Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements pageSponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
20 years of GNU
As many readers have pointed out to us, we missed the twentieth anniversary
of the initial
announcement of the GNU project. Richard Stallman sent out that
announcement on September 27, 1983. Not everything happened as RMS
planned, but the founding of the GNU project was a crucial event in the
resurgence of free software. "So that I can continue to use computers without violating my principles,
I have decided to put together a sufficient body of free software so that
I will be able to get along without any software that is not free."
(Log in to post comments)
20 years of GNU -- One heck of a ride... Posted Sep 28, 2003 10:53 UTC (Sun) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link] It's sure been quite a ride since then. Most everything he mentioned in his original announcement has come true, more or less, as far as features go. A couple things stand out as, well, outstanding. File version numbers still haven't been implemented, and would be very nice to have. A Lisp-based windowing system...well, we have X Window, which is agnostic to language, so there's no need now.A couple things are also amusingly out of date, of course. Like Chaosnet and UUCP networking: TCP/IP seems to have replaced those entirely. By and large, though, everything he was aiming for came true, if not necessarily in the anticipated order: GNU was supposed to start out with a kernel, but the GNU HURD kernel is still in alphaish development. Just as well we have the Linux kernel, so we can enjoy the rest of the system. Even with that "hiccup", though, it's quite astounding to see an announcement for a project which, more or less, actually achieved the goals outlined in said announcement. Historic in many ways, I think.
20 years of GNU -- One heck of a ride... Posted Sep 28, 2003 12:48 UTC (Sun) by lutchann (subscriber, #8872) [Link] Indeed, we have reached the free software utopia that RMS envisioned. I find it quite sad, however, that the fame and glory rightly belonging to GNU has been usurped under the name Linux. Maybe it's the destiny of all those who change the world, including RMS, to live in the bitterness of popular obscurity.That said, I refuse to use the term "GNU/Linux". It sounds too pedantic.
A lot done, more to do Posted Sep 28, 2003 13:24 UTC (Sun) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] "In order for an evil to prevail, all that need happen is for good people to do nothing" (Edmund Burke)Some people call the system "Linux" out of ignorence, but when an informed person omits the "GNU/", they are making a decision to not credit the people that have worked on the GNU project. Yes it takes a bit of integrity to use and defend the term, but if you won't, who will? Ciaran O'Riordan
A lot done, more to do Posted Sep 28, 2003 22:25 UTC (Sun) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link] "Linux" may be inaccurate but it is a convenient name. I'd agree with "GNU/Linux" if the GNU project had written all, or the major part of, the system other than the kernel. But, if anything, RMS's posting of 1983 shows how little a typical Linux system resembles what he originally had in mind -- a sort of cross between Unix and a Lisp machine. (How many Linux systems ship with a Lisp compiler, let alone "Lisp as a system programming language"? Ironically, the best free Lisp compiler around is probably CMUCL, not part of the GNU project.)In the end, the only crucial contribution of the GNU project was the toolchain; almost everything else -- C library, utilities, etc -- existed in the free BSDs well before Linux became a usable system. Most linux systems today contain a mixture of GNU utilities, BSD utilities, other utilities, and other important components like the X Window system and TeX; all of these projects deserve credit too. Yes RMS had a vision, and the FSF has contributed a lot of extremely important software, but using that to try to rename today's system "GNU/Linux" is revisionist and childish. It would be great to have a system somewhat resembling his original LispM-influenced vision, and I wish the FSF all the best in pursuing it.
A lot done, more to do Posted Sep 29, 2003 4:11 UTC (Mon) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] :)okay, you've managed to fit almost every trolls comment into your box. If you really believe any of that, the "GNU/Linux naming FAQ" might help: Also, in brief: The implementation details did change, but that doesn't alter that he planned a Free Software UNIX clone, and now we have one. GNU is the largest source of software in all "Linux" distros. The convenince of "Linux" is a false economy. BSD had some of the GNU packages but that doesn't change that the GNU project wrote the ones GNU/Linux uses. (and of course you ignore the GNU GPL and the work FSF does) Ciaran O'Riordan
A lot done, more to do Posted Sep 29, 2003 6:36 UTC (Mon) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] And while I often don't agree with you, here I have to concur.Oh - and how many linux systems ship with a LISP engine? I think you'd be hard pressed to name ANY semi-commercial distro that ships withOUT a LISP engine. After all, what is EMACS but a complete LISP environment? Cheers,
A lot done, more to do Posted Sep 29, 2003 10:21 UTC (Mon) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link] Emacs is far from a "complete" Lisp environment and certainly doesn't qualify as a "system programming language". But I'm perfectly happy calling it GNU Emacs. Interestingly, RMS does not want XEmacs to be called GNU-XEmacs, though that would be, as he says, "legitimate" -- in fact far more so than GNU/Linux.
A lot done, more to do Posted Sep 29, 2003 10:25 UTC (Mon) by hazelsct (subscriber, #3659) [Link] Emacs may be "far from a `complete' Lisp environment", but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a distro without guile. (Or are you splitting hairs between elisp, Scheme, and LISP? :-)
A lot done, more to do Posted Sep 29, 2003 10:44 UTC (Mon) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link] he planned a Free Software UNIX clone, and now we have one.Actually we have (at least) four: Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, but none of them was what RMS had in mind as his Unix clone. (Arguably the BSDs are not clones: they have significant shared ancestry with Unix, but they're as free as or freer than Linux.) And they all use the GNU toolchain (as does Apple's MacOS X), so do you want a GNU prefix on all of these too? BSD had some of the GNU packages but that doesn't change that the GNU project wrote the ones GNU/Linux uses. What GNU/Linux are you talking about? On my Red Hat 9 box, the following among others are BSD versions or have significant BSD ancestry: shadow-utils, libpcap, tcpdump, psmisc, bind-utils, strace, postgresql, openssh, ftp, rdist, portmap, rsh, talk, telnet, passwd, dump, quota, traceroute, sendmail, mailx, finger, pax, .... (obtained from a quick rpm -a check). Some years ago the fraction of BSD utilities was even higher. And if you think the fact that the C library is GNU is enough to call the system GNU/Linux, here's what the lead developer of glibc had to say some time ago about the "GNU/Linux" thing. I find this completely unacceptable and can assure everybody that I consider none of the code I contributed to glibc (which is quite a lot) to be as part of the GNU project and so a major part of what Stallman claims credit for is simply going away.
A lot done, more to do Posted Sep 29, 2003 12:19 UTC (Mon) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] > Actually we have (at least) four:If we had one hundred, it wouldn't alter that GNU/Linux exists because of the GNU project. > none of them was what RMS had in mind as his Unix clone His goal was a Free UNIX. He wasn't a UNIX user at the time, he picked it because it was a portable OS. He was a Lisp hacker, so he presumed he'd add a lot of Lisp to the system. The announcement wasn't a contract, over the course of twenty years the design plan evolved. His goal of giving users freedom has never changed though. "In matters of style, swim with the current. In matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson And Ulrich Dreppers opinion doesn't change the fact that when there was no free libc, FSF hired people and wrote one. (BSD libc was still in legal turmoil at the time.) The GNU project worked on almost all the non-sexy packages that were necessary for a user to have an operating system. And it was FSF that created the GPL, which despite being called unfriendy to commerce, is the cornerstone of the Free OS that has attracted the most commercial interest. RMS had (and has) unimaginable goals. He has dedicated his life to giving freedom to computer users. To make this happen he needs help, so he asks for it, repeatedly. Knocking him is a good excuse to not help, but the people that don't help are not important. He has inspired tens of thousands of people that are helping, and his unimaginable goals are being realised. If you don't want to help this cause, that's ok, it can make it without you. But if anyone does want to help Free Software, pick a task, there's plenty of work. Calling the system GNU/Linux is a good start. Ciaran O'Riordan
A lot done, more to do Posted Sep 30, 2003 8:12 UTC (Tue) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] If RMS had picked another name for his project I'm sure the system that is now known as "Linux" would be called "Throatwobbler" or whatever, and everybody would still know that it consists of the kernel called "Linux" and a lot of Throatwobbler software and Linus Torvalds would have put up a website explaining why in Spain the correct name would be "Linux-Throatwobbler".RMS states that one of the reasons to call the system "GNU/Linux" is that kernel developers do not care about freedom. Last time I heard something similar it was in a SCO press release.
A lot done, more to do Posted Sep 30, 2003 10:52 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] Are you saying that RMS should have picked a single word name for the OS? Or that RMS should have chosen a name other than GNU?We can't change history. The ongoing debate is what name to use for the OS, and the two most popular/recognisable names are "Linux" and "GNU/Linux". The aim of the GNU project was to create a complete OS that computer users could install without signing away useful rights. This was a mind-blowingly massive aim, but through perseverance it has been achieved. There is no "lock-in" with our OS, packages are never crippled to force us to purchase more, our choice of what software to use does not rely on our wallets, sharing the OS with others is not a criminal offense, spyware is not added to our software because it would be removed and the vendor would lose customers, there is a real free market since we can change vendor. These values are void when a user installs proprietary software on top of this free OS, so we must inform new users about why the OS exists. Calling the system GNU/Linux is a good start. Ciaran O'Riordan
A lot done, more to do Posted Oct 1, 2003 8:54 UTC (Wed) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] I am saying that the name is a convention (not a God given right) and therefore quite arbitrary and that the discussion is moot. If you want a distribution called GNU/Linux then you have every right to roll your own.I don't mind the mental exercise of going through the rather cloudy reasoning about why it would be better to call the system "GNU/Linux", but I do object to remarks along the lines of "you run proprietary software on GNU software, so you do not support free software" or the even more ridiculous "People who value freedom are more likely to call the system "GNU/Linux"". Freedom is also about knowing where its boundaries are. I feel that RMS and other supporters of free software cross the line, when they try to impose on others their own ideas and feelings. For instance, what possible right does one have to condemn the views on free software of Linux kernel developers? Linux kernel developers in general play by the rules set by the GPL, and that's exactly as far as free software reaches. The GPL is an agreement between a coder and a user and it does not grant anyone else the right to expect anything more than what's in there. In fact, RMS has since apparently realized this.
A lot done, more to do Posted Oct 1, 2003 17:32 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] If you want a distribution called GNU/Linux then you have every right to roll your own.No one is debating the name of distributions. RedHat call their distribution "RedHat Linux". They could call it "RedHat Donkey" but that wouldn't make "Donkey" the name of the OS. The OS isn't owned by one person or group, so it doesn't have an official name. I call it "GNU/Linux" because I think it's the most accurate and the most useful name for the OS. I do object to remarks along the lines of "you run proprietary software on GNU software, so you do not support free software" No one made that remark here, and I also object to it. Life is complex, not everyone can commit to only using Free Software 100% of the time. or the even more ridiculous "People who value freedom are more likely to call the system "GNU/Linux" This is probably true. Note that it says "more likely", there are plenty of people that value freedom that call the OS "Linux". what possible right does one have to condemn the views on free software of Linux kernel developers? Everyone has this right, just as you have the right to condemn the actions of RMS, and I have the right to defend him. The GPL is an agreement between a coder and a user and it does not grant anyone else the right to expect anything more than what's in there No one disagreed with this. Ciaran O'Riordan
A lot done, more to do Posted Oct 2, 2003 4:13 UTC (Thu) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] hppnq: I do object to remarks along the lines of "you run proprietary software on GNU software, so you do not support free software"coriordan: No one made that remark here, and I also object to it. Life is complex, not everyone can commit to only using Free Software 100% of the time. No, the remark I was referring to is made here at the GNU site. hppnq: or the even more ridiculous "People who value freedom are more likely to call the system "GNU/Linux" coriordan: This is probably true. Note that it says "more likely", there are plenty of people that value freedom that call the OS "Linux". I'm sure that you realize too that this is not a remark of a statistical nature.
Re: A lot done, more to do Posted Oct 2, 2003 12:15 UTC (Thu) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] > If we had one hundred, it wouldn't alter that GNU/Linux exists because of the GNU project.By that logic any GPLed program should be called GNU/programname. Is that what RMS wants? GNU/Samba? GNU/Qt? I thought the idea was that Linux kernel+GNU utilities was the first incarnation of the GNU operating system. I agree that it was largely inspired by RMS and that it uses the GNU compiler, C library, and basic Unix utiltities. But! When people say operating system these days they are also thinking of the desktop, office applications, mail readers, web browsers, etc. Theoretically calling the Linux kernel an operating system by itself seems to be reasonable. I think all three world-views are valid and only one of them makes it reasonable to call the system GNU/Linux. So I tend to not use that term. Actually I usually just use the name of the distribution (Debian, Red Hat, etc.). Really that is the most clear way to specify what you are running on your computer.
A lot done, more to do Posted Sep 29, 2003 9:58 UTC (Mon) by southey (subscriber, #9466) [Link] By calling it GNU/Linux you actually are discrediting ALL the work by people who have not contributed to the GNU project! It does go both ways! If you want the name GNU/Linux then create a distro with that (as Linus himself has said) like Debian GNU/Linux.
A lot done, more to do Posted Sep 29, 2003 10:40 UTC (Mon) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] As the largest contributor of software, the GNU project is a more eligible candidate than any other for credit, but it's not just about credit.The goal of the GNU project is to give freedom to computer users. The freedom contained in GNU/Linux (the OS) is it's defining quality. With growing commercial interest, there is increased pressure on community members to call it "Linux". People that don't care about our freedom want us to devalue it and trade it away. Calling the system GNU/Linux is an important way to keep the knowledge of freedom alive. It's taken twenty years to develop the OS, let us not discard the immense progress that has been made, in an exchange with short term benefits that returns us to dependence on proprietary software companies. Ciaran O'Riordan
I use GNU Posted Sep 28, 2003 14:39 UTC (Sun) by Carl (guest, #824) [Link] I thought the suggestion in the following Advogato article was nice.Just say: I use GNU! It sounds funny (in a nice way). It is a tribute to the whole GNU project and vision. And why would we actually mention the kernel that a GNU system uses.
I use GNU/Linux... Posted Sep 28, 2003 17:36 UTC (Sun) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link] The reason I say that is because of the different types of GNU system you can have. GNU/Linux and GNU/BSD and GNU/Hurd and GNU/Darwin may all be GNU, but there are some functional differences. More to the point, it helps emphasize the flexibility of the GNU system: it's an OS which offers a choice of kernels. How many other OSes can say that? That's a real testimony to the sound design behind the core GNU components, and the system in general.
20 years of GNU Posted Sep 28, 2003 17:36 UTC (Sun) by alessandro.russo (subscriber, #6471) [Link] Thanks for all, rms.The world for me would be *very* different without you. Ale
20 years young^WGNU Posted Sep 28, 2003 18:34 UTC (Sun) by kmself (subscriber, #11565) [Link] There aren't many of us who can claim to have changed the course of history. Richard M. Stallman is one of those who can. His project and journey have been long, the path hasn't always been clear, the results may not precisely match the initial vision, and there have been disagreements along the way. There are those who say that what Richard envisioned is an inevitability; but it must be acknowledged that it was his initial spark that set this revolution in motion, and his perseverance at great personal sacrificy, always showing unimpeachable integrity, which have created "inevitability" from a wild-eyed dream. So on the (late) observation of this anniversary: Thanks, Richard. We owe you. Big time.
20 years young^WGNU Posted Sep 28, 2003 20:59 UTC (Sun) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] A small point perhaps, to ponder: it seems to me that the positions and paths taken by RMS bear more than a few similarities to Martin Luther. (The original one, from the 16th century, not the civil rights leader.) Just a thought.
20 years young^WGNU Posted Sep 29, 2003 5:33 UTC (Mon) by Cato (subscriber, #7643) [Link] See Salon's article about Linus Torvalds which compares him to Martin Luther.
20 years young^WGNU Posted Sep 29, 2003 7:42 UTC (Mon) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] Hmm... I think Melancthon would be a better fit for Linus. Luther and Stallman both were fairly fiery types, and Linus seems to fit the more diplomatic personality of Melancthon. But it doesn't matter in the end... they all contributed to a great change in history.
Linux: the choice of a GNU Generation Posted Sep 29, 2003 9:36 UTC (Mon) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link] Notwithstanding the grumpiness over nomenclature -- and *specifically* notwithstanding the occasionalfrumpiness over rms' hardcore attitude concerning things that most people {are not,cannot afford to be} hardcore over -- I don't think anyone can suggest with a straight face that he and his work -- and his license -- have *not* been absolutely fundamental in changing the world. And no, I don't just mean the computing world. What a long, strange trip it's been. Thanks, rms.
the most important question Posted Sep 28, 2003 22:37 UTC (Sun) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] is: what is "an Empire game" and do we have one yet?
the most important question Posted Sep 29, 2003 0:43 UTC (Mon) by atai (subscriber, #10977) [Link] Empire is a popular, additive, networked, war game on the Internet, while the Internet was limited to academia/unitversities and government institutions. Today's empire resides inhttp://empserver.sourceforge.net/default.htm and as if things follow the law of history in software, that all software would become free, empire becomes GPLed sometimes in the late 1990s.
What a contrast Posted Sep 29, 2003 0:48 UTC (Mon) by atai (subscriber, #10977) [Link] "Most of you steal your software... What hobbyist can put years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free?"----An Open Letter to Hobbyists, Bill Gates, Micro-soft, 1976"GNU... is the name for the complete Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give it away free... Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system software free, just like air."----The GNU Manifesto, Richard Stallman, Free Software Foundation, 1985 Microsoft Windows vs. GNU/Linux, today
What a contrast Posted Sep 29, 2003 2:01 UTC (Mon) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] Bill Gates always had a vision. Of money.
|
|||||||||||