Jean Louis wrote:
* Jacob Bachmeyer <> [2022-02-23 04:09]:
Jean Louis wrote:
* Akira Urushibata <> [2022-02-22 02:23]:
So I can see that Linus is giving credits to GNU, GCC, Richard
Stallman, and that he did not know nothing about free software before
he heard Stallman's speech in Helsinki.

Linux kernel was at that time proprietary.

He liberated kernel due to Stallman's talk.

I can also read a sentence where Linus says on page X: "Richard
Stallman wants to make everything open source" -- this shows clear
misunderstanding on side of Linus on what "open source" means and what
is "free software."

Linus also said: "Richard Stallman deserves monument in his honor for
giving birth to GPL"

There is quote that he acknowledges that his new system won't be big
and professional as GNU.

To me I see clear misunderstandings of Linus in his youth when he was
thinking that by making the kernel he is making "operating system".

It is misunderstanding.
My understanding of the history here is that Linus *was* more-or-less making
a homebrew operating system at the time.  I remember a quote describing
Linux:  "My terminal emulator grew legs."

OK, though I don't see in that book that he was making "operating
system", though I can see that he was intending to make it, though
never made it in the sense how we understand operating systems today.


Then in chapter VI Linus wrote about making a scheduler in kernel and
talking, that it will become "operating system", so his intentions
were verbally and on the first sight towards "operating system", and
practically it was just kernel.


That Linus Torvalds had serious misunderstandings on what "operating
system" is shows the paragraph in the same VI chapter of the book
where he says "So, I shifted my thinking of it as a terminal emulator
to thinking of it as an operating system"; and I find such cognitions
nice and exciting, changes that happened in the mind of young excited
and ambitious Linus Torvalds. Youth is often like that, we have high
desires, potential, we want to reach very high, we may say we will be
best in the world in some subject. I don't find it wrong by any
means. Just that what Linus wrote at the time never was an "operating
system". It was kernel. Book is about the kernel.


The book, in other words, says it all and clear. It confirms
Stallman's statement that Linux is kernel and GNU is operating

A big part of the misunderstanding here is probably due to Linux's origin as a bare-metal terminal emulator. Bare-metal applications which essentially integrate their own specialized operating system were somewhat rare on IBM-PC-type systems, but very common on other microcomputers and a few did exist for IBM-ish PCs if I understand correctly. They were much more common on floppy-based systems lacking hard disks, such as most Apple IIs. Insert disk, power on machine. While Apple II hard disks did exist, they were very rare.

As I understand it, Linus essentially used a *nix-like environment as an extension interface for his terminal emulator because he was familiar with Unix at his university; indeed, the primary use of that terminal emulator was to dial in to the university's modem pool for access to Unix. This is a likely basis for his "nothing big and professional like GNU" remark. It grew from there.

Note that this is all history to me -- these events occurred before I was old enough to type, so I certainly have no first-hand knowledge.

The term "open source" is made for the reason of marketing. RedHat
will tell you that, as they have corporate strategy of promoting "open
source" and of course not "free software":

What is open source?

| Peterson proposed the idea of replacing "free software" with the term
| "open source" to a working group that was dedicated, in part, to
| shepherding open source software practices into the broader
| marketplace.

How I coined the term 'open source' |

| The introduction of the term "open source software" was a deliberate
| effort to make this field of endeavor more understandable to newcomers
| and to business, which was viewed as necessary to its spread to a
| broader community of users. The problem with the main earlier label,
| "free software," was not its political connotations, but that—to
| newcomers—its seeming focus on price is distracting. A term was needed
| that focuses on the key issue of source code and that does not
| immediately confuse those new to the concept. The first term that came
| along at the right time and fulfilled these requirements was rapidly
| adopted: open source.

That is an interesting new view on some old history.

Thus the term "Open Source" is there to help the market sell more of
the software. This is because "Free" impairs the ability to sell
according to their viewpint. I just think they are not good enough
marketers, rather opportunists who will chose whatever way they need
to get to the money.

That is what I describe as the "free software for moral retards" position, yes. Suits have a distinct tendency to be allergic to moral arguments for some strange reason. Perhaps because morality generally opposes greed?

-- Jacob

Reply via email to