is linux against fsf?

[d.kusummmanth@gmail.com]

i'm from hyderabd, india.

at a workshop on linux being conducted by FSF foundation, we are being forced to use Debian, though many of us use and feel that Ubuntu is best for beginners.

Recently, I heard one member say that FSF team is anti-linux!!! It seems that when RMS visited the local FSF office, he asked them why they were using Linux??( Debian)

Also these guys seem to be more focused on Free Software and keep saying Microsoft is bad, bad, bad... without explaining how GPL is excellent for learners.

funnily, some people here don't know what FSF stands for, or who created Linux!!!!:(

[punx45]

the FSF sticks to only GNU (www.gnu.org) software, which, for sake of user friendliness, Ubuntu now deviates from in some areas.

[shifty_powers]

well the thing is, ubuntu uses and makes available various closed source programs and codecs. This goes against the 'pure open source' philosophy that debian aspires to....

[shifty_powers]

btw, can ya not post duplicate threads? ;)

[d.kusummmanth@gmail.com]

btw, can ya not post duplicate threads? ;)

it happened by mistake. can i delete the duplicate??

[perce]

The FSF and the Linux kernel team have different goals and different point of view. I wouldn't say the FSF is against Linux, as they distribute their own distribution; they are against some of the opinion Linus Torvalds sometimes expresses.



It seems that when RMS visited the local FSF office, he asked them why they were using Linux??( Debian)


He surely didn't ask for Linux to be replaced with another OS. He may have asked why they were using Debian instead of the FSF's own distribution, or
why they were using the *word* Linux instead of GNU/Linux. Linux vs GNU/Linux is an old controversy; here RMS has some reason, but Linux is a much better word than GNU/Linux, so he will eventually lose.

[uraldinho]

The FSF and the Linux kernel team have different goals and different point of view. I wouldn't say the FSF is against Linux, as they distribute their own distribution; they are against some of the opinion Linus Torvalds sometimes expresses.

He surely didn't ask for Linux to be replaced with another OS. He may have asked why they were using Debian instead of the FSF's own distribution, or
why they were using the *word* Linux instead of GNU/Linux. Linux vs GNU/Linux is an old controversy; here RMS has some reason, but Linux is a much better word than GNU/Linux, so he will eventually lose.

+1

I think, in the original post there must be some sort of a misunderstanding. I don't think FSF is anti-linux. They may not support the use of the word "Linux", but they aren't against it.

I always refer to the OS as Linux, but I know referring to it as Linux is wrong. The complete package is probably more GNU than Linux. The controversy will live on.

Linux is shorter, sounds better, and we don't have to explain what it means. Not everyone knows what linux is, but they are very likely to have heard the term before.

[ubuntu-freak]

The FSF don't endorse Debian because they say it "suggests" proprietary. It's not enough for a distribution to not include any proprietary elements.

Nathan

[saulgoode]

From an interview with Poornam (http://bobcares.com/article85.html) a couple of days ago:


Julia Mathew: From your personal Home page we can see that you prefer gNewSense as a linux distro. But, that is created from Ubuntu. What is your opinion about Ubuntu, which is also not using any proprietary software in it and one of the most used distro currently?

RMS says: "I wish you were right about that. The fact is that Ubuntu does offer to install non-free software. That is why I will not recommend it. It is also not nice of them to call the whole system "Linux", but that is less important as an ethical issue than installing non-free software."

[perce]

It is also not nice of them to call the whole system "Linux", but that is less important as an ethical issue than installing non-free software.


I sort of remember that Ubuntu used the word GNU/Linux and credited Debian as upstream, and I looked at Ubuntu's main page to check. I was very surprised to see that it barely mentions Linux at all! this is not good, it looks like they are ashamed of where they come from.

[Ebuntor]

I sort of remember that Ubuntu used the word GNU/Linux and credited Debian as upstream, and I looked at Ubuntu's main page to check. I was very surprised to see that it barely mentions Linux at all! this is not good, it looks like they are ashamed of where they come from.

Perhaps RMS is referring to the Ubuntu slogan "Linux of Human Beings".

[Tyler H]

The Documentary "Revolution OS" explains it all fairly well.

[eragon100]

The FSF... :-({|=

[d.kusummmanth@gmail.com]

The FSF and the Linux kernel team have different goals and different point of view. I wouldn't say the FSF is against Linux, as they distribute their own distribution; they are against some of the opinion Linus Torvalds sometimes expresses.



He surely didn't ask for Linux to be replaced with another OS. He may have asked why they were using Debian instead of the FSF's own distribution, or
why they were using the *word* Linux instead of GNU/Linux. Linux vs GNU/Linux is an old controversy; here RMS has some reason, but Linux is a much better word than GNU/Linux, so he will eventually lose.
what's the name of FSF's own distribution? Never heard abut it!!

[d.kusummmanth@gmail.com]

Perhaps RMS is referring to the Ubuntu slogan "Linux of Human Beings".
what's wrong with that??!!!

[Mr. Picklesworth]

Indeed, arguing that "Linux the operating system" be called GNU/Linux is absolutely silly, since the word has quite successfully become a good blanket statement on its own for free software operating systems. It could easily be called Linux with GNU and X and GTK and d-bus and Samba and PulseAudio... but that would just be stupid.

Linux created a movement similar to, but not parallel to, the free software foundation. FSF gave free software to uber-geeks, Linux helps pass it to everyone else. I don't think either would be where they are without the other :)

[zetetic]

I sort of remember that Ubuntu used the word GNU/Linux and credited Debian as upstream, and I looked at Ubuntu's main page to check. I was very surprised to see that it barely mentions Linux at all! this is not good, it looks like they are ashamed of where they come from.

lol They even say, on Ubuntu site, that Ubuntu is a "linux-based operating system". lol

So Ubuntu is not a Gnu/Linux distribution. It is "a Linux-based operating system". lollllllll

Micro$oft wouldn't "explain it" better!

[toupeiro]

Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for RMS and his contributions, but FSF sure demands a lot of verbal ownership for being so free. Nothing about Linux being called Linux takes anything away from GNU or the FSF. I think these debates go a little too far. If linux was ever making a claim to be a self-contained machine of software, thats one thing, but it most certainly does not do that.

[RiceMonster]

I think it makes most sense to call it Linux, just because there's so much software made by so many different people for it that you may as well call it Linux because the kernel is more or less the "center" OS. That, and it's easier to say Linux, the average person would get confused if you say GNU/Linux.

[perce]

what's the name of FSF's own distribution? Never heard abut it!!

gNewsense:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnewsense


it's based on Ubuntu, but with all non-free drivers and firmwares removed. It
was not originally developed by the FSF, but now it is supported by it.

[perce]

I think it makes most sense to call it Linux, just because there's so much software made by so many different people for it that you may as well call it Linux because the kernel is more or less the "center" OS. That, and it's easier to say Linux, the average person would get confused if you say GNU/Linux.

I usually say Linux but write GNU/Linux. I'm not sure that RMS would approve it, but I think it's a fair compromise.

[justin whitaker]

RMS's point is that all Linux distributions use the GNU Toolchain, so they should be given the appropriate credit...so GNU/Linux (or Linux/GNU since I don't see why RMS gets top billing over the kernel...ask him how HURD is doing and then see what good GNU tools are without an operating environment).

Anyway, the FSF is against anything that is proprietary: codecs, drivers, kernels, you name it. It's a little naive, not to mention self defeating to say that you are going to not partake in any hardware or technological advances (GPUs, Flash, PDFs, Games) because someone else owns and won't share the code.

I don't think he is wrong, per se: patents stifle progress, but the way he goes about it is sort of like a child taking his ball and running home when noone will play by his rules.

[LaRoza]

Anyway, the FSF is against anything that is proprietary: codecs, drivers, kernels, you name it. It's a little naive, not to mention self defeating to say that you are going to not partake in any hardware or technological advances (GPUs, Flash, PDFs, Games) because someone else owns and won't share the code.

Well, he does follow his philosophy to the letter. I admire him for that. He has a tough philosophy to follow, but he does.

[id1337x]

No they both support each other.

Quote: Richard Stallman "people who support open source often contribute to extending the free software community many of them develop free software those are useful contributions I'm not saying what they are doing is bad I am saying that alone it is not enough because it is weak you see when you say the goal is to have powerful reliable convient software and get it cheap then it becomes possible for the representatives of proprietary software to claim well we will deliever more powerful reliable software, we claim that our total cost of ownership will be cheaper and I think it usually BS when MicroSoft says this it based on distorted facts but it is weak when we say the goal is to live in freedom and be allowed to coooperate with other people in a community they cannot say they are going to offer that at all they are not even competing with us. They are out of the running once you decide you want to live in freedom."

Here is a good source of information:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91E7-MjBdWA

[original_jamingrit]

Free software and open source software both have largely the same goal: to produce good software that's intellectually free, without any proprietary blobs or black boxes floating around your application or system. There will always be disagreements between different subsets of our community, but it's still better to disagree than to be forced to agree. That is a part of the freedom. Linux is not against the FSF, and the FSF is not against Linux, although members of the community and their ideas may sometimes be at odds.

[toupeiro]

Well, he does follow his philosophy to the letter. I admire him for that. He has a tough philosophy to follow, but he does.

I think the thing that gets me here is the name Linux does not imply that any credit is taken from GNU, its just not in the bloody name! In fact, every GNU tool I pull a man page up on clearly sites credit where its due. The name GNU/Linux, and particularly the stance RMS takes doesn't directly say, however implies a sense of credit over the development of linux as it is today, and really less of a symbiosis of software growing off eachother, with eachother. He is really not on any moral highground on the matter in my eyes. What I call it does not discredit the roots of it, or the people who made it what it is.

The last time I typed uname -a, I believe it said GNU/Linux. The problem lies in the fact that this is not good enough for RMS or the FSF.

[swoll1980]

RMS's Computer must stink! No standerd multimedia, no flash player, no good
3d acceleration. I would hate to have to use his computer.

[plun]

RMS's Computer must stink! No standerd multimedia, no flash player, no good
3d acceleration. I would hate to have to use his computer.

No it doesn't stink :) but this man doesn't need 3D acceleration for Emacs...

The challenge is that you have a lot of developers which also follow this man and what he writes and talks about.

Of course it would be nice if everything was free but now the world
is commercial.

RMS cannot change this fact.... a lot of users can change this fact and its impossible to be a lot of users with RMS dictates.

Some users also believes its better to be a few with 100% RMS religion.

So in the end Linux looses.... and GNU have no users. Just sad whats going on for the moment. :(

[stream303]

RMS's Computer must stink! No standerd multimedia, no flash player, no good
3d acceleration. I would hate to have to use his computer.

Um, watch it there buddy! :) :)

Plenty of us Apple PPC users in that same boat, although we can do a bit of audio streaming etc. We rely on gnash for flash, and it seems unlikely that ati or nvidia will ever release full docs for ppc so we can do 3D.

That being said, Ubuntu still makes a fine general-purpose machine out of my iMac. gNewSense would actually be ideal for PPC Apples if they provided that port...

[original_jamingrit]

Of course it would be nice if everything was free but now the world is commercial.

RMS cannot change this fact....

I don't know, the world doesn't have to be "commercial" in the way we think about it now. I recently read an article about open source business, talking about two different goods; infinite and finite goods. Software and information can be infinitely duplicated, whereas things like time, bandwidth, hard medium (discs and physical packages) are not. A business that focused on making the infinite free, while attributing more value to the finite, might have some very strong advantages over proprietary-software businesses.

Also, sometimes I wonder if that maybe this whole "Let's change the world" attitude is what attracts some people to FLOSS.

[ssam]

RMS's Computer must stink! No standerd multimedia, no flash player, no good
3d acceleration. I would hate to have to use his computer.

there are free codecs for most audio and video formats.
gnash ans swfdec are getting better. (gnash is a priority GNU project)
the free drivers for intel and ati have 3d acceleration.

i have used linux on powerpc for many years, and there is no proprietary w32codecs, flash player, graphics drivers etc.

also just to note, stallman uses an OLPC http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/can-we-rescue-olpc-from-windows , though removed the non-free wireless firmware.

the FSF do recommend some wireless cards http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/net/wireless/cards.html

[Ebuntor]

what's wrong with that??!!!

I never said there's anything wrong with that, in fact I like the slogan. I was just trying to come up with an explanation where RMS got the idea from that Ubuntu only uses the word "Linux" since perce explained that Ubuntu uses the word "GNU/Linux" and credited Debian as upstream.

[d.kusummmanth@gmail.com]

I never said there's anything wrong with that, in fact I like the slogan. I was just trying to come up with an explanation where RMS got the idea from that Ubuntu only uses the word "Linux" since perce explained that Ubuntu uses the word "GNU/Linux" and credited Debian as upstream.
lol...oh my god, why is RMS so angry at anyone who doesn't do things the exact same way as he does? I think Freedom of thought should be included in FSF doctrine.

[original_jamingrit]

lol...oh my god, why is RMS so angry at anyone who doesn't do things the exact same way as he does? ...

It's because he doesn't have a girlfriend (http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/bos/533096562.html)

But seriously, RMS needs to be there, to have a loud voice and give perspective. You don't have to always agree with him to listen to him.

[punx45]

RMS's Computer must stink! No standerd multimedia, no flash player, no good
3d acceleration. I would hate to have to use his computer.

He recently migrated over to an OLPC XO because it has an open BIOIS. http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/can-we-rescue-olpc-from-windows


and looks like ssam beat me to that point. http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=5052896&postcount=31

[Ebuntor]

also just to note, stallman uses an OLPC http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/can-we-rescue-olpc-from-windows , though removed the non-free wireless firmware.


I read that article and I have to say it's kinda ridiculous.


The XO's usual software load is not 100% free; it has a non-free firmware program to run the wireless chip. That means I cannot fully promote the XO as it stands, but it was easy for me solve that problem for my own machine: I just deleted that file. That made the internal wireless chip inoperative, but I can do without it.

How is that a good solution?! Sure he might not use wireless but what if someone does need Wi-Fi? According to RMS they couldn't/shouldn't use their closed source firmware.
As much as I like RMS he is just too closed minded about this. Like it or not we still live in a "closed source world" and we should remain practical imo. Using non-free stuff sometimes is the only option.

[bigbrovar]

i have a lot of respect for FSF and especially RMS .. without this guys Linux and the whole Ubuntu project would not exist .. we would all be trapped in a proprietary world of mac and windows .. what they advocate for is the use of free software .. and apart from the fact that its ethical .. its also practical .. today the biggest cause of instability on Linux are Nvdia,ATI,Broadcom,Atheros,Flash what do they all have in common .. exactly .. what makes Linux different from windows and mac is the community approach to solving problems and providing solutions .. everything is linked and works like a chain .. its an ecosystem that strives on oneness and.. that is why its stable and secured ..proprietary software breaks this flow and couses instability cus some programs cant interact well with it ,since they have no idea how it works.. and what makes it work .. in the end what we have is instability .. what makes it even worse is that such instability cant be easily fixed .. unless we wait for the developer (who in most cases dont care about us) to provide a solution .. hence defeating the whole purpose of using Linux .. .. i use a Nvidia Driver and i know how much it sucks on compiz .. its not has good when as intel 945 performance wise .. also is has alot of bugs which are yet to be fixed.. e.g a bug that crashes x when u click on view new msg notification in kopete ---- this bug has been there for ages yet we cant fix it cus we dont have the source of nvidia .. hence we are trapped and hav to just live with the problem ..

if i have a car and it develops a fault .. heck if my lappy has a fault i can open it and fix it me self without any legal issues .. why cant i do the same for software i bought ..

think about it .. proprietary would only make linux become Lindows

[perce]

I read that article and I have to say it's kinda ridiculous.



No, it's not. If you chose to be a kind of prophet, you must live your creed to the extreme.



How is that a good solution?! Sure he might not use wireless but what if someone does need Wi-Fi?


He probably bought a USB wireless which works with a free firmware.

[toupeiro]

i have a lot of respect for FSF and especially RMS .. without this guys Linux and the whole Ubuntu project would not exist .. we would all be trapped in a proprietary world of mac and windows .. what they advocate for is the use of free software .. and apart from the fact that its ethical .. its also practical .. today the biggest cause of instability on Linux are Nvdia,ATI,Broadcom,Atheros,Flash what do they all have in common .. exactly .. what makes Linux different from windows and mac is the community approach to solving problems and providing solutions .. everything is linked and works like a chain .. its an ecosystem that strives on oneness and.. that is why its stable and secured ..proprietary software breaks this flow and couses instability cus some programs cant interact well with it ,since they have no idea how it works.. and what makes it work .. in the end what we have is instability .. what makes it even worse is that such instability cant be easily fixed .. unless we wait for the developer (who in most cases dont care about us) to provide a solution .. hence defeating the whole purpose of using Linux .. .. i use a Nvidia Driver and i know how much it sucks on compiz .. its not has good when as intel 945 performance wise .. also is has alot of bugs which are yet to be fixed.. e.g a bug that crashes x when u click on view new msg notification in kopete ---- this bug has been there for ages yet we cant fix it cus we dont have the source of nvidia .. hence we are trapped and hav to just live with the problem ..

if i have a car and it develops a fault .. heck if my lappy has a fault i can open it and fix it me self without any legal issues .. why cant i do the same for software i bought ..

think about it .. proprietary would only make linux become Lindows

Well spoken, but I just want to try to clarify a few things.

Linux can exist by itself as GNU does. GNU had no catalyst until linux and Linux had no supportive OS toolsets without GNU. One owes no more than the other to the other. What you have here is a lot of bickering, generated primarily from the FSF camp, over self-important claims that really don't mean anything other than receiving an inflated amount of credit. Greed can still exist with free software. Intellectual claim, and an inflation of events to make your work seem like the greater of the masses. This is what I believe RMS and FSF is guilty of. As I said, If I didn't see GNU and FSF in the man pages and/or uname lines of every version of GNU/Linux I ever ran, I might have a different opinion. Fact is, RMS wants freedom his way... If freedom in the context we are discussing has to come in the form of one mans or groups perception of the term, thats not very free.


And Lindows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linspire) existed... Most people know it today as Linspire. It was a debian variant. ;-)

[Prometheum]

FYI, RMS has had several girlfriends, but I think sadly most of them seem more attracted to the idea of such a fiery activist type that they lose track of who he actually is. If you want proof, check out the O'Reily biography of him (GFDL) or the HURD site (originally, hurd was Alix;))

There are many things that RMS could have been pissed about:


Calling the system "Linux" emphasises Linus as the idealogical head of the "community" and in doing so de-emphasizes the Gnu Project and the FSF, who had been working on a fully free OS for decades before Linus was on the scene. The person who said to watch Revolution OS was 100% right -- after watching it, you can tell that while Linus defines "Operating System" as "kernel", RMS seems to define it as "the system you need to have to be able to operate". This, combined with open source vs. free software, is one of reasons for the current schism.
The Linux kernel contains non-free software. As a result, one of the things 100% FSF-specified free distros need to do is go and hunt down all the binary blobs that have accumulated. (If only Theo was a Linux dev, then we'd have 100% free and patentless code.)
Debian is a non-free distribution, as it recommends and makes it easy to install non-free software by default. Ubuntu is non-free because it installs non-free software by default and allows you to install more by checking a box! RMS believes that a truly free distro shouldn't support non-free software, so he doesn't recommend or use distros that do that. There are several that adhere to the FSF guidelines on the FSF/Gnu website.


The reason why RMS is so loud is because he's right, but sadly he's a modern Cassandra. He was doing and advocating all of the things that are widely done now, and people back then said it would never happen. If it wasn't for RMS, then we wouldn't have Ubuntu, Debian, Linux, or really any of this. RMS single-handedly started the free software movement, and we owe him a hell of a lot. If he had said "f*** it" back in the 1980's, then we'd have none of this. Can you even imagine that?

My personal stance is that we shouldn't even bother with the Linux part -- the kernel is an afterthought, Gnu runs just as well on BSD as it does on Linux, and for everyone but Linus and co., an operating system is much more than a kernel. Apple sells an operating system with a free kernel, and the Windows kernel is hacked up to work well with all of the components of the Windows operating system. A kernel is just a kernel, and naming the whole system after a single component is ridiculous. Nobody says Xnu instead of OS X, and nobody says NT instead of Windows. Gnu is just like that -- no one piece of software is "Gnu", Gnu is the name of the entire system -- kernel, shell, userland, daemons, windowing system, desktop environment, et all.

Sadly, the media latched onto "Linux", I assume because that was the last part and that was the piece that finished the puzzle. Probably also because the media doesn't want to focus on freedom when its advertisers are selling non-free shackleware. But the least you can do is say Gnu/Linux -- it's two extra syllables, and the recursive acronym can make people laugh.

This is a definitive time for free software. It's only now that we've been able to have systems like the Stallman's, running on 100% free software from the BIOS up. This stands in opposition to all of the forces of oppression and slavery, who use things like Digital Restrictions Management and Treacherous Computing to try to fight the one thing they can't stand -- freedom. We need to safeguard and value our freedom, because it is the one thing that can never be taken from us -- it can only be given.