Linux OS? Not GNU/Linux ? :)


This discussion hasn't held up in the last 15 years - Why end it now? :) ...
It's all a matter of politics and language. GNU and the FSF was started as a political reaction to events that happened in the AI lab at MIT. RMS's idea about the GNU/Linux name is to raise awareness about the role GNU plays in the context of a GNU/Linux system. Language plays an important role in politics so there is great care involved whenever unclear language is used in politics.


You characterise the people who care about such issues as people of cults which carry the implication of people following a set of non-sense ideas. Is it non-sense to encourage people to consider and value their freedom? The awareness of freedom is purpose of RMS's strong insistance on the GNU/Linux name.
 
To build on the discussion, while I understand if most people don't care about the name itself, what RMS stands for is freedom in software (with different degrees depending on the license) and I have yet to see someone explain me how this position is harmful in anyway to anyone.


On the contrary, we have clearly seen the issues posed by closed-source software (spying, backdoors) and its related principles (software patents) costing billions in the software world every year and killing small players. These were all issues highlighted years ago by RMS and everything he was warning us of has come to be deadly accurate.


Next step: secureboot, locking us away from using something else than Windows 8 on our own laptops and desktops. If some work-arounds may be possible, they will likely be complex and further push the boundaries for the usage of Free software.


If you are not concerned about Freedom now, there may be nothing left to be concerned about a few years down the road once you don't have any choice anymore.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well if you just call the ones you don't agree with "zealots" or "cultists" or "sectarians" or whatever, you certainly don't have an actual discussion. You could just as well call people who like to use the name "GNU/Linux" nazis (oh wait, you already kind of did) and conform to Godwin's law.
I'm missing the Nazi reference completely.

Well, in that post, Moxie referred to GNU zealots as "übermenschen", which is a word I tend to associate with the Nazi regime.

In my opinion, the issue of naming is not very important, but the issue of freedom is, and for some reason, people who insist on banning references to the name "GNU" also seem to not care about the political issues, and only use open source software because it is often technically superior. The fact that I participate in discussions like the one in this thread is not because the naming itself is important to me, nor because I'm a follower of some kind of cult, but because I consider those political and ethical issues to be quite important (at least in the long run).
I don't think many people insist on banning the word GNU. Some, like me, just don't agree that it HAS to be named GNU/something and that this is the only correct way to refer to a Linux-based OS. I voted "don't care".

I don't mind at all that people don't care about the naming, although if I had infinite time, I might try to convince them to care about it (but there are other much more important things to discuss than this). A few people, however, seem to insist that it HAS to be named "Linux" or the name of the distro or anything that does not mention the word "GNU", not because they disagree with the GNU philosophy or deny its historical role, but because they somehow want to hide the political/ethical issues from the "casual user", because these issues "only really apply to programmers". I strongly object to that position.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'scusemewhat??? No, I did not make a nazi reference. For f*cks sake. As far as I know, that is kind of a Nietzsche thing, ne?


And, quite predictably, the whole congregation goes after the "Freedom" angle. As in "All RMS wants is freedom". Well, guess what: RMS opinion of what constitutes freedom is just that - An opinion. There are other equally valid opinions of what is and isn't freedom. Once again, the confusion of one mans opinion with The One True Way.


Particularily, conceptions of freedom that does not demand that others follow ones own idea.


The idea that there is anyone that wants to ban the word "GNU" is also a bit laughable. And indicative of a rather paranoid outlook.
 
And, quite predictably, the whole congregation goes after the "Freedom" angle. As in "All RMS wants is freedom". Well, guess what: RMS opinion of what constitutes freedom is just that - An opinion. There are other equally valid opinions of what is and isn't freedom. Once again, the confusion of one mans opinion with The One True Way.

So, are there attacks on Freedom on software / hardware / tech policy point of view, in the current technological environment, based on YOUR opinion ?
 
'scusemewhat??? No, I did not make a nazi reference. For f*cks sake. As far as I know, that is kind of a Nietzsche thing, ne?

OK, sorry about the misunderstanding. I considered your mention of "Übermenschen" to be a reference to the Nazi regime, because of the negative connotation you seemed to attach to the concept and because that is the context in which that word is currently most often used, just like the word "Führer" tends to imply a reference to Hitler even if it only actually means "leader". But I suppose you could also use the word in its original Nietzschean sense - it's a bit confusing, and I don't see why that concept of "Übermenschen" make you "more than a bit angry", but OK.

And, quite predictably, the whole congregation goes after the "Freedom" angle. As in "All RMS wants is freedom". Well, guess what: RMS opinion of what constitutes freedom is just that - An opinion. There are other equally valid opinions of what is and isn't freedom. Once again, the confusion of one mans opinion with The One True Way.


Particularily, conceptions of freedom that does not demand that others follow ones own idea.

Could you elaborate a bit more on the difference between your notion of freedom and that of RMS? Do you consider the GPL to be too restrictive or viral or something like that? Or what exactly is it you don't agree with?

The idea that there is anyone that wants to ban the word "GNU" is also a bit laughable. And indicative of a rather paranoid outlook.

Perhaps "banning" is a bit too strong a word. I meant "avoiding", or asking people not to use that name. I'd say that people who insist on consistently talking about "the Linux OS" without ever mentioning GNU are for all practical purposes banning the word "GNU" from their vocabulary. These people do exist, I think you're one of them.
 
No-one has objected to the use of the GNU name when referring to systems based on it. In fact, I've seen both terms in use on these boards in the past with no-one raising a fuss either way.


What people object to is being told they shouldn't have the freedom to not use it. Don't forget, this whole thread started due to a joking objection to its non-use.


- Neelix
 
OK, sorry about the misunderstanding. [...] I suppose you could also use the word in its original Nietzschean sense - it's a bit confusing, and I don't see why that concept of "Übermenschen" make you "more than a bit angry", but OK.

I do not know how many times this must be explained in different ways: The problem is not the "concept of übermenschen" (I have several friends who quite honestly think that that concept is rather appropriate to apply to people who master modern IT - That is, the computer geeks are the modern übermenschen). The problem is the rather blatant scorn and belittlement of those that are not interested in the pure vision of RMS/FSF. The idea that those that do not agree are at best children that needs to be educated. The apparent inability to understand that other people can be good humans, even though they do not agree on the finer points of RMS idea of freedom. As witnessed in this thread, as well as in several RMS rants about those that are not "pure" enough.


It is a question of how to treat those of different opinions. And in that, RMS fails (nowadays). But he does not fail as badly as several of his more entusiastic young followers. Perhaps you are too much into this world to see it (I do not mean this in any particularly negative way), but to me this aspect is inexcusable. And the weight has shifted over the years, to the point that it appears that the main focus of the GNU project these days is to maintain purity or decry impureness. I cannot imagine that the IceWeasel project that linked to above would have appeared out of the more practical GNU that I was a wholehearted supporter of back in the nineties.

Could you elaborate a bit more on the difference between your notion of freedom and that of RMS? Do you consider the GPL to be too restrictive or viral or something like that? Or what exactly is it you don't agree with?

As above. More than the freedom, it is the demand of total purity. This is indeed the subject of another big post, but in short, the idea that the only acceptable stance is one of 0% closed software and that noone needs anything else is not conductive to spreading free software. And a freedom that is built on despising the impure masses and congratulating oneself for being pure is not something that strikes me as free. That is being a pharisee.


I believe that it is a success every time someone decides to use Firefox instead of IE, LibreOffice rather than MS Office, Ubuntu instead of windows. I believe that success is won by the gradual understanding of ordinary people that free software indeed is a viable and useful option. To RMS, that is just as bad as anything else - The only people who count are those that are pure enough to renounce all non-free software at once. Where whatever is acceptable as free or non-free is decided by RMS. I cannot see this as a way to move forward. It is, however, an excellent way to maintain an elitistic pat-my-back-club of those that consider themselves better than others. This is not a vision of a free democratic future.

The idea that there is anyone that wants to ban the word "GNU" is also a bit laughable. And indicative of a rather paranoid outlook.
Perhaps "banning" is a bit too strong a word. I meant "avoiding", or asking people not to use that name. I'd say that people who insist on consistently talking about "the Linux OS" without ever mentioning GNU are for all practical purposes banning the word "GNU" from their vocabulary. These people do exist, I think you're one of them.

In that case, you are wrong. This is also a rather interesting aspect of cult thinking. I have not asked you or anyone else to not say "GNU/Linux". Neither have anybody else. It is you and your congregation members that are demanding names to be changed to fit your idea, and say that those who are not agreeing to your language use are uneducated. How you can, in your mind, equate that with other people "banning" anything is really, really worrying. Honestly. You should take a long look at the kind of organisations that do demand that people even outside the organisation should dress or speak or conduct themselves in a particular way so as not to "offend" their sensibilities, and wonder if that really is the kind of company you want to keep. And really: How that can be in any way connected to any concept of freedom.
 
Neelix, I just noted that you have a quote of mine in your footer. It was an extremely on-topic quote :D
 
I think you are wrong if you think the FSF or RMS or the GNU project considers e.g. Ubuntu to be "just as bad" as Microsoft Windows. I think they clearly distinguish degrees of freedom and consider Ubuntu "more free" than Windows. Just like they promote some distros as being "even more free" than others. I don't see what is wrong with their aim to create and promote distros that are completely free. Nobody is forcing you to use those distros - I'm not using them myself, but I like the idea that they exist.


I'm not asking anyone to use the name "GNU/Linux", and nobody is asking me to not use the word "GNU". The topic of this discussion is not what name one can or cannot use. I think we agree that everyone can use whatever name they want to use. The topic of this thread is simply "What name to give to this subforum?". It would be best to pick a name that as many people as possible can agree on, so something like "Torvaldix" or "Stallmanix" or "alkjhnvljfdhnfljskjdbfkjcbxvqu" would probably be a bad idea because I assume few people would consider those to be good names. My proposition is that "GNU/Linux" would be a good name that makes the highest amount of people happy. Note that picking that name for this subforum does not imply that you are from now on obliged to always use exactly that name and become a member of the elitist cult sect called the FSF.
 
What people object to is being told they shouldn't have the freedom to not use it. Don't forget, this whole thread started due to a joking objection to its non-use.

Objections and insistence are not forcing, nor are they taking away freedom. No one has ever insisted that you shouldn't be allowed to call GNU/Linux "Linux"; you should be, and are, allowed to, just as you're allowed to call it "Apple Pie" if you really want to. All anyone is doing is insisting on the term "GNU/Linux".


To the arguments about language and common usage: I would accept that if I believed the proposed name would cause confusion, but it doesn't. "GNU/Linux" contains the familiar "Linux", so people who don't know what GNU is but have heard of "Linux" will understand just fine what you are talking about. Worst case is they'll just ignore the "GNU" part. Best case is they'll ask about it and learn some history about GNU/Linux.
 
I don't see what is wrong with their aim to create and promote distros that are completely free. Nobody is forcing you to use those distros - I'm not using them myself, but I like the idea that they exist.

There is of course nothing wrong with creating and promoting a completely free distro. The problem, once again, is how those that do not follow RMS extremely pure vision is treated.

I'm not asking anyone to use the name "GNU/Linux", and nobody is asking me to not use the word "GNU". The topic of this discussion is not what name one can or cannot use. I think we agree that everyone can use whatever name they want to use.

I'll just drop a bunch of unsorted quotes here. You might even recognize a few of them from yourself:

GNU/Linux is GNU with Linux, the kernel added to make it a complete operating system


So, they took the incomplete GNU system and bundled it with Linux. They called this system "Linux", after the kernel, since they really didn't know any better.


What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux


We could have a poll to decide how to call it, but it is not really a matter of opinion or taste, but a matter of correctness.


the vast majority of people is already misguided or uninformed enough to think of Linux as actually being an OS.


I corrected you and some others explained why they say "GNU plus Linux". How is this preaching? Should I just let you spread falsehoods?


I don't see the advantage of knowingly propagating misleading names

Emphasis added by me. These are from the first two pages of the thread - It quickly got too depressing to continue. Now, please tell me how this is not trying to tell people what words they can and cannot use, and how this is not belittling those of a different opinion? Not to mention how this is not failing to make a difference between opinion and fact.


And no, you (_wb_) is not in any way the worst. I'm talking about the whole congregation here.

My proposition is that "GNU/Linux" would be a good name that makes the highest amount of people happy.

With all respect - Your own poll suggests otherwise.
 
So, are there attacks on Freedom on software / hardware / tech policy point of view, in the current technological environment, based on YOUR opinion ?

I'll just quote myself on that one:

Moxie said:
If anything will turn them off from the very real and very important questions concerning our online freedom, governmental privacy issues, the closedness of software and so on, it is going to the GNU webpage and find the issue of whether Linux should be called Linux or GNU/Linux being front-page stuff. That is so silly it is beyond words. The name is not an issue. Really. Not compared to the real issues one could be focusing on instead.
 
Objections and insistence are not forcing, nor are they taking away freedom. No one has ever insisted that you shouldn't be allowed to call GNU/Linux "Linux"; you should be, and are, allowed to, just as you're allowed to call it "Apple Pie" if you really want to. All anyone is doing is insisting on the term "GNU/Linux".

No, there is something more, too - It is the insistence on owning the right to interpretation. The insistence is also on factual truth. "You may call it anything, but the correct name is really...".

To the arguments about language and common usage: I would accept that if I believed the proposed name would cause confusion, but it doesn't. "GNU/Linux" contains the familiar "Linux", so people who don't know what GNU is but have heard of "Linux" will understand just fine what you are talking about. Worst case is they'll just ignore the "GNU" part. Best case is they'll ask about it and learn some history about GNU/Linux.

I do believe you are heavily missing the point here. The point is that noone - Not you, not I, not anybody, has any say in "accepting" what language use is the right one. There is no standards committee for language. Language is as language is used, and in the usage environment, something like GNU/Linux will never catch.
 
To build on the discussion, while I understand if most people don't care about the name itself, what RMS stands for is freedom in software (with different degrees depending on the license) and I have yet to see someone explain me how this position is harmful in anyway to anyone.

On the contrary, we have clearly seen the issues posed by closed-source software (spying, backdoors) and its related principles (software patents) costing billions in the software world every year and killing small players. These were all issues highlighted years ago by RMS and everything he was warning us of has come to be deadly accurate.

So are you part of the pragmatic camp and not the idealistic camp? Because the discussion in this thread has never been about the pragmatic impact of closed vs open software. FSF (and some in this thread) have made it clear that they're not interested in this argument, but in a more fundamental one of freedom and ethics. Which to me is pretty much meaningless by itself and is little more than religious vocabulary, but I digress.


What we're really discussing is not the quality of open source but the pragmatic quality of FSF's approach (which for instance, extends to a campaign that demands that people use the name GNU/Linux). You can make the claim that society would be better off if everyone with sufficient free time was required to spend two hours every night in the soup kitchens. But we're opposed to making acts of generosity mandatory, and most of us avoid defining ethics this way. And it's easy to see how it's counterproductive to your cause to chastise, shun, and generally make an enemy out of people who aren't on your side.


Now, in terms of pragmatic effect of FSF's philosophy - I see the extreme "all or nothing", what I might call a sour grapes outlook ("If everyone can't benefit from the source then no one should be able to"), to reduce to something anti-pragmatic. For example: rms writes that a non-modifiable closed source program isn't a violation of Freedom:

When we insist that the software in a computing device must be free' date=' we can overlook preinstalled firmware that will never be upgraded, because it makes no difference to the user that it's a program rather than a circuit.[/quote']

Under this logic it should be permissible to release a closed source program under a license that (in a legally defensible state) a) disallows anyone, including the originator, from releasing an updated version or derived work B) relinquishes the originator's write to copyright. This software is then legally equivalent to a ROM. I think most of us would agree that the utility of such a license would be inferior to your typical proprietary software where at least someone is capable of improving the thing.


Another example: rms is fine with people writing closed source software for private use. Rather, he considers any attempt to the contrary to be a violation of personal freedom. Under this system, an individual or corporation is free to develop software that greatly benefits mankind in some way, but the impact is greatly limited since that software is only used in that entity's endeavors. This is apparently considered more ethically permissible than releasing said software as proprietary but free to use. Some may argue that the software would quickly become unusable anyway since it can't be ported, but this is countered by hardware emulation.


These may seem like extreme edge cases, but that's the natural outcome of a philosophy that is extreme and absolute.


Now as for the implied question: can open source (not FSF's evangelism, just deciding to make a project open) ever have negative consequences? Implied because it's counter to your listing of some consequences from closed projects. I believe there really CAN be consequences, such as:


1) Diminished ability for commercialization. Because anyone else is freely allowed to take your work, which cost resources to make, and sell it for less. Sure, the same thing can then happen to them, although it probably reaches a breakdown point where it's not worth someone's time. Another side to this is it gives a lot of weight to marketing and other tricks. The point is, if you feel like your commercial viability is at threat then it'll be harder to pay to get software developed, and until capitalism is replaced with something else a lot of people will need to be paid to devote much time to something. Incidentally I think that non-commercial licenses can help deter this risk a bit; that is, the original copyright holders can sell the software (are not subject to the same license) but derived works can only give it out for free. This at least lowers the motivation to compete and makes it easier for money to go to the "right" place for those so concerned. But of course rms considers non-commercial licenses not Free and therefore unethical.


2) Lack of incentive towards centralized development. Of course the opposite is usually true; open source tends to encourage collaboration. But this isn't always the case - sometimes everyone wants to make their own releases (competing forks). These people may want credit and control that they get by making independent releases instead of trying to submit modifications to something central. And while the GPL makes all of the code in these releases visible it doesn't make it zero-cost to try to merge these changes, especially when you have a bunch of different implementations of the same thing and broken/incorrect/incomplete/useless code. Note this also extends to user involvement becoming scattered and confused. Testing and reports end up not going to the same place. Even in more benign cases like ports to other platforms you can end up spawning development branches that scatter the development effort and may take a long time to merge (or may never)


3) Potential for false sense of security. A big gimme of free software is that since the source is available you can't get away with doing malicious things with it. This relies on the assumption that people are actually carefully checking the source before running it (and that you trust these people, or that you yourself are doing it - which you probably aren't). Meanwhile, there's less time investment to bury malicious code into a fork of something than to make something proprietary that is useful enough on its own without the malicious part. Of course, the software CAN be inspected and probably inevitably will be, but if it's only after someone discovers it was doing something bad then it's pretty much moot. Also it ties into..


4) Free software licenses are difficult to enforce and make it a lot easier for someone to steal. In particular you can use the above example of putting in malicious code, pretending your software is non-derived, and by the time people realize it isn't it can again be too late. Being able to (illegally, of course, but in practical terms that isn't an absolute deterrent) release free software as pseudo-proprietary is arguably worse than writing new proprietary software, from a practical point of view. Of course you have to admit some potential for practical value to proprietary software to see it that way..


5) It makes it easier to find exploits and security vulnerabilities. Of course it then makes it easier to FIX exploits and security vulnerabilities, but sometimes you're in a position where it's difficult (or even impossible) to actually modify the code, or to get enough people to modify the code. While I'd still argue that the latter outweighs the former generally this doesn't always have to be the case.


Now, regarding the attacks on closed software. Certainly you can make a good argument that people would have been better off were it open/free. But that kind of likens to the argument that piracy is taking sales - the popular counter is, would the people pirating would have bought the software had they not been able to pirate? Likewise, if you prevented people from writing proprietary software, would they have written open/free software instead, or would they have just written nothing? Obviously there's some attachment that people and companies have to proprietary software, be it irrational/emotional or sensible, or the whole thing wouldn't have gone on like this. So it's hardly a given that attacking proprietary software leads to development of free software instead, at least in not every case. Some take the stance that the world is better off without proprietary software. They may believe that if the proprietary software weren't released a free alternative would have been released sooner. I disagree; a great many free software programs are based on proprietary software, you could easily argue that the proprietary software served as novel inspiration and accelerated the existence of the free alternatives.

Next step: secureboot, locking us away from using something else than Windows 8 on our own laptops and desktops. If some work-arounds may be possible, they will likely be complex and further push the boundaries for the usage of Free software.

If you are not concerned about Freedom now, there may be nothing left to be concerned about a few years down the road once you don't have any choice anymore.

Slippery slope mentality is a good way to manipulate people into acting on fear. Sure, our stance may not be ideal, but it's a lesser evil and it's either us or them, one must dominate. Can you really make a compelling empirical argument that in a few years your "Freedom" could be completely eradicated?


There have always been closed devices and open devices and this keeps shifting back and forth as the market sways - but IMO stays somewhat in equilibrium (there's a similar emerging equilibrium between different distribution models and copyright restrictions). Phones, tablets, and game consoles today are in general more open than phones, tablets, and game consoles in the past. That's for the mainstream options. The markets have opened up a lot and there are plenty of fringe devices that strive for free development. The x86 version of Windows 8 isn't using secure lock. The ARM version (not called Windows 8, btw) is, basically mirroring companies that have already been locking the OS on tablets. It's not a new precedent. It could be new for ARM laptops and desktops using Windows 8. But it could also be a barrier of entry to Windows 8 in successful ARM laptops and desktops, as if it didn't have barriers already. If the market responds by only making Windows 8 options, unilaterally, and therefore making it the de facto option you can complain. Otherwise I think you're over-stepping necessary bounds by calling out Windows 8 locked tablets as an attack on your Freedom when you can buy other devices that aren't locked.


The ability to run your own software on a device, much less replace the operating system, isn't really equivalent to the FSF's goals anyway. And we've already seen that FSF basically condones non-modifiable closed code, seems to me that secure boot fits fine with that part of "Freedom" if no one can ever change the OS..
 
4) Free software licenses are difficult to enforce and make it a lot easier for someone to steal.

That's not true at all. I'm more in the realm of games than practical programs, so I can't think of anything in that realm, but someone tried to steal Supertux, rename it to "Super Michael", get rid of text references to Tux, remove all copyright notices, and claim copyright himself, the last two of which are a violation of the GPL. It and many other free games he had claimed as his own were swiftly brought down when this was brought to them Supertux development community's attention.


I'm also sure that the GPL was at least once upheld in court, proving that the GPL is legally enforceable, though I don't know the case.
 
4) Free software licenses are difficult to enforce and make it a lot easier for someone to steal.

That's not true at all. I'm more in the realm of games than practical programs, so I can't think of anything in that realm, but someone tried to steal Supertux, rename it to "Super Michael", get rid of text references to Tux, remove all copyright notices, and claim copyright himself, the last two of which are a violation of the GPL. It and many other free games he had claimed as his own were swiftly brought down when this was brought to them Supertux development community's attention.


I'm also sure that the GPL was at least once upheld in court, proving that the GPL is legally enforceable, though I don't know the case.

Meanwhile, many Chinese devices easily get away with supplying several emulators in violation of the license agreement. Just because someone was able to get software taken down doesn't mean you can always enact swift and conclusive action.


I don't contend that it has been upheld in court. That really isn't the point. I probably should have said "can be difficult", not simply always is, but to imply the opposite - that it's ALWAYS easy to fight infringements - is ridiculous. Someone ripping you off is a risk, having legal protection doesn't prevent it, and in a lot of countries even if you successfully bring someone to court and win the case you must still pay court fees, pay to hire a lawyer, and take time out of your schedule to fight it. It's not hard to see how someone might want to avoid this risk.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@onpon4 : you're replying to the author of the most stealed/pirated gpl emulator in existance...


You know it's not always easy to enforce the GPL when your code is burned in the chip of many cheap chinese gaming device...
 
Meanwhile, the copyright of many proprietary programs is infringed on a daily basis in countries like the U.S. I fail to see the point. How is "people who are in countries that do a bad job at enforcing the law can break the law" in any way a disadvantage of free software?
 
Meanwhile, the copyright of many proprietary programs is infringed on a daily basis in countries like the U.S. I fail to see the point. How is "people who are in countries that do a bad job at enforcing the law can break the law" in any way a disadvantage of free software?

Because if you don't have source code you can't (realistically) port something to your different hardware platform and it's a lot more work to modify it (the program itself, not accompanying documentation) for instance to remove references to the original authors, the licensing information. It's also a lot more work to remove copyright protection. Or to obfuscate it so it isn't dead obvious it's the same program. Or to add ads, malware, and so on.. of course I already said this..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top