Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RMS Accused Of Attempting Glibc Hostile Takeover

CmdrTaco posted more than 13 years ago | from the things-are-never-dull dept.

GNU is Not Unix 887

Bram Stolk sent a bit in thats been floating around lately where Ulrich Drepper, glibc maintainer announces the new version, and sidetracks to discuss an an RMS takeover attempt and how he feels about it. He raises several good points and I tend to agree with him. The FSF has done, and continues to do so much good, but more and more tension continues to grow between the extreme free speech faction and the more moderate folks. People have asked my opinion, and I'll just leave it by saying I don't prefix "Linux" with those 3 little letters and a slash even tho I've been asked.

cancel ×

887 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

RMS is a (-1, Troll)

ubertroll (153053) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195051)

motherfucker
suckersuckersuck
suck suck
suck suck
uck
cke
ker
suck
suckersu
suckersucke suc . suc suckersu suc suc suckersu suc suckersu
suckersu suc . suc suckersucker suc suc suckersucker suckersuckersu
suck suc . suc suck suck suc suc suck suck sucke suck
suc suc . suc suck suck suc suc suck suck suck
suc suc . suc suc sucker suckersuckersuck suc
suc suc . suc suc suckers suc suc
suck suck suck suck suck suck suc suc suck suck suc
suck suck suck sucke suck . suck suc suc suck suck suc
suckersuckersuck suckersuckersu suckersucker suc suc suckersucker suc
suckersucker suckersu suc suckersu suc suc suckersu suc

Re:RMS is a (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2195118)

"I am a goat fucker"

-Richard M. Stallman, 1996

.

.

Everybody saw this coming (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2195052)

This RMS communist wants make us into free software coding robots without a will.

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Hawks (102993) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195055)

fp...maybe

RMS has his reasons (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2195062)

One of them is keeping every part of "GNU/Linux" as cheap as possible. This is really necessary, if you look at the facts:

If you put Linux next to some other operating systems out there for a cost comparison, the conclusions are devastating for Linux.

Linux costs not only more because of the frequent updates which require new cdrom's to be bought if you don't have a high speed Internet connection.

Another factor in Linux cost is its maintenance. Linux requires a *lot* of maintenance, work doable only by the relatively few high-paid Linux administrators that put themselves - of course willingly - at a great place in the market. Linux seems to be needing maintenance continuously.

Add to this the cost of loss of data. Linux' native file system, EXT2FS, is known to lose data like a firehose loses water, when the file system isn't unmounted properly. Other unix file systems are much more tolerant towards unexpected crashes. An example is the FreeBSD file system, which with soft updates enabled, performance-wise blows EXT2FS out of the water, and doesn't have the negative drawback of extreme data loss in case of a system breakdown.

Factor in also the fact that crashes happen much more often on Linux than on other unices. On other unices, crashes usually are caused by external sources like power outages. Crashes in Linux are a regular thing, and nobody seems to know what causes them, internally.

The steep learning curve compared to about any other operating system out there is a major factor in Linux' cost. The system is a mix of features from all kinds of unices, but not one of them is implemented right. A Linux user has to live with badly coded tools which have low performance, mangle data seemingly at random and are not in line with their specification. On top of that a lot of them spit out the most childish and unprofessional messages, indicating that they were created by 14-year olds with too much time, no talent and a bad attitude.

I can go on and on and on, but the message is clear. In this world, there is no place for Linux. It's not an option for any one who seeks a professional OS with high performance, scalability, stability, adherence to standards, etc. The best place it should ever reach is the toy store, and even that would be flattering.

Re:RMS has his reasons (1)

Servo (9177) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195094)

Obviously you are not a sys admin, because I am a Unix/Linux admin, and I can say from first hand experience that a properly maintained Unix or Linux system requires far less maintenance than Windos NT. Sure, updates come out all the time, but that does not always mean that you have to run out and install every update.

Re:RMS has his reasons (-1)

ubertroll (153053) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195102)

oo oooo oo oo oo oo oo oo
oo oo ooo oo oo oo oo oo
oo oo oooo oo oo oo oooo
oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo
oo oo oo oooo oo oo oooo
oo oo oo ooo oo oo oo oo
ooooooo oooo oo oo oooooo oo oo

ssssss ss ss ssssss ss ss ssssss ss
ss ss ss ss ss ss ss ss ss ss ss
ss ss ss ss ss ss ss ss
ssssss ss ss ss sssss ssssss ss
ss ss ss ss ss ss ss ss
ss ss ss ss ss ss ss ss ss ss
ssssss ssssss ssssss ss ss ssssss ss

Re:RMS has his reasons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2195208)

I demand that you modify your ASCII art to the appropriate form, namely:

GNU/LINUX
SUCKS!

I really didn't want to get into this discusion. But hey, I did! :)

RMS

Re:RMS has his reasons (-1)

ubertroll (153053) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195225)

Is there an officially approved ASCII art representation of GNU/Linux? I don't want to upset anyone by using an unapproved one.

Re:RMS has his reasons (1)

cha0sadddddddd (323712) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195186)

and you are obviously not an experienced troll spotter....

Re:RMS has his reasons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2195200)

"a properly maintained Unix or Linux system requires far less maintenance than Windos NT"

Exactly. Properly maintaining a linux box takes more time than maintaining a windows box (cf download; patch; configure; make; hup; make install for _every_ skript kiddie vulnerability du jour for the 2000 apps in the average distribution, vs downloading and installing a hotfix/service pack).

"but that does not always mean that you have to run out and install every update."

It does if you want to remain employed...

Re:RMS has his reasons (1)

HoaryCripple (187169) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195098)

Who the F moderated this as "Interesting?" This is clearly "Flamebait."

Re:RMS has his reasons (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2195110)

No, it should be moderated as "Cold Hard Truth"

Re:RMS has his reasons (1)

HoaryCripple (187169) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195111)

Good. Down to -1 where this trash belongs.

Re:RMS has his reasons (1)

Anml4ixoye (264762) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195112)

You know, your post was just fine until that last comment.

Yes, Linux, just like everything else, has problems. It seems to me that those problems are those of a project that is very large and is not under the control of any one person/group/entity. This is fairly new territory for about everybody, and there are growing pains to be had.

Why is it that we expect everything to fall together like a well-crafted puzzle? What you have is a bunch of people putting the hardest and best effort, mostly for free, into something they want to see. Linux is a vision of what they want to see the world be like.

And so, because of these growing pains, there is no place for Linux? I doubt that highly. Every operating system contributes and learns something from the other OS's out there.

You posted AC, but I wonder if you yourself have contributed anything to Linux? Have you ever tried to find out why it crashes? Have you ever tried to create a program that produces what you want? You, sir (I assume) have missed the point. If you don't like it, get up, go to your computer, and help fix it. Don't sit and whine and hope to get moderated up pointing out issues that you could help fix.

Sometimes I wonder if Linux is the problem, or if it is misinformed lazy people like you that scare people away.

Re:RMS has his reasons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2195185)

Many firefighters are trained to protect themselves from bears. -CNN

That's right. You can:
1. burn them with fire
2. spray them with water

Taco moonlighting for CNN?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2195220)

"Falun Gong protesters have been subjected to a carckdown in China" - CNN [cnn.com]

Re:RMS has his reasons (1)

jallen02 (124384) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195113)

Excellent Troll.

So tell me if you implement bits and pieces to form your own Unix does that not become a Unix? Or are you implying that merging several ideas to form your own better tool is not acceptable. So you learn the way to do things on the new system.

Care to provide even anecdotal evidence for your claims about childish messages? How about that steep learning curve, gee wouldn't that apply to any Unix. A little thrashing when moving from one *nix to another is expectd. Anyways most Solaris admins I know just install the GNU toolchain as the first step of the setup process anyhow.

Anyone concerned about data redundancy/safety can use XFS now that it is stable, that argument too is now kind of pointless. Ever heard of consistent backups on top of all of this?

Frequent updates? Minus security updates what operating system does not have frequent updates, *cough* windows? Come on that is stretching it too. Most updates are too external from the kernel software which gets updated on all unices when the updates come out.... If it works dont mess with it tho right?

I am trying to find any reason or truth in your arguments and im coming up short. Any good Unix admin is going to cost you, and they can most surely handle any Unix or *nix like operating system. Go play back in the sand box now.

Jeremy

Re:RMS has his reasons (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2195142)

Excellent Troll.

It was not an excellent troll, it was a generic, obvious-even-to-BSDers-and-little-girls-but-I-repe at-myself troll.

Excellent trolls don't get modded -1 Troll

Re:RMS has his reasons (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2195209)

It was about as good a troll as it gets these days on Slashdot. So let's be content with what we got.

Re:RMS has his reasons (1)

Phroggy (441) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195214)

Alright, this looks like a troll, but what the heck, it's time to try out the new improved Slashdot.

One of them is keeping every part of "GNU/Linux" as cheap as possible. This is really necessary, if you look at the facts:

Necessary to whom?

If you put Linux next to some other operating systems out there for a cost comparison, the conclusions are devastating for Linux.

By "some other operating systems", are you including the likes of Windows NT? Mac OS? Or just other UNIX variants like FreeBSD or Solaris? Are you referring to servers or desktop machines? Do you have any numbers to back up your claim?

Linux costs not only more because of the frequent updates which require new cdrom's to be bought if you don't have a high speed Internet connection.

What frequent updates are you talking about? Security patches? I certainly hope you're not suggesting that a system administrator using ANY operating system not keep up to date on security patches. After all, look at Code Red - the patch has been available for months, but there are still infected machines spreading the worm to this day. If you're suggesting that an update is required every time anyone releases a new version of something, you're out of your mind.

Another factor in Linux cost is its maintenance. Linux requires a *lot* of maintenance, work doable only by the relatively few high-paid Linux administrators that put themselves - of course willingly - at a great place in the market. Linux seems to be needing maintenance continuously.

My experience has been quite the opposite. Some initial setup work is certainly required, but once you've got everything configured, it stays the way you left it. Linux is comparable to other UNIX variants in this regard - quite a contrast from Windows, which generally needs constant babysitting.

Add to this the cost of loss of data. Linux' native file system, EXT2FS, is known to lose data like a firehose loses water, when the file system isn't unmounted properly. Other unix file systems are much more tolerant towards unexpected crashes. An example is the FreeBSD file system, which with soft updates enabled, performance-wise blows EXT2FS out of the water, and doesn't have the negative drawback of extreme data loss in case of a system breakdown.

I really can't comment on this; perhaps someone else will shed some light. It should be noted, however, that FreeBSD uses the UFS filesystem, as do many other BSD variants including (optionally) Mac OS X.

Factor in also the fact that crashes happen much more often on Linux than on other unices. On other unices, crashes usually are caused by external sources like power outages. Crashes in Linux are a regular thing, and nobody seems to know what causes them, internally.

A regular thing? I don't believe I've ever seen a crash on a Linux box that couldn't be attributed to outside influences or hardware failure (note to self: when hot-plugging SCSI drives, take care that you plug the power connector in straight, and don't inadvertently touch a hot connector to ground). If you've had regular crashes under Linux, maybe you have flakey hardware, or maybe your distribution has made buggy modifications (*cough*RedHat?*cough*), or maybe you are simply incompetent.

The steep learning curve compared to about any other operating system out there is a major factor in Linux' cost. The system is a mix of features from all kinds of unices, but not one of them is implemented right. A Linux user has to live with badly coded tools which have low performance, mangle data seemingly at random and are not in line with their specification. On top of that a lot of them spit out the most childish and unprofessional messages, indicating that they were created by 14-year olds with too much time, no talent and a bad attitude.

I've noticed that most people who think Linux has a steep learning curve are those who already have previous experience with another system, and are forced to unlearn years of habit. To me, configuring Apache is a cinch, but put me in front of IIS and I don't know where to begin. Slackware seems pretty logical to me, but many things in SunOS feel backwards and strange. If you're referring to desktop systems, I've seen several people with no prior Linux experience sit down in front of KDE and feel fairly comfortable immediately.

Again you mention random data corruption - I have to question both your hardware and your software, since I have not heard of this being a common problem. Childish and unprofessional? Sometimes I believe a personal touch is appropriate, but perhaps you could provide some examples?

I can go on and on and on, but the message is clear. In this world, there is no place for Linux. It's not an option for any one who seeks a professional OS with high performance, scalability, stability, adherence to standards, etc. The best place it should ever reach is the toy store, and even that would be flattering.

You, sir, are a troll. I'm not denying that other OSes may be better suited to certain tasks, but Linux suits me just fine for now.

Re:RMS has his reasons (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2195228)

Nice troll. Looks like you fooled a few people. Perhaps if there wasn't so much glaring misinformation in it. Usually trolls are built on things that are at least partially true. better luck next time.

Thought Police (2, Insightful)

Stickerboy (61554) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195065)

Isn't it striking that people who claim to be members of a group advocating free thought and speech would be so anal and vitrolic about everyone who doesn't call Linux GNU/Linux?

Re:Thought Police (4, Funny)

ChaosDiscord (4913) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195115)

Freedom of speech includes the freedom to complain loudly about other's speech. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to be as anal and vitrolic as you want. So what's the problem?

Re:Thought Police (2)

cloudmaster (10662) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195138)

I use some Gnu tools and many more non-gnu-licensed tools with my linux kernels. I'm not gonna say Gnu/Apache/Perl/BSD/etc/Linux, and neither should anyone else. Yeah, the system would be less useful without gnu tools, it'd also not be what it is without all the other pieces of software on it.

It's a "Linux" system. Nothing more.

Re:Thought Police (1)

cloudmaster (10662) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195162)

OK, now, that was supposed to be a reply to another post. Darned new slashcode...

Re:Thought Police (2)

randombit (87792) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195148)

Freedom of speech includes the freedom to complain loudly about other's speech. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to be as anal and vitrolic as you want. So what's the problem?

This is very silly. So you say it's a "problem" for people to complain about RMS's speech, but it's fine for RMS to complain about other people.

Well now I'm complaining about your complaining about other people complaining about RMS's complaining. And you say yourself that's part of my freedom of speech. So there! :)

Re:Thought Police (2, Troll)

Jace of Fuse! (72042) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195188)

And you say yourself that's part of my freedom of speech. So there! :)

Actually, yes. It is your freedom. Now you're starting to get it. Anybody who fully believes that Freedom of speech includes the freedom to complain loudly about other's speech would certainly welcome you excercising your opinion.

Feels good to be free, doesn't it? Too bad few people can let go. The ones who haven't figure it out yet are the ones so tense, and ultimate the ones who want to shut the rest of us up.

GNU/Linux. Linux/GNU. Where'd that TCP stack come from again? *snicker*

Re:Thought Police (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2195189)

Who exactly said it a "problem" to critcize RMS? You seem to be eager to make the FSF out to be the "bad guy" here. Why is that?

Re:Thought Police (3, Insightful)

Adam Jenkins (121697) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195117)

Well if someone who did a small percentage of the work is going to name an OS after himself, then why shouldn't the name include the group who did the large percentage of the work? RMS didn't name an OS after himself that he based on other people's work. Stop viewing things through tinted glasses people.

Re:Thought Police (5, Funny)

Amon Re (102766) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195123)

I will probably be the only here to defend RMS, but I totally agree with Linux being called GNU/Linux when talking about an entire distribution instead of just the kernel. You are ignoring the work of a lot of developers by just calling it Linux. And I know people will say "We should call it Xfree86/BSD/GNU/Linux then." Well Xfree86 and a lot of the BSD code isn't needed at all to get an operating system up and running. GNU and Linux represent the core that is needed.

Re:Thought Police (5, Interesting)

brianvan (42539) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195166)

The core that is needed to whom? YOU? What if I need Xfree86, BSD, and perhaps other commercial applications as part of my operating system? Then do I refer to all of them?

I mean, surely when I tell people what OS I use, I say Windows 98, not Windows98/Office2000/Winamp/AOL/ATI Drivers/Creative Labs Drivers/Winzip/Acrobat Reader...

I approve of different vendors calling their distributions whatever they want, based on Linux or not. Let Red Hat Linux simply be Red Hat... let them call it Red Hat Linux if they have a Red Hat Windows Compatible OS too. Maybe there's good reasons not to do that either, but I see no reason why Linux should be called GNU/Linux. GNU does not own Linux. And I would laugh if Linus sold the rights off to the kernel one day, as Stallman would be very very screwed...

Re:Thought Police (5, Insightful)

reverius (471142) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195230)

Okay, lets set this straight once and for all.

What is part of the operating system?

- kernel
- libraries necessary to run C programs
- the most basic interface possible

What is not part of the operating system?

- GUI
- web browser
- office suite
- your mom

Okay... so, you should call linux "GNU/Linux", because GNU tools are a larger percentage of the Operating System itself than even the Linux kernel.

You should not call windows "Windows98/Acrobat Reader" because Acrobat Reader in no way qualifies as a "part of the Operating System".

Re:Thought Police (1)

Amon Re (102766) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195233)

When I say core of the system I mean the bare minimum needed to get a system up and running and be used. I am sure in windows 98 you can tell the difference between the actual windows interface, like "my computer", the start menu etc and applications like Office 2000 and winamp. And GNU/Linux is different because xfree86 is not needed to get a system up and running but you could not have windows running without the gui.

Re:Thought Police (1)

Anthony Boyd (242971) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195210)

I totally agree with Linux being called GNU/Linux when talking about an entire distribution instead of just the kernel.

I guess the problem is that Linus Torvalds doesn't. He says, "rms asked me if I minded the name before starting to use it, and I said 'go ahead'. I didn't think it would explode into the large discussion it resulted in, and I also thought that rms would only use it for the specific release of Linux that the FSF was working on rather than 'every' Linux system." Looks like RMS is trying to do a "land grab" for more than glibc.

Citing my sources: read what Linus has to say here [tlug.gr.jp] .

Re:Thought Police (1)

eXtro (258933) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195212)

You could build an operating system around Linux that uses only BSD derived utilities though too. The argument that it should be GNU/Linux because its built around GNU tools as essentials and BSD/other licenses as optionals is very weak. It's Linux, you can insist that its called GNU/Linux all you want but its been named already. I sympathize with you, I really do, and just as soon as nanotechnology can build a small enough violing I'll play it for you.

Re:Thought Police (2)

(void*) (113680) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195144)

What is so hard about typing GNU/Linux now? Such simple effort expended towards acknowledging so many people. Why not?

Re:Thought Police (1)

blonde rser (253047) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195149)

I think people misinterpret those whom say all speach should be free and instead believe they are saying they think all speach is good. Everyone knows there is such a thing as bad speach: whether it be hateful or simply misinformed. But at the heart of free speach is the notion of private and public responces and denounciations of others statements.

The word 'should' is what is mostly being misunderstood due to context. There is a difference in saying "you should not say that (ie linux without gnu)" and saying "you should not be able to say that. One is addressing the speaker and the second is addressing justice itself (although the speaker is still the subject). How smug must one be to believe that they alone should have justice's ear; the pious address those concerned and let justice come out in the wash.

Re:Thought Police (1)

Agrivane (150553) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195153)

Why not just call it "LiGNUx"?

Taco's got his period! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2195069)

Look how angry he's getting! He won't use ESR's new word! He won't use RMS's old word! He posts troll after troll to the front page. His cunt must be gushing blood like a chest wound.

Perhaps this will open some eyes (0, Flamebait)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195072)

Maybe some of the more rabid fans of RMS will open their eyes now and see him for the megalomaniac that he is. It isn't about free speech or free software at all to him, it's about control and forcing his opinions upon everyone he can get to.

Two words: (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2195137)

ad hominem

No, it isn't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2195195)

Considering RMS is the subject of the discussion, not one of the conversants, it is not even vaguely ad hominem. Maybe if you'd learned the phrase somewhere other than slashdot, you'd actually be able to use it properly.

One word: (1)

Von Rex (114907) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195221)

Truth

Re:Perhaps this will open some eyes (3, Interesting)

quartz (64169) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195139)

I don't consider myself a "rabid RMS fan", but if it weren't for this megalomaniac, I wouldn't have a means now to thumb my nose at proprietary software and live my life Microsoft-free. I deeply respect him for that, and I'm willing to cut him some slack on occasion, especially since nobody (including this Drepper guy - his story looks more like a rant than anything else) has particularly compelling evidence to support their "RMS is a raving lunatic megalomaniac" claims. Now don't get me wrong, I will be as dissappointed as the next guy if it turns out that RMS is really losing it, but I won't deny the obvious, WHEN it becomes obvious. Call me conservative, but right now, Ulrich Drepper looks more like a raving lunatic to me for venting off like that in an official release document.

Besides, RMS can't really harm free software anyway, his own license would prevent him. :-)

Re:Perhaps this will open some eyes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2195207)

"...I wouldn't have a means now to thumb my nose at proprietary software..."

I didn't know RMS wrote BSD!

Re:Perhaps this will open some eyes (2)

(void*) (113680) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195182)

Perhaps it will surprise you, but the GPL is independent of GNU. You can slap the GPL on your own software products, and GNU would have nothing to do with it, apart from the fact that you used the same one from FSF.


And interestingly, the GPL does not grant RMS the control you think it does. Since it does not, and the GPL is the only relevant bit of information about GNU's control,everything else - that RMS is kinda extreme - is quite beside the point.


I think RMS has to sound extreme to some people, simply becuase the ideas he advocates are radical. Given the fact that the average moderate can't even defend his own opinions, why then is the judgement of 'extremist' in any way a good argument. These kind of personal attacks has got to stop.

This says nothing (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2195075)

People have asked my opinion, and I'll just leave it by saying I don't prefix "Linux" with those 3 little letters and a slash even tho I've been asked

_Who_ asked?

RMS, or some slashdot troll?

This matters, you know. As you put it know, your statement is meaningless.

Re:This says nothing (1)

mhaisley (410683) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195213)

While I can't speak on behalf of slashdot, I can speak in my own experiance with observers.net [observers.net] RMS himself, as well as Brad asked us to make modifications to a PUBLISHED story before they would make an offical comment on it... the end result: We made the changes, and they still declined to make a statement. They are extreamly pushy, and dificult to work with, one of the reasons were still dealing with the AOL/GPL violation [slashdot.org] issues, insted of having it well behind us...

-Michael Haisley
Staff Writer, Observers.net

Troll? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2195077)

It seems to me that either CmdrTaco is trolling with this story, or else is being manipulated by troll story submissions.

strong words (1)

mz001b (122709) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195081)

The morale of this is that people will hopefully realize what a control freak and raging manic Stallman is. Don't trust him. As soon as something isn't in line with his view he'll stab you in the back. NEVER voluntarily put a project you work on under the GNU umbrella since this means in Stallman's opinion that he has the right to make decisions for the project.

The glibc situation is even more frightening if one realizes the story behind it. When I started porting glibc 1.09 to Linux (which eventually became glibc 2.0) Stallman threatened me and tried to force me to contribute rather to the work on the Hurd. Work on Linux would be counter-productive to the Free Software course. Then came, what would be called embrace-and-extend if performed by the Evil of the North-West, and his claim for everything which lead to Linux's success.

I assume that he is suggesting not to sign the copyright over to GNU, but still supports using the GPL as a license for software. The bit about the Hurd is interesting. We've been hearing about the Hurd for a long time, and now that Linux is so strong, the Hurd will have a hard time taking over.

Re:strong words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2195130)

What specifically were these threats?

Those three little letters (5, Insightful)

cluening (6626) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195085)

Adding GNU to the front of Linux seems to me a lot like adding "FedEx" to the front of "Super Bowl" or something like that. It just seems like somebody wanting to get their name in lights for doing background work. Maybe I'm strange, but when I do background work, I usually enjoy being credited in the background someplace, not out in front of the people who pull things together in the end...

Re:Those three little letters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2195146)

Adding GNU to the front of Linux seems to me a lot like adding "FedEx" to the front of "Super Bowl" or something like that.

No: it is more like adding "NFL" to the front of "Super Bowl."

Re:Those three little letters (2)

norton_I (64015) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195167)

Well, when you buy or download a CD with a linux distribution, there is a lot of GNU software on it. Caldera's OpenUNIX product linked to yesterday demonstrates that for most users, the software environment is a much bigger piece of the "user experience" than the kernel.

However, there is a lot of other non-GNU software, too. It isn't really practical to say you use Mandrake X/KDE/GNU/Apache/Mozilla/Linux.

RMS, as a developer, thinks the development toolchain is the most important part of a system. Since almost all the development tools, plus the basic UNIX toolset (fileutils, shellutis, etc.) and emacs are all GNU software, GNU provides most of the software he uses directly.

To many other people, X, or their desktop environment, web browser, or irc client are the most important part of their system.

That is why I say Linux, but RMSs crusade for GNU/Linux doesn't bother me, nor do others who choose to say GNU/Linux.

However, what it sounds like he tried with glibc2 is inexcusable. I am going to withold final judgment until I see a statement from him, but I just lost a lot of respect for him.

RMS can be extremely obnoxious and hostile, but 99% of the time he is right. Here he is wrong.

GNU is not background work! (1)

antientropic (447787) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195190)

The GNU project has done a bit more than do "background work". Think of GNOME, bash, all the Unix utilities, or even Emacs. Not to mention all the development stuff, in particular the GNU compiler, which is not at all "background" if you develop software.

And of course FedEx didn't create the Super Bowl, while it is questionable whether Linux, or indeed much of the free software movement, would have existed without Stallman and the GNU project.

Re:GNU is not background work! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2195234)

Everyone knows Real Men Use Kornshell

Re:Those three little letters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2195227)

OLD/Linux...

The best thing for Linux... (0, Flamebait)

Tyler Eaves (344284) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195087)

would be for Richard Stalin to....disappear...in some way or another.

Re:The best thing for Linux... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2195165)

"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"

Re:The best thing for Linux... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2195223)

So which trashcan on what street do I drop the US$10k into?

Clearly.. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2195091)

The only answer is to exterminate all Jews.

RMS? Hostile? Nah (0)

jmallett (189882) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195095)

Saying RMS is hostile when it comes to GNU supported projects is a joke. This man will rear his ugly head in any GNU project and expect his voice to be heard regardless of what the developers want. Everything is instantly his even if his contributions amount to nothing. Who cares if he's responsible for the "movement"... Since when is code supposed to be driven by politics? Maybe in a small insignificant project, but you don't play political games with something you expect a community that worships you to use. Unless, of course, you're RMS.

Re:RMS? Hostile? Nah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2195169)

Like the time he tried to make the kernel developers NOT cache floppy accesses, just because some user MIGHT take it out while it's mounted.

Re:RMS? Hostile? Nah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2195203)

Oh come on... RMS is bossy and overbearing in GNU projects, but Linus is an absolute tyrant when it comes to changes to the linux kernel. I don't hear you complaining about him...

Re:RMS? Hostile? Nah (0, Troll)

jmallett (189882) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195224)

It isn't relevent to the story, so I don't complain. I loathe Linux, and I hate Linus. He's a moron and has no idea about how to run an open source project. Not to mention the fact he has benefeited infinitely from it and STILL refuses to open it up to the community that worships him. If he weren't a self-indulgent prick just like RMS, Linux would be kept in a CVS repo controlled by an objective third-party group of developers, picked by Linus, and the community.

What I'd like to know... (1, Offtopic)

denzo (113290) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195100)

is why can't gcc 3 be used to compile this new version of glibc? From the release notes:

And while we are talking about compilers: gcc 3 can NOT be used.


I'm getting tired of these specific version dependencies (especially in Qt/KDE apps). :P

Re:What I'd like to know... (2, Informative)

randombit (87792) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195129)

is why can't gcc 3 be used to compile this new version of glibc?

Because glibc is very sensitive to changes in how the stack is laid out, etc. This is just one of those things, just like how 2.2 kernels could not be built with gcc 2.95. Eventually everyone will get their stuff straightened out, and that's that.

Re:What I'd like to know... (1)

jelle (14827) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195183)

"Eventually everyone will get their stuff straightened out"

&lt sceptic&gt'Eventually'... When is that? While I'm still alive?&lt /sceptic&gt

Re:What I'd like to know... (2, Informative)

randombit (87792) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195219)

'Eventually'... When is that? While I'm still alive?

Who knows? And anyway, who cares? Compiling glibc is a gigantic PITA. It takes hours even on a fast machine, and it's not really necessary for anyone except people doing distributions. Did you really need to compile glibc with gcc 3.0 right away? You can use glibc with gcc 3.0 just fine, you know.

And GCC 3.0.1 comes out tommorow.

I'll call it GNU/Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2195101)

when I start calling my other OSes Microsoft Windows and Apple Mac OS X.

GF-Reprise (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2195103)

"I am a goat fucker"

-Richard M. Stallman, 1996

.

This I can't agree with (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2195108)

RMS said that support for Linux would be "Counter productive" to the FSF. I'm sorry, but I'm not sure many people knew about GNU (besides Emacs) before Linux. Also, if it wasn't for Linux, GNU would've probably been forgotten and people would use Free BSD systems. RMS's probem is that he has the SAME EXACT opinion of software that he had 15 years ago. Now that is not normal, normally it would've evolved a bit, but not in his case. Personnaly, I think what RMS did for the Free Software community is great, but I don't think he has rights to control people and projects like that. Seems like "If a project is GNU, the project belongs to RMS."

RMS: All your projects are belon to us!

Re:This I can't agree with (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2195178)

I knew about GNU and used it before Linux existed. Of course, since there was no kernel, I couldn't use it on my home PC...

Hipocricy of Mr. Taco (1, Troll)

MSBob (307239) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195116)

People have asked my opinion, and I'll just leave it by saying I don't prefix "Linux" with those 3 little letters and a slash even tho I've been asked.

I'm sorry CmdrTaco but during the infamous KDE/Gnome flamefests you added way too much oil to the fire to be considered even remotely moderate on the issue of Free Software and the GPL. Don't try to make yourself look so objective and balanced when all the long toothed /. readers know exactly what your views on anything non GPLed are.

Re:Hipocricy of Mr. Taco (1)

kevlar (13509) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195132)

Amen to that Brother!

Re:Hipocricy [sic] of Mr. Taco (2)

dboyles (65512) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195218)

I'm sorry CmdrTaco but during the infamous KDE/Gnome flamefests you added way too much oil to the fire to be considered even remotely moderate on the issue of Free Software and the GPL.

So during discussions about the FSF, GPL, etc., CmdrTaco expressed his opinion in a matter-of-fact way. Now, when presenting a story that goes on the main page of /., he remains moderate on the issue, simply stating his opinion in a manner that it is obviously seperated from the story.

Wait, what's the problem? Did you want him to write a 300-word diatribe at the top of the article vehemently expressing his strong beliefs on the subject? Isn't this what we as /. readers complain about on an almost daily basis? Just because he happens to have strong opinions doesn't mean that he can't post a news story on the subject. It's not hypocrisy at all.

Am I missing something today? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2195121)

Is today April 1st in Slashdot's timezone or something? CmdrTaco must either be drunk off his ass or pulling some sort of prank to let all these troll stories get onto the front page. This article is something I'd expect to be cut and pasted by crapflooders like the "___ is Dying" trolls, not something newsworthy. Sheesh.

Stallman.... (5, Insightful)

Crossfire (15197) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195124)

I'm pretty sure those of us who have met Stallman in person would agree wholeheartedly.

Despite the fact the cause has some degree of validity, the extremes which he takes it to regularly stomps on people's toes, and is generally antisocial.

I had the (mis?)fortune to meet him during one of his visits to Canberra, Australia - which, over lunch, he proceded to argue that our local Linux Users Group (CLUG) should rename itself to the Canberra GNU/Linux Users Group. This did not go down well.

Even though there are some fairly valid reasons as to why, its still fairly egotistical of him - did he ask for a consensus of all the developers releasing "GNU Software"? Does his own technical work make up a large slice of the GNU works used by linux? [No, Emacs does not count as a large slice, despite its footprint. ;)]

Just consider RMS as what he really is, a politican.

Re:Stallman.... (5, Informative)

jorbettis (113413) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195164)

Well, it's not about stallman's ego, it's about making people realize that there is more to Free Software than the apolitical views of Linus.

BTW, here's a quote from one of Stallman's speeches (it was very well recieved):

When I do this, some people think it's because I want my ego to be fed. Of course, it's not like I'm asking you to call it Stallmanix.

-- Richard Stallman on GNU/Linux


Re:Stallman.... (1)

Amon Re (102766) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195168)

Geez its not like he requested it be called Canberra RMS/Linux Users Group.

wait a moment (1, Troll)

SubtleNuance (184325) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195140)

Seems to me like this developer dosnt feel he should have to 'answer' to anyone. In his rather flaming screed he stops to say "and I reserve the right of the final decision. ".

One cannot dicatate the terms to a project and treat any act of anyothers will, with regards to that project, as an afront on his unchallengeable-word. If he cannot deal with group decision making, than maybe (as he suggests) he can fork his code and stop receiving contributions. IF however, he wants to keep an open project, he must give some credit to other developers.

RMS may have, at some time, contributed some code to this project... he then deserves to have his voice heard. The majority rules in GNU/Linux and if this developer dosnt like it, again, he is simply invited to fork.

also... i do recognize that he began the porting project (as i learned in the article) - but once you accept patches you accept considering others opinion. Looks like this developer is a little upset at having someone (RMS) use his weight to challenge his fiefdom.

On a more ancillary note: His email was tremendously 'trollish' - his tone and demeanour would tell me that this person's ego had a LARGE part in his reaction to RMS... that tells more about hims own personality than it does RMS's.

GNU and the FSF are about a political and philisophical ideal.. and I am glad RMS defends those ideals endlessly. I am amazed by his tenacity and single-minded devotion to his alturist cause. Anyone who mistakes RMS as being a 'egotist' I believe is really simply incapable of understanding someone with this level of dedication, determination and self-lessness. People hear him demand the "GNU" and think its his ego, I bet he would rather not have to repeat himself over and over and over and just let it rest - but there are people who still dont understand exactly what libre software means... and RMSs adherence to that goal.

Re:wait a moment (2, Insightful)

Crossfire (15197) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195179)

I also demand the final word in anything I'm the principle author - its called Quality Assurance.

ie: I filter out what I feel is crap, and similarly, I work on what *I* want to. If you submit me a good patch, it'll go in, and you'll be in my credits file/changelog, but at the end of the day, its still my project.

When you're working on stuff in your free time, this is the way of the game. Its not just a job, its personal.

Re:wait a moment yourself (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2195197)

IF however, he wants to keep an open project, he must give some credit to other developers.

says who?? It's not in the GPL. He can do anything he wants to do. It would be a nice gesture sure, I don't see anything inherently wrong with that.

The majority of the Linux community has not embraced naming Linux GNU/Linux for whatever reasons. So why can't RMS and his sheep respect that and let the issue die? You say majority rules right??
Apparently it only matters when the outcome is in their favor.

.

Re:wait a moment yourself (2)

SubtleNuance (184325) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195217)

says who?? It's not in the GPL. He can do anything he wants to do

Did you read the article? RMS asked a group of major contributors to change something, some agreed some disagreed - this person cannot act as if the project (the collection of GPLed code) is his to stear alone... if *EVERY* other developer had agreed w/ RMS, and they forked, would this developer be crying 'foul' now about his work being lead in a direction he didnt agree with? You bet he would.

why can't RMS and his sheep respect that and let the issue die? You say majority rules right??
and RMS is welcome to continue to argue *for* GNU/Linux... whats your issue?

Re:wait a moment yourself (2)

(void*) (113680) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195229)

Listen to what you are saying now. In a collaborative effort, you listen to what people want. Perhaps the developer in question was just did not understand what open collaboration means?

Names (3, Interesting)

_iris (92554) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195141)

I hope I don't see any README files bitching about "give credit where credit is due" and not calling GNU&Linux (my variant which is a bit more descriptive imo) by a name which gives credit to the GNU developers (not the FSF developers but anyone who releases their code under the GPL).

On the other hand, does the name of XMMS give credit to the mpg123 developers? There are plenty of projects which repackage other GNU software without giving credit in the name. Does the GNU licensing give enough credit? I really don't think so, but demanding that the name of every project incorporated is not the answer either. Mozilla/XPCom/Bugzilla/Talkback/etc.

--Drew Vogel

12,000th post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2195157)

www.goatse.cx [goatse.cx] or 209.242.124.241 [209.242.124.241] , the choice is yours..

GNU is Not UNIX or Linux. but Linux needs ' GNU ' (2, Troll)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195159)


"People have asked my opinion, and I'll just leave it by saying I don't prefix "Linux" with those 3 little letters and a slash even tho I've been asked."

Never mind that when I purchase or download a Linux version 70% or more of the included software is GNU. Right?

Wow, Rob. Colour me surprised ... NOT .

If you want to boot to a good OS for free in all it's connotations try the Linux kernel. If you wish to also be productive, your almost certain to be using GNU [gnu.org] software. And even if you aren't, chances are that your kernel was compiled by the GNU Compiler Collection [gnu.org] (GCC). Linux sans GNU ? Please at least try to be serious.

Re:GNU is Not UNIX or Linux. but Linux needs ' GNU (1)

eclectro (227083) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195187)

There are other open source C compilers on the horizon (watcom), so linux won't be dependant on any particular "GNU" compiler.

A Thought (0, Offtopic)

roguerez (319598) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195170)

Wouldn't it be an idea to put the Linux kernel, and 'surrounding' stuff (in the context of linux and it's distributions) under a BSD license?

I know a little about what the pro's and con's of several free software licenses are, and - at least in my humble opinion - a BSD license would be more free that the GPL.

Personally with free I mean it as in:

free beer
free speach
free of 'socialistic' (in the Russia, 1917, meaning of the word) leadership

A BSD license would allow a company to extend your code without contributing it back. It would allow the code to be used in baby shredding machines (just to talk in Theo de Raadt's style :), but on the other hand, it would be really free for any one. Much like public domain, but you get the credit and you would still have a lot of developers working on the stuff, like it is now. Apache, X, the BSD's and lots more big good projects use the BSD license and they don't seem to have a problem with it.

This is really stuff for more discussion, also outside Slashdot (stories with their comments only live that long). It's just a thought.

PS: don't take the baby shredder too seriously, it's just to make a point :)

why call it GNU/linux (1)

dermond (33903) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195172)

language forms our thoughts. the words and terminology we use influences our ideas. and not only our ideas: the ideas of the people we talk to as well. language is our marketing. why whe should call it GNU/linux? not because stallman made the whole thing possible by providing gcc, bash, etc..etc. but because we have to promote an idea: the philosophy of freedom

often when people discuss about "linux vs microsoft" they see it as just a discussion on technical merits. they do not understand that what it is all about is a matter of freedom. so here it helps to introduce the GNU philosophy. by calling it GNU/linux the important part of the whole thing is much more visible. after all: if it where only for technical merits we could use just about any other unix as well in many cases..

linux is an excelent unix. but so are *BSDs and so is solaris..etc.. what is the important part, the part that has the power to change our world to be a better place is that the linux kernel and most utilities are under the GPL. this is what changes our world. not the technical merits of it.

greetings from europe. der mond.

I throw my support behind Stallman (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2195174)

I hate moderates. They have no vision and no conviction. They go where the wind blows. You can never count on them when the shit hits the fan.

RMS is a man I can trust. He sticks to his ideals no matter what, and he has vision. I hope he never falls prey to apathy like moderates do.

Re:I throw my support behind Stallman (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2195192)

Exactly. People can say whatever they want about Stallman but one thing is certain. That guy will never ever sellout. Phonies like ESR and O'reilly are fair weather friends and only care about stock and business opportunities not freedom.

That's FUD (2)

j7953 (457666) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195194)

The LGPL does not try to force anyone to use any GNU/whatever naming conventions. The excerpt from the license that is in the release notes is from the LGPL's preamble, it does not require any LGPL project to include GNU in its name, nor does it require Linux vendors to rename their products.

The glibc's release notes unfortunately don't mention what exactly RMS reqeusted, other than "control". "Control" is a very vague term. What kind of unacceptable changes did he ask for?

Also, the "or any later version" provision of the (L)GPL does not allow RMS to "to screw you when it pleases him", because the license explicitly states that "Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version."

I consider the release notes FUD until someone can present me some very convincing facts.

The Nature of the Beast (1)

pryan (169593) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195198)

This is what happens when anyone envisions a society. They find that their design must be enforced, or the vision will fracture, evolve, and maybe die. This is a consequence of a society, and of organic systems in general. Of course, the society is more powerful than the creator, and the society will eventually win. No amount of force can constrain the society to the model indefinitely.

The vision Stallman has will not be reality, no matter how much Stallman kicks and screams. He created something wonderful, but now that other people are involved, it is something else than what he originally envisioned and he is fighting that. He can't fight it forever. It is not his anymore.

Crystal Space (1)

JohnG (93975) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195206)

I remember learning to very strongly disagree with RMS's tactics/views after reading an email exchange between him and the head developer of Crystal Space regarding the legality of porting CS to PS2, which would involve using Sony's proprietary software of course. The link is here [linuxgames.com] . Although apparently it was mentioned on Slashdot before. But I found it odd that he seemed against the whole thing until this statement:

"But I could imagine that a PS2 wrapper that supports some standard interface used on other machines might make SONY extremely unhappy, because of encouraging people to write their software portably instead of writing it specifically for the PS2. Making them unhappy seems like a good thing given the circumstances."

WTF!? Closed implementations are bad, but if it pisses a commercial developer off it's OK? All in all I think he is right though, people DO confuse "Open Source" and "Free Software". It's a good thing for RMS to, I realize this is going to be marked as flamebait, but I think if people knew what a bigot RMS was, they would be much less likely to support "Free Software".
And thank-you btw CmdrTaco for using "Linux" and not "GNU/Linux".

GNU/linux || Linux thats the question (1)

kuiken (115647) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195222)

Maybe we should have a poll about this just to kinde see what ppl are thinking about this

Not the schism you think (4, Interesting)

The Pim (140414) | more than 13 years ago | (#2195232)

tension continues to grow between the extreme free speech faction and the more moderate folks.

Ulrich is actually a pretty staunch defender of software freedom. I think this is a political and personality conflict, more than a difference in ideology.

But then, Ulrich is quite inscrutable, so I don't claim to speak for him.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?