Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
One-on-one with Richard Stallman (SearchEnterpriseLinux)
SearchEnterpriseLinux.com interviews
Richard Stallman, on the SCO-IBM dispute, the latest FSF news, and other
topics. RMS: "Keep in mind that we didn't develop GNU for the sake
of having it be used by businesses. We welcome businesses to use it, and
everybody, every user of computers should be free to study and change and
redistribute software, all the software they use, and that includes
businesses, if they're using computers. But we don't give any particular
priority to businesses." (Thanks to Ciaran O'Riordan)
(Log in to post comments)
One-on-one with Richard Stallman (SearchEnterpriseLinux) Posted Apr 10, 2003 22:36 UTC (Thu) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link] Summary: Interviewer asks Stallman dumb questions about a topic herepeatedly denies detailed knowledge of and he gives reasonable, sometimes colorful, answers.
the fifty first percentile Posted Apr 11, 2003 0:41 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] what mainstream interviewer isn't out of their depth with Stallman?...at least she didn't credit him with starting the OpenSource movement, like New Scientist did ;) Ciaran O'Riordan
One-on-one with Richard Stallman (SearchEnterpriseLinux) Posted Apr 11, 2003 8:02 UTC (Fri) by Peter (guest, #1127) [Link] Heh. Trust RMS to figure out that the real problem with the SCO lawsuit is that they kept forgetting the "GNU/". The bit about how the GNU OS was almost done when Linux came on the scene was pretty funny too.
Confused lawsuits Posted Apr 11, 2003 13:41 UTC (Fri) by dthurston (guest, #4603) [Link] Terminology crusades aside, Stallman does have a good point that in their lawsuit SCO is, in fact, incredibly confused about the distinction between the kenel and the operating system.
Not having the "linux" confusion helps. Posted Apr 11, 2003 13:49 UTC (Fri) by ber (subscriber, #2142) [Link] Trust RMS to figure out that the real problem with the SCO lawsuit is that they kept forgetting the "GNU/".If people were aware that there is a kernel component and other components that are important for an operating system to work SCO would have had more difficulties to make it a court case. Thus using the more precise term GNU/Linux more often would have build more resistance against the claims. Not being clear here works into the hands of proprietory software makers. The bit about how the GNU OS was almost done when Linux came on the scene was pretty funny too. Check the fraction of tools and the availability of alternative Free Software components apard from the kernel. Mostly the kernel as main component was missing in the early 90s. It is depressing that most people dont't know this.
Not having the "linux" confusion helps. Posted Apr 14, 2003 21:23 UTC (Mon) by Peter (guest, #1127) [Link] Check the fraction of tools and the availability of alternative Free Software components apard from the kernel. Mostly the kernel as main component was missing in the early 90s. It is depressing that most people dont't know this. Hey, it's all a game of semantics, just like the "GNU/" prefix. Specifically:
As to the first, obviously one must have a kernel, and the GNU coreutils (formerly known as shellutils, fileutils, and textutils) surely belong as well. But what about Emacs - yeah, it's a lot of lines of code, but is it really part of the operating system? (Some, of course, could argue that Emacs is its own VM OS, and the rest of the system is merely a hypervisor.) What about GNOME? I wouldn't consider GNOME part of the OS, although I know there are those who disagree. As to the second, consider the X Window System. It was developed quite independenly of the GNU Project, even though the Project claims X as part of the GNU OS. Likewise for TeX. I don't know which implementation of vi is officially "part of GNU" but I don't think the GNU Project developed any of them. And I believe the only MTA developed by GNU is smail, which nobody uses anymore. As to the third point, quite a lot of software has been developed in the last 10 years or so since Linux hit the big time. GNOME, for instance, was not even born in 1993. Ditto many of the "desktop" applications most people (though not me!) would certainly think of as part of the OS. Apache, that other flagship brand name for free software, was still struggling to emerge from its NCSA cocoon. This is why I call into question the assertion that the GNU OS was "almost done" by the time the Linux kernel came along. And the attendent assertion that because of this, the GNU Project deserves prominent billing in the very name of the product. (Oh, and it's also fun to troll the FSF acolytes from time to time.)
Not having the "linux" confusion helps. Posted Apr 15, 2003 15:53 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] Hi Peter (same Peter from the *other* debate?)> What is considered an integral part of the operating system one also needs[1] a C library, and a dynamic linker. Every distro [1] without these, you could call LiLo or GNU Grub an OS, GNU/Linux OSes used to come with compilers but this ended with the Windows era. > how much can the GNU project legitimately take credit for? (I think this is the more important point) These companies (like Micrsoftware/IBM/etc.) usually talk about "Linux" crap, I'm late for something, as usual.
Not having the "linux" confusion helps. Posted Apr 16, 2003 21:49 UTC (Wed) by Peter (guest, #1127) [Link] Hi Peter (same Peter from the *other* debate?) The debate ended by the new extension to Godwin's Law? But of course. (: The GNU project wasn't about writing as much software as possible, it's about writing the necessary software to have an OS. Once again, anyone can play semantic games about what an OS comprises. Many people, myself not included, would consider a full GUI environment (including at least one web browser, various media players, a "friendly" mail/news app, and GUI control panels for various system settings) to be part of the OS. After all, this stuff does come with Windows XP. I tend to the minimalist view that the OS consists of a kernel, boot loader, program loader, shell and associated utilities. And indeed, many of these components are supplied by the GNU Project. Then of course there is the semantic point of what constitutes "done". (I was once told that the word means "well-browned on both sides", but that probably doesn't help.) RMS says the GNU Project was "almost done" with the GNU OS by - say - 1993. But if you take the 1993 versions of all the GNU OS software, how many people would consider the result a "finished" OS? I might; my needs in a Unix-like OS are pretty modest. But most people probably would not. if the system was complete and all that was left to worry about was the credit then it would be better to sit back and simply bask in the existence of the OS, but this is not the case. The OS is under constant threats from proprietary software houses trying to entice people to run their software on GNU/Linux. Definitely a matter of perspective. If you (like rms) view proprietary software as inherently evil, then it is a Bad Thing that such software is able to leverage the sweat of the Linux and glibc developers. Myself, I just can't see it that way. I see proprietary software not as a moral ill, but as a market inefficiency that will, with luck, eventually go away. Free / Open Source software is a better methodology that will in the long term produce better quality products. In the short term, though, you can't just ask automotive engineers to stop using HyperMesh and LS-DYNA for their crash simulations: there is simply no free software equivalent, and that sort of thing can't be done without the proper software (except by building physical prototypes and crashing them into walls, which is a great deal more expensive). These companies (like Micrsoftware/IBM/etc.) usually talk about "Linux" and "OpenSource". This allows them to ignore the issue of liberty since the celebs from those camps remain quite (probably not wanting to be seen as zealots). Anyone can ignore the matter of liberty. I understand rms's concern about users not understanding the freedoms they have been given, and being willing to settle for less. But honestly, I think it's more important for computer professionals to understand these things, and that job seems basically done. Sure, there are lots of IT people with a lot of training and emotional investment in proprietary software, but I don't think they prefer it simply out of ignorance of their freedoms. Or, at least, those who are ignorant of these things nowadays are willfully ignorant and there's not much you can do about that.
Shells Posted Apr 17, 2003 3:41 UTC (Thu) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] Actually bash is a really heavy-weight program if you just want something to interpret Bourne-shell scripts. Some distributions use pdksh or ash.
One-on-one with Richard Stallman (SearchEnterpriseLinux) Posted Apr 13, 2003 14:49 UTC (Sun) by jdthood (subscriber, #4157) [Link] Stallman's jealousy and his semantical hobby are littledistraction from the important points he makes about * the moral importance of software freedom * the social importance of software freedom * the importance of the battle over software patent policy in Europe
Stallman jealous? Posted Apr 13, 2003 18:06 UTC (Sun) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link] I agree completely with your three points, but find the remarks (yours as well as many others) about `jealousy' curious. So far as I can see from the man's writings and interviews, he hasn't a jealous bone in his body. The ``semantical hobby'' in no way aggrandizes himself---it's a vital part of the moral and social campaign he's been carrying on for almost two decades. If you look at his positions wrt his axioms (hoarding software is immoral, and an active social harm), everything he says and does is fully consistent with the goal of Free Software for all. In fact, I'm deeply impressed with the logic of his conclusions and his foresight based on those two axioms. (Check out The Right to Read, published a year before the DMCA was passed.) Can you reasonably doubt that many in the publishing industries would create such a world if they could, rather than give up one penny of the money they would get under those conditions? At one time, I thought it was an excellent, if over-the-top, fable. Now I regret not fighting harder earlier. I don't see jealousy, but rather a burning passion to do everything he can to prevent that future, including blowing GNU's horn* to lead more people to understand the moral and social implications of intellectual ``property'' law, even if it requires tacking `GNU/' onto the front of Linux references. So, no, it's not a ``little distraction'', it's one battle in fighting a war as important as those against hunger and sickness, since many of the hungry and sick will be helped by freeing seeds and medicine from their own forms of hoarding. Best wishesMax Hyre *Sorry, but not very. :-)
Stallman jealous? Posted Apr 18, 2003 10:04 UTC (Fri) by jdthood (subscriber, #4157) [Link] Stallman wants everyone to regard what is known as Linux asGNU with the minor addition of the Linux kernel. GNU was almost complete, he says, when Linux was added. But it isn't true that GNU was almost finished in the early There is a reason for this. The reason is that the kernel I believe that Stallman persists in his misrepresentation Whether or not his behavior amounts to jealousy is a question
|
|
||||||||||||