Linked by Eugenia Loli on Wed 12th Sep 2007 04:14 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source Here is an interview with Richard Stallman about a range of free software topics including GPLv3 and comment on the Microsoft patent issue. Stallman has a go at Linus Torvalds even suggesting that if people want to keep their freedom they better not follow Torvalds. From the interview: "The fact that Torvalds says "open source" instead of "free software" shows where he is coming from. I wrote the GNU GPL to defend freedom for all users of all versions of a program. I developed version 3 to do that job better and protect against new threats. Torvalds says he rejects this goal; that's probably why he doesn't appreciate GPL version 3. I respect his right to express his views, even though I think they are foolish. However, if you don't want to lose your freedom, you had better not follow him."
Thread beginning with comment 270435
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Crazy religion
by StaubSaugerNZ on Wed 12th Sep 2007 06:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Crazy religion"
StaubSaugerNZ
Member since:
2007-07-13

> Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but DOS shipped on the first batch of IBM 5150 PC's in 1981. It was written by MS then, too. Gates had already been of the mindset that software should be a commercial product which customers pay to use.

GNU was never formed to oppose Microsoft. IIRC, Stallman started it because a company (which I shall not name) donated his lab a printer but later refused to give him source code to a printer driver so that Stallman could repair it himself. The company then gave source to one of his colleagues with the proviso that that colleague not share it with Stallman. Stallman realised then that something was needed to protect all users from those who could remove support at a whim.

Reply Parent Score: 12

RE[5]: Crazy religion
by kad77 on Wed 12th Sep 2007 06:57 in reply to "RE[4]: Crazy religion"
kad77 Member since:
2007-03-20

The company was Xerox.

http://sharealike.org/20_Berkeley_Tech_L_J_443.pdf

Why would you go out of your way to omit that?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[6]: Crazy religion
by Vanders on Wed 12th Sep 2007 07:47 in reply to "RE[5]: Crazy religion"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

What the hell? Maybe he didn't know it was Xerox? I certainly couldn't recall the manufacturer until you mentioned it. Not everyone has perfect recall on obscure moments in computing history.

Reply Parent Score: 4

I wonder...
by steampoweredlawn on Wed 12th Sep 2007 08:04 in reply to "RE[4]: Crazy religion"
steampoweredlawn Member since:
2006-09-27

If Mr. Stallman goes out of his way to call ordinary household objects by their true names, e.g. facial tissues instead of Kleenex, cotton-tipped sanitary swabs instead of Q-tips, etc.

I understand, and to a degree can sympathize with his cause, but he must realize that people are not deliberately throwing his philosophy in his face when they call GNU/Linux "Linux" - it's simply easier to say, and everyone knows what you're talking about, to the degree they understand or care. As much as it apparently makes his blood boil, there *are* people out there, myself included, that consider functionality paramount, with philosophical ramifications secondary. Plus, he should have picked a less awkward-sounding name than GaNoo if he wanted people to use it in their daily language. Linux just rolls off the tongue nicer than GaNooLinux. Linux may be just a kernel, but its name has become synonymous with everything that sits atop it as well.

Edited 2007-09-12 08:06

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: I wonder...
by lemur2 on Wed 12th Sep 2007 08:16 in reply to "I wonder..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Linux may be just a kernel, but its name has become synonymous with everything that sits atop it as well.


Apparently, in a typical distribution, Linux itself (the kernel) accounts for approximately 3% of the total source code. The "GNU system" accounts for approximately 28% of the source code.

Can you name anything else where the major, obvious, largest part is ignored, and the item is commonly named after a tiny piece one tenth the size?

As much as it apparently makes his blood boil, there *are* people out there, myself included, that consider functionality paramount, with philosophical ramifications secondary.


Since you consider functionality paramount, then I take it that you call it a "GNU system" then, and ignore the word "Linux"?

Edited 2007-09-12 08:17

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE: I wonder...
by cyclops on Wed 12th Sep 2007 08:26 in reply to "I wonder..."
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

Before you slam me with another history lesson. I pronounce GNU as "New". I won't even tell you how I pronounce Linux, but was somewhat shocked when I heard radio shows pronouncing it a different way.

I refer to "Desktop Linux" as GNU simply because that the main license all this is under. Linux is simply the wrong term. In reality GNU is the wrong term, as my "Desktop Linux" has as much to do with the X11 license; a browser under the Mozilla License and a certain Office suite from SUN. In fact I have very little interest in the kernel.

Its surprising how much Microsoft got right with both the naming and logo of their OS offering. Linux and Tux are both, poor. I prefer GNU, but think both show little respect for what has become an OS which includes things like IM and a browser and a Media Center, which is greater than both Linux or the FSF. Although I personally cannot think of *anything* that is either appropriate to todays "Linux Desktop" or a logo to suit it, or that would last 20 years like that of Windows.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: I wonder...
by marafaka on Wed 12th Sep 2007 08:58 in reply to "I wonder..."
marafaka Member since:
2006-01-03

I agree, people do not intentionally call it that way. But some even call all the non-MS operating systems Linux, and that is a problem. And it can be corrected by educating people like you, who will then hopefully spread the word.

Reply Parent Score: 1