Re: Creating an operating system with Linux but without GNU (was: Re: that old GNU/Linux argument)
On Tuesday 29 July 2008 17:28, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jul 28, 2008, Marko Vojinovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In the following paragraphs of that post, I used it to draw a silent > > parallel to the whole Linux vs GNU/Linux discussion. > > FWIW, classical/information doesn't make for such a parallel. It's > not the classical on top of the information; classical is not a noun, > it's an adjective to information. You'd just say "classical > information" and be done with it. That's how the English language > works. The slash is simply a bizzare syntax that I introduced just for kicks. You are completely right about the adjective and English. However, the parallel is actually between the classical/information "quest for change" and GNU/Linux "quest for change" being both equally sterile. They both may be technically correct, moral, the Right Thing and all, but most people will simply refuse to do it, for no specific reason at all. People are simply reluctant to change their default behavior if they are not forced to, ie. if they are happy with the current situation. Asking them to do the Right Thing (whatever it be) can have only partial success at best. Be happy if one out of a thousand people on this list changes his mind about the name of the [GNU/]Linux. The major effect these quests have on people is to say "oh, no, not again those GNU folks hyping about that damn stupid name, I have to filter out this thread" when they see someone mentioning GNU/Linux instead of Linux. Folks that use Fedora or any other [GNU/]Linux distro are in large number computer lovers and geeks. For them the name "Linux" is a symbol, a synonim for "being better and smarter than those stupid M$ Winblows users", a name that they grew up with and that they love. Renaming that, however morally correct, is just blasphemy for them, and will provoke the simple "I refuse" reaction. Just try to go to Los Angeles and ask people to rename their basketball team from "LA Lakers" to "NY/LA Lakers", for whatever reason you might come up with. Noone would even consider you seriously. "LA Lakers" is a legendary name, people are used to it and love it as it is, and would refuse to change it, on a completely irrational basis. Arguments, credits, quests, the Right Thing, whatever..., are a complete waste of time when confronted to such irrational behavior. The parallel to "classical/information" is quite simple --- no sane person would agree to append a mandatory adjective to such a frequent noun. And why? Well, there simply isn't an answer to "why" question --- they simply won't do it, and won't have a serious explanation if you ask them. In that sense, both "quests" are futile, in my opinion, and hence the parallel. Btw, this is not an argument, just my opinion. :-) > To make the point clear, let's try a thought experiment. Imagine that > some people are so fed up with "these threads" that they set out to > create an operating system built exclusively out of Free (Libre) and > Open Source software, but without any GNU software, to avoid any > claims GNUdists might have on it. [snip] > Now, of course they can use whatever name they like to name the > distribution (they picked cRocks), but what term would you use to best > describe the operating system on which it is based? [snip] > f) Other, please specify: I would probably use the most popular version of the name. That would be the first one I hear, first one I get used to, and the one that would be most probably understood by others when I try to communicate. Which of several names gets to become most popular? Other than "name sounds sooo cl" reasoning, it's mostly a game of chance. It doesn't really matter (to general public). > >> I do not see how not using GNU/Linux is a social injustice. I disagree. > > > > Neither do I, but Alexandre is talking about it in a number of > > posts. > > This is conflating two issues that are related, but not the same. > One thing is the social injustice promoted by non-Free Software. [snip] > Another thing is the name. Ah, yes, one shoud be careful to keep the distinction between the "freedom-for-software quest" and "change-to-GNU/Linux quest". Good call. :-) They are indeed related, but nevertheless distinct, as you say. Ok, well, to make it clear, whereever I have talked about "social injustice" in this thread in the GNU context, I meant the latter --- the "social injustice of the wrong name of Linux operating system". I have never actually discussed the "non-free-software social injustice", nor I intend to. Without knowing exactly the details about that "free-software-quest", I generally tend to agree with it and support the idea. I feel quite against not being able to share software with my friends and neighbors and so on. But I am getting OT here... :-) Best, :-) Marko -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedo
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
> In as much as you help the other side by adopting an unfair > name, it > is indeed in part your fault. You've become an > accomplice of this > unfairness. Okay, they are the ones who are wrong, but they are not free as you have pointed out. Maybe it is okay to call the projects Linux because they are non-free. For those that want to run truly free systems TRUE(GNU/Linux) may vistit http://www.fsfla.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-libre and download a free* kernel from http://www.fsfla.org/~lxoliva/fsfla/linux-libre/ This way the OS that they will be running will be the true GNU/Linux that you and other FSF promoters are asking. Ours is not a true GNU/Linux, because it contains BAD stuff that makes it nonfree, is that a valid conclusion? > > Linux Distributions include that and they call > themselves Linux > > Distributions not GNU/Linux Distributions with the > excepion of > > Debian GNU/Linux. > > That a lot of people insist in a mistake doesn't make > it right. Now I have an argument that makes it right. They are non-free they include stuff that is no-no from FSF. See top comment :) > > Debian is far from the only one who uses a fair name for > the distros, > or to describe it. Heck, there's even a commercial > distro in Brazil > called Insigne GNU/Linux, by Insigne Free Software do > Brasil. Cool, I did not know that :). I have only heard of Conectiva, which was bought out by Mandrake Soft and became Mandriva. I have heard of Kurumin and also of GoblinX, which is a sister distro of Slax, one of my favorites along with Fedora. There are others that have XP like qualities and also some based on Gentoo like Litrix as well :) > > > Yet your buddies still leech off Fedora and get their > guidelines off > > the Fedora site > > *blinks* What?!? How did you get the impression that any > such thing > happened? That Rahul, Spot and others worked along with > the FSF to > come up with those guidelines and to review licenses used > in Fedora > packages is nothing at all like the FSF just taking > Fedora's > guidelines. Heck, Fedora even conflicts with those > guidelines in > important ways, both in policy and package set. Why would > anyone say > Fedora is a Free distribution when it isn't? We were fooled :( Damn I was very convinced that Fedora followed all the rules, could you at least acknowledge that Fedora is 95% free or something along those lines. IT is not all that BAD is it? > > -- Regards, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Jul 28, 2008, Antonio Olivares <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > RMS is the one requesting this >> I am. He's not here. He's not even aware I'm doing this here. > But you are under his jurisdiction, He is the leader of the FSF/GNU. > He is obviously in command. He may very well be in command of something or someone, but he has no authority over me. I just happen to share and promote the goals of the Free Software movement, like he does. I learned a lot from him. But that doesn't put him in command as far as I'm concerned. > IT is not my FAULT that they have not succeeded or are not succeeding :( In as much as you help the other side by adopting an unfair name, it is indeed in part your fault. You've become an accomplice of this unfairness. > Only Debian and a few others have caved in to those requests. Not > even Ubuntu which is based on Debian call themselves Ubuntu > GNU/Linux is that an insult to the Debian and GNU camps? Fedora and Ubuntu are the full distro names. These names are fine, they don't demean GNU or promote Linux over GNU. Fedora Linux or Ubuntu Linux would have been unfair. Saying Fedora and Ubuntu are Linux distributions is unfair. And, worse than being unfair, these names don't help correct the social injustice that the Free Software movement and the GNU project were created to correct. >> Yeah, the kernel could have been named Freax. Then they'd have >> renamed the GNU operating system to Freaks. > Nope, by the arguments they would have named it GNU/Freaks in honor > of the GNU guys who deserve the credit too. That's what would have been the right thing to do. But they chose early on not to do the right thing, as history shows. >> And it's not GNU utilities. It's an operating >> system. > But GNU utilities exist in *BSD camps as well, and the name GNU/*BSD > is not used or required. Exactly. Because it's not about the GNU utilities, it's the GNU operating system. GNU utilities are a part of it, but far from all. > Linux Distributions include that and they call themselves Linux > Distributions not GNU/Linux Distributions with the excepion of > Debian GNU/Linux. That a lot of people insist in a mistake doesn't make it right. Debian is far from the only one who uses a fair name for the distros, or to describe it. Heck, there's even a commercial distro in Brazil called Insigne GNU/Linux, by Insigne Free Software do Brasil. > Fedora is not free as you have said so yourself. So I am not > running a free GNU/Linux distribution. Why should I say Fedora > GNU/Linux if it is not pure and it has bad stuff? http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#reserve > Yet your buddies still leech off Fedora and get their guidelines off > the Fedora site *blinks* What?!? How did you get the impression that any such thing happened? That Rahul, Spot and others worked along with the FSF to come up with those guidelines and to review licenses used in Fedora packages is nothing at all like the FSF just taking Fedora's guidelines. Heck, Fedora even conflicts with those guidelines in important ways, both in policy and package set. Why would anyone say Fedora is a Free distribution when it isn't? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Creating an operating system with Linux but without GNU (was: Re: that old GNU/Linux argument)
On Jul 28, 2008, Marko Vojinovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In the following paragraphs of that post, I used it to draw a silent > parallel to the whole Linux vs GNU/Linux discussion. FWIW, classical/information doesn't make for such a parallel. It's not the classical on top of the information; classical is not a noun, it's an adjective to information. You'd just say "classical information" and be done with it. That's how the English language works. Now, GNU/Linux or GNU+Linux is GNU on top of Linux, or GNU with Linux. It's not the GNU version of Linux. No such thing exists, although I guess Linux-libre might be thought of as such. To make the point clear, let's try a thought experiment. Imagine that some people are so fed up with "these threads" that they set out to create an operating system built exclusively out of Free (Libre) and Open Source software, but without any GNU software, to avoid any claims GNUdists might have on it. They're fond of Linux, for they helped write it, so they decide to use it as a kernel. They look around and see there are a number of BSD operating systems out there, so they decide to use the BSD userland to complete the operating system, taking bits and pieces from FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD. It takes some effort to port the lower-level libraries, init scripts and stuff, but eventually the thing boots up, runs a shell and it's announced to the world, with pointers to BSD ports systems and many pre-built ports of applications and servers that most people have come to expect from typical distros. Lucky for them, most of the ports build without change. Now, of course they can use whatever name they like to name the distribution (they picked cRocks), but what term would you use to best describe the operating system on which it is based? a) non-GNU/Linux, because *that* will show those FSF bastards! b) BSD/Linux, because that's what it is: BSD userland with Linux kernel c) cRocks, because that's the (funny) name of the distro, and this makes for a great recursive definition: cRocks is a cRocks-based distribution... d) BSD, because that's where most of the software came from, and it's the most user-visible component e) Linux, because I like this name so much, and I don't care that Linux is just a kernel, a small piece of the puzzle. I just want it to be Linux, dammit, and you BSD people are full of sh*t, shut up and go preach to your own choir, we're only interested in your software, and it's your own fault that you expected us to be reasonable and fair, rather than demanding in your license that we give you the due credit! :-) f) Other, please specify: >> I do not see how not using GNU/Linux is a social injustice. I disagree. > Neither do I, but Alexandre is talking about it in a number of > posts. This is conflating two issues that are related, but not the same. One thing is the social injustice promoted by non-Free Software. That's what the Free Software movement, started along with the GNU project, fights, with its ethical, moral and social values and its approach in educating users to value their freedom and reject software that doesn't respect it. Another thing is the name. Linux doesn't promote or endorse this philosophy. GNU does. By naming the GNU system combined with Linux as Linux, you promote only the philosophy that wants to hide the GNU philosophy. You do nothing to address the social injustice that the GNU software was created to oppose, and you instead promote values that accept and often go even as far as endorsing and recommending software that is at the root of this social injustice. OTOH, by referring to the OS as GNU/Linux, you help spread the Free Software philosophy, such that more people become aware of it. At least some of them will identify themselves with these values, which will ultimately help correct the social injustice. Now, maybe there's some resemblance to this to your suggestion about clearly labeling "classical information", but I don't see it. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
Alexandre Oliva wrote: GNU is a radical political movement. Putting the name next to Linux makes it seem as though Linus himself endorses the movement. But that's rather dishonest, given that Linus has always stayed away from such political zealotry. So I added a +1) and sent it in. So it would be dishonest to retain the name of the system that Linus chose to use along with his kernel because of imaginary concerns that he himself waved away when he said he didn't care if it was called GNU/Linux, but it's honest to rename it to something that makes it harder for the software to achieve its goal, and denies credit to its authors while at that? Double standards? If Linus was concerned about having the GNU name next to Linux, he wouldn't have oked the name. If he was concerned about distancing himself from GNU, he might as well have kept a distance from all that GNU software. That argument doesn't hold even ice, let alone water :-) He just seems like such a nice guy and it is wrong to take advantage of his agreeable nature to make it incorrectly appear that he supports the radical political zealotry. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Monday 28 July 2008 19:06, Antonio Olivares wrote: > > Hey, how about me starting a quest here? :-) > > > > When you say "information" above, you actually > > mean "classical information", > > as opposed to quantum information, which does not possess > > the property of > > copying (this famous property is called the no-cloning > > theorem). > > quantum as opposed to classical, I do not see what is the connection? Ok, the theorem states that quantum information cannot be cloned (ie. copied) as the classical one can. This in the sense that if you try to make an identical copy of some quantum information, you destroy the original in the process. Some people tend to describe this as "quantum teleportation" of information --- it dissapears here, it appears there. Now, in the part that I quoted, Gordon Messmer was talking about copying information. I started nitpicking (quite unjustifiedly), and emphasized that he should be talking about information of classical type, not information in general (as this would incorrectly include the quantum case). While technically correct, this comment of mine was just nitpicking beyond any sanity. In the following paragraphs of that post, I used it to draw a silent parallel to the whole Linux vs GNU/Linux discussion. // Don't worry, I believe that 99.99% of people on this planet know absolutely nothing about quantum information --- and of course I was not serious about trying to educate anyone on this, nor to start a QSJ (Quest for Social Justice) or a thread regarding it. // But really, was it really neccessary to include tags at the beginning and the end of my post? I thought it would be obvious... ;-) > I do not see how not using GNU/Linux is a social injustice. I disagree. Neither do I, but Alexandre is talking about it in a number of posts. I just wanted to tag along and define a YASI (Yet Another Social Injustice) by turning attention to classical vs. quantum information. ;-) And then "try" to engage in a completely analogous discussion that has been here in this thread so far. The point was to show how stupid such quests are in general, and the "GNU/Linux" one in particular. ;-) > Can your thread far exceed this one? I will not dare you to do it, but I > think it is not needed. If you decide to create it, may people might > ignore it and/or *block it*. This does not help either cause. Precisely! Tell that to Alexandre and other pro-GNU vocals. That is actually my very point. Btw, if you (or anyone) try hard enough to disprove my "quest" for changing the word "information" into "classical/information" everywhere it appears, I guarantee that together we can make a thread big beyond any imagination. :-) It's simple --- I say that the switch to "classical/information" should be made, because it is social injustice not to; than you reply that it should not be; then I reply that it should, and present some arguments, quote some papers etc.; then you disagree, and present counter-arguments; but I am tough opponent, and I disprove your arguments, and present new ones; but you are also tough and you invent new arguments --- and so on, I believe you get the picture... ;-) We could easily aim to get into the Guinnes Book of Records for the insanely high number of posts arguing that way. :-) > > P.S. I certainly hope that everyone gets the true point of > > this post, because otherwise... ;-) You missed to see this disclaimer, really? ;-) Best, :-) Marko -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Jul 29, 2008, Antonio Olivares <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you ever come to the US close to the border with Mexico, I went to San Diego some 9 years ago, to speak at a Usenix conference. Is that the location you're speaking of? > I would invite to a couple of beers :) I'd pass the beer, but I'd enjoy the company :-) Thanks, > I might seem like a bad person, because I question many things. Questioning is actually a good trait, but some people indeed mistake that for a bad one. > Many people do not like me because they say that I am a rebel > without a cause. They must have some hidden reason to put such a label on you :-) > I am sorry but I happen to like the Linux name very much. At school > they call me the Linux Man/Linux Dude. Hey, people do that to me, too. I promptly correct that, and if I get a blank stare, I know I have work to do :-) > IT will be very hard to convince them to call me GNU/Linux man. You could try, but even if you don't succeed, it would be very important that *you* used it, because you're a role model to them. > I believe Les has a very strong point when he wrote: >> GNU is a radical political movement. Putting the name next to >> Linux makes it seem as though Linus himself endorses the movement. >> But that's rather dishonest, given that Linus has always stayed >> away from such political zealotry. > So I added a +1) and sent it in. So it would be dishonest to retain the name of the system that Linus chose to use along with his kernel because of imaginary concerns that he himself waved away when he said he didn't care if it was called GNU/Linux, but it's honest to rename it to something that makes it harder for the software to achieve its goal, and denies credit to its authors while at that? Double standards? If Linus was concerned about having the GNU name next to Linux, he wouldn't have oked the name. If he was concerned about distancing himself from GNU, he might as well have kept a distance from all that GNU software. That argument doesn't hold even ice, let alone water :-) > Similarly I agree with many things from the FSF, I do believe in the > ideas that software be free and made available to all. What I do > not believe is in the approach that they take. I also do not agree > to certain things about the Free and Open Source licenses. We can get back to that one or two months from now :-) Please Cc: me explicitly when you want to start talking about these.a > It creates a great deal of confusion that many users on this list > and creators of softwares are not excited about dealing with the > FSF. The confusion is created mostly by spreaders of FUD. The best way to deal with it is to educate people as to the facts, which ends up exposing and denouncing the FUD. > But you have opened my eyes in some ways. While I do not agree with > you 100% of the way, I have learned many things that I did not know > before :) Good. (part of the) mission accomplished :-) Best, -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 14:05 +, Marko Vojinovic wrote: > Come on folks, what do you say? Is anyone willing to co-found a non-profit > organization with me for this cause? I apel on your morality, ethics and a > feeling on what is the Right Thing here. Just use your quantum intentionality and none of this happened! While you're at it, would you also add trolley cars to your intentionality so gas could be cheap again?? You physicists can do it! Ric -- My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say: "There are two Great Sins in the world... ..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity. Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad. Linux user# 44256 Sign up at: http://counter.li.org/ http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/oar https://oar.dev.java.net/ Verizon Cell # 336-254-1339 - -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
> >> > personal attack because we do not agree with > your purist ways. > >> > >> Purist? Who's the one denying that it's > not a combination of GNU > >> with Linux, but rather pure Linux? :-) > > > I did not say pure Linux. You are putting words* that > I did not write here. > > Note the :-). /me makes jokes, too. Cool :) I did not catch that one! > > > I am only resenting that name be forced when I simply > know the > > system as a Linux system or Linux Operating System. > > I just don't understand why you resent the messager, > rather than those > who fooled you for all these years. > I do not have any hate towards you. I actually like you. If you ever come to the US close to the border with Mexico, I would invite to a couple of beers :) I do not hate anyone. I might seem like a bad person, because I question many things. Many people do not like me because they say that I am a rebel without a cause. > > Think of it this way: if you keep on calling the operating > system > Linux, you not only keep on strenghtening the movement > against the > fundamental ideals of software freedom, you also deny those > who > believe the name you choose and what it implies an > opportunity to > learn about both movements and make up their own minds. > You bias them > against software freedom. I am sorry but I happen to like the Linux name very much. At school they call me the Linux Man/Linux Dude. IT will be very hard to convince them to call me GNU/Linux man. Some of the people say that I am a radical and that I should have lived in the 60's when many social movements began in the US. > You bias them against software freedom. Not necessarily, I believe Les has a very strong point when he wrote: > GNU is a radical political movement. Putting the name next > to Linux > makes it seem as though Linus himself endorses the > movement. But that's > rather dishonest, given that Linus has always stayed away > from such > political zealotry. So I added a +1) and sent it in. Similarly I agree with many things from the FSF, I do believe in the ideas that software be free and made available to all. What I do not believe is in the approach that they take. I also do not agree to certain things about the Free and Open Source licenses. It creates a great deal of confusion that many users on this list and creators of softwares are not excited about dealing with the FSF. I make comparisons to the Bible. I like the old Testament, I do not like the New Testament too much. I have to pick and choose what I like. I do not like everything. I liked it in the old testament when someone disobeyed, he/she was punished on the spot. The new testament lets the oppressors last longer till they pay. > > If that's what you want to accomplish, nothing I could > say or ask > would change it. But you have opened my eyes in some ways. While I do not agree with you 100% of the way, I have learned many things that I did not know before :) > > But if you believe in letting people learn, think and > decide for > themselves, This is the right way :) > rather than censoring information some > opponents of the > Free Software movement want to hide from them to keep them > in > ignorance and stop them from pursuing freedom, pretty > please make the > tiny effort it takes to get used to naming the system > GNU+Linux or > GNU/Linux. +1 > > -- Regards, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Mon July 28 2008 3:34:28 pm Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > Although you seem to remember quite well the date, you don't seem to > remember the content. > > For your convenience: > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2008-July/msg01977.html > > Now I may be obtuse since english is not my native tongue, but I > understood that he was just biting the bait sent by that troll "Morton > Harrow" who cross posted with some "GNU GPL 4" bullshit. Despite your 'eloquence', I did revisit this. What I see is a post by Stallman in response to Harrow, which was cc'd to multiple lists and individuals, for whatever reason. What you folks who are so wrapped in your evangelism don't see, is how easy it was to see that Stallman post come in that day, which I still have in my email folder (no 'remembering' necessary), and think this was just another way of posting to the 'endless thread' you (that's the collective that have participated in the thread, not YOU personally) have ventured far afield from the original issue, have changed the subject several times, and have talked about many things I stand by what I stated, though freely admitting I may have been wrong about Stallman's post (though, I don't see that as proven by my review, OR, your assertions). You 'evangelists' have been hovering over your keyboards for many days, your fingers superglued to the enter key, pouncing over every thing that's said, in what has now turned into a most irritating rudeness and lack of semblance of civility. I have no power to moderate you off this list, and actually, I don't even wish to, but, like you, I can state my views...and now, having stated them, I shall say no more to feed this - you may have the last word. -- Claude Jones -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Jul 28, 2008, Antonio Olivares <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You had been quiet for all these years :) Mostly, indeed. > What triggered the awakening of a sleeping GNU/Linux GIANT? I had been involved in the conversations about the Free Software Distribution Guidelines on both capacities as Free Software activist at FSFLA and as Fedora user/irrelevant developer. I answered the initial question, and one thing led to another. It certainly fed the fire that I'd been talking to Les Mikesell about his misunderstanding of the GPL on fedora-devel. I've been more active in other Fedora lists, just not so much on the Fedora users' list. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Jul 28, 2008, Antonio Olivares <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > personal attack because we do not agree with your purist ways. >> >> Purist? Who's the one denying that it's not a combination of GNU >> with Linux, but rather pure Linux? :-) > I did not say pure Linux. You are putting words* that I did not write here. Note the :-). /me makes jokes, too. > I am only resenting that name be forced when I simply know the > system as a Linux system or Linux Operating System. I just don't understand why you resent the messager, rather than those who fooled you for all these years. Think of it this way: if you keep on calling the operating system Linux, you not only keep on strenghtening the movement against the fundamental ideals of software freedom, you also deny those who believe the name you choose and what it implies an opportunity to learn about both movements and make up their own minds. You bias them against software freedom. If that's what you want to accomplish, nothing I could say or ask would change it. But if you believe in letting people learn, think and decide for themselves, rather than censoring information some opponents of the Free Software movement want to hide from them to keep them in ignorance and stop them from pursuing freedom, pretty please make the tiny effort it takes to get used to naming the system GNU+Linux or GNU/Linux. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
> > personal attack because we do not agree with your > purist ways. > > Purist? Who's the one denying that it's not a > combination of GNU with > Linux, but rather pure Linux? :-) > > -- I am not denying that it is GNU/Linux, I am only resenting that name be forced when I simply know the system as a Linux system or Linux Operating System. I did not say pure Linux. You are putting words* that I did not write here. Regards, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Jul 28, 2008, Marko Vojinovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Monday 28 July 2008 16:56, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> And it's not GNU utilities. It's an operating system. If it was just >> "the GNU utilities", you might be right. > GNU is *not* an operating system. An operating system must have a kernel as > its part. GNU does not, so it is not an operating system. It does, so it is. Hurd is its kernel, it is part of the GNU operating system. See how the GNU project makes the distro with the Hurd kernel available: it's under `gnu', not under `gnu+hurd' or any such nonsense. GNU/Linux is another operating system. Its kernel is Linux. It is nearly identical to the GNU[/Hurd] operating system, except for the small kernel. > So stop promoting GNU as an operating system. It is intended to be one, but > never made it on its own. It is a tried-and-failed-to-be-operating-system. Everyone who uses GNU on top of Linux would disagree if only they knew that it was the GNU operating system they were using, and Linux was just the kernel that replaced the Hurd. > GNU within Fedora (or any Linux distro) is *not* an operating system. > It is only a part of an os. GNU+Linux makes for an operating system. Linux by itself doesn't. So how does your argument support calling the operating system Linux, rather than GNU+Linux? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
> > Mr. Stallman posted to this list on the 17th, > > He followed up on an e-mail sent directly to him, copying > every other > recipient of the message in his response. What does this > prove? > > > I've been a member of this list for five years, > yet, I wouldn't be > > surprised if you have exceeded my total posts in your > short time > > here... > > I've been a member of this list since the Fedora > project was launched. > I was on Red Hat [GNU/]Linux lists before it was renamed to > Fedora. > Not that how long I've been around makes any > difference... > > -- You had been quiet for all these years :) What triggered the awakening of a sleeping GNU/Linux GIANT? Regards, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ uname -o > > GNU/Linux > > > That should be enough. > > Enough for what? To send this thread to where it belong ==> /dev/null. Is it not that what you want? or do you still want more than that? It is hard coded into the system ==> GNU/Linux. But you have confirmed that the system is "not pure" I am sorry for arguing here back and forth. I appreciate what you are trying to do, *in a good way*, but I simply do not fully agree with you in the naming of the Linux Operating system ==> GNU/Linux. It has been argued many times, yet it proves nothing. You will not win the argument. You can get more people to your side, but whatever you earn you loose back. Why? Because you insult Fedora. You get the Free Software definitions from Fedora Project and define some distributions to be Free and you do not include Fedora, which is mostly free and others that have questionable stuff still make the grade. Regards, Antonio > > -- -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Jul 28, 2008, Antonio Olivares <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > personal attack because we do not agree with your purist ways. Purist? Who's the one denying that it's not a combination of GNU with Linux, but rather pure Linux? :-) -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Jul 28, 2008, Claude Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mr. Stallman posted to this list on the 17th, He followed up on an e-mail sent directly to him, copying every other recipient of the message in his response. What does this prove? > I've been a member of this list for five years, yet, I wouldn't be > surprised if you have exceeded my total posts in your short time > here... I've been a member of this list since the Fedora project was launched. I was on Red Hat [GNU/]Linux lists before it was renamed to Fedora. Not that how long I've been around makes any difference... -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Jul 28, 2008, Antonio Olivares <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ uname -o > GNU/Linux > That should be enough. Enough for what? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Jul 28, 2008, Antonio Olivares <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > You know I really don't care what you call it, but >> I do care that you are >> > systematically driving people away from free software. >> >> Away from Free Software or away from Fedora and Linux, that > ^ > ^ Do you really mean Linux Of course. That's the name of the kernel I'm referring to. > I thought you were pushing for GNU/Linux. That's what I use to refer to the combination of the GNU operating system with the kernel Linux. > Are you conceding your position? *sigh* It feels like you didn't read a word that I wrote :-( >> are both non-Free Software, and vocally not interested in being >> Free Software? > That is not the purpose of the Fedora Project. The first archived copy of the Fedora Project web page begs to disagree: http://web.archive.org/web/20030923215031/http://fedora.redhat.com/ The goal of The Fedora Project is to work with the Linux community to build a complete, general purpose operating system exclusively from free software. Everytime a piece of non-Free Software is added, regardless of the excuse, it becomes more distant from its original goal. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Monday 28 July 2008 16:56, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > And it's not GNU utilities. It's an operating system. If it was just > "the GNU utilities", you might be right. GNU is *not* an operating system. An operating system must have a kernel as its part. GNU does not, so it is not an operating system. GNU/Hurd is an operating system, but than that is neither Fedora nor Linux. So stop promoting GNU as an operating system. It is intended to be one, but never made it on its own. It is a tried-and-failed-to-be-operating-system. You cannot convince anyone that there can be an operating system without a kernel. GNU within Fedora (or any Linux distro) is *not* an operating system. It is only a part of an os. Best, :-) Marko -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
> Guess what the following line means for you. For me it > means bliss :) Whatever that is. I do not know. > > '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' => 14, > > Rui > > -- Rui, Alexandre, et. all. If I insulted any of you, I am sorry, but not that I concede defeat or accept your triumph. Name calling and insulting what you have a right to feel are uncalled for. Can we be friends? All this thread was waste space and no one wins in the end. People are indeed worried about this and have proposed other lists, that are unnecessary. Eventually, crap makes its way into the list and other lists as well. It is unfortunate that there can no true good come out of this. Yes, we had the heated arguments that eventually led to /dev/null and nowhere else. I agree with Anne and others that have posted that the list has become 95% chat and 5% help. I am sorry for contributing to that 95% . # rm -rf /bin/hate # rm -rf /bin/greed # rm -rf /bin/evil # rm -rf /bin/laden Yes, Linux and GNU/Linux are both good names and deserving of each other. Peace Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 01:21:30PM -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote: > Do not decide for anyone! They should make the call. If they > decide to respond to something I or anybody else commented, it is > their call not yours. Or are you a puppet? > Your arguments are religious as well, and who is questioning you? > I see no one complains about your elitist attitude :( Guess what the following line means for you. For me it means bliss :) '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' => 14, Rui -- All Hail Discordia! Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 63rd day of Confusion in the YOLD 3174 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
> > > I too am beginning to chafe. You have not only > become > > > tiresome, > > > but, you are also not entirely credible; Mr. > Stallman > > > posted to > > > this list on the 17th, conveniently starting a > new thread > > > which > > > to all appearance was in response to this endless > > > discussion, and > > > if you are claiming that you are unaware of that > fact, > > > then, you > > > just completely lost me...you can't employ > small > > > prevarications > > > in the cause of great truths - it's the price > you pay > > > if you > > > choose to mix metaphors and call what it is > you're > > > doing here, > > > "evangelizing"... > > > > Claude, > > > > here's the proof that on 17th Day of June, 2008 > RMS posted this > > > > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2008-July/msg01977.html > > The only proof that is, is of a quite acute case of trying > to fit > facts to imagination. You posted the same link here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2008-July/msg03888.html > > Anyone who reads that link: > a) sees Stallman didn't "start" any thread who cares if he wrote it or not, it is there and can be proven and confirmed by your link. > b) sees the content is not related to "GNU/Linux vs > Linux" naming > but to a fake GPL4 GPL is also being discussed here. $ uname -o GNU/Linux is engraved already. Cannot be removed other than with a trick using sed. This is irrelevant in the GPL case. > c) sees that you're trying hard for people to believe > it's proof > just because it's a link and don't follow it to > verify You posted it also, how is it different from the one I posted? > d) then concludes something fishy is going on with your > intentions. How about your intentions? You also insulted Claude because he wrote to this thread. How does that compare. Not because people do not agree with you, you have no right to insult them! Then when people question you, you pull out the Netiquette crap. You are the one that should begin by looking at it yourself. > > Rui > > -- Regards, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
> > > Actually, that's the BSD maintainers's > choice, > > > dictated by irrational hate[1] > > > of the GNU GPL. > > > > > > [1] at least from some, extremely rude and > hypocrit, folks. > > > > > > Now, I join other calls to stop this endless > discussion. > > > Les Mikesell or > > > Antonio Olivares aren't worth it, Alex. > > > > > > You are very much worth it! What makes you any better > than me > > or Les Mikesell? > > Nothing, but I'm not talking about me being > "better", but of you not > being worth the most valuable time of people like Alexandre > Oliva or > Alan Cox. Do not decide for anyone! They should make the call. If they decide to respond to something I or anybody else commented, it is their call not yours. Or are you a puppet? > > > This has nothing to do with the discussion, > > but more of a personal attack because we do not agree > with your > > purist ways. You are not even pure yourself. Only > one was pure > > and that was Jesus Christ. > > Well, I'm certainly not going to argue against someone > who uses religion > as an argument :) Your arguments are religious as well, and who is questioning you? I see no one complains about your elitist attitude :( > > Rui > > -- Regards, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 12:35:24PM -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote: > --- On Mon, 7/28/08, Claude Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > From: Claude Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > I too am beginning to chafe. You have not only become > > tiresome, > > but, you are also not entirely credible; Mr. Stallman > > posted to > > this list on the 17th, conveniently starting a new thread > > which > > to all appearance was in response to this endless > > discussion, and > > if you are claiming that you are unaware of that fact, > > then, you > > just completely lost me...you can't employ small > > prevarications > > in the cause of great truths - it's the price you pay > > if you > > choose to mix metaphors and call what it is you're > > doing here, > > "evangelizing"... > > Claude, > > here's the proof that on 17th Day of June, 2008 RMS posted this > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2008-July/msg01977.html The only proof that is, is of a quite acute case of trying to fit facts to imagination. Anyone who reads that link: a) sees Stallman didn't "start" any thread b) sees the content is not related to "GNU/Linux vs Linux" naming but to a fake GPL4 c) sees that you're trying hard for people to believe it's proof just because it's a link and don't follow it to verify d) then concludes something fishy is going on with your intentions. Rui -- Hail Eris, Hack GNU/Linux! Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 63rd day of Confusion in the YOLD 3174 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 12:33:12PM -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote: > > From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: that old GNU/Linux argument > > To: "For users of Fedora" > > Date: Monday, July 28, 2008, 12:25 PM > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 01:41:36PM -0500, Les Mikesell > > wrote: > > > Antonio Olivares wrote: > > >> But GNU utilities exist in *BSD camps as well, and > > the name GNU/*BSD is > > >> not used or required. A page explains that since > > Linux Distributions > > >> are more popular than *BSD distributions, it makes > > much more sense to > > >> attach to a more successful project. > > > > > > Not to the same extent. The BSD's maintain their > > own versions of the c > > > library and most userland tools so as to provide > > everyone with > > > unrestricted copies in yet another waste of time and > > effort dictated by > > > the GPL. > > > > Actually, that's the BSD maintainers's choice, > > dictated by irrational hate[1] > > of the GNU GPL. > > > > [1] at least from some, extremely rude and hypocrit, folks. > > > > Now, I join other calls to stop this endless discussion. > > Les Mikesell or > > Antonio Olivares aren't worth it, Alex. > > > You are very much worth it! What makes you any better than me > or Les Mikesell? Nothing, but I'm not talking about me being "better", but of you not being worth the most valuable time of people like Alexandre Oliva or Alan Cox. > This has nothing to do with the discussion, > but more of a personal attack because we do not agree with your > purist ways. You are not even pure yourself. Only one was pure > and that was Jesus Christ. Well, I'm certainly not going to argue against someone who uses religion as an argument :) Rui -- Grudnuk demand sustenance! Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 63rd day of Confusion in the YOLD 3174 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Mon July 28 2008 3:34:28 pm Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > I'd even wager that the mailing list moderator approved his > post and that he's not really subscribed to fedora-list (I > doubt he would care about Fedora that much). > > So, no stirring things up, no puppet mastering no "evil" > mastermind (whatsoever you seem see). I'll bet you think you really showed me... -- Claude Jones Levit & James, Inc. Leesburg, VA 703-771-1549 -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
--- On Mon, 7/28/08, Claude Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Claude Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: that old GNU/Linux argument > To: "For users of Fedora" > Date: Monday, July 28, 2008, 12:19 PM > On Mon July 28 2008 12:56:17 pm Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >> On Jul 28, 2008, Antonio Olivares > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> RMS is the one requesting this > > I am. He's not here. He's not even aware > I'm doing this > > here. > > I too am beginning to chafe. You have not only become > tiresome, > but, you are also not entirely credible; Mr. Stallman > posted to > this list on the 17th, conveniently starting a new thread > which > to all appearance was in response to this endless > discussion, and > if you are claiming that you are unaware of that fact, > then, you > just completely lost me...you can't employ small > prevarications > in the cause of great truths - it's the price you pay > if you > choose to mix metaphors and call what it is you're > doing here, > "evangelizing"... > > Like many others, I've followed this discussion with > interest at > times, but, it has now reached the point of silliness. > I've been > a member of this list for five years, yet, I wouldn't > be > surprised if you have exceeded my total posts in your short > time > here... > > -- Claude, here's the proof that on 17th Day of June, 2008 RMS posted this https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2008-July/msg01977.html Regards, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 03:19:22PM -0400, Claude Jones wrote: > On Mon July 28 2008 12:56:17 pm Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >> On Jul 28, 2008, Antonio Olivares <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> RMS is the one requesting this > > I am. He's not here. He's not even aware I'm doing this > > here. > > I too am beginning to chafe. You have not only become tiresome, > but, you are also not entirely credible; Mr. Stallman posted to > this list on the 17th, conveniently starting a new thread which > to all appearance was in response to this endless discussion, Although you seem to remember quite well the date, you don't seem to remember the content. For your convenience: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2008-July/msg01977.html Now I may be obtuse since english is not my native tongue, but I understood that he was just biting the bait sent by that troll "Morton Harrow" who cross posted with some "GNU GPL 4" bullshit. I'd even wager that the mailing list moderator approved his post and that he's not really subscribed to fedora-list (I doubt he would care about Fedora that much). So, no stirring things up, no puppet mastering no "evil" mastermind (whatsoever you seem see). Rui -- Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 63rd day of Confusion in the YOLD 3174 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
> From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: that old GNU/Linux argument > To: "For users of Fedora" > Date: Monday, July 28, 2008, 12:25 PM > On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 01:41:36PM -0500, Les Mikesell > wrote: > > Antonio Olivares wrote: > >> But GNU utilities exist in *BSD camps as well, and > the name GNU/*BSD is > >> not used or required. A page explains that since > Linux Distributions > >> are more popular than *BSD distributions, it makes > much more sense to > >> attach to a more successful project. > > > > Not to the same extent. The BSD's maintain their > own versions of the c > > library and most userland tools so as to provide > everyone with > > unrestricted copies in yet another waste of time and > effort dictated by > > the GPL. > > Actually, that's the BSD maintainers's choice, > dictated by irrational hate[1] > of the GNU GPL. > > [1] at least from some, extremely rude and hypocrit, folks. > > Now, I join other calls to stop this endless discussion. > Les Mikesell or > Antonio Olivares aren't worth it, Alex. You are very much worth it! What makes you any better than me or Les Mikesell? This has nothing to do with the discussion, but more of a personal attack because we do not agree with your purist ways. You are not even pure yourself. Only one was pure and that was Jesus Christ. > > Rui > > -- -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 01:41:36PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > Antonio Olivares wrote: >> But GNU utilities exist in *BSD camps as well, and the name GNU/*BSD is >> not used or required. A page explains that since Linux Distributions >> are more popular than *BSD distributions, it makes much more sense to >> attach to a more successful project. > > Not to the same extent. The BSD's maintain their own versions of the c > library and most userland tools so as to provide everyone with > unrestricted copies in yet another waste of time and effort dictated by > the GPL. Actually, that's the BSD maintainers's choice, dictated by irrational hate[1] of the GNU GPL. [1] at least from some, extremely rude and hypocrit, folks. Now, I join other calls to stop this endless discussion. Les Mikesell or Antonio Olivares aren't worth it, Alex. Rui -- Umlaut Zebra �ber alles! Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 63rd day of Confusion in the YOLD 3174 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
Antonio Olivares wrote:
The right thing for me to do is to {sHuT ThE HeLl up}* as many people are ***very pissed off***, It is hard for me to do that * because I really enjoy reading the comments by all the members who have posted. I would like to remain on the sidelines and come in to the field of play when called. If someone calls me, I'll come back.
Regards,
Antonio
Fair enough but I don't recall the purpose of this list being your
personal amusement.
Of course, I could be wrong. It may be buried in the terms and
conditions somewhere but I don't think I'll even check that.
This is not a call.
--jc
--
fedora-list mailing list
[email protected]
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Mon July 28 2008 12:56:17 pm Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On Jul 28, 2008, Antonio Olivares <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> RMS is the one requesting this > I am. He's not here. He's not even aware I'm doing this > here. I too am beginning to chafe. You have not only become tiresome, but, you are also not entirely credible; Mr. Stallman posted to this list on the 17th, conveniently starting a new thread which to all appearance was in response to this endless discussion, and if you are claiming that you are unaware of that fact, then, you just completely lost me...you can't employ small prevarications in the cause of great truths - it's the price you pay if you choose to mix metaphors and call what it is you're doing here, "evangelizing"... Like many others, I've followed this discussion with interest at times, but, it has now reached the point of silliness. I've been a member of this list for five years, yet, I wouldn't be surprised if you have exceeded my total posts in your short time here... -- Claude Jones Levit & James, Inc. Leesburg, VA 703-771-1549 -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
> Hey, how about me starting a quest here? :-)
>
> When you say "information" above, you actually
> mean "classical information",
> as opposed to quantum information, which does not possess
> the property of
> copying (this famous property is called the no-cloning
> theorem).
quantum as opposed to classical, I do not see what is the connection?
>
> So you should certainly agree that we should all support
> the movement that in
> all books, media and language on the planet, word
> "information" be
> substituted with "classical/information", in
> order to emphasize the
> distinction from quantum/information, and thus give
> appropriate credit to all
> those hard-working quantum physicists who taught us that
> there is a
> difference in such an important notion?
>
> So please, whereever it appears from now on, write and say
> classical/information and GNU/Linux, instead of information
> and Linux. It is
> social injustice to do the latter. We need to educate the
> ignorant general
> public about these things.
>
I am not sure what you mean by classical information as opposed to information
here. Can you be more specific?
>
> How about it? It is a proper and moral thing to do!
> We'll feel better doing
> it, and when we look back at our lives, we'll see that
> we did our best to
> straighten up not one, but two big social injustices on
> this planet. ;-)
I do not see how not using GNU/Linux is a social injustice. I disagree. It is
already hard coded into many Linux distributions.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ uname -o
GNU/Linux
That should be enough. Nobody is being hurt, no one is losing money, or
sleep(Maybe RMS does not sleep well because people do not use GNU/Linux when
referring to your OS of choice), or not having a thing to eat because the
people do not use the GNU/ Tag to Linux. People like to use the name Linux,
and whether it is morally right or wrong I respect both sides. Still to force
the tag it along the GNU part to the Linux part. It is already there!
>
> Of course, if anyone tries to disagree, I have very strong
> arguments of
> persuasion (remember, I'm a physicist, I know some
> about this quantum stuff),
> and am willing to create a thread of magnitude so far
> unseen on Fedora list
> (or any list). And it wouldn't be off-topic, because
> the same quest is both
> about classical/information and GNU/Linux, so it is
> relevant.
Can your thread far exceed this one? I will not dare you to do it, but I think
it is not needed. If you decide to create it, may people might ignore it
and/or *block it*. This does not help either cause.
>
> Come on folks, what do you say? Is anyone willing to
> co-found a non-profit
> organization with me for this cause? I apel on your
> morality, ethics and a
> feeling on what is the Right Thing here.
>
The right thing for me to do is to {sHuT ThE HeLl up}* as many people are
***very pissed off***, It is hard for me to do that * because I really enjoy
reading the comments by all the members who have posted. I would like to
remain on the sidelines and come in to the field of play when called. If
someone calls me, I'll come back.
Regards,
Antonio
>
> Best, :-)
> Marko
>
> P.S. I certainly hope that everyone gets the true point of
> this post, because
> otherwise... ;-)
>
> --
--
fedora-list mailing list
[email protected]
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Monday 28 July 2008 04:06, Gordon Messmer wrote: > Antonio Olivares wrote: > It's a huge mistake to create analogies between information and property. > > If the cow were software, you and I could both milk it. It would never > run out. That's the way information works: you copy it and the original > is left intact. Hey, how about me starting a quest here? :-) When you say "information" above, you actually mean "classical information", as opposed to quantum information, which does not possess the property of copying (this famous property is called the no-cloning theorem). So you should certainly agree that we should all support the movement that in all books, media and language on the planet, word "information" be substituted with "classical/information", in order to emphasize the distinction from quantum/information, and thus give appropriate credit to all those hard-working quantum physicists who taught us that there is a difference in such an important notion? So please, whereever it appears from now on, write and say classical/information and GNU/Linux, instead of information and Linux. It is social injustice to do the latter. We need to educate the ignorant general public about these things. How about it? It is a proper and moral thing to do! We'll feel better doing it, and when we look back at our lives, we'll see that we did our best to straighten up not one, but two big social injustices on this planet. ;-) Of course, if anyone tries to disagree, I have very strong arguments of persuasion (remember, I'm a physicist, I know some about this quantum stuff), and am willing to create a thread of magnitude so far unseen on Fedora list (or any list). And it wouldn't be off-topic, because the same quest is both about classical/information and GNU/Linux, so it is relevant. Come on folks, what do you say? Is anyone willing to co-found a non-profit organization with me for this cause? I apel on your morality, ethics and a feeling on what is the Right Thing here. Best, :-) Marko P.S. I certainly hope that everyone gets the true point of this post, because otherwise... ;-) -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
> > You know I really don't care what you call it, but > I do care that you are > > systematically driving people away from free software. > > Away from Free Software or away from Fedora and Linux, that ^ ^ Do you really mean Linux, I thought you were pushing for GNU/Linux. This seems strange. Are you conceding your position? > > are both > non-Free Software, and vocally not interested in being Free > Software? That is not the purpose of the Fedora Project. >From Distrowatch.com Link to Fedora page: The Fedora Project is an openly-developed project designed by Red Hat, open for general participation, led by a meritocracy, following a set of project objectives. The goal of The Fedora Project is to work with the Linux community to build a complete, general purpose operating system exclusively from open source software. Development will be done in a public forum. The project will produce time-based releases of Fedora about 2-3 times a year, with a public release schedule. The Red Hat engineering team will continue to participate in building Fedora and will invite and encourage more outside participation than in past releases. By using this more open process, we hope to provide an operating system more in line with the ideals of free software and more appealing to the open source community. ideals of free software and more appealing to the open source community. > > -- According to those very definitions that are copied off/ripped off the Fedora Project and used for your own agenda and convenience. Regards, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
Antonio Olivares wrote: But GNU utilities exist in *BSD camps as well, and the name GNU/*BSD is not used or required. A page explains that since Linux Distributions are more popular than *BSD distributions, it makes much more sense to attach to a more successful project. Not to the same extent. The BSD's maintain their own versions of the c library and most userland tools so as to provide everyone with unrestricted copies in yet another waste of time and effort dictated by the GPL. gcc is a notable exception but I'm not sure it qualifies as part of an operating system anyway. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Jul 28, 2008, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You know I really don't care what you call it, but I do care that you are > systematically driving people away from free software. Away from Free Software or away from Fedora and Linux, that are both non-Free Software, and vocally not interested in being Free Software? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Jul 28, 2008, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Please take this off list. And if you are not representing a Red Hat > viewpoint perhaps you would also care to post from a personal email > address. Already covered, even in this thread. There are no limits to the distractions people will come up with to drive attention away from an important point they would rather avoid. I've used personal e-mail addresses before and this never stopped trolls from using my affiliations to "prove" that I was speaking on their behalf and thus getting in contradiction or other such nonsense. You watched that before and even participated in the debate. Why bother? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Jul 28, 2008, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > laugh at Alexandra and ignore him ? ^ Wow, it wasn't enough to rename the operating system and the movement, now you're trying to rename *me*? :-) -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
> > I care about freedom, I just do not care for the GNU > attaching > > itself to Linux > > That's a decision that Linux developers made very early > on in their > project. They just decided to deny it to fool you. And > yet, you side > with them. That is how I knew about it, When I used my first Linux distribution I saw Mandrake Linux, Red Hat Linux 8.0. Then later and only later I saw Knoppix GNU/Linux which was based on Debian GNU/Linux. > > > Accepting that would be to accept other projects > > Name any other that is as essential for the system and that > is bigger > than GNU. The question is not who would want it, the > question is who > is entitled to it. Xorg, is one that comes to mind. I would say GNOME, but it is under GNU GNU Object Model Environment, so it fall under GNU. If I use KDE, it will be a smaller part of GNU, but GNU still is in there. Just like the warning on some intel computers, Intel Inside!, Linux Distributions should warn (GNU Inside) > > > You have not given up in pushing that name, GNU/Linux, > it is already > > there, what more do you want? > > I wouldn't settle for less than equal mention wherever > Linux is not > being used to name what it is: a kernel. The people are the ones that named it and it was not me. Why are they so upset that the Linux name is more popular? That is not my problem. > > > RMS is the one requesting this > > I am. He's not here. He's not even aware I'm > doing this here. But you are under his jurisdiction, He is the leader of the FSF/GNU. He is obviously in command. > > > > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2006-August/msg00101.html > > 2006 is quite late. The campaign to rename GNU to Linux > started at > least 14 years before. The reaction started at least 12 > years before. IT is not my FAULT that they have not succeeded or are not succeeding :( Only Debian and a few others have caved in to those requests. Not even Ubuntu which is based on Debian call themselves Ubuntu GNU/Linux is that an insult to the Debian and GNU camps? > > >> always have been: on the operating system that > people chose to run > >> on top of the kernel Linux. > > > People did not choose it to run on top of the linux > kernel, > > And yet, that's what they're doing to this date. > > > they wanted the HURD kernel, > > Different set of people. > > > but since it did not meet the needs of the people, > > Fallacious use of 'people' to refer to two > different sets. > > > they wrapped around the GNU utilities on top of that > kernel created > > by Linus Torvalds, that could have been named Freax, > > Yeah, the kernel could have been named Freax. Then > they'd have > renamed the GNU operating system to Freaks. Nope, by the arguments they would have named it GNU/Freaks in honor of the GNU guys who deserve the credit too. > > And it's not GNU utilities. It's an operating > system. If it was just > "the GNU utilities", you might be right. *BSD do > that, and it would > be just silly to ask *BSD to be named GNU/*BSD just because > of a few > utilities. But GNU utilities exist in *BSD camps as well, and the name GNU/*BSD is not used or required. A page explains that since Linux Distributions are more popular than *BSD distributions, it makes much more sense to attach to a more successful project. > *BSD are complete operating systems. Linux is > just a > kernel, that depends on and uses the rest of the GNU > operating system. > That's the difference. When you download Linux distributions, you download all the goodies. You do not download just the kernel. Whether it depends on the other utilities, it does, but Linux Distributions include that and they call themselves Linux Distributions not GNU/Linux Distributions with the excepion of Debian GNU/Linux. > > > Instead of asking the users of Linux ($ uname -o), to > give credit, > > why not ask the distributions themselves? > > Sure, why not? How did this sub-thread started, do you > remember? > Mentioning that Fedora presented itself on its web site as > Linux-based, rather than GNU+Linux-based. So, yes, asking > the > distributions. And at the same time spreading awareness > about GNU and > freedom, which is the whole point anyway. Fedora is not free as you have said so yourself. So I am not running a free GNU/Linux distribution. Why should I say Fedora GNU/Linux if it is not pure and it has bad stuff? Stuff that does not make sense to me or to many other users. Yet your buddies still leech off Fedora and get their guidelines off the Fedora site and definitions and not endorse Fedora as a Free OS. That is not cool :( > > -- /* this thread is better discussed on list, off-list does not make sense! The horse has been beaten to death, yet it still kicks back and comes back once in a while */ Regards, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
Please take this off list. And if you are not representing a Red Hat viewpoint perhaps you would also care to post from a personal email address. -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Jul 28, 2008, Antonio Olivares <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I care about freedom, I just do not care for the GNU attaching > itself to Linux That's a decision that Linux developers made very early on in their project. They just decided to deny it to fool you. And yet, you side with them. > Accepting that would be to accept other projects Name any other that is as essential for the system and that is bigger than GNU. The question is not who would want it, the question is who is entitled to it. > You have not given up in pushing that name, GNU/Linux, it is already > there, what more do you want? I wouldn't settle for less than equal mention wherever Linux is not being used to name what it is: a kernel. > RMS is the one requesting this I am. He's not here. He's not even aware I'm doing this here. > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2006-August/msg00101.html 2006 is quite late. The campaign to rename GNU to Linux started at least 14 years before. The reaction started at least 12 years before. >> always have been: on the operating system that people chose to run >> on top of the kernel Linux. > People did not choose it to run on top of the linux kernel, And yet, that's what they're doing to this date. > they wanted the HURD kernel, Different set of people. > but since it did not meet the needs of the people, Fallacious use of 'people' to refer to two different sets. > they wrapped around the GNU utilities on top of that kernel created > by Linus Torvalds, that could have been named Freax, Yeah, the kernel could have been named Freax. Then they'd have renamed the GNU operating system to Freaks. And it's not GNU utilities. It's an operating system. If it was just "the GNU utilities", you might be right. *BSD do that, and it would be just silly to ask *BSD to be named GNU/*BSD just because of a few utilities. *BSD are complete operating systems. Linux is just a kernel, that depends on and uses the rest of the GNU operating system. That's the difference. > Instead of asking the users of Linux ($ uname -o), to give credit, > why not ask the distributions themselves? Sure, why not? How did this sub-thread started, do you remember? Mentioning that Fedora presented itself on its web site as Linux-based, rather than GNU+Linux-based. So, yes, asking the distributions. And at the same time spreading awareness about GNU and freedom, which is the whole point anyway. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:43:36 -0300 Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jul 28, 2008, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Please take your war elsewhere. The civilians are tired of having to put > > up with you. > > ... says a member of the opposing army with a vested interest in > having his faction prevail. You know I really don't care what you call it, but I do care that you are systematically driving people away from free software. Alan -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Jul 28, 2008, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Please take your war elsewhere. The civilians are tired of having to put > up with you. ... says a member of the opposing army with a vested interest in having his faction prevail. Hey, you haven't stopped calling the GNU OS Linux, why should I stop trying to fix that error here or anywhere else? Wow, there really are no limits to double standards and false pretexts :-/ -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
> "I apologize for this, but I simply do not want to > agree to name the > system $ uname -o, it is my right and freedom to simply say > Linux. " > > Does it make any difference to that right if you laugh at > Alexandra and > ignore him ? > I do not know if it would make a difference. I do not consider it right to laugh at Alexandre either. I can ignore him, that I can do. But does it make the argument(s) any better than they have been by doing this. I know that it will be nearly impossible to get both sides to agree, but one can never lose hope :). I'll try to sHuT uP, and to behave myself. Regards, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:14:55 -0700 (PDT) Antonio Olivares <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > It is a war. > > > > > > Indeed. A war for freedom for all software users. > > > > Please take your war elsewhere. The civilians are tired of > > having to put > > up with you. > > > > Alan > > Why me? What have I done wrong? It was aimed at people in general not you "I apologize for this, but I simply do not want to agree to name the system $ uname -o, it is my right and freedom to simply say Linux. " Does it make any difference to that right if you laugh at Alexandra and ignore him ? Alan -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
> > > It is a war. > > > > Indeed. A war for freedom for all software users. > > Please take your war elsewhere. The civilians are tired of > having to put > up with you. > > Alan Why me? What have I done wrong? Let me remind you, in case you have forgotten, you fought well and fought hard :) http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2006-August/msg00080.html http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2006-August/msg00092.html http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2006-August/msg00097.html Then Richard Stallman(RMS) responded with http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2006-August/msg00101.html I happened to agree with you Mr. Cox. Sadly you appeared to give up? Have you conceded defeat and now use GNU/Linux? One thing I admire of people, is persistence and sheer courage that despite all odds against you, you should never give up, like the Turkish National soccer team http://soccernet.espn.go.com/team?id=465&&cc=5901 $ uname -o is all Mr. Oliva and RMS want to hear. It is already hard coded into many Linux Distributions. It is apparently not enough though :( Regards, Antonio I apologize for this, but I simply do not want to agree to name the system $ uname -o, it is my right and freedom to simply say Linux. -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:23:04 -0500 Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > > >> It is a war. > > > > Indeed. A war for freedom for all software users. > > No, it is really a war against users where one set of developers have > pit themselves irreconcilably against all others making any sort of > cooperation impossible. Participating in this war can only reduce the > quantity and quality of software that will be available to users. Please take this off list. -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
RE: that old GNU/Linux argument
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Les Mikesell > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 11:23 AM > To: For users of Fedora > Subject: Re: that old GNU/Linux argument > > Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > > >> It is a war. > > > > Indeed. A war for freedom for all software users. > > No, it is really a war against users where one set of developers have > pit themselves irreconcilably against all others making any sort of > cooperation impossible. Participating in this war can only > reduce the > quantity and quality of software that will be available to users. Les, I daresay, it appears that many within the FSF would prefer a scorched earth to non-free software. I am finally adding a filter to deep-six his stuff. Michael The information contained in this message and any attachment may be proprietary, confidential, and privileged or subject to the work product doctrine and thus protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by replying to this message and deleting it and all copies and backups thereof. Thank you. -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
> > What is a soapbox? I am thinking you mean a soap > opera, or somthing > > along those lines. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soapbox > > poc > > -- I did not know that! Thank you for sharing knowledge. I learned something new today :) Regards, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
Alexandre Oliva wrote: It is a war. Indeed. A war for freedom for all software users. No, it is really a war against users where one set of developers have pit themselves irreconcilably against all others making any sort of cooperation impossible. Participating in this war can only reduce the quantity and quality of software that will be available to users. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 23:38 -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote: > What is a soapbox? I am thinking you mean a soap opera, or somthing > along those lines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soapbox poc -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
måndagen den 28 juli 2008 skrev Antonio Olivares: > > If the cow is completely free in the same sense as in the > > GPL, then it > > can't have been given as a gift, > > Why can't it be given as a gift, Because it can't be moved. If the cow is free in the sense of the GPL, then it is information, because matter can't be free in this sense. Giving a gift means to remove an object from your possession and move it to another's possession, and information can't be moved. > > for gift amounts to > > ownership, which > > is slavery rather than freedom. > > Yes you are a slave of the GPL, So now the cow suddenly owns you? What an odd idea of a gift! > The neighbor only put one cow under the GPL license and he gave it to you. You mean he erased his cow after he gave you a copy? Why did he do that? Björn Persson -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 04:36:53 -0300 Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jul 28, 2008, Antonio Olivares <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It is a war. > > Indeed. A war for freedom for all software users. Please take your war elsewhere. The civilians are tired of having to put up with you. Alan -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
> > It is a war. > > Indeed. A war for freedom for all software users. A war > that started > back in 1983, and whose proponents have suffered many > threats and > losses, but also several wins. > > One of the greatest threats these days are people who just > don't care > about freedom, who just want to use the software and who > would love to > sacrifice whatever freedom was already achieved for some > temporary > convenience. People who will fight vigorously against any > attempt to > educate others about these issues. I care for freedom. I just don't care for attaching the name GNU to Linux like in GNU/Linux. It does not make sense to me, because of many reasons I have posted before. Other projects will ask that you attach their names as well and this could become a problem in not being able to satisfy all of the peoples' egos. It already is there, users have to type $ uname -o in a command line terminal. If they do this, they get what you want :) > > They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little > temporary > safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Ben > Franklin, freedom > fighter > > > A war between the FSF who want the GNU part attached > to Linux It is a continuation of the disputes but now moved over here http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2006-August/msg00101.html > > This is just a smaller battle, not the war. Your choice of > words is > quite poor and extremely unfair. The FSF is not the only > one who > makes this request and works for software freedom or on the > GNU > project, and nobody is requesting to have their own names > attached to > Linux. Linux is a kernel. Yes it is, it is also a Distribution composed of GNU parts and non GNU parts. > All we ask for is to have the > name of the > operating system created to give people freedom back where > it should > always have been: on the operating system that people chose > to run on > top of the kernel Linux. Where it should have/could have/would have shouda/woulda/coulda but it isn't. Well it is, just users have to type in a terminal shell $ uname -o and they will get what you want, and RMS wants as well :) > > -- The effort you and others have put up here could be better spent requiring that Linux Distributions mandatorily add the GNU/ tag to Linux. Debian GNU/Linux already does this, ask Slackware, OpenSUSE, Mandriva, PC/GNU/LinuxOS, Gentoo, Sabayon, Sidux, ..., all the Distros at Distrowatch except the *BSDs and OpenSolaris to add the tag. My guess is that they do when one does [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ uname -o GNU/Linux [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ uname -a Linux localhost.localdomain 2.6.25.11-97.fc9.x86_64 #1 SMP Mon Jul 21 01:09:10 EDT 2008 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux They should get what you want. Is that enough? Was that too hard to do? As much as I would like to remove it, I have found a way using sed, and sed is part of GNU [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ uname -o > uname-o [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ sed -e 's/GNU\/Linux/Linux/g' uname-o Linux [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ What good does that do? Nothing GNU/Linux is still there, I just suppressed its output using sed. BTW, other places also argue about GNU/Linux. One is here: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-technology/8721-gnu-linux-vs-linux.html Linux 12 30.00% GNU/Linux8 20.00% Makes no difference but I prefer Linux 19 47.50% Makes no difference but I prefer GNU/Linux 1 2.50% What do you think of that? Does it make sense? Regards, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
> > It is a war. > > Indeed. A war for freedom for all software users. A war > that started > back in 1983, and whose proponents have suffered many > threats and > losses, but also several wins. > > One of the greatest threats these days are people who just > don't care > about freedom, who just want to use the software and who > would love to > sacrifice whatever freedom was already achieved for some > temporary > convenience. People who will fight vigorously against any > attempt to > educate others about these issues. I care about freedom, I just do not care for the GNU attaching itself to Linux. i.e, GNU/Linux to me it does not make a difference. Arguming for the GNU part to be included is senseless, it already is there $ uname -o will give you what you want. That is it. Asking me to write it, I can, but I do not agree with it. Accepting that would be to accept other projects and surely a much bigger battle of epic proportions would be created. i.e, Xorg/GNU/Linux/KDE/Gnonme/TeXLive/php/perl/ruby/Firefox/Mozilla, this cannot be accepted. If you concede to accept GNU/Linux, which is already there ($ uname -o), you would have to concede to such big names, in which everyone would want to include their name as well :( > > They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little > temporary > safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Ben > Franklin, freedom > fighter > > > A war between the FSF who want the GNU part attached > to Linux > You have not given up in pushing that name, GNU/Linux, it is already there, what more do you want? Pushing it further will not make it happen and get more resistance. $ uname -o > > This is just a smaller battle, not the war. Your choice of > words is > quite poor and extremely unfair. The FSF is not the only > one who > makes this request and works for software freedom or on the > GNU > project, and nobody is requesting to have their own names > attached to > Linux. RMS is the one requesting this as you have posted this as well as I have posted it too http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2006-August/msg00101.html > Linux is a kernel. All we ask for is to have the > name of the > operating system created to give people freedom back where > it should > always have been: on the operating system that people chose As should have always been, remember should* does not mean that it is, it is by force, ($ uname -o), but not fully endorsed by all. > it should > always have been: on the operating system that people chose > to run on > top of the kernel Linux. People did not choose it to run on top of the linux kernel, they wanted the HURD kernel, but since it did not meet the needs of the people, they wrapped around the GNU utilities on top of that kernel created by Linus Torvalds, that could have been named Freax, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Linux Linus Torvalds had wanted to call his invention Freax, a portmanteau of "freak," "free," and "x," an allusion to Unix. The designation "Linux" was initially used by Torvalds only for the Linux kernel. The kernel was, however, frequently used together with other software, especially that of the GNU project. This quickly became the most popular adoption of GNU software. In June 1994 in GNU's bulletin, Linux was referred to as a "free UNIX clone", and the Debian project began calling its product Debian GNU/Linux. In May 1996, Richard Stallman published the editor Emacs 19.31, in which the type of system was renamed from Linux to Lignux. This spelling was intended to refer specifically to the combination of GNU and Linux, but this was soon abandoned in favor of "GNU/Linux".[14]. This name garnered varying reactions. The GNU and Debian projects use the name, although most developers simply use the term "Linux" to refer to the combination. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds > > -- Instead of asking the users of Linux ($ uname -o), to give credit, why not ask the distributions themselves? They are ones that truly name the distributions Distroname-GNU/Linux, so far I see Debian GNU/Linux as the main one. Why not force the following distributions to change their names OpenSuse-GNU/Linux,Slackware-GNU/Linux, Ubuntu-GNU/Linux, PCLinuxOS ==> PC/GNU/LinuxOS, Mandriva-GNU/Linux, ..., etc. This would be the correct thing to do, if you want to create awareness. For the other argument, I will say $ uname -o that is all I will agree to. Regards, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Jul 28, 2008, Antonio Olivares <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It is a war. Indeed. A war for freedom for all software users. A war that started back in 1983, and whose proponents have suffered many threats and losses, but also several wins. One of the greatest threats these days are people who just don't care about freedom, who just want to use the software and who would love to sacrifice whatever freedom was already achieved for some temporary convenience. People who will fight vigorously against any attempt to educate others about these issues. They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Ben Franklin, freedom fighter > A war between the FSF who want the GNU part attached to Linux This is just a smaller battle, not the war. Your choice of words is quite poor and extremely unfair. The FSF is not the only one who makes this request and works for software freedom or on the GNU project, and nobody is requesting to have their own names attached to Linux. Linux is a kernel. All we ask for is to have the name of the operating system created to give people freedom back where it should always have been: on the operating system that people chose to run on top of the kernel Linux. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
> >> Nothing is said that has not been said before. > >> Terence > >> Roman comic dramatist (185 BC - 159 BC) > >> > >> -- > > > > +3 or 4) how many times the thread has been renamed :) > > > > All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that > good men do nothing > > this ain't no freakn war. you ain't gonna get no > freakn nobel prize. It is a war. A war between the FSF who want the GNU part attached to Linux ==> GNU/Linux like Debian uses. This has been discussed to death and no side wants to give up If you want to see, this is a continuation from over here http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2006-August/msg00101.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy > and you ain't winning the hearts and minds of anyone. > shit, if you > were any more annoying than any of the others i'd > switch sides for > spite. you are free to choose the side you want. You are free to decide. You are in agreement with one of the following: A. You agree to call the system simply Linux like many have done before B. You agree to attach the term GNU/Linux because it will boost the egos of people in the FSF and make RMS get a good nights sleep :) C. You plainly do not give a DaMN and are very happy to run this great software no matter what it is called :) D. None of the above > all of you make good poster childs for $$ software. > all you > kids are doing is pollutin the list. and you don't > even know it or > care. Sure we care. We want our voices to be be heard and not just accept what they say and move on. Would you accept if I told you that the sky was green instead of blue and accept it as fact? > all you done was turn the list inot a private > soapbox. What is a soapbox? I am thinking you mean a soap opera, or somthing along those lines. Maybe this discussion would be better on Jerry Springer :) > > i stuck around here cause some thought this would die and It will eventually die, but this thread started from an true question, "Why is Fedora not a free GNU/Linux distro?", and it has sparked lots of flames across the world. With both camps and a third group remaining neutral not participating and "filtering all this BS out". They have a passion about the side that they are on and self satisfaction and self accomplishment. > > some said > ubuntu was just as terrible. at least ubuntu has its > sounder list and > people take crap like this over there. Crap makes it way everywhere. It is very hard to get rid off and this silly arguments and others will make their way to the list. > karl may be a moron > but i end > up feeling sorry for him. Why feel sorry for anyone. When you get to be his age, people will feel sorry for you. You should be proud of who you are and not feel sorry for anyone. > > -- -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 5:14 AM, Antonio Olivares <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Nothing is said that has not been said before. >> Terence >> Roman comic dramatist (185 BC - 159 BC) >> >> -- > > +3 or 4) how many times the thread has been renamed :) > > All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing this ain't no freakn war. you ain't gonna get no freakn nobel prize. and you ain't winning the hearts and minds of anyone. shit, if you were any more annoying than any of the others i'd switch sides for spite. all of you make good poster childs for $$ software. all you kids are doing is pollutin the list. and you don't even know it or care. all you done was turn the list inot a private soapbox. i stuck around here cause some thought this would die and some said ubuntu was just as terrible. at least ubuntu has its sounder list and people take crap like this over there. karl may be a moron but i end up feeling sorry for him. -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
> > Why can't it be given as a gift, you are free to > do whatever you want > > with the cow. If you decide to let the cow eat hay and > have calves, the > > calves that you have can be shared with thy neighbor. > This is what the > > GPL enforces. The neighbor needs milk, he can milk > your cow. Remember > > the cow is licensed under the GPL. > > It's a huge mistake to create analogies between > information and property. > > If the cow were software, you and I could both milk it. It > would never > run out. That's the way information works: you copy it > and the original > is left intact. > > Property doesn't work like that. If you milk the cow, > then the cow will > need time to make more milk. I can't go and milk the > cow immediately > after you. > > Analogies comparing property and information are misleading > because of > the fundamental difference between the two. Can we please > not continue > to compare software and property? Agree :) > > > I would see real life examples like a teacher and a > student. A > > teacher teaches a student many wonderful things say in > mathematics. > > That student learns and goes to higher and higher > levels eventually > > earning a Ph.D. The teacher is just a high school > teacher, but was > > the teacher of the student. The student comes up with > a very famous > > equation or proves a Theorem that has never been > proven before. If > > the student uses the GPL, he has to credit all of his > teachers > > including the one that taught him in high school. The > student proved > > the Theorem himself and he does acknowledge all of the > teachers that > > he had. All of the teachers can claim that they wrote > the Theorem > > also because they are protected under the GNU/GPL > umbrella :) Is that > > any justice to the student, who worked all the way up > and did his/her > > homework? > > The GPL isn't about credit, it's about distribution > and rights. Since > you're talking about knowledge here, it's a > somewhat better analogy than > the cow. :) > > If the teacher had given the student his knowledge under > terms similar > to the GPL, then that would not allow the teacher to claim > that he wrote > the student's theorem. It wouldn't even ensure > that the teacher could > later use the student's theorem to teach others > (that'd be more like the > AGPL). What it would ensure is that however the student > applied the > theorem, he would have to describe the theorem itself and > all of the > mathematical underpinnings that support it to the people to > whom he > distributes his work. He can charge money for his services > if he > chooses, but he can not hide the manner in which his work > functions, and > he can not forbid anyone from discussing his theorem once > they've > learned of it. > > So, given that, do you think it's a good thing to > forbid people from > discussing the theorem that the student discovered? If so, > why? > > -- No it is not a good thing to forbid people from discussing the theorem! The theorem is important and knowledge is to be shared. The teacher should not attach his name in the student's theorem. The theorem will be known as the Teacher/Student's Theorem. This would be a good case, if the teacher and the students worked jointly on the project. I have seen many cases, in which a person does all the dirty work, and another guy types it up (in tex/latex) and attaches his name and has the paper published. This is not fair to the guy who did all the dirty work, but since the other guy can type it, and is famous for publishing it is a win-win situation. In mathematics, when mathematicians create papers, they use previous works, they have to cite the authors of the previous work. Of course there are no licenses, but like Alexandre mentions, plagarism is possible. While sometimes, you can find an equation over where you are at, and I can find a similar equation or one equivalent to yours, both independently. The work cannot be exlusively yours, unless you publish your work before I do. Then you beat me to it and deserve all the honors :) Regards, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
> Nothing is said that has not been said before. > Terence > Roman comic dramatist (185 BC - 159 BC) > > -- +3 or 4) how many times the thread has been renamed :) All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
Antonio Olivares wrote: Why can't it be given as a gift, you are free to do whatever you want with the cow. If you decide to let the cow eat hay and have calves, the calves that you have can be shared with thy neighbor. This is what the GPL enforces. The neighbor needs milk, he can milk your cow. Remember the cow is licensed under the GPL. It's a huge mistake to create analogies between information and property. If the cow were software, you and I could both milk it. It would never run out. That's the way information works: you copy it and the original is left intact. Property doesn't work like that. If you milk the cow, then the cow will need time to make more milk. I can't go and milk the cow immediately after you. Analogies comparing property and information are misleading because of the fundamental difference between the two. Can we please not continue to compare software and property? I would see real life examples like a teacher and a student. A teacher teaches a student many wonderful things say in mathematics. That student learns and goes to higher and higher levels eventually earning a Ph.D. The teacher is just a high school teacher, but was the teacher of the student. The student comes up with a very famous equation or proves a Theorem that has never been proven before. If the student uses the GPL, he has to credit all of his teachers including the one that taught him in high school. The student proved the Theorem himself and he does acknowledge all of the teachers that he had. All of the teachers can claim that they wrote the Theorem also because they are protected under the GNU/GPL umbrella :) Is that any justice to the student, who worked all the way up and did his/her homework? The GPL isn't about credit, it's about distribution and rights. Since you're talking about knowledge here, it's a somewhat better analogy than the cow. :) If the teacher had given the student his knowledge under terms similar to the GPL, then that would not allow the teacher to claim that he wrote the student's theorem. It wouldn't even ensure that the teacher could later use the student's theorem to teach others (that'd be more like the AGPL). What it would ensure is that however the student applied the theorem, he would have to describe the theorem itself and all of the mathematical underpinnings that support it to the people to whom he distributes his work. He can charge money for his services if he chooses, but he can not hide the manner in which his work functions, and he can not forbid anyone from discussing his theorem once they've learned of it. So, given that, do you think it's a good thing to forbid people from discussing the theorem that the student discovered? If so, why? -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
Nothing is said that has not been said before. Terence Roman comic dramatist (185 BC - 159 BC) -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
Alexandre Oliva wrote: On Jul 26, 2008, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'd prefer that the Linux based distros had shared more of the BSD-origin work rather than the GPL-encumbered GNU copies. Obviously. Have you ever wondered why? If you are stuck with the viral nature of the GPL already infecting the kernel you probably aren't thinking about how your code might be useful to others and in other situations anyway, so the restrictions might not concern you. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
> > If there was no kernel, the GNU operating system would > not have gone > > anywhere > > It would have completed it eventually, or someone else > would have > developed another kernel that would work with GNU. ATM we > have at > least 4. > > > without the GNU tools, where would Linux be? > > Who knows? It might not even have come to existence, since > it was > developed making extensive use of GNU software, and it > depended > heavily on GNU software to be usable since its inception, > and nobody > ever tried to change that. > > > An analogy for the GPL would be the farmer who > receives the gift of > > a GPL cow from a neighbour. The cow is completely > free, but all of > > the milk from the cow must be given away for free, and > all of the > > cow's calves, and the calves' calves, yea, > even unto the thousandth > > generation, shall be given away for free. > > If the cow is completely free in the same sense as in the > GPL, then it > can't have been given as a gift, Why can't it be given as a gift, you are free to do whatever you want with the cow. If you decide to let the cow eat hay and have calves, the calves that you have can be shared with thy neighbor. This is what the GPL enforces. The neighbor needs milk, he can milk your cow. Remember the cow is licensed under the GPL. > > for gift amounts to > ownership, which > is slavery rather than freedom. Yes you are a slave of the GPL, you have the freedom to do anything with the cow, provided that you follow the license completely. > I perceive an > overloaded-word fallacy > here: using 'free' with two very distinct senses, > one that tries to > bring the subject closer to the Free Software free, while > all others > have to do with cost. The cost in monetary terms means that the program is free*, but there are strings attached. IF you improve the program and make it more robust, you can't keep it to yourself you must share back. I would see real life examples like a teacher and a student. A teacher teaches a student many wonderful things say in mathematics. That student learns and goes to higher and higher levels eventually earning a Ph.D. The teacher is just a high school teacher, but was the teacher of the student. The student comes up with a very famous equation or proves a Theorem that has never been proven before. If the student uses the GPL, he has to credit all of his teachers including the one that taught him in high school. The student proved the Theorem himself and he does acknowledge all of the teachers that he had. All of the teachers can claim that they wrote the Theorem also because they are protected under the GNU/GPL umbrella :) Is that any justice to the student, who worked all the way up and did his/her homework? So users and developers are slaves of the GPL? Will we need to see an Abraham Lincoln Emancipation Proclamation of the GPL? Here's an attempt to emancipate the GPL to free the slaves Four score and seven years ago, our four GPL fathers brought upon us a free operating system combining the GNU tools with the linux kernel, that no software, ... Four score and seven years ago our FSF/GPL fathers brought forth on this continent, a new license, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that not all softwares are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that name(Linux), or any name(GNU/Linux) so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their time so that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work(GNU without Linux kernel) which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this FSF, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that software of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the GNU earth. > > > Now what kind of use is such a cow? > > You can eat it. You can use its pieces to build other > objects and > sell them. And you can expect to get more "free" > cows from the > neighbor, so you could run a business until the neighbor > realizes what > you're doing and realizes he can do that hi
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Jul 26, 2008, Antonio Olivares <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If there was no kernel, the GNU operating system would not have gone > anywhere It would have completed it eventually, or someone else would have developed another kernel that would work with GNU. ATM we have at least 4. > without the GNU tools, where would Linux be? Who knows? It might not even have come to existence, since it was developed making extensive use of GNU software, and it depended heavily on GNU software to be usable since its inception, and nobody ever tried to change that. > An analogy for the GPL would be the farmer who receives the gift of > a GPL cow from a neighbour. The cow is completely free, but all of > the milk from the cow must be given away for free, and all of the > cow's calves, and the calves' calves, yea, even unto the thousandth > generation, shall be given away for free. If the cow is completely free in the same sense as in the GPL, then it can't have been given as a gift, for gift amounts to ownership, which is slavery rather than freedom. I perceive an overloaded-word fallacy here: using 'free' with two very distinct senses, one that tries to bring the subject closer to the Free Software free, while all others have to do with cost. > Now what kind of use is such a cow? You can eat it. You can use its pieces to build other objects and sell them. And you can expect to get more "free" cows from the neighbor, so you could run a business until the neighbor realizes what you're doing and realizes he can do that himself, and kills his own "free" cows. There's a fable about a farmer who kills the goose that laid golden eggs somewhere. Of course none of this bears any significant resemblance with the way the GPL works. > This is quite interesting and the points are very well stated. Yep. Clever use of fallacies and dependence on public ignorance and gullibility :-) -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Sat, 2008-07-26 at 13:49 -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote: > > > I have also found a page in which it clearly explains > > some problems with > > > the GPL > > The analogy > > collapses once you realize that information can not be > > moved, only copied, > > and matter can not be copied, only moved. > May I ask why the code was moved to GPL, it was also copied? Does that make > sense? > > > Regards, > > Antonio A very good question, Antonio. Very good. Ric -- My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say: "There are two Great Sins in the world... ..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity. Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad. Linux user# 44256 Sign up at: http://counter.li.org/ http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/oar https://oar.dev.java.net/ Verizon Cell # 336-254-1339 - -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Jul 26, 2008, Marko Vojinovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sure, RMS and GNU did begin to create an operating system, but failed to > finish it before Linus took the "unfinished" OS and finished it himself. IOW, Linus completed GNU? > And now they ask for credit? For what? For cloning&enhancing Unix OS > infrastructure and GPL-ing it? (ok, I am being a bit over the line > here, I know, sorry... ;-) ) Yeah, shared with credit for the kernel that cloned&enhanced Unix kernel infrastructure and GPL-ed it, forming a complete Unix operating system that amounted to that kernel plus GNU minus its own kernel. Anything wrong with that? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Jul 26, 2008, Gordon Messmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Theo continued to complain about the lack of cooperation between the > Linux driver authors and the original OpenBSD developers. The problem > that he perceived was that the Linux driver developers created a > derived work, and the code that *they* contributed to the driver was > licensed only under the GPL. This made it unacceptable for the > OpenBSD developers to use the modifications from the Linux developers. And that's not because of any restriction, real or imagined, imposed by Linux developers, but rather by OpenBSD developers own decision to reject code that they couldn't distribute on their own terms. Oddly, a choice they claim to make to enable to people to do just what they're complaining about: create derived works that they can't use. Talk about consistency. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Jul 26, 2008, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd prefer that the Linux based distros had shared more of the > BSD-origin work rather than the GPL-encumbered GNU copies. Obviously. Have you ever wondered why? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Friday 25 July 2008 07:56, Gordon Messmer wrote: > I think that some knowledge of history would probably change your > perspective, and is certainly relevant to the conversation. Probably, but it seems that the argument I am trying to communicate is based on discussing the *purpose* of Linux and GNU, not on who started first or who did more work. Of course, knowledge of history can't hurt, but atm I have no time to read about it (I barely keep up with the thread itself...). > An analogy is a fine way to clarify subject matter that someone doesn't > understand, but it's an illustration, not an argument. You're free to > *use* an analogy as an argument, but it's very weak grounds. Of course it's an illustration (of the argument itself). I did not mean it to be *the* argument. The argument itself goes as follows (in short): given the whole collection of executable code that makes up a distro, the distro itself is named for the group that packaged it (for example, Fedora) and the piece of code whose purpose is most essential --- the kernel. So one ends up with the "Fedora Linux" name. The main point is about evaluating my statement that the kernel software is more essential than GNU software. This is based (imho) on the point of view that there is a qualitative difference (regarding purpose) between the kernel and any other piece of code in the distro, including GNU, X, Gnome, RPM, whatever. The analogy with the car engine is just (supposed to be) an easy way to illustrate what I mean by "qualitative difference" without going too much into philosophy. I agree that such an analogy is not an argument itself, but it (hopefully) sheds light on what I am trying to say. > You argued that the automotive industry names their cars for their > engine, but I just don't see it. GM puts the same engine in Chevy, > Pontiac, and Saturn cars, but do you know which ones? I suspect not. I gave the example of Formula 1 teams, where this naming is practically always present, and this is precisely because the engine of a Formula 1 car is so vital component that it's producer deserves to be mentioned in the name. Of course, this need not be a general rule in automotive industry. But it seems that we are going OT here. :-) > Similarly, Windows is an operating system that people do not call > kernel32.dll. Mac OS X is an operating system that people don't call > XNU. GNU is an operating system that people inaccurately call Linux. > The kernel is Linux. The operating system is GNU. Windows the OS runs on the kernel that doesn't have a distinguished name, because Microsoft didn't bother to give it one. The file name itself is irrelevant, even the Linux kernel file is called vmlinuz-(version), not "Linux" (last time I checked, at least). As for GNU, I could simply say that an operating system doesn't exist without a kernel, but this is a matter of definition of an "operating system". > > RMS? (I hope to know at least that much history.) So what about it? I see > > no point here? > > The point is that RMS and GNU began creating an operating system, piece > by piece, long before Linus began work on his kernel. It was > significantly easier to start at the top and work down than to work the > other way around. Thus, user applications were written before the kernel. Sure, RMS and GNU did begin to create an operating system, but failed to finish it. Furthermore, they failed to complete the most vital component without which there is and cannot be an operating system. And now they ask for credit? For what? For cloning&enhancing Unix OS infrastructure and GPL-ing it? (ok, I am being a bit over the line here, I know, sorry... ;-) ) > > Well, from my (freshman's) point of view, it was big and professional, > > but incompetent to produce the equivalent of 4 months work of a single > > computer science student in Helsinki. > > Engineering is often like that. Quick and dirty ends up beating out > better engineered designs. Yes, I have lived long enough to witness the PC platform beating out the Amiga platform, which was (afaik) better designed in those times. But that is life, a game of survival --- not the best-designed project survives, but the one that makes more money. :-) > > In other words, kernel is qualitatively more important than all other > > utilities that are used in conjuction. GNU did make all those utilities, > > but failed to make the most important part. > > Whoa, there. Is that what you think GNU is, a bunch of utilities? > Hardly. The GNU system is developed as separate projects, but the > operating system isn't a mere aggregation of them. The operating system > is a whole that provides the services and interfaces that applications > require to run. That's vastly more than a kernel. Ok, ok, my choice of word "utility" was off. Please substitute "utilities" with "software" (as a most neutral description). But the point remains. And also the fact that an operating syst
Re: a long rebuttal to the Linux-is-the-engine fallacy (was: Re: that old GNU/Linux argument)
:-) I'll try to be just a little bit shorter. Though I may not succeed. ;-) On Friday 25 July 2008 20:18, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jul 24, 2008, Marko Vojinovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > the kernel "does the essential work" (actually, it communicates > > further to the hardware that does the actual work, but that is > > abstracted out). > > Nevermind that what you "essential work" here is hardly perceived as > such by users. What do they care that there are multiple CPUs there > that need a task scheduler, or how files or even filesystems are laid > out on disk, or how interrupts and DMA are handled? They just want to > browse the web, read their e-mail, play their movies and songs, write > their texts, prepare their presentations, perform their > High-Performance computations, run databases, serve out files, etc. > *That*'s the essential work for *them*. What the end-user sees as useful work is completely impossible without the work done by the kernel (although it is hidden from the user). That is why it is "essential". > I'd concede to qualifying it as *an* essential part, but not as *the* > essential part. In good teams, every member performs an essential > task, and if you take any member out, the team gets a severe hit and > may even become completely dysfunctional. Every member of such a team > might claim to be the most important, because his/her removal would > have such a severe impact, but the conclusion would be that *all* of > them are *the* most important, and this doesn't make sense. I don't > think that this is the kind of measuring stick we're looking for. I am afraid that the relevance of any piece of system code is quite hard to measure, as you indicated above. Take something out, the thing stops working. However, I tried my best to argue that severity of the damage to the system could be one possible measuring stick, although not perfect. By that criterion, one could argue that bios or the bootloader are even more essential than the kernel. However, the bios is not the part of an operating system or a distro, so it doesn't get its name in there. The bootloader, although completely crucial, is a fairly simple piece of code (compared to the kernel or any other serious part of the system). This means it is quite easy to code, needs no maintenence, and all in all, doesn't deserve its name mentioned either (no offence to the grub developers :-) ). If you push the car analogy, it would take part of ignition mechanism --- the key, the battery and the electric motor to give initial torque to the engine. It's a simple mechanism. However, once the engine is running, it is completely useless until the next ignition event. All this said, the kernel is the only completely essential component left. Of course, the bare kernel with nothing else except the "hello world" application is purely theoretical notion, but nevertheless has *nonzero* usability (however academically small). But the system without a kernel has *precisely zero* usability. The kernel is distinguished to be the only component of an os with this "feature". And if one looks into the "why" of this, one will find that this is because the kernel has a qualitatively most important job to do in the os. That is why I consider the kernel to be the sole single component worth mentioning in the name of the os or distro. And this measuring stick (although imperfect) works, and as a result gives some notion of "importance level" for the kernel vs the rest. Besides, that is the only measuring stick I can think of. Evaluation of imporance of something is always an ungrateful job. Of course, you could probably invent another method of evaluation, a different measuring stick, to back up your opinion on equal importance of GNU and the kernel. By the end of the day, it all boils down to which argument is more intuitively appealing to the majority of people. Please see below to the end of this post. > > The parallel is simple --- the car engine is also the one "doing the > > essential work" (converting fuel to mechanical --- ie. usable --- > > energy). > > Converting fuel to mechanical energy is hardly what most people who > purchase a car are interested in. But that is what actually happens, whether people are interested to know or not. Give fuel, get transport. A car is a device to convert one into the other (but not vice-versa :-) ). But a car-savvy customer surely wants to know how much horse-power does his new car have, time to accelerate from 0 to 100 mph, fuel consumption over 100 miles, etc. These are all properties of the engine, and how efficiently it converts fuel to mechanical energy. I disagree that customers are not interested in that. At least they should be. The ignorant ones probably use Windows as well. :-) > Very few people actually care that there is an engine in their car. > Or a motor. Or both, for hybrids. Or propellers, jet propulsion, > magnets and superconductors, mag
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Saturday 26 July 2008 01:26, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jul 24, 2008, Marko Vojinovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Persons A and B are running a marathon on the Olympic games. > > You're quite creative at presenting analogies that sound convincing to > support a point you're trying to make, and that hide all of their > flaws in the careful manipulation of the mapping so that they end up > supporting your point of view. One thing you need to learn (or maybe > you do, and you hope people won't challenge the mapping) is that this > doesn't make for convincing arguments. I use analogies in order to make a distinction between the idea that I want to communicate and the detailed description of the topic that interferes and clouds the bare-bone idea. If one is presented with an argument in some setting, one usually has trouble differentiating between the argument and the setting. If one is given an argument in two different settings (and this argument is the same for both), one can make a distinction between the argument and each of the settings much easier, thus isolating and concentrating on the argument, rather than the setting. This is in general a purpose of an analogy, as I understand it (and use it). Of course, every analogy has limits, because the two settings are different, and if one pushes the analogy too far beyond the argument itself (and into the settings), these differences begin to show up, eventually rendering the analogy false. But that is only if one pushes it further than intended. So yes, you are completely right, I am intentionally manipulating the mapping of an analogy in order to emphasize the point. The analogy itself serves the sole purpose of illustrating and emphasizing, not as a proof of the point being discussed. That said, I do agree that this marathon analogy was a little rough on the edges. :-) Best, :-) Marko -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
Antonio Olivares wrote: If the information cannot be moved, how come the wireless drivers built with BSD license in OpenBSD by Theo de Raadt were moved to GPL license. Theo didn't write the drivers. Reyk Floeter and Sam Leffler did. The drivers weren't "moved" to the GPL, either. There was a mistake early on, where the BSD license was removed from the atheros driver files. It should be noted that this did not actually *legally* change the distribution terms for those files, and in fact was a violation of their copyright. That was corrected shortly thereafter. Theo continued to complain about the lack of cooperation between the Linux driver authors and the original OpenBSD developers. The problem that he perceived was that the Linux driver developers created a derived work, and the code that *they* contributed to the driver was licensed only under the GPL. This made it unacceptable for the OpenBSD developers to use the modifications from the Linux developers. There was never any "moving" involved. The original code was BSD licensed, and remained BSD licensed when it was included in the Linux kernel. -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
> > I have also found a page in which it clearly explains > some problems with > > the GPL > > http://www.topology.org/linux/gpl.html> > > An analogy for the GPL would be the farmer who > receives the gift of a GPL > > cow from a neighbour. The cow is completely free, but > all of the milk from > > the cow must be given away for free, and all of the > cow's calves, [...] > > Yet another meaningless pseudo-analogy representing free > software as gratis > material goods. People who want to blacken free software > love that kind of > comparisons, but they only work on really clueless people > who are completely > unaware of the fundamental difference between atoms and > numbers. The analogy > collapses once you realize that information can not be > moved, only copied, > and matter can not be copied, only moved. > > If that represents the quality of www.topology.org, then I > feel zero need to > look at that other page, "lingl.html". > > Björn Persson If the information cannot be moved, how come the wireless drivers built with BSD license in OpenBSD by Theo de Raadt were moved to GPL license. Here you say cannot be moved, yet you say can be copied. Here's a statement from him regarding the code sharing http://kerneltrap.org/OpenBSD/Stealing_Versus_Sharing_Code> "GPL fans said the great problem we would face is that companies would take our BSD code, modify it, and not give back. Nope -- the great problem we face is that people would wrap the GPL around our code, and lock us out in the same way that these supposed companies would lock us out. Just like the Linux community, we have many companies giving us code back, all the time. But once the code is GPL'd, we cannot get it back. "Ironic." The code was relicensed under GPL and not in a dual license which would have preserved the original. http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Relicensing_Code I do not want to blacken free software, the GPL already does this. It restricts some freedoms including the cooperating between the BSD and GPL camps. The GPL did not make the drivers, BSD people did, now they take the code and make it theirs and not give back to the guys who did the work. Yes one of the copyright holders agreed to license the work under the GPL, but why can't the two camps work together and improve software. When you wrote > The analogy > collapses once you realize that information can not be > moved, only copied, > and matter can not be copied, only moved. May I ask why the code was moved to GPL, it was also copied? Does that make sense? Regards, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
Antonio Olivares wrote: > I have also found a page in which it clearly explains some problems with > the GPL > http://www.topology.org/linux/gpl.html> > An analogy for the GPL would be the farmer who receives the gift of a GPL > cow from a neighbour. The cow is completely free, but all of the milk from > the cow must be given away for free, and all of the cow's calves, [...] Yet another meaningless pseudo-analogy representing free software as gratis material goods. People who want to blacken free software love that kind of comparisons, but they only work on really clueless people who are completely unaware of the fundamental difference between atoms and numbers. The analogy collapses once you realize that information can not be moved, only copied, and matter can not be copied, only moved. If that represents the quality of www.topology.org, then I feel zero need to look at that other page, "lingl.html". Björn Persson -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
Alexandre Oliva wrote: Alexandre Oliva wrote: What do you mean "other than the Hurd"? I mean "except for the Hurd", "save for the Hurd", or however you'd like to phrase the act of taking a set with hundreds of elements, and applying the same predicate to all but one of them. I don't mean the semantics, I mean philosophically. Why would you except the one thing that deserves to be called GNU from this discussion? Err... I don't know how you got this idea that GNU was supposed to be just a kernel. GNU is an entire operating system, that Linux developers happened to borrow to complete theirs, because all they had was a kernel. And meanwhile the GNU project still has its own. People who think the GNU name is attractive can use that one. People who are more attracted to the popularity of Linux shouldn't have to be confused by the name associated with some other project. If someone not interested in the kernel Hurd shouldn't be interested in GNU or any of the GNU/Hurd distros out there, then someone not interested in the kernel Linux shouldn't be interested in GNU+Linux or any of the GNU/Linux distros out there. And yet, there is still something that _IS_ the GNU project's OS, that people can use if they want to use something named GNU. But, overwhelming they pick some other project instead. Some other project that is nearly as much GNU, indeed. I'd prefer that the Linux based distros had shared more of the BSD-origin work rather than the GPL-encumbered GNU copies. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
> > Alexandre Oliva wrote: > Err... I don't know how you got this idea that GNU was > supposed to be just a kernel. GNU is an entire operating system, that > Linux developers happened to borrow to complete theirs, because > all they had was a kernel. > This part can be argued. If there was no kernel, the GNU operating system would not have gone anywhere :(, and without the GNU tools, where would Linux be? But what ifs do not matter. What matters is where we are at the present. On the following link is a page which explains many strong points against the naming arguments http://www.topology.org/linux/lingl.html I have also found a page in which it clearly explains some problems with the GPL http://www.topology.org/linux/gpl.html> An analogy for the GPL would be the farmer who receives the gift of a GPL cow from a neighbour. The cow is completely free, but all of the milk from the cow must be given away for free, and all of the cow's calves, and the calves' calves, yea, even unto the thousandth generation, shall be given away for free. Now what kind of use is such a cow? Even if the bulls are non-GPL bulls, all of their offspring by GPL cows are controlled by the GPL licence. If you have a cow breeding programme and you develop a really excellent breed of cow, you must give the new breed of cows away for free if just one of the many ancestors of the superior cow was a GPL cow. The GPL cow is even more dangerous than patented GM crop seeds. The world envisioned by the GPL seems to be a perfect communism where all developers are like subsistence farmers; they must give away everything excess to their own immediate requirements for free to the community. This is quite interesting and the points are very well stated. I know that this will not change peoples minds, but it will make them aware of the other side of the story. Regards, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Jul 26, 2008, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> >>> What do you mean "other than the Hurd"? >> >> I mean "except for the Hurd", "save for the Hurd", or however you'd >> like to phrase the act of taking a set with hundreds of elements, and >> applying the same predicate to all but one of them. > I don't mean the semantics, I mean philosophically. Why would you > except the one thing that deserves to be called GNU from this > discussion? Err... I don't know how you got this idea that GNU was supposed to be just a kernel. GNU is an entire operating system, that Linux developers happened to borrow to complete theirs, because all they had was a kernel. If someone not interested in the kernel Hurd shouldn't be interested in GNU or any of the GNU/Hurd distros out there, then someone not interested in the kernel Linux shouldn't be interested in GNU+Linux or any of the GNU/Linux distros out there. > And yet, there is still something that _IS_ the GNU project's OS, that > people can use if they want to use something named GNU. But, > overwhelming they pick some other project instead. Some other project that is nearly as much GNU, indeed. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
> > Do you know what the BIOS actually does? > > Yep. It loads the kernel and transfers control to it. At > times, it > provides the kernel with essential information about the > configuration > of the system. At times, in some cases, the kernel > requests the BIOS > to perform certain essential tasks. That's about it. > > Point is, if it's removed, the system won't boot > up. Which is > perfectly along the same lines of, if the kernel is not > there, the > rest of the system can't come up. It can come up if Mr. Stallman gets his way of either LinuxBIOS http://www.linuxbios.org/ or OpenBIOS http://www.openbios.info/ to succeed. http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/28/1126226 > > -- too bad there is no GNU BIOS that can do the functions of a BIOS :( Regards, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
Alexandre Oliva wrote: What do you mean "other than the Hurd"? I mean "except for the Hurd", "save for the Hurd", or however you'd like to phrase the act of taking a set with hundreds of elements, and applying the same predicate to all but one of them. I don't mean the semantics, I mean philosophically. Why would you except the one thing that deserves to be called GNU from this discussion? Look at the list of packages at ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu and you'll find out GNU is *far* more than the Hurd. While trying to collect evidence to support your absurd statement, you'll find out that GNU is actually what makes up what you always mistook for Linux, and that Linux is indeed just a kernel, even if it happens to be more interesting and far more relevant than the Hurd. ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/, go figure. And yet, there is still something that _IS_ the GNU project's OS, that people can use if they want to use something named GNU. But, overwhelming they pick some other project instead. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Jul 25, 2008, Les <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Do you know what the BIOS actually does? Yep. It loads the kernel and transfers control to it. At times, it provides the kernel with essential information about the configuration of the system. At times, in some cases, the kernel requests the BIOS to perform certain essential tasks. That's about it. Point is, if it's removed, the system won't boot up. Which is perfectly along the same lines of, if the kernel is not there, the rest of the system can't come up. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Jul 25, 2008, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What do you mean "other than the Hurd"? I mean "except for the Hurd", "save for the Hurd", or however you'd like to phrase the act of taking a set with hundreds of elements, and applying the same predicate to all but one of them. Look at the list of packages at ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu and you'll find out GNU is *far* more than the Hurd. While trying to collect evidence to support your absurd statement, you'll find out that GNU is actually what makes up what you always mistook for Linux, and that Linux is indeed just a kernel, even if it happens to be more interesting and far more relevant than the Hurd. ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/, go figure. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
> > That's what enables GNU libc to offer the same > API and, > > at times, even the same ABI, while targeting very > different kernels. > > > >> Who did that port?? Linus and his team? > > > > Most certainly. I can't quite picture the GNU > project putting > > resources into the early development of GNU+Linux to > make the > > combination usable. Linux was not perceived as a > relevant kernel for > > the GNU operating system back then. > > More significantly, Linus didn't seem interested in > their cult politics > at the time. But the point regarding naming is that people > have always > had the choice to use the non-Linux version of GNU. They > still do. But > no one wants that. So why change the name of something > people do want > to include something they never have wanted? It's > clearly just a ploy > to drag out the cult politics the name conveys. > > -- I have some sites that shed some light in the matter : http://everything2.com/e2node/It%2527s%2520GNU%252FLinux%253B%2520stop%2520calling%2520it%2520%2522Linux%2522 Quoting directy from the page above GNU/Linux is awkward to read, say, and write. GNU/Linux leaves out at least 40% of the other authors, and is therefore just as inaccurate as just saying "Linux." The suggestion that a project be named after the largest contributer is absurd, considering that GNU was around long before Linux, and didn't catch on nearly as wildly. The project should be named after what most contributed to its success--the Linux kernel. That's why it's called Vespucciland and not Vikingland. I think it is safe to say that close to 100% of the linux source code (kernel or not) is GNU influenced. We may not have been as successful without Linus Torvalds, but without GNU, we wouldn't be here. RMS wishes he had completed a project as cool as Linux. Maybe some day he will, and then the tables will be reversed. Meanwhile, he's just got sour grapes that he isn't getting credit for the success he inspired but was unable to create. I acknowledge RMS and the work of the FSF. I appreciate the implications of the GPL. They didn't write Linux. They didn't put together a distribution that can be clearly labeled GNU--they even offended Debian. Yes, their work was used. I thank them. Out of convenience, I don't include their name (or any other of the many contributors) when naming a Linux Distribution. Calling it GNU/Linux is pretentious and wrong, because it makes it look like RMS/FSF deserves all the rest of the credit. It'd be silly to call it the GNU/BSD/MIT/Redhat/Debian/Slackware/Linux distribution. People would be confused and not know what you mean. Calling it Linux is much clearer. Calling it Linux Distribution or Linux Kernel is less ambiguous. http://www.dwheeler.com/sloc/ RMS has a page on what's in a name http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html Also from a page in the fsf http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html I found the following: Doesn't the GNU project support an individual's free speech rights to call the system by any name that individual chooses? Yes, indeed, we believe you have a free speech right to call the operating system by any name you wish. We ask that people call it GNU/Linux as a matter of doing justice to the GNU project, to promote the values of freedom that GNU stands for, and to inform others that those values of freedom brought the system into existence. We have a right to call it Linux because that is our choice. We also appreciate what GNU has done for us as well. Regards, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Jul 24, 2008, Marko Vojinovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Persons A and B are running a marathon on the Olympic games. You're quite creative at presenting analogies that sound convincing to support a point you're trying to make, and that hide all of their flaws in the careful manipulation of the mapping so that they end up supporting your point of view. One thing you need to learn (or maybe you do, and you hope people won't challenge the mapping) is that this doesn't make for convincing arguments. Say, you start out by putting it as if there had been a race, a competition between GNU and Linux, as if they'd started at about the same time, and as if both used something that is not much relevant (albeit useful), and GNU wants to claim credit for Linux. Well, none of this is true, but it's the basis for your marathon analogy. GNU started much earlier, and developed a lot of software for which it deserves the credit. You could make a parallel to it as the first laps of a relay race, and the last lap was the development of a kernel. Now, this is going to be funny, because both Hurd and Linux started their development to complete the GNU system. You could make a parallel to it as two teams that had identical twins running at identical speed during the same turns, except for the last one. These identical twins, in the original Greek olympic tradition, were all GNUdists :-) Now, those running the last turn weren't identical twins. One of them was a GNUdist. But he didn't quite run, he walked. He dropped the baton twice. It was not funny to watch. The other was too young to run on those olympic games. Four years later, he was allowed to compete, so he picked up the baton that had been sitting there waiting for him (while the GNUdist had just picked up the baton for the second time) and quickly ran around the field and crossed the finish line in just a few months. Clearly, the last GNUdist runner performed poorly, and the non-GNUdist runner did a good job and his team won. In the following olympic games, the last GNUdist runner announced it wasn't a priority for him to cross the finish line any more. Not that anyone cared, the gold medals had already been presented to the other team, of 3 GNUdists and the 1 non-GNUdist racer. That sounds about right, except for the 3:1 proportion. In real life, it was more like 11:1, but this last racer attended the ceremony, accepted the 12 medals on behalf of his team, but refused to send the 11 medals that each team mate deserved. And he believes he earned them, even though he was no faster than anyone other than that unfortunate last GNUdist. FTR, none of the racers represent any single person; each racer would map better to a team of developers. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
Alexandre Oliva wrote: On Jul 25, 2008, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So why change the name of something people do want to include something they never have wanted? Would you mind mentioning the components of the GNU operating system, other than the Hurd, that aren't present in any GNU+Linux distribution? This is the least you could do to substantiate the "something they never have wanted", or to convince yourself of how absurd the claim is. What do you mean "other than the Hurd"? That's the one from the GNU project and should be the main attraction unless you aren't really interested in the GNU project. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Jul 25, 2008, Bjoern Schiessle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Who did that port?? Linus and his team? >> >> Most certainly. I can't quite picture the GNU project putting >> resources into the early development of GNU+Linux to make the >> combination usable. Linux was not perceived as a relevant kernel for >> the GNU operating system back then. > It seems like the FSF has at least funded the necessary rewriting: Yep, but that was not exactly "early". That's what became libc.so.6, which would put that around 1994-5, if memory serves. By then, Linux was already perceived as relevant and important, and I believe the Hurd had already been shifted to lower priority. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Jul 25, 2008, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So why change the name of something people do want to include > something they never have wanted? Would you mind mentioning the components of the GNU operating system, other than the Hurd, that aren't present in any GNU+Linux distribution? This is the least you could do to substantiate the "something they never have wanted", or to convince yourself of how absurd the claim is. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
Do you know what the BIOS actually does? Regards, Les H On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 02:03 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jul 24, 2008, Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Marko Vojinovic: > >>> But tell me, what is in principle The Single Most Important element > >>> of the car? There is only one answer --- the engine. > > > Alexandre Oliva: > >> So, what remains to be justified is why you decided Linux is the > >> engine rather than say one of the tires. > > > You can't really expect anyone to give you any credibility if you want > > to argue that the kernel, the core of the system, is not the engine. > > By the very same argument, the most "important" piece of software in a > computer running a GNU/Linux distro would be the BIOS. > > I don't think this reasoning holds much water. > > -- > Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ > Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} > FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ > Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} > -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Who did that port?? Linus and his team? > > Most certainly. I can't quite picture the GNU project putting > resources into the early development of GNU+Linux to make the > combination usable. Linux was not perceived as a relevant kernel for > the GNU operating system back then. It seems like the FSF has at least funded the necessary rewriting: "The GNU Project supports GNU/Linux systems as well as the GNU system. The FSF funded the rewriting of the Linux-related extensions to the GNU C library, so that now they are well integrated, and the newest GNU/Linux systems use the current library release with no changes." Source: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html best wishes, Björn -- Support Free Software, join FSFE's Fellowship (http://www.fsfe.org) -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
a long rebuttal to the Linux-is-the-engine fallacy (was: Re: that old GNU/Linux argument)
On Jul 24, 2008, Marko Vojinovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As far as I know, the purpose of a kernel is to abstract the hardware layer > from the userspace software (this is of course an oversimplification, but I > believe it is sufficient for making the parallel). Yup. In fact, there are several layers of abstraction at work here. I don't see anything that makes this particular layer of abstraction any more special or relevant than others. So that remains to be justified, especially in the light of: > the kernel "does the essential work" (actually, it communicates > further to the hardware that does the actual work, but that is > abstracted out). Nevermind that what you "essential work" here is hardly perceived as such by users. What do they care that there are multiple CPUs there that need a task scheduler, or how files or even filesystems are laid out on disk, or how interrupts and DMA are handled? They just want to browse the web, read their e-mail, play their movies and songs, write their texts, prepare their presentations, perform their High-Performance computations, run databases, serve out files, etc. *That*'s the essential work for *them*. The kernel, like so many good administrators, works behind the scenes, imperceptibly, doing work that others perceive as irrelevant, but that is indeed very important for the whole system to function, but that is most definitely not the end goal of the system. I'd concede to qualifying it as *an* essential part, but not as *the* essential part. In good teams, every member performs an essential task, and if you take any member out, the team gets a severe hit and may even become completely dysfunctional. Every member of such a team might claim to be the most important, because his/her removal would have such a severe impact, but the conclusion would be that *all* of them are *the* most important, and this doesn't make sense. I don't think that this is the kind of measuring stick we're looking for. > The parallel is simple --- the car engine is also the one "doing the > essential work" (converting fuel to mechanical --- ie. usable --- > energy). Converting fuel to mechanical energy is hardly what most people who purchase a car are interested in. In fact, I'd say that if someone purchases a car and get just an engine, and customer support goes "hey, the engine is the essential component of a car; Marko Vojinovic says so" it wouldn't get very happy customers. Very few people actually care that there is an engine in their car. Or a motor. Or both, for hybrids. Or propellers, jet propulsion, magnets and superconductors, magic powder, whatever. Converting energy is not the purpose of a car, and it's hardly even a relevant part of the user experience. People buy cars to drive to places, not to convert fuel to mechanical energy. People expect cars to have some steering and speed controls, seats, lights, and that's about it. Which is not to say that the engine is not relevant for today's cars. It is indeed very important. But, as you said yourself, many components are so important for a car to work that, if you take them out, it won't work any more, and the engine is not a part of the user experience that the user cares about. So how can we support the claim that the engine is the most important part? Or, avoiding any imperfections introduced by the analogy, how could we support the claim that Linux is the most important part of a system of which it is a kernel? > Consider a simple situation --- take a Fedora distro, and remove all > GNU utilities. The system will lose much of its functionality, but > not all. Do you have any evidence to support this claim? I very much doubt it, and I invite you to give that a try. I get the impression that you don't have the faintest idea of how extensive the GNU project is, and how extensive the reliance of the whole system on GNU software is. You wouldn't wave it away so easily if you did. Please "show me the code", as I'm sure you heard before, most often without the 'please', given the, erhm, source :-) > Some hypothetical userspace program could still be able to > communicate to the kernel and do some useful work. Indeed, you could boot up the kernel and have it run this hypothetical program as init. Nevermind the details of how you actually managed to compile, assemble and link this program into something that can issue system calls without GCC, GNU as, GNU ld and GNU libc. For the sake of the argument, let's assume you coded it by hand, in binary, directly into an ELF static executable, or that you used some other toolchain, and some other library that is far more limited but that serves your purpose. Great, it can probably do some useful stuff, such as printing Hello World, running a firewall or, to cite the example of the engine, converting electrical energy into heat. Or rather getting the microprocessors to do that because, you know, it's not the kernel that actually dissipates power,
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
> Except that when they were written, no system exactly matched what they > specified so you couldn't rely on them to work although they might have > been useful to point fingers at the non-complying implementations. Very much untrue. If you stuck to what POSIX guaranteed then you got very portable code. If there was problem with early POSIX it was much more that there were a ton of things it didn't specify and thus a strictly POSIX compliant process couldn't do a lot of useful stuff (like networking..) Alan -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
Alan Cox wrote: Yes, there was some version of the Posix standard in that time frame. It was just incomplete and described some mythical system that matched no existing BSD or SysV flavor, so it was mostly ignored. Sort of like Not really the case. POSIX described a set of behaviours that were Unixlike and could be relied upon. Except that when they were written, no system exactly matched what they specified so you couldn't rely on them to work although they might have been useful to point fingers at the non-complying implementations. What it covered was far less than Unix and it took great care to indicate what was not to be relied upon and in time SuS and similar specs expanded on this by introducing new functions where commonality was needed and the existing interfaces were deficient - obvious examples include termios and sigaction. POSIX was and is very important but the basic core of posix isn't about 'being Unix' it is about fundamental things like write/lseek/open/mkdir ... It's all somewhat academic until you have enough that a program actually works on more than one platform. I think the 1995 version started to get there. I'm not sure which one Windows NT used as it's checklist item to claim conformance. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
> Yes, there was some version of the Posix standard in that time frame. > It was just incomplete and described some mythical system that matched > no existing BSD or SysV flavor, so it was mostly ignored. Sort of like Not really the case. POSIX described a set of behaviours that were Unixlike and could be relied upon. What it covered was far less than Unix and it took great care to indicate what was not to be relied upon and in time SuS and similar specs expanded on this by introducing new functions where commonality was needed and the existing interfaces were deficient - obvious examples include termios and sigaction. POSIX was and is very important but the basic core of posix isn't about 'being Unix' it is about fundamental things like write/lseek/open/mkdir ... -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
Björn Persson wrote: Les Mikesell wrote: I've forgotten the timing, but I don't think Posix had a full/useful spec until well after Linux. AT&T's SVID spec (published for sysvr4 around 1989) would have been about right. Posix wasn't very complete until 1995 or so. On the third of July 1991, Linus Torvalds asked in comp.os.minix where he could get the Posix standard. I suppose Posix has evolved since then, but apparently an early version did exist. (He wanted it for the system call specifications.) Yes, there was some version of the Posix standard in that time frame. It was just incomplete and described some mythical system that matched no existing BSD or SysV flavor, so it was mostly ignored. Sort of like the previous and current Linux FHS versions that just move things around arbitrarily without sufficiently describing a portable runtime environment for an application. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
Les Mikesell wrote: > I've forgotten the timing, but I don't think Posix had a full/useful > spec until well after Linux. AT&T's SVID spec (published for sysvr4 > around 1989) would have been about right. Posix wasn't very complete > until 1995 or so. On the third of July 1991, Linus Torvalds asked in comp.os.minix where he could get the Posix standard. I suppose Posix has evolved since then, but apparently an early version did exist. (He wanted it for the system call specifications.) Björn Persson -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 12:47 +0200, Björn Persson wrote: > Tim wrote: > > Speaking as someone who studied (at college) computing from the > > component level, and has built systems from the chip level. I mean > > breadboarding CPUs, RAM, I/O, etc., not just putting together IBM > > clones. As well as studying programming at that level (hand compiling > > the op-codes from mnemonics used to write the program). I'm quite > > astounded by the number of people who want to redefine what an OS is, to > > something that it's not, just to suit their egos. The OS simply is that > > which lets software make use of the hardware, not what makes it > > convenient for us to make use of it. > > > > So answer this: Which bit of the software on this computer system is it > > that actually does the OS functions, the *real* OS function? > > With all that education you have, perhaps you can explain something I've been > wondering about: Why do we have both terms "kernel" and "operating system" if > they're both the same thing? > > If people can't agree on what an operating system is, but do agree on what a > kernel is, maybe we should avoid the ambiguity of "operating system" and > simply call a kernel a kernel? > > Björn Persson > At the risk of violating my own prohibition I am forced to respond to the above e-mail. The kernel and the operating system are certainly not the same thing in the same sense that the engine and the car are not the same thing. -- === What's so funny? === Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
Alexandre Oliva wrote: That's what enables GNU libc to offer the same API and, at times, even the same ABI, while targeting very different kernels. Who did that port?? Linus and his team? Most certainly. I can't quite picture the GNU project putting resources into the early development of GNU+Linux to make the combination usable. Linux was not perceived as a relevant kernel for the GNU operating system back then. More significantly, Linus didn't seem interested in their cult politics at the time. But the point regarding naming is that people have always had the choice to use the non-Linux version of GNU. They still do. But no one wants that. So why change the name of something people do want to include something they never have wanted? It's clearly just a ploy to drag out the cult politics the name conveys. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
