nadamsieee writes "Neil McAllister has posted a provocative article titled Questioning the Linux Foundation's credentials. He questions the motivations behind the newly formed organization. Quoting: 'But wouldn't it make more sense to call the merged organization the Open Source and Standards Lab, or the Free Software and Standards Group? Why did they have to go and call it the Linux Foundation?' McAllister then goes on to explain why he believes that 'the Linux Foundation isn't any kind of philanthropic foundation at all[,] it's an industry trade organization.'"
If you think fundamentalist religion is a cause of suffering and atheism isn't, eugenics must not be in your vocabulary.
Fundementalism is generally a bad idea. "Any excuse will serve a tyrant"; it's probably better to ask what is true, rather than which ideas have been least misused. It's likely to get us further. Also, a sincere search for truth must include at least some respect for other's ideas.
Fundamentalism AND Atheism BOTH have their problems (and strengths.) The problem is not in debating which side to choose, but knowing how to utilize strengths to overcome the weaknesses of the other.
> a sincere search for truth must include at least some respect for other's ideas.
Try telling that to the "established" "institutions" !
Maybe Science will one day respect Religion because Science will realize that Religion has answers to the "Why" questions Science
As far as I'm concerned Atheism doesn't need to be chosen as it's the natural state of human beings. Religion and Science are both learnt disciplines. They both come from that same human need to explanations for things, it's just religion is an earlier expression of those things we didn't quite understand. Like all the religions based around Sun worship for instance. Now the philosophy of Atheism is definitely a taught thing, but from experience I'd say children are not born with any awareness of god. Or 3.5
As far as I'm concerned Atheism doesn't need to be chosen as it's the natural state of human beings.
Agnosticism is the natural state of human beings. There is a huge difference between the two.
Of course, natural isn't necessarily "correct" either. Without getting into a debate about global warming (hopefully) one should note that the planet has naturally gone through ice ages and warm periods which are not really good for humans. So even if we aren't contributing to global warming it still makes sense to
No matter how logical we paint ourselves and our beliefs, we are not as such in the natural 'state'.
What I'm saying is that you are born without conceptions of how things behave because you have not experienced them. Animism can come next. When you're born, you don't know anything; agnosticism is your entire existence. Then you form opinions...
Wow. You're the first person to reply to my sig without being a complete ass. A vast majority respond with, well, very harsh words, to say the least. Thanks. Anyway, I mostly agree with you, intolerant religion has been used to justify a lot of nasty things, but (my beliefs, here) fundamentalist Christianity should be tolerant and respectful of others and their beliefs, for example, when referring to Islam, using the term The Prohpet Mohammad, not something disrespectful, like 'that jerk with the turban
The problem with your signature isn't that you decry fundamentalism wrong. The problem with your signature is that you rather unfairly associate Atheism with the actions of one very maladjusted individual -- oh to hell with it, we'll just speak his name: You equate Atheism with Hitler.
That's the problem with your signature. Atheism has nothing to do with eugenics. Hitler didn't target the religious, instead, he, being a deeply maladjusted individual (to put it lightly) targeted several groups that he felt
Eugenism was popular thoughout Europe and the US way before Hitler got to power. And it was applied throughout the world as late as the 1960s (and may still be in some countries). You might want to look up Francis Galton and go from there.
In short that's probably not the comparison the OP was meaning to make. His point was more likely that excess in any thing usually ends with bad decisions being made.
As an athiest, the part that I find insulting is the thought that Eugenics were carried out because the people were athiests. It's not, and they weren't. Eugenics and genocide weren't carried out in the name of athiesm. Rather, the genocides your sig brushes upon were committed because the people involved were amoral selfish bastards. But nowhwere did Hitler, for example, say "my non-god told me to do this." Nor did Saddam Hussein gas the kurds to prove his nongodlyness. But we did go to war in Iraq b
If you think fundamentalist religion is a cause of suffering and atheism isn't, eugenics must not be in your vocabulary.
I'm not aware of any link between atheism and eugenics. Between the idea of natural selection and eugenics sure. But atheism and natural selection are not synonymous. I know many people who say they are Christian who think that evolution is a reasonable explanation for the origins of humanity.
Do you know of a link? I don't think it's a widespread opinion or I'd be able to dredge it
You're absolutely right.
One of the reasons Free Software or Open Source or whatever is less popular than
Mac or Windows is computer hackers' inability to come up with catchy names. Mac
is perhaps the most successful in giving names to their products.
The worst example is of course FSF's GNU, which sounds like some form of
health organisation, and by insisting on GNU/Linux they're leaving 80% of the world's
population behind, left with just a shrug.
Who would use Ekiga when they can use Skype? Or
Gimp when
What do you get if you cross an open source development consortium with an organisation that promotes free standards? Answer: You get a Linux advocacy group. Or so it seems.
ODSL & FSG were misnamed - ODSL employees worked on linux and the FSG worked on the linux standard base.
It's natural for the union between them to be called "the linux something".
From TFA: On the one hand, it seems a shame that the group should narrow the scope of its activities to focus on a single project. Linux may be the open source poster child du jour, but it's hardly the only worthwhile project around.
Since when does a foundation, group, or organization have to have a broad scope on there activities? If they only want to focus on one aspect of a field, that's their choice. Sure, there are more "worthwhile" projects out there, and there also are more organizations out ther
Which BTW isn't necessarily a bad thing in itself. The market works in a way that you need such orgs to apply leverage to place products. We all know that having a good or even a better product is nowhere enough to sell (even if you give it away). Microsoft s large enough that it can apply leverage itself. Maybe Linux needs its own hitmen going from place to place commenting "hey, this place looks mighty flammable to me, doesn't it Tony ? I think you should run Linux mister"... Or however it is they do such
Sure its an industry trade organization. What's wrong with that? After all, we also have the BSA, the RIAA, and a plethora of standards bodies and "think tanks", "focus groups", ad nauseum and et cetera.
You talk about it in the same breath as the BSA and RIAA, and then still wonder what the issue is?!
The issue is that an "industry trade organization" is interested in profit, and might be motivated to corrupt the ideals behind Linux (and Free Software in general). That might be well-and-good from their perspective, but it wouldn't be good from the community's perspective. Therefore, people in the community could have cause to be worried about it.
When the European Commission want to consult the industry about something, they usually try to find a diverse cross sample. So they'll talk to BSA, some union, some Linux representative, etc. One possible choice for the "Linux representative" would be FSFE. FSFE would say "software patents are incompatible with the goals of the community we support". Another choice for the "Linux representative" now will be Linux Foundation (which is IBM and friends by a new name), and they'll say "software patents are grand, there are a few glitches that let unenforceable patents through, but we'll harness the community to fix these problems for us and everything will be fine". So the European Commission will publish a dreadful recommendation and will say "we even consulted the Linux free software crowd".
"McAllister then goes on to explain why he believes that 'the Linux Foundation isn't any kind of philanthropic foundation at all"
Big deal. It never claimed to be any kind of "philanthropic foundation." What next - "Microsoft Windows isn't free software" or "The **AA doesn't promote file sharing"? Or "Bush doesn't eat kittens for breakfast"?
Since when did Linux equal Philanthropic? Linus did it for fun and is still having fun. As long as they play by the license, trade organizations are natural part of business.
"The Foundation has looked forward to this day with steadfast solidarity. It is a war that the Opposition cannot win. Glory to the Good! May the fields of battle run red with the blood of our suppressors. Aqa'k Barr Ma'lik!"
A foundation is a very specific entity, with very specific rules and purposes to be adhered to. Yes, they could have chosen to be a simple consortium and named themselves something different like "Linux Labs" or what not, but by being a foundation, they're basically pledging that they will never stray from what they're setting out to do, that they will donate 5% of their assets towards their "cause" on a yearly basis, that individuals and corporations can make tax-deductible gifts to them. It's a lot of ext
somebody who wants to call Linux "GNU/Linux"? (And, yes, some of these clowns have decided to call Solaris "GNU/Solaris" now that Sun wants to use GPLv3. Idiots.)
Who cares?
Call the organization the Lizardian Group for all I care.
While TFA did not make the point very well, the author may have a point. To call it the linux foundation instead of the "something linux something foundation" creates a lot of expectations that are not likely to be met. When someone casually encounters the name, what expectations might they reasonably have:
- That the organization is the producer of linux. The Apache Software Foundation produces
apache, for example.
- That the organization speaks for
Hello America! That's the British English spelling used by most (if not, all) countries in the British Commonwealth - in this case, the article is from New Zealand so spelling is correct.
We generally use -ise instead of -ize [wikipedia.org].
Replacing the letter 's' with 'z' is a North American corruption.
No, they got this one right. "Organisation" is a British corruption which never caught on in America -- you'll also find the correct spelling ("organization") used in Oxford and other fora which use Oxford spelling (e.g., Nature, WHO, UNESCO, ISO, ITU).
Corruption is an overly harsh term, it's a development, technically. In most English speaking countries the letters Z/S and their sounds/s/ and/z/ are now pretty much interchangable (ie they are Allophones [wikipedia.org]), so using z vs s really doesn't matter, except to remove what some people thought of as a 'useless' letter.
There are a few other British spelling developments, like "dreamt" instead of "dreamed" (this possibly even just a different direction with another interchangable sound), and a few American spell
I've got this ISO here says not every Linux distro is a GNU/Linux distro... it's based on the svn tree at the site in my profile, and it's actually closer to BSD/Linux than GNU/Linux (though, FOX ain't exactly BSD either)...
May we also similarly cite the Linux/uClib/Busybox combination which is a very common combination for embed hardware (routers, modems, webcams, etc...) because bus box is much smaller than the corresponding GNU core utils ?
``What difference does the label make? Judge the tree by the fruit.''
I disagree. The name you give to something is important. If you call it "The Linux $foo" and it's not about Linux, it's a bad name. The badness varies from suboptimal (they could have done better, but the name isn't outright wrong) to deceptive (they chose the name to boost visibility or misrepresent their cause). I don't know, or really care, to what extent this applies to the Linux Foundation, but naming is important.
because (Score:5, Funny)
Because if they called it the BSD Foundation, all you'd ever hear is about how it's dying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: .sig (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Fundamentalism AND Atheism BOTH have their problems (and strengths.) The problem is not in debating which side to choose, but knowing how to utilize strengths to overcome the weaknesses of the other.
> a sincere search for truth must include at least some respect for other's ideas.
Try telling that to the "established" "institutions" !
Maybe Science will one day respect Religion because Science will realize that Religion has answers to the "Why" questions Science
Re: (Score:2)
Now the philosophy of Atheism is definitely a taught thing, but from experience I'd say children are not born with any awareness of god. Or 3.5
Re: (Score:2)
Agnosticism is the natural state of human beings. There is a huge difference between the two.
Of course, natural isn't necessarily "correct" either. Without getting into a debate about global warming (hopefully) one should note that the planet has naturally gone through ice ages and warm periods which are not really good for humans. So even if we aren't contributing to global warming it still makes sense to
Re: (Score:2)
What I'm saying is that you are born without conceptions of how things behave because you have not experienced them. Animism can come next. When you're born, you don't know anything; agnosticism is your entire existence. Then you form opinions...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
In short that's probably not the comparison the OP was meaning to make. His point was more likely that excess in any thing usually ends with bad decisions being made.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, a sincere search for truth must include at least some respect for other's ideas.
[irony] Oh, blow it out your ass, Harold. [/irony]
{this post subtitled for the humor impaired} [imdb.com]Re: (Score:3, Funny)
He's just trying to beat RMS to calling for it to be named "GNU/Linux Foundation".
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
I'm not aware of any link between atheism and eugenics. Between the idea of natural selection and eugenics sure. But atheism and natural selection are not synonymous. I know many people who say they are Christian who think that evolution is a reasonable explanation for the origins of humanity.
Do you know of a link? I don't think it's a widespread opinion or I'd be able to dredge it
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the reasons Free Software or Open Source or whatever is less popular than Mac or Windows is computer hackers' inability to come up with catchy names. Mac is perhaps the most successful in giving names to their products.
The worst example is of course FSF's GNU, which sounds like some form of health organisation, and by insisting on GNU/Linux they're leaving 80% of the world's population behind, left with just a shrug.
Who would use Ekiga when they can use Skype? Or Gimp when
well technically.... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
strictly non-profit of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong way round! (Score:5, Informative)
It's natural for the union between them to be called "the linux something".
Re: (Score:1)
From TFA: On the one hand, it seems a shame that the group should narrow the scope of its activities to focus on a single project. Linux may be the open source poster child du jour, but it's hardly the only worthwhile project around.
Since when does a foundation, group, or organization have to have a broad scope on there activities? If they only want to focus on one aspect of a field, that's their choice. Sure, there are more "worthwhile" projects out there, and there also are more organizations out ther
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with the article's premise: The Linux Foundation is not a standards organization, it's a trade organization.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe Linux needs its own hitmen going from place to place commenting "hey, this place looks mighty flammable to me, doesn't it Tony ? I think you should run Linux mister"... Or however it is they do such
Sure it is. (Score:5, Insightful)
So, what's the issue?
Re:Sure it is. (Score:4, Insightful)
You talk about it in the same breath as the BSA and RIAA, and then still wonder what the issue is?!
The issue is that an "industry trade organization" is interested in profit, and might be motivated to corrupt the ideals behind Linux (and Free Software in general). That might be well-and-good from their perspective, but it wouldn't be good from the community's perspective. Therefore, people in the community could have cause to be worried about it.
Parent
It could fool the European Commission (Score:5, Insightful)
When the European Commission want to consult the industry about something, they usually try to find a diverse cross sample. So they'll talk to BSA, some union, some Linux representative, etc. One possible choice for the "Linux representative" would be FSFE. FSFE would say "software patents are incompatible with the goals of the community we support". Another choice for the "Linux representative" now will be Linux Foundation (which is IBM and friends by a new name), and they'll say "software patents are grand, there are a few glitches that let unenforceable patents through, but we'll harness the community to fix these problems for us and everything will be fine". So the European Commission will publish a dreadful recommendation and will say "we even consulted the Linux free software crowd".
Parent
Not news ... (Score:2, Insightful)
"McAllister then goes on to explain why he believes that 'the Linux Foundation isn't any kind of philanthropic foundation at all"
Big deal. It never claimed to be any kind of "philanthropic foundation." What next - "Microsoft Windows isn't free software" or "The **AA doesn't promote file sharing"? Or "Bush doesn't eat kittens for breakfast"?
So, how again is this news?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No, but I saw boobs once.
Re:Not news ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Looming... (Score:2)
Oh no! A Trade Organization! (Score:3, Funny)
why they called it "Foundation" (Score:2)
Why do I suspect this guy is (Score:2)
Who cares?
Call the organization the Lizardian Group for all I care.
What's in a name? (Score:2)
instead of the "something linux something foundation" creates a lot of expectations that are not likely
to be met.
When someone casually encounters the name, what expectations might they reasonably have:
- That the organization is the producer of linux. The Apache Software Foundation produces
apache, for example.
- That the organization speaks for
They should've calledit... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the British English spelling used by most (if not, all) countries in the British Commonwealth - in this case, the article is from New Zealand so spelling is correct.
We generally use -ise instead of -ize [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Phht (Score:5, Informative)
No, they got this one right. "Organisation" is a British corruption which never caught on in America -- you'll also find the correct spelling ("organization") used in Oxford and other fora which use Oxford spelling (e.g., Nature, WHO, UNESCO, ISO, ITU).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Corruption is an overly harsh term, it's a development, technically. In most English speaking countries the letters Z/S and their sounds /s/ and /z/ are now pretty much interchangable (ie they are Allophones [wikipedia.org]), so using z vs s really doesn't matter, except to remove what some people thought of as a 'useless' letter.
There are a few other British spelling developments, like "dreamt" instead of "dreamed" (this possibly even just a different direction with another interchangable sound), and a few American spell
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Should be organisaatio (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
-uso.
Re: (Score:2)
And the embed favorite (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. The name you give to something is important. If you call it "The Linux $foo" and it's not about Linux, it's a bad name. The badness varies from suboptimal (they could have done better, but the name isn't outright wrong) to deceptive (they chose the name to boost visibility or misrepresent their cause). I don't know, or really care, to what extent this applies to the Linux Foundation, but naming is important.