I just went to a talk by Free Software Foundation founder Richard Stallman at UT. While I tend to agree with Stallman's ideas about sharing information for the greater good of society, his inflexibility about his ideals lead me at times to label him a "wacko" or a "zealot."
I briefly ran an email newsletter about Linux in large organizations that was an off-shoot of the already-defunct Enterprise Linux magazine. When Microsoft published its .NET specification to the ECMA, FSF announced it would launch the "Dot-GNU" project for an interoperable runtime in Free Software. I called FSF for an interview for a story, and basically got a tongue-lashing from their PR guy, giving me static about how my publication should be called, Enterprise GNU/Linux, rather than Enterprise Linux. I explained that I didn't name the book, and the distinction would be lost on my editor. Brad explained that he wouldn't find me a spokesperson unless I used their nomenclature, which, at the time, seemed very disrespectful to me in my role as a writer/editor. Its surprised me a little that they would rather quibble over nomenclature than publicize their project, but that they the choice they made.
I was looking forward to today's talk, but Stallman, basically rehashed stuff I've heard over and over again: the social good of Free Software, the evils of proprietary software, and the difference between Free Software and open source software. After he spent a good 20-25 ninutes bitching about people who say just "Linux" and not "GNU/Linux," I decided that Stallman was not going to cover any new ground and was wasting my time. Stallman did have an interesting example at one point, but it was so drowned out in the irritating, repetitive stuff that I forgot what it was.
Bleh. What a shame. I had always wanted to hear RMS... but to be honest I don't care about linux being called GNU/linux or any of that other bullshit. How tired.
Posted by: loophole at March 4, 2003 04:04 PMI was never interested in GNU/Linux untill I heard about the GNU-philosophy because someone wrote "GNU/Linux" instead instead "Linux", like most people I know.
Most "Linux"-users don't have a clue what GNU is, and why it is important, even so with all "Linux"-Magazines. They think they all experts, but basically there are clueless, ignorant and indifferent.
Posted by: Wildebeest at March 20, 2003 05:33 PMits not about a nomenclature problem alone. People tend to start figuring out all by themselves, usually, by searching on the internet about what they heard. When they hear about "Linux" they merely tend to read about the lesser-important things such as technical superiority over proprietary software, etc.,.
On the contrary when they hear about "GNU/Linux" they are surprised and they go out to find what GNU is. For instance, searching on google.com for "Linux" throws a different set of results than search for "GNU/Linux" on the same.
Secondly, mere technical supremacy will not just help... We all know Microsoft, Oracle, Sun Microsystems, etc.,. are all pumping a lot of money into their research and development and they also have the ability to study the technical aspects of free software and implement it in their non-free software while we in the free software community cannot study their software because its not free. They get to enjoy the benefits of our software being free, while we donot get to gain anything out of them figuring out our techniques. Anyday, they can emerge as very powerful solution providers, but the ethical angle of their software being non-free will always lose against free software. And thats why its important that people should care about the ethical angle more than the mere technical superiority.
Posted by: Suraj at April 2, 2003 09:48 PMFor whatever reason, people keep commenting on this topic, and I think I'll sound off and clarify. When I edited a Linux magazine, I never considered myself an expert on Linux: my role was an editor and to make judgement calls on clarity and how informative a phrase was. I still think that using the term "GNU/Linux" would have been counterproductive in this context, and it was certainly counterproductive on the part of FSF to second-guess me as an editor. Moreover, they are the ones that are ignorant and indifferent, when I explained the institutional issues I had to negotiate in my role. I explained a style guide, etc, but they were more interested in being stubborn and wasting my time than get their initiative listed in my publication. I think Stallman is often very petty and self-aggrandizing.
Posted by: m4dd4wg at April 2, 2003 10:28 PMrecent entries
internet to zone out
internet to zone out
sticky situation and paperwork
just deserts
heap of burnt orange
update
wing in the happy house
rushing out of frame
not really that powerful
intertextual gaffe
about infobong.com
archives
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
topics