4 ms·

It's funny and sad how Linux Foundation gets all the attention from these corporations, when GNU/FSF have been just as (or more) enabling for their success (ign

by ymse 8y ago

It's funny and sad how Linux Foundation gets all the attention from these corporations, when GNU/FSF have been just as (or more) enabling for their success (ignoring Android for a moment). Imagine what GNU could do if they had just a fraction of the donations LF receives. Perhaps we could finally get good, affordable hardware that respects our freedoms. Misunderstand me right, Linux Foundation does great work and deserve the success, but they likely would not exist if it wasn't for the FSF.

xyzzy_plugh 8y ago
While I agree with you, GNU/FSF is only one player. Userspace isn't as important and is frankly replaceable in Enterprise. I've worked a few gigs, and shipped some products, where we didn't use any GNU software at all. Additionally, userspace isn't where a lot of the development needs to happen. We don't need new features or performance tuning of existing tools. We usually just write new ones.
- ymse 8y ago
  > I've worked a few gigs, and shipped some products, where we didn't use any GNU software at all. That's very impressive (assuming you were developing for Linux). I guess no one used Emacs, or GDB, and you were cross-compiling (using Clang and LLD) from Windows or macOS?
trasz 8y ago
You mean, GCC and the GNU toolchain, as it's the only actually crucial thing that can be attributed to FSF? It already seems to be quite well supported by hardware vendors, even if more "researchy" projects are slowly migrating towards LLVM.
DannyBee 8y ago
It's neither funny, nor sad, it's a pretty direct reflection of the fact that GNU/FSF is pretty ineffective at achieving any of those goals over time themselves.
akerro 8y ago
Yea, we could, but that's not what their sponsors want.
wmf 8y ago
Imagine what GNU could do if they had just a fraction of the donations LF receives. Publish more rants telling people to stop using all software and services they enjoy? Fork already-free software to be more free? Rewrite popular BSD-licensed software as GPLv3? Perhaps we could finally get good, affordable hardware that respects our freedoms. The way to get freedom-respecting hardware is to build something 80% free, then invest the profits into a second generation that's 90% free, then 95%, etc. Companies like Purism are doing this but the FSF isn't willing to compromise so they make no progress.
- greenhouse_gas 8y ago
  >Rewrite popular BSD-licensed software as GPLv3? What do they rewrite? To the best of my knowledge, they have no problem using BSD licensed software, they just won't develop BSD license software[1] (mostly, though they do approve it here and there for new projects). [1]. More accurately, they won't approve it for new projects. But the projects are fine.
emacsen 8y ago
I am a FSF supporter generally and financially but let's be entirely honest about what the FSF has done in the last twenty years, and that's actually very little in terms of making good Free Software. They lack a cohesive vision or the expertise to move projects forward. I'd love if that were different - we *need a Free Software org with vision, but the FSF hasn't had any for a long time.
- greenhouse_gas 8y ago
  What happened there? In the 80s they were the next big thing. Then they finished their OS project (when the Linux kernel became available they finally had a FLOSS OS). But they never took off with their high priority projects. Is it that they can't find programmers? Is it that they pay so little that you might as well write your own code and host it on Git*.com?

by ymse 8y ago

xyzzy_plugh 8y ago

While I agree with you, GNU/FSF is only one player. Userspace isn't as important and is frankly replaceable in Enterprise. I've worked a few gigs, and shipped some products, where we didn't use any GNU software at all. Additionally, userspace isn't where a lot of the development needs to happen. We don't need new features or performance tuning of existing tools. We usually just write new ones.

ymse 8y ago
> I've worked a few gigs, and shipped some products, where we didn't use any GNU software at all. That's very impressive (assuming you were developing for Linux). I guess no one used Emacs, or GDB, and you were cross-compiling (using Clang and LLD) from Windows or macOS?

trasz 8y ago

You mean, GCC and the GNU toolchain, as it's the only actually crucial thing that can be attributed to FSF? It already seems to be quite well supported by hardware vendors, even if more "researchy" projects are slowly migrating towards LLVM.

DannyBee 8y ago

It's neither funny, nor sad, it's a pretty direct reflection of the fact that GNU/FSF is pretty ineffective at achieving any of those goals over time themselves.

akerro 8y ago

Yea, we could, but that's not what their sponsors want.

wmf 8y ago

Imagine what GNU could do if they had just a fraction of the donations LF receives. Publish more rants telling people to stop using all software and services they enjoy? Fork already-free software to be more free? Rewrite popular BSD-licensed software as GPLv3? Perhaps we could finally get good, affordable hardware that respects our freedoms. The way to get freedom-respecting hardware is to build something 80% free, then invest the profits into a second generation that's 90% free, then 95%, etc. Companies like Purism are doing this but the FSF isn't willing to compromise so they make no progress.

greenhouse_gas 8y ago
>Rewrite popular BSD-licensed software as GPLv3? What do they rewrite? To the best of my knowledge, they have no problem using BSD licensed software, they just won't develop BSD license software[1] (mostly, though they do approve it here and there for new projects). [1]. More accurately, they won't approve it for new projects. But the projects are fine.

emacsen 8y ago

I am a FSF supporter generally and financially but let's be entirely honest about what the FSF has done in the last twenty years, and that's actually very little in terms of making good Free Software. They lack a cohesive vision or the expertise to move projects forward. I'd love if that were different - we *need a Free Software org with vision, but the FSF hasn't had any for a long time.

greenhouse_gas 8y ago
What happened there? In the 80s they were the next big thing. Then they finished their OS project (when the Linux kernel became available they finally had a FLOSS OS). But they never took off with their high priority projects. Is it that they can't find programmers? Is it that they pay so little that you might as well write your own code and host it on Git*.com?