Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
Hell.S...@cwctv.net
Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majo...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Mike Galbraith
>This is not a pathetic community, it has over 2 million estimated users,
>its time for Linux users to realise WHY it exists
Yup. It's high time they realized that Linux exists today solely because a
lazy Finnish student conned a bunch of folks into doing his homework. His
"Tom Sawyer::whitewashing fences is fun'" swindle worked too well, and he
doesn't have the heart to tell everybody that he _graduated_.
Linux exists because working for fun is free... or something like that ;-)
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
-Mike
/me stumbles off in pursuit of the wily aspirin bottle.
Richard Stallman
lazy Finnish student conned a bunch of folks into doing his homework.
That's a colorful way of saying that Linux was developed by Linus
Torvalds. If by "Linux" you mean the kernel whose maintenance is
discussed on this list, that is true.
You're surely aware that when the media, companies, and users say
"Linux", they usually do not mean the kernel. They usually have in
mind an entire operating system in which Linux is used. This entire
system wasn't developed by Linus Torvalds--it is basically GNU, which
was started in 1984. The system exists because idealistic programmers
had a vision of a different kind of society and had the determination
to make it happen.
If you want to avoid predictably steering readers into confusion, each
time you say (in one way or another) that Linux was developed by Linus
Torvalds, you need to explain that Linux is one component of the
GNU+Linux system which is what users typically run.
For further discussion, and for responses to all the usual
counterarguments, see http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html.
Larry McVoy
and we can keep this going for months!
This reminds me of soc.singles, a venerable hangout for weirdos of all
kinds, yours truly included years and years ago. I once posted some
inflammatory statement and disappeared to Japan for several months
(installing a supercomputer at Tokyo Institute of Technology, look at
the acronymn, gotta love it), and then came back. 3 months later.
Read soc.singles. They were *still* arguing about it.
Then and now, the thought that occurred was "get a life".
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
Richard B. Johnson
[SNIPPED...]
>
> You're surely aware that when the media, companies, and users say
> "Linux", they usually do not mean the kernel. They usually have in
> mind an entire operating system in which Linux is used. This entire
> system wasn't developed by Linus Torvalds--it is basically GNU, which
> was started in 1984. The system exists because idealistic programmers
> had a vision of a different kind of society and had the determination
> to make it happen.
>
> If you want to avoid predictably steering readers into confusion, each
> time you say (in one way or another) that Linux was developed by Linus
> Torvalds, you need to explain that Linux is one component of the
> GNU+Linux system which is what users typically run.
>
This is the Linux-kernel list. It deals with
Linux-kernel issues. It does not deal with
your continual attempt to claim some sort of
credit for the work of thousands. You should
take your bottle and go back to sleep. Nobody
in the industry, except those who have been
bamboozled by you, think of Linux as GNU/Linux,
a term you fraudulently coined and published
in an attempt to claim what has never been yours.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.18 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Why is the government concerned about the lunatic fringe? Think about it.
Mark Mielke
> time you say (in one way or another) that Linux was developed by Linus
> Torvalds, you need to explain that Linux is one component of the
> GNU+Linux system which is what users typically run.
Actually, since Linux is the kernel, and GNU/Linux (or GNU+Linux) is
the collection of tools that make the full system, it would be
*inaccurate* to say anything but "Linux" when talking about "Linux,
the operating system." Since you are one who wishes to ensure that
people understand the terms properly, and are used properly, I assume
that you would respect this.
mark
--
ma...@mielke.cc/ma...@ncf.ca/ma...@nortelnetworks.com __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
Mike Galbraith
> Yup. It's high time they realized that Linux exists today solely
> because a
> lazy Finnish student conned a bunch of folks into doing his homework.
>]
>
>That's a colorful way of saying that Linux was developed by Linus
>Torvalds.
Nope, it was a colorful way of saying 'pbbbbt' ;-)
-Mike
Hell.S...@cwctv.net
Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003 10:49:12 -0800 Larry McVoy <l...@bitmover.com> wrote:
Richard Stallman
the collection of tools that make the full system,
That's almost correct, but not quite. GNU/Linux is the whole system,
the combination of GNU and Linux.
Many people think GNU is a collection of tools, because the best known
among the programs we developed for GNU are tools. We also developed
other programs for GNU that are not tools. But GNU is not just a
collection of various programs; it's an operating system which in 1992
was mostly complete. (See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.html.)
it would be
*inaccurate* to say anything but "Linux" when talking about "Linux,
the operating system."
The term "operating system" has sometimes been used with the same
meaning as "kernel", but nowadays when people speak of operating
systems they typically mean complete systems such as HPUX, Solaris,
Windows, MacOS, GNU, and GNU/Linux.
Richard Stallman
>Torvalds.
Nope, it was a colorful way of saying 'pbbbbt' ;-)
I am not sure what "pbbbt" means, so it's no wonder I misunderstood
your message.
Mark Hahn
> collection of various programs; it's an operating system which in 1992
GNU is a flag of convenience: there's little sign that the many people
who contribute to GNU projects share the depth of RMS's political zeal.
ve...@sns.it
> Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 02:50:23 -0500
> From: Richard Stallman <r...@gnu.org>
> To: ma...@mark.mielke.cc
> Cc: efa...@gmx.de, Hell.S...@cwctv.net, linux-...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
>
> Actually, since Linux is the kernel, and GNU/Linux (or GNU+Linux) is
> the collection of tools that make the full system,
>
> That's almost correct, but not quite. GNU/Linux is the whole system,
> the combination of GNU and Linux.
err, excuse me, but where are XFree86 or KDE and so on?
they are not included in the GNU, I suppose.
So we should talk about Xfree86/KDE/GNU/whatever/Linux... too long...
should we focus just on what is mandatory for a basic networked system?
Basically, I could use a libc4/5 based system, withouth gcc and so on, with BSD
inetutils and BSD fileutils (ls cp and so on), ksh anc csh as shells, and linux
kernel.
How should I call this system? (and I have also
systems not running glibc right now, depending on when I installed them.)
I can understand your reasons, and I can also agree with them, but
I am quite impressed reading a nominalistic discussion on lkml, with almost the
same argumentations and logical plant of medioeval nominalistic
syllogismi.
It is quite interesting, the story of culture is quite a wheel, and
people mental attitude, storically, seems to be recurisive (not evolutionary).
Luigi
Andrew Walrond
> I am quite impressed reading a nominalistic discussion on lkml, with almost the
> same argumentations and logical plant of medioeval nominalistic
> syllogismi.
>
> It is quite interesting, the story of culture is quite a wheel, and
> people mental attitude, storically, seems to be recurisive (not evolutionary).
Cripes. Are you a lawyer? ;)
ve...@sns.it
latin and ancient greek.
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Andrew Walrond wrote:
> Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 11:49:19 +0000
> From: Andrew Walrond <and...@walrond.org>
> To: linux-...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
>
Bill Davidsen
> > I can understand your reasons, and I can also agree with them, but
> > I am quite impressed reading a nominalistic discussion on lkml, with almost the
> > same argumentations and logical plant of medioeval nominalistic
> > syllogismi.
> >
> > It is quite interesting, the story of culture is quite a wheel, and
> > people mental attitude, storically, seems to be recurisive (not evolutionary).
>
>
> Cripes. Are you a lawyer? ;)
No, a sesquipedaliac.
--
bill davidsen <davi...@tmr.com>
CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
Andrew Walrond
hence inordinately long," from sesqui, "one half more, half as much
again" + pes, ped-, "a foot."
Lucky boy :)
Bill Davidsen wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Andrew Walrond wrote:
>
>
>>>I can understand your reasons, and I can also agree with them, but
>>>I am quite impressed reading a nominalistic discussion on lkml, with almost the
>>>same argumentations and logical plant of medioeval nominalistic
>>>syllogismi.
>>>
>>>It is quite interesting, the story of culture is quite a wheel, and
>>>people mental attitude, storically, seems to be recurisive (not evolutionary).
>>
>>
>>Cripes. Are you a lawyer? ;)
>
>
> No, a sesquipedaliac.
>
Hugo Mills
> Sesquipedalian comes from Latin sesquipedalis, "a foot and a half long,
> hence inordinately long," from sesqui, "one half more, half as much
> again" + pes, ped-, "a foot."
From the OED, sesquipedalian (n & v):
"Of words and expressions (after Horace's sesquipedalia verba 'words a
foot and a half long', A.P. 97)"
Hugo.
--
=== Hugo Mills: hugo@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk ===
PGP: 1024D/1C335860 from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or www.carfax.nildram.co.uk
--- Never underestimate the bandwidth of a Volvo filled ---
with backup tapes.
Richard Stallman
who contribute to GNU projects share the depth of RMS's political zeal.
Developing a whole operating system was a big job, so we recruited
anyone who would help. We did not insist that people state their
political views before accepting their help. Do you think we should
have?
In this way we engaged as many people as possible to do the work that
we planned would get us to freedom.
Richard Stallman
This is a valid point--the name "GNU/Linux" is imperfect.
By the same token, the name "Linux" is even worse.
For more explanation, see
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#many.
Richard Stallman
This is the Linux-kernel list. It deals with
Linux-kernel issues. It does not deal with
your continual attempt to claim some sort of
credit for the work of thousands.
He wants to give all the credit for the whole system to just one
person. I'm asking people to give a group of thousands of people
credit *also*. In which of these two alternatives does one person
claim credit for the work of thousands? The "Linux" alternative does
that. If he applied his own criterion even-handedly to these two
alternatives, he would call the system "GNU/Linux". But he doesn't
apply it even-handedly; he has led himself to apply a double standard.
Why does an intelligent person do this? He is clinging to the idea
that "Linux" is the right name for the system, and that requires
distorting something. Just as some people insist the Earth is flat,
or that astrology makes valid predictions, others believe that the
whole system is Linux. All of them have to find a way to deny or
ignore the facts in order to go on believing what they believe.
If you call the system "Linux", you are misinforming other people:
teaching them a false picture of the system's history. Some of them
may become so attached to the false picture that it distorts their
thinking. If you call it "GNU/Linux", this won't happen.
Mike Galbraith
>A rather misguided person wrote this:
>
> This is the Linux-kernel list. It deals with
> Linux-kernel issues. It does not deal with
> your continual attempt to claim some sort of
> credit for the work of thousands.
>
>He wants to give all the credit for the whole system to just one
>person. I'm asking people to give a group of thousands of people
>credit *also*. In which of these two alternatives does one person
>claim credit for the work of thousands? The "Linux" alternative does
>that. If he applied his own criterion even-handedly to these two
>alternatives, he would call the system "GNU/Linux". But he doesn't
>apply it even-handedly; he has led himself to apply a double standard.
>
>Why does an intelligent person do this? He is clinging to the idea
>that "Linux" is the right name for the system, and that requires
>distorting something. Just as some people insist the Earth is flat,
>or that astrology makes valid predictions, others believe that the
>whole system is Linux. All of them have to find a way to deny or
>ignore the facts in order to go on believing what they believe.
>
>If you call the system "Linux", you are misinforming other people:
>teaching them a false picture of the system's history. Some of them
>may become so attached to the false picture that it distorts their
>thinking. If you call it "GNU/Linux", this won't happen.
With all due respect Sir, do not address such to me. You know me not.
-Mike
Christoph Hellwig
> If you call the system "Linux", you are misinforming other people:
> teaching them a false picture of the system's history. Some of them
> may become so attached to the false picture that it distorts their
> thinking. If you call it "GNU/Linux", this won't happen.
The term Linux for the whole system might be inaccurate, but it's what
is used and as long as the owner of the name Linux (Linus) doesn't complain
that's fine. Calling it GNU/Linux is 1984-style changing of history, though.
All so-called Linux distributions were created from lots of different
components. Many, often important, components came from the GNU project,
other from BSD NET/2 other were written from scratch, etc.. But these
collection of packages had had exactly _zero_ connection to the FSF and
the GNU project except reusing some components from the GNU project.
And no, Linux distributions weren't the only people doing that. Look at
the number of GNU components in say BSDI where they combined it with
propritary software.
I'd also like to add the the FSF didn't give a shit for Linux until it
got popular enough to ride on the bandwaggon.
Larry McVoy
> got popular enough to ride on the bandwaggon.
Amen, brother.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
Steven Barnhart
> is used and as long as the owner of the name Linux (Linus) doesn't
complain
> that's fine. Calling it GNU/Linux is 1984-style changing of history,
though.
> I'd also like to add the the FSF didn't give a shit for Linux until it
> got popular enough to ride on the bandwaggon.
Not to mention the fact that GNU/Linux is the worst sounding and ugliest
looking name you could pick imho. I'd rather do the Mozilla way
"linux-gnu". It sounds better and the kernel is the most important
piece is it not? I agree the GNU project deserves some kind of credit
but I don't think it should be in the name exactly..no one's forced to
use GNU things I believe if you really _wanted_ to you could replace all
the GNU stuff with proprietary stuff and such...I would never do it but
heh I don't think you need GNU to use Linux.
--
Steven
sba...@softhome.net
GnuPG Fingerprint: 9357 F403 B0A1 E18D 86D5 2230 BB92 6D64 D516 0A94
Ranjeet Shetye
Hi RMS,
Saw you here and thought I'd remind you. I got under your skin quite a
few years back cos I wrote this perl-based cscope which I released for
free - with a modified BSD licence stating that no one in pakistan or no
person of pakistani nationality could use it and that this licence could
not be modified to allow pakis to use it. You might ask why I did that ?
Well, I am an Indian and I thought I'd just needle some pakis cos they
are such nincompoops. Anyways, 9/11 proved me right that pakis (+
saudis) suck ass big time.
Getting back to open-licence software, if you hadn't been such a
nitpicking ideologue, the free s/w world would have had a cscope at
least 2 years earlier than it did. I gave you my version of a "free"
licence, and you didn't like it one bit! That was the OTHER reason I did
it. To prove a point to you, that EVEN in a Free software world, there
might be some other price to be paid.
A full-freedom software world might turn out to be a grey tasteless
odourless flavourless communist world. Even free s/w needs competition
to keep it on its toes, and money is the best damned motivation for
normal people! While everyone, including me, appreciates what you've
achieved in the past, your intransigence over your untenable extreme
views on software freedom is the primary reason why you are losing
ground everyday with your own supporters. Think about it.
Ranjeet Shetye
> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
> [mailto:linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of
> Christoph Hellwig
> Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 1:28 PM
> To: Richard Stallman
> Cc: efa...@gmx.de; Hell.S...@cwctv.net;
> linux-...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 03:31:07PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > If you call the system "Linux", you are misinforming other people:
> > teaching them a false picture of the system's history.
> Some of them
> > may become so attached to the false picture that it distorts their
> > thinking. If you call it "GNU/Linux", this won't happen.
>
> The term Linux for the whole system might be inaccurate, but
> it's what is used and as long as the owner of the name Linux
> (Linus) doesn't complain that's fine. Calling it GNU/Linux
> is 1984-style changing of history, though.
>
-
Philip Dodd
> I thought I'd just needle some pakis cos they
> are such nincompoops.
> your intransigence over your untenable extreme
> views
Just a bit of editing that I couldn't resist, thought these two bits
went together so well.
Ranjeet, meet my kill file; kill file, this is Ranjeet. Before you go,
it is humbling to live one's life thinking that for every person you
think is an asshole, there are at least 2 that think you are.
More if you post it to an ML ;-)
Shureih, Tariq
knowledge.
Shame on you!
--
Tariq Shureih
Opinions are my own and don't represent my employer
Hi RMS,
Ranjeet Shetye
-
Ranjeet Shetye
Cool. Since you think I am wrong and stubborn and intransigent about
pakis, I'd gladly pay a two way fare for your wife or daughter to
travel/stay alone in the pro-Taliban areas of northern pak. Amazing how
quickly an offer like that shuts up all the politically-correct folks.
The real point of my email was that almost everyone has a slightly
differing viewpoint of how the real world AND the software world should
be arranged. I think pakis suck and you don't. Fine.
RMS's intransigence is hurting the open source movement at a time when
his past leadership shows how much he can help. A little flexibility on
his part would be a tremendous boost.
Ranjeet Shetye
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philip Dodd [mailto:smpcom...@free.fr]
> Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 2:15 PM
> To: Ranjeet Shetye
> Cc: linux-...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: [Way OT]Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL
> "differently"
>
>
Måns Rullgård
> Calling it GNU/Linux is 1984-style changing of history, though.
Yeah, the GNU project was started in 1984.
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@users.sf.net
Andrew Walrond
[I'm joking - honest!!!]
Andrew [ British ;) ]
Lionel Bouton
>Hi RMS,
>
>Saw you here and thought I'd remind you. I got under your skin quite a
>few years back cos I wrote this perl-based cscope which I released for
>free - with a modified BSD licence stating that no one in pakistan or no
>person of pakistani nationality could use it and that this licence could
>not be modified to allow pakis to use it. You might ask why I did that ?
>Well, I am an Indian and I thought I'd just needle some pakis cos they
>are such nincompoops. Anyways, 9/11 proved me right that pakis (+
>saudis) suck ass big time.
>
Please reread your last sentence. An isolated event caused by the wills
and actions of a limited group (terrorists, terrorist backers) amongst a
larger group (pakistanese people as a whole including children that
don't even know the meaning of the word terrorist) is definitely nowhere
near a proof of something concerning the larger group.
Stating otherwise to promote segregation is pure racism.
>
>Getting back to open-licence software, if you hadn't been such a
>nitpicking ideologue, the free s/w world would have had a cscope at
>least 2 years earlier than it did. I gave you my version of a "free"
>licence, and you didn't like it one bit!
>
So do I if I understand the following correctly. You could call it
narrow-sighted but I'm very reluctent to increase the market share (and
by that overall influence) of software excluding people for no other
reason that their nationality.
Segregating groups of people nearly always help sustain violence between
people. Please verify this statement on past and current conflicts.
> That was the OTHER reason I did
>it. To prove a point to you, that EVEN in a Free software world, there
>might be some other price to be paid.
>
>
>A full-freedom software world might turn out to be a grey tasteless
>odourless flavourless communist world.
>
As long as proprietary software is not made unlawful where's the problem ?
You may link full-freesoftware inclination with communism if proprietary
software was forbiden (and competition between free software projects is
proved to be flawed) but I've never seen Richard state something like
this. If I missed something feel free to point me where to look.
Free software evolves in a different way than proprietary software. This
is true that most innovative products come with proprietary licenses
now. But I'm not sure this fact comes from the license differences.
Free software and proprietary software don't yet play on an even field.
There are huge inertial effects slowing Free Software market penetration
now. When the field will be even and some time will have passed we'll
know what places the two kinds will have and if the proprietary one
really lies in "innovative products" land.
Until then, enjoy the ride...
> Even free s/w needs competition
>to keep it on its toes, and money is the best damned motivation for
>normal people!
>
Depends on the amount of cash you have in the bank and your income. If
your current situation suits you, more won't motivate you as much as
something you desire and money can't buy (and there's a lot of this kind
out there).
What motivates me the most now (that the cash comes in regularly) is the
ability to learn and interact with various people. I've not yet had
enough of both. Most people spend their whole life pursuing various
ideals, relatively few want to be the richest person on Earth...
> While everyone, including me, appreciates what you've
>achieved in the past, your intransigence over your untenable extreme
>views on software freedom is the primary reason why you are losing
>ground everyday with your own supporters. Think about it.
>
>
Richard is an idealist. He can be annoying when you have your own feet
on the ground but setting your goals too high isn't a bad motivation for
making yourself better (unless you become an extremist of course)...
To come back on the Nvidia subject :
Considering the top performance mainstream 3D market now (ATI vs
Nvidia), seeing that:
- both ATI and Nvidia have efficient proprietary drivers for their
latest products (ATI ones are young and may still have problems I've not
heard of yet),
- at least ATI 8500 cards have an efficient OSS driver in the works
indicating ATI didn't make hiding *all* specs their internal policy.
Nvidia won't be an option for me and for every people that rely on my
advices unless they open their specs or the market reverts back to a
Nvidia monopol.
For the record, SiS lost directly at least tens and maybe hundreds of
chipset sells when I was forced to tell potential customers contacting
me directly that racks full of 645DX based systems might have to use PIO
modes for all IDE transfers until SiS moved to help on sis5513.c ...
Since then every other potential customer was directed to appropriate
kernel versions or kindly provided patches for their exotic
patched-kernel configurations (some don't even know how lucky they are
that I love to study new stuff)...
Remember : the fittest survives...
LB.
Florian Weimer
> Not to mention the fact that GNU/Linux is the worst sounding and
> ugliest looking name you could pick imho.
No, the worst one is "Lignux".
Hell.S...@cwctv.net
Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 14:31:01 -0800 "Ranjeet Shetye" <ranjeet...@zultys.com> wrote:
Andre Hedrick
> The fact that you would rather call people names then go hunt for laden
> yourself, stop them being brainwashed, means you are the first person I
> have ever blocked. bye.
ME NEXT, ME NEXT !!!!!
See you have not overdosed yet, sigh ...
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
Mark Rutherford
I did. I saw a lot of rants.
I have been using LINUX or the LINUX KERNEL for a long time, probable since
1993ish
I like LINUX...
but this buisness of the 'system' being the utilities I find hard to swallow.
I appreciate the work of BOTH Linux Torvals AND Richard Stallman
without either of these people, we would not have what we have.
but can we just, get along at least?
there is more than enough room for glory here.
Richard Stallman wrote:
--
Regards,
Mark Rutherford
ma...@justirc.net
File: Mark Rutherford.ASC
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>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=hpbN
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Matthias Andree
> If you want to avoid predictably steering readers into confusion, each
> time you say (in one way or another) that Linux was developed by Linus
> Torvalds, you need to explain that Linux is one component of the
> GNU+Linux system which is what users typically run.
Yoohoo. Linux is what makes GNU run nowawadays, because GNU has not yet
brought out a stable release kernel version. When's GNU HURD due again?
GNU is what munches away more disk real estate for a mere localization
than the whole NetBSD system, isn't it?
Enough ranting, GNU is useful and has many useful projects, and having a
philosophy and some tools to make it tasteful is much appreciated. But
please take your "Linux is actually GNU+Linux" noise elsewhere lest you
want some idealistic person like yourself distribute an non-GNU
operating system that is made up of Linux, Linux tools and BSD
utilities. Admittedly, bootstrapping without GCC will be a harder part
of this project, but it's certainly doable.
Tell the press, but not the Kernel hackers. They know they use GNU stuff
when they type gdb or man ls.
--
Matthias Andree
Richard Stallman
is used and as long as the owner of the name Linux (Linus) doesn't complain
that's fine. Calling it GNU/Linux is 1984-style changing of history, though.
The name GNU/Linux reflects the system's real history; the name Linux
teaches a mistaken picture that many people believe is true. Please
see http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.html for the history.
Let's look deeper, at the criterion you've appealed to. Essentially
you've said it's ok to give credit for A's work to B if B doesn't
object. In effect, that avoids the whole issue of unfairness.
But these
collection of packages had had exactly _zero_ connection to the FSF and
the GNU project except reusing some components from the GNU project.
"Some components" is an understatement--they were numerous. But let's
look beyond that. The reason that these components fit in with other
packages, such as X11, TeX, and BSD network utilities, is that we
designed them to fit together. Our project was to build a complete
operating system, so when we developed components, we had that purpose
in mind. GNU/Linux distributions, at the root, are the result of our
project to make a free operating system.
Albert D. Cahalan
Richard Stallman writes:
> Many people think GNU is a collection of tools, because the best known
> among the programs we developed for GNU are tools. We also developed
> other programs for GNU that are not tools. But GNU is not just a
> collection of various programs; it's an operating system which in 1992
> was mostly complete. (See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.html.)
>
> it would be
> *inaccurate* to say anything but "Linux" when talking about "Linux,
> the operating system."
>
> The term "operating system" has sometimes been used with the same
> meaning as "kernel", but nowadays when people speak of operating
> systems they typically mean complete systems such as HPUX, Solaris,
> Windows, MacOS, GNU, and GNU/Linux.
By "GNU" you mean the Hurd? That's not nice at all. Just where
did you get your network stack from? How about the bulk of the
hardware drivers?
I think Hurd/Linux or Linux/Hurd would be a proper name for
your kernel. Credit is due, right? Don't be a hypocrite now...
> If you call the system "Linux", you are misinforming other people:
> teaching them a false picture of the system's history. Some of them
> may become so attached to the false picture that it distorts their
> thinking. If you call it "GNU/Linux", this won't happen.
Calling the OS "Linux" has nothing to do with teaching anybody
about history. The true historical name for the kernel, given
by Linus, is "Freax". I'm not kidding. An FTP site maintainer
(named Ari Lemmke?) came up with the "Linux" name.
So Freax is our kernel, and Linux is the OS. The kernel has to
report "Linux" as the name of course, since the kernel is the
part of the OS which supplies /proc/version. Using one name
for everything reduces confusion. Regular people have enough
trouble telling the OS apart from the hardware it runs on.
(The "Start" button is part of a PC you know!)
Anyway, "GNU/Linux" inhibits the spread of free software.
Regular people care about how attractive the name sounds.
This alone should be reason enough to drop the crusade.
Ask somebody in marketing, sales, or psychology if you need
help understanding this concept. In addition, the effort
you spend on "GNU/Linux" is noise that dilutes your message
about the value of free software. People have limited
attention; it does no good to get side-tracked on some
personal conflict over a perfectly usable and accepted name.
The listener allows you a limited amount of conflict;
exceed some per-person threshold and you get dismissed
as a nut.
Richard Stallman
GNU means the entire system that we set out from the beginning to
develop. The Hurd is just one piece of GNU--it is the upper layer of
the kernel.
That's not nice at all. Just where
did you get your network stack from? How about the bulk of the
hardware drivers?
The TCP/IP implementation in the Hurd comes from Linux, but the Hurd
as a whole is very different from Linux. (There are no drivers in the
Hurd.)
Linux is a small part of the GNU/Linux system, but there are
various reasons to call it "GNU/Linux" than just "GNU". See
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#justgnu.
So Freax is our kernel, and Linux is the OS.
Anyone for renaming this list to fr...@vger.kernel.org?
Larry McVoy
> did you get your network stack from? How about the bulk of the
> hardware drivers?
>
> The TCP/IP implementation in the Hurd comes from Linux, but the Hurd
> as a whole is very different from Linux. (There are no drivers in the
> Hurd.)
Gimme a break. You have drivers someplace and you got them from Linux
and you got the networking stack from Linux, so either call it Linux/Hurd
or back off on your constant GNU/Linux crap.
It is the ultimate in hypocrisy to ask others for something you aren't
willing to do yourself. I, for one, will remind you of this every time
you bring up GNU/Linux in this list. It won't go away, I'll make sure
of that. It's just pathetic what you are doing and I'll happily shine
a spotlight on it until you change your tune or go away.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
Steven Barnhart
> Gimme a break. You have drivers someplace and you got them from Linux
> and you got the networking stack from Linux, so either call it Linux/Hurd
> or back off on your constant GNU/Linux crap.
using our code in Hurd (I will now officially refer to it as Linux/Hurd,
only because "Linux" came first in this paticular event.)
>
> It is the ultimate in hypocrisy to ask others for something you aren't
> willing to do yourself. I, for one, will remind you of this every time
> you bring up GNU/Linux in this list. It won't go away, I'll make sure
> of that. It's just pathetic what you are doing and I'll happily shine
> a spotlight on it until you change your tune or go away.
> --
> ---
> Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
--
Steven
sba...@softhome.net
GnuPG Fingerprint: 9357 F403 B0A1 E18D 86D5 2230 BB92 6D64 D516 0A94
-
Matthias Andree
> It is the ultimate in hypocrisy to ask others for something you aren't
> willing to do yourself. I, for one, will remind you of this every time
> you bring up GNU/Linux in this list. It won't go away, I'll make sure
> of that. It's just pathetic what you are doing and I'll happily shine
> a spotlight on it until you change your tune or go away.
How many false rejects would a g.*n.*u.*l.*i.*n.*u.*x ban regexp cause
for this list BTW?
Richard Stallman
willing to do yourself. I, for one, will remind you of this every time
you bring up GNU/Linux in this list.
These two cases are similar, but not in the way you think. In both
cases a large structure that is basically GNU or of GNU has a
component that is Linux or of Linux.
So why do we treat them differently? In general, there's no ethical
obligation to cite each and every component of a larger structure in
the structure's name. But in the case of "GNU/Linux" there are some
specific reasons why it is useful and proper to mention "Linux" in the
name. See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#justgnu.
Larry McVoy
> It is the ultimate in hypocrisy to ask others for something you aren't
> willing to do yourself. I, for one, will remind you of this every time
> you bring up GNU/Linux in this list.
>
> These two cases are similar, but not in the way you think. In both
> cases a large structure that is basically GNU or of GNU has a
> component that is Linux or of Linux.
>
> So why do we treat them differently? In general, there's no ethical
> obligation to cite each and every component of a larger structure in
> the structure's name.
Great. So not only is there no legal need to cite GNU in the Linux
name, there is no ethical obligation either. Thanks for clearing
that up.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
Disconnect
pretty good about keeping the bans non-political. Whoops, looks like
this messa[g]e gets sent to /dev/[nu]ll. So much for [linux]
development discussion..
Maybe without the .*s all over the place....
(For the humour impaired, no, I'm not actually advocating such a ban.)
Dimitrie O. Paun
> These two cases are similar, but not in the way you think. In both
> cases a large structure that is basically GNU or of GNU has a
> component that is Linux or of Linux.
Richard,
You are a smart guy. I think you'd agree with me that this particular
battle (GNU/Linux) is lost. Assuming you are right, is it worth continuing
to fight? I know you have a very strong sentimental attachment to GNU,
and that's more than understandable. But in the great scheme of things,
it's a minor issue. As much as you like them to, people don't attach
semantics to names. Period. They just want a catchy label, and that's all.
Damn, they don't even know what a kernel is, let alone subtleties
concerning the naming.
Bottom line is, the are only so many hours in a day. You have so many
battles to fight, that would serve the community. Why continue this one,
when it's clear that all it's going is harming your reputation and
credibility. It's harming the community. Yeah, you could argue that
*if* things were different... but they are not! Given the present day
situation, it must be clear even to you that things can't possibly go
back, and all your doing is creating bad blood. Think about it.
--
Dimi.
Miles Bader
> I know you have a very strong sentimental attachment to GNU,
> and that's more than understandable. But in the great scheme of things,
> it's a minor issue. As much as you like them to, people don't attach
> semantics to names. Period. They just want a catchy label, and that's all.
I think you're quite wrong -- names are very important, much more so
than it may seem at first.
If someone's mom (having heard the gossip) asks their computer-literate
child, `What is this XXX thing, anyway?', the answer is likely to be
very different when XXX is "GNU" as opposed to when XXX is "Linux".
The reason is that GNU _starts_ with freedom as an idea, and builds
software on top of that; it's very hard to explain GNU without explaining
freedom too. Most people that associate themself with the `Linux'
movement, OTOH, seem to start with `look at all the cool stuff it does;'
the freedom part, even for those that care about it, seems to remain on
the periphery (I hope I don't piss anyone off with this characterization,
this is just what I've observed!).
Which approach is the right one obviously depends on your priorities, but
it's pretty clear to me that these respective groups of people _do_
associate themselves with the names. I think that's one reason Richard's
attempts to get people to use GNU/linux have met with such strong
resistance (yeah, I know it's not the _only_ reason).
Perhaps, if everyone starting using `GNU/linux,' it would actually
_dilute_ the meaning of GNU, since many people that had no idea about what
GNU means would suddenly start using it just because someone told them the
name had changed from Linux. None-the-less, I think it would have some
of the opposite effect too, making people that previously never thought
about it wonder `what's this GNU?'
On a slight tangent: I bought an electronic english/japanese dictionary
about 8 years ago, and it happened to have a definition of GNU in it,
complete with a short (and I think accurate) description of free software!
Recently I bought a new dictionary; it doesn't define GNU, but it does
contain a definition of `Linux' -- and the summary is `a competitor to
windows'! It then goes into further detail saying it's `freeware'
(free-beer free), and worked on cooperatively by its users, but no
mention of `freedom' as such; it's clear the dicionary makers were just a
bit confused, but I wonder if they'd have gotten it right if the name
contained `GNU', with its strong associations with freedom...
-Miles
--
The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.
--Albert Einstein
Richard Stallman
name, there is no ethical obligation either.
When you take part of my statement, stretch it, interpret it based on
assumptions you know I disagree with, and present the result as
something I said, that doesn't prove anything. It is childish.
There is no ethical obligation to mention secondary contributions
incorporated in a large project. There ethical obligation is to cite
the main developer. In the GNU/Linux system, the GNU Project is the
principal contributor; the system is more GNU than anything else,
and we started it.
Larry McVoy
> Great. So not only is there no legal need to cite GNU in the Linux
> name, there is no ethical obligation either.
>
> incorporated in a large project. There ethical obligation is to cite
> the main developer. In the GNU/Linux system, the GNU Project is the
> principal contributor; the system is more GNU than anything else,
> and we started it.
Actually, to be legal, you need say GNU/Linux (Linux is a registered
trademark of Linus Torvalds).
As for the ethics, "cite the main developer"? Well, then, that's easy.
It is you and the FSF organization which are behind this GNU stuff and
since I've been around since before you started, I'm well aware of
how much work you did and how much was work that was simply assigned
over to the FSF. If we remove all the work that you did not do, then
it's vividly clear that Linux is a larger effort.
The vast majority of the GPLed software out there is not work that you
did, it is work that other people did. You are claiming credit for
their work, which is way over the unethical line, and attempting
to infringe on the work of the Linux community. Not nice.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
Giacomo A. Catenazzi
Richard Stallman wrote:
> Great. So not only is there no legal need to cite GNU in the Linux
> name, there is no ethical obligation either.
>
> When you take part of my statement, stretch it, interpret it based on
> assumptions you know I disagree with, and present the result as
> something I said, that doesn't prove anything. It is childish.
>
> There is no ethical obligation to mention secondary contributions
> incorporated in a large project. There ethical obligation is to cite
> the main developer. In the GNU/Linux system, the GNU Project is the
> principal contributor; the system is more GNU than anything else,
> and we started it.
GNU is not so important in new system. I take gcc and glibc as to be
outside the GNU project. (they have now the GNU mark only for GNU
convenience, IMHO) I use "GNU/Linux" only to make more explicit the
"copyleft" ideas, but surelly not because of the GNU tools.
If you insist with such arguments, you risk that someone will rewrite
the basic GNU tools outside the GNU project (emacs is not an OS main tool,
gcc and glibc are de facto outside GNU) (bash will remain GNU ?)
ciao
giacomo
RMS: maybe you can reply me privatly about some more explication of your mail,
so less OT mail, and privately maybe I can understand more about GNU/Linux flames.
Jon Portnoy
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
>
>
> Richard Stallman wrote:
> > Great. So not only is there no legal need to cite GNU in the Linux
> > name, there is no ethical obligation either.
> >
> > When you take part of my statement, stretch it, interpret it based on
> > assumptions you know I disagree with, and present the result as
> > something I said, that doesn't prove anything. It is childish.
> >
> > There is no ethical obligation to mention secondary contributions
> > incorporated in a large project. There ethical obligation is to cite
> > the main developer. In the GNU/Linux system, the GNU Project is the
> > principal contributor; the system is more GNU than anything else,
> > and we started it.
>
> GNU is not so important in new system. I take gcc and glibc as to be
> outside the GNU project. (they have now the GNU mark only for GNU
> convenience, IMHO) I use "GNU/Linux" only to make more explicit the
> "copyleft" ideas, but surelly not because of the GNU tools.
>
> If you insist with such arguments, you risk that someone will rewrite
> the basic GNU tools outside the GNU project (emacs is not an OS main tool,
> gcc and glibc are de facto outside GNU) (bash will remain GNU ?)
>
> ciao
> giacomo
>
>
> RMS: maybe you can reply me privatly about some more explication of your mail,
> so less OT mail, and privately maybe I can understand more about GNU/Linux flames.
>
Nearly all of your base system except the kernel is GNU. Primarily,
fileutils, sh-utils, and findutils come to mind. These could be replaced,
in which case it would no longer be GNU/Linux. As long as your standard
base system tools (chown, cp, dir, dd, df, du, ls, ln, mkdir, mv, rm,
rmdir, touch, chmod, id, kill, whoami, chroot, who, date, echo,
pwd, uname, and many others) are GNU, it's really GNU/Linux.
Matthias Andree
> When you take part of my statement, stretch it, interpret it based on
> assumptions you know I disagree with, and present the result as
> something I said, that doesn't prove anything. It is childish.
>
> There is no ethical obligation to mention secondary contributions
> incorporated in a large project. There ethical obligation is to cite
> the main developer. In the GNU/Linux system, the GNU Project is the
> principal contributor; the system is more GNU than anything else,
> and we started it.
You overestimate your influence. Now please go invest your energy into
something that a) is more likely to succeed, b) does not happen on this
list.
--
Matthias Andree
vl...@vlad.geekizoid.com
respect you. I'd like to see you put your money where your mouth is - PROVE
that GNU (not just people who have release GPL'd software) contributed most
of the work to say Slackware, or Debian, or Red Hat.
Face it - you're full of it. You're not fooling anyone either.
-----Original Message-----
From: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
[mailto:linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org]On Behalf Of Richard Stallman
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 2:00 AM
To: l...@bitmover.com
Cc: l...@bitmover.com; acah...@cs.uml.edu; linux-...@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
Val Henson
>
> If someone's mom (having heard the gossip) asks their computer-literate
> child, `What is this XXX thing, anyway?', the answer is likely to be
> very different when XXX is "GNU" as opposed to when XXX is "Linux".
How come no one ever talks about a Linux distribution so easy that
your grandfather could install it? Or a kernel configuration tool so
simple that even Uncle Timmy can use it?
Can we quit with the "clueless mother" examples already? My own
mother has installed more distributions of Linux than I've even logged
into. I know quite a few mothers who have PhDs in CS, own several
CS-related patents, and/or made important fundamental discoveries in
CS. Hint: Find out who invented the spanning tree algorithm for
ethernet bridges, $10 ThinkGeek gift certificate to the first person
who emails me the correct answer.
-VAL
Richard Stallman
battle (GNU/Linux) is lost.
It's not a battle, and the outcome isn't binary.
(See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html.)
The GNU/Linux campaign is partly successful
and that's better than not at all.
Bottom line is, the are only so many hours in a day. You have so many
battles to fight, that would serve the community.
All other work that we do is made less effective than it could have
been because the public doesn't know what we've already done. The
partial success of the GNU/Linux campaign partly reverses this.
Calling the system "GNU/Linux" is very easy, and takes just seconds a
day; that and using the term "free software" are the most efficient
ways you can use your time to help us.
situation, it must be clear even to you that things can't possibly go
back, and all your doing is creating bad blood. Think about it.
When we call the system "GNU/Linux" we are not insulting anyone. The
bad blood is created by others, by the people who resent our saying
this.
There are two ways to look at this question: in terms of principle
and in terms of practical effects.
First, principle. When a majority assaults a minority for stating a
truth that the majority wants forgotten, who is morally responsible?
If you say that the unpopular minority "creates bad blood", you're
blaming the victims of the intimidation campaign for resisting it;
taking a stand that deliberately disregards the concept of justice.
Second, practicalities. The people who are so attached to the idea of
the "Linux" system that they would attack us for disagreeing with it
are never going to help us much. They mostly don't share our values
anyway. So we have nothing to lose.
These discussions will never convince those people, but they do win
support from others who read both sides and find that we have right on
our side. So we have something to gain.
All in all, what we are doing is both right and effective. We will
continue.
Dimitrie O. Paun
> These discussions will never convince those people, but they do win
> support from others who read both sides and find that we have right on
> our side. So we have something to gain.
I have not touched upon the principle side of things on purpose:
what I'm trying to say is that it does not matter how's right or wrong.
Yes, you can say your campain gains people on the GNU/Linux side, and
you are correct -- it would in any case, it's just the law of large
numbers. You can view that as a gain, and I don't dispute that, but
that gain comes at a huge price: you greatly erode your credibility
and stature within the community. You can use your influence within
the community in ways that would server the FSF a _lot_ more effectively.
Yes, you will say, but we are _right_. Well, you might be. But the
world is not a fair place, and sometimes you have to accept that.
There is unfairness all over the place: you take credit for other
people's work by putting under the GNU umbrella a lot of stuff you
did not write. That's unfair. Is it fair that Alexandre Julliard,
the Wine (http://www.winehq.org) project leader is listed in a list
together with 200+ other developers that contributed a tiny fraction
of what Alexandre did? No, it's not. There are endless examples of
these in the free software world. Once can not simply state the names
and importance (and _how_ would you gauge *that*?) of every single
contributor when you refer to the system.
And because people like a simple mnemonic, they chose one: Linux.
You would have liked they pick the acronym you invented, but they
didn't. People have chosen. It's a tiny detail in the grand scheme
of things, let's be all happy that a catchy acronym was invented
and addopted, and move on!
--
Dimi.
J Sloan
Val Henson wrote:
>
>
>Can we quit with the "clueless mother" examples already? My own
>mother has installed more distributions of Linux than I've even logged
>into. I know quite a few mothers who have PhDs in CS, own several
>CS-related patents, and/or made important fundamental discoveries in
>CS. Hint: Find out who invented the spanning tree algorithm for
>ethernet bridges, $10 ThinkGeek gift certificate to the first person
>who emails me the correct answer.
>
Radia Perlman
Joe
John Alvord
gcc
binutils
unix programs such as ls, cp, rm, etc
I personally believe the current state of the Linux kernel would have
been impossible to achieve (at this time) without the above tools.
The Linux kernel development has stood on the shoulders of the GNU
effort the whole time.
Whether the result should be labeled as GNU/Linux is semantics - what
is the meaning of "operating system". And it is redundant... after
all there is no Linux without GNU, so why force unnecessary
information on terms. If there was an ATT/Linux and an Intel/Linux,
having a GNU/Linux would make some sense... but that is not the way it
is. GNU/Linux is singular, so Linux makes a reasonable contraction.
Distributor marketting wants a neat snapy name that is easy to
remember. Linux is close enough to unix to merge meanings a bit.
People who read about Linus Torvalds get the Linus/Linux play on
words.
Another puzzling aspect to me is that GNU really goes beyond what I
think of as an operating system. I have a suite of GNU tools installed
on a Windows NT machine and I use make, ls, cp, mv all day. So I am
using GNU on a foreign operating system... or does my usage needs to
be labeled as GNU/Windows NT?
john alvord
Miles Bader
> My own mother has installed more distributions of Linux than I've even
> logged into.
Then I suppose you would probably use a different example. Great.
-miles
--
[|nurgle|] ddt- demonic? so quake will have an evil kinda setting? one that
will make every christian in the world foamm at the mouth?
[iddt] nurg, that's the goal
Kent Borg
> your grandfather could install it? Or a kernel configuration tool so
> simple that even Uncle Timmy can use it?
I am new to this thread, but I do use the "my mom" example because my
mother *is* the computer pioneer I know in that generation, but one
who still finds them difficult. She has been using computers since
she got a new Macintosh Plus and a 30 MB hard disk, and she has been
using e-mail since before it was clear to everybody that @-signs would
be a universal part of e-mail addresses. However, she is also still
not a computer wiz and I think never will be--there seems to be a
generational thing here, like learning a foreign language in
adulthood, that keeps computers hard. When my mother was a little
girl electricity was still new, and was useful for lighting.
My most recent e-mail from her was saying the some Apple support
person concluded her current problem is likely the Imac's hard drive
and to bring it into the store where she got it. (Her other Imac
works better, but it is only OS X and doesn't work with her scanner.)
She keeps at it!
My father only recently got interested in computers, uses the new Imac
for video editing, but refers all support questions to my mother. He
doesn't pretend to be self-sufficient on the topic.
> Can we quit with the "clueless mother" examples already?
My mother is far from clueless, but she is stubbornly resistant to
becoming a power user who can reliably solve her own problems. (The
fact that computers are still so damn buggy doesn't help either.)
I am encouraging them to get a DSL connection with a static IP, at
which point I will add a Linux computer to their collection--and I
will administer it remotely from 1000 miles away.
> My own mother has installed more distributions of Linux than I've
> even logged into.
I don't doubt that, but until computers get a lot easier to use and
administer the graphic image of the Clueless Mother is useful to shock
most geeks back to the reality that there *are* naive users. Many of
us have mothers, and computer expert mothers are still rare.
> I know quite a few mothers who have PhDs in CS, own several
> CS-related patents, and/or made important fundamental discoveries in
> CS.
(You hang out in rarified circles, the number of women in CSci id
dropping.)
So don't imagine a general purpose "have given birth human"! Imagine
a woman born in a modern western country, but 20 years before the
invention of the transistor. These capable women mastered impressive
things, but computers are so obtuse! And they are not the only ones
having trouble. I am still having trouble getting my software Raid 1
to boot off of either drive if one goes south--without opening the box
and pulling cables. And it seems like such a reasonable desire...
-kb, the Kent who insists that computers are more difficult than they
need be.
P.S. Some of us are old enough to remember when mice and graphical
interfaces were considered toys for beginners and not suitable to real
users. But at least then there was controversy! Now, overlapping
windows are the undoubted standard and no one even complains. These
traditions are too complicated, limited, and narrow, but it is hard to
think beyond them. But imagining a naive user (maybe even knowing one
or two) is a useful way to ask basic questions. If this naive user
isn't Your Mother, OK, but please don't forget that what is good for a
naive user (e.g., the mouse) is good for others too.
vl...@vlad.geekizoid.com
has the advantage of using giant chunks of Linux code, but it still is
basically useless.
Why should Linux be refered to as GNU/Linux because of tools, and yet Hurd
doesn't give credit where credit is due? RMS has done more to hurt GNU with
his current stance on the matter than Microsoft ever could. He's getting
annoying, too.
Regards,
Scott
Richard B. Johnson
> And in that same period, look at Linux, and then look at Hurd. Hurd even
> has the advantage of using giant chunks of Linux code, but it still is
> basically useless.
>
> Why should Linux be refered to as GNU/Linux because of tools, and yet Hurd
> doesn't give credit where credit is due? RMS has done more to hurt GNU with
> his current stance on the matter than Microsoft ever could. He's getting
> annoying, too.
>
> Regards,
> Scott
>
Damn. This is getting tried and it doesn't seem to "go away".
Anybody remember this Copyright notice?? Most ALL of the
early Linux Distributions contained programs with this
notice:
/*
* Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
* All rights reserved.
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted
* provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
* duplicated in all such forms and that any documentation,
* advertising materials, and other materials related to such
* distribution and use acknowledge that the software was developed
* by the University of California, Berkeley. The name of the
* University may not be used to endorse or promote products derived
* from this software without specific prior written permission.
* THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR
* IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED
* WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
*/
#ifndef lint
char copyright[] =
"@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\n\
All rights reserved.\n";
#endif /* not lint */
...however. Something happened so that this code was lifted
"whole cloth" into some later distributions that contained
the GNU License notice. By some unknown mystery, the embeded
copyright notice was eliminated as well. However, much of the
code remained the same. In some little-used programs, all the
code, including the bug, remained the same.
If I had anything to do with so-called GNU, I'd keep my mouth
shut so this wholesale appropriation of intellectual property
was not investigated.
Here is an early distribution of Linux:
Script started on Thu Jan 9 10:55:02 2003
# cd /usr/bin
# strings * | grep Regents
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 The Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1985, 1989 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
Based on BSD gprof, copyright 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1986 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983, 1989 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 by NCEMRSoft and Copyright (c) 1985, 1989 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1985,1989 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1985, 1989 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983, 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1993 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1987, 1992 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983, 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983, 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1988 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1991 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1988, 1990 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980, 1991 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
# strings * | grep Regents
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 The Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1985, 1989 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
Based on BSD gprof, copyright 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1986 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983, 1989 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 by NCEMRSoft and Copyright (c) 1985, 1989 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1985,1989 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1985, 1989 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983, 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1993 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1987, 1992 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983, 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983, 1990 The Regents of the University
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
# cd /bin
# strings * | grep Regents
@(#) Copyright (c) 1991 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1991 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980, 1987, 1988 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1991 The Regents of the University of California.
# cd /sbin
# strings * | grep Regents
strings: control: No such file or directory
strings: discard: No such file or directory
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
strings: server: No such file or directory
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
strings: sysinit: No such file or directory
# exit
Script done on Thu Jan 9 10:57:53 2003
So much for the absolute bullshit that GNU started Linux and that
there is somehow a GNU/Linux. Most all of the early distributions
used programs ported from BSD. The Linux-BSD emulation was so good,
thanks to Linus and others, that most programs needed to only be
recompiled.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the true history of the "Linux Operating
System" with all of the components that RMS insists are his, actually
coming from the University of California, Berkeley.
Don't be bambozzled by the persons who will re-write history to glorify
their accomplishments. Saying something over-and-over again doesn't
make it true. Facts stand alone. They only need to be noted. Bullshit
needs repeating.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.18 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Why is the government concerned about the lunatic fringe? Think about it.
ve...@sns.it
Yes, for binaries most of the time we even did not need to use the
/usr/lib/libbsd.a compatibility library
and the /usr/include/bsd/*.h compatibility includes
(just ash was needing that) coming with libc4 and libc5 distribution for
compatibility pursues.
Then also the boot system was BSD like, and now we see this prosecuted and
evolved in Slackware.
But please, let's stop this thread.
We talked about GPLed modules and binary only modules,
and none even considered implication brought
by the new module interface with run queue, that is an important
point in this discussion.
We talked just about names, names, names, and again names.
I do not expect in every thread on lkml to see some good contribution
(not just code, but concept, discussions, and so on),
but this specific one is just like
"the wall I build with my belief is higher than your".
And the few smart mails ususally got ignored.
There is no interess in this for me.
Luigi
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> Most all of the early distributions
> used programs ported from BSD. The Linux-BSD emulation was so good,
> thanks to Linus and others, that most programs needed to only be
> recompiled.
>
> That, ladies and gentlemen, is the true history of the "Linux Operating
> System" with all of the components that RMS insists are his, actually
> coming from the University of California, Berkeley.
>
-
Jesse Pollard
I seem to remember that there was also a request from the University of
California to remove that code too. That was when they started charging
for the BSD distribution, and before the NetBSD got out, which also
had to rewrite/replace the code. Guess what got used...
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: pol...@navo.hpc.mil
Any opinions expressed are solely my own.
Val Henson
> >
> > If someone's mom (having heard the gossip) asks their computer-literate
> > child, `What is this XXX thing, anyway?', the answer is likely to be
> > very different when XXX is "GNU" as opposed to when XXX is "Linux".
>
> How come no one ever talks about a Linux distribution so easy that
> your grandfather could install it? Or a kernel configuration tool so
> simple that even Uncle Timmy can use it?
>
> Can we quit with the "clueless mother" examples already? My own
> mother has installed more distributions of Linux than I've even logged
> into. I know quite a few mothers who have PhDs in CS, own several
> CS-related patents, and/or made important fundamental discoveries in
> CS. Hint: Find out who invented the spanning tree algorithm for
> ethernet bridges, $10 ThinkGeek gift certificate to the first person
> who emails me the correct answer.
And the winner is David Hoose, who sent the answer to me 10 minutes
after the message to linux-kernel arrived in my mail queue. The
answer is:
Radia Perlman
She is the inventor of the spanning tree algorithm, the author of
"Interconnections: Bridges, Routers, Switches, and Internetworking
Protocols" from Addison-Wesley, and the mother of at least two
children. Honorable mention to: Joe Perches, Joe Sloan, Chris Ricker,
Larry McVoy, and "Disconnect," real name withheld.
-VAL
P.S. For extra credit (but no ThinkGeek certificate) you can look up
the following women in computer science, some of whom are mothers:
Mary Baker, Margo Seltzer, Monica Lam, Ellen Spertus, Carla Ellis, and
Barbara Simons.
jln...@unity.ncsu.edu
> P.S. For extra credit (but no ThinkGeek certificate) you can look up
> the following women in computer science, some of whom are mothers:
> Mary Baker, Margo Seltzer, Monica Lam, Ellen Spertus, Carla Ellis, and
> Barbara Simons.
Am I the first person to tell you you left off Ada Lovelace? She was
way ahead of her time.
Thanks,
Jim
Valdis.K...@vt.edu
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:40:19PM -0700, Val Henson wrote:
>
> > P.S. For extra credit (but no ThinkGeek certificate) you can look up
> > the following women in computer science, some of whom are mothers:
> > Mary Baker, Margo Seltzer, Monica Lam, Ellen Spertus, Carla Ellis, and
> > Barbara Simons.
>
> Am I the first person to tell you you left off Ada Lovelace? She was
> way ahead of her time.
I think Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper were left off as "too easy"....
Kaz Kylheku
strcpy("Mother", "computer-illiterate") == 0
Mind what list you're on.
:)
-----Original Message-----
From: <jln...@unity.ncsu.edu>
Sent: 1/9/03 1:24:52 PM
To: <linux-...@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:40:19PM -0700, Val Henson wrote:
> P.S. For extra credit (but no ThinkGeek certificate) you can look up
> the following women in computer science, some of whom are mothers:
> Mary Baker, Margo Seltzer, Monica Lam, Ellen Spertus, Carla Ellis, and
> Barbara Simons.
Am I the first person to tell you you left off Ada Lovelace? She was
way ahead of her time.
Randy.Dunlap
| On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:40:19PM -0700, Val Henson wrote:
|
| > P.S. For extra credit (but no ThinkGeek certificate) you can look up
| > the following women in computer science, some of whom are mothers:
| > Mary Baker, Margo Seltzer, Monica Lam, Ellen Spertus, Carla Ellis, and
| > Barbara Simons.
|
| Am I the first person to tell you you left off Ada Lovelace? She was
| way ahead of her time.
and Grace Hopper (ugh, COBOL)
--
~Randy
Murray J. Root
> Illiterate idiots, that should be:
>
> strcpy("Mother", "computer-illiterate") == 0
>
> Mind what list you're on.
>
> :)
>
strcmp("Mother", "computer-illiterate")
?
strcpy with two string literals won't compile.
--
Murray J. Root
------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
------------------------------------------------
Mandrake on irc.freenode.net:
#mandrake & #mandrake-linux = help for newbies
#mdk-cooker = Mandrake Cooker
#cooker = moderated Mandrake Cooker
Randy.Dunlap
| On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 12:46:30 PST, "Randy.Dunlap" said:
| > (ugh, COBOL)
|
| Go back and research the alternatives available at the time.
True.
| Then ask yourself which you'd prefer to do maintenance programming on.
I've done several years of COBOL (/me hides).
I'm familiar with its strengths in the right environment.
--
~Randy
Alan Cox
> P.S. For extra credit (but no ThinkGeek certificate) you can look up
> the following women in computer science, some of whom are mothers:
> Mary Baker, Margo Seltzer, Monica Lam, Ellen Spertus, Carla Ellis, and
> Barbara Simons.
and of course Sally Floyd, and even Hedy Lamarr (bonus points for those
who know what her networking related patent is on)
John Adams
>
> and of course Sally Floyd, and even Hedy Lamarr (bonus points for those
> who know what her networking related patent is on)
Google makes this too easy.
http://www.german-way.com/cinema/lamarr.html
i
Richard Stallman
operating system. Most of the people who do that still give us credit
for the specific programs we developed. These words
GNU is not so important in new system. I take gcc and glibc as to be
outside the GNU project.
take a further step: they deny the GNU Project the credit even for GNU
programs (he said, earlier, this is on the grounds that companies have
contributed to them). That's like denying Linus Torvalds the credit
for writing the kernel, Linux, because companies have helped that too.
When people become sufficiently attached to a false conclusion, they
sometimes fabricate ever more extreme falsehoods in order to deny it.
If you insist with such arguments, you risk that someone will rewrite
the basic GNU tools outside the GNU project
Some GNU packages are tools; some are not tools.
People can, of course, write other programs to do the same jobs as GNU
packages. They might do this for many reasons. That message seems to
suggest that people might do this simply to deny the GNU Project the
appreciation that we now get for the work we have done.
Has anyone been so completely warped by hatred of GNU? I don't know,
but it does not really matter. The role of GCC in the development and
popularity of GNU/Linux is a fact of history, and subsequent
developments cannot change it.
Richard Stallman
since I've been around since before you started, I'm well aware of
how much work you did and how much was work that was simply assigned
over to the FSF.
Some GNU programs are FSF-copyrighted; when people contribute to them,
we ask them to assign their copyrights to the FSF. Other GNU programs
are not FSF-copyrighted; their developers retain the copyright. For
those programs, the developers decide how to deal with the copyright
on contributions.
So if you count up the code that is FSF-copyrighted, that is just a
portion of the GNU software.
If we remove all the work that you did not do, then
it's vividly clear that Linux is a larger effort.
If you assume that the whole system is Linux, and count every part
that isn't GNU software as part of the "Linux effort", then the part
you count as "Linux" will be much bigger than the GNU software, and
this will "prove" the assumption you started with--that the whole
system is Linux.
In the past 8 years I've seen plenty of arguments that the system is
justly called "Linux". Some are based on inaccurate facts; those are
sometimes clear and rational, just mistaken. But most of them involve
a well-understood logical fallacy, artfully disguised so that it takes
a some thought to find it. With practice, people can become expert at
spotting the fallacies.
Richard Stallman
respect you.
One wonders what it is you thought I had done, when you respected me
for it ;-).
I'd like to see you put your money where your mouth is
I've dedicated my life to free software since 1984, and have been
working for the cause more than full time, all these 19 years. I
think that counts as "putting my money where my mouth is" for the
movement.
If it doesn't, then you have set a standard so high that perhaps
nobody in the world qualifies.
- PROVE
that GNU (not just people who have release GPL'd software) contributed most
of the work to say Slackware, or Debian, or Red Hat.
Let's be careful. I don't say that the GNU software packages were
most of the early GNU/Linux system. They were, however, the largest
contribution of any single project. Probably they still are.
GNU, the system we were developing, was most of the early GNU/Linux
system in 1992. GNU in 1992 included non-GNU packages such as X11,
and TeX.
If we look at the GNU packages alone rather than the GNU system as a
whole, they were a large fraction of the early GNU/Linux system. The
specific data point I have comes from Adam Richter, who maintained an
early distro. In 1995, he counted up the code and found that GNU
packages added up to 28% of his distro. Linux, the kernel, was 3% of
that distro.
I would expect that both GNU code and Linux make up smaller fractions
of current GNU/Linux distros, because so many other programs have been
added over the years. It's a good thing that so many free programs
have been developed, and that so many people have contributed, but
this doesn't change the system's history. It started out as the
combination of GNU and Linux.
Larry McVoy
> If we remove all the work that you did not do, then
> it's vividly clear that Linux is a larger effort.
>
> If you assume that the whole system is Linux, and count every part
> that isn't GNU software as part of the "Linux effort", then the part
> you count as "Linux" will be much bigger than the GNU software, and
> this will "prove" the assumption you started with--that the whole
> system is Linux.
And isn't that exactly the line of reasoning which leads you to the
conclusion that Linux should be GNU/Linux? Why do you think that
you deserve special billing ahead of anyone else? You haven't
contributed any more than anyone else, that's for sure. GCC is
nice and all, but by your own reasoning if GCC didn't exist, a
different compiler would have shown up. The only reason they
didn't is that GCC made that itch go away.
It really seems like you are trying to leverage a comparitively tiny
amount of source into top billing. Why are you more important than
the entire windowing system, which is dramatically more source and
more effort?
And when are you going to start referring to your kernel by its
proper name: Linux/Hurd? Or do you have plans to remove the
Linux components?
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
Larry McVoy
> GNU, the system we were developing, was most of the early GNU/Linux
> system in 1992. GNU in 1992 included non-GNU packages such as X11,
> and TeX.
Wow. That might be one for the quotes file:
"GNU ... was of the early GNU/Linux system. GNU ... included non-GNU"
Well, that certainly explains a lot. If you define GNU as "anything
which might be found on a Linux distro including non-GNU packages",
your position starts to make a certain twisted sense. Only one problem
with that: if it wasn't GNU, it wasn't GNU, which means, Richard, you
are crackin' smoke and may need a vacation. 19 years of hard effort is
a long time, have you considered retirement? You've certainly earned it.
Oh, by the way, have you updated the GNU kernel pages to reflect the new
proper name: Linux/Hurd? I'd really appreciate it if you could get to that.
Matthias Andree
> Calling the system "Linux" denies the GNU Project credit for the GNU
> operating system. Most of the people who do that still give us credit
> for the specific programs we developed. These words
>
> GNU is not so important in new system. I take gcc and glibc as to be
> outside the GNU project.
>
> take a further step: they deny the GNU Project the credit even for GNU
> programs (he said, earlier, this is on the grounds that companies have
> contributed to them). That's like denying Linus Torvalds the credit
> for writing the kernel, Linux, because companies have helped that too.
Richard, some people are going to offer this "GNU/" attribution, some
won't. I belong to the latter group although I recognize what the GNU
project has achieved so far. It's a fairness issue, as has been pointed
out. If we need to credit, then we need to credit every major
contributor, and that's, as has been pointed out, a term that's pretty
unusable to name that thing. You want Linux to subordinate under GNU?
Fine. What sold GNU to the masses? Linux. They're friends. Still, you
don't make friends change their names. Now finish that thread.
> Has anyone been so completely warped by hatred of GNU? I don't know,
> but it does not really matter. The role of GCC in the development and
> popularity of GNU/Linux is a fact of history, and subsequent
> developments cannot change it.
There is not hatred of GNU. There is alienation by your horrible waste
of time and energy. This is the wrong forum, this is only full of people
who make ONE SINGLE component of what YOU want to be named GNU/Linux.
You're about to get GNU credited but neglect all the other major
contributors, XFree86 has been named, BSD is one.
GNU code borrows interfaces from Solaris (and then does it wrong, for
example the GNU libc name service switch is broken in that it does not
retry NIS queries and then reports temporary errors through interfaces
that cannot return temporary conditions such as getpwnam -- no way to
place TRYAGAIN=forever into /etc/nsswitch.conf with GNU glibc, but
required for reliable operation and possible to configure on Solaris). I
ask you to rename all occurrences of Name Service Switch to Sun
Microsystems Solaris Name Service Switch. Add [tm] and ® symbols as
appropriate. Solaris gave you the ideas of NSS. So credit Sun.
And now get this bloody discussion off-list.
--
Matthias Andree
Andrew McGregor
--On Thursday, January 09, 2003 15:30:54 -0500 Valdis.K...@vt.edu
wrote:
Sally Floyd and Allison Mankin?
jdow
> Once upon a time, Alan Cox <al...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> said:
> >and of course Sally Floyd, and even Hedy Lamarr (bonus points for those
> >who know what her networking related patent is on)
>
> That's HEDLEY! Oh, but he doesn't have any patents.
No, it's Hedy Lamarr and she invented frequency hopping spread spectrum
with George Anthiel. I worked on one of the first practical implementations
of the concept back in the early 70s. Somehow it seems appropriate.
{^_^} Joanne, jd...@earthlink.net
Val Henson
> From: "Chris Adams" <cma...@hiwaay.net>
>
> > Once upon a time, Alan Cox <al...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> said:
> > >and of course Sally Floyd, and even Hedy Lamarr (bonus points for those
> > >who know what her networking related patent is on)
> >
> > That's HEDLEY! Oh, but he doesn't have any patents.
>
> No, it's Hedy Lamarr and she invented frequency hopping spread spectrum
> with George Anthiel. I worked on one of the first practical implementations
> of the concept back in the early 70s. Somehow it seems appropriate.
Chris was making a joke which you won't get unless you watch "Blazing
Saddles" (something I've never gotten around to myself). Hedley
Lamarr was a character in the movie who, indeed, doesn't have any
patents.
Neat to hear you got to work on such an interesting project!
-VAL
Tom Diehl
> From: "Chris Adams" <cma...@hiwaay.net>
>
> > Once upon a time, Alan Cox <al...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> said:
> > >and of course Sally Floyd, and even Hedy Lamarr (bonus points for those
> > >who know what her networking related patent is on)
> >
> > That's HEDLEY! Oh, but he doesn't have any patents.
>
> No, it's Hedy Lamarr and she invented frequency hopping spread spectrum
> with George Anthiel. I worked on one of the first practical implementations
> of the concept back in the early 70s. Somehow it seems appropriate.
Hehe!! He got you Joanne!! Ever watch Blazing Saddles??
I am jealous though. In reading various messages written by you, you have
clearly had way too much fun in life!! :-)
Enjoy,
--
.............Tom "Nothing would please me more than being able to
tdi...@rogueind.com hire ten programmers and deluge the hobby market
with good software." -- Bill Gates 1976
We are still waiting ....
Oliver Xymoron
Can we all agree that this is indeed the kernel list and that the
kernel is indeed known as simply 'Linux' and that therefore the
GNU/Linux debate is off-topic here?
--
"Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.."
Andre Hedrick
Only when LKML can remove the advertising value of the wars cached on all
the web search engines will this forum be free of off topics. The bad
press is still press. People's self interest to rack up hits in a search
engine, is why much of the self promotion happens.
I am looking in the mirror and wonder why did I even reply or expose the
benefits of such debate.
GAK!
Miles Bader
> Only when LKML can remove the advertising value of the wars cached on all
> the web search engines will this forum be free of off topics. The bad
> press is still press. People's self interest to rack up hits in a search
> engine, is why much of the self promotion happens.
Are you on drugs, or just joking?
The reason these flame wars get so big is because people feel strongly
about their point of view (no matter how misguided it may be), and
morever, many people simply like to argue.
-Miles
--
Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over,
pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come. --Nietzsche
Tim Timmerman
Val> On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 11:29:47AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
>>
>> If someone's mom (having heard the gossip) asks their computer-literate
>> child, `What is this XXX thing, anyway?', the answer is likely to be
>> very different when XXX is "GNU" as opposed to when XXX is "Linux".
Val> How come no one ever talks about a Linux distribution so easy that
Val> your grandfather could install it? Or a kernel configuration tool so
Val> simple that even Uncle Timmy can use it?
'make xconfig' works just fine for me.
(Uncle) Timmy
--
tim.ti...@asml.nl 040-2683613
ti...@timt.org Voodoo Programmer/Keeper of the Rubber Chicken
I've never seen electricity, so I don't pay for it. I write right on
the bill, 'I'm sorry, I haven't seen it all month.'
Richard Stallman
having a GNU/Linux would make some sense... but that is not the way it
is. GNU/Linux is singular, so Linux makes a reasonable contraction.
It would be reasonable, if not for the fact that it gives the wrong
idea of who developed the system and--above all--why.
Another puzzling aspect to me is that GNU really goes beyond what I
think of as an operating system. I have a suite of GNU tools installed
on a Windows NT machine and I use make, ls, cp, mv all day. So I am
using GNU on a foreign operating system... or does my usage needs to
be labeled as GNU/Windows NT?
The tools are just a part of the GNU software packages, which is only
part of the GNU system. And underneath those tools would be another
entire operating system, entirely different from GNU. All in all,
that's a very different situation from GNU/Linux. We wouldn't call it
"GNU/Windows".
(I'm going to add this to http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html;
thanks.)
Charles Cazabon
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 06:14:37PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [GNU/Linux stuff deleted]
>
> Can we all agree that this is indeed the kernel list and that the
> kernel is indeed known as simply 'Linux' and that therefore the
> GNU/Linux debate is off-topic here?
Or perhaps we should start a long, boring discussion of how to best rearrange
the drivers portion of the tree on <gnu-misc...@gnu.org> .
I once had quite a lot of respect for RMS. That has faded somewhat over the
last year due to this crap.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <li...@discworld.dyndns.org>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.ca/~charlesc/software/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Sendlosky
Richard,
We all know that "Linux" would not be where it is today without
the GNU software. I don't recall seeing one post in this
looonnngg thread that tries to say otherwise. Myself, and many others,
are very grateful for your and the FSF's work. PLEASE, stop hitting us
over the head with GNU/Linux.
I'm sure there are many other "things" that have gotten broad public
attention and the real people or organizations behind it have not gotten
the credit they deserve either by what the "thing" is called or by
the press, etc. Only the people truly involved with the "thing"
know who is responsible. I think the same applies here.
And, why is it only *you* beating us over the head with GNU/Linux?
Where's the rest for the GNU (non-linux specific) contributors?
Why aren't they bitching/whining too?
Like I said before, we aren't the people you have to educate/convince.
If it really means that much to you (and it seems to me that it does),
then you should be taking out magazine ads and buying time on TV
to reach the uneducated masses.
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry McVoy [mailto:l...@bitmover.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 6:39 PM
To: Richard Stallman
Cc: Vl...@Vlad.geekizoid.com; linux-...@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 06:14:20PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> GNU, the system we were developing, was most of the early GNU/Linux
> system in 1992. GNU in 1992 included non-GNU packages such as X11,
> and TeX.
Wow. That might be one for the quotes file:
"GNU ... was of the early GNU/Linux system. GNU ... included non-GNU"
Well, that certainly explains a lot. If you define GNU as "anything
which might be found on a Linux distro including non-GNU packages",
your position starts to make a certain twisted sense. Only one problem
with that: if it wasn't GNU, it wasn't GNU, which means, Richard, you
are crackin' smoke and may need a vacation. 19 years of hard effort is
a long time, have you considered retirement? You've certainly earned it.
Oh, by the way, have you updated the GNU kernel pages to reflect the new
proper name: Linux/Hurd? I'd really appreciate it if you could get to that.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
Valdis.K...@vt.edu
> If there was an ATT/Linux and an Intel/Linux,
> having a GNU/Linux would make some sense... but that is not the way it
> is. GNU/Linux is singular, so Linux makes a reasonable contraction.
>
> It would be reasonable, if not for the fact that it gives the wrong
> idea of who developed the system and--above all--why.
OK. Enough is enough.
I have no problems with Richard Stallman espousing a particular viewpoint of
how he and/or GNU and/or the FSF feel things should be. I don't even mind *too*
much when he proselytizes said view, even when it interferes with what *my*
goals are. I even see why the FSF requires copyright assignments for code.
However, since I haven't seen any FSF paperwork for assigning *motivations*
and *thoughts* to the FSF, I don't think there is *ANY* basis in saying that
there was a single unified "WHY" a large group of people working independently
developed something.
"All your code are belong to us" is bad enough. "All your thoughts are
belong to us" is totally over the edge.
--
Valdis Kletnieks
Computer Systems Senior Engineer
Virginia Tech
Mark Mielke
> If there was an ATT/Linux and an Intel/Linux,
> having a GNU/Linux would make some sense... but that is not the way it
> is. GNU/Linux is singular, so Linux makes a reasonable contraction.
> It would be reasonable, if not for the fact that it gives the wrong
> idea of who developed the system and--above all--why.
There is a reason why I am not named Mark Mielke-Newman, and our newborn
son is not named Ethan Mielke-Herighty-Newman-Marr.
Some people like to maintain origin when deriving new names. Other
people realize that the practice is impractical, and the consequence,
if followed to the natural extreme, would allow for an exponentially
increasing length in name as each generation passes.
If you properly attributed the origins of GNU projects, I think you
would find an extremely impractical naming convention. GNU, and GNU
software, is not 100% derivative free.
Linux itself does not require any GNU software at all, except in the
sense that it happens to use GNU software, and it may therefore rely
on extensions that only exist in GNU software, however, that does not
stop anybody else from enhancing their own products to include the
GNU extensions. Freedom is as freedom does.
If you want to bug RedHat to call their distribution RedHat GNU/Linux,
go right ahead.
As for "Linux", its only real attachment to GNU is that it happens to
use a qualified reference to the GPL as its licensing restrictions. Not
all GPL software is "GNU" software.
So please... stop... You are not helping the free software movement by
(badly) arguing minor technicalities. Your previous efforts have been
very well received and respected. Don't ruin this.
mark
--
ma...@mielke.cc/ma...@ncf.ca/ma...@nortelnetworks.com __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
Rogier Wolff
> If there was an ATT/Linux and an Intel/Linux,
> having a GNU/Linux would make some sense... but that is not the way it
> is. GNU/Linux is singular, so Linux makes a reasonable contraction.
>
> It would be reasonable, if not for the fact that it gives the wrong
> idea of who developed the system and--above all--why.
Then -==YOU==- are completely mistaken about why -==I==- contributed
to Linux (the kernel & the system).
Roger.
--
** R.E....@BitWizard.nl ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2600998 **
*-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --*
* The Worlds Ecosystem is a stable system. Stable systems may experience *
* excursions from the stable situation. We are currently in such an *
* excursion: The stable situation does not include humans. ***************
Richard Stallman
conclusion that Linux should be GNU/Linux?
See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html for our lines of reasoning.
They show two different ways in which the GNU developers are the principal
developers of the GNU/Linux system of today.
You haven't
contributed any more than anyone else, that's for sure.
I won't repeat the facts I presented recently.
GCC is
nice and all, but by your own reasoning if GCC didn't exist, a
different compiler would have shown up.
There must be a misunderstanding because I never said anything like
that.
Some components of the system did just "show up", including TeX, X11,
and Linux. But these did not make a whole system. If we had waited
for everything to show up, we might not have it today.
The reason we have a free operating system is because people were
systematically and intentionally working to produce one. Those people
were and are the GNU Project.
Why are you more important than
the entire windowing system, which is dramatically more source and
more effort?
X11 is a substantial component, but apparently not as big as our
contribution, judging from Richter's count.
Rob Wilkens
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 06:14:37PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [GNU/Linux stuff deleted]
>
> Can we all agree that this is indeed the kernel list and that the
> kernel is indeed known as simply 'Linux' and that therefore the
> GNU/Linux debate is off-topic here?
Wasn't it Linux Torvalds who origianlly started using the Minix forums
to proudly promote Linux to the Minix users (and apparently with some
success). I say it's fair game for other OS people to promote related
OS topics here, especially if related to the linux kernel (or Gnu/Linux
as the case may be).
-Rob
(running Debian Gnu/Linux)
Rob Wilkens
think). It helps point out that Linus Torvalds didn't create this great
thing that most people call linux (his namesake). Linus Torvalds didn't
create and wants nothing to do with the windowing system or user
components, which most end users would consider what their experience
with linux is (whether they use guis or the command line) -- especially
non-tech-heads. Linus torvalds did not create the compilers or
libraries the developers use. Linus torvalds simply created a bare
bones kernel -- a piece of the operating system which literally does
almost nothing. Thanks to the GPL others helped him grow the kernel,
and he's been a good leader in that he's let others give him lot of free
code changes to include in his namesake system.
He just got lucky on his timing... Anyone studying operating systems at
the time (and heck, I remember owning a book "Creating your own 32-bit
operating system" by SAMS publishing and being inspired, and I also
owned "Disecting DOS" which was a nice analysis of a DOS-like operating
system at the code-level book w/disk). If I had been familiar with UNIX
at the time I had those books, I might've written ROBIX before LINUX
came around, and released it on an even lesser than less GPL whereby
anyone who wanted could do whatever they wanted with it however they
wanted, commercially or not, open-sourcely-or-not.
-Rob
-
Larry McVoy
> If I had been familiar with UNIX
If I had ham, I could make ham and eggs, if I had some eggs.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
Larry McVoy
> On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 21:07, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 08:58:44PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote:
> > > If I had been familiar with UNIX
> > > at the time I had those books, I might've written ROBIX ...
> >
> > If I had ham, I could make ham and eggs, if I had some eggs.
>
> enough to make ham and eggs. Or whatever it was we were talking about.
You missed my point. Which was: you said you could have done what Linus
has done if only you had the knowledge, timing, and leadership skills.
I was pointing out that that is a lot of "if onlys".
Rob Wilkens
> > If I had been familiar with UNIX
> > at the time I had those books, I might've written ROBIX ...
>
> If I had ham, I could make ham and eggs, if I had some eggs.
Precisely my point.. If I had ham, and If I had eggs, I knew (and know)
enough to make ham and eggs. Or whatever it was we were talking about.
-Rob