Re: Why "GNU/Linux" is not accepted: an observation
On 2019-11-08 00:29, Marcel wrote: On 11/8/19 3:01 PM, Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) wrote: A typical GNU/Linux distribution include more than just GNU userland on top of Linux. It can be argued that the name GNU/Linux is incomplete and excludes contributions from other sources, the same way that Linux alone excludes GNU. A similar and arguably even less fair situation arises with some distributions, to the point that some people come to associate the whole system with the name of the distribution. In the case of GNU, as I read it from the GNU website[^1], the concern seems to be less for the appreciation or accolades of receiving credit, and more for keeping alive the underpinning Free Software philosophy. [^1] https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html If the users never heard of GNU, it could be that because in spite of 20% (or whatever) of their distro's base installation image being GNU, they don't use any of it. They actually use the Linux part of the system, whenever that system is powered up and running. They're aware that something boots calling itself Linux, with reams of console messages. There are "low GNU" systems out there. E.g. embedded Linux-based systems with a non-GNU C library, BusyBox instead of Coreutils or Bash, and whatnot. Neither OpenSSH nor Dropbear are GNU. systemd isn't GNU. Various networking utilities aren't GNU. "util-linux" isn't GNU. How about servers? Apache isn't GNU; node.js isn't GNU; Perl, Python, Ruby, PHP, ... not GNU again. PostgreSQL: not GNU. A lot of the *payload* stuff that actually powers what people are doing in a visible way to them isn't GNU, unfortunately. And, secondarily, some of the GNU stuff is commoditized, which is partly due t implementing standards. Instead of Bison you can use Berkeley Yacc; instead of bash, you can use zsh, dash, and others. GCC has alternatives now. GNU libc also, and so it goes. Here is something ironic: the uname program is from GNU Coreutils. (Or *a* uname command that is commonly installed, anyway): $ uname --version | head -2 uname (GNU coreutils) 8.28 Copyright (C) 2017 Free Software Foundation, Inc. Yet, the content comes from the kernel system call: $ uname -a Linux box 4.15.0-22-generic #24-Ubuntu SMP Wed May 16 12:15:17 UTC 2018 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux This reinforces to the users that they are in something called Linux. Maybe uname should check that the sysname member of struct utsname starts with "Linux" and add "GNU/" to the output. (And then, why not just do it unconditionally! GNU/SunOS could be printed on Solaris. Hey, if you're running GNU uname, your system must be GNU/something.)
Re: Programmers as users
nipponm...@firemail.cc wrote: > Alexandre François Garreau: >> For those unaware: most mailing software can \u201cfilter\u201d mails so you >> don\u2019t see them, and they end up deleted > > Yea, I'm SURE Free Software Programmers have a TON of problems "Discovering" > that mail clients can FILTER WHATEVER YOU WANT. Yes you are SURELY helping > ACTUAL Free Software Programmers. Iʼm afraid, you overestimate us, mortals. Just wander around mailing lists and count pretty actual programmers, that instead of configuring filters try to shift the burden of satisfying their preferences on every their correspondent by setting ‘Mail-Followup-To’ to the list address, and sometimes even complain if one does not notice this request (and in extreme cases just complain, without setting the header). Or have messed up quotes or broken URLs in their mail, evidently because the very simple idea, that the damn autohardwrapping could and should be disabled, never came to their minds. Or have encodings broken (he-he ;-). signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: What is ‘OS’? (was: Why "GNU/Linux" is not accepted: an observation)
Akira Urushibata wrote: > Subscribers of this mailing list know what an operating system is. Yes, they for sure know. But I would not sure, that they _agree_ on what ‘OS’ is. If we exclude marginal ones (like OS == kernel), I am aware of two consistent definitions of ‘operating system’: 1. Operating system is a set of auxiliary programs, necessary to use applications, which are the programs that you actually want to use to solve some tasks. Where these programs come from is irrelevant. Since the criterion is purely subjective, there is no precise boundary: if you perform some scientific calculations and also use, say, youtube-dl(1), the same Python can be both application and a part of the OS for you. 2. Operating system is set of programs, installable on the top of hardware, distributed by a single vendor. In other words, it is exactly the same as distribution (‘distro’). Despite that this criterion is objective, the same program still can be both: Minesweeper™ and KMines are part of operating system as long as they are distributed within MS Windows and Debian respectively, but are not if installed separately. These two definitions are not unrelated, though. You might easily come to idea to install the latest Python from upstream if you write in it, and hardly bother to get to know, in which language youtube-dl is written, at the same time. So feel free to mix them in right proportions to construct a desired discourse. Back to the question of (dis)agreement, though. Those, who like to talk about GNU (on Linux or otherwise) operating system as a fait accompli, are evidently inclined to the first one. While those who were going to dub Guix, the distribution, ‘the GNU OS’ few years ago in order to finally fulfil the GNU Manifesto, seem to prefer the second. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Is negative publicity always harmful? - I support RMS' past pro-paedo statements
* Alexandre François Garreau [2019-11-08 19:14]: > For those unaware: most mailing software can “filter” mails so you don’t see > them, and they end up deleted or as spam [0]. > > To help filtering him, here some mail address he publicly used so far: > , , > (source [1]). > > Also, as he might create others, here are nicks he used so far: Mikhail > Kvaratskhelia, mike3usa, 2asueekim, Miguel Ghobangieno, Mikee, Mike, Mitch > O’Brian, Drew Armon, Hell Yeah, shivas, No2systemd, cyb3r, rewt, > fsck_systemd, > ChaosEsque Team, May Epper, IronPass, heat cannon, vote-for-choice, Gregory > Smith (on LKML, Youtube), Brad Townshend (on LKML), John Garret (on LKML), > Steve Stone (Youtube), mv (source [2]). You know, the website geekfeminism.wikia.org is full of prejudices and call-outs, mischaracterizations and calls for mob justice, including fake links and hypocritical public shamings. It is hard for informed person to take it seriously. It is hard to verify what is fact and what is not a fact but mob justice attempt. It is irrelevant who is who or who uses which nicks. I am also against public shamings for any reasons or labeling. If I really don't like somebody, I will not communicate with that person. If I communicate to a person, I already like something about the person, even if we have opposing views. That is why I have no filter and no worry. On my Fediverse account, I am not blocking anybody, and I feel good and safe, as I am simply not reading those articles or messages that I don't like. But public shaming or stalking of people or labeling them in public is not that I can recommend. Mentioning nicks would mean that I or somebody else should keep the "black list" and watch out who is using which link. If I wish to filter anybody, I will do so, but not tell other people to do so, because my opinion on filtering is probably not shared with everybody. Such public shaming or labeling would be based on information from the website which has not get credentials. Let us not initiate new acts of mob justice. Moderators are already doing their actions. Information from that website geekfeminism.wikia.org represents other politics that does not have purpose to increase number of contributors to GNU project, and it contains number of defamations and false accusations. Jean
Re: Why GNU/Linux is not accepted: an observation
Dear Akira, あなたのメッセージは大歓迎です. Welcome. * Akira Urushibata [2019-11-08 05:27]: > Observing recent events I notice that prejudice is at work. Prejudice > is often invisible and hard to identify. But it does harm to society, > especially when it is widespread. When we sense that prejudice exists > we are forced to drop the assumption that people are thinking and > acting rationally. Few people enjoy being told that they are acting > irrationally. Most people don't like to admit that they are affected > by prejudice. Prejudice exists nowhere but in people's minds but the > very minds that harbor it tend to refuse to accept that it exists. It is more than prejudice, it is mob justice and conduct of illegal acts based on prejudices and political correctness. Punishment without trial. > It is wrong to hold the victim of prejudice responsible for the > problems prejudice and consequential actions bring about. Such blame > won't solve the problems. On the other hand the victim of prejudice > must understand that it exists if he or she wants to improve the > situation. Exactly. Thank you. > Before discussing recent events I would like to tackle an issue that > all subscribers are aware of: Why do most people say 'Linux' instead > of 'GNU/Linux'? I understand that prejudice plays an important role > in this long-standing problem. I'd like to share this insight with > you in the hope that it will have an enlightening effect and > ultimately lead to new approaches of coping with vexing problems we > have at hand now. Some people use "Linux" for simple fact that it was marketed that way. SuSE Linux, Red Hat Linux, Mandrake Linux and so on. Rarely some company gave the due credit to GNU in their namings. People who adopted "Linux" as such still have chance to find out about the GNU. It is very intertwined. > The problem with the term GNU/Linux is that it requires the > understanding that the operation system is not one single program but > rather a collection of programs with distinct functions. The casual > computer user rejects the term for it goes against his vague but > persistent assumption that an operating system should be one single > thing. If you ask me, theoretically, I would be very happy with one environment that plays well together, such as it is GNU Emacs or similar programming language environment that jumps out upon the boot and that I stay as user in that environment. I tend actually to seek such unified operating system. Would we be as well organized ants, or superorganism, we would create very unified system which could be probably 1000 times more efficient than what we have now. We are not ants, we are pretty much individuals who work independently and we created bunch of software which is necessary and useful and bunch that is not necessary and not useful. > The opponents of GNU/Linux can easily shoot it down. That is being done in a kind manner to educate and teach people what is GNU and what is Linux, as those Linux users are often GNU users not knowing about it. That is why articles are promoted such as: https://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.en.html and https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html and https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.en.html > It is not my intention to state that the term GNU/Linux will never > be widely adopted and to urge GNU supporters to reckon that the effort > is fruitless and should be terminated. My message is that through > careful observation of the current situation new approaches can be found, > ones that won't easily be dismissed as politically-charged. For GNU and Linux subjects, do you feel that it is much politically charged? I have not get that feeling. In my opinion it is simply good to do what Linux community did for many users, creating Linux User Groups or LUGs. Back in time there was bunch of HOW-TO documents written to help with GNU/Linux. See: https://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/User-Group-HOWTO.html Such document always mentioned GNU/Linux. Linux community was always welcoming GNU and in general understood what is GNU and what is GPL. Freedom is of importance for Linux community. Same document could be reworked to form GNU Free Software Clubs. I would not call them "GNU User Groups". I would call such "GNU Free Software Club". It is my personal preference and I will devise a project how to open and start such clubs and will share it. Such clubs should have already at least 3 computers ready and installed. It should have all of the FSF endorsed GNU operating systems ready to install for other people and it should offer installations and distribution of GNU Free Software. One GNU Emacs Manual or other manuals shall be accessible at all times in the club, and free software philosophy articles shall be presented continually every week to new public. And they could contribute to current FSF campaigns. What do you think of that? Jean
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
Le vendredi 8 novembre 2019, 19:08:02 CET Thompson, David a écrit : > I read [last Brandon’s speculation] a few times, but I am unable to see how this qualifies as "kind communication." Interesting analysis. Could you further develop on why? I don’t see how.
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 11:37 AM Brandon Invergo wrote: > > Given that nothing has changed in how GNU is being run, it appears that > the cart is being placed well before the horse. However, I would be > shocked if they didn't already expect rms not to step down and therefore > to reject their Social Contract out-of-hand. Given that it is > nevertheless still being written (in public) under conditions where it > will be rejected with almost certainty, I wouldn't be surprised if they > are in fact counting on this to happen. That would give another > opportunity to publicly shame rms and the GNU project as it actually is: > "Look at this beautiful document that rms refused to implement for GNU! > The fact that he *disagrees* with these points shows that he is not fit > to lead GNU anymore!". Nevermind that the rejection is due to its utter > superfluousness given the structure of the GNU project and is not due to > disagreement with the contents. I read this a few times, but I am unable to see how this qualifies as "kind communication." - Dave
Re: Why "GNU/Linux" is not accepted: an observation
Le vendredi 8 novembre 2019, 09:01:14 CET Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) a écrit : > A typical GNU/Linux distribution include more than just GNU userland > on top of Linux. It can be argued that the name GNU/Linux is incomplete > and excludes contributions from other sources, the same way that > Linux alone excludes GNU. https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#allsmall > Ideally, everyone should be credited, but that can't all fit into the > name. https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#many
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
Alfred M. Szmidt writes: >Of course, it is no coincidence if you have a déjà vu feeling when >looking at the proposed GNU Social Contract. It is intended as a >base for going forward with the GNU Project, but of course it takes >the existing into account. > > I do not see how it does anything of the sort, it is a partial summary > of the project. It doesn't bring anything new to the table, or moves > anything forward, so far it is a TL;DR note... A social contract is only a necessity in a community-run organization because it helps prevent the organization from moving off-course. When the moral compass of the organization is set and maintained by a leader or group of leaders, then it is completely unnecessary. If you believe GNU should be community-run, then you'll want to see a social contract; if you think it should be run as it currently is, then it's impossible to see a use for it. Given that nothing has changed in how GNU is being run, it appears that the cart is being placed well before the horse. However, I would be shocked if they didn't already expect rms not to step down and therefore to reject their Social Contract out-of-hand. Given that it is nevertheless still being written (in public) under conditions where it will be rejected with almost certainty, I wouldn't be surprised if they are in fact counting on this to happen. That would give another opportunity to publicly shame rms and the GNU project as it actually is: "Look at this beautiful document that rms refused to implement for GNU! The fact that he *disagrees* with these points shows that he is not fit to lead GNU anymore!". Nevermind that the rejection is due to its utter superfluousness given the structure of the GNU project and is not due to disagreement with the contents. With that said, I am fully in support of having a couple of succinct documents that describe the structure and mission of the GNU project. Richard has also expressed interest in that. I just don't see any need of enacting them as the basis of a formal pledge. -- -brandon
Re: Will RMS be back to Programming now?
On 11/8/19 2:44 AM, Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) wrote: > On 2019-11-07 22:58, Jean Louis wrote: >> Dear Nala, >> >> Greetings to China. I am eating here with chopsticks... >> >> * Nala Ginrut [2019-11-07 15:03]: >>> >>> Hi Jean! >>> >>> Yes, I totally agreed. And I actually meant RMS's health status, >>> personally I don't think the fame was hurt by the recent comments >>> misinterpretation or even the previous personal activity years ago. >>> If his health status is permitted, then maybe he can do some advocating >>> work by simple coding work, it's kind of advertisement. ;-) >> >> His programming was significant for the inception of GNU operating >> system, as there were not many people to do it except of RMS. > > There is a lot more to RMS than just GNU. > > RMS was involved in Common Lisp; he was part of the initial Common Lisp > group:[1] > > In the 1970's, he evidently developed a Lisp dialect in which 0 was > false and the empty list, rather than the symbol nil.[2] > This might have helped inoculate Stallman against later having allergic > reactions to C, which was adopted in a major way by GNU. > > RMS invented something called phantom stacks[3]; I can recommend this paper > for the writing quality alone. Any Lisp-head will appreciate it. > > RMS co-authored some papers in the 1970's with Sussman and Steele. > > "He was special," recalls Gerald Sussman, an MIT faculty member and > former > AI Lab researcher. Describing Stallman as a "clear thinker and a clear > designer," Sussman employed Stallman as a research-project assistant > beginning in 1975. The project was complex, involving the creation of an > AI program that could analyze circuit diagrams. Not only did it involve > an expert's command of Lisp, a programming language built specifically > for AI applications, but it also required an understanding of how a human > might approach the same task."[4] > > --- > [1] https://www.dreamsongs.com/Files/HOPL2-Uncut.pdf, P. 39 > [2] https://www.dreamsongs.com/Files/HOPL2-Uncut.pdf, P. 63 > [3] https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/6331 > [4] "Free as in Freedom", Chapter 6, > https://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch06.html > Richard is a brilliant coder... Ive seen it with my own eyes. His understanding of computer systems, and coding is deep and broad. If he had to, he could probably step into any of the current projects and pick them up himself. There are no better coders -- So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998 http://www.mrbrklyn.com DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002 http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www.brooklyn-living.com Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and extermination camps, but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013
Re: Why "GNU/Linux" is not accepted: an observation
On 11/8/19 3:01 PM, Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) wrote: > A typical GNU/Linux distribution include more than just GNU userland > on top of Linux. It can be argued that the name GNU/Linux is incomplete > and excludes contributions from other sources, the same way that > Linux alone excludes GNU. A similar and arguably even less fair situation arises with some distributions, to the point that some people come to associate the whole system with the name of the distribution. In the case of GNU, as I read it from the GNU website[^1], the concern seems to be less for the appreciation or accolades of receiving credit, and more for keeping alive the underpinning Free Software philosophy. [^1] https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html
Re: Why "GNU/Linux" is not accepted: an observation
* Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) <936-846-2...@kylheku.com> [2019-11-08 09:02]: > Of course even just a mildly sophisticated computer user knows that > a web browser or text editor isn't part of a single monolithic system > program, even if the pieces are all from Microsoft; users know that > there are numerous programs that are bundled together, which sit in > files and can be run independently. Mildly sophisticated computer users will know it for sure. GNU project shall promote or provide educational campaigns how to actually understand what is operating system, why it should be free software, and what are programs and software. Applications could be sponsored by FSF and promoted into app repositories such as F-Droid.org Average users, simple people who are computer users and not programmers, who are adults, who use computers mostly to write letters, invoices, emails and to watch videos on Internet, they rather tend not to know it. My impression is that they do not know what is what. Many have no proper idea what is "software". Browser is called "Google" for them even if they use Firefox. They are opening "Google" and even writing web addresses into Google search forms. No, we are not getting more awareness in computing but less. Users are used, and follow and do what is marketed on them. If anybody wish or can make Replicant or Android applications, I would be interested to see if I can sponsor the work, so that GNU Free Software app can teach users what is free software, provide them with articles and references to free system distributions, including the gratis support to install those operating systems. Jean
Re: Why "GNU/Linux" is not accepted: an observation
On 2019-11-07 14:36, Akira Urushibata wrote: The ordinary computer user who has been educated through Microsoft's marketing propaganda is likely to see the operating system as one entity. Note that the ordinary computer user of some BSD Unix variant also been thus "indoctrinated". The user space and kernel come from the same shop. In fact, the whole darn thing coming from one house is rather the rule than the exception, if we look at any computing era, any operating system. Everything from Multics to TempleOS. :) A typical GNU/Linux distribution include more than just GNU userland on top of Linux. It can be argued that the name GNU/Linux is incomplete and excludes contributions from other sources, the same way that Linux alone excludes GNU. I notice that even among IT specialists who write books and magazine articles for popular consumption there are people who hold this view. The problem with the term "GNU/Linux" is that it requires the understanding that the operation system is not one single program but rather a collection of programs with distinct functions. Of course even just a mildly sophisticated computer user knows that a web browser or text editor isn't part of a single monolithic system program, even if the pieces are all from Microsoft; users know that there are numerous programs that are bundled together, which sit in files and can be run independently. What some users perhaps don't understand is that in the case of GNU/Linux, the pieces come from all corners of the world, and are connected to different groups of people, some of whom don't necessarily identify so much with GNU/Linux. Their stuff is just used by distributions. Ideally, everyone should be credited, but that can't all fit into the name.
