On Jul 19, 2008, Thomas Cameron <thomas.cameron@camerontech.com> wrote:

> Alexandre, I've watched you tilting at this windmill for months. It's
> just silly. Someone else called the demand for the FSF folks to call it
> GNU/Linux "childish." I didn't really think so until I skimmed through
> the rest of the thread.

There appears to be some confusion here. There's nobody from the FSF
participating in this thread.

> I've never denigrated or minimized GNU's participation in the success of
> the Linux operating system, or any other operating systems.

> My point is that GNU is only a *part* of that success. There are other
> projects which have been as or more important in that success. Look at
> Apache and Sendmail and BIND.

Apache, sendmail, bind and linux are not operating systems. They have
never been.

That people made this silly and childish mistake of renaming the GNU
operating system to Linux is unfair *and* it works against the very
evangelization you claim to support. Nevertheless, you use such
denigrating terms to our movement as Linux operating system and F/OSS.
One gets to wonder whether we are indeed working for the same social,
ethical and moral goals.

> Those are the services which got Linux in the back door in the
> enterprise.

And where would have Linux been if it wasn't running under the GNU
operating system?

> I'm the first one to admit that without the GNU c compiler and c
> libraries,

That's just a small part of the GNU operating system. Linux uses far
more than that from it.

> *all* of them came together for the success of what the vast
> majority of the community and the industry calls "Linux."

So? The vast majority of computer users run non-Free Software, and
even has it as part or, in some cases, all of their operating system.
Even when it's GNU/Linux. Who's afraid of trying to change the world
for the better?

> Look at it from the outside, Alexandre. There are many who feel that
> the FSF's demand for everyone to pay homage by calling it GNU/Linux is
> just an attempt to steal the "glory" of Linus's success.

*If* that was the case, it would just be returning the alleged glory
to the project that most deserved it. The people who most strongly
oppose this correction are precisely those who stole the "glory" of
GNU's success.

But that's not the case. The case at hand is that by rejecting the
idea of mentioning GNU, a very different set of values is promoted.
And this set of values denigrates our movement, works against our
movement, and makes our task, that was already difficult, even more
difficult. Pretending it doesn't, waving it off as childish, that's
what's ridiculous. And offensive. And disrespectful. Please don't
do that.

> It hurts the FSF *much* more than it helps.

The goal is not to promote the FSF. If it hurts the FSF, too bad.
The goal is to promote software freedom, to generate awareness about
this issue, and about how difficult and important it is to fight for
it. If you believe Linus and Linux care about these issues, and that
by spreading the name Linux you're helping promote these values,
you've been fooled, like so many others.

> Let it go, man. Just relax, enjoy the incredible success you've had,

Heh. There's still a very long road until we, the Free Software
movement, can claim any success. Hardly anyone these days can use a
computer in freedom, and that was the goal, remember?

Only those who set a goal such as 'making "Linux" popular' have
anything to celebrate. It's running on something between 1% and 5% of
the computers in the world, and it's soon to skyrocket as cell phone
vendors go "Linux" with full-fledged tivoization. Way to go! (not)

> focus all the energy you are wasting in this silly argument on making
> the compiler better.

See, this totally misses the point. The compiler is quite sufficient
already for people to live in freedom. The issues that need attention
now are completely different. Software development is quite secondary
in my personal list of priorities, because it's not anywhere as
relevant any more to advance the goals of the Free Software movement
as spreading awareness about the importance of seeking and pursuing
freedom. So I am putting my energy where it matters the most, and in
the mean time I'm working on technical issues because they help me pay
the bills and support my family and enables me to put my energy where
it matters for a majority of my time.

Now, if you set different goals, if you prefer to not look at the big
picture and cheer for the gains in popularity afforded by sacrificing
the fundamental goals, that's between you and your conscience.

> Nothing will gain the FSF more respect and
> acceptance than continued success.

Success as measured by "how many people gained freedom", which it set
out to achieve, or as measured by "how many people use a bit of Free
Software without even knowing or caring", which others have adopted as
their own goals?

> Please continue to evangelize Free
> Software, I am totally on board with helping you out.

That's precisely what I'm doing, while listening to demands for me to
shut up, to drop childish and ridiculous arguments, and to stop
hunting windmills.

--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

On Sun, 2008-07-20 at 02:00 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jul 19, 2008, Thomas Cameron <thomas.cameron@camerontech.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Alexandre, I've watched you tilting at this windmill for months.
> It's
> > just silly. Someone else called the demand for the FSF folks to
> call it
> > GNU/Linux "childish." I didn't really think so until I skimmed
> through
> > the rest of the thread.
>
> There appears to be some confusion here. There's nobody from the FSF
> participating in this thread.

FSFLA, then.

> > I've never denigrated or minimized GNU's participation in the
> success of
> > the Linux operating system, or any other operating systems.
>
> > My point is that GNU is only a *part* of that success. There are
> other
> > projects which have been as or more important in that success. Look
> at
> > Apache and Sendmail and BIND.
>
> Apache, sendmail, bind and linux are not operating systems. They have
> never been.

I've never said they were. You are AGAIN intentionally missing the
point and sidestepping. They are part of a DISTRIBUTION. Let me try to
write this in small words so you can understand it. I am talking about
what most folks call "Linux," a Linux distribution.

> That people made this silly and childish mistake of renaming the GNU
> operating system to Linux is unfair *and* it works against the very
> evangelization you claim to support. Nevertheless, you use such
> denigrating terms to our movement as Linux operating system and F/OSS.
> One gets to wonder whether we are indeed working for the same social,
> ethical and moral goals.

Apparently not. I am about getting Free and Open Source Software
adopted in the mainstream, and thereby growing the community. As far as
I'm concerned, I am working towards increasing freedom. We're both
working for the same thing, but you have such an incredibly narrow view
that you will apparently accept no pragmatism.

> > Those are the services which got Linux in the back door in the
> > enterprise.
>
> And where would have Linux been if it wasn't running under the GNU
> operating system?

/me rolls his eyes. I've already conceded that point. Why are you
arguing in circles?

> > I'm the first one to admit that without the GNU c compiler and c
> > libraries,
>
> That's just a small part of the GNU operating system. Linux uses far
> more than that from it.

And Linux (as in a typical Linux distro) uses far more of other
projects' code than it uses of GNU. Therefore, to my original point
(which you are ignoring), it makes no sense to call a Linux distro
"GNU/Linux." No more than calling it a "Sendmail/Linux" or
"Apache/Linux." All of those projects contributed to the success of
Linux.

> > *all* of them came together for the success of what the vast
> > majority of the community and the industry calls "Linux."
>
> So? The vast majority of computer users run non-Free Software, and
> even has it as part or, in some cases, all of their operating system.
> Even when it's GNU/Linux. Who's afraid of trying to change the world
> for the better?

ROFLMAO - dude, seriously, read what I'm writing. I'm talking about the
call for Linux to be called GNU/Linux. No more, no less.

> > Look at it from the outside, Alexandre. There are many who feel
> that
> > the FSF's demand for everyone to pay homage by calling it GNU/Linux
> is
> > just an attempt to steal the "glory" of Linus's success.
>
> *If* that was the case, it would just be returning the alleged glory
> to the project that most deserved it. The people who most strongly
> oppose this correction are precisely those who stole the "glory" of
> GNU's success.

Um, hold on a sec, there. "Stole?" To steal typically means to have
the intent to deprive another of property. I've been using Linux since
1995, and I've never, ever seen anyone in the Linux community indicate
that they intended to deprive GNU of any property or even credit for all
they've done.

That the Linux kernel was what accelerated F/OSS popularity was
happenstance mixed with cool code. That the general public saw Linux
distributions rise up in popularity and they chose to call them "Linux"
instead of "GNU/Linux" is not theft, it's just the way things shook out.

Accusations of theft are pretty serious. I don't buy it at all.

> But that's not the case. The case at hand is that by rejecting the
> idea of mentioning GNU, a very different set of values is promoted.
> And this set of values denigrates our movement, works against our
> movement, and makes our task, that was already difficult, even more
> difficult. Pretending it doesn't, waving it off as childish, that's
> what's ridiculous. And offensive. And disrespectful. Please don't
> do that.

Ah, OK, I get it now. Yours is the One True Way, and everyone else is
heretical.

Extremism in any form is bad. You're being extremist here, sorry, no
other way to call it.

> > It hurts the FSF *much* more than it helps.
>
> The goal is not to promote the FSF. If it hurts the FSF, too bad.
> The goal is to promote software freedom, to generate awareness about
> this issue, and about how difficult and important it is to fight for
> it. If you believe Linus and Linux care about these issues, and that
> by spreading the name Linux you're helping promote these values,
> you've been fooled, like so many others.

Wow - talk about biting the hand that feeds you. Don't you work for Red
Hat, a company best known for... Linux? Wait, sorry, that's not biting
the hand that feeds you, that's hypocrisy. Linus and Linux don't
*really* promote freedom, but you'll take money from a Linux company.
So you're pragmatic enough to do that, but not enough to recognize that
there is more than one way to spread free software? Whatever.

> > Let it go, man. Just relax, enjoy the incredible success you've
> had,
>
> Heh. There's still a very long road until we, the Free Software
> movement, can claim any success. Hardly anyone these days can use a
> computer in freedom, and that was the goal, remember?
>
> Only those who set a goal such as 'making "Linux" popular' have
> anything to celebrate. It's running on something between 1% and 5% of
> the computers in the world, and it's soon to skyrocket as cell phone
> vendors go "Linux" with full-fledged tivoization. Way to go! (not)
>
> > focus all the energy you are wasting in this silly argument on
> making
> > the compiler better.
>
> See, this totally misses the point. The compiler is quite sufficient
> already for people to live in freedom. The issues that need attention
> now are completely different. Software development is quite secondary
> in my personal list of priorities, because it's not anywhere as
> relevant any more to advance the goals of the Free Software movement
> as spreading awareness about the importance of seeking and pursuing
> freedom. So I am putting my energy where it matters the most, and in
> the mean time I'm working on technical issues because they help me pay
> the bills and support my family and enables me to put my energy where
> it matters for a majority of my time.
>
> Now, if you set different goals, if you prefer to not look at the big
> picture and cheer for the gains in popularity afforded by sacrificing
> the fundamental goals, that's between you and your conscience.
>
> > Nothing will gain the FSF more respect and
> > acceptance than continued success.
>
> Success as measured by "how many people gained freedom", which it set
> out to achieve, or as measured by "how many people use a bit of Free
> Software without even knowing or caring", which others have adopted as
> their own goals?
>
> > Please continue to evangelize Free
> > Software, I am totally on board with helping you out.
>
> That's precisely what I'm doing, while listening to demands for me to
> shut up, to drop childish and ridiculous arguments, and to stop
> hunting windmills.

Again, I think you are going to extremes. I think that by penetrating
enterprise computing environments (as you call it, 'making Linux
popular'), we *are* increasing freedom. The more people who are exposed
to Free/Open Source Software, the more those people will participate in
the community. The bigger the community, the more penetration we can
get, and the bigger the community becomes again. Apparently that's not
good enough for you, and that's fine. For me, it's great.

Now I'm done with this thread. By sidestepping and redirecting the
conversation or flat ignoring what I've said, you've reminded me of that
old saying about wrestling with a pig. The pig enjoys it and you just
get dirty.

Thomas

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

On Sat, 2008-07-19 at 17:02 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jul 18, 2008, "Patrick O'Callaghan" <pocallaghan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> >> However common sense kicks in: if you replace or remove any single
> >> component of the large collection of programs that together amount to
> >> an operating system, this won't make enough of a different to make it
> >> a different operating system. So, GNU-Hurd is still the GNU operating
> >> system.
>
> > So Operating System - kernel = Operating System?
[...]
> Incidentally, this is exactly what happened: there was this complete
> operating system called GNU. Its kernel Hurd, still incomplete, was
> disregarded, and Linux was used in its stead. Thus GNU[-Hurd]+Linux,
> or GNU+Linux for short.

So the "complete operating system called GNU" wasn't actually usable
without the added Linux kernel. This is a strange definition of
"complete". We seem to be going round in circles here.

> You can shorten it further to GNU, if you need a single name: just
> choose the name of the most significant component, of the largest
> contributor, which is common practice.

Or I can shorten it to Linux, which is what most people do. I could even
call it Watermelon, but I do believe language is for communication and a
shared terminology is helpful in this regard.

> > (in fact I would characterize the anti-GNU/Linux position being
> > exactly that: people use the terminology they find convenient and
> > aren't too worried about exactness).
>
> I'm sure people who don't care could fit in this description.

Hello! This is exactly my point. Most people Do Not Care!

> But people who fight violently against GNU/Linux most often have some
> other agenda, and find all sorts of excuses to promote only Linux, in
> detriment of GNU and of the Free Software movement.

Not averyone who can't be bothered saying GNU/Linux is "violently
against" it. In fact I'm convinced the predominant sentiment is one of
indifference. Do not, however, make the mistake of assuming that
indifference about the name translates to indifference about Free
software in itself.

> > Replacing the kernel is not remotely on the same level as replacing
> > some random program,
>
> Agreed, see above.
>
> > and counting lines of code is no way to assign importance.
>
> Agreed as well, it's not the whole story.
>
> What criterium do you suggest instead?

Criterion (it's Greek, not Latin). My criterion: wherever possible, use
what people understand.

[...]

> >> > OTOH (and this is something I haven't raised before), what people in the
> >> > great majority *do* say is Linux, not GNU/Linux.
>
> >> Ad populum? The great majority thinks Windows is part of the
> >> computer, but that so many people make this mistake doesn't make it
> >> right.
>
> > "The majority" means "the majority of people who *do* know what
> > these things are".
>
> I'm afraid this doesn't make it any less of an argumentum ad populum.

Yes, I have to confess that my argument that the dominant name is the
one that most people use is at root an ad populum one.

> That many people make the same mistake doesn't make it any less of a
> mistake.

And once again I repeat that it's not about being a mistake or not, it's
about what is used. This is like prescriptive arguments about grammer,
such as not splitting infinitives or ending sentences with prepositions.
In the end they always have to concede to descriptive formulae for what
people actually speak. This can take generations but the process is
irreversible.

[...]

I snipped the rest of your argument not because I disagree with it, but
because my purpose in making my original comment is getting lost. I am
not arguing the case for or against Free software, or the GPL, or
anything at all except for a) trying (fruitlessly it seems) to get some
consistency in the use of terminology, and b) making a sociological
comment on the dominance of one name over another.

That's all.

poc

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

>>>>> "Patrick" == Patrick O'Callaghan <pocallaghan@gmail.com> writes:

>> But people who fight violently against GNU/Linux most often
>> have some other agenda, and find all sorts of excuses to
>> promote only Linux, in detriment of GNU and of the Free
>> Software movement.

Patrick> Not averyone who can't be bothered saying GNU/Linux is
Patrick> "violently against" it. In fact I'm convinced the
Patrick> predominant sentiment is one of indifference. Do not,
Patrick> however, make the mistake of assuming that indifference
Patrick> about the name translates to indifference about Free
Patrick> software in itself.

Quite right!

I myself almost always say Linux. It is just quicker. But I am a very
passionate supporter of the FSF and the GPL.
--
Colin Adams
Preston Lancashire

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

On Sat, 2008-07-19 at 14:17 -0400, Kevin J. Cummings wrote:

> So, you want to use a GNU utility to "prove" that the OS is GNU/Linux?
> Sounds rather like GNU made an assertion and is using that assertion as
> a proof.

Assertiveness maintains relationships with others as well as personal
goals, while aggression maintains only personal goals. Ric

--
----------------------------------------------------
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
Linux user# 44256 Sign up at: http://counter.li.org/
http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/oar
https://oar.dev.java.net/
Verizon Cell # 336-254-1339
-----------------------------------------------------

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

On Sat, 2008-07-19 at 14:01 +0200, Björn Persson wrote:
> Ric Moore wrote:
> > Has HURD actually become a working kernel?? Ric
>
> Apparently yes:
>
> http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/hurd-install
>
> Björn Persson

I just took a peek at it. Crufty comes to mind. And, it took over ten
years to do what Linus did over 10 years ago. <sighs> Ric

--
----------------------------------------------------
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
Linux user# 44256 Sign up at: http://counter.li.org/
http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/oar
https://oar.dev.java.net/
Verizon Cell # 336-254-1339
-----------------------------------------------------

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

On Jul 19, 2008, Antonio Olivares <olivares14031@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> >> Bizarrely, it seems one has to pay for a "Live Hurd CD".

> He might be inclined to charge for shipping and handling

I agree any reasonable person would. But he seemed to object to the
idea of having to pay anything for Free Software. I thought I'd try
his implied offer and hope he'd see how bizarre his surprise was.

--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

On Jul 20, 2008, Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@verizon.net> wrote:

> Well, we are hijacking a thread here, but here is a snippet:

Yeah, you're a bad, bad person! :-)

Get out of this thread! This is only for ridiculous, childish
political debates on ethics, morals and social values. Technical
content is not welcome.

:-D

(I'm not serious, but I wonder how people who've shouted SHUT UP to me
in other threads would react seeing themselves in a mirror like this
:-)

--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

On Jul 19, 2008, Timothy Murphy <gayleard@eircom.net> wrote:

> Just to explain my remark above, I was referring to the document
> <http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/hurd-install>
> which only mentions a Live Hurd CD in the context
> that it is available for purchase.

And what's wrong with that?

Are you by any chance one of those (unfortunately many) people who
take 'Free Software' as meaning 'gratis software'?

Or do you misunderstand it as 'software available for download'?

What makes Software Free is that its users get their 4 essential
freedoms respected. It doesn't require anyone who wants to to be able
to become a user.

The same applies to Open Source Software, FWIW.

> As I mentioned elsewhere I did not actually have much luck
> searching for this famous Hurd Live CD.

It doesn't matter. If you believe strongly that Free Software ought
should be available gratis, even in physical medium, you might as well
pay the small fee and make sure it is.

> If you really don't have the facility for burning CDs
> and can point me to the URL I will be happy to send you a real Live CD.

Don't bother, I already have a GNU/Hurd Live CD. I wouldn't mind
having a newer one (mine is many years old), but I was really just
testing your consistency of opinion :-)

> I would do that myself if I knew where to get it.

You do know that, you just don't want to pay for it :-)

--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

On Jul 19, 2008, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:

> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>
>>> The core of the distribution is the kernel, called Linux.
>>
>> What about GNU *core*utils? :-P :-D
>>
>> And then, again, what if you remove Linux, install kFreeBSD or
>> OpenSolaris in its stead, rebuild glibc to export the same ABI but use
>> the system calls of the new kernel, and reboot? How come that would
>> still be Linux?

> It wouldn't be Linux.

With all those "Linux" applications, libraries and tools, even lots of
GNU programs built "for Linux"? How could it possibly not be "Linux"?
:-)

Oh wait, maybe it wasn't before either. That would explain it.

> It might be http://www.nexenta.org/os.

Not quite the scenario I described.

Nexenta actually rebuilds all packages. What I proposed was to
rebuild *only* GNU libc to retarget the entire system to the
replacement kernel. In some cases, not even that is required, for
some kernels can emulate Linux system calls. Then, the
allegedly-Linux operating system runs pretty much unmodified without
any Linux around. Odd, wouldn't you say?

--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list