnu-darwin /etc/hosts
127.0.0.1 gnu-darwin.org
%


Good... Just checking...

PS - This is not a rant against either BSD or GNU! My life would be less happy without both of them, and I benefit from their work every day. My point is I don't need political rhetoric coming from my software vendor of choice--and given a choice, I will use the software that excels in technical merit.

RE: GNU
by RJW on Tue 4th Nov 2003 06:55 UTC

I never said that RMS' opinions were valid or invalid because he is obnoxious, what I said was people do not want to listen to him for that reason.

How is he a danger to freedom (please answer without an analogy)?

If he got what he wanted, it would be illegal to produce proprietary software. Yes, he wants this. I see this as a danger to freedom because I do not view proprietary software as limiting others' freedom in a harmful sense. There are software companies that would not survive on an open source model. Could a company that writes e.g. yacht designing software survive open source? Not likely. They need the proprietary model. I don't think such software could even exist if it were not for closed source. This is not immoral, it's the nature of the medium. Computers allow one to distribute a binary without access to the source, and it's natural. What I see as limiting freedom is the strongarming tactics many proprietary companies use against people who violate their licenses. But this is not the fault of binary-only distribution! It's a different problem.

RMS doesn't ask the government to ensure these freedoms, he asks computer users to. This is an important distinction, because trying to change the laws *is* "shoving" one's ideas on the world. However, there is nothing imposing about me telling you "You're wrong. I'm right. Here's why." It's not imposing values, it's believing in something strongly enough to convince others that you are right through peaceful discourse. That is a Good Thing (TM).

You're right about the last point, but I have read much of his writings, and I think he does want the government to "ensure these freedoms".

With all that said, I think he's extremely intelligent and I don't think he's a bad person. But he sees things from a religious perspective, and I think he's fundamentally confused about the concept of freedom. There can be many levels and types of freedom. It isn't all one thing. Software freedom is not the same as freedom of speech. While he has had a role to play in the success of free software, it wasn't until Linux and "open source" came along that it took off in a world changing way. There's a reason for this. The pragmatic, more reasonable open source approach works better than the brittle, religious "Free Software" approach.

Re: dpi
by ThanatosNL on Tue 4th Nov 2003 07:01 UTC

Where? Why? What were his arguments? Do you have a URL?

Are you against all people who have an idea of making something illegal by law? What consequences and actions do you draw when one does so? What is your opinion on proprietary software?


I like that direction. People, you can believe whatever you'd like. You can hold anything to be truth, no matter how wrong it may be to the rest of us. If you come out and try to disagree with someone else's idea, expect to see people to want to understand why you think the way you do. If you have no reasons, then we'll call you on it.

If you decide to go out and research things and understand people's opinions on any issue, and debate your opinion, the arguments you make and those of whom you debate against will only get better. But don't start throwing around accusations without any trappings of credibility, authority, or vidence.

RE: GNU
by RJW on Tue 4th Nov 2003 07:10 UTC

Why not _insisting_? Insisting on something flows from beeing certain about a thing. May one not be? One can insist by asking people. But one cannot use appeal to force, to force people (ie. "you are with us, or without us" - which is besides an appeal to force also black vs. white thinking). He can only use valid arguments, most people can only be convinced with valid arguments - arguments, beeing valid or invalid, are stated on the gnu.org website for example. That's where his power lies; and he _cannot_ use his power as beeing one of the authors of GNU to give _you_ less freedom by _forcing_ you to call the OS in question GNU/Linux. That's where the power of Free Software lies. If you do not agree with calling it GNU/Linux, you can call it Linux - or whatever you want.

There are reasons other than the fact that one *can* insist on something till the world ends that one *should* not. Maybe because he wants people to listen to what's really important? Quibbling about "GNU/Linux" endlessly makes him less approachable, less reasonable, less likely to be heard.

RE: RJW
by ThanatosNL on Tue 4th Nov 2003 07:21 UTC

There are reasons other than the fact that one *can* insist on something till the world ends that one *should* not. Maybe because he wants people to listen to what's really important?

Umm, if someone insists on one thing till the world ends, then what could be more important than that person? I think you're trying to impose you're values on him.

Quibbling about "GNU/Linux" endlessly makes him less approachable, less reasonable, less likely to be heard.

He doesn't quibble about "GNU/Linux" endlessly. People like yourself do, however.

RE: GNU
by RJW on Tue 4th Nov 2003 07:29 UTC

I've changed my mind about everything. Now I think RMS is brilliant.

RE: GNU
by dpi on Tue 4th Nov 2003 08:20 UTC

"There are reasons other than the fact that one *can* insist on something till the world ends that one *should* not."

I'm not sure wether i understand your sentence. I'm not sure what you mean with ''that one should not'' in this sentence.

It's an infinite circle about freedom of speech (this is what we're actually discussing here imo, which is about politics ;) *cough*). I think anyone, be it ''republican'', ''nazi'', ''communist'', ''moronic'', ''pedophile'' or whatever one calls it according to their definitions, one should according to my principles of freedom of speech be able to express his/her opinion, even if it according to someone random (whoever) ''limits'' freedom.

One who does not agree on this matter, is according to me actually pro-censorship; one who is pro-censorship, but against person X (RMS in this case) which leads to him/her wanting to censor person X because of his/her opinion, is not better than person X. They're dealing with the very same problem in a identical way.

Do you agree?

"Maybe because he wants people to listen to what's really important?"

Who decides what's important and what not? Isn't finding X (not) important highly subjective; which is np, but since it isn't ''proven'' it cannot be used to _force_ onto others' opinions; only to convince. Convincing, which is what GNU and FSF are trying to do? Just like any politicians, marketing people, non-fictional book writers, proprietary software writers are generally trying to do, too?

"Quibbling about "GNU/Linux" endlessly makes him less approachable, less reasonable, less likely to be heard."

Oh, i agree this is a possible result to some people. Especially those who insist (!) to call the OS Linux are likely to get tired about reading/discussing this. However, i don't think that matters for (dis)allowing one to express his/her opinion because expressing their opinion is their choice. When one choses to shoot in his/her own foot, that's their choice. Though it's the question ''who to blame?'' and i'm not certain _if_ that foot-shooting _is_ the case here, since i cannot predict the future. Therefore i think this is not proven. It's possible, and likely to happen for some people, but regarding the world as a whole it's imo hard to draw a conclusion as of yet.

I don't agree with not listening to arguments by person X because s/he made certain statements i didn't agree with. Because according to my experience it's interesting to read about arguments by people with whom i don't agree with. If i'd do this i wouldn't have any friends left! ;)

"You're right about the last point, but I have read much of his writings, and I think he does want the government to "ensure these freedoms"."

Yes, i think he wants them to, since he uses a license. Only public domain, which means the work doesn't have a license, exists without a government and trias politica (or other system) to maintain copyleft/copyright.

Which means there are other people, current copyright holders, including proprietary, who are using the government to maintain their interests, too. I'm wondering wether you are against that too? Those licenses give me less freedom than the GPL. So i currently prefer licenses which are as free as the GPL or more free than the GPL.

The GPL seems to me like a legal way to ensure gained freedoms in this corrupt, egoistic world. I'd like to see the world different, i'd like to see software beeing free like public domain, without having a government which can use an appeal to force and without these people who restrict freedom. However right now i can't believe this'll be happening thus i understand the motivation of the GPL in the current world crisis. However wether this is the Right way to change the world is an endless debate. What remains, is that Free Software (GPL) cannot restrict the freedom of speech afaict. A government however, can, but that has little to do with the GPL since a government can do this on various _other_ ways as well.

I see the GPL as a TAZ, because i think this Fun game will be ''banned'' in some way by governments, lobbies and ''chaos'' of those who are in power in this World though i'm not sure how that'll happen. Why i think this, is because freedom and security are and have always been polarised and it is impossible to revolutionary change this like tried in Russia (the liberal/anarchist movement beeing overwhelmed by authorian/communists); though i think it is possible to do so evolutionary because morals are subjective. But, it will be FUN for a lot people while it lasts and the GNU system _can_ imo contribute to this evolution.

Btw, TAZ info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Autonomous_Zone

Language And Dictionaries...
by BOFHelsinki on Tue 4th Nov 2003 09:36 UTC

ThanatosNL:

"There is a difference between words that are part of a language and words that are names. You find the former dictionaries, and the latter in encyclopedias."

Say what? I hope you don't suggest that dictionaries and encyclopedias *define* language. They just reflect it, and they are always slightly late. The most well-known English dictionaries had a reality check and turned from prescriptive to descriptive already in the Middle Ages... And if you read the Foreword/Introduction chapter in one of the major dictionaries, it'll tell you the authors din't even imagine they could contain all of a language there. Grammar changes slowly, words change more quickly, meanings are very lively indeed -- a dictionary is just a snapshot at one point of time.

And you have a sligthly odd distinction between dictionaries and encyclopedias. Dictionaries do contain a lot of names; and everything in an encyclopedia is part of a language. You are better off saying that a dictionary describes (or just helps understand) words, whereas an encyclopedia describes things and concepts.

Language, every living language out there (unlike, say, Latin), is a live thing. An open source project of its speakers. Even the above mentioned French -- that's why the French Academy has to work double-time to keep at least the writing in an ancient, semi-obsolete form... which isn't all bad. (Too bad Caxton screwed up English by not looking forward, or even aside, but only back when he heavily contributed to the fixing of English spelling. The language had just gone through immense changes, but he chickened out.)

(Just sayin' all this because your post was ambiguous to me on what you meant there. And to kill time, too.)

I hate Darwin
by bootme on Tue 4th Nov 2003 12:37 UTC

I wish it worked, but I play with a few OS's for x86 though I'm not exactly a guru. But Darwin booted to a commandprompt and from that point on was a command line unix nightmare. Sorry, I'm not that much into commandlines, and the paths wouldn't set no matter what I tried. The built in X wouldn't boot, and there is no rhyme or reason to the documentation. Every web site points to some other outdated website, and none of it seems to pertain to a correct way to get Xfree running. I wish I knew enouph to use it, I really wanted to use it, if just to give Apple a reason to pursue the X86 side of things. Go ahead and flame, but I'm still learning the Unix side of things, but its too bad Beos died. I hope it can be rekindled. If someone would just push it into the 64 bit side of things, it might take back off...

Re: Great Cthulhu (IP: 209.47.215.---)
by drsmithy on Tue 4th Nov 2003 13:30 UTC

Now, I may not agree with RMS on all things, but one cannot denigrate his contribution. Without him, Linux wouldn't have become what it is today.

Why not ?

Re: Greg
by Sagres on Tue 4th Nov 2003 14:01 UTC

>"The Hacktivismo license, for instance, puts all sorts of fascist restrictions on the user/developer."

Really? maybe i read the licence differently:
http://www.hacktivismo.com/hessla.html
I don't agree with some points, but overall it seems that it is a licence that tries to associate basic human rights to what you can do with your software. If had developed a program that would do, for example bacteria recognition from images, i would use this licence to prevent it from being used in any way to develop bio weapons. A bit far fetched maybe, but a good example anyway.

what is not from FSF?
by Anonymous on Tue 4th Nov 2003 14:13 UTC

X, kde, gnome, linux, python, perl, tcl, apache, etc...

Bias for Proclus' basis?
by OldSpook on Tue 4th Nov 2003 15:37 UTC

You seem only to target the USA for your protests. WHy is that?

Where is your "Blackout" for the persecution of the religious people in China?

Or the students being killed by the mullah lead theocracy in Iran?

Or the tribal slaughters of Animists and Christians in Sudan by the Islamic majority?

Or the families fed to the woodchippers by Saddam?

Or the death of innocents in Israel from Palestenian homocide bombers?

Or the deaths from the excessive responses by Israelis against Palestenians?

Or the Russian slaughter of Chechens and vice versa?

Or the trashing of the rain forests of Brazil and decimation of native populations there?

Be reasonable - and be consistent. THere are far greater tragedies and evils in this world than the US invasion of Iraq. Justified or not, there is no denying that people of Iraq and that region are better off now that Saddam and the Baathist government is gone. Now if we can get rid of the Kleptocracies in Saudi Arabia and Syria, get democracy allowed in Iran, and keep Israel and the Palestenians from each others throats, that would be a far more worthy cause for you to call attention to. Far more difficult too- perhaps that is why you avoid it.

Closer to home, why not darken your site for the undernourished children in the US, hurt by this economy? There are many going hungry and the cash-strapped charities cannot keep up. They could use the help and attention. Why not put in the content similar to what the VIM author does about the starving children in Africa?

Your politics are not *for* anything consistently. They seem to be focused on Anti-something, usually whatever the "in crowd's" anti-USA flavor of the month is. Being "anit" is easy - try being FOR something and calling attention to it - and volunteering.

Stepoff your soapbox, take the mask off and drop any pretense of being fair or liberal in any good sense of that word. Your actions say you aren't. You are just trying to use your position with a distro to play politics or bash only the US.

Leave the software as software, leave out your personal politics.

Even Richard Stallman and Eric Raymond manage to be reasonable about this.

Why not you?

Re: Bias for Proclus' basis?
by Anonymous on Tue 4th Nov 2003 17:41 UTC

Do you actually think you can effect the way Israel does business? Compare that to how you can effect your own country.

Re: what is not from FSF?
by Anonymous on Tue 4th Nov 2003 17:42 UTC

GNOME for one is GNU...

nada
by Anonymous on Tue 4th Nov 2003 17:45 UTC

"Your politics are not *for* anything consistently. They seem to be focused on Anti-something, usually whatever the "in crowd's" anti-USA flavor of the month is. Being "anit" is easy - try being FOR something and calling attention to it - and volunteering."

Being anti war is a lot harder then being for war.

@drsmithy
by Great Cthulhu on Tue 4th Nov 2003 17:49 UTC

"Now, I may not agree with RMS on all things, but one cannot denigrate his contribution. Without him, Linux wouldn't have become what it is today."

Why not ?


If it hadn't been for the inclusive approach promoted by the GPL, it's unlikely that Linux would have attracted so many collaborators. Such is RMS's contribution to Linux.

Re: Great Cthulhu (IP: 209.47.215.---)
by drsmithy on Tue 4th Nov 2003 18:55 UTC

If it hadn't been for the inclusive approach promoted by the GPL, it's unlikely that Linux would have attracted so many collaborators. Such is RMS's contribution to Linux.

In light of the BSDs, that appears to me to be a pretty bold assertion.

What I'm trying to say is that "Linux" may not have become what it is today, but some other equivalent project probably would have - with or without the GPL.

re
by Anonymous on Tue 4th Nov 2003 19:08 UTC

"What I'm trying to say is that "Linux" may not have become what it is today, but some other equivalent project probably would have - with or without the GPL."

Not bloody likely. RMS spent 10 years working to build a Free OS before the Linux kernel was created. Can you imagine anyone else setting out to create a Free OS in 1983? If he didn't, the BSD's would be as obscure as they are now and we would all still be running windows.

@drsmithy
by Great Cthulhu on Tue 4th Nov 2003 19:55 UTC

What I'm trying to say is that "Linux" may not have become what it is today, but some other equivalent project probably would have - with or without the GPL.

I'm not talking about an equivalent project, I'm talking about Linux in particular.

Look at it this way: what other free OS has achieved Linux's notoriety? None. Now, if the BSDL is so superior to the GPL (and therefore RMS's contribution is negligible), then why is it that the BSDs aren't more popular than Linux? It can't just be the mascot...

We can talk about what could have been, or what has actually happened. I believe that the GPL is part of the reason of Linux's success. You have not presented any arguments that could lead me to think otherwise.

Gee, what wonderful leftist buzzwords
by MisesGuy on Tue 4th Nov 2003 22:09 UTC

"Given the current state of things in the US and elsewhere, strident expressions of democratic power are necessary. The tools of such action include, but are not limited to; boycotts, blockades, community response, de-branding, labor solidarity, whistle-blowing, etc."

Ah, democracy, that tyranny of the masses. People who speak like the quote above are every bit as dangerous as the freedom stealers they claim to fight.

corrections of fallacies
by zp on Wed 5th Nov 2003 03:27 UTC

I've seen some rather misinformed claims here.

ThanatosNL says: "The problem with old-school BSD licenses was that the license required that derivative works pay heed to UC Berkely."

This is simply not true. The license is there for everybody to see (e.g. http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/license.html). The only requirement is related to advertising. In other words "if you make money on our sofware, you might as well give us a credit."

3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement:

This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.


Modern BSDs (Free, Open, Net) require only the first two clauses of the license and drop out this advertisment clause. What I do not understand is why people make authoritative claims as above without really reading the license.

The second "pearl" is by Anonymous (IP: ---.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net): "Not bloody likely. RMS spent 10 years working to build a Free OS before the Linux kernel was created. Can you imagine anyone else setting out to create a Free OS in 1983? If he didn't, the BSD's would be as obscure as they are now and we would all still be running windows.

This is ridiculous. BSD already EXISTED in 1983. Thanks to it, thousands of world universities could obtain and study the real OS. BSD TCP/IP stack, written initially by Bill Joy, cofounder of Sun, is implemented in every OS now (with improvements added of course). BSD is not as widespread as Linux simply because of a huge law suit over the intelectual property of UNIX license owner at the time. BSD decided to get rid of all code in question and published BSD 4.4 Lite CDs. That was the basis of a comercial BSD/OS, written by the original members of the group from Berkeley, and all open-source BSDs. But when the law suit was over Linux has already obtained the momentum and critical mass of users. And that was good as far as I'm concerned. Choice is good.

Finally, with regret, GNU-Darwin sounds like a mythical beast to me. It's a Chimera with a body of Darwin, BSD in the middle, Mach at the tail, and a head of GNU. It just sounds horrible. No, thank you.

Re: Great Cthulhu (IP: 209.47.215.---)
by drsmithy on Wed 5th Nov 2003 03:58 UTC

Look at it this way: what other free OS has achieved Linux's notoriety? None.

Saying the GPL is the reason for that is a *HHHHUUUUGGGGGE* extrapolation.

Now, if the BSDL is so superior to the GPL (and therefore RMS's contribution is negligible), then why is it that the BSDs aren't more popular than Linux? It can't just be the mascot...

I have made no comments as to which license is "superior". Each has its own unique set of advantages and disadvantages. I was merely using the BSDs as an example of "free software" that has - up until very recently - enjoyed similar levels of "notoriety" as Linux, despite having a very different philosophy behind it.

I also made no comment about RMS's contributions.

Whether or not the BSDL is superior depends on your perspective. If writing Free Software is your goal, the BSDL is clearly superior. If requiring everyone who uses your code to agree to your communist viewpoint is your goal, the GPL is superior ;) . If striking a fair balance is your goal then the LGPL (or equivalent) is probably the best option.

The BSDs' current positions can be explained by a number of factors unrelated to the GPL (as can Linux's). The main ones are probably that the BSDs were under some legal pressure about the time Linux first originated and they've also always been somewhat more restrictive about how easily people can contribute.

Linux is mostly a case of "good enough and lucky to be in the right place at the right time" - much like MSDOS was.

We can talk about what could have been, or what has actually happened.

Well, having a hypothetical discussion about what actually happened is pretty moot ;) .

You are talking about Linux specifically. I'm talking about the general principle of a "free" operating system making significant inroads against proprietry commercial OSes. IMHO, the latter is a more interesting discussion, because the former is already over and done with.

I believe that the GPL is part of the reason of Linux's success. You have not presented any arguments that could lead me to think otherwise.

I don't believe the GPL itself was a major contributor to Linux's success. There are undoubtedly some pieces of GPLed software that helped *a lot* (GCC being the most prominent example), but your assertion assumes that the GPL was primarily responsible for that software, more so than the people who wrote it. Based on the presence other "free software" movements I don't see any reason to believe similar bits of software wouldn't have appeared *without* the GPL.

Do I think the GPL played a part ? Yes - indirectly - so did a lot of things.
Do I think there would be some sort of "free software" currently enjoying the popularity Linux has if the GPL didn't exist ? Yes.

And I haven't seen any arguments that convince me otherwise ;) .

You are basically trying to say that if Linus has released his kernel under the BSDL, or even the LGPL (or equivalent), then Linux would not be in the position it is today. Personally, I think that's a completely untenable position to take, because it requires an intimate understanding of the motivations of the thousands of people who have contributed to Linux over the years.

Indeed, one could make a fairly powerful argument that had Linux been released under a less restrictive license than the GPL it would be even more popular, as it would have been more suited to inclusion/merging with commercial products.

Re: Great Cthulhu (IP: 209.47.215.---)
by Thebalrog on Wed 5th Nov 2003 19:52 UTC

"Indeed, one could make a fairly powerful argument that had Linux been released under a less restrictive license than the GPL it would be even more popular, as it would have been more suited to inclusion/merging with commercial products."

Good point. And had it been done entirely by the GNU, it would be mired in their politics. It's quaint to hear RMS talking "freedom" all the time, but he really needs to leave the 60s behind.