Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
News

The Personalities Behind Linux 119

Erik has written in with a nice little commentary on the personalities behind the free software movement. Mostly about RMS and Linus, but its worth reading.

The following was written by Slashdot Reader Erik

The Personalities Behind Linux

The varied personalities of Linux definitely show the many facets that make up our favorite OS. I was reading the Wired article that had an interview with RMS, and I've seen quite a few interviews with Linus. IMHO, Stallman represents quite a bit of what Linux and it's users is all about, but Torvalds is more a way to market it.

Obviously both Torvalds and Stallman were and are central to the OS. As we all know, the kernel mainly the product of Linus, but most of the tools, and the very license under which Linux was placed is the result of Stallman's GNU. But, these two men don't seem to get along quite as well as the software they wrote. Linux is a coder, but RMS is a zealot.

Stallman's fire, passion, and concern for politics are essential for Linux users. Many people criticize Richard for being overly paranoid, but that paranoia is necessary, especially in the upcoming months and years. As Linux gains mainstream support, there will undoubtedly be blatant violations of the GPL. Slashdot has recently posted at least one story of a new distro that violates the GPL. It's a huge asset to have RMS and similar enthusiasts to vigorously defend the freedom that our "rebel" OS has come to represent.

As a result, I love having RMS go everywhere he can, reminding people of the free nature of Linux. Excuse me, GNU/Linux.

Remind people that Linus didn't write the whole kernel, and owns a very small percentage of the code in any Linux distro. Torvalds will be the first to admit that. And Stallman reminds us that Linux is more about hackers and free code than about the OS itself. It's about making decisions for ourselves, not having to accept a crappy OS.

But as much credit as RMS deserves, he shouldn't necessarily be the spokesman for Linux. While

Stallman looks like a fanatic, Linus is like the penguins; cute, maybe a little plump, but over all, someone who's very likeable. Plus he has a "normal" job, and is making money from Linux (not directly, but through his Transmeta job, speaking, etc.)

As a result, though Stallman deserves tons of credit, he shouldn't necessarily be on the cover of the magazines. He's done a great job, as has Linus, but as Linux gets marketed to a more mainstream audience, we need to look at our figurehead. Stallman ranting to Wired is great, it gets everyone to stop, think, and be more aware of the politics. But let's think twice before flaming CNN/Fortune if their latest Newstand didn't mention RMS. We all know of his contribution, and all geeks appreciate it. We need him to help lead the movement, but not necessarily to be our public leader. Let CNN snub him, and let the other mags ignore him. He has a great product to be proud of. But as great as he is, he's often inflammatory, nearly always an extremist, and not necessarily who the business community wants to put it's trust in.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Personalities Behind Linux

Comments Filter:
  • Posted by !ErrorBookmarkNotDefined:

    >> Perhaps more than Linus Correction: Without a doubt more than Linus. But who's counting?

    -----------------------------
    Computers are useless. They can only give answers.
  • Posted by The guy in the next cubicle:

    Actually, Finland *was* once occupied by the USSR, which would make it a one-time Communist country.
  • Posted by The Famous Brett Watson:

    If you were hoping for a rather more insightful and in-depth review of the philosophical differences of RMS, Torvalds, et al., then I offer you my essay on Philosophies of Free Software and Intellectual Property [nutters.org] (69KB), which examines a broad range of philosophical approaches to free software and intellectual property (without heavily advocating any of them).

    The Famous Brett Watson, famous at nutters org

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • "Sous mon grain, couchon American! "

    Your point is proven

    If they knew even a little french, there
    would be a flame war from your comment.

    BTW: Europe rulez!

  • Linus writes and maintains code and gives away the results for public consumption. RMS writes and maintains code and gives it away for whoever is willing to subscribe to his set of beliefs.

    Get it right, troll. Both LT and RMS distribute their code under the same license, and that license says nothing about an ideology requirement on the part of its users. (It does have something to say about freedom and fairness, however.) Furthermore, RMS has written far more of such code than LT has. (Not that LOC is all-important.)

    I think the real issue at stake here is that the US (media and majority of /.ers) are unwilling to credit a "foreigner" (Linus) with a major contribution to the future.

    Since when do you have your finger on the pulse of 'a majority of Slashdotters'? I assure you that most posts I see on Slashdot are extremely pro-Linus (as well they should be), and I think the majority (not all) of posts come from US readers. In fact I don't think I've ever seen an anti-Linus post on Slashdot (from anyone, anywhere).

    The bottom line is that people are afraid of RMS, because he levels serious and true accusations against our materialistic and anti-community way of life. Rather than react in fear, I think people should question what they've recieved as culture and as wisdom. (I am not saying that we should all become Stallmanites. I am saying we should all reexamine ourselves and our society.)

  • by Daniel ( 1678 )
    I am amazed. An article about RMS on /., and what do I see? Indeed, it appears to have replies in the form of intelligent posts, not (mostly) raving diatribes...

    Daniel
  • Dimidium donare Lino quam credere totum qui mavult, mavult perdere dminidium. (Martial, Epigrams I.75)
    -----------
  • Hmmmm, I had NEVER considered that any form of nationalism or ethno-centrism played any role in the distribution of support of the various leaders of this movement, and I think its downright stupid... I think, certainly, RMS' extremism might appeal to some Americans (like myself, certainly) as a leader in the defense of our intellectual freedoms, but other than that I can see no connection as Im sure people across the globe are actracted (or repulsed) for similar reasons.

    Id tend to agree with the (overtly-obvious and shallow) essay above in that RMS is a valuable "sqeaky wheel", while Linus is infinitely more valuable as the de facto leader and warm-and-fuzzy representative of the movement...
  • by Andy ( 2990 )
    What a weak article. Hardly worth the 2 minutes it took to download over our busy network. Lignus is a cuddly spokesman, Stallman is a fanatic. Boy, there's a load of news. Slashdot's already shoddy standards have reached a new low. Was this piece written by some punk university student? Why don't you write about what some of the lesser gods in the hacking pantheon think? How about Alan Cox, Larry Wall, Rasterman, Roland McGrath and others. What does Donald Knuth think about software freedom issues...
  • commies commies commies

    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Please CHANGE YOUR RECORDS!
    You Septics wouldn't know what a Commie was if it jumped up and bit you on the behind!
    Give it a rest and GROW UP!!!!!





  • by anneke ( 4956 ) on Monday March 15, 1999 @05:37AM (#1980377) Homepage
    I completely disagree that we should passively stand by and let RMS be ignored by CNN (et. al.), purely because some consider him too much of a 'zealot' to be the leader of a movement-- here, free software.
    When debating these issues, try to keep a few things in mind.
    First, yes, Linus is responsible for the kernel, and I definitely agree that he makes a great figurehead, /and/ he does a lot of work with (GNU)Linux-- but remember that RMS is responsible for -- i believe the number quoted was 30% ?--of the base code, while the kernel is maybe 3%?

    Second, remember the difference between the /Free/ Software movement, and the concept of OSS. RMS is responsible for the GPL, but (on the part most of us tend to forget) he advocates FREE over SUPERIOR-- in fact, Linux being a better OS is almost irrelevant. RMS is advocating the concept of free over /any/ proprietary software.

    I have no problem with Linus being Finnish-- i hadn't even considered the idea that people might reject him as a leader of the movement simply because he's a foreigner: why is it that the US is automatically assumed to be the rightful 'owner' of the OS anyway? But face it, people: Linux is all /about/ the collaboration of many people to work on a (superior) product. That's part of the beauty of OSS. And the idea of collaboration can go hand-in-hand with our having /multiple/ leaders, possibly with somewhat different agendas, in both RMS and Linus.

    RMS has a lot of perfectly vaid points. Just because he rubs a lot of us the wrong way, we tend to reject him. But although we may come out of reading an interview with RMS somewhat annoyed at his attitude, we (techies and the public/the masses alike) will probably come out of it knowing a bit more about his influence in the movement, not to mention leaving with a better understandment of the movement (OSS, free software, Linux, etc) itself.

    --Anneke
  • I agree with what you're saying, but then, I also don't.

    Linux is as good as it is because of collaborative coding - and that's a direct result of Open Source software. Not GNU itself.

    However, just as other people are saying, "Listen to what RMS has to say,", I do wish RMS would sometimes listen to what others have to say.

    Whether we like it or not, commercial needs have a direct influence on software, too. If only to give me that cup of tea I just had, or to pay for the line I use, or the computer, or whatever.

    In a perverse twist, Linux will only hit the desktop when the likes of Microsoft actually back it to some degree as a desktop platform. Not because Microsoft's say so is important in and of itself, but because the opinion of business is. And business tends to use Office right now. (And, having used it, I can sometimes see why).

    Perhaps more confusingly, I'm currently working on a project which none of the developers can see a way of giving out the source. And yet I'll happily give out the source for many other projects I've worked on. This one is a networked game - income - to pay my rent, to pay for the game's servers, and so on - relies on the game being fair, as well as playable. I can't produce that in a source distributed form, so I can't use GPL, so I can't use GPL libraries, so I then have to do even more work, simply to produce a freely downloadable game. (Box set with glossy manuals anyone? ;-) )

    Point being (Assuming there is one after all this, anyway) that there's a time and a place for GPL software. It undoubtedly produces higher quality software, a good 99% of the time. But it can often fail to account for other factors... Simple freedom with the code is one thing, but that doesn't always hold.

    The good advocate is the one who knows the limitations as well as the freedoms, the cons as well as the pros, and those of the opposition, too. The world at large will accept imperfect solutions - you only need to look at the percentage of machines installed with Win95 for that - but they need to know those limitations, too.

    The good advocate demonstrates, eloquently and persuasively, that the limitations of Linux, or GPL, or whatever else, are less constraining, or irritating, or problematic, than the alternative. And where this isn't possible without lying, well, the good coders have to step in and sort that out.

    Damn and bollocks. Didn't mean to turn this into an essay. Did someone run me with -v?
  • Well, RMS in particular has written articles about not using LGPL on libraries, but instead using GPL, on the basis that then, people are forced into releasing the source (By GPL rules).

    This fits his philosophy, of course, that freedom of source is paramount, and that the freedom *not* to give out source for any reason shalt not be granted.

    In my case, that's a problem - some GNOME libraries may be, or become, GPL, for instance - because I can't reasonably give out the source because the game would then be at peril to people wrecking the system by coding around it.

    I'd like to use GNOME, actually, as the UI library, but it's looking now like I'll have to drop that in favour of something else. I have no objections to paying a reasonable fee - but the point is that GPL doesn't fit every occasion.


  • You just summed up alot of stuff.. but does this essay answer any burning question? Or any question at all?

    So RMS is a zealot. That's NEWS! So Linus is a coder.. I never would have guessed.


    Ummm.. so?





    --
  • I don't believe that RMS is "what Linux users are all about." RMS isn't anything like what I'm all about. You seem to be operating under the (RMS distributed) stereotypes of RMS as the only person who believes in free software and Linus as just some guy who's abusing RMS' system.
    Linus writes and maintains code and gives away the results for public consumption. RMS writes and maintains code and gives it away for whoever is willing to subscribe to his set of beliefs.
    I think the real issue at stake here is that the US (media and majority of /.ers) are unwilling to credit a "foreigner" (Linus) with a major contribution to the future. RMS may have started it all (he didn't - free software was the rule long before Stallman) but Linus' work set the ball rolling for the rest of the world.
  • Get it right, troll.
    Ouch - he called me a troll. That hurts. Really.

    The bottom line is that people are afraid of RMS, because he levels serious and true accusations against our materialistic and anti-community way of life.
    Yes, that's right. I said that I can't stand Stallman or anything he believes in. It's right in my post. Really.
    I'm substantially more socialist than your average American (which isn't really saying much) and RMS' beliefs aren't what bother me. His rhetoric and preachiness is. An earlier post compared him to a prophet - well, of course he seems like a prophet, that's how he's been grooming himself from the beginning.
    I could even put up with that if it weren't for the whole GNU/Linux thing. True, GNU comprises the *Unix* component of Linux, but that is not really what I like about Linux. I like the speed, the efficiency, etc. When people do benchmarks of OS' they don't measure the speed of the utilities ("Wow, that's one fast 'ls'!") they benchmark the kernel. That is why Linux is the benchmark-breaker. Not because of GNU.

  • He wants to be "first among peers." He may be willing to acknowledge that the Linux kernel is what makes his software work, but, in his eyes, it is first and foremost a GNU system.
  • No, this slogan was not about the whole continent, but only about how to divide the Pacific Northwest -- the land to the north of California and to the south of what was then Russian Alaska. Both the British and the Americans claimed the whole thing.

    The slogan was only shouted by a few hotheads; the American government never threatened war if they didn't get the whole thing. But there were some minor battles over where to draw the line, particularly in the San Juan islands, where the US and the British almost went to war because someone shot a pig (true!).

  • by ambient ( 8381 )
    "Linux is a coder..." Shouldn't that be "Linus is a coder"? Not to be picky or anything....

  • Booring... The most curious point was "the Finnish joke", which was very clearly of the Swedish tradition of Finn mockery.
    I've never heard those ones in Finland, only in the Scandinavian peninsula.
    Much alike the American jokes on Polish people used to be.
  • I can see both sides of this, but have to admit I find Stallman's case the stronger with respect to GNU/Linux. I can understand that businesses and the tie-wearing world find Linus more cuddly (I note no mention has been made of ESR in the above article!), but I think it shows a lack of courtesy to write Stallman out of the picture.

    No, I know nobody's suggesting that. Yet.

    However, with Big Business falling over themselves to get a slice of the GNU/Linux pie, it would be all too easy for the voices-inna-wilderness to get forgotten about in the rush to make a buck.

    Basic point; I don't want to see, five or ten years down the line, a "Linux" that is encrusted with closed bits; we need to keep the source free; it keeps the coding community interested and that is, for my money, the best thing about GNU/Linux; a sharing of challenge and achievement.

    If we were ever to reach the point of "RedHat '05", I'd be tempted to switch to Hurd straight away; choppy and turbulent waters are waay more fun than the mainstream

    I'm in no way denigrating Linus' work, nor the Open Source movement. I'm saying that we need all of them to be treated equally; RMS' visionary nature being as important to the OS as Linus' pragmatism.

    For the record, I've never seen RMS insist that users follow his set of beliefs; the GPL isn't astoundingly far-out; it's merely a device to try and ensure some credit gets spread around the right areas without anything as restrictive as a copyright hindering progress. Hardly the blueprint for a socialist revolution!

    You can adhere to the FSF's general aims without holding them as forthrightly as RMS. Personally, I sympathise with RMS (possibly because he reminds me of my dad!); agreed, he's probably made life harder for himself by his refusal to compromise; but, as the above poster mentioned, he's lived it as he speaks it.

    Heck, if the Yankees have such a massive problem with non-US citizens making the future, what about Babbage and Turing ;) - it really doesn't matter where the stuff comes from, as long as it works and as long as we can tweak it...

    Gideon.
  • ...by a British Guy.
  • Oh, puhlease.

    We don't need to "dominate the world" to keep MS from destroying our standards. I agree with the other guy, who says only fools care about world domination. Let the sheeps use MS crap, we developers don't need them using our free software.

    See Figure 1 [uiuc.edu].

    Alejo.
  • Well, actually most libraries are issued on the LGPL which allows you to sell/give away binaries linked with the library. You only need to give the source (of the library) if you modify the library. The QPL (Qt Licence) requires you to pay for a licence if you want to sell software generated with it, but if you're making a profit that should not be too difficult (I don't think the licence is that expensive).
    So what libraries do you have problems with ?
  • Yeah. Granted I may not agree with all of RMS's statements but I can say he has remained dead consistent since day one and I think bit by bit we may tend to agree with him.

    Without RMS where would Free Software be? We may call him extreme and inflammatory - but let's remember he's devoted his life to this and we're all benefiting from it right? Granted he doesn't do a good business spindoctor job, but there are plenty of ppl who do that in this world, we need a guy like RMS and we know it.

    The problem is that sometimes the truth makes ppl uncomfortable - and the truth is we all want the cake and we want to eat it too. Guess what ... Freedom is not free of charge.

  • don't forget about stallman vs. egcs
  • Some Factoids. [lonelyplanet.com]
    eat them up. yum yum.
  • 12 of his pals should invite him to a supper. while there they should refer to wine as blood and bread as flesh and introduce into the conversation the themes of transcendence and resurrection/rebirth. might work *grin*
  • Stallman never took classes at MIT: he has a bachelors in physics from Harvard.
    the environment on the 9th floor of 545 Tech Square was such that you did not even have to be an MIT student to hang out there.
  • A hacker's secret? I guess there are a lot of hackers around.
    I think this brings forth the thought of "What makes a hacker?" I know people who consider themselves to be M$ gurus. I also know people who think that anybody who is a software guru is really a hacker.
    About free software over running the commercial (paid-for) software for at least OS's, I think that it won't happen ever. I am trying to prove to my mother that Linux is a valid solution for serving her school, which she is sysadmin (technology advisor) and overseeing the work of installing EVERYTHING. She dosn't belive that a free system can be capable of working as well as if not better than a commercial system.
    I plan to network the house this summer to prove this point. My budget is $100 in addition to the equipment I already have to network a Mac, and 2 PC compatables plus one server for dialup on demand. With teh exception of the Mac network card, I have it in the bag I think, although I'm afraid it might be only 10baseT instead of 10/100.
  • the biblical model of prophet was not as much a soothsayer as a person to confront society and say, "dammit, you're doing it wrong."

    RMS is a voice crying out in the wilderness. Voices like that generally don't lead pep rallys. Prophets generally don't make friends in The Establishment they criticize. Being a prophet was an effective way to get yourself crucified.

    Yet, we see a certain Rightness in what they are saying, even if we disagree with much, we see they're at least part right. Yes, RMS is strident and political. Yes, we need a paranoid voice calling us to a better way.

    No, RMS is not the most effective guy to rally the troups and take us forward. We need positive voices like Linus' who are primarily focused on the getting the result of software
  • To most Americans who have heard both of them speak, RMS seems a lot more foreign than Linus.
  • Linus, he is on our side now, right? I don't want no Commies writing our operating systems.

    54-40 OR FIGHT!!!!

  • You realize the "54-40 or fight" reference refers to a 19th century desire of Americans to own the continent upto 54 -40' North Latitude, don't you? You realize most of that is and always will be CANADA, don't you? So I guess Linus is as much a communist as I am an American...not very bloody much!

    I can make all sorts of fun of you Americans, however, since according to recent school surveys, you can't find your own country on a map, let alone mine (or Finland apparently).

    Boy, do I feel safe knowing you guys have the bomb! (NOT).


    Sous mon grain, couchon American!

  • Yeah, Your right on both counts...
  • The basis for this summation (I will not call it an essay) seems to be that we "need" a spokesmodel (sorry Linus) for the @#$% OS, therefore Stallman should be quiet while Linus flashes a boy scout smile and generally make all of the suits feel better.

    How important is it for the suits to feel better? I for one enjoyed working with Linux much more in the kernel 1.2 days, there was a general air of camaraderie (sp?) among us all and we felt like we were really doing something neat. Now when I come to work I get 100 questions about why doesn't this or that work, why can't this stupid linux box work like my Win95 box, etc... These are all from people who know I'm a linux user for long time.

    Our new problem will be convincing the suits that there are other distributions other than IBM Linux, Compaq Linux, and major-vendor-who-buys-out Red Hat Linux. If you are worried about the comfort level of the suits, Big blue and crew will take care of that.

    I applaud every one of the developers in the Linux community for putting out something that got me more excited than my first MSAI, but this new need for acceptance will be the thing that drags us down. I applaud Stallman for standing up and saying "this is our OS, it will stay our OS. You don't like it? Here's the source code, make it your OS." (this of course does not guarntee that our tools will work with your OS)

    So, if Stallman is against a "Linux Standards Organization" headed by IBM, HP, Intel, Compaq, et.al., I'm with Stallman.

  • Hey Erik,

    Regarding your commentary here. Something that I've noticed about a lot
    of people's opinions about RMS seem to bother me as well. The biggest
    thing is that a lot of those who actually voice themselves here on /.
    think that he (RMS) feels his fire is being snuffed out by Linus. Hence
    the whole name thing. GNU/Linux. That's not my take on it at all.

    I really don't think that he presses this name thing because he feels
    the need to be recognized himself. Rather he feels the need that at least
    now is an important time to recognize the idea of Free Software. Average
    Joe wouldn't see the name Linux and say, "Wow, this whole idea is rather
    neat!" let alone make him think twice about what exactly free software
    and open source actually is and means.

    In other words, the product of a virtuous community is being the subject
    of attention rather than the virtuous community itself. Without that
    community... Linux would be worse than MSWindows as an example. No matter
    how good or efficient that product (Linux / GNU/Linux) is.

    I don't necessarily agree with everything Mr.Stallman says. But he's
    onto something here and it makes me kind of sick when I see so many of us
    flaming him when he stands up for what we are. Or pretend to be anyway.

    If there really is a battle out there. Like so many say there is between
    Linux or GNU/Linux (however you may prefer) and other OS's such as MS's,
    it isn't OS vs OS at all. It's a cummunity's beleif model against another
    more mainstream one. GNU/Linux is merely a statement. Pardon the expression,
    A love child so to speak.


    On a side note... One that may have relevance or one that may not (I
    don't really beleive so myself), I'm not a programmer. I'm a musician.
    But that doesn't mean I can't contribute to the community. Also, I've
    never had a Linux box or any other Unix system. (I ran FreeBSD for a while
    on my A3000T a few years ago though. But hardly long enough to have that
    count for anything) I've friends that have used Linux over the years
    and still do. As a result I've been learning more about it in the
    technical sense and as a whole the idea around it. I'm currently waiting
    for my R5 distro of LinuxPPC. I specifically bought a PPC G3 to run Linux.
    I also needed the Mac platform because of Pro-tools.

    I mention this because I see some /.'ers flaming others because of choices
    they've made concerning the actual hardware they currently use. =) Function
    before machismo is my motto. Not everyone has the same needs as others.

    You don't even have to be using Linux itself to understand the whole concept
    behind it or even appreciate it. Although I think it would help to practice
    what one preaches. I myself haven't used it for good reasons up until now.
    Music software/editors and sequencers as well as software synthesis are
    making headway in Linux. So now I can finally leave and use something
    worthwhile and not have to give up a great deal of my favorite hobby. And
    feel good about it all the while. Maybe even dredge up my old and creaky
    programming skills and bring them up to date sometime soon and write my
    own software as well.

    Anyhow, I've gone way off topic. =)

    I just wanted to say that you are somewhat right and that I somewhat agree with
    you. All except for the idea that RMS may make a bit of a scary or crazy figurehead.
    Again I don't beleive that he's looking for his space in the spotlight. Just trying
    to make sure that the idea that started this whole thing isn't lost or overshadowed.
    There is no real figurehead for GNU/Linux except for the media's need to produce
    one for public consumption. Once someone really starts to use Linux, they'll be
    hard pressed to not stumble across the whole ideal that makes it possible anyway.
    So in my eyes, practically anyone could promote the OS and get away with it.
    Except for maybe a select few... Gates Jobs Haynie.. =)

    Like it or not, RMS's a large reason for all of this. As far as charisma goes? I don't
    think charisma has anything to do with GNU/Linux at all. I don't go out
    of my way to use a product because I or someone else might find the person or what
    have you promoting it to be cute. How many people here, old and new use GNU/Linux
    because they think Linus Torvalds is cute? Or rather don't use it because Richard
    Stallman may come off as fanatic about the whole subject? Does a Gnu for a mascot
    keep people away from using GNU software and does a cute penguin really attract
    people to linux?

    Not many is my guess. Linux doesn't need catchy (insert musical Intel bells here) and
    (insert flashy translucent colours there) as well as (insert NewTek video toaster girl
    here) or even to be more precise (insert catchy phrase "Where do you want to go today?"
    somwhere in there too). We're not looking for a beautiful head of hair to sell shampoo
    or anything here...

    In your first paragraph you say that Linus is a better match for marketing Linux.
    Promoting it would be a term I would be more comfortable with. But what do you mean
    by "marketing it"? Marketing the OS or marketing the beleif and moral system that made
    it possible? I would think that the latter is far more important than the OS itself.
    But of course in the world as it is, you would need something tangible like the OS
    to bring attention to how it was created. IE the whole free software/open source models.
    Which can be used for far more than just software licensing.

    The OS and the community to me seem to be very symbiotic (it has to be) and it would be
    very hard if not impossible to completely seperate the two. In effect it would destroy the
    OS as it is known now. And the community would still find a way to survive although
    probably somewhat split about the whole thing. There's your code fork. And that would make
    Linux and what it stands for a bit of a failure. Oh I'm sure it wouldn't hurt people like
    you and myself.

    We'd just keep using and developing the GNU/Linux that we always have. But that's not
    the point. GNU/Linux isn't about keeping it to ourselves, it's always been about sharing.
    Even if something like that did happen, My guess is that it would only be a matter of
    time before the 'pure' form of Linux would start to rise again. It always will. But it
    certainly would be better if something like that didn't have to happen. And it doesn't.
    Why waste time. Our time...

    More importantly, as your example shows, RMS doesn't have to be the only one around to
    get the message across or rather just remind us as to what it's all about. I personally
    wouldn't care as to who is spreading the message or how many. The more the better. I also
    beleive that Stallman doesn't really care either. But since he is who is is, why not?
    Flames or no flames.


    I ask one simple question of you. Why on earth should we activley hide our Pillars of
    the community from the outside world? Shame?

    I don't understand. Maybe someone can help me out on that... Or maybe it's because I'm
    a newbie. Have I missed something here?

  • Does this article tell anyone anything useful ?

    It seems to me to be an inflated piece around
    an opinion which goes roughly "Linus is good,
    so is Richard but Linus is a safe geek while Richard ( bless im ) is a bit of a loony"

    And the conclusion is ... ?
  • Richard Stallman is not a communist. Communists believe that property should be centrally controlled by the government. Stallman does not believe this; he believes that the government should not enact, support or enforce intellectual property rights pertaining to software.

    In fact, one could even argue that RMS is an ultra-capitalist, as he believes in nullifying the vast majority of government-interference in relation to software.
  • Sure, but Linux is GPL'ed remember that? And I truly think that RMS and his folks at MIT have put together a definitive "Free Software" movement. I do think that www.fsf.org matters, not a lousy redhat.com or linux.com. After all, the Linux kernel is just a headlong POSIX compliant kernel! The only success it has attained (IMHO) is the incorporation of a multitude of device drivers. (Yeah, and networking, and this and that) Forget about it and any good coder at 19 can go ahead and write an OS based on MINIX (BTW Tanenbaum rullaZ!). Though, I do appreciate that it takes a lot of skill and effort to make such a portable kernel a reality. And there is nothing wrong with the "GNU/Linux" naming, since the most *critical* parts of the system we run are made possible by the GNU project. They deserve the credit. Y'know without all those development tools, we wouldn't have a Linux kernel in the first place. What's more, your point about HURD is just misleading. Just because a zillion developers did't jump on the HURD, doesn't mean that it's any bad. When HURD gets out of alpha, it will be the finest free OS to see the light of day... And about the hardcore MS people, I think this corresponds to those people who are managers /developers in the industry who have no clue about computing? Fu**'em up man. I just had to wrestle with the suckey MFC and NT for the last year because of them...
  • You're forgetting gcc that you use to compile the latest kernel the minute you get your hands on it.
  • I don't think we will gain by having Linux on every desktop. It will slowly be tamed and dulled, I think it would be better off staying a hacker's secret.

Waste not, get your budget cut next year.

Working...