Stallman Clarifies Position RE:Gnome & .Net 299
RMS ? has sent The Register an email in which he corrects their 'inaccurate' representation of his stance on the GNOME & .NET issue. He states, "I am pretty sure something was garbled in the quotation which has me asking Miguel to 'explain himself to us', because those words would be
explicitly confrontational, and I did not have any wish to do that."
oh, never. (Score:5, Funny)
;-)
Re:oh, never. (Score:2)
Re:oh, never. (Score:2, Insightful)
(1) I don't care if you think GNU/Linux is RMS's software or not; that's the way he sees it, and you have to understand that to understand him. There is a genuine difference of opinion here between Linus and RMS.
RMS? Confrontational??!! Naw! (Score:1, Troll)
Uhm, RMS...since when do you not wish to be confrontational? Your whole approach is confrontational.
Re:RMS? Confrontational??!! Naw! (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the 'linux columists' (aka he had web site where everything is rosy in the Linux world, everything would be running linux, etc la) was standing next to RMS. RMS said 'I need to get my ID badge' and the 'journalist' said "Badges? You are RMS, you don't need no stinking badges" RMS then put him in his place by explaining there was no need to be confontational with the security guard who was just going to do his job and ask for a badge.
RMS is passionate about his GNU thing. And, he's willing to be confrontational about the GNU thing.
The snowball effect.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to wonder how much relevant information is lost before a story makes it to press these days. Partial quotes, reassembled sentences, poor fact checking. This is meant to address the media in general, not this article specifically.
We need a newspaper/website that quotes people word for word rather than just the highlights, and always sends two reporters to cover a job separately. Not that it will ever happen but I bet we'd have a considerably different view of world events if it happened.
Re:The snowball effect.... (Score:3, Troll)
Re:The snowball effect.... (Score:1, Troll)
Re:The snowball effect.... (Score:2)
I've said from day one that The Register cannot be trusted.
Right. Additionally, The Register puts what amounts to a disclaimer right there at the top of every page they serve.
See where it says "Biting the hand that feeds IT"? Who do you think they are referring to? They are referring to *everybody* in IT, even the open source community and small-time computer geeks like me.
That being said, I actually like the Register, mostly because they don't hesitate to smack stupid people and ideas down in their articles, which is funny. They have never claimed to be "professional" jouralists. If something newsworthy happens, I usually find out about it on The Register or Slashdot (same diff) and then get the truth from several other (aggregate) sources.
Re:The snowball effect.... (Score:2)
".NET is a fantastic technology upgrade for GNOME from Microsoft," he said.
see [theregister.co.uk] for the full text. The above appears at the bottom, following the link, Miguel de Icaza [gnome.org] says things
GNOME is not adopting Mono or
and
Decisions in the GNOME world are done by active contributors and module maintainers. I have given my maintainership status on every module I maintained to other members of the GNOME team as I got more involved with Ximian and later on with Mono.
So effectively I have no "maintainer" control.
so it appears to me that the register might be trying to stir up trouble where it doesn't exist, or they don't know the difference between Ximian/Mono and Gnome. Also I didn't find any of the quotes on the page they linked and I looked hard. oh wait maybe a covert team of monkey-boy hackers from Ximian cracked the gnome mail archives and removed the incriminating page for Miguel!
Re:The snowball effect.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Being a UK tech-rag, it's not surprising that their style of journalism is the way it is. But, if you were going to throw such accusations at the Reg, I would also not discount sites such as NewsForge, Slashdot (which is much worst), CNN, WashingtonPost, FT, etc.
They all sensationalize. If you don't have enough wit to see the difference between the FUD, you have no business reading it anyway.
I personally find entertainment in reading the Reg, even if things are not always accurate. The editors are sharp, and they at least can spell. If you want facts, go read the kernel CVS logs.
Re:The snowball effect.... (Score:2)
The Reg is worth reading even just for the giggles and laughs from the sub-headlines.
-Paul Komarek
Re:The snowball effect.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh, I believe you forgot botched translations.
Seriously though, when we start dealing with International issues (and free software and open source software are become increasingly International) we need reliable translation, not some reporter using the Altavista babel fish. This whole misunderstanding could have been avoided if:
1. The reported got his facts straight and asked the right questions in the first place.
2. A rather suggestive translation wasn't posted by The Register (whether they were given this information by another party is not an issue, they should have checked their sources - including talking directly to Stallman!).
Is that really too much to ask from The Press??
The road of .net (Score:1, Troll)
Re:The road of .net (Score:1)
say I agree with you on this.
de Icaza could have made this very differently,
and saved him much trouble - and the GNOME project
hasn't a good reputation either, in relation to
e.g. KDE.
Anyways, he might have been better a Microsoft(R)
employee.
Straight from the horse's mouth.... (Score:5, Funny)
So open source rejects your ideals of freedom, and has done since its foundation?
Someone better notify the press
Henry
Re:Straight from the horse's mouth.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Open source software does not meet all 4.
Okay, I'll call you out. (Score:2)
-russ
Re:Okay, I'll call you out. (Score:4, Informative)
Freedom #3; freedom to redistribute with modifications. See, for example, the SISSL, which is accepted by OSI but does not allow one to redistribute changes that aren't compatible with the standards setting body. [See section 3.1 [opensource.org].] Or the revocation clause in the APSL [opensource.org], which is one of the three reasons [fsf.org] the APSL isn't free.
All of that said... the point you're trying to make, Russ, is a sound one- the basic OSI philosophy is not incompatible with that of the FSF. But the FSF's philosophy is a superset of the OSI's- it isn't just 'see the source', which the OSI cares about, it also includes 'have freedom to use the source once you've seen it'- which the OSI doesn't care about, and which is why RMS dislikes them so much.
[up front: I'm a Ximian employee; I don't think that makes any difference to this point but I don't want to be accused of hiding it in an article about Miguel.]
Re:Okay, I'll call you out. (Score:2)
-Paul Komarek
I side with Tim O'Reilly (Score:2)
Freedom is freedom is diversity of opinion. I think that if the BSD or GPL licenses died out, I think that it would be a sad day.
Re:Straight from the horse's mouth.... (Score:5, Funny)
Oh come on. The constant attempts to make Stallman look like some sort of megalomaniac bent on dominating the world is just ludicrous.
Re:Straight from the horse's mouth.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember that the free software [gnu.org] in FSF [gnu.org] sense is not only GNU software [gnu.org] or not even only software under the GNU General Public License [gnu.org], but also software under X11, Expat, BSD, W3C, Python, Artistic, Zope, Arphic, xinetd, LaTeX, Mozilla and lots of other licenses [gnu.org]. The license doesn't even have to be compatible with the GNU GPL [gnu.org] for the software to be considered a free software [gnu.org] by the Free Software Foundation [gnu.org].
You may dislike the person of Richard Stallman [stallman.org] or you may not agree with the GNU philosophy [gnu.org] -- this is your personal choice -- but please don't spread the misinformation.
Re:Straight from the horse's mouth.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Using the term "free software" doesn't give power to anyone.
I refer to his personal power and ego.
Put it this way: As you point out, there are a lot of licenses that Stallman doesn't go out of this way to discredit, even though they are not what he would consider ideal.
So why does he go out of his way to disparage Open Source whenever he can, even though the definitions of Free Software and Open Source are virtually identical? It's because it's not just a competitor license, it's a competitor organization.
Stallman knows that he will be marginalized if the Open Source organization gains any ground. If Stallman were really as "agnostic" about these things, as long as the software was free, he would recognize the Open Source organization as a partner in his goals that happens to just come at it from a different angle.
Re:Straight from the horse's mouth.... (Score:5, Insightful)
What, 'not having to pay for software'? 'intensive capitalization'? 'taking over the desktop'? 'getting into the Fortune 500 IT budgets'?
I'm sorry, but if you claim 'the definitions of free software and open source are virtually identical' it only proves:
Wanting to have your pet software project draw on the pool of OSS-friendly developers so it can be more competitive is NOT the same thing as understanding what free software is about.
Viewing the FSF as a 'competitor organisation' is a really lousy way of understanding it...
The fact is, Richard Stallman has had 'an organization with similar goals' obliterate all he cared about before. It happened to him over the MIT AI lab, with LISP machine companies, all dedicated to making terrific products, but destroying the ground they fought over.
To the extent that 'the Open Source organization' wishes to make _its_ strictly pragmatic approach convert people from the more idealistic and rigorous approach favored by Stallman, he is absolutely right to disparage it: it is susceptible to a form of attack (or entropy?) that Free Software is not. By placing practical considerations like ability to compete and gain mindshare in a marketplace ahead of the value of keeping information circulating free of controls, it contains the seeds of its own destruction. Stallman has SEEN the failure of cooperation when money and power got involved, in the era of LISP machines. Why would he be less vigilant now, with even larger numbers of people involved and even more powerful commercial interests involved?
If Stallman were 'agnostic', I for one wouldn't pay attention to him. The Open Source people who are results-before-principles, I don't listen to either. Principles exist for a REASON, and Stallman is admirably consistent in his defence of them, which is why the guy has my loyalty- because I have his. The open source guys would sell me out in a nanosecond for more marketshare, foolishly believing THAT to be the prize, and making up reasons why it is better so.
Sincerity is no guarantee of correctness.
I'm sticking with Stallman, and he'll be 'marginalised' over my dead body and along with all MY code, thank you. Whatever gives you the notion that he's the only one with passionately held beliefs about the flow vs. restriction of information?
Re:Straight from the horse's mouth.... (Score:5, Informative)
The Jargon Lexicon open source definition [tuxedo.org]:
From Why "Free Software" is better than "Open Source" [gnu.org]:
Re:Straight from the horse's mouth.... (Score:2)
Read the History of the OSI [opensource.org]:
I quoted from both sides, FSF [gnu.org] and OSI [opensource.org], to be truely objective, but I see you still think that I'm not fair, even when I quote from people, to whom I'm supposedly not fair...Next time please do a little research [opensource.org] before you state that something "stinks of revisionism", because if this what you comment are the exact words of people who you advocate, it can look really stupid.
In my post [slashdot.org], I haven't said anything which the Open Source Initiative [opensource.org] doesn't agree with. The text you commented was written by one of the OSI creators and advocates [tuxedo.org]. Still, you're not satisfied.
I hope you get the point now. What else can I say... To paraphrase your words, This stinks of ignorance.
Please, think about it.
so unlike him (Score:1, Offtopic)
right... rms has never been known to be confrontational.
Missing Link & more... (Score:2, Interesting)
First, I would like to raise the question of exactly where it is that I can view de Icaza's comments.
"Miguel de Icaza has issued his own clarification, here, which also amounts to 'move along folks, there's nothing to see'."
Unfortunately, however, the good people at the Register neglected to actually link the here in that statement! Anyone have any ideas???
Next, I move to a quote the Register supplies from de Icaza regarding the
".NET is a fantastic technology upgrade for GNOME from Microsoft,"
Perhaps it's just me, perhaps it is the fault of the translation, but in this quote it sounds to me as if de Icaza is portraying Microsoft as having graciously created the
And finally, I point to the final line of the article referencing comments by de Icaza -
"In the interview, he praised many aspects of
Please...someone say it ain't so!!! Is this individual actually praising the evil empire's security model? Has he been smoking dope!!! I think I'll just forget that I saw that and move on as if nothing ever happened...
Re:Missing Link & more... (Score:1, Funny)
Of course, the reason he did this is because he is very bright, aware of all the technical issues and has spent a lot of time actually writing code and managing projects. I would suggest that the reason you don't like this technology is that none of these apply to you.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Missing Link & more... (Score:2)
This is not quite correct. See for instance here [olemiss.edu] or look up capabilites and unix and posix in google (you may have to search a bit). Or surf here [kernel.org] to learn that linux also has capabilities. This is also NAMI (not a microsoft innovation).
Re:Missing Link & more... (Score:2)
Re:Missing Link & more... (Score:2)
In theory, the NT/Win2K/XP kernel already have very nice security features that UNIX doesn't support. In practice, we have Universal Plug&Play.
We shall see how well the new .NET security works in the real world. Complexity is the enemy of security. I hope that they make the .NET security API easier comprehend and use than the NT API, but I'm not very optimistic.
Re:Missing Link & more... (Score:4, Interesting)
I believe "here" was meant as "here at The Register", so it's a small matter of going to The Register [theregister.co.uk]'s front door and doing a search for "Icaza". You'll probably be most interested in the three [theregister.co.uk] most [theregister.co.uk] recent [theregister.co.uk] articles. If you still can't find the connections, just look a little harder.
Icaza is portraying Microsoft as having graciously created the
Oh, don't be such a drama queen. You, me, and everyone else here know that's just silly and obviously unrealistic. Put your tinfoil hat back on and take some deep breathes.
Is this individual actually praising the evil empire's security model?
You can say a lot of horrible stuff about Microsoft, and in most cases they will deserve it. But just accept for a moment a difference between a security model and a security implementation. While it could easily be argued that their model may not be the best, Microsoft has generally had a bad history of implementing security. If the same model were given to a bunch of Linux zealots and a bunch of Microsoft suits, though both based on the same foundation, I think we can agree that our prized zealots would pull through with a better implementation. So, for me at least, it not that bad of a sin to praise their security model. I just wish they would follow through a little better.
On an OT note: If you really want to throw up, read this [christianity.com]. Direct quote - "The recent release of Windows XP illustrates the concept of intelligent design. If Windows XP points to Bill Gates, how much more do the marvelous complexities of DNA point directly to God, the great Intelligent Designer?"
Re:Missing Link & more... (Score:2)
But the MS version would have pretty GUIs and the Linux version would have command-line programs and conf files.
Seriously, though, the suits at MS aren't the ones who write the software, the programmers do. If they are pushed in the wrong direction by management's priorities it doesn't perforce mean that they're bad coders.
Re:Missing Link & more... (Score:2)
Ah Well (Score:2, Insightful)
I do have to admit that the "Oh, I didn't really mean Gnome should be based on .NET" was amusing, though. The email making that statement and then describing why it would be a good idea anyways was great.
Ah well, Ximian will get to write one program and sell to the Windows and Linux markets, which is the entire point of Mono to begin with. (Anthing else is just justification for this common sense business decision.)
Re:Ah Well (Score:2)
Personally, I think that the idea of a common VM, both language and platform independent, providing runtime services (e.g., memory allocation/garbage collection) and safety (e.g., bounds checking) is a good idea. I think that
At least some good came out of this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:At least some good came out of this (Score:1)
many C-ash for the non-ECMA-standartized classes
and the Mono (and dotGNU, eventually) developers
can't keep up with this, and so M$ gets much
out of their (actually working)
probably for Win64.
Then they start selling
anyone?) and it actually sells. Closed-source,
of course. Being able to run Mono apps, too.
Look at what the WINE people have done since nearly
one decade, they start with the Win3.1 API IIRC,
and they aren't at 1.0 yet.
The more recent (2000-2002) WINE don't even run on
OpenBSD, as they need some proprietary kernel stuff
and depend on ELF being the executable format.
Re:At least some good came out of this (Score:2)
This is NOT different from the MS rank and file. It is, instead, a perfect mimicking of their attitudes. In three years, when .NET is dead and they are pushing something 'new and revolutionary and completely different', if he's true to type he will like the new thing and think .NET is garbage...
good for him (Score:1)
What we're dealing with is a total lack of respect (Score:5, Interesting)
So why is it that he continually manages to irritate so many people? I think the answer is, you have to think a lot like RMS in order to understand what he's saying... particularly on the first try. As a result, he's prone to miscommunication. He appears confrontational because he frequently speaks his mind in a way that's going to get misinterpreted by everyone else. So is it our fault for not understanding his 'great mind'?
I don't think so. Richard, if you'd just have some respect for other people's 'user interfaces', you'd have a lot fewer problems, and do the community a whole world of good. RMS is not 'intuitive' or 'user friendly' for most of the world. Understanding how people communicate is critical to building effective interfaces to software. It's even more critical as a tool of persuasion. The Free Software community, like it or not, has a public face now, and you're it. Do you really want to keep hurting the community you built?
Re:What we're dealing with is a total lack of resp (Score:5, Insightful)
If he disagrees with something, everyone starts screaming about he's a ranting ideologue who's bent on coercing everyone to follow his ideals. It doesn't matter how he phrases it, it's immediately translated by the anti-RMS crowd into some kind of insane crusade against whatever he's talking about.
Look at the current incident. Someone asks him a question that's based on faulty assumptions. He points out that the questioner might have some of his facts wrong, then says if they were right he'd disagree with it. Instantly the anti-RMS crowd comes out en masse, shrieking.
What's next? RMS order soup with his dinner, and we get the slashdot headline "RMS blasts salad as entree choice"?
I'm not sure why there's such a huge anti-RMS movement in the free software/open source communities. I have some theories though:
1. Stallman has the audacity not to uncritically support everything everyone else does in the open source arena.
2. He represents an older generation of programmers who did the real pioneering stuff, and young programmers today have self-esteem problems with recognizing anyone older than themselves.
3. They don't like his political views.
Once again, The Register screws up (Score:2, Insightful)
Hah. The day The Register posts an honest retraction and admits they made a mistake without trying to weasel out of it is the day satan drives to work in a snowplow.
I honestly can't believe the amount of crap Miguel gets, based on The Register's blatant misreporting of the truth. It's time people stopped going after leaders like Miguel and after the people who profiteer from turning the community on itself.
All opinions expressed are opinions. Duh.
Re:Once again, The Register screws up (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow...you really have a low opinion of the Reg, which to me sounds ridiculous. Yes, they do have sensationalist (and very funny at times) headlines. But one of their mottos is: "Integrity, we've heard of it." And if you don't read the Reg with a little bit of your tongue in your cheek then you are missing the point and you are missing out.
However, I'd also like to point out that in the original article, they did mention exactly where they got their information: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23939.html [theregister.co.uk] ...from the Brazilian site Hotbits. And it seems to me that a journalist can do no better in reporting the truth than if he/she uses the unadulterated words of someone - RMS's full letter - to respond to their (the Reg's) statements about that person. How could they get closer to admitting that they were wrong other than saying explicitly "we were wrong" !? How is that weaseling out? They are the ones who posted the damn letter!!!! And what the hell at the bottom below RMS's letter consists of demonizing Miguel de Icaza? Here's the text below the letter, read it carefully:
We've been promised a tape and a transcript of the Porto Alegre Q and A.
Miguel de Icaza has issued his own clarification, here, which also amounts to "move along folks, there's nothing to see".
On Friday he repeated his desire to base future GNOME development on the .NET APIs using work from his Mono project.
".NET is a fantastic technology upgrade for GNOME from Microsoft," he said.
In the interview, he praised many aspects of .NET including SmartClients and the new Microsoft security model. ®
And again, if you go back to this piece: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23939.html [theregister.co.uk] it really seems that they are defending Miguel rather than demonizing. It seems that most of the demonizing of Miguel (and RMS) goes on on Slashdot.
Now, really...what the hell are you talking about?
Ad Hominem attacks on Richard Stallman (Score:5, Insightful)
Well let's first get some facts straight. No one who uses GNU/Linux or any of the related free or open source software built on the Gnu/Linux platform would be enjoying the use of this stuff if it wasn't for Richard Stallman. In the mid-80s when he decided to rebuild Unix from scratch, all my geek and hacker friends who were Unix users at the time, thought he was totally nuts (just like a good part of the
Linus Torvald, a great programmer and a man worthy of praise, finished up what Stallman had started. But he was standing on the shoulder of a giant. If Richard Stallman feels that the OS should be called GNU/Linux he is 100% justified, whether or not its an ego issue as many here contend, or an issue of principle, as he does. Either way, as the man who made it happen, he has the right to make that demand. Whether you honor it or not is your choice. But insulting him while you continue to use the fruits of his labor is worse than hypocrisy - its theft.
There is not one, not one person, in the free software or open source world who has contributed more to the existance of this stuff than Richard Stallman. So at the very least, he deserves the gratitude of anyone who uses this software, for whatever reason they might use it.
To say that Richard Stallman's radical ideas are a hindrance to the acceptance of non-proprietary alternatives is absurd. This is the guy who invented the whole concept, this is the man who made it happen. It's precisely because he is fanatical and unyielding that this movement came into being. All those willing to compromise would never have stayed the course he did.
That doesn't mean you have to accept his point of view. I personally think that in the commercial world, there is a place for BSD-style licenses, and unlike Richard Stallman I don't think these are immoral.
Nonetheless I feel tremendous gratitude for what he has done and continues to do, I respect and admire his principled approach to his work and his life. I strongly resent the ungrateful, spiteful, empty-headed sniping that gets thrown his way in this forum. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!
Re:Ad Hominem attacks on Richard Stallman (Score:4, Interesting)
For someone on the other side of the fence from GNU, there is great temptation to prod him. His legendary stubborness is outmatched only by the fragility of his ego. He acts as if any dispute against his ideas is a direct personal assault. He can't stand to be wrong, and will never admit it if proven.
This is the guy who invented the whole concept, this is the man who made it happen.
Bullshit. He may have invented the concept of copyleft, but he certainly did not invent the concept of free software.
Re:Ad Hominem attacks on Richard Stallman (Score:2)
The people hired by the companies were required to not share information with the competing company. They had no reason to question this. When new hackers came on the scene they were simply bought up by one or the other of the companies. The AI lab became empty, no hacking going on, no information being shared with others. It died. It was killed.
Stallman was racked with grief- and in the end, went out and codified a system by which free software COULD NOT be destroyed in that manner, using copyright to REQUIRE that the value of sharing be placed above the value of protecting a company's intellectual property. Rather than it being a personal value that could be easily swept aside, it became a licensing matter that can't legally be swept aside, establishing a body of work that is permanently 'shared' among participants in the concept of 'free software'.
THAT is what RMS invented. Before him, it was subject to human frailties, and as such it got steamrollered, because of 'tragedy of the commons' type difficulties. Non-GPL type free software doesn't scale: as it gains in importance, other interests eventually destroy the freeness. Only GPL-type free software can scale to where it is worth vast sums of money while preserving its information sharing fully. Even BSD licensing begins to lose information sharing as it becomes incorporated into proprietary work...
Re:Ad Hominem attacks on Richard Stallman (Score:2)
Let's see now, we have Apache, Sendmail, Perl, Python, *BSD, XFree86, etc. All of which of scaled quite well, and none of which have been destroyed. The only problematic one of the bunch is XFree86, whose problems arose from a closed process and not a closed code base. Even with multiple companies forking off proprietary versions of X11, it still remains free. Last I checked, only one of those proprietary versions is still around, inextricably tied to proprietary hardware. On the other side of the spectrum you have Apache who can rightfully claim to be the poster boy of Free Software.
Only GPL-type free software can scale to where it is worth vast sums of money while preserving its information sharing fully.
I don't know of ANY Free Software that is worth vast sums of money. Some companies selling Free Software may be worth vast sums of money, but the software itself is still free as in beer. When those rumours started circulating that Redhat was being bought by AOL/TW, I checked and saw that it was still $1.99 at Cheapbytes.
---
I would really like to hear the side of those LISP hackers that joined the proprietary companies. They seem to get left out of all the stories. Did copyleft force them to give stuff back, or did they just merely stop using the MIT stuff?
Re:Ad Hominem attacks on Richard Stallman (Score:2)
-Paul Komarek
Re:Ad Hominem attacks on Richard Stallman (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, you sure proved Aron S-T wrong!
Re:Ad Hominem attacks on Richard Stallman (Score:2)
Main Entry: di*a*lec*tic
Pronunciation: "dI-&-'lek-tik
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English dialetik, from Middle French dialetique, from Latin dialectica, from Greek dialektikE, from feminine of dialektikos of conversation, from dialektos
Date: 14th century
1 : LOGIC 1a(1)
2 a : discussion and reasoning by dialogue as a method of intellectual investigation; specifically : the Socratic techniques of exposing false beliefs and eliciting truth b : the Platonic investigation of the eternal ideas
3 : the logic of fallacy
4 a : the Hegelian process of change in which a concept or its realization passes over into and is preserved and fulfilled by its opposite; also : the critical investigation of this process b (1) usually plural but singular or plural in construction : development through the stages of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis in accordance with the laws of dialectical materialism (2) : the investigation of this process (3) : the theoretical application of this process especially in the social sciences
5 usually plural but singular or plural in construction a : any systematic reasoning, exposition, or argument that juxtaposes opposed or contradictory ideas and usually seeks to resolve their conflict b : an intellectual exchange of ideas
6 : the dialectical tension or opposition between two interacting forces or elements
Using the term "dialectics" seems downright appropriate!
Re:Ad Hominem attacks on Richard Stallman (Score:2)
Re:Ad Hominem attacks on Richard Stallman (Score:2)
I can't agree that Stallman's personal traits have a bearing on his arguments. If he swerves wildly off topic, then he fails to defend his thesis. While his character might cause him to swerve, the failure to defend his thesis is the important thing, because it means that his argument can be defeated. No matter how irritating you may find him, you can attack his beliefs without attacking him.
I also disagree that one must "either agree with him totally, or the discussion devolves into bickering". I don't agree with him completely on much. I never call it "Free Software" or "GNU/Linux". But I think there's a real value in having radicals out there. Sure, many of their ideas will be duds. But they act as a proving ground for ideas that is a valuable resource for the mainstream.
Re:Ad Hominem attacks on Richard Stallman (Score:4, Insightful)
Moreover, I didn't complain about legitimate discussions about the principles of free software. I said that I myself don't agree with all of Stallman's positions.
The point is:
a. keep his personality and habits out of the discussion
b. even if you disagree with him, at the very least give him your respect and thanks.
His contribution was not just the invention of the copyleft, which you might argue (wrongly in my opinion) is just of philosophical value. His contribution was extremely practical too, by any standard. Without GNU Emacs and the GCC, and all the GNU utilities, GNU/Linux would never have happened, even if Linus had not decided to use the copyleft license. Moreover, while I admit I am no expert on this, as far as I am aware, the various BSDs also used the GCC. So even if he does nothing else for the rest of his life, we all owe him a huge debt of gratitude.
Re:Ad Hominem attacks on Richard Stallman (Score:2)
Not one person or corporation anywhere in the the civilized world wants to outlaw free software. Not one. Oh there may be one or two nutbags out there, but there always are. But no one anyone would take seriously is advocating it. There are a lot of people, however, you think it's a bad idea and wouldn't recommend that other people do it. But that's a far cry from wanting to outlaw it.
Respect and honor RMS as he deserves.
And exactly how much respect and honor does he deserve? Does it go so far that we implicity believe everything he utters? Must we make him a god? There is such a thing as too much respect and honor. That point where one is not allowed to question and debate the ideas of another is way over that line.
I remember sitting at LWCE when they gave him a $10,000 check for his contributions to Linux, and all he could do in the way of thanks was bitch about the lack of respect he got since not enough people were using the term "GNU/Linux". I remember on a mailing list during a discussion of the GPL when RMS popped in from out of nowhere claiming that people were attacking him since they were looking for loopholes in the license.
Re:Ad Hominem attacks on Richard Stallman (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Ad Hominem attacks on Richard Stallman (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ad Hominem attacks on Richard Stallman (Score:2)
What would be the point of responding to you if you don't read the arguments?
Re:Ad Hominem attacks on Richard Stallman (Score:2)
But what I wonder is when software development became a religion? And who appointed RMS as God?
As far as personal attacks go, if you go to gnu.org you will see that most of the arguments there are emotional in nature rather than technical or logical. Most of the refutation is simply to explain what the GNU motives are.(such as eliminating salaries for programmers, etc.)
Re:Ad Hominem attacks on Richard Stallman (Score:4, Funny)
Stalman + Linux =
"Stalin"
This line intentionally left blank
Re:Ad Hominem attacks on Richard Stallman (Score:3, Interesting)
LiGNUx
It aint pretty, but...
Key issues still slipping by (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Key issues still slipping by (Score:5, Insightful)
Miguel-ites are simply dumping their critical faculties and going into hero-worship mode to the detriment of GNOME and open source in general.
Not really, they are making the (justifiable) descision to rely upon billions of dollars and several years of Microsoft R&D to do the thinking for them.
I say it's a smart move, if they can get away with it.
Re:Key issues still slipping by (Score:2)
Also, does MS really spend billions on R&D? I'd expect not. I'd be surprised if they cleared a half-billion on R&D. Note that programming and engineering are not traditionally part of R&D.
-Paul Komarek
Uhh, Mr. Stallman.... (Score:3)
"A free replacement for Visual Basic which works with GNOME would be a major step forward; any capable team that wants to launch this project should please contact gnu@gnu.org." --RMS
Psst, Mr. Stallman sir, you've already got one: GNOME Basic [gnome.org].
Read what Miguel de Icaza had to say about it. (Score:4, Informative)
Go read what he as to say about the .NET Framework, Mono and GNOME.
He also replys directly to the RMS controversy.
VB drop in? (Score:2)
Ya. I was having my cup of coffee this morning and thinking, "Man, it's been a long time since I've been infected with a solid high quality virus. I should go install W2k."
Re:Stallman Caught in Logical Contradiction? (Score:2, Informative)
> "GNOME is part of the GNU project, and is free software
> (some times referred to as open source software.)"
I take that to be saying that "free software" is not equivalent to "open source" software, although sometimes it is referred to that way.
Re:Stallman Caught in Logical Contradiction? (Score:1)
* Free Software is OSI approved Open Source
* the FSF approved documentation (GFDL)
is NOT because OSI doesn't approve
documentation licenses (a pity).
Re:Stallman Caught in Logical Contradiction? (Score:2, Insightful)
open source vs Open Source Initiative (OSI).
Pay attention to the details. They are important. You always need to stop and figure out what people mean when they throw around the term open source. Do they just mean to imply the combined common usage of the 2 words? (ie: you can look at the source code) Or are they talking about OSI?
Re:Stallman Caught in Logical Contradiction? (Score:5, Informative)
The "free software movement" based upon the
GPL, LGPL, GFDL etc. and started by GNU is
very different from the Open Source movement
started by Bruce Evans?
Anyway, the latter you can inform you about
at http://opensource.org
The former at http://www.fsf.org
FSF is the Free Software Foundation, which is
the nowadays' head of the GNU project, the
GNU licenses and non-GNU projects that are
under the [L]GPL and hosted by them but do not
belong to the GNU project as a whole.
RMS is head of the GNU project and the FSF,
so I think he is right to decide which direction
the GNU project follows, although I am not, in
my PERSONAL opinion, happy with this line.
Take the Gnu Compiler Collection (GCC) as an
example: http://gcc.gnu.org
The Copyright lines in the Copyleft license
(sigh!) refer to the FSF as owner.
If you want any of your changes be committed
into gcc you MUST transfer your copyright on
these changes to the FSF, which then, in turn,
incorporates them under the current GPL (or LGPL,
for example in the glibc, but I don't know if
this practice is there, too).
These are because then the FSF can be sure that
no third party copyright owner can claim anything
about such core projects as the gcc. For example,
if the GPL would prove invalid in court, the FSF
would change the GCC license from one day to
another to a protective one.
As I said, *personally* I am no GNU fan and do
use a modificated MIT/X/BSD license for my projects,
but on the other hand I am glad that RMS started
things such as the gcc that early.
Credits to whom credits belong.
Re:Stallman Caught in Logical Contradiction? (Score:2)
Re:Stallman Caught in Logical Contradiction? (Score:2, Insightful)
How about (3) "Karma Sucks" is unable to parse the English language?
Gnome is part of the GNU project... True.
Re:Stallman Caught in Logical Contradiction? (Score:2, Insightful)
open source (no caps, no initiative) obviously implies that the source is open, or that you are able to see it. Nothing more, nothing less. With gnome you can see the source and tinker with it if you want.. its open source.. anyone that says otherwise is a dumbass.
Re:Stallman Caught in Logical Contradiction? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Stallman Caught in Logical Contradiction? (Score:2)
Re:Since when... (Score:5, Insightful)
RMS has never been confrontational. But he has always stood his ground.
Unfortunately many "nutbags" seem unable to understand the difference.
Re:Since when... (Score:2, Funny)
You mean like that time he tore a reporter a new asshole for using the term "Linux"?
Re:hippies (Score:1)
Then point those "internal things" out.
Third, are you really aware of the difference
between "Open Source" - http://opensource.org
and "Free Software" - http://www.fsf.org
The current licenses used by the free software
movement (GPL, LGPL, GFDL etc.) are, as long
as they refer to software and not, for example,
documentation (as the GFDL), are "OSI Compliant
Open Source" with regards to the open source
definition, and so free software qualifies as
open source.
That the OSI is not approving non-software
licenses is really a pity.
Re:hippies (Score:2)
-russ
Re: clarification (Score:1)
because he leads the GNU project as a whole.
Be content with it or not, but you can't
change the facts.
Of course you can fork, the [L]GPL allows this.
Please note, as you can read from my other
comments on this, I am no GPL fan either.
Re: clarification (Score:5, Informative)
Re:RMS ... RMS ... RMS .. RMS!!!! (Score:1)
filter it in your preferences page.
Anyways, you can just filter GNU.
Oh wait... you aren't logged in?
D'oh.
Re:Why are we paying any attention to RMS? (Score:1)
Re:Why are we paying any attention to RMS? (Score:1)
Re:Why are we paying any attention to RMS? (Score:1)
Re:Why are we paying any attention to RMS? (Score:1)
But what part of the GNU toolkit commonly used by groups like RedHat/Linux, Slackware/Linux, Debian/Linux[1] diddnt exist a decade ago.
IFF (that is: if, and only if) someone actualy produces a GNU/FSF distribution of linux will it make sence to use 'GNU/Linux'
Re:Why are we paying any attention to RMS? (Score:1)
Re:Why are we paying any attention to RMS? (Score:1)
If you hold a gun to the head of someone to force them to turn over the rights to what there making, that dosent mean that you created it.
Re:Why are we paying any attention to RMS? (Score:1)
Re:Why are we paying any attention to RMS? (Score:2, Informative)
Oooh baby, the release of wget [gnu.org] version 1.8 and then 1.8.1 in December was great! I think wget is more than enough to justify the existance of the entire Free Software Foundation. No, really. I'll donate to the FSF if someone keeps maintaining wget and makes it rock even more.
Re:Why are we paying any attention to RMS? (Score:1)
Re:Why are we paying any attention to RMS? (Score:2)
What you are using is most likely some distribution that includes the GNU binutils, libc, and tons of other GNU tools. It also contains the Linux kernel. All together, there is likely more code on your PC that belongs to the GNU project than to the Linux project. Therefore, it only makes sense to call the operating system you use, GNU/Linux. No one is making the argument that Linux should be referred to as GNU/Linux, just that the operating system which is composed chiefly of the Linux kernel and GNU utilites should properly be referred to as GNU/Linux.
Linux wouldn't compile with Intel c++ and it surely would not be 30% faster. The linux kernel hackers choose GCC because they knew exactly how it produced code. Linux is highly optimized to produce the best possible code from GCC, and in spots where performance is key, the code is written in assembly.
Porting Linux to Intel c++ would do nothing, especially since Linux is written in C and the 30% figure comes from many of the patented optimizations that Intel owns for C++. Has nothing to do with C.
If you went from Emacs to KWrite, you obviously never knew how to use Emacs properly because no one in their right mind would switch from Emacs to KWrite.
The fact of the matter is that Linux as you know it is more of a GNU project than a Linux project. The kernel is not terribly big or important and it no where near independent of the GNU system.
Oh, BTW, you criticism RMS because he's written Emacs, GCC, GDB, Guile, etc and you've written???
Re:Why are we paying any attention to RMS? (Score:2)
I have to admit, I was on a bit of a tangent when I wrote that response, but I stand by my intention that one who has learned to use Emacs properly would never switch to something else.
Perhaps you should try XEmacs? XEmacs has a toolbar and the more familiar point-and-click interface along with the powerful lisp backend. GNU Emacs does not have such an interface because it needs to work in both GUI and console mode.
Emacs isn't good for writing formatted documents, but as far as programming is concerned (or working with plain text), emacs just is so useful.
Before entirely giving up on Emacs, I suggest checking out XEmacs and reading the Emacs tutorial. Give it a chance and you'll find it so much more useful.
Emacs is not just a better editor, but it has features that no other editor has. So people often come off of the Windows world use to Word and Notepad and never really understand what an editor is capable of.
Either way, atleast your not abandoning Emacs for vi
Re:Slashdot? printing a retraction of sorts? (Score:1)
Meta-Slashdot thread found in CmdrTaco's
Journal (IIRC).
Check my
Re:Call me picky - (Score:1)
Re:In other words... (Score:2)