[CLUE-Talk] Thoughts on GNU.

[Jeffery Cann]

On Sunday 26 May 2002 09:08 pm, David Anselmi wrote:
> There was a post a few days ago linking to an RMS article that said,
> among other things, that the correct name of our favorite OS is
> GNU/Linux, not Linux.

Although this is Really Old News (tm), I have to chime in and take the side 
of RMS.  Without GNU tools Linux would not exist.  It's a simple fact.  Now 
that much of a distribution's code (72%?) is not code from the GNU project is 
not the point (to RMS) about the GNU/Linux moniker.  His point is that 
without the _philosophy_ of GNU, we would all _still_ be trying to make 
(proprietary) Minix work.  How lame would that be?

> Well, my only reaction is that GNU is unsuitable as a brand and Linux
> works fine.  I don't know diddly about business, so ignore my opinion if
> you like.

So, Linux is only about business?  Sorry about the straw man, but I had to 
ask!

This is where RMS is oft-misunderstood -- he cares only about your rights as 
a software user.  He believes that the _only_ way to preserve them is for the 
code to be free, as in the GNU General Public License (GPL).

 + http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/

What makes folks mad about RMS is that he never changes his stance with 
respect to source code.  Closed = bad, open = good.  It will be that way 
until he dies.  He is the ultimate stubborn mule, but with good reasons.

Dave, based on your post, you care about the marketability of a term like 
GNU.  RMS doesn't.  He wants _all_ software to include source code and he 
wants us to be able to make changes to it.  Period.

Personally, I started using Linux because I had the same attitude as Dmitry 
(first post below) -- that a bunch of 'hackers' couldn't produce a viable 
operating system.  'They aren't professionals.', I thought.  'How could they 
do it without being paid?', I wondered.  That was in 1995.  

I was naive because I didn't understand the power of human creation, 
especially in the face of oppression.  Specifically, the oppression created 
by companies like IBM (1970s-1980s) and Microsoft (1990s - now).  You trade 
your cash for your freedom.  This is one way to operate in the world -- most 
folks never think twice about it and are probably unharmed (in the case of 
software).  Personally, I would rather have my freedom.

While using LInux (dual-boot for about 2 years), I learned about GNU.  I 
agree with them simply because I have had the personal experience of 
commercial software vendors ignoring me (the paid customer) with unfixed bugs 
and useless support, broken software, broken promises, etc.

So, I took matters into my own hands.  In 1997, I deleted my windows 
partition and never looked back.  The GPL enables me to keep matters in my 
own hands.  I'll never look back.  I will continue to fight to free source 
code.  I will continue to help fix bugs and GPL my own code.  I will continue 
to choose GPL software over proprietary.

This is why Linux (and open source, if you like the feel-good marketing term) 
will continue to exist.  It's about freedom -- yours and mine to control our 
digital existences.  RMS started it _all_.  Without him and GNU, there _is_ 
no Linux (as Linus why he couldn't hack Minix, BTW).  There _is_ no 'open 
source'.  There is no freedom.

Know thy history, right?

> But hey, look at this.  A rant against GNU/Linux (or should we say
> LiGNUx--then we're still CLUE and not CGUE or CG/LUE):
>
> http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/22.06.html#subj5

This post is mindless diatribe by someone arrogant enought to think that 
folks working on Linux are not smarter than him.  His post disproves his 
sentiment,  For example:

"But the $15 question remains: would you board an airplane designed by, say,
2nd year biology student as a night-time hobby? So what makes you think
their software design skills are any better?"

So, we should not use Linux because some students may have hacked it?  If a 
particular student's code sucks, it will not get into the kernel.  This is 
true now and true in 1993.  Further, what makes the poster think that 
so-called 'professional' software developers know what they are doing?  
Having worked as one for 7 years, I can tell you that about 25% of 
professional developers actually know their ass from a hole in the ground.  
The rest are clueless lemmings and this is why commercial software (in 
general) sucks.

Also, gotta love the 1975 UNIX born on date.  Sheesh.  At least do a google 
to check some facts...

> Better is the counter-rant at:

Ted T'so actually has credibility because of his work in the GNU C library 
and Linux kernel code.  He did an excellent job of refuting the first post.

> http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/22.07.html#subj8
>
> Good stuff by smart people, which is why I try to follow the Risks
> Digest.

I am grateful for your post because the links were worth the read.  The first 
was funny and the second contained sound reasoning.

Adios.
Jeff