Slashdot Log In
Stephen Fry Helps GNU Celebrate 25th Birthday
Posted by
timothy
on Tue Sep 02, 2008 08:40 AM
from the even-at-double-the-price dept.
from the even-at-double-the-price dept.
Virgil Tibbs writes "The GNU operating system is turning 25 this year, and the Free Software Foundation has kicked off its month-long celebration of the anniversary by releasing 'Happy Birthday to GNU,' a short film featuring the English humorist, actor, novelist and filmmaker Stephen Fry. In the five-minute film, Fry compares the free software operating system to 'good science' and contrasts it with the 'kind of tyranny' imposed by the proprietary software produced by companies like Microsoft and Apple that it replaces. He encourages people to use free GNU/Linux distributions like gNewSense and free software generally, for freedom's sake."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Stephen Fry... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stephen Fry... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's no way to talk about Alan Davies, who is after all a foil for Stephen to show how astoundingly clever, witty and educated he is.
Parent
Re:Stephen Fry... (Score:4, Informative)
If you're a fan of Mr Fry and haven't read his blog or (especially) heard his podcast you're in for a pleasant surprise if you click his name in the summary above.
My excuse for not knowing about them until last month is that his presence on Antipodean television is regrettably meagre.
Parent
Re:Stephen Fry... (Score:4, Funny)
Thou shalt not question Stephen Fry [youtube.com].
I'm really delighted to see this. Fry's been on my list of "ten humans most entitled to space on this planet" for a long, long time (since Professor Donald Trefusis, in fact) but his sad devotion to that ancient religion (Apple) has long niggled at me. Welcome to the fold, Stephen, may your code always be Free! :)
Parent
Re:Stephen Fry... (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps he appreciates their aesthetics, and shared such appreciation with Douglas Adams, who preferred them? It's possible to see Apple as both a remarkable design company with an excellent array of well-made gadgets, and equally a tyrannical business who refuses to open their specifications.
He is, after all, an intellectual, and capable of seeing more than one side to something.
Parent
Re:Stephen Fry... (Score:4, Informative)
"The two great pillars of Open Source are the GNU project and Linux. I shan't burden you with too much detail, I'll just make the outrageous claim that your computer will be running some descendant of those two within the next five years and that your life will be better and happier as a result."
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
See that Jerry? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the way to do it!
gnu site is slow (Score:5, Informative)
Fortunately, utube have it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dcxtEKShXA [youtube.com]
Re:gnu site is slow (Score:4, Funny)
The proper name is Gnu/Tube since it is using Gnu content.
Parent
Re:gnu site is slow (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:gnu site is slow (Score:4, Funny)
From the Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 [creativecommons.org] license page:
Your fair use and other rights are in no way affected by the above.
I'd take that to mean that transcoding to place on YouTube is explicitly allowed. In fact, reading the actual license terms, it appears that "webcasting" is explicitly allowed provided the entire clip is included, so I'd take that to mean that transcoding is OK.
The missing copyright notice and lack of link to the license, on the other hand, would seem to be in violation...
(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and as with all legal advice on Slashdot, this is just mindless speculation by someone who's never taken a law class. Well, except for that one law class I did take, but I can't remember what it was about, so I guess it doesn't count.)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Thanks to Asheesh Laroia, Tim Dobson, Jason Hoffman, Steve Pomeroy, Matt Mullenweg, FooCorp/Bytemark Hosting and Paul Robinson for providing these mirrors.
The party will be Wilder than the Oscars (Score:4, Funny)
Make mine a stiff one Stephen.
nuisance (Score:3, Funny)
Used it? :) (Score:4, Informative)
I encountered this debate, and to solve it, reviewed [tdobson.net] it!
I found it pretty good!
You now can get IceCat.
I don't find gNewSense any more hard to get along with than $foo distribution.
Parent
What OS now? (Score:3, Insightful)
The GNU OS? What, Herd?
Oh, we're talking about Linux. You know, I'm not sure if Linus has changed his tune, but last I heard he didn't even like calling it Gnu/Linux (and as he's the kernel's primary author and maintainer, I tend to give his point of view some respect on that issue). Going the extra step and taking Linux out of the name altogether, though, is just plain intellectual dishonesty. Linux is not a GNU OS -- much less "The GNU OS". It is an OS that uses GNU utilities.
Re:What OS now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Try using Linux without GNU tools.
Now try using GNU tools on other OSes. Which needs the other more? I'd think erring towards calling 'GNU' is actually more correct, but anyway, if you bothered to listen to the video Stephen does go on to describe Linux and GNU as the two central pillars of the free software movement.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Try using Linux without GNU tools.
Now try using GNU tools on other OSes."
That's exactly the point. The GNU tools are not the OS, and in fact can be used by many OS's, exactly as you say. They are a very nice compliment to Linux, though.
"Which needs the other more?"
Note that you can run Linux without the Gnu tools (or any similar toolset); but you cannot run the Gnu tools without a kernel. So, which needs the other more?
Though you seem to imply it, what you're observing is not a structural dependency of
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nothing you said contradicts the parent poster. GNU wrote a lot of utilities, but their attempt at an OS was Hurd and it failed. Linux was created by Linus Torvalds and heavily leverages GNU tools, but is not GNU's OS. The whole point of Free Software, by the way, is for people like Torvalds to be able to copy the source and do wonderful things with it. It's pretty disingenuous to then turn around and assert naming rights over someone else's creation.
Re:What OS now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Take a look at the average Linux distribution. Count the total amount of source code from Linux. Now count the total contribution from the GNU project. It's probably somewhere between one and two orders of magnitude bigger. You can trivially replace the kernel. In Debian you can replace the Linux kernel with a FreeBSD kernel with Linux system call compatibility, and no one will notice. Try removing all of the GNU code and see if people still think it's the same operating system. I'm not just talking about the shell (although most 'Linux' init scripts are full of bashisms, so good luck booting without the GNU shell), or the GNU loader (good luck running any programs without that. You could use statically-linked binaries, although that would be hard without the GNU linker). I'm not even just talking about the GNU core utilities (you know, the ones POSIX and SUS say every compliant operating system must include), or the C compiler. I'm not even just talking about GNU libc, which is almost as much code as the kernel by itself. I'm talking about all of these. The things that take a kernel and turn it into a usable system.
If you really think that the Linux kernel is important, try building a POSIX-compliant system without it. Or don't, just look at any of the half-dozen Free Sofware operating systems which manage it already. Then try building one without any GNU tools. Even Darwin / OS X includes a big chunk of GNU code. I think OpenSolaris can just about function without any GNU code (although the Solaris utilities are so horrible it's only really tolerable with the GNU ones installed over the top). Building a Linux-based system without any GNU code is even harder - I don't know of anyone who has managed it.
Parent
Re:What OS now? (Score:4, Funny)
Really, the problem is both names are inadequate. However, given the choice, I prefer GNU.
As a Mennonite, I have a serious problem with anything named after a human being such a central part of my life. It smacks too much of idolatry.
As a free software advocate, I have a problem with naming such a wide-reaching project with so many contributors after a single man. Something like Debian is a little better, since at least it's a tribute to two people.
On the other hand, we have an operating system named after a wildebeest. Actually, I was going to end this on a note that something like "humanity towards others" really makes the most sense for a FOSS OS (that would be Ubuntu for those of you just tuning in.) However, Wildebeest sounds like something I could get behind. That's a good name.
Parent
Re:What OS now? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I was comparing the role of MS software to the role of GNU software.
There are many products out there that would not exist without the MS utilities; yet things built with those tools are not somehow "Microsoft"-branded.
The AC to whom I was replying suggested that the Linux developers' use of GNU tools was a reason to brand Linux as a GNU project. It is not.
Re:What OS now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody (not even RMS) is trying to brand Linux as a GNU project. What they *have* been trying to include is the GNU brand into the entire working system. In fact RMS is very careful to point out that the kernel is *not* part of GNU.
If you are just downloading the kernel, then I don't think *anyone* would suggest that you call it anything other than Linux. But what on earth would you do with it? Do you understand what the kernel does? You'd have absolutely no way of interacting with your computer! Even if you add X, you couldn't bloody run it without a shell.
There are a whole host of other programs that need to run in order for you to do *anything at all*. Now, you don't have to use GNU for these programs. There are many other programs you *could* use. But almost everyone uses GNU (and not just with the Linux kernel). The fact that it is so ubiquitous has kind of led it to be invisible. Which is why they are trying to point out that they exist.
I've thought about it a long time. I'm careful to give GNU and the FSF proper credit for their role. And I'm technical enough to truly understand what that role is. But as your continued posts show exceedingly well, most others have no understanding at all -- even when it is explained to them.
So I think it's not an effective thing to be doing. The FSF should probably understand the huge contribution they have made and resign themselves to the fact that most others won't understand. Whether it is fair or not, I don't think we're going to change this reality.
Parent
When I read "The GNU operating system" (Score:4, Funny)
Most disappointing. (Score:4, Insightful)
I watched this and felt it was an opportunity lost. While Stephen's presentation was as impeccable as always, the content was distinctly lacking.
Firstly it was provided in the Ogg format. Yes, I know that's a "free" format, but what it isn't is a populist format. If you want to introduce new people to the tenets of GNU then providing them with a file format that is only used by the faithful is utterly pointless. Multiple formats including ogg would be the only sensible way to do this. I dare say more sensible people will distribute it in other formats, but it's an indicative triumph of pedantry over good sense.
Then the editing itself was somewhat amateurish. Those cuts to still photographs were pointless, irritating, and somewhat random. Even where they were somewhat pertinent (stephen talking about his first computer) they didn't seem to be correct (I may be wrong, but I doubt he started out with an IBM PC).
The tedious "Gnu/Linux" thing came up again. The childish demands that we call it that make the FSF look petty. It isn't accurate either - I have at least as much Apache, MIT, Mozilla, and BSD software on this machine as GNU and I'm damned if I'm going to pick a less elegant name just for Stallman's self-aggrandizement. We call it Linux because that's the major distinguishing feature. We'd call it GNU if they'd written a complete operating system. They didn't, so we don't. Get over it.
Finally as apparently novice users we are pointed to gNewSense, a distribution with virtually no mind-share and little community to support neophytes.
Loud klaxon, -100 points. Perhaps Alan Davies can take a swing at it?
Re:Most disappointing. (Score:5, Funny)
I loved the fact that they actually described that GNU meant 'GNU is Not UNIX'. Stephen Fry goes on to say that 'it's a bit like Unix, but not quite'. The Windows user is sitting there asking, what the fuck is Unix?
Oh, and Alan Davies would recommend compiling Slackware with no help from the community as a good way to get started.
Parent
Right, so you wish to claim linux is 25 this year? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because this is about GNU, not linux. There is a very real and important difference. Linux is a kernel, GNU is a set of tools that you can use NOT just with linux but with all sorts of unixes including of course BSD.
But because a lot of people have no idea about what GNU is, we should pamper to them and call it something completely different, adding a couple of years to a linux distro. If they had celebrated the 25th birthday of Linux you would no doubt be pointing out that linux ain't 25.
Parent
Sigh, feeding the trolls (Score:5, Insightful)
That toolset is what GNU, at first at least was. All the thousands of utilities that people think made up the OS once, in the days of the commandline OS.
Today it is far more complex, does a graphical shell, such as OSX, Windows, KDE count as part of the OS, or is it program that is run under the OS? Perhaps to make it clear is that until recently Microsoft had the graphical shell run on top of DOS. In the various GNU/Linux distro's this is still the case although quite a few distro's try to hide this by hiding the kernel output so that the user never sees anything but a number of graphical displays until they are in their favorite window manager.
So depending on your definition of what IS an operating system the statement in the movie that the GNU OS is 25, is correct.
Car anology, you use the steering wheel to operate the wheels, this is obvious and clear cut, but where you draw the line between the part that control the wheels and the wheels themselves? Is there even a line because you could also say that the wheel+wheels together allow you to control the car.
But of course, the trolls now are happily hammering on the fact that Hurd is still a dream and that Richard Stallman is claiming things that aren't true. Well they have to of course because they can't put a dent into the fact that GNU tools are an essential part of linux, BSD, OS-X. We forget just how often we use simple GNU tools every day we use one of these operating systems.
It is like a car nut who thinks the rubber on his wheels is not important.
25 years ago, when nobody had yet heard of Linus Torvald, long before DRM and the RIAA, one guy had a vision of free software, software not controlled by anyone company but by the community. It was a revolutionary idea in a time when you rented all your computer access and most people still thought computers where things in big boxes that bleeped and one company even thought that the market for the PC could be counted on the fingers of one hand. Long before Microsoft and WGA, Richard Stallman saw that free software might be the only way to give us some measure of control over who owned the information age.
That is an achievement and something to celebrate. So, the GNU kernel is still missing in action, that is why this movie talks about both GNU the OS and Linux the kernel working together.
But I suppose it is the nature of trolls to latch onto one tiny details and then blow it out of proportion.
Congrats GNU, here is to the next 25 years of software free from whatever the likes of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs wish to impose on us next.
Look at who his father is, then understand (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That probably had something to do with it. He's also had some techie friends.
The only reason one would be surprised is if one didn't know anything about him but the occasional comedy show on telly. He has written loads of columns on techie stuff. Here's [guardian.co.uk] a sample of the stuff he's writing currently. Seriously, this guy is one of us.
The uber-geek (Score:3, Interesting)
He has a Mac in that video! (Score:3, Insightful)
Note that while he's criticizing Apple, there's a MacBook Air sitting on the table to his right with his prompts.
No better patron and spokesman (Score:4, Insightful)
All fawning and starry-eyed admiration aside, as an advocate for the cause of software Freedom, you could not wish for a more amenable or erudite man. Legend.
Re:gNewSense is 25 years old??!? (Score:5, Funny)
Absolutely. It's been 25 years since Richard Stallman wrote down that he was going to make a "GNU operating system", and he still hasn't made one.
My birthday isn't based on when my mother wrote to my father telling her she was going to go off and get pregnant by a cab driver called Terry.
Parent
Re:gNewSense is 25 years old??!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely. It's been 25 years since Richard Stallman wrote down that he was going to make a "GNU operating system", and he still hasn't made one.
What do you call all that stuff that runs on top of the Linux kernel? Just because Hurd was crap does not mean that RMS didn't accomplish what he set out to do. Even if he wasn't the "creator" of Linux, his efforts certainly produced the "enabler" of Linux. The fact remains that Linux wouldn't really be Linux without GNU.
Maybe I'm wrong. I suppose it's possible Mr. Wildebeest had nothing to do with GNU/Linux, or that the whole moon landing thing actually WAS faked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_(computer_science) [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re:gNewSense is 25 years old??!? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, well done - an operating system is not just a kernel. Doesn't that prove my point and not yours? That GNU have produced a set of tools that help in the operation of an OS, but not a complete OS? Furthermore, it still hasn't been 25 years since the creation of a 'GNU operating system' no matter how you like to define it.
Also, kudos on trying to use a name that is nowhere near universally accepted [wikipedia.org] as proof that Linux is a GNU OS. I quote the originator of X from that entry:
"There are lots of people on this bus; I don't hear a clamor of support that GNU is more essential than many of the other components; can't take a wheel away, and end up with a functional vehicle, or an engine, or the seats. I recommend you be happy we have a bus."
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly that, "stuff that runs on top of the kernel". There's no such thing as an operating system without a kernel (and no posting of links to wikipedia will change that).
RMS may have accomplished much of what he set out to do, but creating an operating system isn't among his achievements (and probably never will be, HURD failed and now the gap has been filled by Linux).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you build a car out of 25 year old parts, does that make the car 25 years old?
It all depends. At least in the UK, if a certain proportion of the parts used are 25 years old, then yes, you can call the car 25 years old as far as registrations are concerned. Different major parts are worth different amounts of points. Easy to change items like the engine and gearbox aren't worth much, but things like the axles and chassis are worth more.
This is why you can build a kit car out of an old Ford Escort and
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Interesting)
... and there was me thinking Stephen Fry was your regular computer luddite.
On the contrary, he's famously geeky. He's proud of the fact that he was the second person in the UK to get a Mac. Given that the first was Douglas Adams that's quite a feat!
Parent
Re:No, the GPL is fine for what it is (Score:5, Informative)
Go have a look at http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html
You'll find he is open and honest, and gives credit where it is due. He does NOT claim to have written the whole thing.
Parent
Re:But it's not Gnu/BSD (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:But it's not Gnu/BSD (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a lot of respect for Stallman and GNU. My take on the GNU/Linux thing has always been this: It's a perfectly reasonable thing to ask, and something I'm simply not going to do. "Linux" is the name I use for the system, it's short and convenient, and I'm not going to complicate it just for the sake of accuracy any more than I'm going to say "facial tissue" instead of kleenex. Linux is just a noun to me.
Parent
Re:But it's not Gnu/BSD (Score:4, Interesting)
...and GNU is useless without a kernel, the GNU/HURD has taken 25 years (and counting) to build ...
Most people use X.Org and Gnome/KDE and their code is much larger ... but they do not get a mention
Linux/GNU/X.Org/Gnome would be a fairer (but sillier) name ....
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with you spot-on, except for these...
If I choose to write innovative software and others choose to buy it for money, I may find myself prevented from continuing this business model when someone duplicates the innovation and distributes it under the GPL (eg Linux/Minix).
If somebody wants to take on the project of entirely duplicating my effort, I'm okay with them doing whatever the hell they want with it. What I would not be okay with--and the Linux driver snafu comes to mind--is an actual free license, like BSD, being "overridden" by the GPL in someone else's release, because at that point there is a not-unsubstantial chance of it becoming a fork under a license I cannot use.
If I want to find a free (eg BSD) project to use or contribute to, I cannot because GPL projects have tempted away developers with misleading political propoganda.
There are plenty of BSD projects out there. Don't be
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And he played a number of hilarious roles throughout the Black Adder series - funnier than hell.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The FSF itself, officially, perhaps doesn't. RMS and a lot of his supporters certainly do. Take the whining about proprietary video drivers on Linux as a good example. Why shouldn't unnamedCompany not release source for their drivers? Why should I feel dirty about using those drivers?
Mr. Stephen Fry, in the video on the FSF front page, also certainly implies that commercial software == bad.
Actually, upon poking around the FSF website a bit, they've got lots of RMS articles up there that call or strongly