5 ms·

Just so you know, GNOME stands for GNU Object Model Environment. Not that that negates your point, but I still disagree with you for other reasons. Firefox is i

by foob 15y ago

Just so you know, GNOME stands for GNU Object Model Environment. Not that that negates your point, but I still disagree with you for other reasons. Firefox is in no way part of the operating system itself. I would argue that Bash and the core-utils on the other hand are. Also keep in mind that the GNU Project created the whole idea of a Free alternative to Unix and created the culture and licenses that made it possible. For example, Linux is even licensed under the GNU General Public License v2. They provided every part of the operating system except for the kernel (again the core-utils and bash but gcc, emacs, and screen are probably also worth mentioning). Linux as we know it would absolutely not exist if it weren't for the GNU Project. I see people disrespecting the FSF constantly and I just really don't understand why you would when you know how much they've done for Free software.

mkr-hn 15y ago
GNU and the free software movement aren't going to die just because most people think GNU/Linux is a ridiculous thing to call an operating system. The core of GNU's argument is that they need GNU/Linux so people will recognize the importance of the movement, but the manner of people participating in this naming campaign is completely counterproductive.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
bxr 15y ago
>the whole idea of a Free alternative to Unix I don't mean to marginalize the gnu project, but there were already free -nixes out there. Starting over from scratch isn't much of an accomplishment other than the license... >and created the culture and licenses that made it possible The GPL has ultimately done more harm than good for open source. The only time proprietary software vendors are forced to release anything is when they accidentally mess up because they didn't understand what they were getting into. This happens rarely and when businesses get burnt, they're more apprehensive to do anything with opensource in the future. I know because I still see this happening today. When people aren't scared of the codebase, they can start using it. If they can modify it without worrying about legal repercussions, they're not afraid to modify it. Sure they don't have to give back, but if you force them to they're not even going to make the modifications in the first place. If someone wants to build something closed source, they're going to build something closed source even if it means re-inventing the wheel to avoid the GPL. I'd rather have the wheel be a BSD wheel, so even if product X will never be opensource, at least it will be built with good wheels. I'm a realist that knows closed software isn't going anywhere and at the end of the day I'd like all software to be as good as it can be.
- hasenj 15y ago
  > there were already free -nixes out there Not true, the various "Free" BSDs came much later. As far as I know, BSD existed but wasn't Free. If it was already free, then RMS would probably not have launched the GNU project.
  - prodigal_erik 15y ago
    I think he still would have, because what he set out to create is a 100% copylefted system. It's in the manifesto: > Everyone will be permitted to modify and redistribute GNU, but no distributor will be allowed to restrict its further redistribution. That is to say, proprietary modifications will not be allowed. I want to make sure that all versions of GNU remain free.
    - FooBarWidget 15y ago
      The FSF actively embraces non-copyleft or weak-copyleft licenses. The GPL3 was explicitly designed to be compatible with the Apache license. The Apache license has a weaker copyleft than GPL2.
      - hasenj 15y ago
        They want to work with other free software, they accept "liberal" licenses, but they don't encourage using them. They even encourage GPL over LGPL.
  - gjm11 15y ago
    In case anyone's wondering about the actual timeline: September 1983: RMS announces the GNU project. (Work actually begins in January 1984.) March 1987: first release of GCC. June 1989: first release of bash. May 1991: FSF announces that work on GNU Hurd (their own kernel) "has begun". June 1991: first free-as-in-speech BSD release ("Net/2"). October 1991: first release of glibc. September 1991: first release of Linux (0.01) -- not free-as-in-speech. March 1992: first release of 386BSD (0.0). July 1992: release 0.1, much more usable. April 1992: USL v BSDi lawsuit filed. (This was a big obstacle to early adoption of the BSDs.) December 1992: first free-as-in-speech release of Linux (0.99). April 1993: first official release of NetBSD (0.8). November 1993: first official release of FreeBSD (1.0). January 1994: USL v BSDi lawsuit settled. April 1994: FSF announces that the Hurd boots (but doesn't do anything much else). May 2011: still waiting for the first truly usable release of GNU Hurd. No one seems to think it's very likely that there will ever be one. So ... when the GNU project was announced, there weren't any free Unixes of any sort out there. It's possible that GNU really did create the whole idea of a free alternative to Unix. But the first free Unixoid kernel that was actually released was a BSD, and the first free whole Unixoid OS that was actually released was a BSD.

by foob 15y ago

mkr-hn 15y ago

GNU and the free software movement aren't going to die just because most people think GNU/Linux is a ridiculous thing to call an operating system. The core of GNU's argument is that they need GNU/Linux so people will recognize the importance of the movement, but the manner of people participating in this naming campaign is completely counterproductive.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

bxr 15y ago

>the whole idea of a Free alternative to Unix I don't mean to marginalize the gnu project, but there were already free -nixes out there. Starting over from scratch isn't much of an accomplishment other than the license... >and created the culture and licenses that made it possible The GPL has ultimately done more harm than good for open source. The only time proprietary software vendors are forced to release anything is when they accidentally mess up because they didn't understand what they were getting into. This happens rarely and when businesses get burnt, they're more apprehensive to do anything with opensource in the future. I know because I still see this happening today. When people aren't scared of the codebase, they can start using it. If they can modify it without worrying about legal repercussions, they're not afraid to modify it. Sure they don't have to give back, but if you force them to they're not even going to make the modifications in the first place. If someone wants to build something closed source, they're going to build something closed source even if it means re-inventing the wheel to avoid the GPL. I'd rather have the wheel be a BSD wheel, so even if product X will never be opensource, at least it will be built with good wheels. I'm a realist that knows closed software isn't going anywhere and at the end of the day I'd like all software to be as good as it can be.

hasenj 15y ago
> there were already free -nixes out there Not true, the various "Free" BSDs came much later. As far as I know, BSD existed but wasn't Free. If it was already free, then RMS would probably not have launched the GNU project.
- prodigal_erik 15y ago
  I think he still would have, because what he set out to create is a 100% copylefted system. It's in the manifesto: > Everyone will be permitted to modify and redistribute GNU, but no distributor will be allowed to restrict its further redistribution. That is to say, proprietary modifications will not be allowed. I want to make sure that all versions of GNU remain free.
  - FooBarWidget 15y ago
    The FSF actively embraces non-copyleft or weak-copyleft licenses. The GPL3 was explicitly designed to be compatible with the Apache license. The Apache license has a weaker copyleft than GPL2.
    - hasenj 15y ago
      They want to work with other free software, they accept "liberal" licenses, but they don't encourage using them. They even encourage GPL over LGPL.
- gjm11 15y ago
  In case anyone's wondering about the actual timeline: September 1983: RMS announces the GNU project. (Work actually begins in January 1984.) March 1987: first release of GCC. June 1989: first release of bash. May 1991: FSF announces that work on GNU Hurd (their own kernel) "has begun". June 1991: first free-as-in-speech BSD release ("Net/2"). October 1991: first release of glibc. September 1991: first release of Linux (0.01) -- not free-as-in-speech. March 1992: first release of 386BSD (0.0). July 1992: release 0.1, much more usable. April 1992: USL v BSDi lawsuit filed. (This was a big obstacle to early adoption of the BSDs.) December 1992: first free-as-in-speech release of Linux (0.99). April 1993: first official release of NetBSD (0.8). November 1993: first official release of FreeBSD (1.0). January 1994: USL v BSDi lawsuit settled. April 1994: FSF announces that the Hurd boots (but doesn't do anything much else). May 2011: still waiting for the first truly usable release of GNU Hurd. No one seems to think it's very likely that there will ever be one. So ... when the GNU project was announced, there weren't any free Unixes of any sort out there. It's possible that GNU really did create the whole idea of a free alternative to Unix. But the first free Unixoid kernel that was actually released was a BSD, and the first free whole Unixoid OS that was actually released was a BSD.