Richard Stallman, industry activist and founder of the Free Software Foundation has - once again - relinquished his role as maintainer of the phenomenally successful GNU Extensible, Customizable, Display Editor (Emacs). The news was slipped out on the Emacs developers' forum and Stallman explained his reasons in a later interview.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-12-15
Member since:2005-08-07
Member since:2005-07-28
This allegation is made a lot, but I really don't think this is it. If anything, I think Stallman is really about the ideology of GNU and his definition of free software, and what he doesn't like is that ideological element, which he sees as being foundational and essential to the success of Linux, being divorced from it.
For him, "GNU/Linux" is as much a philosophical, moral, or ideological triumph as it is a technical one, and I think his insistence on these things is acknowledging the free software ethic, the communitarian principle, that was important to creating all of this.
You can agree or disagree with the copyleft concept, and god knows, vast armies of people align on both sides every time it comes up, but I think it's unfair to say that this is about ego. I see no evidence of this. I see a man on a kind of crusade for an idea, not a man on a crusade for himself.
In my personal opinion only, I think all the truth about what's important is encoded conspicuously in the story of Linux -
One faction creates a body of software riding on the energy and zeal of a moral concept, but can't quite finish the thing - can't quite tie it all together.
Another faction creates a body of software they want to be technically excellent, using many of the tools developed by the first.
A beautiful balance, IMHO. I have long imagined that if Richard Stallman could somehow make a deal with God, whereby from now on Linux would always be referred to as GNU/Linux at the price of Stallman's name being removed from history, he'd make it.
I continue to feel that some people are occasionally unfair to him. An eccentric and uncompromising man, indeed, but one driven by principles he has stood by consistently, as far as I can tell.
Whether or not the GPL is good for the future of software development is a separate issue from the man's motivations. Out of irritation with the viral nature of the GPL, certain individuals have attempted to criticize his character, and I think this is unfair and unwarranted.
As to the question of whether the GPL has limited the adoption of Linux, that is still open to debate, but I also have to say that I doubt Linux would have come as far as it has without it. I know that I have personally had a difficult time getting GNU software into my company for reasons specifically related to the license. It is not without its costs, at any rate. The question is whether the costs are worth it.
But I respect Richard Stallman and bristle a bit at some of the personal attacks he receives.
Member since:2005-08-07
Uhh... Linux IS just one program.
It's really a shame that GNU doesn't get more of the credit for the complete systems like Fedora and Ubuntu. Linux itself is a very large kernel - it comprises about 45MB of code according to kernel.org - but things like GCC, Glibc, Gnome etc etc comprise FAR more of those systems.
I don't agree with much of what Stallman says, but the marketing thats gone on around the "Linux" name is a real shame. Your text here is a good example of that, and you should be ashamed of your ignorance on that topic.
Member since:2006-02-15
It's really a shame that GNU doesn't get more of the credit for the complete systems like Fedora and Ubuntu. Linux itself is a very large kernel - it comprises about 45MB of code according to kernel.org - but things like GCC, Glibc, Gnome etc etc comprise FAR more of those systems.
One can see it that way too but well...What would you do with a distro with only GNU software on it? F.ex. GNOME doesn't belong to GNU as far as I know, and I kinda think all the other software too which don't belong to GNU actually comprise a bigger part of the distro than the included GNU software. As such, should it be called GNOME/Linux, or KDE/Linux, or something similar? Sure, the whole userland wouldn't be possible without GNU software, but neither would any of the modern desktop environments without non-GNU software.
In the modern times a Linux distro without useable userland is more or less as useless to any average user as a Linux distro without useable and modern DE. In that sense they are both equally important. And don't forget all the other software..
As such I just find nitpicking about calling it Linux instead of GNU/Linux rather irritating.
Member since:2006-12-05
So, has anyone tried the new Ubuntu GNU/Upstart/PulseAudio/XOrg/Metacity/GNOME/Mozilla/Linux lately?
Once the HURD is done, he'll have his wish--an operating system with his name on it, and even be able to place requirements (trademark) of adding the word (acronym?) "GNU" to any product based on it. Unfortunately for him, it seems that DNF has a higher chance of being released before then.
Edited 2008-02-27 01:11 UTC
Member since:2005-11-21
It's really a shame that GNU doesn't get more of the credit for the complete systems like Fedora and Ubuntu. Linux itself is a very large kernel - it comprises about 45MB of code according to kernel.org - but things like GCC, Glibc, Gnome etc etc comprise FAR more of those systems.
I don't agree with much of what Stallman says, but the marketing thats gone on around the "Linux" name is a real shame. Your text here is a good example of that, and you should be ashamed of your ignorance on that topic.
I suppose you're prone to being dense about context.
That one program comprising of millions upon millions of lines of code enables his EWACS to be commonly distributed around the globe and not give him a heart attack about Linux not being dictated on his terms.
When LLVM becomes mature and supports what GCC does, with improvements in performance are we going to not use that to work on our applications? Hell, LLVM 2.3 is making great strides and 2.2 is very stable.
The notion that the brain is just one program and on the same level as your ear is retarded.
Member since:
2005-11-21
One common error is referring to a free operating system as "Linux." That system is basically GNU; Linux is actually the kernel, one program in the system. Calling the whole system "Linux" means giving the system's principal developer none of the credit. See (this link) for more explanation.
Would you please agree to distinguish consistently in your article between Linux, the kernel, and GNU/Linux, the entire system? Since GNU Emacs is part of GNU, this is directly relevant.
The other common error is labeling me, GNU, GNU/Linux, or the GNU GPL with the term "Open Source." That is the slogan adopted in 1998 by people who reject the philosophy of the Free Software Movement. They have the right to promote their views, but we would like to be associated with our views, not theirs. For more explanation, see (this link).
My response to your questions, based on the ideals of the Free Software Movement, would be very different from what a supporter of Open Source would say.
Could you please agree to refer to this work as Free Software in your article, and not as Open Source? In particular, please don't describe GNU Emacs as "Open Source."
That's truly rich.
If the Linux Kernel is one program, then all this crap invading the Web are a few actions/behaviors and dont' remotely resemble a program. You know what the hell I'm talking about. All this AJAX crap and PHP application junk at Facebook and others where we have thousands of applications.
Give me a break.
If the Linux Kernel is one program then we might as well call KDE or GNOME of OS X or Windows Vista as just examples of one program in a series of programs.
Edited 2008-02-26 22:43 UTC