[CLUE-Talk] Re: Thoughts on GNU.

[Mike Benavides]

clue-talk-request at clue.denver.co.us wrote:

>Send CLUE-Talk mailing list submissions to
>	clue-talk at clue.denver.co.us
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>	http://clue.denver.co.us/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>	clue-talk-request at clue.denver.co.us
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>	clue-talk-admin at clue.denver.co.us
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of CLUE-Talk digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>  1. Thoughts on GNU. (David Anselmi)
>  2. Re: Thoughts on GNU. (Jeffery Cann)
>  3. Re: Thoughts on GNU. (Jed S. Baer)
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 21:08:28 -0600
>From: David Anselmi <anselmi at americanisp.net>
>To: clue talk list <clue-talk at clue.denver.co.us>
>Subject: [CLUE-Talk] Thoughts on GNU.
>Reply-To: clue-talk at clue.denver.co.us
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>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
>
>Better is the counter-rant at:
>
>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.
>
>Dave
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 2
>charset="iso-8859-1"
>From: Jeffery Cann <fabian at jefferycann.com>
>Organization: Planet Earth (tm)
>To: clue-talk at clue.denver.co.us
>Subject: Re: [CLUE-Talk] Thoughts on GNU.
>Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 21:59:24 -0600
>Reply-To: clue-talk at clue.denver.co.us
>
>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
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 22:02:09 -0600
>From: "Jed S. Baer" <thag at frii.com>
>To: clue-talk at clue.denver.co.us
>Subject: Re: [CLUE-Talk] Thoughts on GNU.
>Organization: linked
>Reply-To: clue-talk at clue.denver.co.us
>
>On Sun, 26 May 2002 21:08:28 -0600
>David Anselmi <anselmi at americanisp.net> 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.
>>
>
>Only the latest of many such. Gotta admire Stallman for tenacity.
>
>>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.
>>
>
>GNU/Linux just seems unwieldy. People have tendency to shorten terminology
>anyway. Whether or not RMS has a point, "Linux" has gotten "brand
>recognition" Yeah, it would be nice if more people would hear about GNU
>and the Free Software Foundation, and Linux is a good route for that sort
>of thing.
>
>The thing I found most interesting in that article, and I'm surprised more
>people didn't comment about, was the inclusion of the binary-only content
>in device drivers, and whether this can truly be considered "open source"
>in the GPL sense.
>
>>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
>>
>
>The author makes some good points, put he's painting with awfully broad
>brush. Yep, I've met the "non-CompSci" types who think they're more
>competent at software development than they are, and don't realize it. But
>there are also people who have knack for software, even though their
>degree is in chemistry. They developed an interest in software later, and
>learned in various ways.
>
>I might not, in fact, know whether the person[s] who wrote xyz program
>that I use regularly are "bona-fide" software engineers, talented
>hobbyists, or boneheads. But I can try the program out and see if it
>works. The klunkers are usually pretty easy to weed out quickly. And, just
>because a program comes from Sun, or HP, or some other big company,
>doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be well-written either.
>
>I wish I were well-informed enough about the whole comfigure/make/build
>process, on several platforms, to know how well his statement about that
>holds up. My suspicion is that it isn't just GNU programs which suffer
>from similar maladies.
>
>>Better is the counter-rant at:
>>
>>http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/22.07.html#subj8
>>
>
>Obviously, since he makes the same points I did, yes, much better ;-).
>Except when he was talking about "All the world's a VAX", he didn't mean
>VMS |-(
>
>jed
>
Whether we like it or not we are in a middle of a revolution of sorts. 
GNU/Linux and the GNU tools set have opened the freedom that has changed 
the landscape of the computing world forever. People like RMS is at 
times looked as a radical but, without GPL and freesoftware the 
landscape would be dominated by MS alone.... They(MS) are worried about  
our model and they will do anything to discredit it....  Computing is 
about sharing code and peer review... MS is the ones that closed off the 
source... The fight lives on...

Mike