linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
@ 2003-01-05  8:02 Albert D. Cahalan
  2003-01-06 17:13 ` Richard Stallman
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Albert D. Cahalan @ 2003-01-05  8:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel; +Cc: rms


Richard Stallman writes:

> Many people think GNU is a collection of tools, because the best known
> among the programs we developed for GNU are tools.  We also developed
> other programs for GNU that are not tools.  But GNU is not just a
> collection of various programs; it's an operating system which in 1992
> was mostly complete.  (See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.html.)
>
>     it would be
>     *inaccurate* to say anything but "Linux" when talking about "Linux,
>     the operating system."
>
> The term "operating system" has sometimes been used with the same
> meaning as "kernel", but nowadays when people speak of operating
> systems they typically mean complete systems such as HPUX, Solaris,
> Windows, MacOS, GNU, and GNU/Linux.

By "GNU" you mean the Hurd? That's not nice at all. Just where
did you get your network stack from? How about the bulk of the
hardware drivers?

I think Hurd/Linux or Linux/Hurd would be a proper name for
your kernel. Credit is due, right? Don't be a hypocrite now...

> If you call the system "Linux", you are misinforming other people:
> teaching them a false picture of the system's history.  Some of them
> may become so attached to the false picture that it distorts their
> thinking.  If you call it "GNU/Linux", this won't happen.

Calling the OS "Linux" has nothing to do with teaching anybody
about history. The true historical name for the kernel, given
by Linus, is "Freax". I'm not kidding. An FTP site maintainer
(named Ari Lemmke?) came up with the "Linux" name.

So Freax is our kernel, and Linux is the OS. The kernel has to
report "Linux" as the name of course, since the kernel is the
part of the OS which supplies /proc/version. Using one name
for everything reduces confusion. Regular people have enough
trouble telling the OS apart from the hardware it runs on.
(The "Start" button is part of a PC you know!)

Anyway, "GNU/Linux" inhibits the spread of free software.
Regular people care about how attractive the name sounds.
This alone should be reason enough to drop the crusade.
Ask somebody in marketing, sales, or psychology if you need
help understanding this concept. In addition, the effort
you spend on "GNU/Linux" is noise that dilutes your message
about the value of free software. People have limited
attention; it does no good to get side-tracked on some
personal conflict over a perfectly usable and accepted name.
The listener allows you a limited amount of conflict;
exceed some per-person threshold and you get dismissed
as a nut.







^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-05  8:02 Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Albert D. Cahalan
@ 2003-01-06 17:13 ` Richard Stallman
  2003-01-06 17:37   ` Larry McVoy
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-06 17:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: acahalan; +Cc: linux-kernel

    By "GNU" you mean the Hurd?

GNU means the entire system that we set out from the beginning to
develop.  The Hurd is just one piece of GNU--it is the upper layer of
the kernel.

				That's not nice at all. Just where
    did you get your network stack from? How about the bulk of the
    hardware drivers?

The TCP/IP implementation in the Hurd comes from Linux, but the Hurd
as a whole is very different from Linux.  (There are no drivers in the
Hurd.)

Linux is a small part of the GNU/Linux system, but there are
various reasons to call it "GNU/Linux" than just "GNU".  See
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#justgnu.

    So Freax is our kernel, and Linux is the OS.

Anyone for renaming this list to freax@vger.kernel.org?



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-06 17:13 ` Richard Stallman
@ 2003-01-06 17:37   ` Larry McVoy
  2003-01-06 19:40     ` Steven Barnhart
                       ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-06 17:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: acahalan, linux-kernel

> 				That's not nice at all. Just where
>     did you get your network stack from? How about the bulk of the
>     hardware drivers?
> 
> The TCP/IP implementation in the Hurd comes from Linux, but the Hurd
> as a whole is very different from Linux.  (There are no drivers in the
> Hurd.)

Gimme a break.  You have drivers someplace and you got them from Linux
and you got the networking stack from Linux, so either call it Linux/Hurd
or back off on your constant GNU/Linux crap.

It is the ultimate in hypocrisy to ask others for something you aren't 
willing to do yourself.  I, for one, will remind you of this every time
you bring up GNU/Linux in this list.  It won't go away, I'll make sure
of that.  It's just pathetic what you are doing and I'll happily shine
a spotlight on it until you change your tune or go away.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-06 17:37   ` Larry McVoy
@ 2003-01-06 19:40     ` Steven Barnhart
  2003-01-06 23:33     ` Matthias Andree
  2003-01-07 13:40     ` Richard Stallman
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Steven Barnhart @ 2003-01-06 19:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: linux-kernel

On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 12:37, Larry McVoy wrote:
> Gimme a break.  You have drivers someplace and you got them from Linux
> and you got the networking stack from Linux, so either call it Linux/Hurd
> or back off on your constant GNU/Linux crap.
Excellent point. You want us to give GNU credit so give Linux credit for
using our code in Hurd (I will now officially refer to it as Linux/Hurd,
only because "Linux" came first in this paticular event.)
> 
> It is the ultimate in hypocrisy to ask others for something you aren't 
> willing to do yourself.  I, for one, will remind you of this every time
> you bring up GNU/Linux in this list.  It won't go away, I'll make sure
> of that.  It's just pathetic what you are doing and I'll happily shine
> a spotlight on it until you change your tune or go away.
> -- 
> ---
> Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm 

-- 
Steven
sbarn03@softhome.net
GnuPG Fingerprint: 9357 F403 B0A1 E18D 86D5  2230 BB92 6D64 D516 0A94


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-06 17:37   ` Larry McVoy
  2003-01-06 19:40     ` Steven Barnhart
@ 2003-01-06 23:33     ` Matthias Andree
  2003-01-07 15:47       ` Disconnect
  2003-01-07 13:40     ` Richard Stallman
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Matthias Andree @ 2003-01-06 23:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel; +Cc: Larry McVoy, Richard Stallman, acahalan

On Mon, 06 Jan 2003, Larry McVoy wrote:

> It is the ultimate in hypocrisy to ask others for something you aren't 
> willing to do yourself.  I, for one, will remind you of this every time
> you bring up GNU/Linux in this list.  It won't go away, I'll make sure
> of that.  It's just pathetic what you are doing and I'll happily shine
> a spotlight on it until you change your tune or go away.

How many false rejects would a g.*n.*u.*l.*i.*n.*u.*x ban regexp cause
for this list BTW?

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-06 17:37   ` Larry McVoy
  2003-01-06 19:40     ` Steven Barnhart
  2003-01-06 23:33     ` Matthias Andree
@ 2003-01-07 13:40     ` Richard Stallman
  2003-01-07 14:26       ` Larry McVoy
  2003-01-07 16:18       ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Dimitrie O. Paun
  2 siblings, 2 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-07 13:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: lm; +Cc: acahalan, linux-kernel

    It is the ultimate in hypocrisy to ask others for something you aren't 
    willing to do yourself.  I, for one, will remind you of this every time
    you bring up GNU/Linux in this list.

These two cases are similar, but not in the way you think.  In both
cases a large structure that is basically GNU or of GNU has a
component that is Linux or of Linux.

So why do we treat them differently?  In general, there's no ethical
obligation to cite each and every component of a larger structure in
the structure's name.  But in the case of "GNU/Linux" there are some
specific reasons why it is useful and proper to mention "Linux" in the
name.  See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#justgnu.




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-07 13:40     ` Richard Stallman
@ 2003-01-07 14:26       ` Larry McVoy
  2003-01-08  8:00         ` Richard Stallman
  2003-01-07 16:18       ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Dimitrie O. Paun
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-07 14:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: lm, acahalan, linux-kernel

On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 08:40:26AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>     It is the ultimate in hypocrisy to ask others for something you aren't 
>     willing to do yourself.  I, for one, will remind you of this every time
>     you bring up GNU/Linux in this list.
> 
> These two cases are similar, but not in the way you think.  In both
> cases a large structure that is basically GNU or of GNU has a
> component that is Linux or of Linux.
> 
> So why do we treat them differently?  In general, there's no ethical
> obligation to cite each and every component of a larger structure in
> the structure's name.  

Great.  So not only is there no legal need to cite GNU in the Linux 
name, there is no ethical obligation either.  Thanks for clearing 
that up.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-06 23:33     ` Matthias Andree
@ 2003-01-07 15:47       ` Disconnect
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Disconnect @ 2003-01-07 15:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

I'd [g]uess [n]ot too many, b[u]t the [linux] kernel list admins are
pretty good about keeping the bans non-political.  Whoops, looks like
this messa[g]e gets sent to /dev/[nu]ll.  So much for [linux]
development discussion..

Maybe without the .*s all over the place....

(For the humour impaired, no, I'm not actually advocating such a ban.)

On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 18:33, Matthias Andree wrote:
> How many false rejects would a g.*n.*u.*l.*i.*n.*u.*x ban regexp cause
> for this list BTW?
> -
> 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/




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-07 13:40     ` Richard Stallman
  2003-01-07 14:26       ` Larry McVoy
@ 2003-01-07 16:18       ` Dimitrie O. Paun
  2003-01-08  2:29         ` Miles Bader
  2003-01-09  7:28         ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Richard Stallman
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Dimitrie O. Paun @ 2003-01-07 16:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: rms, lm; +Cc: acahalan, linux-kernel

On January 7, 2003 08:40 am, Richard Stallman wrote:
> These two cases are similar, but not in the way you think.  In both
> cases a large structure that is basically GNU or of GNU has a
> component that is Linux or of Linux.

Richard,

You are a smart guy. I think you'd agree with me that this particular
battle (GNU/Linux) is lost. Assuming you are right, is it worth continuing
to fight? I know you have a very strong sentimental attachment to GNU,
and that's more than understandable. But in the great scheme of things,
it's a minor issue. As much as you like them to, people don't attach 
semantics to names. Period. They just want a catchy label, and that's all. 
Damn, they don't even know what a kernel is, let alone subtleties 
concerning the naming.

Bottom line is, the are only so many hours in a day. You have so many 
battles to fight, that would serve the community. Why continue this one,
when it's clear that all it's going is harming your reputation and
credibility. It's harming the community. Yeah, you could argue that
*if* things were different... but they are not! Given the present day
situation, it must be clear even to you that things can't possibly go
back, and all your doing is creating bad blood. Think about it.

-- 
Dimi.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-07 16:18       ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Dimitrie O. Paun
@ 2003-01-08  2:29         ` Miles Bader
  2003-01-09  7:20           ` "Mother" == "computer-illiterate" Val Henson
  2003-01-09  7:28         ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Richard Stallman
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Miles Bader @ 2003-01-08  2:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: dpaun; +Cc: rms, lm, acahalan, linux-kernel

"Dimitrie O. Paun" <dpaun@rogers.com> writes:
> I know you have a very strong sentimental attachment to GNU,
> and that's more than understandable. But in the great scheme of things,
> it's a minor issue. As much as you like them to, people don't attach 
> semantics to names. Period. They just want a catchy label, and that's all. 

I think you're quite wrong -- names are very important, much more so
than it may seem at first.

If someone's mom (having heard the gossip) asks their computer-literate
child, `What is this XXX thing, anyway?', the answer is likely to be
very different when XXX is "GNU" as opposed to when XXX is "Linux".

The reason is that GNU _starts_ with freedom as an idea, and builds
software on top of that; it's very hard to explain GNU without explaining
freedom too.  Most people that associate themself with the `Linux'
movement, OTOH, seem to start with `look at all the cool stuff it does;'
the freedom part, even for those that care about it, seems to remain on
the periphery (I hope I don't piss anyone off with this characterization,
this is just what I've observed!).

Which approach is the right one obviously depends on your priorities, but
it's pretty clear to me that these respective groups of people _do_
associate themselves with the names.  I think that's one reason Richard's
attempts to get people to use GNU/linux have met with such strong
resistance (yeah, I know it's not the _only_ reason).

Perhaps, if everyone starting using `GNU/linux,' it would actually
_dilute_ the meaning of GNU, since many people that had no idea about what
GNU means would suddenly start using it just because someone told them the
name had changed from Linux.  None-the-less, I think it would have some
of the opposite effect too, making people that previously never thought
about it wonder `what's this GNU?'

On a slight tangent:  I bought an electronic english/japanese dictionary
about 8 years ago, and it happened to have a definition of GNU in it,
complete with a short (and I think accurate) description of free software!
Recently I bought a new dictionary; it doesn't define GNU, but it does
contain a definition of `Linux' -- and the summary is `a competitor to
windows'!  It then goes into further detail saying it's `freeware'
(free-beer free), and worked on cooperatively by its users, but no
mention of `freedom' as such; it's clear the dicionary makers were just a
bit confused, but I wonder if they'd have gotten it right if the name
contained `GNU', with its strong associations with freedom...

-Miles
-- 
The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.
  --Albert Einstein

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-07 14:26       ` Larry McVoy
@ 2003-01-08  8:00         ` Richard Stallman
  2003-01-08 13:51           ` Larry McVoy
                             ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-08  8:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: lm; +Cc: lm, acahalan, linux-kernel

    Great.  So not only is there no legal need to cite GNU in the Linux 
    name, there is no ethical obligation either.

When you take part of my statement, stretch it, interpret it based on
assumptions you know I disagree with, and present the result as
something I said, that doesn't prove anything.  It is childish.

There is no ethical obligation to mention secondary contributions
incorporated in a large project.  There ethical obligation is to cite
the main developer.  In the GNU/Linux system, the GNU Project is the
principal contributor; the system is more GNU than anything else,
and we started it.



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-08  8:00         ` Richard Stallman
@ 2003-01-08 13:51           ` Larry McVoy
  2003-01-09 23:14             ` Richard Stallman
  2003-01-08 21:29           ` Matthias Andree
  2003-01-09  2:26           ` Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-08 13:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: lm, acahalan, linux-kernel

On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 03:00:23AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>     Great.  So not only is there no legal need to cite GNU in the Linux 
>     name, there is no ethical obligation either.
> 
> There is no ethical obligation to mention secondary contributions
> incorporated in a large project.  There ethical obligation is to cite
> the main developer.  In the GNU/Linux system, the GNU Project is the
> principal contributor; the system is more GNU than anything else,
> and we started it.

Actually, to be legal, you need say GNU/Linux (Linux is a registered
trademark of Linus Torvalds).

As for the ethics, "cite the main developer"?  Well, then, that's easy.
It is you and the FSF organization which are behind this GNU stuff and
since I've been around since before you started, I'm well aware of 
how much work you did and how much was work that was simply assigned
over to the FSF.  If we remove all the work that you did not do, then
it's vividly clear that Linux is a larger effort.

The vast majority of the GPLed software out there is not work that you
did, it is work that other people did.  You are claiming credit for
their work, which is way over the unethical line, and attempting
to infringe on the work of the Linux community.  Not nice.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-08  8:00         ` Richard Stallman
  2003-01-08 13:51           ` Larry McVoy
@ 2003-01-08 21:29           ` Matthias Andree
  2003-01-09  2:26           ` Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Matthias Andree @ 2003-01-08 21:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

On Wed, 08 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:

> When you take part of my statement, stretch it, interpret it based on
> assumptions you know I disagree with, and present the result as
> something I said, that doesn't prove anything.  It is childish.
> 
> There is no ethical obligation to mention secondary contributions
> incorporated in a large project.  There ethical obligation is to cite
> the main developer.  In the GNU/Linux system, the GNU Project is the
> principal contributor; the system is more GNU than anything else,
> and we started it.

You overestimate your influence. Now please go invest your energy into
something that a) is more likely to succeed, b) does not happen on this
list.

-- 
Matthias Andree

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* RE: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-08  8:00         ` Richard Stallman
  2003-01-08 13:51           ` Larry McVoy
  2003-01-08 21:29           ` Matthias Andree
@ 2003-01-09  2:26           ` Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com
  2003-01-09  8:57             ` John Alvord
  2003-01-09 23:14             ` Richard Stallman
  2 siblings, 2 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com @ 2003-01-09  2:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: rms; +Cc: linux-kernel

Do you actually buy your own bullshit here?  If so, that's sad.  I used to
respect you.  I'd like to see you put your money where your mouth is - PROVE
that GNU (not just people who have release GPL'd software) contributed most
of the work to say Slackware, or Debian, or Red Hat.

Face it - you're full of it.  You're not fooling anyone either.

-----Original Message-----
From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
[mailto:linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org]On Behalf Of Richard Stallman
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 2:00 AM
To: lm@bitmover.com
Cc: lm@bitmover.com; acahalan@cs.uml.edu; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"


    Great.  So not only is there no legal need to cite GNU in the Linux
    name, there is no ethical obligation either.

When you take part of my statement, stretch it, interpret it based on
assumptions you know I disagree with, and present the result as
something I said, that doesn't prove anything.  It is childish.

There is no ethical obligation to mention secondary contributions
incorporated in a large project.  There ethical obligation is to cite
the main developer.  In the GNU/Linux system, the GNU Project is the
principal contributor; the system is more GNU than anything else,
and we started it.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-09  7:28         ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Richard Stallman
@ 2003-01-09  6:44           ` Dimitrie O. Paun
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Dimitrie O. Paun @ 2003-01-09  6:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: rms; +Cc: lm, acahalan, linux-kernel

On January 9, 2003 02:28 am, Richard Stallman wrote:
> These discussions will never convince those people, but they do win
> support from others who read both sides and find that we have right on
> our side.  So we have something to gain.

I have not touched upon the principle side of things on purpose:
what I'm trying to say is that it does not matter how's right or wrong.

Yes, you can say your campain gains people on the GNU/Linux side, and
you are correct -- it would in any case, it's just the law of large
numbers. You can view that as a gain, and I don't dispute that, but
that gain comes at a huge price: you greatly erode your credibility
and stature within the community. You can use your influence within 
the community in ways that would server the FSF a _lot_ more effectively.

Yes, you will say, but we are _right_. Well, you might be. But the
world is not a fair place, and sometimes you have to accept that.
There is unfairness all over the place: you take credit for other
people's work by putting under the GNU umbrella a lot of stuff you
did not write. That's unfair. Is it fair that Alexandre Julliard,
the Wine (http://www.winehq.org) project leader is listed in a list
together with 200+ other developers that contributed a tiny fraction
of what Alexandre did? No, it's not. There are endless examples of
these in the free software world. Once can not simply state the names
and importance (and _how_ would you gauge *that*?) of every single
contributor when you refer to the system.

And because people like a simple mnemonic, they chose one: Linux.
You would have liked they pick the acronym you invented, but they
didn't. People have chosen. It's a tiny detail in the grand scheme
of things, let's be all happy that a catchy acronym was invented
and addopted, and move on!

-- 
Dimi.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"
  2003-01-08  2:29         ` Miles Bader
@ 2003-01-09  7:20           ` Val Henson
  2003-01-09  8:05             ` J Sloan
                               ` (4 more replies)
  0 siblings, 5 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Val Henson @ 2003-01-09  7:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Miles Bader; +Cc: dpaun, rms, lm, acahalan, linux-kernel

On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 11:29:47AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> 
> If someone's mom (having heard the gossip) asks their computer-literate
> child, `What is this XXX thing, anyway?', the answer is likely to be
> very different when XXX is "GNU" as opposed to when XXX is "Linux".

How come no one ever talks about a Linux distribution so easy that
your grandfather could install it?  Or a kernel configuration tool so
simple that even Uncle Timmy can use it?

Can we quit with the "clueless mother" examples already?  My own
mother has installed more distributions of Linux than I've even logged
into.  I know quite a few mothers who have PhDs in CS, own several
CS-related patents, and/or made important fundamental discoveries in
CS.  Hint: Find out who invented the spanning tree algorithm for
ethernet bridges, $10 ThinkGeek gift certificate to the first person
who emails me the correct answer.

-VAL

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-07 16:18       ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Dimitrie O. Paun
  2003-01-08  2:29         ` Miles Bader
@ 2003-01-09  7:28         ` Richard Stallman
  2003-01-09  6:44           ` Dimitrie O. Paun
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-09  7:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: dpaun; +Cc: lm, acahalan, linux-kernel

    You are a smart guy. I think you'd agree with me that this particular
    battle (GNU/Linux) is lost.

It's not a battle, and the outcome isn't binary.
(See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html.)
The GNU/Linux campaign is partly successful
and that's better than not at all.

    Bottom line is, the are only so many hours in a day. You have so many 
    battles to fight, that would serve the community.

All other work that we do is made less effective than it could have
been because the public doesn't know what we've already done.  The
partial success of the GNU/Linux campaign partly reverses this.

Calling the system "GNU/Linux" is very easy, and takes just seconds a
day; that and using the term "free software" are the most efficient
ways you can use your time to help us.

    situation, it must be clear even to you that things can't possibly go
    back, and all your doing is creating bad blood. Think about it.

When we call the system "GNU/Linux" we are not insulting anyone.  The
bad blood is created by others, by the people who resent our saying
this.

There are two ways to look at this question: in terms of principle
and in terms of practical effects.

First, principle.  When a majority assaults a minority for stating a
truth that the majority wants forgotten, who is morally responsible?
If you say that the unpopular minority "creates bad blood", you're
blaming the victims of the intimidation campaign for resisting it;
taking a stand that deliberately disregards the concept of justice.

Second, practicalities.  The people who are so attached to the idea of
the "Linux" system that they would attack us for disagreeing with it
are never going to help us much.  They mostly don't share our values
anyway.  So we have nothing to lose.

These discussions will never convince those people, but they do win
support from others who read both sides and find that we have right on
our side.  So we have something to gain.

All in all, what we are doing is both right and effective.  We will
continue.



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"
  2003-01-09  7:20           ` "Mother" == "computer-illiterate" Val Henson
@ 2003-01-09  8:05             ` J Sloan
  2003-01-09 13:14             ` Miles Bader
                               ` (3 subsequent siblings)
  4 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: J Sloan @ 2003-01-09  8:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Val Henson; +Cc: Miles Bader, dpaun, rms, lm, acahalan, linux-kernel



Val Henson wrote:

>  
>
>Can we quit with the "clueless mother" examples already?  My own
>mother has installed more distributions of Linux than I've even logged
>into.  I know quite a few mothers who have PhDs in CS, own several
>CS-related patents, and/or made important fundamental discoveries in
>CS.  Hint: Find out who invented the spanning tree algorithm for
>ethernet bridges, $10 ThinkGeek gift certificate to the first person
>who emails me the correct answer.
>
Radia Perlman

Joe



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-09  2:26           ` Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com
@ 2003-01-09  8:57             ` John Alvord
  2003-01-09 15:18               ` What's in a name? Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com
  2003-01-10  9:52               ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Richard Stallman
  2003-01-09 23:14             ` Richard Stallman
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: John Alvord @ 2003-01-09  8:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: vlad; +Cc: rms, linux-kernel

Try to imagine the last 12 years of Linux without

gcc
binutils
unix programs such as ls, cp, rm, etc

I personally believe the current state of the Linux kernel would have
been impossible to achieve (at this time) without the above tools.

The Linux kernel development has stood on the shoulders of the GNU
effort the whole time.

Whether the result should be labeled as GNU/Linux is semantics - what
is the meaning of "operating system".  And it is redundant... after
all there is no Linux without GNU, so why force unnecessary
information on terms. If there was an ATT/Linux and an Intel/Linux,
having a GNU/Linux would make some sense... but that is not the way it
is. GNU/Linux is singular, so Linux makes a reasonable contraction.

Distributor marketting wants a neat snapy name that is easy to
remember. Linux is close enough to unix to merge meanings a bit.
People who read about Linus Torvalds get the Linus/Linux play on
words.

Another puzzling aspect to me is that GNU really goes beyond what I
think of as an operating system. I have a suite of GNU tools installed
on a Windows NT machine and I use make, ls, cp, mv all day. So I am
using GNU on a foreign operating system... or does my usage needs to
be labeled as GNU/Windows NT?

john alvord

On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 20:26:09 -0600, "Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com"
<vlad@vlad.geekizoid.com> wrote:

>Do you actually buy your own bullshit here?  If so, that's sad.  I used to
>respect you.  I'd like to see you put your money where your mouth is - PROVE
>that GNU (not just people who have release GPL'd software) contributed most
>of the work to say Slackware, or Debian, or Red Hat.
>
>Face it - you're full of it.  You're not fooling anyone either.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
>[mailto:linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org]On Behalf Of Richard Stallman
>Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 2:00 AM
>To: lm@bitmover.com
>Cc: lm@bitmover.com; acahalan@cs.uml.edu; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>Subject: Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
>
>
>    Great.  So not only is there no legal need to cite GNU in the Linux
>    name, there is no ethical obligation either.
>
>When you take part of my statement, stretch it, interpret it based on
>assumptions you know I disagree with, and present the result as
>something I said, that doesn't prove anything.  It is childish.
>
>There is no ethical obligation to mention secondary contributions
>incorporated in a large project.  There ethical obligation is to cite
>the main developer.  In the GNU/Linux system, the GNU Project is the
>principal contributor; the system is more GNU than anything else,
>and we started it.
>
>-
>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/


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"
  2003-01-09  7:20           ` "Mother" == "computer-illiterate" Val Henson
  2003-01-09  8:05             ` J Sloan
@ 2003-01-09 13:14             ` Miles Bader
  2003-01-09 14:35             ` Kent Borg
                               ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  4 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Miles Bader @ 2003-01-09 13:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Val Henson; +Cc: dpaun, rms, lm, acahalan, linux-kernel

On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:20:43AM -0700, Val Henson wrote:
> My own mother has installed more distributions of Linux than I've even
> logged into.

Then I suppose you would probably use a different example.  Great.

-miles
-- 
[|nurgle|]  ddt- demonic? so quake will have an evil kinda setting? one that 
            will  make every christian in the world foamm at the mouth? 
[iddt]      nurg, that's the goal 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"
  2003-01-09  7:20           ` "Mother" == "computer-illiterate" Val Henson
  2003-01-09  8:05             ` J Sloan
  2003-01-09 13:14             ` Miles Bader
@ 2003-01-09 14:35             ` Kent Borg
  2003-01-09 19:40             ` Val Henson
  2003-01-10  7:04             ` Tim Timmerman
  4 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Kent Borg @ 2003-01-09 14:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Val Henson; +Cc: Miles Bader, dpaun, rms, lm, acahalan, linux-kernel

On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:20:43AM -0700, Val Henson wrote:
> How come no one ever talks about a Linux distribution so easy that
> your grandfather could install it?  Or a kernel configuration tool so
> simple that even Uncle Timmy can use it?

I am new to this thread, but I do use the "my mom" example because my
mother *is* the computer pioneer I know in that generation, but one
who still finds them difficult.  She has been using computers since
she got a new Macintosh Plus and a 30 MB hard disk, and she has been
using e-mail since before it was clear to everybody that @-signs would
be a universal part of e-mail addresses.  However, she is also still
not a computer wiz and I think never will be--there seems to be a
generational thing here, like learning a foreign language in
adulthood, that keeps computers hard.  When my mother was a little
girl electricity was still new, and was useful for lighting.

My most recent e-mail from her was saying the some Apple support
person concluded her current problem is likely the Imac's hard drive
and to bring it into the store where she got it.  (Her other Imac
works better, but it is only OS X and doesn't work with her scanner.)
She keeps at it!

My father only recently got interested in computers, uses the new Imac
for video editing, but refers all support questions to my mother.  He
doesn't pretend to be self-sufficient on the topic.

> Can we quit with the "clueless mother" examples already?  

My mother is far from clueless, but she is stubbornly resistant to
becoming a power user who can reliably solve her own problems.  (The
fact that computers are still so damn buggy doesn't help either.)

I am encouraging them to get a DSL connection with a static IP, at
which point I will add a Linux computer to their collection--and I
will administer it remotely from 1000 miles away.

> My own mother has installed more distributions of Linux than I've
> even logged into.

I don't doubt that, but until computers get a lot easier to use and
administer the graphic image of the Clueless Mother is useful to shock
most geeks back to the reality that there *are* naive users.  Many of
us have mothers, and computer expert mothers are still rare.

> I know quite a few mothers who have PhDs in CS, own several
> CS-related patents, and/or made important fundamental discoveries in
> CS.

(You hang out in rarified circles, the number of women in CSci id
dropping.)

So don't imagine a general purpose "have given birth human"!  Imagine
a woman born in a modern western country, but 20 years before the
invention of the transistor.  These capable women mastered impressive
things, but computers are so obtuse!  And they are not the only ones
having trouble.  I am still having trouble getting my software Raid 1
to boot off of either drive if one goes south--without opening the box
and pulling cables.  And it seems like such a reasonable desire...


-kb, the Kent who insists that computers are more difficult than they
need be.


P.S.  Some of us are old enough to remember when mice and graphical
interfaces were considered toys for beginners and not suitable to real
users.  But at least then there was controversy!  Now, overlapping
windows are the undoubted standard and no one even complains.  These
traditions are too complicated, limited, and narrow, but it is hard to
think beyond them.  But imagining a naive user (maybe even knowing one
or two) is a useful way to ask basic questions.  If this naive user
isn't Your Mother, OK, but please don't forget that what is good for a
naive user (e.g., the mouse) is good for others too.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* What's in a name?
  2003-01-09  8:57             ` John Alvord
@ 2003-01-09 15:18               ` Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com
  2003-01-09 16:11                 ` Richard B. Johnson
  2003-01-10  9:52               ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Richard Stallman
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com @ 2003-01-09 15:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 'John Alvord'; +Cc: linux-kernel, rms

And in that same period, look at Linux, and then look at Hurd.  Hurd even
has the advantage of using giant chunks of Linux code, but it still is
basically useless.

Why should Linux be refered to as GNU/Linux because of tools, and yet Hurd
doesn't give credit where credit is due?  RMS has done more to hurt GNU with
his current stance on the matter than Microsoft ever could.  He's getting
annoying, too.

Regards,
Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: John Alvord [mailto:jalvo@mbay.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 2:58 AM
To: vlad@geekizoid.com
Cc: rms@gnu.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"


Try to imagine the last 12 years of Linux without

gcc
binutils
unix programs such as ls, cp, rm, etc

I personally believe the current state of the Linux kernel would have
been impossible to achieve (at this time) without the above tools.

The Linux kernel development has stood on the shoulders of the GNU
effort the whole time.

Whether the result should be labeled as GNU/Linux is semantics - what
is the meaning of "operating system".  And it is redundant... after
all there is no Linux without GNU, so why force unnecessary
information on terms. If there was an ATT/Linux and an Intel/Linux,
having a GNU/Linux would make some sense... but that is not the way it
is. GNU/Linux is singular, so Linux makes a reasonable contraction.

Distributor marketting wants a neat snapy name that is easy to
remember. Linux is close enough to unix to merge meanings a bit.
People who read about Linus Torvalds get the Linus/Linux play on
words.

Another puzzling aspect to me is that GNU really goes beyond what I
think of as an operating system. I have a suite of GNU tools installed
on a Windows NT machine and I use make, ls, cp, mv all day. So I am
using GNU on a foreign operating system... or does my usage needs to
be labeled as GNU/Windows NT?

john alvord

On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 20:26:09 -0600, "Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com"
<vlad@vlad.geekizoid.com> wrote:

>Do you actually buy your own bullshit here?  If so, that's sad.  I used to
>respect you.  I'd like to see you put your money where your mouth is -
PROVE
>that GNU (not just people who have release GPL'd software) contributed most
>of the work to say Slackware, or Debian, or Red Hat.
>
>Face it - you're full of it.  You're not fooling anyone either.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
>[mailto:linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org]On Behalf Of Richard Stallman
>Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 2:00 AM
>To: lm@bitmover.com
>Cc: lm@bitmover.com; acahalan@cs.uml.edu; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>Subject: Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
>
>
>    Great.  So not only is there no legal need to cite GNU in the Linux
>    name, there is no ethical obligation either.
>
>When you take part of my statement, stretch it, interpret it based on
>assumptions you know I disagree with, and present the result as
>something I said, that doesn't prove anything.  It is childish.
>
>There is no ethical obligation to mention secondary contributions
>incorporated in a large project.  There ethical obligation is to cite
>the main developer.  In the GNU/Linux system, the GNU Project is the
>principal contributor; the system is more GNU than anything else,
>and we started it.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: What's in a name?
  2003-01-09 15:18               ` What's in a name? Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com
@ 2003-01-09 16:11                 ` Richard B. Johnson
  2003-01-09 16:51                   ` venom
  2003-01-09 17:48                   ` Jesse Pollard
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Richard B. Johnson @ 2003-01-09 16:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: vlad; +Cc: 'John Alvord', linux-kernel, rms

On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com wrote:

> And in that same period, look at Linux, and then look at Hurd.  Hurd even
> has the advantage of using giant chunks of Linux code, but it still is
> basically useless.
> 
> Why should Linux be refered to as GNU/Linux because of tools, and yet Hurd
> doesn't give credit where credit is due?  RMS has done more to hurt GNU with
> his current stance on the matter than Microsoft ever could.  He's getting
> annoying, too.
> 
> Regards,
> Scott
> 

Damn. This is getting tried and it doesn't seem to "go away".

Anybody remember this Copyright notice??  Most ALL of the
early Linux Distributions contained programs with this
notice:

/*
 * Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
 * All rights reserved.
 *
 * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted
 * provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
 * duplicated in all such forms and that any documentation,
 * advertising materials, and other materials related to such
 * distribution and use acknowledge that the software was developed
 * by the University of California, Berkeley.  The name of the
 * University may not be used to endorse or promote products derived
 * from this software without specific prior written permission.
 * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR
 * IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED
 * WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
 */

#ifndef lint
char copyright[] =
"@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\n\
 All rights reserved.\n";
#endif /* not lint */


...however.  Something happened so that this code was lifted
"whole cloth" into some later distributions that contained
the GNU License notice. By some unknown mystery, the embeded
copyright notice was eliminated as well. However, much of the
code remained the same. In some little-used programs, all the
code, including the bug, remained the same.

If I had anything to do with so-called GNU, I'd keep my mouth
shut so this wholesale appropriation of intellectual property
was not investigated.

Here is an early distribution of Linux:

Script started on Thu Jan  9 10:55:02 2003
# cd /usr/bin
# strings * | grep Regents
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 The Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1985, 1989 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
Based on BSD gprof, copyright 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1986 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983, 1989 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 by NCEMRSoft and Copyright (c) 1985, 1989 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1985,1989 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1985, 1989 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983, 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1993 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1987, 1992 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983, 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983, 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1988 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1991 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1988, 1990 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980, 1991 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
# strings * | grep Regents
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 The Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1985, 1989 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
Based on BSD gprof, copyright 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1986 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983, 1989 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 by NCEMRSoft and Copyright (c) 1985, 1989 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1985,1989 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1985, 1989 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983, 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1993 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1987, 1992 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983, 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983, 1990 The Regents of the University 
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
# cd /bin
# strings * | grep Regents
@(#) Copyright (c) 1991 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1991 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980, 1987, 1988 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1991 The Regents of the University of California.
# cd /sbin
# strings * | grep Regents
strings: control: No such file or directory
strings: discard: No such file or directory
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
strings: server: No such file or directory
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
strings: sysinit: No such file or directory
# exit
Script done on Thu Jan  9 10:57:53 2003


So much for the absolute bullshit that GNU started Linux and that
there is somehow a GNU/Linux.  Most all of the early distributions
used programs ported from BSD. The Linux-BSD emulation was so good,
thanks to Linus and others, that most programs needed to only be
recompiled.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the true history of the "Linux Operating
System" with all of the components that RMS insists are his, actually
coming from the University of California, Berkeley.

Don't be bambozzled by the persons who will re-write history to glorify
their accomplishments. Saying something over-and-over again doesn't
make it true. Facts stand alone. They only need to be noted. Bullshit
needs repeating.

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.



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: What's in a name?
  2003-01-09 16:11                 ` Richard B. Johnson
@ 2003-01-09 16:51                   ` venom
  2003-01-09 17:48                   ` Jesse Pollard
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: venom @ 2003-01-09 16:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Richard B. Johnson; +Cc: vlad, 'John Alvord', linux-kernel, rms


Yes, for binaries most of the time we even did not need to use the
/usr/lib/libbsd.a compatibility library
and the /usr/include/bsd/*.h compatibility includes
(just ash was needing that) coming with libc4 and libc5 distribution for
compatibility pursues.

Then also the boot system was BSD like, and now we see this prosecuted and
evolved in Slackware.

But please, let's stop this thread.

We talked about GPLed modules and binary only modules,
and none even considered implication brought
by the new module interface with run queue, that is an important
point in this discussion.

We talked just about names, names, names, and again names.
I do not expect in every thread on lkml to see some good contribution
(not just code, but concept, discussions, and so on),
but this specific one is just like
"the wall I build with my belief is higher than your".

And the few smart mails ususally got ignored.
There is no interess in this for me.

Luigi



On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Richard B. Johnson wrote:

> Most all of the early distributions
> used programs ported from BSD. The Linux-BSD emulation was so good,
> thanks to Linus and others, that most programs needed to only be
> recompiled.
>
> That, ladies and gentlemen, is the true history of the "Linux Operating
> System" with all of the components that RMS insists are his, actually
> coming from the University of California, Berkeley.
>


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: What's in a name?
  2003-01-09 16:11                 ` Richard B. Johnson
  2003-01-09 16:51                   ` venom
@ 2003-01-09 17:48                   ` Jesse Pollard
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Jesse Pollard @ 2003-01-09 17:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: root, vlad; +Cc: 'John Alvord', linux-kernel, rms

On Thursday 09 January 2003 10:11 am, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com wrote:
> > And in that same period, look at Linux, and then look at Hurd.  Hurd even
> > has the advantage of using giant chunks of Linux code, but it still is
> > basically useless.
> >
> > Why should Linux be refered to as GNU/Linux because of tools, and yet
> > Hurd doesn't give credit where credit is due?  RMS has done more to hurt
> > GNU with his current stance on the matter than Microsoft ever could. 
> > He's getting annoying, too.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Scott
>
> Damn. This is getting tried and it doesn't seem to "go away".
>
> Anybody remember this Copyright notice??  Most ALL of the
> early Linux Distributions contained programs with this
> notice:
>
> /*
>  * Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
>  * All rights reserved.
>  *
>  * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted
>  * provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
>  * duplicated in all such forms and that any documentation,
>  * advertising materials, and other materials related to such
>  * distribution and use acknowledge that the software was developed
>  * by the University of California, Berkeley.  The name of the
>  * University may not be used to endorse or promote products derived
>  * from this software without specific prior written permission.
>  * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR
>  * IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED
>  * WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
>  */
>
> #ifndef lint
> char copyright[] =
> "@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\n\
>  All rights reserved.\n";
> #endif /* not lint */
>
>
> ...however.  Something happened so that this code was lifted
> "whole cloth" into some later distributions that contained
> the GNU License notice. By some unknown mystery, the embeded
> copyright notice was eliminated as well. However, much of the
> code remained the same. In some little-used programs, all the
> code, including the bug, remained the same.
>
> If I had anything to do with so-called GNU, I'd keep my mouth
> shut so this wholesale appropriation of intellectual property
> was not investigated.
>
> Here is an early distribution of Linux:
>
> Script started on Thu Jan  9 10:55:02 2003
> # cd /usr/bin
> # strings * | grep Regents
> @(#) Copyright (c) 1980 Regents of the University of California.
> @(#) Copyright (c) 1980 The Regents of the University of California.
[snip]
> @(#) Copyright (c) 1991 The Regents of the University of California.
> # cd /sbin
> # strings * | grep Regents
> strings: control: No such file or directory
> strings: discard: No such file or directory
> The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
> The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
> The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
> The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
> strings: server: No such file or directory
> The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
> strings: sysinit: No such file or directory
> # exit
> Script done on Thu Jan  9 10:57:53 2003
>
>
> So much for the absolute bullshit that GNU started Linux and that
> there is somehow a GNU/Linux.  Most all of the early distributions
> used programs ported from BSD. The Linux-BSD emulation was so good,
> thanks to Linus and others, that most programs needed to only be
> recompiled.
>
> That, ladies and gentlemen, is the true history of the "Linux Operating
> System" with all of the components that RMS insists are his, actually
> coming from the University of California, Berkeley.
>
> Don't be bambozzled by the persons who will re-write history to glorify
> their accomplishments. Saying something over-and-over again doesn't
> make it true. Facts stand alone. They only need to be noted. Bullshit
> needs repeating.

I seem to remember that there was also a request from the University of 
California to remove that code too. That was when they started charging
for the BSD distribution, and before the NetBSD got out, which also
had to rewrite/replace the code. Guess what got used...

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: pollard@navo.hpc.mil

Any opinions expressed are solely my own.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"
  2003-01-09  7:20           ` "Mother" == "computer-illiterate" Val Henson
                               ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2003-01-09 14:35             ` Kent Borg
@ 2003-01-09 19:40             ` Val Henson
  2003-01-09 20:21               ` jlnance
  2003-01-09 23:11               ` Alan Cox
  2003-01-10  7:04             ` Tim Timmerman
  4 siblings, 2 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Val Henson @ 2003-01-09 19:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel; +Cc: David van Hoose, dpaun, rms, Miles Bader, lm, acahalan

On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:20:43AM -0700, Val Henson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 11:29:47AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> > 
> > If someone's mom (having heard the gossip) asks their computer-literate
> > child, `What is this XXX thing, anyway?', the answer is likely to be
> > very different when XXX is "GNU" as opposed to when XXX is "Linux".
> 
> How come no one ever talks about a Linux distribution so easy that
> your grandfather could install it?  Or a kernel configuration tool so
> simple that even Uncle Timmy can use it?
> 
> Can we quit with the "clueless mother" examples already?  My own
> mother has installed more distributions of Linux than I've even logged
> into.  I know quite a few mothers who have PhDs in CS, own several
> CS-related patents, and/or made important fundamental discoveries in
> CS.  Hint: Find out who invented the spanning tree algorithm for
> ethernet bridges, $10 ThinkGeek gift certificate to the first person
> who emails me the correct answer.

And the winner is David Hoose, who sent the answer to me 10 minutes
after the message to linux-kernel arrived in my mail queue.  The
answer is:

Radia Perlman

She is the inventor of the spanning tree algorithm, the author of
"Interconnections: Bridges, Routers, Switches, and Internetworking
Protocols" from Addison-Wesley, and the mother of at least two
children.  Honorable mention to: Joe Perches, Joe Sloan, Chris Ricker,
Larry McVoy, and "Disconnect," real name withheld.

-VAL

P.S. For extra credit (but no ThinkGeek certificate) you can look up
the following women in computer science, some of whom are mothers:
Mary Baker, Margo Seltzer, Monica Lam, Ellen Spertus, Carla Ellis, and
Barbara Simons.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"
  2003-01-09 19:40             ` Val Henson
@ 2003-01-09 20:21               ` jlnance
  2003-01-09 20:30                 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
  2003-01-09 20:46                 ` Randy.Dunlap
  2003-01-09 23:11               ` Alan Cox
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: jlnance @ 2003-01-09 20:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:40:19PM -0700, Val Henson wrote:

> P.S. For extra credit (but no ThinkGeek certificate) you can look up
> the following women in computer science, some of whom are mothers:
> Mary Baker, Margo Seltzer, Monica Lam, Ellen Spertus, Carla Ellis, and
> Barbara Simons.

Am I the first person to tell you you left off Ada Lovelace?  She was
way ahead of her time.

Thanks,

Jim

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"
  2003-01-09 20:21               ` jlnance
@ 2003-01-09 20:30                 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
  2003-01-10  1:34                   ` Andrew McGregor
  2003-01-09 20:46                 ` Randy.Dunlap
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Valdis.Kletnieks @ 2003-01-09 20:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: jlnance; +Cc: linux-kernel

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 539 bytes --]

On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 15:21:44 EST, jlnance@unity.ncsu.edu  said:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:40:19PM -0700, Val Henson wrote:
> 
> > P.S. For extra credit (but no ThinkGeek certificate) you can look up
> > the following women in computer science, some of whom are mothers:
> > Mary Baker, Margo Seltzer, Monica Lam, Ellen Spertus, Carla Ellis, and
> > Barbara Simons.
> 
> Am I the first person to tell you you left off Ada Lovelace?  She was
> way ahead of her time.

I think Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper were left off as "too easy"....

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"
  2003-01-09 20:21               ` jlnance
  2003-01-09 20:30                 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
@ 2003-01-09 20:46                 ` Randy.Dunlap
  2003-01-09 21:12                   ` Valdis.Kletnieks
  2003-01-12 11:56                   ` Kristian Koehntopp
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Randy.Dunlap @ 2003-01-09 20:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: jlnance; +Cc: linux-kernel

On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 jlnance@unity.ncsu.edu wrote:

| On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:40:19PM -0700, Val Henson wrote:
|
| > P.S. For extra credit (but no ThinkGeek certificate) you can look up
| > the following women in computer science, some of whom are mothers:
| > Mary Baker, Margo Seltzer, Monica Lam, Ellen Spertus, Carla Ellis, and
| > Barbara Simons.
|
| Am I the first person to tell you you left off Ada Lovelace?  She was
| way ahead of her time.

and Grace Hopper (ugh, COBOL)

-- 
~Randy


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"
  2003-01-09 21:12                   ` Valdis.Kletnieks
@ 2003-01-09 21:11                     ` Randy.Dunlap
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Randy.Dunlap @ 2003-01-09 21:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Valdis.Kletnieks; +Cc: linux-kernel

On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:

| On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 12:46:30 PST, "Randy.Dunlap" said:
| > (ugh, COBOL)
|
| Go back and research the alternatives available at the time.

True.

| Then ask yourself which you'd prefer to do maintenance programming on.

I've done several years of COBOL (/me hides).
I'm familiar with its strengths in the right environment.

-- 
~Randy


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"
  2003-01-09 20:46                 ` Randy.Dunlap
@ 2003-01-09 21:12                   ` Valdis.Kletnieks
  2003-01-09 21:11                     ` Randy.Dunlap
  2003-01-12 11:56                   ` Kristian Koehntopp
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Valdis.Kletnieks @ 2003-01-09 21:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Randy.Dunlap; +Cc: linux-kernel

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 206 bytes --]

On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 12:46:30 PST, "Randy.Dunlap" said:
> (ugh, COBOL)

Go back and research the alternatives available at the time.

Then ask yourself which you'd prefer to do maintenance programming on.



[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"
  2003-01-09 23:11               ` Alan Cox
@ 2003-01-09 22:41                 ` John Adams
  2003-01-10  1:24                 ` Chris Adams
  2003-01-10 10:35                 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: John Adams @ 2003-01-09 22:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

On Thursday 09 January 2003 06:11 pm, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> and of course Sally Floyd, and even Hedy Lamarr (bonus points for those
> who know what her networking related patent is on)

Google makes this too easy. 
 http://www.german-way.com/cinema/lamarr.html
i

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"
  2003-01-09 19:40             ` Val Henson
  2003-01-09 20:21               ` jlnance
@ 2003-01-09 23:11               ` Alan Cox
  2003-01-09 22:41                 ` John Adams
                                   ` (2 more replies)
  1 sibling, 3 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Alan Cox @ 2003-01-09 23:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Val Henson
  Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, David van Hoose, dpaun, rms,
	Miles Bader, lm, acahalan

On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 19:40, Val Henson wrote:
> P.S. For extra credit (but no ThinkGeek certificate) you can look up
> the following women in computer science, some of whom are mothers:
> Mary Baker, Margo Seltzer, Monica Lam, Ellen Spertus, Carla Ellis, and
> Barbara Simons.

and of course Sally Floyd, and even Hedy Lamarr (bonus points for those
who know what her networking related patent is on)


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-09  2:26           ` Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com
  2003-01-09  8:57             ` John Alvord
@ 2003-01-09 23:14             ` Richard Stallman
  2003-01-09 23:39               ` Larry McVoy
  2003-01-10  0:01               ` Linux/Hurd vs GNU/Linux (was Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently") Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-09 23:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com; +Cc: linux-kernel

    Do you actually buy your own bullshit here?  If so, that's sad.  I used to
    respect you.

One wonders what it is you thought I had done, when you respected me
for it ;-).

		  I'd like to see you put your money where your mouth is 

I've dedicated my life to free software since 1984, and have been
working for the cause more than full time, all these 19 years.  I
think that counts as "putting my money where my mouth is" for the
movement.

If it doesn't, then you have set a standard so high that perhaps
nobody in the world qualifies.

									 - PROVE
    that GNU (not just people who have release GPL'd software) contributed most
    of the work to say Slackware, or Debian, or Red Hat.

Let's be careful.  I don't say that the GNU software packages were
most of the early GNU/Linux system.  They were, however, the largest
contribution of any single project.  Probably they still are.

GNU, the system we were developing, was most of the early GNU/Linux
system in 1992.  GNU in 1992 included non-GNU packages such as X11,
and TeX.

If we look at the GNU packages alone rather than the GNU system as a
whole, they were a large fraction of the early GNU/Linux system.  The
specific data point I have comes from Adam Richter, who maintained an
early distro.  In 1995, he counted up the code and found that GNU
packages added up to 28% of his distro.  Linux, the kernel, was 3% of
that distro.

I would expect that both GNU code and Linux make up smaller fractions
of current GNU/Linux distros, because so many other programs have been
added over the years.  It's a good thing that so many free programs
have been developed, and that so many people have contributed, but
this doesn't change the system's history.  It started out as the
combination of GNU and Linux.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-08 13:51           ` Larry McVoy
@ 2003-01-09 23:14             ` Richard Stallman
  2003-01-09 23:24               ` Larry McVoy
  2003-01-10  5:33               ` Oliver Xymoron
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-09 23:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: lm; +Cc: lm, acahalan, linux-kernel

    It is you and the FSF organization which are behind this GNU stuff and
    since I've been around since before you started, I'm well aware of 
    how much work you did and how much was work that was simply assigned
    over to the FSF.

Some GNU programs are FSF-copyrighted; when people contribute to them,
we ask them to assign their copyrights to the FSF.  Other GNU programs
are not FSF-copyrighted; their developers retain the copyright.  For
those programs, the developers decide how to deal with the copyright
on contributions.

So if you count up the code that is FSF-copyrighted, that is just a
portion of the GNU software.

		      If we remove all the work that you did not do, then
    it's vividly clear that Linux is a larger effort.

If you assume that the whole system is Linux, and count every part
that isn't GNU software as part of the "Linux effort", then the part
you count as "Linux" will be much bigger than the GNU software, and
this will "prove" the assumption you started with--that the whole
system is Linux.

In the past 8 years I've seen plenty of arguments that the system is
justly called "Linux".  Some are based on inaccurate facts; those are
sometimes clear and rational, just mistaken.  But most of them involve
a well-understood logical fallacy, artfully disguised so that it takes
a some thought to find it.  With practice, people can become expert at
spotting the fallacies.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-09 23:14             ` Richard Stallman
@ 2003-01-09 23:24               ` Larry McVoy
  2003-01-11  0:21                 ` Richard Stallman
  2003-01-10  5:33               ` Oliver Xymoron
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-09 23:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: lm, acahalan, linux-kernel

On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 06:14:37PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> 		      If we remove all the work that you did not do, then
>     it's vividly clear that Linux is a larger effort.
> 
> If you assume that the whole system is Linux, and count every part
> that isn't GNU software as part of the "Linux effort", then the part
> you count as "Linux" will be much bigger than the GNU software, and
> this will "prove" the assumption you started with--that the whole
> system is Linux.

And isn't that exactly the line of reasoning which leads you to the 
conclusion that Linux should be GNU/Linux?  Why do you think that
you deserve special billing ahead of anyone else?  You haven't 
contributed any more than anyone else, that's for sure.  GCC is 
nice and all, but by your own reasoning if GCC didn't exist, a
different compiler would have shown up.  The only reason they
didn't is that GCC made that itch go away.

It really seems like you are trying to leverage a comparitively tiny
amount of source into top billing.  Why are you more important than
the entire windowing system, which is dramatically more source and
more effort?

And when are you going to start referring to your kernel by its
proper name: Linux/Hurd?  Or do you have plans to remove the 
Linux components?
-- 
---
Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-09 23:14             ` Richard Stallman
@ 2003-01-09 23:39               ` Larry McVoy
  2003-01-10  0:01               ` Linux/Hurd vs GNU/Linux (was Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently") Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-09 23:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com, linux-kernel

On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 06:14:20PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> GNU, the system we were developing, was most of the early GNU/Linux
> system in 1992.  GNU in 1992 included non-GNU packages such as X11,
> and TeX.

Wow.  That might be one for the quotes file:

    "GNU ... was of the early GNU/Linux system.  GNU ... included non-GNU"

Well, that certainly explains a lot.  If you define GNU as "anything
which might be found on a Linux distro including non-GNU packages",
your position starts to make a certain twisted sense.  Only one problem
with that: if it wasn't GNU, it wasn't GNU, which means, Richard, you
are crackin' smoke and may need a vacation.  19 years of hard effort is 
a long time, have you considered retirement?  You've certainly earned it.

Oh, by the way, have you updated the GNU kernel pages to reflect the new
proper name: Linux/Hurd?  I'd really appreciate it if you could get to that.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Linux/Hurd vs GNU/Linux (was Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently")
  2003-01-09 23:14             ` Richard Stallman
  2003-01-09 23:39               ` Larry McVoy
@ 2003-01-10  0:01               ` Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com @ 2003-01-10  0:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: rms; +Cc: Lkml (E-mail)

Your last sentence there is telling.  Hurd is both GNU and Linux, yet you
don't seem to be interested in giving credit where credit is due.  If you
can't do that, you don't have any credibility left.

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Stallman [mailto:rms@gnu.org]
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 5:14 PM
To: Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"

I would expect that both GNU code and Linux make up smaller fractions
of current GNU/Linux distros, because so many other programs have been
added over the years.  It's a good thing that so many free programs
have been developed, and that so many people have contributed, but
this doesn't change the system's history.  It started out as the
combination of GNU and Linux.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"
  2003-01-09 23:11               ` Alan Cox
  2003-01-09 22:41                 ` John Adams
@ 2003-01-10  1:24                 ` Chris Adams
  2003-01-10  2:15                   ` jdow
  2003-01-10 10:35                 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Chris Adams @ 2003-01-10  1:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

Once upon a time, Alan Cox  <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> said:
>and of course Sally Floyd, and even Hedy Lamarr (bonus points for those
>who know what her networking related patent is on)

That's HEDLEY!  Oh, but he doesn't have any patents.
-- 
Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"
  2003-01-09 20:30                 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
@ 2003-01-10  1:34                   ` Andrew McGregor
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Andrew McGregor @ 2003-01-10  1:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Valdis.Kletnieks, jlnance; +Cc: linux-kernel



--On Thursday, January 09, 2003 15:30:54 -0500 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu 
wrote:

> On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 15:21:44 EST, jlnance@unity.ncsu.edu  said:
>> On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:40:19PM -0700, Val Henson wrote:
>>
>> > P.S. For extra credit (but no ThinkGeek certificate) you can look up
>> > the following women in computer science, some of whom are mothers:
>> > Mary Baker, Margo Seltzer, Monica Lam, Ellen Spertus, Carla Ellis, and
>> > Barbara Simons.
>>
>> Am I the first person to tell you you left off Ada Lovelace?  She was
>> way ahead of her time.
>
> I think Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper were left off as "too easy"....

Sally Floyd and Allison Mankin?

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"
  2003-01-10  1:24                 ` Chris Adams
@ 2003-01-10  2:15                   ` jdow
  2003-01-10  3:20                     ` Val Henson
  2003-01-10  4:23                     ` Tom Diehl
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: jdow @ 2003-01-10  2:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Chris Adams, linux-kernel

From: "Chris Adams" <cmadams@hiwaay.net>

> Once upon a time, Alan Cox  <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> said:
> >and of course Sally Floyd, and even Hedy Lamarr (bonus points for those
> >who know what her networking related patent is on)
> 
> That's HEDLEY!  Oh, but he doesn't have any patents.

No, it's Hedy Lamarr and she invented frequency hopping spread spectrum
with George Anthiel. I worked on one of the first practical implementations
of the concept back in the early 70s. Somehow it seems appropriate.

{^_^}  Joanne, jdow@earthlink.net


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"
  2003-01-10  2:15                   ` jdow
@ 2003-01-10  3:20                     ` Val Henson
  2003-01-10  4:23                     ` Tom Diehl
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Val Henson @ 2003-01-10  3:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: jdow; +Cc: Chris Adams, linux-kernel

On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 06:15:39PM -0800, jdow wrote:
> From: "Chris Adams" <cmadams@hiwaay.net>
> 
> > Once upon a time, Alan Cox  <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> said:
> > >and of course Sally Floyd, and even Hedy Lamarr (bonus points for those
> > >who know what her networking related patent is on)
> > 
> > That's HEDLEY!  Oh, but he doesn't have any patents.
> 
> No, it's Hedy Lamarr and she invented frequency hopping spread spectrum
> with George Anthiel. I worked on one of the first practical implementations
> of the concept back in the early 70s. Somehow it seems appropriate.

Chris was making a joke which you won't get unless you watch "Blazing
Saddles" (something I've never gotten around to myself).  Hedley
Lamarr was a character in the movie who, indeed, doesn't have any
patents.

Neat to hear you got to work on such an interesting project!

-VAL

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"
  2003-01-10  2:15                   ` jdow
  2003-01-10  3:20                     ` Val Henson
@ 2003-01-10  4:23                     ` Tom Diehl
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Tom Diehl @ 2003-01-10  4:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: jdow; +Cc: Chris Adams, linux-kernel

On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, jdow wrote:

> From: "Chris Adams" <cmadams@hiwaay.net>
> 
> > Once upon a time, Alan Cox  <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> said:
> > >and of course Sally Floyd, and even Hedy Lamarr (bonus points for those
> > >who know what her networking related patent is on)
> > 
> > That's HEDLEY!  Oh, but he doesn't have any patents.
> 
> No, it's Hedy Lamarr and she invented frequency hopping spread spectrum
> with George Anthiel. I worked on one of the first practical implementations
> of the concept back in the early 70s. Somehow it seems appropriate.

Hehe!! He got you Joanne!! Ever watch Blazing Saddles?? 

I am jealous though. In reading various messages written by you, you have 
clearly had way too much fun in life!! :-)

Enjoy,

-- 
.............Tom	"Nothing would please me more than being able to 
tdiehl@rogueind.com	hire ten programmers and deluge the hobby market 
			with good software." -- Bill Gates 1976

   			We are still waiting ....


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-09 23:14             ` Richard Stallman
  2003-01-09 23:24               ` Larry McVoy
@ 2003-01-10  5:33               ` Oliver Xymoron
  2003-01-10  6:07                 ` Andre Hedrick
                                   ` (2 more replies)
  1 sibling, 3 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Oliver Xymoron @ 2003-01-10  5:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: lm, linux-kernel

On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 06:14:37PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
[GNU/Linux stuff deleted]

Can we all agree that this is indeed the kernel list and that the
kernel is indeed known as simply 'Linux' and that therefore the
GNU/Linux debate is off-topic here?

-- 
 "Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.." 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-10  5:33               ` Oliver Xymoron
@ 2003-01-10  6:07                 ` Andre Hedrick
  2003-01-10  6:31                   ` Miles Bader
  2003-01-10 14:17                 ` Charles Cazabon
  2003-01-11  1:36                 ` Rob Wilkens
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Andre Hedrick @ 2003-01-10  6:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel


Only when LKML can remove the advertising value of the wars cached on all
the web search engines will this forum be free of off topics.  The bad
press is still press.  People's self interest to rack up hits in a search
engine, is why much of the self promotion happens.

I am looking in the mirror and wonder why did I even reply or expose the
benefits of such debate.

GAK!

On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Oliver Xymoron wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 06:14:37PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [GNU/Linux stuff deleted]
> 
> Can we all agree that this is indeed the kernel list and that the
> kernel is indeed known as simply 'Linux' and that therefore the
> GNU/Linux debate is off-topic here?
> 
> -- 
>  "Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.." 
> -
> 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/
> 


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-10  6:07                 ` Andre Hedrick
@ 2003-01-10  6:31                   ` Miles Bader
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Miles Bader @ 2003-01-10  6:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Andre Hedrick; +Cc: linux-kernel

Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org> writes:
> Only when LKML can remove the advertising value of the wars cached on all
> the web search engines will this forum be free of off topics.  The bad
> press is still press.  People's self interest to rack up hits in a search
> engine, is why much of the self promotion happens.

Are you on drugs, or just joking?

The reason these flame wars get so big is because people feel strongly
about their point of view (no matter how misguided it may be), and
morever, many people simply like to argue.

-Miles
-- 
Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra.  Suddenly it flips over,
pinning you underneath.  At night the ice weasels come.  --Nietzsche

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"
  2003-01-09  7:20           ` "Mother" == "computer-illiterate" Val Henson
                               ` (3 preceding siblings ...)
  2003-01-09 19:40             ` Val Henson
@ 2003-01-10  7:04             ` Tim Timmerman
  4 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Tim Timmerman @ 2003-01-10  7:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Val Henson; +Cc: linux-kernel

>>>>> "Val" == Val Henson <val@nmt.edu> writes:

Val> On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 11:29:47AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
>> 
>> If someone's mom (having heard the gossip) asks their computer-literate
>> child, `What is this XXX thing, anyway?', the answer is likely to be
>> very different when XXX is "GNU" as opposed to when XXX is "Linux".

Val> How come no one ever talks about a Linux distribution so easy that
Val> your grandfather could install it?  Or a kernel configuration tool so
Val> simple that even Uncle Timmy can use it?
     'make xconfig' works just fine for me.

     (Uncle) Timmy


-- 
tim.timmerman@asml.nl                              040-2683613
timt@timt.org   Voodoo Programmer/Keeper of the Rubber Chicken
I've never seen electricity, so I don't pay for it. I write right on
the bill, 'I'm sorry, I haven't seen it all month.' 


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-09  8:57             ` John Alvord
  2003-01-09 15:18               ` What's in a name? Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com
@ 2003-01-10  9:52               ` Richard Stallman
  2003-01-10 16:05                 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
                                   ` (2 more replies)
  1 sibling, 3 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-10  9:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: jalvo; +Cc: linux-kernel

     If there was an ATT/Linux and an Intel/Linux,
    having a GNU/Linux would make some sense... but that is not the way it
    is. GNU/Linux is singular, so Linux makes a reasonable contraction.

It would be reasonable, if not for the fact that it gives the wrong
idea of who developed the system and--above all--why.

    Another puzzling aspect to me is that GNU really goes beyond what I
    think of as an operating system. I have a suite of GNU tools installed
    on a Windows NT machine and I use make, ls, cp, mv all day. So I am
    using GNU on a foreign operating system... or does my usage needs to
    be labeled as GNU/Windows NT?

The tools are just a part of the GNU software packages, which is only
part of the GNU system.  And underneath those tools would be another
entire operating system, entirely different from GNU.  All in all,
that's a very different situation from GNU/Linux.  We wouldn't call it
"GNU/Windows".

(I'm going to add this to http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html;
thanks.)

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"
  2003-01-09 23:11               ` Alan Cox
  2003-01-09 22:41                 ` John Adams
  2003-01-10  1:24                 ` Chris Adams
@ 2003-01-10 10:35                 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Henning P. Schmiedehausen @ 2003-01-10 10:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes:

>On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 19:40, Val Henson wrote:
>> P.S. For extra credit (but no ThinkGeek certificate) you can look up
>> the following women in computer science, some of whom are mothers:
>> Mary Baker, Margo Seltzer, Monica Lam, Ellen Spertus, Carla Ellis, and
>> Barbara Simons.

>and of course Sally Floyd, and even Hedy Lamarr (bonus points for those
>who know what her networking related patent is on)

Come on, she actually has a homepage: http://www.hedylamarr.at/

-> frequency hopping

        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   

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-10  5:33               ` Oliver Xymoron
  2003-01-10  6:07                 ` Andre Hedrick
@ 2003-01-10 14:17                 ` Charles Cazabon
  2003-01-11  1:36                 ` Rob Wilkens
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Charles Cazabon @ 2003-01-10 14:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

Oliver Xymoron <oxymoron@waste.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 06:14:37PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [GNU/Linux stuff deleted]
> 
> Can we all agree that this is indeed the kernel list and that the
> kernel is indeed known as simply 'Linux' and that therefore the
> GNU/Linux debate is off-topic here?

Or perhaps we should start a long, boring discussion of how to best rearrange
the drivers portion of the tree on <gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org> .

I once had quite a lot of respect for RMS.  That has faded somewhat over the
last year due to this crap.

Charles
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon                            <linux@discworld.dyndns.org>
GPL'ed software available at:     http://www.qcc.ca/~charlesc/software/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-10  9:52               ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Richard Stallman
@ 2003-01-10 16:05                 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
  2003-01-10 18:38                 ` Names as origin component paths Mark Mielke
  2003-01-10 18:41                 ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Rogier Wolff
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Valdis.Kletnieks @ 2003-01-10 16:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: rms; +Cc: jalvo, linux-kernel

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1170 bytes --]

On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 04:52:50 EST, Richard Stallman said:
>      If there was an ATT/Linux and an Intel/Linux,
>     having a GNU/Linux would make some sense... but that is not the way it
>     is. GNU/Linux is singular, so Linux makes a reasonable contraction.
> 
> It would be reasonable, if not for the fact that it gives the wrong
> idea of who developed the system and--above all--why.

OK. Enough is enough.

I have no problems with Richard Stallman espousing a particular viewpoint of
how he and/or GNU and/or the FSF feel things should be. I don't even mind *too*
much when he proselytizes said view, even when it interferes with what *my*
goals are. I even see why the FSF requires copyright assignments for code.

However, since I haven't seen any FSF paperwork for assigning *motivations*
and *thoughts* to the FSF, I don't think there is *ANY* basis in saying that
there was a single unified "WHY" a large group of people working independently
developed something.

"All your code are belong to us" is bad enough.  "All your thoughts are
belong to us" is totally over the edge.
-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Computer Systems Senior Engineer
				Virginia Tech


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Names as origin component paths...
  2003-01-10  9:52               ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Richard Stallman
  2003-01-10 16:05                 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
@ 2003-01-10 18:38                 ` Mark Mielke
  2003-01-10 18:41                 ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Rogier Wolff
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Mark Mielke @ 2003-01-10 18:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: jalvo, linux-kernel

On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 04:52:50AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>      If there was an ATT/Linux and an Intel/Linux,
>     having a GNU/Linux would make some sense... but that is not the way it
>     is. GNU/Linux is singular, so Linux makes a reasonable contraction.
> It would be reasonable, if not for the fact that it gives the wrong
> idea of who developed the system and--above all--why.

There is a reason why I am not named Mark Mielke-Newman, and our newborn
son is not named Ethan Mielke-Herighty-Newman-Marr.

Some people like to maintain origin when deriving new names. Other
people realize that the practice is impractical, and the consequence,
if followed to the natural extreme, would allow for an exponentially
increasing length in name as each generation passes.

If you properly attributed the origins of GNU projects, I think you
would find an extremely impractical naming convention. GNU, and GNU
software, is not 100% derivative free.

Linux itself does not require any GNU software at all, except in the
sense that it happens to use GNU software, and it may therefore rely
on extensions that only exist in GNU software, however, that does not
stop anybody else from enhancing their own products to include the
GNU extensions. Freedom is as freedom does.

If you want to bug RedHat to call their distribution RedHat GNU/Linux,
go right ahead.

As for "Linux", its only real attachment to GNU is that it happens to
use a qualified reference to the GPL as its licensing restrictions. Not
all GPL software is "GNU" software.

So please... stop... You are not helping the free software movement by
(badly) arguing minor technicalities. Your previous efforts have been
very well received and respected. Don't ruin this.

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/


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-10  9:52               ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Richard Stallman
  2003-01-10 16:05                 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
  2003-01-10 18:38                 ` Names as origin component paths Mark Mielke
@ 2003-01-10 18:41                 ` Rogier Wolff
  2003-01-12 11:55                   ` Richard Stallman
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Rogier Wolff @ 2003-01-10 18:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: jalvo, linux-kernel

On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 04:52:50AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>      If there was an ATT/Linux and an Intel/Linux,
>     having a GNU/Linux would make some sense... but that is not the way it
>     is. GNU/Linux is singular, so Linux makes a reasonable contraction.
> 
> It would be reasonable, if not for the fact that it gives the wrong
> idea of who developed the system and--above all--why.

Then -==YOU==- are completely mistaken about why -==I==- contributed
to Linux (the kernel & the system). 

			Roger. 

-- 
** R.E.Wolff@BitWizard.nl ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2600998 **
*-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --*
* The Worlds Ecosystem is a stable system. Stable systems may experience *
* excursions from the stable situation. We are currently in such an      * 
* excursion: The stable situation does not include humans. ***************

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-09 23:24               ` Larry McVoy
@ 2003-01-11  0:21                 ` Richard Stallman
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-11  0:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: lm; +Cc: lm, acahalan, linux-kernel

    And isn't that exactly the line of reasoning which leads you to the 
    conclusion that Linux should be GNU/Linux?

See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html for our lines of reasoning.
They show two different ways in which the GNU developers are the principal
developers of the GNU/Linux system of today.

      You haven't 
    contributed any more than anyone else, that's for sure.

I won't repeat the facts I presented recently.

      GCC is 
    nice and all, but by your own reasoning if GCC didn't exist, a
    different compiler would have shown up.

There must be a misunderstanding because I never said anything like
that.

Some components of the system did just "show up", including TeX, X11,
and Linux.  But these did not make a whole system.  If we had waited
for everything to show up, we might not have it today.

The reason we have a free operating system is because people were
systematically and intentionally working to produce one.  Those people
were and are the GNU Project.

    Why are you more important than
    the entire windowing system, which is dramatically more source and
    more effort?

X11 is a substantial component, but apparently not as big as our
contribution, judging from Richter's count.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-10  5:33               ` Oliver Xymoron
  2003-01-10  6:07                 ` Andre Hedrick
  2003-01-10 14:17                 ` Charles Cazabon
@ 2003-01-11  1:36                 ` Rob Wilkens
  2003-01-11  4:06                   ` John Jasen
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-11  1:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Oliver Xymoron; +Cc: Richard Stallman, lm, linux-kernel

On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 00:33, Oliver Xymoron wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 06:14:37PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [GNU/Linux stuff deleted]
> 
> Can we all agree that this is indeed the kernel list and that the
> kernel is indeed known as simply 'Linux' and that therefore the
> GNU/Linux debate is off-topic here?

Wasn't it Linux Torvalds who origianlly started using the Minix forums
to proudly promote Linux to the Minix users (and apparently with some
success).  I say it's fair game for other OS people to promote related
OS topics here, especially if related to the linux kernel (or Gnu/Linux
as the case may be).

-Rob
(running Debian Gnu/Linux)


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-11  1:36                 ` Rob Wilkens
@ 2003-01-11  4:06                   ` John Jasen
  2003-01-11  7:13                     ` Andre Hedrick
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: John Jasen @ 2003-01-11  4:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Rob Wilkens; +Cc: Oliver Xymoron, Richard Stallman, lm, linux-kernel

On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Rob Wilkens wrote:

> Wasn't it Linux Torvalds who origianlly started using the Minix forums
> to proudly promote Linux to the Minix users (and apparently with some
> success).  I say it's fair game for other OS people to promote related
> OS topics here, especially if related to the linux kernel (or Gnu/Linux
> as the case may be).

I begin to wish some of my servers had the uptime of this frigging thread.

Can it be killed before the rest of my servers get uptime envy?

-- 
-- John E. Jasen (jjasen@realityfailure.org)
-- User Error #2361: Please insert coffee and try again.



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-11  4:06                   ` John Jasen
@ 2003-01-11  7:13                     ` Andre Hedrick
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Andre Hedrick @ 2003-01-11  7:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, John Jasen wrote:

> I begin to wish some of my servers had the uptime of this frigging thread.
> 
> Can it be killed before the rest of my servers get uptime envy?

BAWHAHAHAHAHA ... Stop I have to go pee now!

Wheeeeeee!

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-10 18:41                 ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Rogier Wolff
@ 2003-01-12 11:55                   ` Richard Stallman
  2003-01-12 12:27                     ` Mark Mielke
  2003-01-13 14:32                     ` Richard B. Johnson
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-12 11:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: R.E.Wolff; +Cc: jalvo, linux-kernel

    > It would be reasonable, if not for the fact that it gives the wrong
    > idea of who developed the system and--above all--why.

    Then -==YOU==- are completely mistaken about why -==I==- contributed
    to Linux (the kernel & the system). 

By now, many people have contributed for many reasons, to Linux and to
the GNU/Linux system.  I do not claim to speak for you; I am talking
about why the system exists in the first place.  It is not a haphazard
collection of components.  In the GNU Project, we systematically wrote
one component after another.  Our goal was a completely free system,
and we took step after step to reach it.

Thank you for contributing, whatever your motives were.

    There is a reason why I am not named Mark Mielke-Newman, and our newborn
    son is not named Ethan Mielke-Herighty-Newman-Marr.

It isn't a good analogy.  Your son wasn't developed by starting with
you and adding some pieces.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"
  2003-01-09 20:46                 ` Randy.Dunlap
  2003-01-09 21:12                   ` Valdis.Kletnieks
@ 2003-01-12 11:56                   ` Kristian Koehntopp
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Kristian Koehntopp @ 2003-01-12 11:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Randy.Dunlap, jlnance; +Cc: linux-kernel

Am Do 9.Januar 2003 21:46 schrieb Randy.Dunlap:
> On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 jlnance@unity.ncsu.edu wrote:
> | On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:40:19PM -0700, Val Henson wrote:
> | > P.S. For extra credit (but no ThinkGeek certificate) you can look up
> | > the following women in computer science, some of whom are mothers:
> | > Mary Baker, Margo Seltzer, Monica Lam, Ellen Spertus, Carla Ellis, and
> | > Barbara Simons.
> |
> | Am I the first person to tell you you left off Ada Lovelace?  She was
> | way ahead of her time.
>
> and Grace Hopper (ugh, COBOL)

and Adele Goldberg (Smalltalk-80).

Kristian

-- 
http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/wishlist/18E5SVQ5HJZXG


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-12 11:55                   ` Richard Stallman
@ 2003-01-12 12:27                     ` Mark Mielke
  2003-01-13 14:32                     ` Richard B. Johnson
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Mark Mielke @ 2003-01-12 12:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: R.E.Wolff, jalvo, linux-kernel

On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 06:55:14AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>     There is a reason why I am not named Mark Mielke-Newman, and our newborn
>     son is not named Ethan Mielke-Herighty-Newman-Marr.
> It isn't a good analogy.  Your son wasn't developed by starting with
> you and adding some pieces.

I assume you believe in the stork, too...

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/


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-12 11:55                   ` Richard Stallman
  2003-01-12 12:27                     ` Mark Mielke
@ 2003-01-13 14:32                     ` Richard B. Johnson
  2003-01-13 17:09                       ` Jesse Pollard
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Richard B. Johnson @ 2003-01-13 14:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: R.E.Wolff, jalvo, linux-kernel

On Sun, 12 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:

>     > It would be reasonable, if not for the fact that it gives the wrong
>     > idea of who developed the system and--above all--why.
> 
>     Then -==YOU==- are completely mistaken about why -==I==- contributed
>     to Linux (the kernel & the system). 
> 
> By now, many people have contributed for many reasons, to Linux and to
> the GNU/Linux system.  I do not claim to speak for you; I am talking
> about why the system exists in the first place.  It is not a haphazard
> collection of components.  In the GNU Project, we systematically wrote
> one component after another.  Our goal was a completely free system,
> and we took step after step to reach it.
> 
> Thank you for contributing, whatever your motives were.

How dare you? You have no privilege to thank anybody for their
contributions to Linux. You just don't get it. It doesn't matter
how many times you repeat lies. They are still lies. You are
lying to persons who know you are lying. They will never be
convinced because they know what the truth is.

As previously shown, most of the programs that "come with" Linux,
and therefore are part of the "Operating System" to which you lay
claim, were developed by students at the University of California,
Berkeley. They even contain a Copyright notice, embedded in the
executable files. Anybody can do:

		strings /usr/bin/* | grep Regents
		strings /bin/* | grep Regents

...and see all the copyright notices embedded in the programs to
which you now claim credit.

You may have revamped or made derivative works of these Unix
programs. Of course you have a right to do this as long as you
retain the original Copyright notice. This simply means that
you copied something that had already been done. That doesn't
give you the right to claim any credit. You just made a copy
of operating system components and, perhaps, altered or even
improved them.

So, again, please take your lies elsewhere. That's what they are
and anybody who has been involved with Linux knows this. If you
want to rewrite history, I suggest you make a new list, perhaps

		GNU/Stallman@vger.gnu.org

These words are my own.



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-13 14:32                     ` Richard B. Johnson
@ 2003-01-13 17:09                       ` Jesse Pollard
  2003-01-13 17:22                         ` Richard B. Johnson
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Jesse Pollard @ 2003-01-13 17:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: root, Richard Stallman; +Cc: R.E.Wolff, jalvo, linux-kernel

On Monday 13 January 2003 08:32 am, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
[snip]
> As previously shown, most of the programs that "come with" Linux,
> and therefore are part of the "Operating System" to which you lay
> claim, were developed by students at the University of California,
> Berkeley. They even contain a Copyright notice, embedded in the
> executable files. Anybody can do:
>
> 		strings /usr/bin/* | grep Regents
> 		strings /bin/* | grep Regents
>
> ...and see all the copyright notices embedded in the programs to
> which you now claim credit.

And by my count (RH 7.3) that comes to 52 for /usr/bin/*
of those 52:

	rdist has 12 entries of its' own.
	rdistd has 7 more.

The majority of the comands deal with mail(7), and postgres (8).
Of the compiling ones: lex and yacc show one each, gprof has two.

The rest all have one reference.

Of these only those dealing with the network (telnet, ftp rdist,rdistd...) 
would be considered part of the core utilities - and even then they are
discouraged in use (weak security).

The rest of the files (3080) do not have a BSD base.

In /bin/* I find only 4. /bin/csh, /bin/mail, /bin/ping and /bin/tcsh.
Of these I only consider /bin/ping  a core utility.


In my opinion, that is not enough to claim a BSD foundation.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: pollard@navo.hpc.mil

Any opinions expressed are solely my own.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-13 17:09                       ` Jesse Pollard
@ 2003-01-13 17:22                         ` Richard B. Johnson
  2003-01-13 17:37                           ` Jesse Pollard
  2003-01-13 17:51                           ` Mark Mielke
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Richard B. Johnson @ 2003-01-13 17:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jesse Pollard; +Cc: Richard Stallman, R.E.Wolff, jalvo, linux-kernel

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 1718 bytes --]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Jesse Pollard wrote:

> On Monday 13 January 2003 08:32 am, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> [snip]
> > As previously shown, most of the programs that "come with" Linux,
> > and therefore are part of the "Operating System" to which you lay
> > claim, were developed by students at the University of California,
> > Berkeley. They even contain a Copyright notice, embedded in the
> > executable files. Anybody can do:
> >
> > 		strings /usr/bin/* | grep Regents
> > 		strings /bin/* | grep Regents
> >
> > ...and see all the copyright notices embedded in the programs to
> > which you now claim credit.
> 
> And by my count (RH 7.3) that comes to 52 for /usr/bin/*
> of those 52:
> 
> 	rdist has 12 entries of its' own.
> 	rdistd has 7 more.
> 
> The majority of the comands deal with mail(7), and postgres (8).
> Of the compiling ones: lex and yacc show one each, gprof has two.
> 
> The rest all have one reference.
> 
> Of these only those dealing with the network (telnet, ftp rdist,rdistd...) 
> would be considered part of the core utilities - and even then they are
> discouraged in use (weak security).
> 
> The rest of the files (3080) do not have a BSD base.
> 
> In /bin/* I find only 4. /bin/csh, /bin/mail, /bin/ping and /bin/tcsh.
> Of these I only consider /bin/ping  a core utility.
> 
> 
> In my opinion, that is not enough to claim a BSD foundation.
> -- 

The early Ygddrasil distributions, of which I posted the 'grep'
several days ago, show that most of the files are BSD based.

I attach it here for your pleasure.

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.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 12835 bytes --]


Anybody remember this Copyright notice??  Most ALL of the
early Linux Distributions contained programs with this
notice:

/*
 * Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
 * All rights reserved.
 *
 * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted
 * provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
 * duplicated in all such forms and that any documentation,
 * advertising materials, and other materials related to such
 * distribution and use acknowledge that the software was developed
 * by the University of California, Berkeley.  The name of the
 * University may not be used to endorse or promote products derived
 * from this software without specific prior written permission.
 * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR
 * IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED
 * WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
 */

#ifndef lint
char copyright[] =
"@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\n\
 All rights reserved.\n";
#endif /* not lint */


...however.  Something happened so that this code was lifted
"whole cloth" into some later distributions that contained
the GNU License notice. By some unknown mystery, the embeded
copyright notice was eliminated as well. However, the code
remained the same.

If I had anything to do with so-called GNU, I'd keep my mouth
shut so this wholesale appropriation of intellectual property
was not investigated.

Here is an early distribution of Linux:

Script started on Thu Jan  9 10:55:02 2003
# cd /usr/bin\r
# strings * | grep Regents\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 The Regents of the University of California.\r
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1990 The Regents of the University of California.\r
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 Regents of the University of California.\r
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1990 The Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1990 The Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1985, 1989 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.\r
Based on BSD gprof, copyright 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1986 Regents of the University of California.\r
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.\r
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.\r
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983, 1989 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.\r
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 by NCEMRSoft and Copyright (c) 1985, 1989 Regents of the University of California.\r
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.\r
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1985,1989 Regents of the University of California.\r
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.\r
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1985, 1989 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.\r
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.\r
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983, 1990 The Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1993 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1987, 1992 The Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983, 1990 The Regents of the University of California.\r
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983, 1990 The Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1988 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1991 The Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1988, 1990 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980, 1991 The Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.\r
# strings * | grep Regents\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 The Regents of the University of California.\r
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1990 The Regents of the University of California.\r
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 Regents of the University of California.\r
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1990 The Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1990 The Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1985, 1989 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.\r
Based on BSD gprof, copyright 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1986 Regents of the University of California.\r
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.\r
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.\r
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983, 1989 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.\r
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 by NCEMRSoft and Copyright (c) 1985, 1989 Regents of the University of California.\r
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.\r
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1985,1989 Regents of the University of California.\r
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.\r
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1985, 1989 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.\r
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.\r
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983, 1990 The Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1993 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\r
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1987, 1992 The Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983, 1990 The Regents of the University of California.\r
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983, 1990 The Regents of the University \r
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.\r
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 The Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.\r
# cd /bin\r
# strings * | grep Regents\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1991 The Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1991 The Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980, 1987, 1988 The Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 The Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.\r
@(#) Copyright (c) 1991 The Regents of the University of California.\r
# cd /sbin\r
# strings * | grep Regents\r
strings: control: No such file or directory\r
strings: discard: No such file or directory\r
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.\r
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.\r
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.\r
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.\r
strings: server: No such file or directory\r
The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.\r
strings: sysinit: No such file or directory\r
# exit
Script done on Thu Jan  9 10:57:53 2003


So much for tha absolute bullshit that GNU started Linux and that
there is somehow a GNU/Linux.  Most all of the early distributions
used programs ported from BSD. The Linux-BSD emulation was so good
that most programs needed to only be recompiled.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the true history of the "Linux Operating
System" with all of the components that RMS insists are his, actually
coming from the University of California, Berkeley.

Don't be bambozzled by the persons who will re-write history to glorify
their accomplishments. Saying something over-and-over again doesn't
make it true. Facts stand alone. They only need to be noted. Bullshit
needs repeating.





^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-13 17:22                         ` Richard B. Johnson
@ 2003-01-13 17:37                           ` Jesse Pollard
  2003-01-13 18:48                             ` Richard B. Johnson
  2003-01-13 17:51                           ` Mark Mielke
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Jesse Pollard @ 2003-01-13 17:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: root; +Cc: Richard Stallman, R.E.Wolff, jalvo, linux-kernel

On Monday 13 January 2003 11:22 am, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
[snip]
>
> The early Ygddrasil distributions, of which I posted the 'grep'
> several days ago, show that most of the files are BSD based.
>
> I attach it here for your pleasure.

Ummm you did a "strings *" twice in the /usr/bin directory....

Though I grant that is still a relatively small number of actual programs.
The style they used tended to have one such line per main program
(and assuming that was true then too) what you have is only
69 files. /bin only has 8, and /sbin only 4.

How many other files were there? If none, then that distribution
would be BSD based.

Wish I still had my SLS distribution floppies... That would make
a nice cross check.

I still don't believe the current distributions include that many
files any more. There was a request from UCLA to remove propriatary
code from the distributions. The major effect was to purge the
network code out of the kernel, but it also removed a LOT of user
code as well... My mail archives don't go back that far but I think
it was around 92/93/94 timeframe.

Personally, I think that was the most damaging thing done to BSD.
Before that, I used to consider using BSD for production, and Linux
for testing. It was said to "use linux for the latest thing, but if you
need stability, use BSD". And it appeared relatively simple to switch
between the two kernels up to that time...

BSD made a contribution then... But it's over.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: pollard@navo.hpc.mil

Any opinions expressed are solely my own.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-13 17:22                         ` Richard B. Johnson
  2003-01-13 17:37                           ` Jesse Pollard
@ 2003-01-13 17:51                           ` Mark Mielke
  2003-01-14 18:54                             ` Richard Stallman
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Mark Mielke @ 2003-01-13 17:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Richard B. Johnson
  Cc: Jesse Pollard, Richard Stallman, R.E.Wolff, jalvo, linux-kernel

On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 12:22:27PM -0500, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> ...
> So much for tha absolute bullshit that GNU started Linux and that
> there is somehow a GNU/Linux.  Most all of the early distributions
> used programs ported from BSD. The Linux-BSD emulation was so good
> that most programs needed to only be recompiled.

> That, ladies and gentlemen, is the true history of the "Linux Operating
> System" with all of the components that RMS insists are his, actually
> coming from the University of California, Berkeley.

> Don't be bambozzled by the persons who will re-write history to glorify
> their accomplishments. Saying something over-and-over again doesn't
> make it true. Facts stand alone. They only need to be noted. Bullshit
> needs repeating.

Heck, even glibc was not used by most distributions before a few years ago.

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/


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-13 17:37                           ` Jesse Pollard
@ 2003-01-13 18:48                             ` Richard B. Johnson
  2003-01-14 18:55                               ` Richard Stallman
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Richard B. Johnson @ 2003-01-13 18:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jesse Pollard; +Cc: Richard Stallman, R.E.Wolff, jalvo, linux-kernel

On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Jesse Pollard wrote:

> On Monday 13 January 2003 11:22 am, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > The early Ygddrasil distributions, of which I posted the 'grep'
> > several days ago, show that most of the files are BSD based.
> >
> > I attach it here for your pleasure.
> 
> Ummm you did a "strings *" twice in the /usr/bin directory....
> 

Actually not. I don't know why the "cd to /usr/sbin" didn't show.
Maybe a buffer overflow in `script` ?

Anyway, the point was that GNU made tools in those days. These
tools were useful in porting existing programs (like the BSD programs)
to new environments, including the, then new Linux. Linus was still
in Helsinki at the time.

GNU continued to develop new programs and improve their 'C' compiler.
GNU also started a development program called "HURD". This was
supposed to be the great operating system of the future, completely
free and open. This OS used "Mach 4", not Linux, as its kernel.
This was based upon the BSD "Lite" kernel. In fact a lot of things
that GNU has done is based upon BSD student's original work.

I'm certain that a lot of work was done porting the typical Unix
programs to HURD. Eventually, HURD had everything that Linux and
BSD already had, except for the reputation. Few persons even knew
of the operating system. In the meantime, Linux was recognized by
Fortune 500 companies like IBM. Eventually, Linux got a lot of
help from those companies as well. IBM pays some employees to
work on Linux. The same for some other important companies.

Since HURD didn't get much press, it was certainly unfair. However,
this doesn't give GNU, RMS, or the HURD developers any right to
claim that Linux is "GNU/Linux". It should give them the incentive
to get some decent press for their own hard work such as HURD.
They should be attempting to get distributors to market their
products instead of attempting to rewrite history and claim
credit for somebody else's work.

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.



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-13 17:51                           ` Mark Mielke
@ 2003-01-14 18:54                             ` Richard Stallman
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-14 18:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: mark; +Cc: root, pollard, R.E.Wolff, jalvo, linux-kernel

    Heck, even glibc was not used by most distributions before a few years ago.

Most or all GNU/Linux distributions in 1993 used a modified version of
GNU libc.  They called it "Linux libc", so you might not have realized
it was actually GNU libc modified.

We wanted GNU libc to work unmodified in GNU/Linux systems, so we paid
the original author of GNU libc to do the necessary work.  The result
was GNU libc version 2.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-13 18:48                             ` Richard B. Johnson
@ 2003-01-14 18:55                               ` Richard Stallman
  2003-01-14 19:06                                 ` Larry McVoy
  2003-01-14 22:20                                 ` Tomasz Kłoczko
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-14 18:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: root; +Cc: pollard, R.E.Wolff, jalvo, linux-kernel

    I'm certain that a lot of work was done porting the typical Unix
    programs to HURD. Eventually, HURD had everything that Linux and
    BSD already had, except for the reputation.

The HURD and BSD are not comparable.  The HURD (and Mach) are a
kernel; BSD is a whole system.

That message has many other errors; I won't note them all.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-14 18:55                               ` Richard Stallman
@ 2003-01-14 19:06                                 ` Larry McVoy
  2003-01-14 19:56                                   ` [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him Dax Kelson
                                                     ` (2 more replies)
  2003-01-14 22:20                                 ` Tomasz Kłoczko
  1 sibling, 3 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-14 19:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: root, pollard, R.E.Wolff, jalvo, linux-kernel

Please, just go away.  Nobody here buys what you are peddling.  Many of
us, myself included, are simply disgusted at your pathetic attempt to
hijack the work of others for your own goals.  By now you should be
starting to realize that your rants are doing damage to your cause.
Every time you post, someone follows up with "I used to respect and
admire the goals of the FSF and now I don't".  You come back with "It's a
shame that *others* have made you do that" and apparently you are blind
to the fact that it is *your actions* which are making your supporters
drop like flies.

Please stop.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-14 19:06                                 ` Larry McVoy
@ 2003-01-14 19:56                                   ` Dax Kelson
  2003-01-14 20:02                                     ` Larry McVoy
  2003-01-14 20:15                                     ` Abramo Bagnara
  2003-01-14 21:32                                   ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Andre Hedrick
  2003-01-15 12:44                                   ` Gaël Le Mignot
  2 siblings, 2 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Dax Kelson @ 2003-01-14 19:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Richard Stallman, Larry McVoy
  Cc: root, pollard, R.E.Wolff, jalvo, linux-kernel

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


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-14 19:56                                   ` [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him Dax Kelson
@ 2003-01-14 20:02                                     ` Larry McVoy
  2003-01-14 20:19                                       ` Olivier Galibert
                                                         ` (3 more replies)
  2003-01-14 20:15                                     ` Abramo Bagnara
  1 sibling, 4 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-14 20:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Dax Kelson
  Cc: Richard Stallman, Larry McVoy, root, pollard, R.E.Wolff, jalvo,
	linux-kernel

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 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-14 19:56                                   ` [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him Dax Kelson
  2003-01-14 20:02                                     ` Larry McVoy
@ 2003-01-14 20:15                                     ` Abramo Bagnara
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Abramo Bagnara @ 2003-01-14 20:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Dax Kelson
  Cc: Richard Stallman, Larry McVoy, root, pollard, R.E.Wolff, jalvo,
	linux-kernel

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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-14 20:02                                     ` Larry McVoy
@ 2003-01-14 20:19                                       ` Olivier Galibert
  2003-01-14 20:36                                         ` Richard B. Johnson
  2003-01-14 21:08                                         ` Mark Mielke
  2003-01-14 20:27                                       ` Abramo Bagnara
                                                         ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  3 siblings, 2 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Olivier Galibert @ 2003-01-14 20:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel
  Cc: Larry McVoy, Dax Kelson, Richard Stallman, Larry McVoy, root,
	pollard, R.E.Wolff, jalvo

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.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-14 20:02                                     ` Larry McVoy
  2003-01-14 20:19                                       ` Olivier Galibert
@ 2003-01-14 20:27                                       ` Abramo Bagnara
  2003-01-14 21:51                                         ` Andre Hedrick
  2003-01-14 21:42                                       ` Andre Hedrick
  2003-01-15 12:47                                       ` Gaël Le Mignot
  3 siblings, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Abramo Bagnara @ 2003-01-14 20:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Larry McVoy
  Cc: Dax Kelson, Richard Stallman, root, pollard, R.E.Wolff, jalvo,
	linux-kernel

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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-14 20:19                                       ` Olivier Galibert
@ 2003-01-14 20:36                                         ` Richard B. Johnson
  2003-01-14 20:45                                           ` Larry McVoy
  2003-01-14 21:08                                         ` Mark Mielke
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Richard B. Johnson @ 2003-01-14 20:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Olivier Galibert
  Cc: linux-kernel, Larry McVoy, Dax Kelson, Richard Stallman,
	Larry McVoy, pollard, R.E.Wolff, jalvo

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.



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-14 20:36                                         ` Richard B. Johnson
@ 2003-01-14 20:45                                           ` Larry McVoy
  2003-01-15 23:28                                             ` Richard Stallman
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-14 20:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Richard B. Johnson
  Cc: Olivier Galibert, linux-kernel, Larry McVoy, Dax Kelson,
	Richard Stallman, pollard, R.E.Wolff, jalvo

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 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-14 20:19                                       ` Olivier Galibert
  2003-01-14 20:36                                         ` Richard B. Johnson
@ 2003-01-14 21:08                                         ` Mark Mielke
  2003-01-14 21:51                                           ` Chris Funderburg
                                                             ` (4 more replies)
  1 sibling, 5 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Mark Mielke @ 2003-01-14 21:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Olivier Galibert, linux-kernel, Dax Kelson, Richard Stallman,
	Larry McVoy, root, pollard, R.E.Wolff, jalvo

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/


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-14 19:06                                 ` Larry McVoy
  2003-01-14 19:56                                   ` [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him Dax Kelson
@ 2003-01-14 21:32                                   ` Andre Hedrick
  2003-01-15 12:44                                   ` Gaël Le Mignot
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Andre Hedrick @ 2003-01-14 21:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Larry McVoy
  Cc: Richard Stallman, root, pollard, R.E.Wolff, jalvo, linux-kernel


Oh, let him continue ... at least there is not a blue dress hidden.
The last person in public to parse "is", is now gone.
At this rate, all he will have is a mountain to preach from, as all the
support around him will drop.

Cheers,

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Larry McVoy wrote:

> Please, just go away.  Nobody here buys what you are peddling.  Many of
> us, myself included, are simply disgusted at your pathetic attempt to
> hijack the work of others for your own goals.  By now you should be
> starting to realize that your rants are doing damage to your cause.
> Every time you post, someone follows up with "I used to respect and
> admire the goals of the FSF and now I don't".  You come back with "It's a
> shame that *others* have made you do that" and apparently you are blind
> to the fact that it is *your actions* which are making your supporters
> drop like flies.
> 
> Please stop.
> -- 
> ---
> Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm 
> -
> 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/
> 


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-14 20:02                                     ` Larry McVoy
  2003-01-14 20:19                                       ` Olivier Galibert
  2003-01-14 20:27                                       ` Abramo Bagnara
@ 2003-01-14 21:42                                       ` Andre Hedrick
  2003-01-15 12:47                                       ` Gaël Le Mignot
  3 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Andre Hedrick @ 2003-01-14 21:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Larry McVoy
  Cc: Dax Kelson, Richard Stallman, root, pollard, R.E.Wolff, jalvo,
	linux-kernel

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


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-14 21:08                                         ` Mark Mielke
@ 2003-01-14 21:51                                           ` Chris Funderburg
  2003-01-14 22:13                                           ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen
                                                             ` (3 subsequent siblings)
  4 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Chris Funderburg @ 2003-01-14 21:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mark Mielke; +Cc: linux-kernel, Richard Stallman


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.
 >


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-14 20:27                                       ` Abramo Bagnara
@ 2003-01-14 21:51                                         ` Andre Hedrick
  2003-01-15  8:42                                           ` Abramo Bagnara
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Andre Hedrick @ 2003-01-14 21:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Abramo Bagnara
  Cc: Larry McVoy, Dax Kelson, Richard Stallman, root, pollard,
	R.E.Wolff, jalvo, linux-kernel

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).




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-14 21:08                                         ` Mark Mielke
  2003-01-14 21:51                                           ` Chris Funderburg
@ 2003-01-14 22:13                                           ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen
  2003-01-14 22:27                                           ` Wakko Warner
                                                             ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  4 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Henning P. Schmiedehausen @ 2003-01-14 22:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

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   

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-14 18:55                               ` Richard Stallman
  2003-01-14 19:06                                 ` Larry McVoy
@ 2003-01-14 22:20                                 ` Tomasz Kłoczko
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Tomasz Kłoczko @ 2003-01-14 22:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: root, pollard, R.E.Wolff, jalvo, linux-kernel

On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:

>     I'm certain that a lot of work was done porting the typical Unix
>     programs to HURD. Eventually, HURD had everything that Linux and
>     BSD already had, except for the reputation.
> 
> The HURD and BSD are not comparable.  The HURD (and Mach) are a
> kernel; BSD is a whole system.
              ^
		in this place is lack "also" word which seems can change
meaning all this kind discution to level acceptable by every your
respondents.

In this level some words like Linux, BSD, GNU have some double meaning and
also on this level phrases like "GNU/Linux" always will looks like kind of
anomaly. So please accept this fact like avove double meaning words which
will allow you (also) stop this kind stupid discutions.

kloczek
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
*Ludzie nie mają problemów, tylko sobie sami je stwarzają*
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tomasz Kłoczko, sys adm @zie.pg.gda.pl|*e-mail: kloczek@rudy.mif.pg.gda.pl*

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-14 21:08                                         ` Mark Mielke
  2003-01-14 21:51                                           ` Chris Funderburg
  2003-01-14 22:13                                           ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen
@ 2003-01-14 22:27                                           ` Wakko Warner
  2003-01-15 16:39                                           ` Horst von Brand
  2003-01-15 23:28                                           ` Richard Stallman
  4 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Wakko Warner @ 2003-01-14 22:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

> 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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-14 21:51                                         ` Andre Hedrick
@ 2003-01-15  8:42                                           ` Abramo Bagnara
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Abramo Bagnara @ 2003-01-15  8:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Andre Hedrick
  Cc: Larry McVoy, Dax Kelson, Richard Stallman, root, pollard,
	R.E.Wolff, jalvo, linux-kernel

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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
  2003-01-14 19:06                                 ` Larry McVoy
  2003-01-14 19:56                                   ` [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him Dax Kelson
  2003-01-14 21:32                                   ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Andre Hedrick
@ 2003-01-15 12:44                                   ` Gaël Le Mignot
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Gaël Le Mignot @ 2003-01-15 12:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Larry McVoy
  Cc: Richard Stallman, root, pollard, R.E.Wolff, jalvo, linux-kernel

Hello Larry!

Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:06:00 -0800, you wrote: 

 > Please, just go away. 

An admirable proof of your respect for freedom and democracy: you don't
agree with him, so you ask him to go away.

 > Nobody here buys what you are peddling.  

Speak for yourself.

 > Every time you post, someone follows up with "I used to respect and
 > admire the goals of the FSF and now I don't".

Every time  I read  a message from  Richard, I  read a message  from a
reasonable  person, who  believe in  higher things  that just  his own
private interests, and  who tries to promote freedom  in a world where
profit and buisness is more and  more the only law. For that, I'm glad
to read him, and I'll never be able to thank him enough.

I never saw Richard using insults, personals attacks, or such attitude
that you, defenders  of non-free software tends to  use. I always seen
rationals, reasons,  facts and his  own personal convictions.  I don't
always agree with  him, but even if I don't agree  with him, I'm happy
to read what he has to say.

Sure, I  agree with most  of his goals,  and I'm fervent  supporter of
Free Software  and of  the Free Software  Foundation. But this  has no
direct link  with what I think  of Richard. Even if  you disagree with
him,  you should at  least admit  that he's  an honest  and reasonable
person, trying  to defend his  views without falling back  to personal
attack or insults, and that his  goal is to defend _us_, all of people
who use computers. So, please stop your personnal attacks against him,
and fight his arguments with other rational arguments if you disagree.
This is the way democracy works.  This is the way free and responsible
people behave together.

 > You  come back with  "It's a shame  that *others* have made  you do
 > that"  and apparently you  are blind to  the fact that it  is *your
 > actions* which are making your supporters drop like flies.

At least for  me, it's by hearing to Richard's  talk that I understood
how  important Free Software  his, and  that GNU/Linux  is not  just a
cheap technical toy.

-- 
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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-14 20:02                                     ` Larry McVoy
                                                         ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2003-01-14 21:42                                       ` Andre Hedrick
@ 2003-01-15 12:47                                       ` Gaël Le Mignot
  3 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Gaël Le Mignot @ 2003-01-15 12:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Larry McVoy
  Cc: Dax Kelson, Richard Stallman, Larry McVoy, root, pollard,
	R.E.Wolff, jalvo, linux-kernel

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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-14 21:08                                         ` Mark Mielke
                                                             ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2003-01-14 22:27                                           ` Wakko Warner
@ 2003-01-15 16:39                                           ` Horst von Brand
  2003-01-16 23:12                                             ` Adrian Bunk
  2003-01-15 23:28                                           ` Richard Stallman
  4 siblings, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Horst von Brand @ 2003-01-15 16:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mark Mielke; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List

[-- 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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-14 20:45                                           ` Larry McVoy
@ 2003-01-15 23:28                                             ` Richard Stallman
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-15 23:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: lm; +Cc: root, galibert, linux-kernel, lm, dax, pollard, R.E.Wolff, jalvo

      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.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-14 21:08                                         ` Mark Mielke
                                                             ` (3 preceding siblings ...)
  2003-01-15 16:39                                           ` Horst von Brand
@ 2003-01-15 23:28                                           ` Richard Stallman
  2003-01-16  2:51                                             ` Nicolas Pitre
  2003-01-16  5:23                                             ` Steve Lee
  4 siblings, 2 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-15 23:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: mark; +Cc: galibert, linux-kernel, dax, lm, root, pollard, R.E.Wolff, jalvo

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.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-15 23:28                                           ` Richard Stallman
@ 2003-01-16  2:51                                             ` Nicolas Pitre
  2003-01-18  0:47                                               ` Richard Stallman
  2003-01-16  5:23                                             ` Steve Lee
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Nicolas Pitre @ 2003-01-16  2:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Richard Stallman
  Cc: mark, galibert, lkml, dax, lm, root, pollard, R.E.Wolff, jalvo

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


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* RE: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-15 23:28                                           ` Richard Stallman
  2003-01-16  2:51                                             ` Nicolas Pitre
@ 2003-01-16  5:23                                             ` Steve Lee
  2003-01-18  0:47                                               ` Richard Stallman
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Steve Lee @ 2003-01-16  5:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: rms, Linux Kernel Mailing List

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/



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-15 16:39                                           ` Horst von Brand
@ 2003-01-16 23:12                                             ` Adrian Bunk
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Adrian Bunk @ 2003-01-16 23:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Horst von Brand; +Cc: Mark Mielke, Linux Kernel Mailing List

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


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-16  2:51                                             ` Nicolas Pitre
@ 2003-01-18  0:47                                               ` Richard Stallman
  2003-01-18  0:56                                                 ` Larry McVoy
  2003-01-18  3:01                                                 ` Nicolas Pitre
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-18  0:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Nicolas Pitre
  Cc: mark, galibert, linux-kernel, dax, lm, root, pollard, R.E.Wolff, jalvo

    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.




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-16  5:23                                             ` Steve Lee
@ 2003-01-18  0:47                                               ` Richard Stallman
  2003-01-20 13:38                                                 ` Horst von Brand
                                                                   ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-18  0:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Steve Lee; +Cc: linux-kernel

	    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.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-18  0:47                                               ` Richard Stallman
@ 2003-01-18  0:56                                                 ` Larry McVoy
  2003-01-19  1:36                                                   ` Richard Stallman
  2003-01-18  3:01                                                 ` Nicolas Pitre
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-18  0:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Richard Stallman
  Cc: Nicolas Pitre, mark, galibert, linux-kernel, dax, lm, root,
	pollard, R.E.Wolff, jalvo

> 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 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-18  0:47                                               ` Richard Stallman
  2003-01-18  0:56                                                 ` Larry McVoy
@ 2003-01-18  3:01                                                 ` Nicolas Pitre
  2003-01-18 14:23                                                   ` andrea.glorioso
  2003-01-20  0:50                                                   ` Richard Stallman
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Nicolas Pitre @ 2003-01-18  3:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Richard Stallman
  Cc: mark, galibert, lkml, dax, lm, root, pollard, R.E.Wolff, jalvo

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


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-18  3:01                                                 ` Nicolas Pitre
@ 2003-01-18 14:23                                                   ` andrea.glorioso
  2003-01-20  0:50                                                   ` Richard Stallman
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: andrea.glorioso @ 2003-01-18 14:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Nicolas Pitre
  Cc: Richard Stallman, mark, galibert, lkml, dax, lm, root, pollard,
	R.E.Wolff, jalvo

>>>>> "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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-18  0:56                                                 ` Larry McVoy
@ 2003-01-19  1:36                                                   ` Richard Stallman
  2003-01-19  5:55                                                     ` Matthew D. Pitts
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-19  1:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Larry McVoy
  Cc: nico, mark, galibert, linux-kernel, dax, lm, root, pollard,
	R.E.Wolff, jalvo

    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.



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-19  1:36                                                   ` Richard Stallman
@ 2003-01-19  5:55                                                     ` Matthew D. Pitts
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Matthew D. Pitts @ 2003-01-19  5:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel


> 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



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-18  3:01                                                 ` Nicolas Pitre
  2003-01-18 14:23                                                   ` andrea.glorioso
@ 2003-01-20  0:50                                                   ` Richard Stallman
  2003-01-20  1:46                                                     ` Nicolas Pitre
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-20  0:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Nicolas Pitre
  Cc: mark, galibert, linux-kernel, dax, lm, root, pollard, R.E.Wolff, jalvo

    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.



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-20  0:50                                                   ` Richard Stallman
@ 2003-01-20  1:46                                                     ` Nicolas Pitre
  2003-01-21 18:17                                                       ` Richard Stallman
  2003-07-20  2:42                                                       ` Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Nicolas Pitre @ 2003-01-20  1:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Richard Stallman
  Cc: mark, galibert, lkml, dax, lm, root, pollard, R.E.Wolff, jalvo

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


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-18  0:47                                               ` Richard Stallman
@ 2003-01-20 13:38                                                 ` Horst von Brand
  2003-01-22  9:59                                                   ` Richard Stallman
  2003-01-20 16:52                                                 ` Jerry Cooperstein
  2003-01-22 17:14                                                 ` Jan Harkes
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Horst von Brand @ 2003-01-20 13:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: rms; +Cc: Steve Lee, linux-kernel, 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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-18  0:47                                               ` Richard Stallman
  2003-01-20 13:38                                                 ` Horst von Brand
@ 2003-01-20 16:52                                                 ` Jerry Cooperstein
  2003-01-22 17:14                                                 ` Jan Harkes
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Jerry Cooperstein @ 2003-01-20 16:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

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/               
======================================================================


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-20  1:46                                                     ` Nicolas Pitre
@ 2003-01-21 18:17                                                       ` Richard Stallman
  2003-01-21 18:30                                                         ` Larry McVoy
  2003-01-21 18:55                                                         ` Nicolas Pitre
  2003-07-20  2:42                                                       ` Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-21 18:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Nicolas Pitre
  Cc: mark, galibert, linux-kernel, dax, lm, root, pollard, R.E.Wolff, jalvo

    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.




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-21 18:17                                                       ` Richard Stallman
@ 2003-01-21 18:30                                                         ` Larry McVoy
  2003-01-21 18:55                                                         ` Nicolas Pitre
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-21 18:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Richard Stallman
  Cc: Nicolas Pitre, mark, galibert, linux-kernel, dax, lm, root,
	pollard, R.E.Wolff, jalvo

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 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-21 18:17                                                       ` Richard Stallman
  2003-01-21 18:30                                                         ` Larry McVoy
@ 2003-01-21 18:55                                                         ` Nicolas Pitre
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Nicolas Pitre @ 2003-01-21 18:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Richard Stallman
  Cc: mark, galibert, lkml, dax, lm, root, pollard, R.E.Wolff, jalvo

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


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-20 13:38                                                 ` Horst von Brand
@ 2003-01-22  9:59                                                   ` Richard Stallman
  2003-01-22 10:19                                                     ` Paulo Andre'
                                                                       ` (3 more replies)
  0 siblings, 4 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-22  9:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Horst von Brand; +Cc: steve, linux-kernel, brand

    > 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.




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-22  9:59                                                   ` Richard Stallman
@ 2003-01-22 10:19                                                     ` Paulo Andre'
  2003-01-22 11:05                                                       ` Jamie Lokier
  2003-01-22 12:56                                                     ` Dave Jones
                                                                       ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  3 siblings, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Paulo Andre' @ 2003-01-22 10:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: rms; +Cc: brand, steve, linux-kernel, brand

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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-22 10:19                                                     ` Paulo Andre'
@ 2003-01-22 11:05                                                       ` Jamie Lokier
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Jamie Lokier @ 2003-01-22 11:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Paulo Andre'; +Cc: rms, brand, steve, linux-kernel, brand

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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-22  9:59                                                   ` Richard Stallman
  2003-01-22 10:19                                                     ` Paulo Andre'
@ 2003-01-22 12:56                                                     ` Dave Jones
  2003-01-22 16:21                                                     ` Mark Mielke
  2003-01-22 16:44                                                     ` John Alvord
  3 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Dave Jones @ 2003-01-22 12:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: Horst von Brand, steve, linux-kernel, brand

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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-22  9:59                                                   ` Richard Stallman
  2003-01-22 10:19                                                     ` Paulo Andre'
  2003-01-22 12:56                                                     ` Dave Jones
@ 2003-01-22 16:21                                                     ` Mark Mielke
  2003-01-23 11:37                                                       ` Richard Stallman
  2003-07-20  2:27                                                       ` [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra
  2003-01-22 16:44                                                     ` John Alvord
  3 siblings, 2 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Mark Mielke @ 2003-01-22 16:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: Horst von Brand, steve, linux-kernel, brand

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/


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-22  9:59                                                   ` Richard Stallman
                                                                       ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2003-01-22 16:21                                                     ` Mark Mielke
@ 2003-01-22 16:44                                                     ` John Alvord
  2003-01-23  1:31                                                       ` Nick Matteo
  3 siblings, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: John Alvord @ 2003-01-22 16:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: Horst von Brand, steve, linux-kernel, brand



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


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-18  0:47                                               ` Richard Stallman
  2003-01-20 13:38                                                 ` Horst von Brand
  2003-01-20 16:52                                                 ` Jerry Cooperstein
@ 2003-01-22 17:14                                                 ` Jan Harkes
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Jan Harkes @ 2003-01-22 17:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

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


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-22 16:44                                                     ` John Alvord
@ 2003-01-23  1:31                                                       ` Nick Matteo
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Nick Matteo @ 2003-01-23  1:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: John Alvord, Richard Stallman; +Cc: linux-kernel

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.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-22 16:21                                                     ` Mark Mielke
@ 2003-01-23 11:37                                                       ` Richard Stallman
  2003-01-23 13:17                                                         ` Murray J. Root
  2003-01-23 18:15                                                         ` Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com
  2003-07-20  2:27                                                       ` [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-23 11:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mark Mielke; +Cc: brand, steve, linux-kernel, brand

    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.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-23 11:37                                                       ` Richard Stallman
@ 2003-01-23 13:17                                                         ` Murray J. Root
  2003-01-23 18:15                                                         ` Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Murray J. Root @ 2003-01-23 13:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel


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


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* RE: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-23 11:37                                                       ` Richard Stallman
  2003-01-23 13:17                                                         ` Murray J. Root
@ 2003-01-23 18:15                                                         ` Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com
  2003-01-24  0:41                                                           ` [PATCH] [2.4.20] dead code: remove /proc/sys/vm/kswapd Lamont Granquist
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com @ 2003-01-23 18:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: rms; +Cc: linux-kernel

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.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* [PATCH] [2.4.20] dead code: remove /proc/sys/vm/kswapd
  2003-01-23 18:15                                                         ` Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com
@ 2003-01-24  0:41                                                           ` Lamont Granquist
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Lamont Granquist @ 2003-01-24  0:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel


/proc/sys/vm/kswapd does nothing to affect kswapd behavior in 2.4.20, this
patch will remove it.

diff -urN linux-2.4.20/arch/arm/mm/init.c linux-2.4.20-modified/arch/arm/mm/init.c
--- linux-2.4.20/arch/arm/mm/init.c	Thu Oct 11 09:04:57 2001
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/arch/arm/mm/init.c	Thu Jan 23 15:59:23 2003
@@ -18,7 +18,6 @@
 #include <linux/mman.h>
 #include <linux/mm.h>
 #include <linux/swap.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
 #include <linux/smp.h>
 #include <linux/init.h>
 #include <linux/bootmem.h>
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/arch/mips/mm/init.c linux-2.4.20-modified/arch/mips/mm/init.c
--- linux-2.4.20/arch/mips/mm/init.c	Thu Nov 28 15:53:10 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/arch/mips/mm/init.c	Thu Jan 23 15:58:59 2003
@@ -24,7 +24,6 @@
 #include <linux/bootmem.h>
 #include <linux/highmem.h>
 #include <linux/swap.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
 #include <linux/blk.h>

 #include <asm/bootinfo.h>
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/arch/mips64/mm/init.c linux-2.4.20-modified/arch/mips64/mm/init.c
--- linux-2.4.20/arch/mips64/mm/init.c	Thu Nov 28 15:53:10 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/arch/mips64/mm/init.c	Thu Jan 23 15:59:32 2003
@@ -21,7 +21,6 @@
 #include <linux/bootmem.h>
 #include <linux/highmem.h>
 #include <linux/swap.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
 #ifdef CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INITRD
 #include <linux/blk.h>
 #endif
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/arch/sparc/mm/init.c linux-2.4.20-modified/arch/sparc/mm/init.c
--- linux-2.4.20/arch/sparc/mm/init.c	Thu Nov 28 15:53:12 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/arch/sparc/mm/init.c	Thu Jan 23 15:58:48 2003
@@ -18,7 +18,6 @@
 #include <linux/mman.h>
 #include <linux/mm.h>
 #include <linux/swap.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
 #ifdef CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INITRD
 #include <linux/blk.h>
 #endif
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/arch/sparc64/mm/init.c linux-2.4.20-modified/arch/sparc64/mm/init.c
--- linux-2.4.20/arch/sparc64/mm/init.c	Thu Nov 28 15:53:12 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/arch/sparc64/mm/init.c	Thu Jan 23 15:59:12 2003
@@ -15,7 +15,6 @@
 #include <linux/slab.h>
 #include <linux/blk.h>
 #include <linux/swap.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
 #include <linux/pagemap.h>
 #include <linux/fs.h>
 #include <linux/seq_file.h>
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/fs/buffer.c linux-2.4.20-modified/fs/buffer.c
--- linux-2.4.20/fs/buffer.c	Thu Nov 28 15:53:15 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/fs/buffer.c	Thu Jan 23 15:56:36 2003
@@ -35,7 +35,6 @@
 #include <linux/locks.h>
 #include <linux/errno.h>
 #include <linux/swap.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
 #include <linux/smp_lock.h>
 #include <linux/vmalloc.h>
 #include <linux/blkdev.h>
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/fs/coda/sysctl.c linux-2.4.20-modified/fs/coda/sysctl.c
--- linux-2.4.20/fs/coda/sysctl.c	Fri Aug  2 17:39:45 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/fs/coda/sysctl.c	Thu Jan 23 15:56:52 2003
@@ -15,7 +15,6 @@
 #include <linux/sched.h>
 #include <linux/mm.h>
 #include <linux/sysctl.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
 #include <linux/proc_fs.h>
 #include <linux/slab.h>
 #include <linux/stat.h>
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/fs/inode.c linux-2.4.20-modified/fs/inode.c
--- linux-2.4.20/fs/inode.c	Fri Aug  2 17:39:45 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/fs/inode.c	Thu Jan 23 15:56:42 2003
@@ -14,7 +14,6 @@
 #include <linux/slab.h>
 #include <linux/cache.h>
 #include <linux/swap.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
 #include <linux/prefetch.h>
 #include <linux/locks.h>

diff -urN linux-2.4.20/fs/intermezzo/sysctl.c linux-2.4.20-modified/fs/intermezzo/sysctl.c
--- linux-2.4.20/fs/intermezzo/sysctl.c	Thu Nov 28 15:53:15 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/fs/intermezzo/sysctl.c	Thu Jan 23 15:57:01 2003
@@ -27,7 +27,6 @@
 #include <linux/sched.h>
 #include <linux/mm.h>
 #include <linux/sysctl.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
 #include <linux/proc_fs.h>
 #include <linux/slab.h>
 #include <linux/vmalloc.h>
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/include/linux/swapctl.h linux-2.4.20-modified/include/linux/swapctl.h
--- linux-2.4.20/include/linux/swapctl.h	Mon Sep 17 16:15:02 2001
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/include/linux/swapctl.h	Wed Dec 31 16:00:00 1969
@@ -1,13 +0,0 @@
-#ifndef _LINUX_SWAPCTL_H
-#define _LINUX_SWAPCTL_H
-
-typedef struct pager_daemon_v1
-{
-	unsigned int	tries_base;
-	unsigned int	tries_min;
-	unsigned int	swap_cluster;
-} pager_daemon_v1;
-typedef pager_daemon_v1 pager_daemon_t;
-extern pager_daemon_t pager_daemon;
-
-#endif /* _LINUX_SWAPCTL_H */
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/include/linux/sysctl.h linux-2.4.20-modified/include/linux/sysctl.h
--- linux-2.4.20/include/linux/sysctl.h	Thu Nov 28 15:53:15 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/include/linux/sysctl.h	Thu Jan 23 15:53:21 2003
@@ -137,7 +137,6 @@
 	VM_OVERCOMMIT_MEMORY=5,	/* Turn off the virtual memory safety limit */
 	VM_BUFFERMEM=6,		/* struct: Set buffer memory thresholds */
 	VM_PAGECACHE=7,		/* struct: Set cache memory thresholds */
-	VM_PAGERDAEMON=8,	/* struct: Control kswapd behaviour */
 	VM_PGT_CACHE=9,		/* struct: Set page table cache parameters */
 	VM_PAGE_CLUSTER=10,	/* int: set number of pages to swap together */
 	VM_MAX_MAP_COUNT=11,	/* int: Maximum number of active map areas */
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/kernel/sysctl.c linux-2.4.20-modified/kernel/sysctl.c
--- linux-2.4.20/kernel/sysctl.c	Fri Aug  2 17:39:46 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/kernel/sysctl.c	Thu Jan 23 15:57:14 2003
@@ -21,7 +21,6 @@
 #include <linux/config.h>
 #include <linux/slab.h>
 #include <linux/sysctl.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
 #include <linux/proc_fs.h>
 #include <linux/ctype.h>
 #include <linux/utsname.h>
@@ -265,8 +264,6 @@
 	 &bdflush_min, &bdflush_max},
 	{VM_OVERCOMMIT_MEMORY, "overcommit_memory", &sysctl_overcommit_memory,
 	 sizeof(sysctl_overcommit_memory), 0644, NULL, &proc_dointvec},
-	{VM_PAGERDAEMON, "kswapd",
-	 &pager_daemon, sizeof(pager_daemon_t), 0644, NULL, &proc_dointvec},
 	{VM_PGT_CACHE, "pagetable_cache",
 	 &pgt_cache_water, 2*sizeof(int), 0644, NULL, &proc_dointvec},
 	{VM_PAGE_CLUSTER, "page-cluster",
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/mm/bootmem.c linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/bootmem.c
--- linux-2.4.20/mm/bootmem.c	Thu Nov 28 15:53:15 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/bootmem.c	Thu Jan 23 15:58:27 2003
@@ -12,7 +12,6 @@
 #include <linux/mm.h>
 #include <linux/kernel_stat.h>
 #include <linux/swap.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
 #include <linux/interrupt.h>
 #include <linux/init.h>
 #include <linux/bootmem.h>
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/mm/filemap.c linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/filemap.c
--- linux-2.4.20/mm/filemap.c	Thu Nov 28 15:53:15 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/filemap.c	Thu Jan 23 15:58:21 2003
@@ -19,7 +19,6 @@
 #include <linux/smp_lock.h>
 #include <linux/blkdev.h>
 #include <linux/file.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
 #include <linux/init.h>
 #include <linux/mm.h>
 #include <linux/iobuf.h>
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/mm/memory.c linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/memory.c
--- linux-2.4.20/mm/memory.c	Thu Nov 28 15:53:15 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/memory.c	Thu Jan 23 15:58:14 2003
@@ -40,7 +40,6 @@
 #include <linux/mman.h>
 #include <linux/swap.h>
 #include <linux/smp_lock.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
 #include <linux/iobuf.h>
 #include <linux/highmem.h>
 #include <linux/pagemap.h>
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/mm/mmap.c linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/mmap.c
--- linux-2.4.20/mm/mmap.c	Thu Nov 28 15:53:15 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/mmap.c	Thu Jan 23 15:58:05 2003
@@ -8,7 +8,6 @@
 #include <linux/mman.h>
 #include <linux/pagemap.h>
 #include <linux/swap.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
 #include <linux/smp_lock.h>
 #include <linux/init.h>
 #include <linux/file.h>
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/mm/oom_kill.c linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/oom_kill.c
--- linux-2.4.20/mm/oom_kill.c	Thu Nov 28 15:53:15 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/oom_kill.c	Thu Jan 23 15:58:00 2003
@@ -18,7 +18,6 @@
 #include <linux/mm.h>
 #include <linux/sched.h>
 #include <linux/swap.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
 #include <linux/timex.h>

 /* #define DEBUG */
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/mm/page_alloc.c linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/page_alloc.c
--- linux-2.4.20/mm/page_alloc.c	Thu Nov 28 15:53:15 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/page_alloc.c	Thu Jan 23 15:57:54 2003
@@ -15,7 +15,6 @@
 #include <linux/config.h>
 #include <linux/mm.h>
 #include <linux/swap.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
 #include <linux/interrupt.h>
 #include <linux/pagemap.h>
 #include <linux/bootmem.h>
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/mm/page_io.c linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/page_io.c
--- linux-2.4.20/mm/page_io.c	Thu Nov 28 15:53:15 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/page_io.c	Thu Jan 23 15:57:47 2003
@@ -14,7 +14,6 @@
 #include <linux/kernel_stat.h>
 #include <linux/swap.h>
 #include <linux/locks.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>

 #include <asm/pgtable.h>

diff -urN linux-2.4.20/mm/swap.c linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/swap.c
--- linux-2.4.20/mm/swap.c	Thu Nov 28 15:53:15 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/swap.c	Thu Jan 23 15:57:40 2003
@@ -16,7 +16,6 @@
 #include <linux/mm.h>
 #include <linux/kernel_stat.h>
 #include <linux/swap.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
 #include <linux/pagemap.h>
 #include <linux/init.h>

@@ -26,12 +25,6 @@

 /* How many pages do we try to swap or page in/out together? */
 int page_cluster;
-
-pager_daemon_t pager_daemon = {
-	512,	/* base number for calculating the number of tries */
-	SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX,	/* minimum number of tries */
-	8,	/* do swap I/O in clusters of this size */
-};

 /*
  * Move an inactive page to the active list.
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/mm/swap_state.c linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/swap_state.c
--- linux-2.4.20/mm/swap_state.c	Thu Nov 28 15:53:15 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/swap_state.c	Thu Jan 23 15:57:32 2003
@@ -10,7 +10,6 @@
 #include <linux/mm.h>
 #include <linux/kernel_stat.h>
 #include <linux/swap.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
 #include <linux/init.h>
 #include <linux/pagemap.h>
 #include <linux/smp_lock.h>
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/mm/swapfile.c linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/swapfile.c
--- linux-2.4.20/mm/swapfile.c	Fri Aug  2 17:39:46 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/swapfile.c	Thu Jan 23 15:58:32 2003
@@ -9,7 +9,6 @@
 #include <linux/smp_lock.h>
 #include <linux/kernel_stat.h>
 #include <linux/swap.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
 #include <linux/blkdev.h> /* for blk_size */
 #include <linux/vmalloc.h>
 #include <linux/pagemap.h>
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/mm/vmscan.c linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/vmscan.c
--- linux-2.4.20/mm/vmscan.c	Thu Nov 28 15:53:15 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/vmscan.c	Thu Jan 23 15:57:23 2003
@@ -17,7 +17,6 @@
 #include <linux/slab.h>
 #include <linux/kernel_stat.h>
 #include <linux/swap.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
 #include <linux/smp_lock.h>
 #include <linux/pagemap.h>
 #include <linux/init.h>


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-22 16:21                                                     ` Mark Mielke
  2003-01-23 11:37                                                       ` Richard Stallman
@ 2003-07-20  2:27                                                       ` Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra
  2003-07-20  8:09                                                         ` Florian Weimer
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra @ 2003-07-20  2:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

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



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-20  1:46                                                     ` Nicolas Pitre
  2003-01-21 18:17                                                       ` Richard Stallman
@ 2003-07-20  2:42                                                       ` Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra
  2003-07-20 19:30                                                         ` Brian McGroarty
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra @ 2003-07-20  2:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

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



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-07-20  2:27                                                       ` [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra
@ 2003-07-20  8:09                                                         ` Florian Weimer
  2003-07-20  8:49                                                           ` Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Florian Weimer @ 2003-07-20  8:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra; +Cc: linux-kernel

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.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-07-20  8:09                                                         ` Florian Weimer
@ 2003-07-20  8:49                                                           ` Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra
  2003-07-20 10:55                                                             ` Wichert Akkerman
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra @ 2003-07-20  8:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

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



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-07-20  8:49                                                           ` Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra
@ 2003-07-20 10:55                                                             ` Wichert Akkerman
  2003-07-20 21:52                                                               ` Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Wichert Akkerman @ 2003-07-20 10:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

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.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-07-20  2:42                                                       ` Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra
@ 2003-07-20 19:30                                                         ` Brian McGroarty
  2003-07-20 22:00                                                           ` Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Brian McGroarty @ 2003-07-20 19:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Leandro Guimar?es Faria Corsetti Dutra; +Cc: linux-kernel

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.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-07-20 10:55                                                             ` Wichert Akkerman
@ 2003-07-20 21:52                                                               ` Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra
  2003-07-20 22:09                                                                 ` Wichert Akkerman
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra @ 2003-07-20 21:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

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



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-07-20 19:30                                                         ` Brian McGroarty
@ 2003-07-20 22:00                                                           ` Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra @ 2003-07-20 22:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

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



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-07-20 21:52                                                               ` Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra
@ 2003-07-20 22:09                                                                 ` Wichert Akkerman
  2003-07-20 22:38                                                                   ` David Lloyd
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Wichert Akkerman @ 2003-07-20 22:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

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.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-07-20 22:09                                                                 ` Wichert Akkerman
@ 2003-07-20 22:38                                                                   ` David Lloyd
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: David Lloyd @ 2003-07-20 22:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Wichert Akkerman; +Cc: linux-kernel

-----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-----

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
@ 2003-01-18 16:14 Thomas Hood
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Hood @ 2003-01-18 16:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

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>


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-14 22:46 ` Andre Hedrick
@ 2003-01-14 22:54   ` Cort Dougan
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Cort Dougan @ 2003-01-14 22:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Andre Hedrick; +Cc: linux-kernel

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)

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
  2003-01-14 22:14 Ed Vance
@ 2003-01-14 22:46 ` Andre Hedrick
  2003-01-14 22:54   ` Cort Dougan
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Andre Hedrick @ 2003-01-14 22:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

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


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
@ 2003-01-14 22:14 Ed Vance
  2003-01-14 22:46 ` Andre Hedrick
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 134+ messages in thread
From: Ed Vance @ 2003-01-14 22:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 'linux-kernel'

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
----------------------------------------------------------------


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

* RE: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
@ 2003-01-14 20:53 Dow, Benjamin
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 134+ messages in thread
From: Dow, Benjamin @ 2003-01-14 20:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'

> 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. 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 134+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2003-07-20 22:15 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 134+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-01-05  8:02 Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Albert D. Cahalan
2003-01-06 17:13 ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-06 17:37   ` Larry McVoy
2003-01-06 19:40     ` Steven Barnhart
2003-01-06 23:33     ` Matthias Andree
2003-01-07 15:47       ` Disconnect
2003-01-07 13:40     ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-07 14:26       ` Larry McVoy
2003-01-08  8:00         ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-08 13:51           ` Larry McVoy
2003-01-09 23:14             ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-09 23:24               ` Larry McVoy
2003-01-11  0:21                 ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-10  5:33               ` Oliver Xymoron
2003-01-10  6:07                 ` Andre Hedrick
2003-01-10  6:31                   ` Miles Bader
2003-01-10 14:17                 ` Charles Cazabon
2003-01-11  1:36                 ` Rob Wilkens
2003-01-11  4:06                   ` John Jasen
2003-01-11  7:13                     ` Andre Hedrick
2003-01-08 21:29           ` Matthias Andree
2003-01-09  2:26           ` Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com
2003-01-09  8:57             ` John Alvord
2003-01-09 15:18               ` What's in a name? Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com
2003-01-09 16:11                 ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-01-09 16:51                   ` venom
2003-01-09 17:48                   ` Jesse Pollard
2003-01-10  9:52               ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Richard Stallman
2003-01-10 16:05                 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2003-01-10 18:38                 ` Names as origin component paths Mark Mielke
2003-01-10 18:41                 ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Rogier Wolff
2003-01-12 11:55                   ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-12 12:27                     ` Mark Mielke
2003-01-13 14:32                     ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-01-13 17:09                       ` Jesse Pollard
2003-01-13 17:22                         ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-01-13 17:37                           ` Jesse Pollard
2003-01-13 18:48                             ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-01-14 18:55                               ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-14 19:06                                 ` Larry McVoy
2003-01-14 19:56                                   ` [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him Dax Kelson
2003-01-14 20:02                                     ` Larry McVoy
2003-01-14 20:19                                       ` Olivier Galibert
2003-01-14 20:36                                         ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-01-14 20:45                                           ` Larry McVoy
2003-01-15 23:28                                             ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-14 21:08                                         ` Mark Mielke
2003-01-14 21:51                                           ` Chris Funderburg
2003-01-14 22:13                                           ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen
2003-01-14 22:27                                           ` Wakko Warner
2003-01-15 16:39                                           ` Horst von Brand
2003-01-16 23:12                                             ` Adrian Bunk
2003-01-15 23:28                                           ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-16  2:51                                             ` Nicolas Pitre
2003-01-18  0:47                                               ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-18  0:56                                                 ` Larry McVoy
2003-01-19  1:36                                                   ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-19  5:55                                                     ` Matthew D. Pitts
2003-01-18  3:01                                                 ` Nicolas Pitre
2003-01-18 14:23                                                   ` andrea.glorioso
2003-01-20  0:50                                                   ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-20  1:46                                                     ` Nicolas Pitre
2003-01-21 18:17                                                       ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-21 18:30                                                         ` Larry McVoy
2003-01-21 18:55                                                         ` Nicolas Pitre
2003-07-20  2:42                                                       ` Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra
2003-07-20 19:30                                                         ` Brian McGroarty
2003-07-20 22:00                                                           ` Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra
2003-01-16  5:23                                             ` Steve Lee
2003-01-18  0:47                                               ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-20 13:38                                                 ` Horst von Brand
2003-01-22  9:59                                                   ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-22 10:19                                                     ` Paulo Andre'
2003-01-22 11:05                                                       ` Jamie Lokier
2003-01-22 12:56                                                     ` Dave Jones
2003-01-22 16:21                                                     ` Mark Mielke
2003-01-23 11:37                                                       ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-23 13:17                                                         ` Murray J. Root
2003-01-23 18:15                                                         ` Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com
2003-01-24  0:41                                                           ` [PATCH] [2.4.20] dead code: remove /proc/sys/vm/kswapd Lamont Granquist
2003-07-20  2:27                                                       ` [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra
2003-07-20  8:09                                                         ` Florian Weimer
2003-07-20  8:49                                                           ` Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra
2003-07-20 10:55                                                             ` Wichert Akkerman
2003-07-20 21:52                                                               ` Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra
2003-07-20 22:09                                                                 ` Wichert Akkerman
2003-07-20 22:38                                                                   ` David Lloyd
2003-01-22 16:44                                                     ` John Alvord
2003-01-23  1:31                                                       ` Nick Matteo
2003-01-20 16:52                                                 ` Jerry Cooperstein
2003-01-22 17:14                                                 ` Jan Harkes
2003-01-14 20:27                                       ` Abramo Bagnara
2003-01-14 21:51                                         ` Andre Hedrick
2003-01-15  8:42                                           ` Abramo Bagnara
2003-01-14 21:42                                       ` Andre Hedrick
2003-01-15 12:47                                       ` Gaël Le Mignot
2003-01-14 20:15                                     ` Abramo Bagnara
2003-01-14 21:32                                   ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Andre Hedrick
2003-01-15 12:44                                   ` Gaël Le Mignot
2003-01-14 22:20                                 ` Tomasz Kłoczko
2003-01-13 17:51                           ` Mark Mielke
2003-01-14 18:54                             ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-09 23:14             ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-09 23:39               ` Larry McVoy
2003-01-10  0:01               ` Linux/Hurd vs GNU/Linux (was Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently") Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com
2003-01-07 16:18       ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Dimitrie O. Paun
2003-01-08  2:29         ` Miles Bader
2003-01-09  7:20           ` "Mother" == "computer-illiterate" Val Henson
2003-01-09  8:05             ` J Sloan
2003-01-09 13:14             ` Miles Bader
2003-01-09 14:35             ` Kent Borg
2003-01-09 19:40             ` Val Henson
2003-01-09 20:21               ` jlnance
2003-01-09 20:30                 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2003-01-10  1:34                   ` Andrew McGregor
2003-01-09 20:46                 ` Randy.Dunlap
2003-01-09 21:12                   ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2003-01-09 21:11                     ` Randy.Dunlap
2003-01-12 11:56                   ` Kristian Koehntopp
2003-01-09 23:11               ` Alan Cox
2003-01-09 22:41                 ` John Adams
2003-01-10  1:24                 ` Chris Adams
2003-01-10  2:15                   ` jdow
2003-01-10  3:20                     ` Val Henson
2003-01-10  4:23                     ` Tom Diehl
2003-01-10 10:35                 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen
2003-01-10  7:04             ` Tim Timmerman
2003-01-09  7:28         ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Richard Stallman
2003-01-09  6:44           ` Dimitrie O. Paun
2003-01-14 20:53 [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him Dow, Benjamin
2003-01-14 22:14 Ed Vance
2003-01-14 22:46 ` Andre Hedrick
2003-01-14 22:54   ` Cort Dougan
2003-01-18 16:14 Thomas Hood

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).