Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux Developers Asked To Distance Themselves From RMS

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by dee. View Post
    Rebecca Black OS
    Hey, that can't work. It's Rebecca Black OS, so it must be shit! /s

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by OneTimeShot View Post
      I can understand his frustration at not being the poster boy after all the technical work that he did. At the end of the day, though, by now he should know life isn't fair.

      The GNU code base is degrading though, maybe he should go back and do some coding. Note that people are moving from GCC to LLVM (and not just due to licensing concerns).

      Well... if it's any consolation to him, I don't use GNU/Linux or Linux, I use Fedora.
      I pretty much agree with this.

      Basically, the kernel is called Linux and the tool collection is called GNU. Why complicate things any further?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by blackout23 View Post
        Why isn't it called GNU/MIT/Linux? I haven't seen one desktop Linux distro working without X11 which isn't a GNU GPL Project.
        People do not call it as GNU/Linux because of the license, if it was like that it would be GPL/Linux
        the right thing would be GNU/X.Org/Linux

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Alejandro Nova View Post
          Hey, that can't work. It's Rebecca Black OS, so it must be shit! /s
          How true! It would be far more powerful as the Claudia Black OS. It would most certainly kick ass then!

          Comment


          • #35
            Time for people to wake up!

            Seriously folks, far to many people lapped up GPL 3 when it came out totally oblivious to how damaging the license is. It is time for people to wake up and smell the air after Stallman and GPL-3 have fallen off the deep end.

            Open software has far better licensing arrangements than the latest GPL. Frankly those license protect the code better than GPL which pollutes every code base with nut case programmer that want to control every bodies contribution to the code base.

            Wake up, Wake up, before you get screwed over after contributing to some GPL 3 code base.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by blackout23 View Post
              Why isn't it called GNU/MIT/Linux? I haven't seen one desktop Linux distro working without X11 which isn't a GNU GPL Project.
              Excellent point!

              I would really prefer that the FSF give up on the HURD kernel, which is barely usable and reeks of "not invented here syndrome", work on officially partnering with the Linux "kernel team", and name Linux as the official GNU kernel. At which point it will be appropriate for people to call it Linux even under Richard Stallman's logic.

              Unfortunately this will never happen.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by wizard69 View Post
                Wake up, Wake up, before you get screwed over after contributing to some GPL 3 code base.
                Could u give some facts that makes your claim not just fud?

                U dont care if people use your code in comercial projects and give u no money and or use your code to take freedom of users with some digital restriction management?
                If thats ok for u go ahead, I dont.

                and how do such people control u if you give them code. they released their project under the gpl3 if you contribute to it, you either have to follow only the gpl3 or you fork on that terms, there is no magic priest behind it, that makes u do other things on top of that afterwards.

                Comment


                • #38
                  1-I call dupe.
                  Not a hint at fsf.org, or at stallman.org, or gnu.org. And imgur doesn't have the AGPL trine, so not a chance he'd post there...

                  Now, a few random points:
                  -Stallman has advocated this term; it was his term before the "GNU/Linux" campaign. It quickly died of mockery. I don't think he'd resurrect it.

                  -Restrictions on naming are not compatible with the GPL, and whether they would qualify as "free" is dubious. But then, he's not actually restricting it...

                  -Looking at the FSF's projects, I think they'd better get their own house in order if they want credit: gnu tar comes from pdtar, cssc from some ancient PD code, gnash from a PD flash library, bison from a PD "yacc" that also was the source for byacc...

                  -To quote Rob Landley, mantainer of the kernel documentation: "GNU/Linux isn't: either it's a mere aggregation or it's a licensing violation."

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by wizard69 View Post
                    Seriously folks, far to many people lapped up GPL 3 when it came out totally oblivious to how damaging the license is. It is time for people to wake up and smell the air after Stallman and GPL-3 have fallen off the deep end.

                    Open software has far better licensing arrangements than the latest GPL. Frankly those license protect the code better than GPL which pollutes every code base with nut case programmer that want to control every bodies contribution to the code base.

                    Wake up, Wake up, before you get screwed over after contributing to some GPL 3 code base.
                    Aight, mate - wake up, smell airs, clean teeth, pray to your owners. Meanwhile, we will stay thankfull to Stallman for the free software evolution.
                    Or as Linus said:
                    Linux is "just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu)"

                    When I see shit flying direction RMS, I acknowledge he is doing the right thing, hence his enemies yell.

                    Yell on!

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      As a proud hater of Linux and the FOSS "movement" I think the "Linux is not GNU/Linux" line that the kernel cabal uses it total crap. The OS was always the GNU. The kernel was chosen to be Linux because that's what they was available at the time. It is easy to see that when building an OS, the kernel is not the most challenging part. You can use "Linux" distros with different kernels, namely BSD and Hurd. I'm sure they could use the OpenSolaris kernel if they wanted to or even XNU.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        The presentation is fake. RMS writes essays and does interviews and public seminars. RMS does not do presentations with slides. RMS does not mass mail media outlets. RMS is "not very optimistic" about Hurd and is already quite happy with Linux because it already solves the problem that Hurd was started to solve. RMS does not use imgur because RMS doesn't usually surf the net.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Sigh...

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by mark45 View Post
                            Liam Lindholm probably works for a popcorn company.
                            My bet is he's a sock puppet controlled by Linux news site editors.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by aigarius View Post
                              RMS has always been an impractical idealist. However, things that were considered his feverish dreams are now mainstream. To be able to move forward, there must be people advocating for an ideal world or we will stop approaching it.

                              While the proportion of GNU code in a modern Linux distribution is not what it was before, still in each Ubuntu or Fedora or even Android, there is far more GNU than Linux. There is a bunch of competing projects that sometimes reduce that, but it is very important to never forget where we came from. The whole closed source saga was posiible, because early programmers simply did not understand the values and global benefits of software freedom that they then had. We must never forget the lessons of software history or we shall be doomed to repeat it.
                              Not Android. Google has a strict no GPL in userspace policy. Before Android I thought that the GNU/Linux name was useless since it was implicit in the name Linux. Now that Linux (the kernel) supports multiple userlands ("operating systems") - currently primarily Android and some busybox/uclibc embedded systems (and the interesting Alpine distro), but lots of interesting new development with musl libc, llvmlinux, toybox or sbase/ubase is in the works and will result in a more diverse Linux ecosystem - GNU/Linux or Lignux serves a purpose to more accurately describe the OS.
                              Last edited by staalmannen; 12-24-2013, 02:39 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                and no kernel hacker reacted to that mail. Why did phoronix?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X