21–30 of 30 posts
Now he is enjoying Android.
Android/Linux if to follow RMS's logic about GNU/Linux naming.
If Google one day replaces it with Zirkon, even less.
Yet these people get full of themselves bashing GNU for them having Linux at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GNU is special because without them, the whole system wouldn't exist. They did: 1. Most of the technical work on version 0.1 of having a working system. 2. Most of the ideological work 3. Most of the legal work (Linux is GPL too) They're the original "inventor." Linus finished building it, but without Linux, Herd would still eventually be ready, and we'd have the same thing, only a couple years later. I'm not trying…
> _but without Linux, Hurd would still eventually be ready_ "eventually", however with "if" we can imagine a lot of things. It could also been said that "if Linux didn't exist then maybe BSD would rule the world" ;)
* The concept of a share-alike license (invented by the FSF as far I know) was critical for the world at the time. I think we'd see models like MacOS (built on top of formerly open-source code), rather than Ubuntu.
* The ideology behind it was critical as well. You might not agree with everything Richard said in the eighties, but everything else derives from it, either as an incremental change or as a response.
One more major contribution -- which I do attribute to Linus -- was how to structure effecitve communities. The FSF development model consisted of a few individuals doing heroics.
GNU/Linux was really the minimum viable product to iterate from.
If you have to hector people into using your terms, then you've already lost. Not that it makes any sense. Are we going to add every organisation involved to the name? Why is GNU special? If they want attribution they should have put it in their licence. The name really doesn't matter. If you think that publicity and fame is important maybe you should be in show business, not OSS.
I find this an incredibly odd thing to be so pedantic about. If your mission is truly free and open software, then it's kind of at odds that you would be such a stickler about what people are calling it.
Quoted post unavailable.
Funny that this would be used in defense of Stallman, a zealot who built his whole public personality on supposed "speaking truth to power". He literally called Microsoft "the Great Satan."
If you have to hector people into using your terms, then you've already lost. Not that it makes any sense. Are we going to add every organisation involved to the name? Why is GNU special? If they want attribution they should have put it in their licence. The name really doesn't matter. If you think that publicity and fame is important maybe you should be in show business, not OSS.
Are you saying it's not a major political defeat when a government officially renames "videosurveillance" to "videoprotection" across the country (France)? I'd recommend rereading Orwell's 1984 if you haven't in a long time.
I mean, cool story/heckle aside, RMS wasn't exactly wrong here ... heck the guy even admitted himself he had a hard time working around the "no gnu" requirement, and had to bootstrap his own tools to make it happen.
Also I get the whole "FSF are dicks for punishing sr.ht for saying Linux - Linux is not always GNU" sentiment, but even disregarding the earlier point, FSF is pretty clear in their criteria here, and it's not about labelling all linuxes as GNU/linux:
> Avoids saying “Linux” without “GNU” when referring to GNU/Linux
Whether you agree or not with that rule being useful, I'd say in terms of criticising sourcehut's wording, then that's pretty accurate criticism. I don't think the rule was misapplied here.