Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Shaggy God - Richard Stallman in Boston Magazine

bostonmagazine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 37 posts

Re: The Shaggy God - Richard Stallman in Boston Magazine

#21

Post by mojuba »

coffeeaddicted wrote: post #13

I understand why Stallman wants the GNU in GNU/Linux. But what's always confusing me is - why the slash? He's a programmer, so he knows that this is usually used for paths. But that does not seem to make sense if he wants this as a single name which should always be used. You can't create a single GNU/Linux folder - at least not in GNU/Linux. So anyone know why he didn't use another character there?

Probably because GNU Linux without slash would mean there may be another Linux also that's not GNU.

And yes, GNU/Linux reads like a path: here is the GNU world and here's Linux subworld.

Re: The Shaggy God - Richard Stallman in Boston Magazine

#22

Post by mechanical_fish »

gaius wrote: post #12
ojbyrne wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe his argument is that just about everything outside the kernel came from the FSF. It's not entirely implausible but he is obnoxious about it. Apparently just insisting that it be called "GNU/Linux" wasn't too successful.

I guess if GNU had actually produced HURD back in the day Linux would be forgotten or never have happened, but what's done is done now.

Man, BSD conquers the desktop and it still can't get no respect.

(Of course, its non-free "Mac OS X" disguise does fool a lot of people.)

What I'm trying to say, of course, is that there's no reason why multiple takes on the Unix kernel can't live happily next to each other in the marketplace. Also, you can't just blame Linux for stealing potential mindshare from the HURD... it was a group effort. There was also FreeBSD, as well as non-free but well-respected options like Solaris.

Re: The Shaggy God - Richard Stallman in Boston Magazine

#23

Post by mechanical_fish »

mixmax wrote: post #2

"The most momentous product of Stallman's genius, Linux, was the first operating system to feature software that was entirely free." I believe this is not entirely accurate - I seem to remember someone else being involved in creating linux...

Obviously this sentence is... flawed. But the most important lesson here is: Every sentence of the form "X invented Y" suffers from the same flaw.

Consider "X invented the television": One canonical value of X is "Vladimir Zworykin", but maverick outsiders have a hero in Philo Farnsworth, and every Scot knows that the correct answer is "John Logie Baird". And all of them are right, in one way or another.

Or the sentence "X invented the first antibiotic": is the correct value of X "Sir Alexander Fleming", "John Tyndall", or "molds in the Penicillium family"? (And why didn't the Penicillium get knighted as well? It did all the grunt work!)

For the really strong form of this argument, google "James Burke connections".

Re: The Shaggy God - Richard Stallman in Boston Magazine

#24

Post by tjr »

coffeeaddicted wrote: post #13

I understand why Stallman wants the GNU in GNU/Linux. But what's always confusing me is - why the slash? He's a programmer, so he knows that this is usually used for paths. But that does not seem to make sense if he wants this as a single name which should always be used. You can't create a single GNU/Linux folder - at least not in GNU/Linux. So anyone know why he didn't use another character there?

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#whyslash

We're talking about a version of GNU, the operating system, distinguished by having Linux as the kernel. A slash fits the situation because it means “combination.” (Think of “Input/Output”.) This system is the combination of GNU and Linux; hence, “GNU/Linux”.

There are other ways to express “combination”. If you think that a plus-sign is clearer, please use that. In French, a hyphen is clear: “GNU-Linux”. In Spanish, we sometimes say “GNU con Linux”.

Re: The Shaggy God - Richard Stallman in Boston Magazine

#25

Post by huhtenberg »

mojuba wrote: post #21
coffeeaddicted wrote: post #13

I understand why Stallman wants the GNU in GNU/Linux. But what's always confusing me is - why the slash? He's a programmer, so he knows that this is usually used for paths. But that does not seem to make sense if he wants this as a single name which should always be used. You can't create a single GNU/Linux folder - at least not in GNU/Linux. So anyone know why he didn't use another character there?

Probably because GNU Linux without slash would mean there may be another Linux also that's not GNU. And yes, GNU/Linux reads like a path: here is the GNU world and here's Linux subworld.

> .. there may be another Linux also that's not GNU

Technically there may be one. While the history of Hurd shows that the opposite is not quite true. So all things considered it should really be Linux/GNU :-)

Re: The Shaggy God - Richard Stallman in Boston Magazine

#28

Post by gaius »

mechanical_fish wrote: post #22
gaius wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess if GNU had actually produced HURD back in the day Linux would be forgotten or never have happened, but what's done is done now.

Man, BSD conquers the desktop and it still can't get no respect. (Of course, its non-free "Mac OS X" disguise does fool a lot of people.) What I'm trying to say, of course, is that there's no reason why multiple takes on the Unix kernel can't live happily next to each other in the marketplace. Also, you can't just blame Linux for stealing potential mindshare from the HURD... it was a group effort. There was also Free…

Well, kinda sorta. Why, for example, didn't Oracle choose FreeBSD as their preferred platform? They've gone with Red Hat, and include a long-ish list of stuff that you have to install on top of RHEL to get their software to work. It's crazy really. As in, one of their premier platform simply doesn't work out of the box. Solaris, Windows, you name it, you just install and go, but RHEL is a complete pain in the arse.

So, why? 'Cos Linux has the mindshare, and it got the mindshare because it has legions of activists (e.g. Slashdot) with nothing better to do than repeat the message to anyone who will listen. Linux hoovered up basically all the non-geek consciousness of free Unix, which means you show up to work and the company has already bought a squillion RHEL licenses and can't understand why all the engineers are slack-jawed with horror...

Re: The Shaggy God - Richard Stallman in Boston Magazine

#29

Post by william42 »

davidw wrote: post #15
wallflower wrote: post #4

"Strictly speaking, the complete operating system should have been called GNU/Linux, representing the combined contributions of Stallman and Torvalds. Stallman always insists on the term, pronouncing it "GNU slash Linux." But in the popular mind, it came to be known as only Linux. Stallman has never gotten over that." The more I read about Stallman the more I find that his extreme stance is just who he is: "He's enti…

I'm glad he exists, though, because he makes me look like a moderate, even though I'm a pretty dedicated free software fan.

That's the Overton window and I'm glad he's pushing it.

Without him, we may still be in the world of non-disclosure agreements and closed Unices.

Re: The Shaggy God - Richard Stallman in Boston Magazine

#30

Post by edw519 »

Stallman detests wealth

He travels the world as a free software evangelist

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Does he detest wealth because he is a free software evangelist?

Or is he a free software evangelist because he never figured out how to become wealthy himself?

Post reply on HN