Except for Devdas who is not a follower of GNU, no other supporter of
Erm, come again? I follow the GNU philosophy (important). I do not say GNU/Linux (far less important).
i agree with you there.
It's more important that one believes in the GNU philosophy and is aware of the differences between GNU and Linux rather than waste time and bandwidth fighting. In retrospect i remember something that Mark Shuttleworth said during his last visit to India. ``People from two different groups may agree with each other on 99% of things, but will kill each other over the remaining 1%"
:-)
Regards,
- vihan
On 13-Oct-06, at 5:18 PM, Vihan Pandey wrote:
It's more important that one believes in the GNU philosophy and is aware of the differences between GNU and Linux
i'm missing something here, is there anything different between the GNU philosophy and linux philosophy?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Friday 13 October 2006 06:04 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves cobbled together some glyphs to say:
It's more important that one believes in the GNU philosophy and is aware of the differences between GNU and Linux
i'm missing something here, is there anything different between the GNU philosophy and linux philosophy?
Yes, there _is_ a major difference between the two. Linux philosophy is about using/writing/promoting ``Open Source'' owing to technical benefits. The GNU philosophy is about using/writing/promoting ``Free Software'' for ethical reasons.
Regards, BG
- -- Baishampayan Ghose b.ghose@ubuntu.com Ubuntu -- Linux for Human Beings http://www.ubuntu.com/
1024D/86361B74 BB2C E244 15AD 05C5 523A 90E7 4249 3494 8636 1B74
On 13-Oct-06, at 6:31 PM, Baishampayan Ghose wrote:
Linux philosophy is about using/writing/promoting ``Open Source'' owing to technical benefits.
you have some evidence to back this up?
On 14-Oct-06, at 7:27 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
Linux philosophy is about using/writing/promoting ``Open Source'' owing to technical benefits.
you have some evidence to back this up?
since no evidence is forthcoming, i presume that this is just some more FSF FUD about linux
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Saturday 14 October 2006 02:39 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves cobbled together some glyphs to say:
Linux philosophy is about using/writing/promoting ``Open Source'' owing to technical benefits.
you have some evidence to back this up?
since no evidence is forthcoming, i presume that this is just some more FSF FUD about linux
I guess you could have given me a bit more time before dismissing what I said. I was in college and read the mail just now.
Quoting http://opensource.org/advocacy/faq.php
`` Can you give me some open-source sound bites to use?
The one-sentence version:
Open source promotes software reliability and quality by supporting independent peer review and rapid evolution of source code.
The one-paragraph version:
Open source promotes software reliability and quality by supporting independent peer review and rapid evolution of source code. To be OSI certified, the software must be distributed under a license that guarantees the right to read, redistribute, modify, and use the software freely.
''
So we can see that Open Source (read Linux[sic]) promotes software ``reliability'' & ``quality''. It says nothing about philosophy or ethics.
Now quoting http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html
`` Software Should be Free
[O]wnership of a program--the power to restrict changing or copying it--is obstructive. Its negative effects are widespread and important. It follows that society shouldn't have owners for programs.
Another way to understand this is that what society needs is free software, and proprietary software is a poor substitute. Encouraging the substitute is not a rational way to get what we need.
Vaclav Havel has advised us to ``Work for something because it is good, not just because it stands a chance to succeed.'' A business making proprietary software stands a chance of success in its own narrow terms, but it is not what is good for society. ''
And this is what we believe. All software should be Free not because it improves reliability and quality, but because it's good for the society.
I hope you are happy with this. Now you _may_ claim that those docs are not the `official' word or you won't believe it unless <insert foo Linux [sic] guru> says so, but honestly I couldn't care less.
Regards, BG
- -- Baishampayan Ghose b.ghose@ubuntu.com Ubuntu -- Linux for Human Beings http://www.ubuntu.com/
1024D/86361B74 BB2C E244 15AD 05C5 523A 90E7 4249 3494 8636 1B74
On 14-Oct-06, at 3:21 PM, Baishampayan Ghose wrote:
I hope you are happy with this. Now you _may_ claim that those docs are not the `official' word or you won't believe it unless <insert foo Linux [sic] guru> says so, but honestly I couldn't care less.
strangely enough, i am aware of the distinction between OSS and FOSS - but i am under the impression that linux came under the category of FOSS. And if it didnt, how come you guys are trying to own it by saying GNU/Linux? You cant have your cake and eat it too - either Linux (as in GNU/Linux) is FOSS or Linux (as in Linux[sic]) is not FOSS. Make up your mind.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Saturday 14 October 2006 07:10 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves cobbled together some glyphs to say:
I hope you are happy with this. Now you _may_ claim that those docs are not the `official' word or you won't believe it unless <insert foo Linux [sic] guru> says so, but honestly I couldn't care less.
strangely enough, i am aware of the distinction between OSS and FOSS - but i am under the impression that linux came under the category of FOSS. And if it didnt, how come you guys are trying to own it by saying GNU/Linux? You cant have your cake and eat it too - either Linux (as in GNU/Linux) is FOSS or Linux (as in Linux[sic]) is not FOSS. Make up your mind.
If you judge _only_ the source, then yes, Linux (the kernel) is Free Software and Open Source Software too. But there is more to a software than just the license, it's the motivation. Linus _himself_ has said that he doesn't believe in the Free Software philosophy and that it's Open Source and not Free Software. He started writing the kernel due to purely technical reasons and still does the same for the same reasons. But look at rms' motivation behind writing, say GNU Emacs. He never went out to write the greatest text editor, he only wanted to write a Free text editor. The fact that both Linux (the kernel) and GNU Emacs are great pieces of software is merely a very pleasant side-effect and nothing else. Moreover, I guess you fail to understand the distinction between Linux and Linux [sic]. When we say Linux, we mean the kernel but Linux [sic] means the GNU/Linux Operating system which many people wrongly call as only Linux, and that's why the [sic]. And no matter what people say, no matter how much lobbying we do, no body can ``own'' Linux (the kernel) by claiming that it's a Free Software, because that's exactly what we don't want. None can own anything by setting it Free, and as far as taking credit for Linux (the kernel) is concerned, the FSF never did that, and we all know that Linux (the kernel) is not a GNU Project. What we are asking credit for is the GNU system with the Linux kernel (GNU/Linux) that people use, and wrongly term as only Linux. This obviously creates a lot of confusion (something like what you just said), and people tend to believe that Linus Torvalds & gang wrote the whole OS which is obviously not the case. So in summary, credit is due to the GNU Project for the GNU/Linux OS (which some people call only Linux), Linux (the kernel) _is_ Free Software (but not a GNU Project), when we ask for credit, we mean credit for the GNU system with the Linux kernel (GNU/Linux) and not the Linux kernel (which some people call only Linux). I know that a lot of the above is redundant, but I have no idea how to help you guys in getting rid of such wrong and pre-conceived notions like what you just said.
Regards, BG
- -- Baishampayan Ghose b.ghose@ubuntu.com Ubuntu -- Linux for Human Beings http://www.ubuntu.com/
1024D/86361B74 BB2C E244 15AD 05C5 523A 90E7 4249 3494 8636 1B74
On 14-Oct-06, at 8:15 PM, Baishampayan Ghose wrote:
If you judge _only_ the source, then yes, Linux (the kernel) is Free Software and Open Source Software too.
since motivations are not built into the source, i think i will settle for this admission of yours and go with it. As for your in depth analysis of what goes on in the minds of linus and richard, i am no mind reader - what say we leave that judgement to god when they face him in the after life.
-
Baishampayan Ghose -
Kenneth Gonsalves -
Vihan Pandey