Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Thomas Hood]

RMS wrote:
> I'm glad you appreciate our work, but if you call the system "Linux",
> you lead other people to suppose it was done by Linus.

I think I see now why you have been pursuing this issue like
a abused Pit Bull.  You perceive in the name 'Linux' an implicit
claim that what it denotes is entirely the work of Linus Torvalds.

There is no such implication in it.  As for interpretation,
Linux newbies don't even know that someone named 'Linus Torvalds'
exists, while Linux cognoscenti know perfectly well that
Linus Torvalds didn't write the whole thing.  That leaves the
semi-informed, i.e., journalists, but who cares what they
think?  There is no problem here.

                       IT'S JUST A NAME

-- 
Thomas Hood <jdthood@yahoo.co.uk>

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[David Lloyd]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


LOL

> At any rate, this discussion is now officially off-topic for lkml so
> lets stop it.

Why bother about stopping it? We may as well talk about the Nazis
instead ;-P

- -- 
Who now has the strength to stand against
 the armies of Isengard and Mordor?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/Gxnnmk7m2JX6ki4RAugSAKC53Oy4rCgc6WfhNGB0rhHWvgy6kACgy7xU
AGxBZO6BgeK24CRLm3nfMKU=
=/msn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Wichert Akkerman]

Previously Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra wrote:
> 	Thanks for the info on documentation, but that Debian carries non-free
> software against FSF's will is a fact.  Or did BillG put all those
> non-free dirs there?

These are differences between Debian the project and Debian the
distribution. non-free is not a part of the distribtion and never has
been. The Debian project has always had people who are willing to
package up a few non-free bits of software. The FSF did not have a
problem with that at all if those were put on a different server
(ie not visible on ftp.debian.org but on non-free.debian.org for
example).

> Perhaps, but it is their goal.  If they don't, it means the proprietary
> lock-in game is succeeding.

It is the goal of a vocal minority of people within Debian, but the
project as a whole has not set that as a goal at all. This has also
nothing to do with lock-in at all.

At any rate, this discussion is now officially off-topic for lkml so
lets stop it.

Wichert.

-- 
Wichert Akkerman <wichert@wiggy.net>      It is simple to make things.
http://www.wiggy.net/                     It is hard to make things simple.

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:30:53 -0500, Brian McGroarty wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 04:42:00AM +0200, Leandro Guimar?es Faria Corsetti Dutra wrote:
>> 
>> 	He's not deciding, he's requesting.  There is a difference, and there
>> must be a reason why so many people get so incensed at such a simple,
>> rational, reasonable request.
> 
> The whole blowup over RMS requesting the GNU/Linux tag is that a lot
> of folks think he's talking about the kernel, and not Linux
> distributions.

	I doubt if it is so simple... there's the obvious personality
crash, but I feel there's something more than just Larry piggybacking
on free software and people feeling pressured by an ethical instance
which makes their consciences hurt.

	Regarding Larry, his position must he hard, though: he knows
he's toast if someone does to BK what Linus did to SysV, especially
given how much he alienated principled GNU believers.  Funny thing is
that he was wiser ten years ago, when he proposed to free Solaris so
as to get ahead of the free software game; now he just want to have
his piece of cake and eat it too.  Obviously he's entitled to it under
the current system of government-granted private monopolies on
artificial scarcity, AKA copyrights; it is just disconcentingly
incoherent he chooses free software as a showroom...


> Even many folks "in the know" seem to miss this distinction: RMS
> hasn't ever asked that the kernel be called GNU/Linux. He asks that
> "Linux distributions," which are called "Linux" by the public at
> large, carry the extra tag.

	I know one shouldn't presume ill faith when incompetence
suffices... but these issues have been hashed to death, and still
people seem to hate RMS even more than they love their own confort.
Kinda like it was said of the Left she would be more effective if she
loved the poors as much as she hated the rich.  Just here we're
talking morals, not money.

	Asbestos up.


-- 
 _   Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra     +41 (21) 648 11 34
/ \  http://br.geocities.com./lgcdutra/         +41 (78) 778 11 34
\ /  Answer to the list, not to me directly!    +55 (11) 5686 2219
/ \  Rate this if helpful: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=leandro

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 12:55:29 +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:

> Previously Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra wrote:
>> 	It won't be the first disagreement.  Debian actually was
>> poised to become *the* GNU distribution until they insisted on
>> carrying non-free software, when that was even more essential.
> 
> Please get your facts straight. Debian never insisted on carrying
> non-free software. There was disagreement over references to non-free
> software in Documentation. FSF would not allow documentation to mention
> the OSS drivers for example. 

	Thanks for the info on documentation, but that Debian carries non-free
software against FSF's will is a fact.  Or did BillG put all those
non-free dirs there?


>> Every so often this issue is raised again; presumably they will shed
>> non-free completely once a recent free version of Java 2, SWF player
>> and assorted stuff becomes available.
> 
> And perhaps not.

	Perhaps, but it is their goal.  If they don't, it means the proprietary
lock-in game is succeeding.


-- 
 _   Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra     +41 (21) 648 11 34
/ \  http://br.geocities.com./lgcdutra/         +41 (78) 778 11 34
\ /  Answer to the list, not to me directly!    +55 (11) 5686 2219
/ \  Rate this if helpful: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=leandro

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Brian McGroarty]

On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 04:42:00AM +0200, Leandro Guimar?es Faria Corsetti Dutra wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2003 20:46:01 -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> 
> > Just as every other free software developers.  Yet the _majority_ of those
> > GNU developers seem to be quite happy with the way they get credits,
> > otherwise they would complain on their own.  You just can't decide for the
> > whole community how it should be done.
> 
> 	He's not deciding, he's requesting.  There is a difference, and there
> must be a reason why so many people get so incensed at such a simple,
> rational, reasonable request.

The whole blowup over RMS requesting the GNU/Linux tag is that a lot
of folks think he's talking about the kernel, and not Linux
distributions.

Even many folks "in the know" seem to miss this distinction: RMS
hasn't ever asked that the kernel be called GNU/Linux. He asks that
"Linux distributions," which are called "Linux" by the public at
large, carry the extra tag.

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Wichert Akkerman]

Previously Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra wrote:
> 	It won't be the first disagreement.  Debian actually was
> poised to become *the* GNU distribution until they insisted on
> carrying non-free software, when that was even more essential.

Please get your facts straight. Debian never insisted on carrying
non-free software. There was disagreement over references to non-free
software in Documentation. FSF would not allow documentation to mention
the OSS drivers for example. 

> Every so often this issue is raised again; presumably they will shed
> non-free completely once a recent free version of Java 2, SWF player
> and assorted stuff becomes available.

And perhaps not.

Wichert.

-- 
Wichert Akkerman <wichert@wiggy.net>      It is simple to make things.
http://www.wiggy.net/                     It is hard to make things simple.

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 10:09:40 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:

> Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra <lgcdutra@terra.com.br> writes:
> 
>> 	Debian actually calls it GNU/Linux.
> 
> OTOH, Debian is the only distribution that might remove FSF credits
> and calls for funding

	References?


> and the GNU Manifesto from the distribution.  I

	I'd be surprised.  They carry the Anarchist Manifesto and the
KJV Bible.


> don't know of any other distribution which is considering such
> far-reaching plans.

	It won't be the first disagreement.  Debian actually was
poised to become *the* GNU distribution until they insisted on
carrying non-free software, when that was even more essential.  Every
so often this issue is raised again; presumably they will shed
non-free completely once a recent free version of Java 2, SWF player
and assorted stuff becomes available.

	What they *are* doing is removing the GNU FDL stuff.  I have
read the discussions, and it seems to me something they could get over
if RMS and some small group of Debian people -- *not* all of
debian-legal -- had a good talk over a good beer.

	OTOH all this never prevented Debian from being preferred by
the FSF, actually used by RMS, and from calling itself Debian
GNU/Linux, as well as being the Hurd distro.



-- 
 _   Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra     +41 (21) 648 11 34
/ \  http://br.geocities.com./lgcdutra/         +41 (78) 778 11 34
\ /  Answer to the list, not to me directly!    +55 (11) 5686 2219
/ \  Rate this if helpful: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=leandro

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Florian Weimer]

Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra <lgcdutra@terra.com.br> writes:

> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:21:07 -0500, Mark Mielke wrote:
>
>> Good. So go fight with RedHat, Debian, and all the other distros to ensure
>> that they give you whatever credit you want.
>
> 	Debian actually calls it GNU/Linux.

OTOH, Debian is the only distribution that might remove FSF credits
and calls for funding, and the GNU Manifesto from the distribution.  I
don't know of any other distribution which is considering such
far-reaching plans.

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra]

On Sun, 19 Jan 2003 20:46:01 -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
> 
>> Or they don't feel strongly enough to press the point. 
> 
> Which means that you are the only one who cares.

	I do care too, even if I'm just an user.


> Just as every other free software developers.  Yet the _majority_ of those
> GNU developers seem to be quite happy with the way they get credits,
> otherwise they would complain on their own.  You just can't decide for the
> whole community how it should be done.

	He's not deciding, he's requesting.  There is a difference, and there
must be a reason why so many people get so incensed at such a simple,
rational, reasonable request.


-- 
 _   Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra     +41 (21) 648 11 34
/ \  http://br.geocities.com./lgcdutra/         +41 (78) 778 11 34
\ /  Answer to the list, not to me directly!    +55 (11) 5686 2219
/ \  Rate this if helpful: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=leandro

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra]

On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:21:07 -0500, Mark Mielke wrote:

> Good. So go fight with RedHat, Debian, and all the other distros to ensure
> that they give you whatever credit you want.

	Debian actually calls it GNU/Linux.


-- 
 _   Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra     +41 (21) 648 11 34
/ \  http://br.geocities.com./lgcdutra/         +41 (78) 778 11 34
\ /  Answer to the list, not to me directly!    +55 (11) 5686 2219
/ \  Rate this if helpful: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=leandro

RE: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com]

Have you renamed Hurd to Linux/Hurd yet?  Please take care of that as soon
as possible.

-----Original Message-----
From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
[mailto:linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org]On Behalf Of Richard Stallman
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 5:38 AM
To: Mark Mielke
Cc: brand@jupiter.cs.uni-dortmund.de; steve@tuxsoft.com;
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; brand@eeyore.valparaiso.cl
Subject: Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him


    Good. So go fight with RedHat, Debian, and all the other distros to
ensure
    that they give you whatever credit you want.

See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#companies.

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Murray J. Root]

I really hate myself for responding to people like you, but I feel compelled.

On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 06:37:42AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>     Good. So go fight with RedHat, Debian, and all the other distros to ensure
>     that they give you whatever credit you want.
> 
> See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#companies.

As usual, you missed the point.

You are posting your message to the wrong place.

This is the "Linux Kernel Mail List". Nothing to do with you, GNU, or
distributions that use GNU. 

GO AWAY if you are not discussing *LINUX* issues.

-- 
Murray J. Root

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Richard Stallman]

    Good. So go fight with RedHat, Debian, and all the other distros to ensure
    that they give you whatever credit you want.

See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#companies.

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Nick Matteo]

On Wednesday 22 January 2003 11:44 am, John Alvord wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
> >     > The meaning attached to this symbol is one we disagree with (see
> >     > http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html), so we will not accept
> >     > it as the symbol of our work.
> >
> >     But you don't attach strings about naming in GPL, so you are SOL
> > respect FSF owned software.
> >
> > Please see http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#deserve.
> >
> >     What is discussed here is the operating system (narrow sense, i.e.,
> > kernel only) called Linux, on which you have no claim whatsoever.
> >
> > We all agree that the proper name for the kernel is "Linux."
> > The disagreement is about the name for the complete system
> > that people use on desktops and servers.
>
> 98% of end users and server users get their software from a major
> distributor like RedHat or Suse. It seems to be you would get much bigger
> effect by prosletyzing to those companies. Are you doing that preaching as
> well as in this small section of the electronic world?
>
> john

If you followed the link in the post you replied to, you'd see he did contact 
several distro vendors, and Mandrake has started to switch to calling it 
GNU/Linux.

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Jan Harkes]

On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 07:47:13PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I see a hint of "give up, it's hopeless" in your message.

But it is hopeless, I tried, but it didn't work,

    jaharkes@ravel:/usr/src$ mv linux Gnu/Linux
    mv: cannot move `linux' to `Gnu/Linux': No such file or directory


Sigh, I guess I'll just have to learn to live with it.

Jan

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[John Alvord]

On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:

>     > The meaning attached to this symbol is one we disagree with (see
>     > http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html), so we will not accept
>     > it as the symbol of our work.
> 
>     But you don't attach strings about naming in GPL, so you are SOL respect
>     FSF owned software.
> 
> Please see http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#deserve.
> 
>     What is discussed here is the operating system (narrow sense, i.e., kernel
>     only) called Linux, on which you have no claim whatsoever.
> 
> We all agree that the proper name for the kernel is "Linux."
> The disagreement is about the name for the complete system
> that people use on desktops and servers.

98% of end users and server users get their software from a major
distributor like RedHat or Suse. It seems to be you would get much bigger
effect by prosletyzing to those companies. Are you doing that preaching as
well as in this small section of the electronic world?

john

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Mark Mielke]

On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 04:59:37AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>     What is discussed here is the operating system (narrow sense, i.e.,
>     kernel only) called Linux, on which you have no claim whatsoever.
> We all agree that the proper name for the kernel is "Linux."
> The disagreement is about the name for the complete system
> that people use on desktops and servers.

Good. So go fight with RedHat, Debian, and all the other distros to ensure
that they give you whatever credit you want.

mark

P.S. Please honour my request for you to include the names of the people
     you are quoting in emails. It is a disrespectful act to purposefully
     remove credit for quotes. For somebody arguing about credit, it seems
     a little contradictory...

-- 
mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________
.  .  _  ._  . .   .__    .  . ._. .__ .   . . .__  | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/    |_     |\/|  |  |_  |   |/  |_   | 
|  | | | | \ | \   |__ .  |  | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__  | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

  One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
                       and in the darkness bind them...

                           http://mark.mielke.cc/

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Dave Jones]

On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 04:59:37AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:

 > We all agree that the proper name for the kernel is "Linux."
 > The disagreement is about the name for the complete system
 > that people use on desktops and servers.

This being the _kernel_ list, can you now take your rants someplace
else where it might actually be relevant ?  If your beef is with the
distros, I'm sure you can do the groundwork to figure out who
to whine at.

		Dave

-- 
| Dave Jones.        http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Jamie Lokier]

Paulo Andre' wrote:
> Really, if it didn't work until now what makes you think it'll work
> in the future?

Oh, but it is working.  I've seen quite a few web pages that say
something to the effect of "I use GNU/Linux" or "this site runs on
blah blah GNU/Linux".

I think it likely that each person who wrote the "GNU/" thought about
why they wanted to write it, too - which is the real point, isn't it?

I don't know anyone who actually says GNU/Linux verbally though -- it's
quite clumsy to say.

(For my part, I never say or write "GNU/Linux", but instead I tend to
say I use and write "Free Software".  Unfortunately people still have
trouble recognising how they are affected by the freedoms of _other_
people, so they persist in thinking I must mean something to do with
the price tag.  Alas!)

> Even if you were right, I honestly don't see, with all my good will, a
> successful ending to your quest. Do you?

What is the rush to end the quest?

Richard's campaign is about political awareness, and it seems to be
working.  If the campaign stopped today, that awareness might die down.

Hopefully, the day will come when that is ok -- not because there are
lots of people saying the same thing, but because terms like GNU and
Free Software will be redundant.

Hopefully, one day freely sharing ideas will the norm, as cultures
develop which encourage sharing without hunger, and fighting over who
owns (and so is the sole profiter of) an idea will seem weird.

_Then_ this particular quest is ready to end.  It may be a long time yet,
perhaps longer than Richard or I will live.  But hopefully not.

-- Jamie

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Paulo Andre']

On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 04:59:37 -0500
Richard Stallman wrote:

>We all agree that the proper name for the kernel is "Linux."
>The disagreement is about the name for the complete system
>that people use on desktops and servers.

Richard,

Ok, let's just say that you're reasoning is not completely way off, that
you may even make some sense with your GNU/Linux rant. Even if it was
so, is it worth the trouble you go through everyday evangelizing that?
Obviously the core developers don't give a damn about the naming scheme
(the proof is that they didn't participate on this infamous thread) and
even more obvious is the fact that people outside the development lists
also don't care. So do you think you will ever change anything? Do you
still have such hopes? Because, truth to be told, if I would go through
this list archives and quote each and every one of your emails I'd be
repeating myself an awful lot. You keep saying, with no deviation
whatsoever, that GNU/Linux gives credit to every GNU hacker and not just
to Linus or the kernel developers and pointing everyone to the GNU pages
for clarification (on what is already simple). Really, if it didn't work
until now what makes you think it'll work in the future?

Even if you were right, I honestly don't see, with all my good will, a
successful ending to your quest. Do you?

	../Paulo

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Richard Stallman]

    > The meaning attached to this symbol is one we disagree with (see
    > http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html), so we will not accept
    > it as the symbol of our work.

    But you don't attach strings about naming in GPL, so you are SOL respect
    FSF owned software.

Please see http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#deserve.

    What is discussed here is the operating system (narrow sense, i.e., kernel
    only) called Linux, on which you have no claim whatsoever.

We all agree that the proper name for the kernel is "Linux."
The disagreement is about the name for the complete system
that people use on desktops and servers.

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:

>     Solely from your own point of view again.  Sorry, you just managed to lose 
>     your credibility on this whole matter.
> 
> With all due respect, I doubt it.  I could not lose any credibility
> with you, because I had none to start with.  You demanded explanations
> for this and that with an unfriendly tone.  

To the contrary, I believe my original message to you was pretty neutral. I
even took great care not to be offensive.  I however stated some _facts_
which aren't coherent with your credit/naming policy so you could clarify
them.  You instead chose to qualify the core of my mail as unfriendly and
avoided the issue altogether.

> I figured that even if I gave good answers to all those accusations,

Accusations?  

> it would be unlikely to win your good opinion.

At least you might have avoided the bad one.

> Insted I responded to the points that seemed worth responding to for the
> sake of other readers starting with a more neutral attitude.

I was one of them, but since you chose to qualify most of my points as not
"worth responding" since they challenge your agenda, I can only conclude
that it's not possible to have a reasonable conversation with this
narrow-minded attitude of yours.

Someone else replied to my original mail in private.  We agreed to disagree
after some really interesting exchanges, yet I didn't lose any respect for
that person at all.


Nicolas

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Larry McVoy]

On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 01:17:34PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> >     Solely from your own point of view again.  
> >     Sorry, you just managed to lose 
> >     your credibility on this whole matter.
> 
> With all due respect, I doubt it.  

I think any neutral observer would agree that you are damaging your cause
and losing credibility.  Perhaps I can't be objective enough to make that
call, but it sure seems obvious.

Leaders lead by letting others succeed, you are trying to hijack other's
work and claim for your own.  That's not leadership, that's browbeating.

Oh, and by the way, have you fixed the name of your kernel?  Are the
web pages updated to note its true name: Linux/Hurd?  It would be great
if you could take care of that if you haven't already.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm 

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Richard Stallman]

    Solely from your own point of view again.  Sorry, you just managed to lose 
    your credibility on this whole matter.

With all due respect, I doubt it.  I could not lose any credibility
with you, because I had none to start with.  You demanded explanations
for this and that with an unfriendly tone.  I figured that even if I
gave good answers to all those accusations, it would be unlikely to
win your good opinion.  So I decided it was not worth trying to do
that.  Insted I responded to the points that seemed worth responding
to for the sake of other readers starting with a more neutral
attitude.

As for what other people think now, none of us knows--we could only
speculate.  I think that such speculation is not very interesting.

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Jerry Cooperstein]

Blah Blah Blah...

I normally stay away from these kinds of discussions, but I'm getting
pretty tired of this one.

It all reminds me of the 1960's and the anti-war (Vietnam) movement.
Just two points:

1) At demos in Washington DC, with hundreds of thousands of folks,
there were always groups of dogmatists standing around the edges
selling their newspapers.  These were mostly either Trotskyites hawking
literature documenting their latest splits (which occurred on almost a
daily basis) or various Mickey-Maoists dissecting in very fine print
the latest speech from Enver Hoxha, the supreme fearless leader of
Albania.

Meanwhile tear gas was falling in the streets, many people were
undergoing truly dramatic and unforgettable experiences and the world
was changing.  Real leaders were with the people in the streets,
listening AND guiding.

Some people think the highest form of struggle is between different
closets.  They wouldn't notice an earthquake if they were having an
ideological debate.

2) A lot of folks were offended with Gillette introduced a
'revolutionary' razor-blade, or when the Doors, Jefferson Airplane,
Grateful Dead etc.  were picked up in the mainstream media, "Hair"
opened on Broadway, etc.

You can't control how people use words and being co-opted may be
painful at times but it is a sign of success.

My PhD advisor once told me when I stormed into his office in a funk
because an idea of mine had been stolen without credit, something to
the effect that as long as you have good ideas they'll get stolen.
Your only defense is to keep generating more of them.

Let's all get back to work and stop this ....

-coop

======================================================================
 Jerry Cooperstein,  Senior Consultant,  <coop@axian.com>
 Axian, Inc., Software Consulting and Training
 4800 SW Griffith Dr., Ste. 202,  Beaverton, OR  97005 USA
 http://www.axian.com/               
======================================================================

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Horst von Brand]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> said:
>       Favorable or not, "Linux" has become the symbol for a whole
>     system of free software.
> 
> The meaning attached to this symbol is one we disagree with (see
> http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html), so we will not accept
> it as the symbol of our work.

But you don't attach strings about naming in GPL, so you are SOL respect
FSF owned software. The owners of the other bits of the operating systems
(wide sense, otherwise called "distributions") usually called "Linux"
(independently GPLed, BSD stuff, X11, Knuth (TeX), in-house installation
and configuration tools, ...) have no such naming restrinctions AFAIK, and
have not complained either, even less in your direction.

What is discussed here is the operating system (narrow sense, i.e., kernel
only) called Linux, on which you have no claim whatsoever.
-- 
Dr. Horst H. von Brand                   User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica                     Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria              +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile                Fax:  +56 32 797513

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:

>     Yet you say you're speaking not only for yourself but also for the
>     _hundreds_ of contributors to the GNU project.
> 
> I said I am asking for credit for them, not just for myself.
> That is not quite the same thing.

But that's what I just said above.

>     strongly about it and they all mandated a single person in the name of
>     Richard Stallman to bring justice to the World, or they simply feel they
>     like the name "Linux" is nice enough and left you alone to argue about it.
> 
> Or they don't feel strongly enough to press the point. 

Which means that you are the only one who cares.

> Or they have been intimidated by the hostility that we sometimes
> encounter.

So it seems that many more people care about _not_ using "GNU/" with
"Linux".  Yes those people are 1) many and 2) speak on their own and 3)  
never concerted to form that same opinion.  There must be something there...

> Many of them do use the term "GNU/Linux", they just don't discuss 
> it here.

This is rather off topic on this list, indeed.

> However that may be, it doesn't affect the fact that the GNU
> developers deserve credit.

Just as every other free software developers.  Yet the _majority_ of those
GNU developers seem to be quite happy with the way they get credits,
otherwise they would complain on their own.  You just can't decide for the
whole community how it should be done.

>     This is unfortunate that you left out all my other arguments from my
>     previous mail.
> 
> I only answer the points that seem significant or worth answering.

Solely from your own point of view again.  Sorry, you just managed to lose 
your credibility on this whole matter.


Nicolas

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Richard Stallman]

    Yet you say you're speaking not only for yourself but also for the
    _hundreds_ of contributors to the GNU project.

I said I am asking for credit for them, not just for myself.
That is not quite the same thing.

						    Either all those people feel
    strongly about it and they all mandated a single person in the name of
    Richard Stallman to bring justice to the World, or they simply feel they
    like the name "Linux" is nice enough and left you alone to argue about it.

Or they don't feel strongly enough to press the point.  Or they have
been intimidated by the hostility that we sometimes encounter.
Many of them do use the term "GNU/Linux", they just don't discuss 
it here.

However that may be, it doesn't affect the fact that the GNU
developers deserve credit.

    This is unfortunate that you left out all my other arguments from my
    previous mail.

I only answer the points that seem significant or worth answering.

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Matthew D. Pitts]

> That lesson concerns sharing credit with people who are trying to help
> you.  That's the reason I talk about the work that we, the GNU
> Project, have done, rather than focusing on my individual role.  (I
> don't ask people to name the system after my name.)
> 
> However, letting the credit for our work fall entirely to someone who
> never was part of our project and doesn't share our values and goals
> is a different matter.  That would be self-defeating.  Leadership 101
> doesn't need to talk about this, because even cadet leaders generally
> already know they should not let rival movements take the credit for
> the work they and their supporters have done.
> 
> We do give Torvalds a share of the credit by calling the system
> "GNU/Linux".
> 
Richard, 

I think someone else might have sais this, but I will say it now. Many, if 
not all, Linux distibutions give the GNU Project credit for the utilities 
that were written by it. Is that not sufficient?

Matthew D. Pitts

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Richard Stallman]

    Richard, you are failing leadership 101.  The hallmark of any and every
    leader is letting others take credit for your work.

That lesson concerns sharing credit with people who are trying to help
you.  That's the reason I talk about the work that we, the GNU
Project, have done, rather than focusing on my individual role.  (I
don't ask people to name the system after my name.)

However, letting the credit for our work fall entirely to someone who
never was part of our project and doesn't share our values and goals
is a different matter.  That would be self-defeating.  Leadership 101
doesn't need to talk about this, because even cadet leaders generally
already know they should not let rival movements take the credit for
the work they and their supporters have done.

We do give Torvalds a share of the credit by calling the system
"GNU/Linux".

      Then contrast the number of people following you vs. the number
    following him.  There has to be at least 3 orders of magnitude difference,
    he's doing something right and you are doing something wrong.

If this is true--I don't know that it is--it's probably because he
gets the credit for our work as well as his own.  I'm trying to change
that now.

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[andrea.glorioso]

>>>>> "np" == Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> writes:

    np> Yet you say you're speaking not only for yourself but also for
    np> the _hundreds_ of contributors to the GNU project.  Either all
    np> those people  feel strongly about it and  they  all mandated a
    np> single person in the name of Richard Stallman to bring justice
    np> to the World,  or they simply  feel they like the name "Linux"
    np> is nice enough and left you alone to argue about it.  It truly
    np> looks like the later.

Why so?

I  personally prefer to  call  the system GNU/Linux,  will continue to
call it so (when  referring to the  system as a  whole and not to  the
kernel) but I feel that such discussion  is Off Topic for this mailing
list.  Although I'm violating my intention not to pollute linux-kernel
any more than it is already, I feel that  your conclusion is a bit too
far  fetched.   Besides, I  don't think   all  contributors to the GNU
project  and  all  the persons  which   call the system GNU/Linux  are
subscribed to this mailing list.

bye,

andrea
--
Andrea Glorioso                   andrea.glorioso@binary-only.com
Binary Only                           http://www.binary-only.com/
Via A. Zanolini, 7/b                  Tel:     +39-348.921.43.79
40126 Bologna                         Fax:     +39-051-930.31.133

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:

>     I, for one, admit and recognize all the effort and work the GNU project did
>     and I really enjoy exercising my freedom of running the GNU system on my
>     hardware.  This, however, won't make me call this system "GNU/Linux"  
>     regardless.
> 
> I'm glad you appreciate our work, but if you call the system "Linux",
> you lead other people to suppose it was done by Linus.  If you call
> it "GNU/Linux" you will teach other people to appreciate our work too.

All the people appreciate, they also endorse the principles of Free Software
when they see how good Linux can be, but they just can't care less about all
the ramifications underneath.  Actually what's more important: the
proliferation of free software or perfect accreditation? (saying "both" is
too easy an answer).

This is unfortunate that you left out all my other arguments from my
previous mail. It shows that your quest for credits isn't coherent across
the board and that you wish to avoid that question.  Well I'm sure you'll
come back with a perfect explanation for that...

Yet you say you're speaking not only for yourself but also for the
_hundreds_ of contributors to the GNU project.  Either all those people feel
strongly about it and they all mandated a single person in the name of
Richard Stallman to bring justice to the World, or they simply feel they
like the name "Linux" is nice enough and left you alone to argue about it.  
It truly looks like the later.


Nicolas

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Larry McVoy]

> I'm glad you appreciate our work, but if you call the system "Linux",
> you lead other people to suppose it was done by Linus.  If you call
> it "GNU/Linux" you will teach other people to appreciate our work too.

Richard, you are failing leadership 101.  The hallmark of any and every
leader is letting others take credit for your work.  Haven't you ever
heard "make them think it was their idea"?  Every engineer who grows
into a leader learns that while he or she may have (or thinks they have)
more foresight, vision, talent, whatever than their team members, the
trick to successful leadership is to let the other people think they 
are the leaders.  That is how you create people who will carry on your
vision.

Doing what you are doing is going to make you universally disliked and
even if you win the battle, you will lose the war.  The second you stop
pushing, everyone will turn against you and do something else.  They'll do
the opposite of what you want simply because they resent what you are
doing: telling them that you know best, their opinion doesn't matter,
you're right, they are wrong.

That's not leadership.  That's browbeating and I know of no example of
that style of affecting change succeeding.  

It's worth pointing out that Linus frequently states that other's work
is more important than his, that he is just a small part of this effort,
there is no way he could do it by himself, etc.  Contrast that with your
words.  Then contrast the number of people following you vs. the number
following him.  There has to be at least 3 orders of magnitude difference,
he's doing something right and you are doing something wrong.  Shouting
incessently isn't going to help your cause, you lose followers every time
you open your mouth.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm 

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Richard Stallman]

	    I do have respect for you; however, I have one simple question.
    Should I call my system GNU/Linux/XFree86/KDE in order to give most
    everyone proper credit?

See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#many.

      Favorable or not, "Linux" has become the symbol for a whole
    system of free software.

The meaning attached to this symbol is one we disagree with (see
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html), so we will not accept
it as the symbol of our work.


I see a hint of "give up, it's hopeless" in your message.  In that
context, see http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#lost.

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Richard Stallman]

    Trying to force the name "GNU/Linux"  will never stick for many reasons,

It isn't useful to second-guess what other people will or won't do.  I
will make my request to them, and they will decide how to respond.

See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#lost.

    I, for one, admit and recognize all the effort and work the GNU project did
    and I really enjoy exercising my freedom of running the GNU system on my
    hardware.  This, however, won't make me call this system "GNU/Linux"  
    regardless.

I'm glad you appreciate our work, but if you call the system "Linux",
you lead other people to suppose it was done by Linus.  If you call
it "GNU/Linux" you will teach other people to appreciate our work too.

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Adrian Bunk]

On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 05:39:33PM +0100, Horst von Brand wrote:
> Mark Mielke <mark@mark.mielke.cc> said:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > In actual fact, I don't want RMS to stop. I believe that his religious
> > attachment to his ideals has allowed a sort of 'grand unification' of
> > compatible beliefs. RMS didn't invent freedom. But he, and his
> > organization, do an excellent job of representing freedom (even if they
> > try to [re]define it to suit their agenda...).
> 
> Please do remember that most of the horrors seen last century (and much
> before that too) were the result of people that genuinely believed they
> somehow owned the truth, and if the world did not conform to their visions,
> much the worse for the world. That you might be somewhat in agreement to
> some narrow religious vision doesn't mean your sort of deviationism will be
> tolerated in any form if they happen to succeed.
>...

This is one of the worst oversimplifications I've ever heard of.

E.g. Mahatma Gandhi was a person in the last century who genuinely
believed he somehow owned the truth and who succeeded. Please tell me 
which horrors he was responsble for/

>...
>  Knuth's "do as you wish, don´t distribute changed versions"
>...

This is wrong, you are allowed to change TeX and Metafont hoever you
want and distribute the changed versions as long as you change the name 
of the program.

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

RE: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Steve Lee]

Richard,
	I do have respect for you; however, I have one simple question.
Should I call my system GNU/Linux/XFree86/KDE in order to give most
everyone proper credit?  I say most; because I'm sure I'm missing lots
of people that deserve credit.  When people ask me which OS I have
running on a particular system, I generally say Linux, not RedHat Linux,
just Linux.  It's simple.  Should one inspect my system, they'll find
that it's a RedHat distribution with XFree86, KDE, and lots of GNU free
software.  Favorable or not, "Linux" has become the symbol for a whole
system of free software.

Steve


-----Original Message-----
From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
[mailto:linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Richard
Stallman
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 5:29 PM
To: mark@mark.mielke.cc
Cc: galibert@pobox.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; dax@gurulabs.com;
lm@bitmover.com; root@chaos.analogic.com; pollard@admin.navo.hpc.mil;
R.E.Wolff@BitWizard.nl; jalvo@mbay.net
Subject: Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

I have a mission, and the mission is free software.  But I don't want
disciples (the Church of Emacs is a comedy routine).  What I seek is
like-minded volunteers, people to join me in the fight against
non-free software.  It's not necessary for them to make me their
leader; anyone who understands what we are fighting for can be a
leader.  The point is for them to go and fight the enemy.

    But, he shouldn't have to be. In the linux-devel newsgroups, the
    opinion that Linus was a pawn in RMS's master plan needs to be
    squashed.

I agree with you.  Linus was not our pawn, or anyone's, as far as I
know.  His decision to write a kernel was his own.  GNU did have an
influence on it; I read that he had been to a speech of mine in
Finland.  But we did not direct his activities.

Be that as it may, his kernel, once written, filled the gap in the
incomplete GNU system.  Together they made a complete system which
people could actually use.

    (For example, the average person
    who contributes to open source, has a non open source job that
allows
    them and their family to eat, while contributing on the side)

Most contributors to free software are part time volunteers, and most
of those probably have jobs.  There's nothing wrong with that.

But this job need not be developing non-free software.  It can be
developing custom software, or it can be something other that
programming.  There are many ways to make a living.

    He removes this pride by making such claims as "the system that
    is now often called Linux is the system that I came up with in
1984."

The people who worked on Linux, the kernel, have plenty to be proud
of.  They don't need to get credit for the GNU system too.  Hundreds
of people worked to build the GNU system before 1991.  For their sake,
I focus on what we did together, not on what I myself did.

Calling the system "Linux" denies these people the basis for their
pride.  Calling the system "GNU/Linux" gives recognition to all of
them, as well as to the people who have worked on Linux.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel"
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:

> The people who worked on Linux, the kernel, have plenty to be proud
> of.  They don't need to get credit for the GNU system too.  Hundreds
> of people worked to build the GNU system before 1991.  For their sake,
> I focus on what we did together, not on what I myself did.
> 
> Calling the system "Linux" denies these people the basis for their
> pride.  Calling the system "GNU/Linux" gives recognition to all of
> them, as well as to the people who have worked on Linux.

Calling the system "Linux" does not deny anyone's pride.  In fact a lot of
people who worked on Linux the kernel might think the name "Linux" only
makes the connection to Linus Torvalds and leave everybody else in the
shade... but surprisingly enough all those people just don't feel that way.

Now if you look at "Red Hat Linux" the distribution, they put a lot of work
into packaging and bundling everything.  But hey, some other companies like
Mandrake appeared from nowhere, borrowed on what Red Hat has done since it's
free software after all, and redistributed a mostly unchanged distribution
(at least originally) but under the name "Mandrake Linux" instead.  Yet we
don't see Red Hat making a big fuss about that either.

It's also strange that Cygnus distributed a large package called "CygWin"  
and not "GNU/CygWin", isn't it?  Still that package contains a large
percentage of pure GNU/FSF code...

A name is a really bad place to try to credit people or organizations - it's
simply not meant for that.  A name must be nice, short and catchy.  It's not
something rational that you can define with all sort of reasoning for using
a slash or other punctuations, if the word "Linux" should go first or last,
how it should be parsed, etc.  People don't give a damn about the meaning of
a name, they just want it to sound nice.

The problem with "GNU/Linux" is simple: it sucks.  It's not elegant, and
it's longer than simply "Linux".  It's like people calling themselves "Al"  
or "Ben" instead of "Alexander" or"Benjamin".  You can't put rational
semantics into a name -- this is not something that depends on grammar,
science, or number of lines of code, or anything else.

The free software community finally completed the GNU system.  This system
is nowadays called simply "Linux".  And that name was chosen by that
community who put the system together, which community I'm sure contains a
significant number of people who were original GNU contributors.  Yet there
is only _one_ person out of the hundreds who seems to be left out by the
"Linux" name and tries to go against the crowd...

If you really want the GNU project to be more widely known to the world,
you'll need to use some other more effective ways to promote free software.  
Trying to force the name "GNU/Linux"  will never stick for many reasons,
even if it's only for something as irrational as "it sucks".

Hey, I live in Canada and therefore I'm a Canadian.  But last time I checked
Canada was still located in North America.  Yet there are a bunch of people
living south in a country that is also only a part of America, even smaller
in size, but they are calling themselves Americans just like if they owned
it all.  Of course calling those people "United-Statians" might have sucked
a bit.  But hey, we admit it's been common usage even if it's geographically
inaccurate and go on with life.

I, for one, admit and recognize all the effort and work the GNU project did
and I really enjoy exercising my freedom of running the GNU system on my
hardware.  This, however, won't make me call this system "GNU/Linux"  
regardless.  And this has absolutely nothing to do with trying to deny
credits to the GNU project.


Nicolas

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Richard Stallman]

I have a mission, and the mission is free software.  But I don't want
disciples (the Church of Emacs is a comedy routine).  What I seek is
like-minded volunteers, people to join me in the fight against
non-free software.  It's not necessary for them to make me their
leader; anyone who understands what we are fighting for can be a
leader.  The point is for them to go and fight the enemy.

    But, he shouldn't have to be. In the linux-devel newsgroups, the
    opinion that Linus was a pawn in RMS's master plan needs to be
    squashed.

I agree with you.  Linus was not our pawn, or anyone's, as far as I
know.  His decision to write a kernel was his own.  GNU did have an
influence on it; I read that he had been to a speech of mine in
Finland.  But we did not direct his activities.

Be that as it may, his kernel, once written, filled the gap in the
incomplete GNU system.  Together they made a complete system which
people could actually use.

    (For example, the average person
    who contributes to open source, has a non open source job that allows
    them and their family to eat, while contributing on the side)

Most contributors to free software are part time volunteers, and most
of those probably have jobs.  There's nothing wrong with that.

But this job need not be developing non-free software.  It can be
developing custom software, or it can be something other that
programming.  There are many ways to make a living.

    He removes this pride by making such claims as "the system that
    is now often called Linux is the system that I came up with in 1984."

The people who worked on Linux, the kernel, have plenty to be proud
of.  They don't need to get credit for the GNU system too.  Hundreds
of people worked to build the GNU system before 1991.  For their sake,
I focus on what we did together, not on what I myself did.

Calling the system "Linux" denies these people the basis for their
pride.  Calling the system "GNU/Linux" gives recognition to all of
them, as well as to the people who have worked on Linux.

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Richard Stallman]

      On the other hand,
    unchallenged false claims tend to become fact and society then accepts
    those "facts", just like Richard B. Johnson said.  RMS knows that and
    that is exactly what he is trying to do.  

Since we are in a minority, the advantage of shouting louder is not on
our side.  We can only convince people if we present a good argument
based on facts.

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Horst von Brand]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2920 bytes --]

Mark Mielke <mark@mark.mielke.cc> said:

[...]

> In actual fact, I don't want RMS to stop. I believe that his religious
> attachment to his ideals has allowed a sort of 'grand unification' of
> compatible beliefs. RMS didn't invent freedom. But he, and his
> organization, do an excellent job of representing freedom (even if they
> try to [re]define it to suit their agenda...).

Please do remember that most of the horrors seen last century (and much
before that too) were the result of people that genuinely believed they
somehow owned the truth, and if the world did not conform to their visions,
much the worse for the world. That you might be somewhat in agreement to
some narrow religious vision doesn't mean your sort of deviationism will be
tolerated in any form if they happen to succeed.

One of the things that attract me to the OSS movement is the tolerance and
openness (as shown by the existence of an open-for-all forum like this, for
instance).

[...]

> But, he shouldn't have to be. In the linux-devel newsgroups, the
> opinion that Linus was a pawn in RMS's master plan needs to be
> squashed. Not only is it completely false, but it is disrespectful to
> every contributor of Linux up unto this point. RMS's master plan takes
> it for granted that a large number of skilled people have
> compatible-enough beliefs. He assumes that this means that they *are*
> his people, and not that they are willing to collaborate with his
> movement.

There are people around who are _against_ GPL on quite valid grounds,
prefering BSD licence, Artistic, Knuth's "do as you wish, don´t distribute
changed versions", what have you. Others just think GPL is a nice form of a
(legally binding) licence that usefully preserves certain rights for the
writers and their licencees, and wouldn't care less for the "free software
everything" ideas that come with it. Then there are those who prefer to
pick and choose a license on a case by case basis. They aren't all "willing
to cooperate" on anything, each one has their own agenda (Bazaar, not
cathedral, remember?). OSS is much, much larger than FSF.

Also remember that all the previous attempts at creating a meaningful
community failed (BSD, FSF, X11, etc never got really anywhere on their
own). The whole thing started going with Linux (the kernel). The
development model was later applied to (by then) moribund FSF efforts, like
gcc (remember the EGCS fiasco?), and gave them (new) life.

> Some of us don't mind getting a little mud on ourselves to stand up
> for what we believe in. Passionate outbursts? Damn right. :-) It means
> we have a heart beating inside our chests.

Amen.
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand                   User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica                     Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria              +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile                Fax:  +56 32 797513

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Gaël Le Mignot]

Hello Larry!

Tue, 14 Jan 2003 12:02:02 -0800, you wrote: 

 > If I calmly, rationally, and clearly state things which are not true,

What did Richard say which is untrue ?

Well, except that the Hurd is not really a kernel, but rather a set of
user space programs,  libraries and APIs, but even  some developper of
the  Hurd sometimes  speak  of it  as  a "kernel"  since  it has  many
functionalities which are usually in the kernel.

 > are self serving, 

Self-serving ? What does FSF apport to Richard ? He spends his life to
help  Free Software  and  our communauty,  and  you dare  to call  him
"self-serving" ?

-- 
Gael Le Mignot "Kilobug" - kilobug@nerim.net - http://kilobug.free.fr
GSM         : 06.71.47.18.22 (in France)   ICQ UIN   : 7299959
Fingerprint : 1F2C 9804 7505 79DF 95E6 7323 B66B F67B 7103 C5DA

Member of HurdFr: http://hurdfr.org - The GNU Hurd: http://hurd.gnu.org

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Abramo Bagnara]

Andre Hedrick wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Abramo Bagnara wrote:
> 
> > Larry McVoy wrote:
> > >
> > > If I calmly, rationally, and clearly state things which are not true,
> > > are self serving, and are not relevant to a forum, what should I expect
> > > in response?
> >
> > Are you serious about that?
> >
> > Do you known *any* absolute, objective, irrefutable truth?
> >
> > Would you like to perjury that *every* one of your posting is not self
> > serving and fully relevant?
> >
> > Please stop that: I think you know as well as me that Dax is right.
> 
> Yeah,
> 
> <FIREBALL BAIT>
> 
> Just like the Pope does not believe in screwing little children, but
> refuses to punish and pay for the actions of his advocates.
> 
> </FIREBALL BAIT>
> 
> The goal is to piss you off, and was selected because you live in Italy.
> 
> Regardless there is a little truth in the above, but must of it is twisted
> to make a point which is not relivant (sp).

I'm definitely unable to parse what you wrote, but I think that after:

- Larry has kindly sent me a message about my insertion in his killfile
- Andre is speaking about Pope, priest pedophilia and his intention to
piss me off (?)

the point that Dax made at the beginning of this thread is very well
taken.

I'm getting convinced that the point of some of the angry people Dax is
referring is:

"I strongly believe that RMS postings might corrupt the virgin minds on
lkml and unwillingly I'm forced to transform myself in an holy crusader
to defend them"

Believe me, it's childish. Nobody on lkml need/want to be defended.

Let people free to express their opinion (although they are definitely
false or supposedly so) and try to keep yourself and your comments as
calm as possible: you're a smart guy and your impetuous energies are
very well spent otherwise, as the past and present teach us.

-- 
Abramo Bagnara                       mailto:abramo.bagnara@libero.it

Opera Unica                          Phone: +39.546.656023
Via Emilia Interna, 140
48014 Castel Bolognese (RA) - Italy

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Cort Dougan]

This is great proof of my increasingly firm opinion that the open-source
movement would be absolutely dead if free mental healthcare was available
to all who needed it... 

} MTV, "Celebrity Death Match" !
} 
} RMS starts out and F(l)UDS the arean with piles of GNU.
} 	(the gnoo is drowning everyone)
} 
} LM is stunned by the calm GNOO floodling the area.
} 
} RMS using a PRINTER hits LM with a pounding blown to the rear.
} 
} LM use a quick attribute of BitMover to reveal the heart of GNU is
} 	Licensed to BSD!
} 
} RMS reaches for the split ends to add more gray fuzz to hide the BSD,
} while gazing in the air.
} 
} LM removes the printer from his bleeding skinny butt, and wildly swings
} knocking off the head of RMS.
} 	(the blood taints the crowd)

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Andre Hedrick]

On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Ed Vance wrote:

> And now for some craven capitalism ...
> 
> Anybody think there is money to be made on a "Celebrity Boxing" match
> starring Larry and Richard? 

MTV, "Celebrity Death Match" !

RMS starts out and F(l)UDS the arean with piles of GNU.
	(the gnoo is drowning everyone)

LM is stunned by the calm GNOO floodling the area.

RMS using a PRINTER hits LM with a pounding blown to the rear.

LM use a quick attribute of BitMover to reveal the heart of GNU is
	Licensed to BSD!

RMS reaches for the split ends to add more gray fuzz to hide the BSD,
while gazing in the air.

LM removes the printer from his bleeding skinny butt, and wildly swings
knocking off the head of RMS.
	(the blood taints the crowd)

.....

Cheers,

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Wakko Warner]

> RMS does not fall into the category of troll. RMS is on a mission. His

RMS's mission: Open source, closed mind.  Resistance is futile.

-- 
 Lab tests show that use of micro$oft causes cancer in lab animals

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Ed Vance]

And now for some craven capitalism ...

Anybody think there is money to be made on a "Celebrity Boxing" match
starring Larry and Richard? 

/me ducks and runs ...

---------------------------------------------------------------- 
Ed Vance              edv (at) macrolink (dot) com
Macrolink, Inc.       1500 N. Kellogg Dr  Anaheim, CA  92807
----------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Henning P. Schmiedehausen]

Mark Mielke <mark@mark.mielke.cc> writes:

>He fancies himself as the one true uncompromised individual that can
>be trusted with executing this vision. In many ways, his vision takes
>the form of a religion or cult.

You might want to read "Fallen Angels" by Niven, Pournelle, Flynn.

Yes, I'm guilty of loving pulp SciFi. =:-)

	Regards
		Henning


-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen       -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH     hps@intermeta.de

Am Schwabachgrund 22  Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0   info@intermeta.de
D-91054 Buckenhof     Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20   

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Andre Hedrick]

On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Abramo Bagnara wrote:

> Larry McVoy wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 12:56:39PM -0700, Dax Kelson wrote:
> > > For nearly 10 years I've read many posts by RMS and the replies that
> > > follow. RMS's posts seem calm, rational and clearly presented. For the
> > > most part, the replies are emotional, high strung, and mean spirited
> > > personal attacks.
> > 
> > If I calmly, rationally, and clearly state things which are not true,
> > are self serving, and are not relevant to a forum, what should I expect
> > in response?
> 
> Are you serious about that?
> 
> Do you known *any* absolute, objective, irrefutable truth?
> 
> Would you like to perjury that *every* one of your posting is not self
> serving and fully relevant?
> 
> Please stop that: I think you know as well as me that Dax is right.

Yeah,

<FIREBALL BAIT>

Just like the Pope does not believe in screwing little children, but
refuses to punish and pay for the actions of his advocates.

</FIREBALL BAIT>

The goal is to piss you off, and was selected because you live in Italy.

Regardless there is a little truth in the above, but must of it is twisted
to make a point which is not relivant (sp).

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Chris Funderburg]

Mark Mielke wrote:
<clipped>
> In actual fact, I don't want RMS to stop.


Well, he "hasn't stopped" in years:


************************************************************************
Date:   Thu, 7 Mar 1996 10:49:16 -0600 (CST)
Reply-To: lilo <TaRDiS@mail.utexas.edu>
To: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
cc: alan@cymru.net, ganderson@clark.net, linux-misc@vger.rutgers.edu,
         linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: Linux isn't an operating system
Sender: owner-linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
Precedence: bulk

isn't there an advocacy newsgroup for gnu software?  this is pretty clearly
off-topic.  speaking from my own experience, it's very easy to get caught up
in an advocacy thread, even when that thread is clearly off-topic.  :) i
also suspect that it will continue to generate flames as long as the
originator keeps pursuing it here. ;)


lilo

On Wed, 6 Mar 1996, Richard Stallman wrote:

 > I think I should explain the difference between "GNU software" and
 > "the GNU operating system".  It would be inaccurate to say that a
 > system such Slackware consists mainly of GNU software, but correct I
 > believe to say it is mostly the same as the GNU system.
 >
 > I started the GNU project in 1984 with the aim of making a complete
 > free Unix-like operating system.  I wrote some parts myself--GCC,
 > Emacs, GDB, and other smaller ones.  Other people wrote other
 > components for the GNU project.  These programs are GNU software.
 >
 > We also added to the GNU system some programs like X Windows and parts
 > of BSD which were written by other projects.  These programs are not
 > GNU software, but they are parts of the GNU system (and parts of other
 > systems as well).  When Linux was written, the GNU system was almost
 > complete, but lacking a kernel.  Putting the incomplete GNU system
 > together with Linux realized my dream of a free operating system.
 >
 > In principle, there's no reason why a system based on Linux has to be
 > a variant GNU system, and perhaps some of them are not.  But as far as
 > I know, most of them currently are.
 >
 > To speak of "Linux Based MIT X Windows/GNU/BSD/MIT systems" would be
 > correct.  But people may find it impractical.  The term "Linux-based
 > GNU system" is also correct, and it is practical.
 >
 > By using this term, we can help encourage people to work together
 > instead of dividing themselves artificially into "Linux users" and
 > "GNU users".  This solves an important practical problem.
 >

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Andre Hedrick]

On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Larry McVoy wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 12:56:39PM -0700, Dax Kelson wrote:
> > For nearly 10 years I've read many posts by RMS and the replies that
> > follow. RMS's posts seem calm, rational and clearly presented. For the
> > most part, the replies are emotional, high strung, and mean spirited
> > personal attacks.
> 
> If I calmly, rationally, and clearly state things which are not true,
> are self serving, and are not relevant to a forum, what should I expect
> in response?  

Now stop trying to be practical!
This is a game of politics and all sides are liars (wink).
The problem is they have become truths, by repeating it over and over
again.  Give the man a printer that works and maybe he will be happy
again.

Cheers,

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Mark Mielke]

On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 03:19:38PM -0500, Olivier Galibert wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 12:02:02PM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > If I calmly, rationally, and clearly state things which are not true,
> > are self serving, and are not relevant to a forum, what should I expect
> > in response?  
> Silence, of course.  People here are supposed to know better than to
> answer to trolls.

RMS does not fall into the category of troll. RMS is on a mission. His
posts take the form of proselytization. He has a vision of full
cooperation between people. No patents, no copyrights, no property.
He fancies himself as the one true uncompromised individual that can
be trusted with executing this vision. In many ways, his vision takes
the form of a religion or cult. His posts are 'calm, rational, and
clearly stated' because he truly believes that every word he speaks is
the absolute truth, and that his paragraphs should be used on a tract.

Trolls seek attention and discord. RMS seeks disciples. Silence will
not stop RMS. Nor, likely will passionate outrage stop RMS. RMS believes
that if he stops, his vision will fail. Only he can bring his vision to
fruition.

In actual fact, I don't want RMS to stop. I believe that his religious
attachment to his ideals has allowed a sort of 'grand unification' of
compatible beliefs. RMS didn't invent freedom. But he, and his
organization, do an excellent job of representing freedom (even if they
try to [re]define it to suit their agenda...).

I do think that sometimes his beliefs are inconvenient, and at other
times, they are unrealistic, given that the world we live in does not
allow for his sort of idealism, except when secured via means that are
not compatible with his belief system. (For example, the average person
who contributes to open source, has a non open source job that allows
them and their family to eat, while contributing on the side)

I think that he regularly fails to respect this truth. He also fails
to recognize that, at least currently, his model is based upon
pride. People contribute to open source, because they are proud to do
their part, and they especially like to be recognized for the work
that they do, that otherwise does *not* directly benefit them in any
way. He removes this pride by making such claims as "the system that
is now often called Linux is the system that I came up with in 1984."

Maybe Linus is a big enough man that he doesn't care that RMS is
trying to steal his thunder. In fact, Linus has not lowered himself to
particating in this thread, as far as I can recall.

But, he shouldn't have to be. In the linux-devel newsgroups, the
opinion that Linus was a pawn in RMS's master plan needs to be
squashed. Not only is it completely false, but it is disrespectful to
every contributor of Linux up unto this point. RMS's master plan takes
it for granted that a large number of skilled people have
compatible-enough beliefs. He assumes that this means that they *are*
his people, and not that they are willing to collaborate with his
movement.

Some of us don't mind getting a little mud on ourselves to stand up
for what we believe in. Passionate outbursts? Damn right. :-) It means
we have a heart beating inside our chests.

mark

-- 
mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________
.  .  _  ._  . .   .__    .  . ._. .__ .   . . .__  | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/    |_     |\/|  |  |_  |   |/  |_   | 
|  | | | | \ | \   |__ .  |  | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__  | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

  One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
                       and in the darkness bind them...

                           http://mark.mielke.cc/

RE: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Dow, Benjamin]

> For nearly 10 years I've read many posts by RMS and the replies that
> follow. RMS's posts seem calm, rational and clearly presented. For the
> most part, the replies are emotional, high strung, and mean spirited
> personal attacks.
> 
> Note that I'm not a card carrying member of the RMS fan club, nor do I
> agree with everything he says.  I'm just an observer noting the striking 
> difference in the tone between RMS's posts and the responses.

Honestly, most people who disagree with him and want to be reasonable will
probably just not reply.  Personally, I get tired of the political
discussions on LKML very quickly; they tend to go over the same old ground,
and in the end, nobody has given in.  Sure, the political issues affect us,
but they get blown way out of proportion.  This list is for technical
discussions, as many people have pointed out before, and I'd like to see it
stay that way.

That being said, I don't really see him as all that rational and clear.
Maybe it's just me, but the words "rhetoric" and "dogma" spring to mind.
I'm not trying to attack him personally; I think that he's contributed a lot
to the community.  But his words are not gospel, and having no choice but to
conform to one man's idea of "free" doesn't sound very free to me, so I hope
he doesn't entirely succeed in his crusade either.

Now why don't we get back to coding?



 The information contained in this electronic mail is privileged and
confidential, intended only for the use of the individual or entity named
above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use
of this communication is strictly prohibited. 

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Larry McVoy]

On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 03:36:18PM -0500, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> > Silence, of course.  People here are supposed to know better than to
> > answer to trolls.
> 
> But then the unanswered repetition of bullshit starts to seem like
> facts. Others, who don't know better, start to believe what they
> have read, and pretty soon history has been re-written. 

Exactly.  If people think that I don't know that replying to RMS
is annoying as hell, they are wrong.  It's definitely annoying, it
annoys me to do it and it annoys you to read it.  On the other hand,
unchallenged false claims tend to become fact and society then accepts
those "facts", just like Richard B. Johnson said.  RMS knows that and
that is exactly what he is trying to do.  

The reality is that the FSF has actually written very little code
themselves, they are trying to claim that anything which is GPLed is
part of "their" system.  That's nonsense, I know it is nonsense because
I've been here every step of the way, I've watched who did what, and
I'm smart enough to go dig into the archives and validate my opinions.
RMS is trying to change history and that should not go unchallenged.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm 

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Richard B. Johnson]

On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Olivier Galibert wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 12:02:02PM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > If I calmly, rationally, and clearly state things which are not true,
> > are self serving, and are not relevant to a forum, what should I expect
> > in response?  
> 
> Silence, of course.  People here are supposed to know better than to
> answer to trolls.
> 
>   OG.
> 

But then the unanswered repetition of bullshit starts to seem like
facts. Others, who don't know better, start to believe what they
have read, and pretty soon history has been re-written. It happens
all the time. There isn't a High School student in the United States
who doesn't believe that George Washington was a drunken slave-owner
with bad teeth. It doesn't matter if the ideas were based upon fact,
fiction, or a mixture of truth and the same. George Washington isn't
here to defend himself.

We are still here. We can defend ourselves.

Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.18 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Why is the government concerned about the lunatic fringe? Think about it.

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Abramo Bagnara]

Larry McVoy wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 12:56:39PM -0700, Dax Kelson wrote:
> > For nearly 10 years I've read many posts by RMS and the replies that
> > follow. RMS's posts seem calm, rational and clearly presented. For the
> > most part, the replies are emotional, high strung, and mean spirited
> > personal attacks.
> 
> If I calmly, rationally, and clearly state things which are not true,
> are self serving, and are not relevant to a forum, what should I expect
> in response?

Are you serious about that?

Do you known *any* absolute, objective, irrefutable truth?

Would you like to perjury that *every* one of your posting is not self
serving and fully relevant?

Please stop that: I think you know as well as me that Dax is right.

-- 
Abramo Bagnara                       mailto:abramo.bagnara@libero.it

Opera Unica                          Phone: +39.546.656023
Via Emilia Interna, 140
48014 Castel Bolognese (RA) - Italy

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Olivier Galibert]

On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 12:02:02PM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> If I calmly, rationally, and clearly state things which are not true,
> are self serving, and are not relevant to a forum, what should I expect
> in response?  

Silence, of course.  People here are supposed to know better than to
answer to trolls.

  OG.

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Abramo Bagnara]

Dax Kelson wrote:
> 
> For nearly 10 years I've read many posts by RMS and the replies that
> follow. RMS's posts seem calm, rational and clearly presented. For the
> most part, the replies are emotional, high strung, and mean spirited
> personal attacks.

Amen, this is the only obvious truth in all these boring flamewars.

The rest is opinable of course and everyone has the right to keep (or to
change) his opinion.

-- 
Abramo Bagnara                       mailto:abramo.bagnara@libero.it

Opera Unica                          Phone: +39.546.656023
Via Emilia Interna, 140
48014 Castel Bolognese (RA) - Italy

Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Larry McVoy]

On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 12:56:39PM -0700, Dax Kelson wrote:
> For nearly 10 years I've read many posts by RMS and the replies that
> follow. RMS's posts seem calm, rational and clearly presented. For the
> most part, the replies are emotional, high strung, and mean spirited
> personal attacks.

If I calmly, rationally, and clearly state things which are not true,
are self serving, and are not relevant to a forum, what should I expect
in response?  
-- 
---
Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm 

[OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him

[Dax Kelson]

For nearly 10 years I've read many posts by RMS and the replies that
follow. RMS's posts seem calm, rational and clearly presented. For the
most part, the replies are emotional, high strung, and mean spirited
personal attacks.

Note that I'm not a card carrying member of the RMS fan club, nor do I
agree with everything he says.  I'm just an observer noting the striking 
difference in the tone between RMS's posts and the responses.

Dax Kelson