Richard Stallman is the founder of the GNU project and the Free Software Foundation. Builder AU recently caught up with RMS about his achievements, the Free Software movement and his concerns with the US-Australian Free Trade Agreement. He will be in Australia on October 5 to speak at the Builder Conference in Sydney.
Developer Spotlight: Richard Stallman
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
He is right it is the GNU/Linux system.
Seriously for marketing purposes I think companies should use these names where possible.
eg. Desktop/LX and where it is applicable they could put something like “Running the latest in Linux and GNU technologies”
—snip—
About HURD, I know it is a microkernel and stuff. But can they or do they reuse code from Linux? I hope they don’t have a not built here mentality.
I don’t feel like typing out GNU/Linux all the time, and I don’t feel like being corrected if I don’t. From now on, please stop referring to Windows as win98 or winXP etc. Please use the correct name of the product “Microsoft Windows XP(tm)” or you will be corrected. Please also stop using the term MS or M$, the name is Microsoft Inc.
The idea of constantly writing GNU/Linux is just as retarded.
Linux and HURD are quiet fundimentally different, but I’m sure the HURD developers read the linux driver code for device info, etc.
I’m sure the few HURD devfelopers are busy right now with th porting to be reading any linux and since it is micro vs mono I doubt most of the info would be any good except for maybe as a wrapper
Yeah I was being silly resurrecting that issue. I always call it Linux myself.
About the HURD, I understand what you guys are saying. Plus it was mentioned in the article that they are moving from the MACH to the L4 microkernel. Which is a “a big job”.
So coding for a microkernel is fundamentally different? Is it any easier?
n 1991, GNU was nearly complete, lacking only a kernel.
only a kernel? Where’s Hurd Dick?
What is your current Operating system set up for day to day computer use at the moment?
I use the GNU operating system, with Linux as the kernel.
ROFL!!!
I drive a RAV4 with an Toyota “engine”, but where would I be without my steering wheel. He acts as if GNU is better than Linux. Richard grow up :B :b :b
Linux wouldn’t compile without GCC, wouldn’t be able to run any applications without GNU LibC, etc. etc. Most of the toolchain used by linux is written by GNU.
Is there anyone who can’t be laughed at in the computer industry? Come on… When Billy comes up with similar nonsense, it’s still the same. These two persons can afford saying whatever dumb things or expressing whatever they wish.
what if we started useing the bsd toolset for linux?
didnt the bsd’s fork or rewrite from scratch as they could not stand stallmans insistance?
The BSDs have never had anything to do with Stallman and probably don’t care what he thinks.
The BSD toolset was around before GNU and had it’s original home at a university.
I don’t think that freedom is going to be able to compete with commercialism because people are not even aware that they don’t have any control over a commercial system, and as Stallman said, most people don’t have any long term plan or concept in general, let along regarding technology. For example, most people are not effective financial planners until they are mature adults, who feel the pain of debt. People make mistakes first, before they become aware of other choices.
I don’t think that freedom will win the war, unless of course, freedom becomes autonomous, that is, the machines themselves become the programmers and humans in tern program in the most sophisticated languages, english, french, etc.
I am quite sure that software can write itself and articles like this one < http://www.linux-mag.com/2004-04/code_01.html > are moving in that direction. The FSF has to move in the opposite direction of software vendors, but I have not seen a unified effort. How on earth can you compete with the entertainment industry (Microsoft) and all the masses out there, unless you can find and establish a way for your system to be independant and organic enough so that it is not humanly possible to destroy. This earth has plants and animals, some of which have become extinct, but we have insects that we can’t get rid of, we have weeds that we can’t kill because they come back, and that is what our FSF systems need to be able to do.
Last time i looked most embedded linux tended to use both uclibc and busybox (for tools) neither of which are GNU (though they are lgpl and gpl licensed respectivly)
In their case it’s a mistake to call the system GNU/Linux, likewise there exists a version of Debian Woody called uwoody which uses uclibc instead of glibc, so it’s a fallacy to say that without glibc linux would have no applications.
The problem i have with that name is that it implies that Linux is part of GNU project (such as with GNU/Hurd) something it most definetly isn’t
First: The only part of Linux that is interesting to HURD developers that I know of is the filing system code. There is at least one developer that is trying to get EXT3 working with the HURD.
Second: Linux is only a kernel; Gnu is an operating system without working kernel so it is GNU/Linux. Not only that, but there will be Debian GNU/kFreeBSD and GNU/kNetBSD in the future. A kernel is a kernel and nothing more. It is useless without all the little (and large) tools that are needed to make a full operating system.
Third: The BSDs didn’t have to fork or rewrite any tools. They had lots of them to begin with, and whatever rewriting happened wasn’t because of RMS bugging anybody. OpenBSD for example is (and has) rewritten many command line tools to have BSD licensed tools (for licensing purity) and FreeBSD rewrites or extends their tools to be fully POSIX compliant.
Forth: If you would make a linux system that use the BSD tools instead of the GNU tools you could call it whatever you want. But I prefer to call a system that is based on the GNU tools a GNU system and a system that is based on the BSD tools a BSD system. This is important when you consider the work done by the debian project getting the BSDs building with the GNU system, and some of the smaller Linux effort trying to get Linux building with the BSD system.
P.S. RMS is not as fanatic as many people here make him out to be. Some GNU projects are licensed under the MIT license and others are Public Domain. And the GNU/Linux thing, RMS said in an interview some years ago that doesn’t really mind if people don’t always say GNU/Linux, he just wants that people that know better use the term with people that don’t know better so that GNU gets the recognition it deserves.
I know bashing rms is the cool thing to do, but the man deserves the respect of anyone who has benefited from free software. And what he is saying about the GNU operating system with the linux kernel is true. Comparing this to a car with ‘engine x, steering wheel y’ is absurd — a false analogy. The ‘operating system’ is much, much more than just the kernel.
I use the GNU operating system, with Linux as the kernel.
ROFL!!!
Ah, c’mon this is usual formula-one terminology where car/engine constructors are named each. 😉 Thinking about it, BSD’s are pretty similar to Ferrari – well, I guess that is a point which I like. 🙂
About HURD, I know it is a microkernel and stuff. But can they or do they reuse code from Linux? I hope they don’t have a not built here mentality.
Technically, HURD is not a microkernel, HURD are the servers which are running on top of the Mach or L4 mirokernel. But to answer your question, GNU Mach uses lots of drivers from Linux 2.0. Since they are in the progress of changing to L4 and the drivers are quite outdates, i guess when L4 is finished they will port drivers again from Linux 2.6 or 2.7.
Yes, Linux definitely has benefited from GNU…but what really irritates me about Stallman and his cronies is that they ignore the plain and simple fact that they have benefited just as much from Linux if not more.
Why shouldn’t it be Linux/GNU instead? After all, what platform do the vast majority of the GNU devs use? What runs all of their servers? Wake me up in 10 years when the HURD is almost ready for prime time. Seriously, where would GNU be without Linux?
Also, for those saying that open source/free software would die without GNU…that’s not entirely true…as long as your software doesn’t use any of GNU’s embrace and extend features it should compile just fine on the BSD toolchain using TenDRA – http://www.tendra.org/ or LCC – http://www.cs.princeton.edu/software/lcc/ or even Intel’s compiler – http://www.intel.com/software/products/compilers/clin/
Why shouldn’t it be Linux/GNU instead?
Yeah I love how a guy like stallman says “I’m running the GNU Operating system with a Linux kernel” – WTF ? Without a kernel you don’t have an OS. The kernel is kinda like the foundation there buddy.
He makes it sound like its just some addon that you can get from multiple places and you know, this week he is running Linux as the kernel. Next week who knows! Maybe the TURD, er I mean HURD will be ready.
Without a kernel you don’t have an OS.
Without an OS, you don’t have a kernel.
The kernel is kinda like the foundation there buddy.
Linux can’t compile and run itself, so how can it be the foundation?
And GCC is a tad too big for running without a kernel…
I think both are equally important. Linux would probably be nothing without GNU and GNU would probably be nothing without Linux. HURD? Heheh.
Without an OS, you don’t have a kernel.
Without a kernel you don’t have an OS at all. You’ve got a collection of programs and libs. Thats really it. Thats not an operating system.
Linux can’t compile and run itself, so how can it be the foundation?
Well considering the kernel is what manages all running processes on a machine I think its safe to say its the foundation of the operating system.
The problem i have with that name is that it implies that Linux is part of GNU project (such as with GNU/Hurd) something it most definetly isn’t
Well, no. It’s drawing the distinction. Given that the Hurd is a GNU project, the correct terminology for the Hurd running on a GNU-based operating system is, believe it or not, plain and simple GNU, without mention of the kernel.
I don’t see why people feel this urge to belittle GNU’s accomplishments. Frankly gcc alone is already a very significant part of not only many linux distros, but also, for example, Freebsd and if I’m not mistaken even Mac OS X. Just look at the sheer number of well written GNU tools installed on your system. I think if linux hadn’t taken off gnu would have had no problem finishing their kernel much sooner, or simply, as before linux existed, running on another kernel – such as FreeBSD.
It’s fine to say linux and not GNU/Linux largely because everyone in the know understands completely what you mean when you say linux. It’s not as if any linux distribution I’ve heard of uses another toolset (such as one derived from the BSDs).
Which linux programmer around hasn’t worked completely within the GNU world before? emacs, gdb, gcc….
Say what you will in casual conversation, but GNU and the free software foundation deserve a lot of recognition even if you’re unwilling (as I am) to bother with long names. And then there’s the legal support and stability they help ensure, selflessly, for the good of the linux community.
They’ve given us a lot of great work for free, and continue to do so.
As soon as the HURD is ready to run on L4, I’m switching off of Linux.
As soon as the HURD is ready to run on L4, I’m going to try it.
Stallman is not a fanatic for wanting people to say “GNU/Linux”, because that’s technically what it is. It is also a great idea to give credit to the herculean effors of the GNU programmers and the FSF, without such efforts GNU/Linux as we know it today simply would not exist.
GNU tools were already in wide use well before the Linux Kernel existed, on various Unix flavors. And Torvalds originally created Linux using GCC (and GCC is still widely used for Kernel development).
Also, a Kernel is useless without the compiler (and related programs), the shells, the various utilites, and various software packages that GNU provides. Same with the GNU tools – they’re useless without a Kernel.
And it’s not much to ask for people to type four extra characters, or to pronounce an extra syllable and a half (the “G” in GNU” is not quite a full syllable).
I have to admit that I usually just say and type “Linux”, out of laziness or forgetfullness. But I don’t mind at all saying/typing “GNU/Linux”. I like being technically correct, as well as giving due credit to the great efforts of programmers who produced the great GNU software tools.
But then again, just saying “Linux” is more convenient, especially as a marketing term. This is important for companies like MandrakeSoft, who’s product is called MandrakeLinux. It would sound silly to call it MandrakeGNULinux. Actually it is somewhat technically correct to call it MandrakeLinux, because, even though it includes GNU tools, it also includes Mandrake specific software (like the various “Drak” admin utilities). Plus, I’m sure that MandrakeSoft, like most Distros, alter the Kernel and GNU tools to their own specifications.
But let’s not call Stallman a fanatic for wanting people to say “GNU/Linux”.
how stupid is this?
isn’t kde or gnome or X as important as GNU for the unix world?
Some years ago I looked at the Glibc documentation and it said it had part from different sources with different licenses (at least four): Sun and others (i think Silicon Graphics and the University of California at least). With Stallman´s reasoning it should be called GNU/Sun/SGI/whatever C library
It could well have been the IBM janitor you know…
“Thanks genius! I guess free software foundations are going to employ people from now on. Its the same evil mega corporations that employ hundreds of thousands of people and make the world economy function. Make them “smaller,weaker, and easier to keep in their place” and raise the unemployement rate to double digits not to mention lowering the standard of living world wide <shakes head> I suggest voting NO for RMS Democracy. ”
This is a fundamental leap of logic that many people make towards Stallman, and political moderates/liberals – that, since they are for limiting the size, influence and corruption of large mega corporations and want de-centralized power, they are therefore anti-business, or anti capitalism, or flat out commies. This is stupid. Stallman has never been anti-business, or against people making money selling software.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to avoid having mega corporations rule everything. In fact, mega corporations that get so big and powerful usually become monopolies, like Microsoft. And monopolies are about as anti capitalism, anti free business, anti competition, and anti freedom as you can get.
So you can be for free software, and limiting somewhat the size and power of mega corporations, and still be a died in the wool capitalist.
Remember, to be the bazillionth person to quote the GNU manifesto, “It’s free as in freedom, not free as in beer.”
Well, GNOME is a GNU project. It stands for “GNU Network Object Model Environment”.
But point well taken. It’s not practical to include all parts of the complete OS in the name.
But it’s still okay for people to say “GNU/Linux” some of the time. GNU and Linux comprise the largest chunk of the complete OS commonly know as Linux.
Again, it is a very good idea to give the GNU folks their due. It all started with Stallman, GNU, the FSF, the GNU programmers, and the GPL. We all them a debt of gratitude, just as much as Linux Torvalds and other Kernel hackers, as well as the KDE gang, as well as any of the other contributors.
I’m not sure “moderate” would be a term applied by anyone to Stallman after reading http://www.stallman.org. The man believes every nutty conspiracy theory out there.
“against people making money selling software.”
Yes, he is.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/luispo-rms-interview.html
“But what if she can’t get one of these free software jobs? That could happen–not everybody can get them today. But it doesn’t excuse developing proprietary software. A desire for profit is not wrong in itself, but it isn’t the sort of urgent overriding cause that could excuse mistreating others. Proprietary software divides the users and keeps them helpless, and that is wrong. Nobody should do that.”
Sounds like he considers the concept of proprietary software
wrong. So, in Stallmanland, you can get paid for writing software, but you’re mistreating people if you SELL them software.
>>Linux wouldn’t compile without GCC
[i]>Bullshit. It compiles just fine with Intel’s C compiler, and the TenDRA C compiler.
Perhaps you’d like to take the time and tell us all where the TenDRA C compiler was in the 1991 timeframe when Linus started on Linux?<p>
While you’re at it — tell the readership how much Intel’s C Compiler cost in 1991.<p>
While you are telling people to “get a clue” – you might want to consider your own pedantic behaviour.<p>
Linux/GNU
Not Ferrari/GMF Robots :d
I admit I don’t know much about what the GNU operating environment is. I imagine it to be a lot of programs that do one task really well. That is why I think of them as programs, and not an operating system as Stallman likes to say.
Linux is a kernel, but can’t it also be called a very big program.
Therefore to me kernel + user land tools = operating system
I can just imagine people giving shit to NewOS developers. “Stop calling it an operating system, it’s just a kernel.”
http://newos.sourceforge.net/features.php
Quote:
“Yes, he is.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/luispo-rms-interview.html
“But what if she can’t get one of these free software jobs? That could happen–not everybody can get them today. But it doesn’t excuse developing proprietary software. A desire for profit is not wrong in itself, but it isn’t the sort of urgent overriding cause that could excuse mistreating others. Proprietary software divides the users and keeps them helpless, and that is wrong. Nobody should do that.”
Sounds like he considers the concept of proprietary software
wrong. So, in Stallmanland, you can get paid for writing software, but you’re mistreating people if you SELL them software.”
End Quote
You are compeltely wrong here, other than Stallman being against proprietary software. But he is still all in favor of people selling software, just so long as they distribute the source and allow others to change/redistribute the source. He’s not after free as in gratis, but free as in freedom to do what the end user wants with the software/source.
You should look further in that link. Go to Stallman’s homepage, go to http://www.gnu.org. Look at Stallman’s bio, look at the GNU manifesto. Nowhere does it say you can’t make money selling software. Stallman himself made money for himself and the FSF by selling copies of GNU software (along with printed manuals), and writing specialized software based on existing GNU software. Stallman/GNU/FSF are just against proprietary software (where source is closed, and the end user can’t do what they want with it).
Just look at billion dollar, highly profitable, Red Hat (market cap of 1.3 billion), whose business is built on GPL GNU/Linux (completely non-proprietary). This is just one of many examples of successful businesses built on free (as in freedom) software.
But he is still all in favor of people selling software, just so long as they distribute the source and allow others to change/redistribute the source
Which effectively means you be assured of profits from only one sale of your software since after that one sale the source could be legally free for download from a third party.
Stallman himself made money for himself and the FSF by selling copies of GNU software (along with printed manuals) ..
So he sold the manuals not the software. This is the same as selling books. Since there actual cost involved in printing the manuals redistributing copies of them is prohibitively expensive.
… and writing specialized software based on existing GNU software.
So he got paid for producing software, not for selling it.
Just look at billion dollar, highly profitable, Red Hat (market cap of 1.3 billion), whose business is built on GPL GNU/Linux (completely non-proprietary).
And look also at how they have now focused their efforts on the enterprise level. They make their profits through support contracts via companies that view support as vital to their business.
***
The FSF isn’t against you making money from your software. However the licenses they have created reduce the possibility of making money directly from the software to the point where a business can’t rely on such profits. To make money from ‘free’ software you have to do it through support/manuals, etc.
All of which combines to produce an evironment in which the programmer becomes dependant on corporate/individual patronage because their creation isn’t actually worth any money.
Imagine working 40 hours a week only to reach the conclusion that a person working on the support hotline is more valuable to the company profits than you are. That’s gonna fill you with a warm, fuzzy feeling of job security for sure. Welcome to the new age of corporate slavery.
“Imagine working 40 hours a week only to reach the conclusion that a person working on the support hotline is more valuable to the company profits than you are. That’s gonna fill you with a warm, fuzzy feeling of job security for sure. Welcome to the new age of corporate slavery.”
The support hotline can only help people work around the bugs, the developer is still needed to solve the bugs.
A developer is closely tied to the code, and as long as the code is beeing used the developer is important to provide services such as bug fixes, feature enhancement, and general code maintainance.
Remeber that code is just an expression of an idea, the idea it self is sitll in the developer.
Now, for the GNU/Linux thing:
If I could decide it should be called GNU and Linux would be adopted as its kernel.
I think that calling the “system” Linux is just as bad for marketing as it is good.
Good things:
Linux is a buzz word.
People “know” what Linux is.
A lot of products can be merketed under the name Linux.
Bad things:
Linux is a bizz word.
People don’t know what Linux is.
Bad products can be called Linux.
When someone finally decides to make the jump from windows and they try to install JS0L (JoeSixpacks 0wn Linux) the experience is bound to be bad. We the OSS community have just lost quite a bit of marketshare.
Most people that have heard the word Linux, thinks that all OSS is Linux. Linux as a word has no unambiguous meaning, wheras GNU has. You can state that GNU has this or that feature that is bad (and it could be fixed). A statement such as “It is hard to install software in Linux”, though, has no meaning. Are we talking about RPM, Portage or the GNU build tools?
I read a magazine (DMZ in Sweden) where they listed some Linuxes such as BSDLinux(!)
A developer is closely tied to the code, and as long as the code is beeing used the developer is important to provide services such as bug fixes, feature enhancement, and general code maintainance.
No. They aren’t.
_A_ programmer is required to do bug fixing etc.
If the industry devolves into a world where independent programmers can’t support themselves then they are left at the mercy of big corporate sponsors. It might take good programmers to create a large application, but does it really require good programmers to maintain the code base after completion?
The FSF pretty much gives a blueprint for factory line programming. Someone can be good, maybe even be great, but ultimately they are totally replaceable and totally dependent on the factory owners. I for one don’t relish the idea of a McDonald’s computing industry, and I don’t believe it’ll help the progression of programming knowledge.
A return to those dark, satanic mills.
Thankyou Richard.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to avoid having mega corporations rule everything.
Once you start thinking outside of your Michael Moore, Moveon.org bizarro world universe and accept a little reality then you’ll realize that corporations can’t do anything to you. Government do all the imposing on you.
“Sounds like he considers the concept of proprietary software
wrong. So, in Stallmanland, you can get paid for writing software, but you’re mistreating people if you SELL them software.”
No, no, and no! Proprietary software is software that you the user cannot change to suit your situation, that you cannot share freely with your neighbour, software with no free access to the source code, software that is tied up with “Do not touch” prohibitions and enough red tape to sink a battleship the size of the Jupiter floating on an ocean of a comparable size.
So it’s okay if you sell your software, you’re just prohibited from denying to others downstream the right to share with their neighbours.
Consequently F/LOSS people talk a lot about services, because that is one of the only ways to get people to pay for such non-proprietary software. And believe you me, they are right. Ever try to talk a complete newbie through learning how to use MS Windows? And it’s supposed to be “user-friendly“! “user-friendly” my foot!
but does it really require good programmers to maintain the code base after completion?
Actually, it can require very good programmers to maintain an existing project. My company supports a lot of programs, some written by us, some written by other companies, and depending on the scale of the project and/or the mess left by the previous developers, it can require some very good developers to find obscure bugs and neatly add features into an architecture that wasn’t designed for them. Finding and fixing obscure race conditions or random memory corruptions can be extremely challenging for some programmers.
However, that aside I do agree with your point: code maintenance requires a programmer, not necessarily the original programmer. It’s often easier initially with the original programmer on the team, but given the support projects I’ve done on someone else’s code, I’d say (good) programmers are largely interchangable once the original program’s completed.
“No, no, and no! Proprietary software is software that you the user cannot change to suit your situation, that you cannot share freely with your neighbour, software with no free access to the source code, software that is tied up with “Do not touch” prohibitions and enough red tape to sink a battleship the size of the Jupiter floating on an ocean of a comparable size.”
Which is software you can’t sell past the first copy – LIKE I SAID.
“So it’s okay if you sell your software, you’re just prohibited from denying to others downstream the right to share with their neighbours.”
Which means you can’t sell your software. You’ll sell one copy and it’s all over.
“Consequently F/LOSS people talk a lot about services, because that is one of the only ways to get people to pay for such non-proprietary software. And believe you me, they”
Only OS providers have managed this – and pretty much only Red Hat has made any money doing this. They don’t sell their user desktop anymore. No more support for home users…
“are right. Ever try to talk a complete newbie through learning how to use MS Windows? And it’s supposed to be “user-friendly”! “user-friendly” my foot!”
Just had to bring up MS in every post, right?