36 ms·
> The FSF has had a massive impact on the world. It has? I'll accept that only for the conception of FLOSS. However, I would then say that the OSI and Linux F
by Delmania 10y ago
> The FSF has had a massive impact on the world.
It has? I'll accept that only for the conception of FLOSS. However, I would then say that the OSI and Linux Foundations have had greater impact. They relied on the RMS's license, but they have actually managed to make inroads, whereas the FSF has stayed in it's corner, shouting.
> maybe you just don't agree with them.
What I don't agree with is the all or nothing attitude they have. The ability to know when to compromise is crucial to working with people.
- krapp 10y ago>What I don't agree with is the all or nothing attitude they have. The ability to know when to compromise is crucial to working with people. They consider nonfree software to be not merely inconvenient, but evil, a violation of fundamental human rights. Why would they ever compromise?
- PeCaN 10y agoAs long as the FSF controls Emacs, GCC, and coreutils they're definitely doing a little more than shouting. I mean they're ‘GNU’ in GNU/Linux, which is a bit more widespread¹ than any BSD/Linux type thing. ¹Pretty sure Android/Linux wins in sheer numbers, but GNU/Linux has been historically more important and is deployed in more scenarios than smartphones. But if we consider ‘widespread’ to mean numbers, my statement is false.
- Delmania 10y agoIt's Linux, not GNU/Linux. The other problem is people don't consciously associate Emacs or GCC with GNU or the FSF, they're just tools on a machine.
- cyphar 10y agoIt is GNU/Linux. Claiming that Linux is the most important part of the system is rewriting history (the GNU project started almost a decade before Linux was created).
- jjawssd 10y agoGNU would have gone nowhere without Linux. Do you really think GNU/Hurd would have taken over?
- gkya 10y agoGnu over a BSD kernel could have. Linux was there at the right time.
- pessimizer 10y agoHonesty, Linus has been more important than Linux. Linux was just a student's side project. Linus is a force.
- cyphar 10y agoThere are many other kernels. Hurd is one of them. There's also several free BSD kernels (which were liberated around the same time as Linux was being made). And universities make operating system kernels all the time. Making a kernel is not as big of a deal as creating a fully compatible Unix-like operating system -- which is what the GNU project did. So I don't agree that "GNU would've gone nowhere". If GNU had a kernel before Linus made Linux, then Linux would've gone nowhere.
- PeCaN 10y agoDo you call Android "just Linux" also? There's a bit more to the OS than just the kernel. I dunno, I think people tend to associate Emacs = GPL, Vim = BSD. Same with GCC vs Clang. Oh and Emacs says ‘GNU Emacs’ all over itself, same with the GNU Compiler Collection.
- pessimizer 10y ago> It has? I'll accept that only for the conception of FLOSS. However, I would then say that the OSI and Linux Foundations have had greater impact The OSI and Linux Foundations are results of the FSF. The FSF changed the entire face of computing, and the daily lives of every programmer in the world. > What I don't agree with is the all or nothing attitude they have. They are an ethics organization. They are consistent and clear. They do not work with organizations or individuals who actively oppose the ethics they endorse. Exactly what goals are they trying to achieve that would benefit from that? Their goals do not include getting the most users, making computers more convenient, or cheaper, producing the greatest software, or selling the most ads. They are clear about their purpose. When they attempt those things, it is solely to advance ethical goals. Specifically, who should they be working with, to what end?
- aaronbrethorst 10y ago> They are an ethics organization That sounds weirdly like Scientology.
- cyphar 10y agoRiiiiiight, because the FSF conducts ritual hazing? Or do they pressure people into giving them money by harassing their whole family? Or because they have created the most successful pyramid scheme in the world? Since the FSF hasn't done any of those things, I'm surprised that someone would liken an organisation trying to give freedom to all users of software as being "oddly like Scientology".
- icebraining 10y agoThe FSF compromises when it makes sense. In the past, rms has advocated for using non-copyleft licenses when it was a more programmatic solution. And they don't have enemies; for example, the FSF has congratulated Microsoft in the past when they released some software under a Free license. Where they don't compromise is in situations where it would go against the very purpose of the organization, and why should they?