3 ms·
It is sad that the article positions itself to once again attack "open source" as if it is an abandonment of the free software values. Yes, part of open source
by chungy 11y ago
It is sad that the article positions itself to once again attack "open source" as if it is an abandonment of the free software values. Yes, part of open source was making it an "easier sell", but another part was to remove the linguistic ambiguities that arise from "free software". The proponents of open source in the beginning, and still to day, actively reject non-free software just as much. GNU on Microsoft Windows can be just as revolting to open source advocates ("can be" -- people are different from other people, not everyone holds the same standards, and this is true in the free software camps too).
Beyond that trifle, I applaud the article for trying to dispell the confusion surrounding everything. Given that Microsoft is adding a subsystem that is binary-compatible with Linux system calls, so that ELF Linux binaries may run as-is, calling it a "Linux subsystem" is not that big of a stretch, but continuing to call the user space "Linux" is.
One final point: If anyone reimplements this on ReactOS, the issues about freedom disappear. You don't have to like the operating system, but it is free software in every sense of the word. :-)
- Sanddancer 11y agoThe FSF has rather bitter words about ReactOS that would keep them from admitting such, "ReactOS is meant as a free binary compatible replacement for Windows. Allowing people to continue using the proprietary software and drivers meant for Windows is one of the stated goals of the project."[1] Also note on the same page their disdain of more permissive licenses, like BSD and Apache, calling them "pushover". [1] http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.en.html http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.en.html
- 8note 11y agobased on those examples, I'm confused as to why they support GNU, considering it can be used with non free software such as a windows kernel. It looks like GNU is abhorrent to the FSF.
- mikegerwitz 11y ago> It is sad that the article positions itself to once again attack "open source" as if it is an abandonment of the free software values. Yes, part of open source was making it an "easier sell", but another part was to remove the linguistic ambiguities that arise from "free software". "Open source" was created explicitly to avoid talking about the core philosophy behind free software---users' freedoms. Instead, it positioned itself as a development methodology. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.h... If the open source community talked about freedom, then they would be talking about free software.