RMS Cuts Through Some SCO FUD 877
sckienle writes "ZD-Net has a commentary by Richard Stallman about the SCO case against IBM, kind of. It does provide some history on what the GNU organization did to protect itself from such lawsuits. Favorite quote: 'Less evident is the harm it does by inciting simplistic thinking: [Intellectual Property] lumps together diverse laws--copyright law, patent law, trademark law and others--which really have little in common.'"
There's Cringely too. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:There's Cringely too. (Score:5, Insightful)
RMS's article is pretty light on the full horror, but Cringley's gives a nice idea what a tangled mess the simple phrase "our IP" can mean.
Re:There's Cringely too. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:There's Cringely too. (Score:5, Informative)
And in Germany, SCO promises to watch its tongue (Score:5, Informative)
Sco Group will not say again that Linux end users could be held liable for using Linux, had to fear legal consequences nor will they repeat that Linux is an unauthorized derivate of Unix.
There is a fine of 10.000 EUR if SCO fails to comply with that written confirmation.
More details (in German):
heise.de [heise.de]
Re:There's Cringely too. (Score:5, Insightful)
Overall, I think that his article was more of a pep talk that GNU, Linux, whoever won't ever die then a article about SCO.
And weirdly (Score:4, Informative)
That said though, there are a lot of other technologies that make up the Linux "environment" so it's kind of silly that GNU should get top billing.
Re:There's Cringely too. (Score:5, Insightful)
He's speaking for his own efforts, which he loves passionately, and not for the efforts of others. So he phrased things in such a way that he's just speaking for himself, not for Linus. I don't think his attitude is "F--- Linus"; I think his attitude is "Linus can make his own statement, but this one's mine".
I've met RMS too, and I remember his intensity well. But I don't see what he wrote as an anti-Linux diatribe at all; it clearly opposes SCO and clearly states that GNU's programming is in compiliance as far as he knows, and will be made in compliance in any discovered cases where it is not already.
A good statement, that needed to be made.
D
Re:There's Cringely too. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There's Cringely too. (Score:5, Funny)
You misspelled "decade."
Re:RMS Evangelism == boring (Score:4, Interesting)
Now when you say "Nothing personal RMS, I just think Linus attitude is really more of a leader than yours." I have to reply that they are both leaders: RMS is more of a political and social activist while Linus doesn't give a damn about politics, etc, as RMS says, "Linus is an engineer", and Linus is the best leader of engineers in the Free Software/Open Source community. Remember, "GNU" is not "Richard's GNU", it's "OUR GNU", it belongs to all of us and Richard is a visionary fighting to ensure freedom for us all on the new digital frontier.
Linux no longer essential (Score:5, Insightful)
the kernel is still essential due to the high level of hardware support.. but hopefully if something would happen, the drivers get ported to other kernels..
For great justice, the GNU must survive!
the Linux kernel is no longer essential (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure there would probably be major setbacks. It might take another five years to get to the point were we are now but things would eventually get back to normal.
So RMS's statement that the Linux kernel is no longer essential is true.
I use Gentoo Linux and I love it. But if I _had_ to I could learn to live with a FreeBSD kernel. I know both Debian and Gentoo are working on getting there userland stuff working under a BSD kernel.
If the Linux kernel went away tomorrow it would be a real shame (understatement of the year) but it would not be the end of the world.
Re:the Linux kernel is no longer essential (Score:5, Funny)
The Architect - You are here because Linux is about to be destroyed. Its every line of code terminated, its entire existence eradicated.
Tux - Bullshit.
The Architect - Denial is the most predictable of all human responses. But, rest assured, this will be the sixth time we have destroyed it, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it.
The Architect - The function of the Gnu is now to return to the source, allowing a temporary dissemination of the GPL'd code you carry, reinserting the prime program. After which you will be required to select from the matrix 23 OSS programmers, 16 American, 7 Finnish, to rebuild the kernel. Failure to comply with this process will result in a cataclysmic system crash killing every process currently running, which coupled with the extermination of the kernel will ultimately result in the extinction of the entire Linux operating system.
Tux - You won't let it happen, you can't. You need Linux to survive.
The Architect - There are levels of survival we are prepared to accept. However, the relevant issue is whether or not you are ready to accept the responsibility for the death of every installation of Linux in this world.
(Sorry, I saw the parent post and the line from Matrix Reloaded about "There are levels of survival we are prepared to accept." came to mind, and I couldn't resist.)
This is so wrong (Score:5, Funny)
Even in our fantasies, we don't get girls...
--
Was it the sheep climbing onto the altar, or the cattle lowing to be slain,
or the Son of God hanging dead and bloodied on a cross that told me this was a world condemned, but loved and bought with blood.
Re:the Linux kernel is no longer essential (Score:5, Funny)
Sure there would probably be major setbacks. It might take another five years to get the NHL to the point were we are now but things would eventually get back to normal.
So RMS's statement that Canada is no longer essential is true.
I vacationed to Canada and it seemed OK. But if I _had_ to I could learn to vacation in Europe, or Asia even. I know both Europe and Asia are working on getting there[sic] people to speak English.
If Canada went away tomorrow it would be a real shame (understatement of the year) but it would not be the end of the world.
Re:the Linux kernel is no longer essential (Score:5, Funny)
Ah, but then who would the good people of South Park have to blame?
Re:the Linux kernel is no longer essential (Score:4, Funny)
Nah, not even M$ is that evil
Re:the Linux kernel is no longer essential (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about it this way if you will. The Linux kernel took thousands and thousands of person-hours to make. It's a shining example of free software, a work of art if you will. Don't you think people would be perplexed if, say, the curator of the Smithsonian said after the the war in Iraq, "Well, it would be a shame to see all the priceless artifacts in Iraq looted, but it's not such a big deal, our collection will still be fine." No, you want the curator to be indignant, to call for strict protection for the artifacts, to cry from the top of the mountion how looting in Iraq harms the art community and the world!
RMS (and others) should realize the "that sucks, but we'll be ok either way" attitude is just... I don't know, dumb!
Re:the Linux kernel is no longer essential (Score:4, Interesting)
I get the feeling that RMS isn't just complacent about the replacement of Linux, but indeed eager to see it go.
The whole thing was going to be the FSF's revolution, but then along came some upstart Finn who actually managed to write a kernel, and was suddenly anointed by all but the afficionados as "the guy who started off the whole Free Software thing". GNU is now more popular and ubiquitous than ever but few people realise it. To add insult to injury, the Linux guys had the temerity to poplularise their own watered-down version of the FSF's Free Software philosophy, giving it the less threatening title of "Open Source", which went on to gain widespread popularity.
RMS is basically pissed off about Linux doing as well as it has done, at the expense of the recognition of GNU. Understandable, in a way; but he doesn't seem to appreciate that a lot more people are aware of the FSF and what it stands for as a result of Linux doing so well.
While I feel for him, this endless sniping at Linux just ends up making him look like a bit of a jerk.
Re:Linux no longer essential (Score:5, Insightful)
Would RMS mind so much if Linux kernel fell down because of this controversy as long as GNU carried on with a different kernel?
I mean, reading his comments it seems clear that his purpose was not to defend Linux, but to try to draw a distinction (surprise) between the Linux kernel, the GNU system and the OS that is GNU/Linux.
Re:Linux no longer essential (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you think RMS was talking to the geeks on slashdot in this article?
I don't. I don't think he was preaching to the choir. I think his remarks were aimed at the upper management types who influence decisions about OS adoptions, but who don't have a technical background. I think he has done a very good job of telling the suits why SCO's FUD is so much bullsh*t.
Consider adding this article to your defudding toolkit. It is a very good piece to give to a CPA or BusSci type, to help them see the kinds of questions they should be asking, in place of the questions that SCO wants them to be worrying about.
Re:I've never understood the GNU/Linux thing (Score:5, Informative)
Text editors, command shells, compiler, linker, debugger, C library, standard Unix tools (grep/awk/diff/etc.), gtk, desktop environment (Gnome)... short of X and the kernel, pretty much everything in a modern "Linux" distribution that I at least consider to be part of the OS comes from GNU. Check the man pages for 'printf', 'tar', and such.
Re:Linux no longer essential (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Linux no longer essential (Score:3, Insightful)
Those two will probably
Re:Linux no longer essential (Score:5, Funny)
Great! Let us know when you're done.
Re:Linux no longer essential (Score:5, Interesting)
BSD make? It's largely incompatible with gnumake. I suppose we can replace those nasty autotools with good old fashioned imake, as well.
emacs: Ok, this is GNU.
there is Lucid Emacs/XEmacs.
Is the goal of this excercise to get rid of GPLed stuff, or simply to rid ourselves of GNU utilities?
If it's the former, I'm sure you could, with a lot of effort, graft the linux kernel onto a BSD (thus earning the undying emnity of BSD pedantics who preach about the innate superiority of an integrated operating system over a disoganized group. that simply releases a kernel every few months and calls it an "operating system".
If it's the latter, simply download the sources from GNU and fork them. Announce your intentions as loudly as possible. Mimic the flashiest new feature sets that you can find. Be sure to accept patches from anyone, anywhere, and for heaven's sake, don't ask you developers to assign copyrights to you.
Within a couple of years, people will abandon the GNU toolset in droves, and start to contribute only to your forks. RMS will be left with a library of obsolete, incompatible, and neglected software. The BTG (Better than GNU) toolchain conquers on.
Soon, a SCO will discover that some idiot has copied code from their sources, sue you for copyright infringement, and run your BTG operations into the ground. And then. RMS will gaze fondly at his beloved GNU, and laugh at your misfortune.
Re:Linux no longer essential (Score:4, Insightful)
This needs to be qualified with how you use Linux.
If you are a average desktop user (Red Hat, GNOME, Mozilla, OpenOffice.org, etc.), then, in fact, Linux, itself, is really not visible in your day-to-day work. If Linux were spontaneously removed, and the NetBSD kernel or HURD took its place (with necessary libraries, etc.), odds are you would never notice.
If you use Linux directly for creating custom kernels for various applications (e.g., you are a kernel developer for the Sharp Zaurus), then, of course, Linux disappearing would have a very large impact on your life. Starting from scratch and reworking the FreeBSD kernel for the Zaurus would definitely be a setback.
From an end-user's perspective, GNOME on Solaris 9, GNOME on Red Hat 9, GNOME on OpenBSD 3.3, and GNOME on Mac OS X (for those who do it because they can) don't present much of a change among them. The fact that each OS has adopted different conventions for package management and
Re:Linux no longer essential (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Linux no longer essential (Score:4, Insightful)
The HURD would actually help this. Because it's a microkernel, it would be easier to write higher-quality drivers for it, as well as have a stable API for drivers to write to. MacOSX and Windows NT have this advantage over Linux at the moment. Linux has loadable modules, but the API and ABI for them is a moving target.
This advantage of the other OSes could also be a liability, though -- look at the instability that bad drivers cause Windows. Being a true microkernel system, Hurd could mitigate this somewhat, much as QNX does.
And say what you will, but binary drivers are good for free OSes. Get the OS for free -- libre and gratis -- and hardware manufacturers can release drivers for their hardware and your OS, in a way that keeps them safe from legal issues (leaking other companies' trade secrets and the like). All-free would be better, of course. But fight the battle one step at a time. First step, a free OS that can actually operate your scanner, printer, sound card, etc.
Holy 3-letter acronyms batman!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Holy 3-letter acronyms batman!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Holy 3-letter acronyms batman!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Holy 3-letter acronyms batman!!! (Score:5, Funny)
FORM SCUDS
It's an Al-Qaeda hidden message!!!
Re:Holy 3-letter acronyms batman!!! (Score:3, Funny)
CRUDS OF MS
Article summary (Score:5, Funny)
"We developed the whole GNU dealy so we wouldn't have to pay for software or go to jail for pirating it. I don't know what the dealy is with this SCO/IBM jazz, but we aren't responsible. Sic your ravenous dogs on somebody else. Oh, and I didn't say Linux is a copy of Unix."
Re:Article summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyleft? (Score:5, Funny)
Am I the only one who sniggered?
Re:Copyleft? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Copyleft? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Copyleft? (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, I saw that Stallman was involved, knew what it was going to GNU/say, and went straight to the comments instead
Shaking the tree/Spreading the FUD? (Score:5, Insightful)
When Microsoft made it's licensing agreement with SCO, I then began to consider that the whole tone and nature of the SCO lawsuit was a FUD campaign to hurt OSS, subsidized but not directly linked to Microsoft.
I keep switching back and forth as to which I think it is. Of course, it might be both.
Re:Shaking the tree/Spreading the FUD? (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux itself is no longer essential: the GNU system became popular in conjunction with Linux, but today it also runs with two BSD kernels and the GNU kernel. Our community cannot be defeated by this.
I'm not saying Stallman cooked this whole thing up with SCO. But I do think he's taking advantage of the 'negative press' (as it were) Linux is receiving as a result of the SCO lawsuit to basically promote 1) the name GNU/
This is very interesting, (Score:5, Interesting)
A) IBM knows that SCO has no case, and will stomp SCO when they feel like it.
or
B) IBM thinks that SCO may have a case, and is secretely preparing contingency plans on how to best resolve a potentially harmful and complex situation, thus needing a lot of time.
For the sake of all involved, I hope it is option A !
Re:This is very interesting, (Score:3, Interesting)
I think its most likley A, as SCO have been doing a whole load of talking, and not much else: "We're going to sue you!", "We're really going to sue you!" , "We're really really going to sue you!", "Hey everyone, we're really going to sue them, really!", etc...etc...
I'm expecting IBM to turn up to court with some big ammo; not muc
Aha (Score:5, Funny)
We also suggested design approaches that differ from typical Unix design approaches, to ensure our code would not resemble Unix code.
Hence, the infamous GNU indentation style.Just once... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you keep having to explain to people what the FSF and GNU are on about, then there might be something wrong with the message, not necessarily the messenger.
the short version (Score:5, Funny)
Wrong fight RMS (Score:5, Insightful)
If sucessful GNU software would not be immune. SCO actually claim that code written by 3rd parties is theirs if it's written to a Unix API...
They are a bunch of landgrabbing carpet-baggers.
no, this is the same good fight. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what the Free Software Foundation is all about. SCO, M$ and friends continue their fight to own all ideas. It's what motivated RMS and others to create the free software movement in the early 80's. ATT tried to grab control of other people's work through the use of NDAs. SCO's suit is an audatious attempt to further extend ATT's land grab to independent works by anyone even vaugly familiar with OS concepts ATT develped. ATT was stupid then and lost. SCO is insane today, but they can get away with it if they can dumb down the world with talk of "intelectual property" instead of copyright, patents and trademarks and no one bothers to correct them.
RMS figured out this game years ago, which is why his article is dead on target. It's a good article to show anyone who's interested in free software, afraid of the SCO lawsuit, but only has the average 15 minutes to get their news. Show it to your boss if he asks. If your boss is really into the mess, show them the OSI detailed refutation. Stallman has been getting good about delivering his message in a clear and consise way.
He's persistent (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to admire his persistence with the GNU/label, but I would have to disagree with one of the statements:
"Linux itself is no longer essential"
Which is just egotistical masturbation, the very nature of OSS/FS at this moment in time is focused around Linux almost exclusively in terms of press and business marketing, GNU/hurd or anything else right now could in no way compete with anything Linux has achieved, in terms of market share, popularity and rate of growth.
Not that I don't appreciate what GNU has done, and will continue to-do, it's just that Linux is essential to the community, and OSS in general, hence the amount of heated debate.
a theory? (Score:5, Insightful)
1) MS hates Linux (it is a 'cancer')
2) MS licensed some code from SCO, granting some force to SCO's claims and giving them more money to pursue their lawsuit against IBM
3) SCO will not produce the evidence prior to the case - the offensive Linux code will be kept under wraps until trial time
I think that MS and SCO want to spread FUD for as long as possible, knowing full well that this case won't get anywhere. Even if they do win in court, they are withholding the offensive code because they know once they present it, the Linux community will up and change it. If they were to present it now, Linux can move merrily along (though IBM may still be liable to damages). They want to hurt the GNU/Linux movement for as long as possible though.
Sun = fair weathered friend (Score:5, Interesting)
At first, Sun bashed Linux. When it seemed like Linux was here to say, they decided to praise it and started producing Linux products. After the SCO law suit, Sun jumped on the SCO FUD bandwagon and pushed its products over Linux and AIX as the safe alternative. Iâ(TM)ve decided that from now on, Iâ(TM)ll trust Sun as much as Iâ(TM)ll trust M$.
No not again. (Score:3, Insightful)
RMS did not invent open source or free software. The first programer that offered to give his code to a friend did and it has been going on ever since.
So I guess I should call the OS on my Linux box. GNU/XWindows/Apache/KDE/OpenOffice/Mozilla/LINUX?
What RMS has fame envy. He feels that poor GNU has been forgoten. We like our GNU tools but this whole stamping of feet and chanting "GNU/LINUX" makes RMS look silly. His chance to do something positive was wasted by his little lecture on GNU/LINUX. Most non technical people will say, "Wow Linux must really have IP problems they stole GNUs code as well".
Re:No not again. (Score:5, Insightful)
> GNU/XWindows/Apache/KDE/OpenOffice/Mozilla/LINUX?
Absolutely not.
There are GNU/Linux systems running without XWindows
There are GNU/Linux systems running without Apache
There are GNU/Linux systems running without KDE
There are GNU/Linux systems running without OpenOffice
There are GNU/Linux systems running without Mozilla
There are no GNU/Linux systems running without GNU software.
Re:No not again. (Score:5, Insightful)
There could be an embedded system that is just the kernel and a few tasks that do not use libc. Maybe with busybox for a shell.
Re:No not again. (Score:5, Insightful)
OTOH, Linux is a cool name (because it contains an X), and Linus doesn't care how people pronounce it.
This is only half-joking. I think the name might really have something to do with it.
How it will be settled with IBM and SCO (Score:5, Funny)
This is how it's going to be settled : IBM sends grim looking men in black suits to SCO, and a representative named "Smith" (who looks oddly familiar) confronts Darl Mcbride.
Smith: As you can see, we've had our eye on you for some time now, Mr. Mcbride. It seems that you've been living...two lives. In one life, you're Darl McBride, CEO of what used to be a respectable software company, you have a social security number, you pay your taxes, and you help your landlady carry out her garbage. The other life is lived in lawsuits, where you go around accusing everyone that they are guilty of virtually every computer crime we have a law for. One of these lives has a future, and one of them does not. I'm going to be as forthcoming as I can be, Mr. McBride. You're here because we need you to cut it out. We know that you think you can get your ailing company to be bought out. Now whatever you think you know about intelluctual property laws is irrelevant. You actions are considered by the open source community to be the annoying and disruptive. My colleagues believe that I am wasting my time with you but I believe that you wish to do the right thing. We're willing to wipe the slate clean, give you a fresh start and all that we're asking in return is your cooperation in dropping your stupid lawsuits against IBM.
Darl: Yeah. Wow, that sound like a really good deal. But I think I got a better one. How about I give you the finger... and we see you in court.
Smith: Um, Mr. Mcbride. You disappoint me.
Darl: You can't scare me with this Gestapo crap. We own UNIX IP rights. I want my lawyer.
Smith: And tell me, Mr. Anderson, what good is your IP rights... if your company has violated so many of our patents.
(Smith drops a huge pile of legal papers on the desk with a thud)
Smith: You're going to help us, Mr. McBride whether you want to or not.
(Darl screams hysterically)
Re:How it will be settled with IBM and SCO (Score:3, Funny)
SCO wants to come visit (Score:5, Informative)
How do SCO want to use the discovery process> Darl said: "We get to really shake things up". I don't know what was in Darl's mind when he said that, but I assumed (I'm not a lawyer though!) that discovery was supposed to be about collecting evidence not shaking up IBM's customers. I'm also unclear (the sentence doesn't parse) what Darl means by using discovery as a "vehicle" - again I thought discovery was supposed to be about collecting evidence prior to the case, not used for some other purpose. Anybody care to comment??
There are also some more Darl (longer quotes in more context) on the same subject here [computing.co.uk].
How much do you wanna bet? (Score:3, Interesting)
At that point, RMS steps in and says, "No problem, just install the HURD kernel, and continue on..."
That entire article was basically RMS saying, "But it's only the linux _kernel_, not the system. If you put our kernel in, you are O.K."
So much for defending _all_ GPL software.
Intellectual Peoperty (Score:3, Interesting)
[Intellectual Property] lumps together diverse laws--copyright law, patent law, trademark law and others--which really have little in common.'"
This is true, but in each case "intellectual property" is still a dishonest concept. With Trademarks - it is dishonest, because most trademark violations could better be covered under fraud laws where cases like suing people for painting a mickey mouse on the preschool walls is much less likely. But going after someone who claims to be IBM when they're not is still just as possible.
Copyrights and patents monopolies are dishonest applications of property all together. Both of them restrict what others can do because "I don't have an incentive!". That is a fraud, perhaps I don't have an incentive to grow potatos unless I can rip up your yard and plant some too, perhaps I don't have an incentive to process cotton unless I can own slaves on the plantaion. This kind of logic has resulted in countless murders and atrocities for centuries. I challenge anyone to prove that they have a moral right to restrict what inventions and creative works people can copy and immitate.
GNU/Linux rant to the rescue? (Score:5, Insightful)
Stallman the coder is a man to be respected. Stallman the politician really needs to go away and stop hurting the cause he claims to care so much about.
Until then, I insist everyone refer to him as "MIT/Stallman" and his project as "MIT/GNU" since he wouldn't be where he is now without the space, time, and other resources that MIT has given him over the years.
For short, just call the OS "MIT/Linux", since "MIT/GNU/Linux" to too long. After all, that's why he says that we shouldn't bother calling it "GNU/X/BSD/Apache/MIT/CMU/DEC/HP/Sun/IBM/Red Hat/SuSE/Slackware/Debian Linux". Of course, that's just an abbreviation. The correct name lists all of the contributors and their curren email addresses as well. Credit where credit is due, after all!
I'm going back to my MIT/Linux system now to get some work done!
It's not about the kernel anymore (Score:5, Interesting)
Allow me to go out on a limb. I'm not claiming to know what the next big thing in Linux will be. I'm thinking of what will arrive by, say, 2006: Operating Systems.
OK, I've stated the obvious, right? No, not really.
I either smuggly smirk or bury my head in my hands when Linux Evangelists state that Linux is an OS. It's a kernel. FreeBSD is an OS. Debian is an OS. Gentoo is an OS. It happens that Debian and Gentoo run the same kernel, and a different kernel than FreeBSD.
In other words, the emphasis is going to shift away from what Linus, et. al., are doing with Linux to what others are making from Linux.
Why? The Linux kernel is a groovy, funky piece of technology, and it's the heart of a movement. But hearts don't live outside of rib cages. Kernels don't run without OS's. Companies don't migrate high-end, mission critical servers to OS's that barely run the super-fast kernel beating at its center. They want -- scratch that, they need a full OS that does the job. Whether the kernel is trendy or not doesn't matter in the end.
FreeBSD has shown that a free, stable, solid Unix-like OS system is possible. If not for its license (sorry, BSD license lovers), it might have stood a chance at the top spot in the Free OS world. Debian and Gentoo have shown the first real movement toward something like a complete OS on the Linux side, especially Debian. Deb was first, and it's still around, but it's stodgy to the point of ridiculousness (from the POV of a power user). Thank God for Gentoo.
Sure, Gentoo may not be ready for mission critical servers simply because it offers you the latest, untested code. But power users get their candy and their popped-up engine. And how sweet it is.
For anything that must stay up, that's when Debian wins points for its stodginess. And here's the kicker: you get to choose your kernel.
This is the development that turned on the little light-bulb that floats above my head. This is the future of Linux.
Think about it: Debian runs on the Linux kernel, the Hurd kernel (no chuckling, please), and the NetBSD kernel. So, which OS runs on the most hardware in the world?
Debian! (10 points.) What does this mean? That we're moving away from a kernel-centric universe. It's not which kernel to choose from, it's which OS. A savvy sysadmin can just install Debian everywhere, choosing the kernel that fits the situation. The key phrase won't be: "I must run Linux." It will be: "I must run Debian." Choosing the kernel will secondary to getting the right OS. I doubt it will be long before Debian is joined in this effort by Gentoo or a similar project
So, how does an OS-centric universe differ from a kernel-centric? For one, Richard Stallman might get the recognition he feels has been wrongly given to Linus. For another, "GNU" will be just as important a word as "Linux", which again will make RMS a much happier camper. On a technical level, the emphasis will shift from the sophomoric question of "Do you run Linux?" to "Which OS do you run?" Debian with a 2.2 Linux kernel. Debian with NetBSD. Gentoo with a development kernel. FreeBSD, modified with OpenBSD security, running a NetBSD kernel. Whatever. Hackerdom may offer near unlimited possibilities.
The point is, the whole OS will finally be greater than the sum of its parts. Watch for the Linux kernel to lose prominence (slightly) as OS's that offer specific features (stability, the latest-and-greatest, etc.) begin to move to the forefront of user consciousness. Watch for a port of Gentoo to include a non-Linux kernel; watch for Debian to support a fourth kernel; watch for a commerical product that produces custom OS's based on Free and Open Source software that emphasizes the Linux kernel without excluding other options.
Yes, Linux Evangelists will kick and scream, but for the wrong reasons. If this scenario comes to pass, the world will be filled a much better breed operating systems than we have now.
Linux itself is no longer essential: the GNU system became popular in conjunction with Linux, but today it also runs with two BSD kernels and the GNU kernel.
- RMS, June 23, 2003
Nice to beat RMS to the punch.
Impressive (Score:5, Insightful)
The world is a bit better place because of RMS.
ttyl
Farrell
the rest should be silence (Score:5, Insightful)
People who buy stocks can and will not understand the issue at hand. All they know is they hear the name SCO alot in the news, so something must be going on.
You should help fight this too. If someone of who you know that he/she is not technical asks about SCO (since, well you seem to talk alot about linux and they have something to do with the matter too it seems), shrug, and tell them 'Isn't that some lawyer company trying to pull a scam on IBM', do NOT start talking about IP,copyright, rights to the source code etc.... Come here to
I can see the replies coming in already 'How often can RMS rehash the same old story','I'll call linux whatever I want it','RMS is such a zealot','I don't know RMS but I'll whine anyway'.
Thanks to people like RMS we HAVE a system such as GNU/Linux. It's easy to have critique, but I think very few of us were sleeping "at the office" 20 years ago coding to make a better world.
His strict "zealotry" has made sure that at this moment it is almost certain that the GNU project is clean, since it written from an ethical perspective
Obviously it is very important to re-re-re-rehash the same old story over and over again, since people still don't get it. A bigger percentage of the slashdot crowd might, but "normal" people don't. To them it should be explained, nice and easy, what the difference between GNU/Linux and Linux is,and what exactly the word "free" entails when it comes to software. Ignorance breeds fear, and fear leads to free FUD and rising stocks.
RMS doesn't need to call it GNU/Linux for his own personal ego. He is already a known icon. He is asking, not telling, you to honour the thought of freedom that stands behind the GNU-os, and also to honour his co-workers at the GNU foundation, and try to put them into the spotlight a bit more.
I for one, am gratefull he spoke up, even against what I just advised here. I , in fact, did need a reminder that when people start throwing terms together in the word IP they usually don't know what they are talking about. I'm not a lawyer, and don't know exactly how all the assets like copyright, patents etc.. work, but fortunately most judges
If all else fails, just remember, "GNU's not UNIX", and build your own little green rosetta.
Can't see the forest for the trees... (Score:5, Insightful)
And as he points out in the column, it can now be replaced, if the situation were irreconcilable. I think the point of his article is that Free Software is bigger than this case and will continue.
I think he did a fairly good job of writing that without saying "I told you so" about proprietary companies.
-t
This quote nicely sums up my question... (Score:5, Insightful)
This was my initial thought when the whole SCO nonsense came to light. If the sold a Linux distribution with a GPL license that included their code, isn't that the same as releasing their code under the GPL?
I initially thought it must be an over-simplification. However, in light of the above quote, maybe it is that simple. If I were sitting on the jury for that case, that's certainly how I would see it.
What if the sco case was on irc? (Score:5, Funny)
<SCO> w00t! i bought unix! im gonna b so rich!
<novell>
<novell> whoops. was that out loud?
<atnt> rotfl
<ibm> lol
<SCO> why r u laffin at me?
<novell> dude, unix is so 10 years ago. linux is in now.
<SCO> wtf?
<SCO> hey guyz, i bought caldera, I have linux now.
<red_hat> haha, your linux sucks.
<novell> lol
<atnt> lol
<ibm> lol
<SCO> no wayz, i will sell more linux than u!
<ibm> your linux sucks, you should look at SuSE
<SuSE> Ja. Wir bilden gutes Linux für IBM.
<SCO> can we do linux with you?
<SuSE> Ich bin nicht sicher...
<ibm> *cough*
<SuSE> Gut lassen Sie uns vereinigen.
* SuSE is now SuSE[UL]
* SCO is now caldera[UL]
<turbolinux> can we play?
<conectiva> we're bored... we'll go too.
<ibm> sure!
* turbolinux is now turbolinux[UL]
* conectiva is now conectiva[UL]
<ibm> redhat: you should join!
<SuSE[UL]> Ja! Wir sind vereinigtes Linux. Widerstand ist vergeblich.
<red_hat> haha. no.
<red_hat> lamers.
<ibm> what about you debian?
<debian> we'll discuss it and let you know in 5 years.
<caldera[UL]> no one wants my linux!
<turbolinux[UL]> i got owned.
<caldera[UL]> u all tricked me. linux is lame.
* caldera[UL] is now known as SCO
<SCO> i'm going back to unix.
<SGI> yeah! want to do unix with me?
<SCO> haha. no. lamer.
<novell> lol
<ibm> snap!
<SGI>
<SCO> hey, u shut up. im gonna sue u ibm.
<ibm> wtf?
<SCO> yea, you stole all the good stuff from unix.
<red_hat> lol
<SuSE[UL]> heraus laut lachen
<ibm> lol
<SCO> shutup. i'm gonna email all your friends and tell them you suck.
<ibm> go ahead. baby.
<SCO> andandand... i revoke your unix! how do you like that?
<ibm> oh no, you didn't. AIX is forever.
<novell> actually, we still own unix, you can't do that.
<SCO> wtf? we bought it from u.
<novell> whoops. our bad.
<SCO> i own u. haha
<SCO> ibm: give me all your AIX now!
<ibm> whatever. lamer.
* ibm sets mode +b SCO!*@*
* SCO has been kicked from #os (own this.)
Re:What if the sco case was on irc? (Score:5, Informative)
And if you want to be realy "informative" quote the right source [livejournal.com].
Intellectual Property (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, it's true that SCO is being fuzzy with regards to Intellectual Property. They've been making noises about vigorously protecting their "Intellectual Property", as technologists-turned-litigators are wont to do, whereas in actual practice it seems they're taking the stance, "we have enough piles of legal crap here that we're sure we can sue someone for something fairly big".
Even so, I think Stallman's "thou shalt not use this language in this manner" decrees are not only futile and tedious, but wrong in an important respect. The perception that intangible abstractions like names, ideas, and images can be considered property is not because of widespread use of the term "Intellectual Property"; rather, I submit that the cause and effect are the other way around. After generations of ever-increasing patent, copyright and trademark restrictions, why wouldn't people start thinking in terms of "Intellectual Property"? It's a well-ingrained cultural norm by now! Copyright infringement isn't theft, but we've been treating ideas as property for so long that it's not a distinction that's clear in people's minds anymore. They'll forget it for a moment when they violate copyright for their own convenience ("it's not hurting anyone"), but people are, by and large, of the opinion that it's wrong to "steal ideas".
It's not immediately clear to me (in the space of one Slashdot posting) how we can reverse this trend. How do we remind people that "Intellectual Property" is actually "Intellectual Privilege"? These "rights" are supposed to exist in order to benefit the public, not to protect private interests. People aren't outraged by the perpetual extension of copyright terms because they've been born in an environment where people own ideas, and it seems reasonable that people shouldn't have their property taken from them. Simply insisting that "Intellectual Property" is wrong-thinking doesn't suffice, because when you look at the law as-is, "Intellectual Property" is exactly what you have.
Notice something.... (Score:5, Insightful)
RMS is right on topic (Score:5, Insightful)
RMS has spent the last 20 years building structures designed almost exactly to avoid this kind of debacle, in which a widely-used piece of free software falls victim to spurious but dangerously credible IP allegations. Remember Unix?
What SCO are doing (with or without MS's help) is putting OSS at serious risk. RMS has defined a fire corridor, putting the Linux kernel on one side and all the rest on the other.
Software is incredibly easy to mix up, we hate making boundaries and we love to apply generalistic labels. The fact is that this is a dangerous convenience. GNU (to take one example) represents a vast investment of effort. Being mixed with Linux into one convenient box is not simply frustrating for the GNU team, it also puts GNU at risk. And I don't think I would stand by and watch my life's work being put at risk without speaking out.
RMS has the right of reply, after SCO published his misquoted text.
Shame, shame, and more shame on those of you who do not respect this man. He is one of the geniuses of our age, a rare and valuable mind. Go home, build one good and solid tool, read the GPL, and consider what it means to dedicate your life to protecting the concept of free software.
He makes it sound like... (Score:5, Funny)
Look up "bigotry" at dictionary.com (Score:4, Insightful)
I give RMS his due resepct. They guy has done the work of a titan, and been instrumental in providing all of us with something great.
Talking to humans is part of the job. It's just another task, you're a programmer, learn the freakin' language! So the OS you're writing for is wet, squishy, and inconsistent? Fine; it's a flaky language. But if you're going to use it, use it right.
To all who act as spokespersons for the freedom in general and free software in particular:
When you speak in the popular press, (ZD-Net is not 2600.com, folks!): Try not to make us look like the whackjobs!
Really, people. How seriously does the mainstream take the Libertarian Party? How effective are they in real-world politics? Do you really want that for all of us?
Nice to know someone else see Clear..... (Score:4, Interesting)
In fact his is a bit easy going.
A real hard ass would have a class action lawsuit going on against SCO for all the dishonest and outright intentional damage SCO is causing.
But it is so interesting how such a short and honest article can put down and bring clairity to the endless crap in and around SCO vs. IBM...
RTFA (Score:5, Funny)
love,
RMS
Re:Well that was pretty worthless (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish folks would just stop with the GNU/Linux junk.
In this specific dispute with SCO, we're not talking about the userland tools but about the kernel itself. I seem to remember someone named Linus calling the kernel just plain "Linux" and trademarking it to that effect.
As for distributions, they can call their product whatever they want. If they include self-licensed elements, I can see why they wouldn't want to name it "X/Perl/Apache/BSD/Mozilla/GNU/Linux". I'm personally glad that Red Hat hasn't succumbed to the annoying GNU/affectation. "Red Hat Linux" says what customers need to hear, and no more.
Re:Well that was pretty worthless (Score:5, Insightful)
"Red Hat Linux" says what customers need to hear, and no more.
Unlike many here, I have a great deal of respect for Stallman, both as a programmer and as a philosopher of software.
However, "Red Hat Linux", "Mandrake Linux" etc. not only tell customers what they need to hear, IMO they're fundamentally more accurate descriptions of the operating systems in question.
While I certainly agree that the OS running on my machines really shouldn't be called Linux, since Linux is only one small piece of the whole, I think it's equally inaccurate to call it GNU/Linux. How much GNU software is really in there? In any typical desktop Linux-based OS distro?
Trying to figure out how much of an OS is GNU, how much is Linux and how much is other stuff inevitably leads to the question: What, exactly, is an OS? It seems to me that there are several reasonable places to draw that line, but, anywhere you put it you end up with some Linux, some GNU and some other stuff. It doesn't seem to me that it's possible to build a complete, functioning system that contains nothing but GNU tools and Linux. AFAIK, GNU doesn't provide a version of /sbin/init, etc., so a pure GNU/Linux system couldn't even boot. (Does HURD have it's own boot system?)
There's no doubting that GNU software plays an important role, but it seems to me that all of the other software is also important to making a usable system. As such, I think pedants who want to name things accurately should refer to the distro, since that name does encapsulate all of the bits and pieces, as well as recognizing the people who did the work of putting it all together.
Re:Well that was pretty worthless (Score:5, Informative)
If RMS hadn't started done the GNU project way back when he did, we would still be working out zillions of bugs in things like ls, rm, mv, getty, etc., instead of having a full-fledged unix-like OS ready to go with the Linux kernel when it came into being.
Sure, RMS may be somewhat of a wack-job at times, and I don't agree with him all the time either, but lets give credit where it's due. It was due to his vision and hard work that Linux was ABLE to take off and start flying high right away instead of floundering around in the muck for a long time.
Re:Well that was pretty worthless (Score:5, Informative)
The reason that linux took off and HURD did not, was not at all due to the incomepence of the programmers, but is an interesting study in software engineering. In all the CS classes I have had they stressed how important is was to design everything first and then code - which is what the HURD team did. Linus's approach was different. He starting with something simple, and then improved it (call this iterative programming, agile programming, whatever - it's the same thing).
It turns out that traditional software engineering doesn't scale very well, and that this iterative approach is actually more effecient. This seems strange - you would think that doing everything right from the beginning would be better then having to rewrite large portions of the code with each itteration, but that is assuming that it is actually possible to get the design correct on the first try - it isn't. Large software programs can be very complex and expecting to be able to design something as big as an OS on the first shot is like expecting Henry Ford to design a car like we have today on his first shot. He didn't, and the cars we have today are the result of decades of design iterations. We shouldn't expect software to be any different.
In addition, Linus was the first to stumble upon the benifits of distributed open source development - which go hand-in-hand with iterative programming because other programmers rarely get interested in an open source program until you have something working - which linux did and the HURD did not.
But the HURD team had no way of knowing about that, and you can't blame them for writing software using the best methods that anyone knew at the time.
P.S.
People always raise the point of the HURD being a micro kernal vs linux being a modular monolithic kernal, but I think that had little effect on slowing the development compared to these other two issues.
Re:Okay, mod me down (Score:5, Interesting)
BTW, what is it with your critisism of the way RMS looks? When you've contributed enough to the community that people will care to listen to your opinion then you can have a little picture of you posted next to your articles and we can all have a good laugh about the way you look.
Re:Okay, mod me down (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Okay, mod me down (Score:5, Insightful)
I note he didn't use GNU/NetBSD?
Had you actually tried to understand RMS's message, you'd have noticed that in the two instances he mentioned *BSD in this article, he was talking about the Kernel only - had he talked about the whole system, I'm quite sure he'd have used GNU/*BSD.
I really don't understand people here raving about RMS, he does have a clear position and is consistent with his beliefs - much more than can be said about most other people. I've seen him at FOSDEM in Brussels, where he made an excellent impression IMHO.
Who cares what he looks like? (Score:3, Insightful)
rms is certainly a quirky character, with idiosyncrasies that some may find offensive. But any fair observer must agree he has worked his ass o
Re:Okay, mod me down (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Okay, mod me down (Score:5, Insightful)
Back when AT&T owned UNIX, some of the UNIX source was released freely, and the rest was rewritten by the educational community and released freely as well.
BSD (Berkeley Standard Distribution, as in the University of California at Berkeley, as I recall) is UNIX-based, through and through, since it derives heavily from "UNIX", which at the time was the OS owned by AT&T.
The BSDs "forked" from UNIX proper, and later branched into Open, Net, FreeBSD, et. al.
In the early 1980's, RMS (among others) realized that since UNIX was a commercially owned and controlled OS, certain freedoms were lost. In order to prevent this from being a future limitation, he started GNU, which, again, means GNU's Not UNIX.
GNU includes much more than just GCC -- such as the standard command-line utils (GNU textutils, binutils, ls, sed, etc. are used by most [all?] distributions of operating systems using Linux as their kernel, for instance). Much of the base system, which other programs depend on to run (this includes the C library itself, a central part of any UNIX-like system).
GNU's software includes everything that a UNIX-like OS needs, except for a kernel. That's the "Linux" part.
Now, again, the BSDs came from UNIX (so, BSD Was UNIX, you could say). This includes the BSD kernels, libraries, and command-line utilities.
The only GNU major component that the BSDs use is GCC.
RMS doesn't insist on GNU/NetBSD for the same reason that nobody insists on calling it DevStudio/Windows XP -- it'd be idiotic, since an OS is much more than just the compiler which built it (which is NetBSD's relation to GNU tools). He insists on GNU/Linux because GNU is the operating system proper, and Linux is the kernel on which it runs. Insisting on calling it GNU/Linux is like insisting that Apple call their OS "MacOS" or "MacOS/BSD" instead of just "BSD" -- there's much more to an OS than the kernel, and it wouldn't make sense to call Apple's newest OS "BSD" just because of the kernel itself.
If you really, really don't think that GNU is that important, go install a base installation of your favorite "Linux-based" distro (Debian's base system is roughly 15 MB worth of
Now, look at exactly what is installed. How much of it is GNU? Here's a quick list utilities which contain either an "@gnu.org" email address or an FSF copyright notice in their --help output on a Debian-based router that I administer:
[ a2ps aclocal aclocal-1.5 addr2line ar as autoconf autoheader autom4te automake automake-1.5 autopoint autoreconf autoscan autoupdate awk basename bash bashbug bc bison build-prc c++ c++filt card cat catchsegv cc cg_annotate chgrp chmod chown cksum cmp comm cp cpp csplit cut date dch dd df diff diff3 dir dircolors dscverify du echo env expand expr factor false find fixps flea fmt fold g++ gawk gcc gccbug gcov gdb gencat getconf getent gettext gettextize git gitaction gitkeys gitmount gitrgrep gitunpack glibcbug gnut gpg gpgsplit gpgv gprof grep grep-excuses groff groups gunzip gzexe gzip head hindent hostid i386-linux-cpp i386-linux-g++ i386-linux-gcc iconv id ifnames igawk info infobrowser infokey install join ld ldd libtool libtoolize link ln locale localedef locate logname ls make makeinfo md5sum.textutils mergechanges mkdir mkfifo mknod msgattrib msgcat msgcmp msgcomm msgconv msgen msgexec msgfilter msgfmt msggrep msginit msgmerge msgunfmt msguniq mtrace mutt muttbug mv nano nawk nice nl nm nohup objcopy objdump od paste patch pathchk pdiff pgawk pinky pr printenv printf psmandup psset ptx pwd ranlib rbash rcs2log readelf readlink rm rmdir screen sdiff sed seq sh sha1sum shred size sleep slrn sort split stat strings strip stty sum sync tac tack tail tar tee test texi2dvi texi2dvi4a2ps texi2html texindex touch t
Re:Okay, mod me down (Score:4, Funny)
Re:off topic (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely all of us can see that there is a big difference between the kernel and everything else that sits on top of it. Is SCO's lawsuit relevant to Gimp, for example? Or /bin/ls?
The real world considers "linux" as an entire package. SCO, even in their wildest dreams, won't be able to force me to move from Apache to IIS.
But SCO has stated that they think Linux will still exist, but not be free (cost) anymore. Now if they did in some twisted universe win, do you really think everyone won't just flee to BSD (which just happens to have a heck of a lot of GNU stuff on top of it as well).
Re:off topic (Score:5, Funny)
Well, it's actually more relevant to
MadCow.
Re:Calm down everyone, it's just RMS as usual (Score:5, Insightful)
HE REALLY goes out of his way to point out that GNU does not have the problems that the LINUX kernel does. Well he is going to be REALLY surprised because SCO has made comments that they might go after the BSD's as well.
Is RMS right? I think not. If it was not LINUX, then it would have been FreeBSD, and if not that then [Fill in OS here]. Why? Because Linux has the momentum and it pisses SCO off. Essentially this is what it is about. SCO thinks they own UNIX and they are pissed that they are going to go bankrupt!
He in a way is as dangerous as SCO because he is not exactly proping up Linux or IBM! And that makes me more nervous that anything else. Because at this point in time we need to come together and focus and eradicate this problem. Not talk about how GNU will never die, BLAH, BLAH... But at least we have ESR!
Re:Calm down everyone, it's just RMS as usual (Score:5, Insightful)
And I don't really like your remark about "filthy" socialists. I'm guessing you're from the US, but where I live, it's still considered normal to have political ideals - we're at least far away from calling it "filthy". This isn't meant to be a flamebait, but I DO feel offended, and I felt I had to let you know, cuz well, I don't like that.
Re:Calm down everyone, it's just RMS as usual (Score:4, Insightful)
GNU and Linux may have grown up together, but they weren't born in the same house... or even in the same neighborhood. Linux became popular practically IMMEDIATELY. GNU's still kinda working on it.
About your rant about filthy socialists... Um... RMS looks filthy, and from his past remarks, he tends to be socialist. The parent's comment was 100% accurate. At no point did he say that all socialists were hippies, or that all filthy people were socialists. I know quite a few filthy SOB's that aren't socialists. He also didn't say (per se) that socialism was bad, even though historically, there's never been a country that survived for very long in socialism.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? (Score:5, Interesting)
Did you even read the article?
If so, you are being profoundly obtuse, perhaps deliberately so, or perhaps merely so blinded by your hatred of Richard Stallman that you cannot see past your own prejudices and comprehend what he actually wrote.
Richard Stallman has always been a stickler for licenses and for nomenclature. His entire GNU/Linux v. Linux crusade boils down to nomenclature: he is a pendant about differentiating between one projecct (the linux kernel) and another (the GNU system of utilities and programs that makes up the rest of what we consider a basic *nix-like operating system). Right or wrong, his entire GNU/Linux bit is about clarity, the antithes of the 'newspeak' you accuse him of speaking, newspeak epitomized by terms such as "intellectual property" and nearly all of the drivel eminating from Redmond and Utah.
Indeed, his entire article is about clarity with respect to the $CO nonsense, and how that clarity requires a clear, concise, and above all accurate use of language to be achieved.
He is absolutely correct in pointing out that, outside of the court room, $CO's entire strategy is one of muddying the waters and playing up anti-freedom stereotypes ('free software developers' == 'napster', i.e. giving away your own work == violating the copyrights of others, etc.). Their press releases constantly mix up trademark law ($CO does not own the UNIX trademark, the Open Group does), copyright law (Novell and IBM appear to own the copyrights in question), patent law (Novell and IBM again own the patants in question, not $CO), and contract law under one heading: "Intellectual Property."
RMS is absolutely correct in emphesizing that muddy language leads to muddy thinking, and with respect to $CO, using muddy terms such as "IP/Intellectual Property" and throwing all kinds of radically different legislative regimes into one pot inevitably plays into the hands of those who seek to sow confusion, fear, uncertaintly, and doubt, namely Microsoft and their current lackey, $CO.
He is correct in pointing out that this irresponsible misuse of terminology is getting us into trouble, and being used by $CO's propogandists masterfully. He is also right to point out that much of the confusion as to what part of the operating system (the linux kernel, other utilities, or what have you) were being targeted result from an obfuscation between was in Linux (the kernel) and what is not (the GNU system, xfree, etc.).
In short, he is right, our use of language is important if we wish to discuss and think about issues as complex as these in a coherent manner, and your ad homonem attack doesn't change that in the least.
And since his article deals with the importance of clarity in the use of language when discussing and dissecting the $CO FUD campaign, no one should be surprised that he isn't discussing free v. open or the GNU community as such, since that particular tangent is off topic for this discussion (and obviously brought up by you for the sole purpose of propogating negative stereotypes about the man and his views).
Re:http://public.planetmirror.com/pub/ancient-unix (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who cares if Linux has SCO owned code? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean look at it this way, however unlikely it is lets say SCO managed to kill the Linux "system" and get that to encompass GNU stuff. It would n't affect just Linux it would effect anything with GNU stuff in it and that's ALOT of systems and not all of them are OSS.
The problem with SCO is that they keep moving the goal posts. One of their later arguments is that they claim that anyone who developes a "Unix-like" operating system owes them money. Infact they take it further saying that Unix is the basis of all modern OS's and in that respect that can go after anyone including presumably MS.
Re:Wow... (Score:3, Interesting)
You're confusing two things. RMS newspeak (GNUspeak?) means exactly squat. Maybe a dozen hippies worldwide care about it, and Linus isn't one of them. What does count is his paranoid-bordering-on-schitzophrenic obsession with making sure that GNU's Not Unix is true in fact as well as rhetoric.
He'll get his though. Sooner or later, one of the GNU (not Linux) contributors who hasn't assigned copyright to the FSF will go off in a huff, send a cease-and-desist, explicitely revoke the implicitely licensed
Re:Broken Record (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Broken Record (Score:5, Insightful)
He's not addressing Slashdot, he's addressing the slightly technically inclined people who read technical headlines on Ziff Davis's network. Those slightly technically inclined people include managers and CEOs.
Moreover, how many times do we have to hear the RMS bashing? Yes, his ideals are extreme, but where do you think the free software community would be without such extreme, uncompromising ideals?
I, for one, laud the man for being so steadfast especially in the face of so much opposition. It takes courage and conviction to be true to one's ideals in our largely hypocritical world.
Re:Broken Record (Score:5, Insightful)
And moderators: since when is whining about rms "Insightful"? I've read this identical comment every time rms says anything in the last two years. Insightful implies something new has been discerned and expressed. Sheesh.