Free Software vs OSS

[flap]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/27121.html

The tendency on this board to use the term 'Open Source' plenitfully but 'Free Software' only sparingly is indicative of the wider problem - that the 'Open Source' movement has  done harm to the Free Software movement by detracting from the FSF's political/ideological goal by deliberately avoiding/ignoring it.

Fair enough if you agree with the goals of the open source movement rather than the FSF, but I suspect there is a general lack of awareness about the FSF and GNU, not helped by inaccurate statements such as this (from the Linux kernel docs): "Linux is a clone of the operating system Unix, written from scratch by Linus Torvalds"

[Calum]

i agree 100% with you. my loyalties lie with the free software foundation and richard stallman, and i agree that the open source initiative has obfuscated the concept of free software.

however neither open source nor free software are either of them very good descriptions of the sort of arrangement that gets released under the gpl and similar licences.

there is yet to be a term which sufficiently describes the "free as in freedom" ethic that these licences embody.

and re: that quote, linux was written from scratch by linus torvalds, however it is a clone of minix and it provides the same function as the unix kernel only. most of the rest of the system is from the free software foundation and its supporters.

you know that and i know that, but it is not as snappy and newcomers are less likely to understand it.

to close, i will just post this, one of my favourite links, and i reckon everybody involved in gnu/linux should definitely read this document at some point:
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/stallman.html

[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: Calum ]

[flap]

You're right that 'free' is an unfortunately ambiguous term. But actually 'Open Source' *is* a good description of what the open source movement advocates; just that - 'open source'. There's no freedom implied and non intended. There are software vendors adopting 'open source' development practises that just involve them making the source available internally within their company.

Linus Torvalds is hailed and revered as the "creator" of the "Linux" operating system, yet his contribution (the kernel) actually comprises only about 3% of the code that makes up the entire GNU/Linux system.
If I'm speaking about GNU/Linux or talking about it here I'll just refer it as 'Linux' as I'm lazy, but if I were writing about it, for example on a website, I'd make the effort to use its full name. I'd urge others here to do the same.

Yes, that's definitely required reading for anyone interested in GNU/Linux. Or if you can't be bothered reading it you can find audio recordings of RMS giving speeches on this at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/audio/audio.html
I'd recommend http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/audio/audio.html#TOCLinuxTag2000

[Calum]

well i frown on the whole open source thing because it is just as proprietary as closed source, but it gives people the wrong idea generally.

to be fair, the free software foundation took a decade to come up with a kernel, and linus knocked one out in his spare time...

[flap]

well to be fair they only took so long because they used such a tricky microkernel design; admittedly a bad decision. If only they'd just developed a simple monolithic kernel like Linux we'd probably now be using a system called GNU, and we wouldn't have this situation where Torvalds (whose philosophy is much more in line with the open source movement) gets all the credit for the FSF's work and, more importantly, fails to promote the political/moral side of free software.

[voidmain]

It is true that "Linux" is not an operating system, but just the kernel (which is a huge requirement for the operating system to even function). And it is true that Linus wrote the kernel used on all "Linux based" operating systems.  It is also true that GNU is significant and good.  However, I get a little peaved by GNU making it sound like they are the "biggest" part of a system comprised of only the Linux kernel and the rest being "GNU". The "Linux based" distros of today include much more than the Linux kernel and the GNU utilities/software.  Most apps fall under the GPL (even the Linux kernel falls under thet GPL) but being licensed under GPL does not mean they were initiated or born by GNU.  

For instance, XFree86 is not GPL or born from GNU and to most "Linux Based" OS users this piece of software is as significant as the Linux kernel. It is an open source version of X Window System and licensed under something similar to the X11 license. KDE, a system that many "Linux based" OS users do most of their "user" functions with includes a powerful Window manager and desktop system with many applications, is licensed under the GPL but certainly isn't GNU software.  In fact I would suggest that in most Linux distros GNU born software comprises a small fraction of the bulk of the code written for the distro. It is probably true that they would be the single biggest contributor but still be a small fraction of the overall.

Now, I have nothing against GNU other than they whine too much. It is not Linus' fault that people call an entire distro "Linux".  In fact I do it myself because it is easy to say and most people I talk to know that I am referring to the entire OS even though Linux is just the kernel. GPL is good and in most cases I prefer it.  But other licenses are better for other people, and maybe one day they will move entirely to GPL, that certainly seems to be the trend.  However, I hesitate to bash other licenses and whining so much certainly won't help the cause.  Enlighten people about the GPL and the philosophy but don't whine about who's more responsible and significant, something I hope RMS and friends do more of in the future.

[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]

[Calum]

i do agree re: whining, but they are doing it with their hearts in the right place, and X is a good example of essential non FSF software indeed. As far as i know they do not make software unless there is a legal way to bring out software that does the job of something that is not released under the gpl already.

why they do not build a WineX clone now is beyond me...

maybe it should be called GPL/Linux instead...

[voidmain]

I think just "Linux" is fine.  GNU software is used on far more systems than just "Linux based" systems so to me "Linux" better captures the whole with a short word. Enlighted people know that Linux is GPL and that there is a lot of GNU software included. Now it would certainly be improper to call a GNU/Hurd system "Linux". And people who install all of the GNU utilities on the Solaris or OSX machines do not then refer to their systems as "GNU/Solaris" or "GNU/OSX".

Regarding Wine/WineX. I have mixed feelings about this project. As far as I am concerned I would be happy if it just shriveled up and went away. It would be far more advantageous to get app vendors to produce their applications to run natively.  They have no incentive to port if their app runs well under Wine, which would never run as well as a native application. However, it comes down to that little dog chasing his tail problem, which is why I have mixed feelings about it. I personally don't have a use for it. I don't use Windows apps. I use "Free and open source" apps.

[flap]

quote:However, I get a little peaved by GNU making it sound like they are the "biggest" part of a system

Quote from http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html:

 

quote:One CD-ROM vendor found that in their ``Linux distribution'', GNU software was the largest single contingent, around 28% of the total source code, and this included some of the essential major components without which there could be no system. Linux itself was about 3%. So if you were going to pick a name for the system based on who wrote the programs in the system, the most appropriate single choice would be ``GNU''.

 

quote:Enlighten people about the GPL and the philosophy but don't whine about who's more responsible and significant, something I hope RMS and friends do more of in the future.

This is the problem; that people assume RMS + friends are "whining" or complaining about not getting their share of the credit, when the *whole reason* why they want GNU included in the OS name is so that people *will* become enlightened about the GPL + philosophy.

[voidmain]

That percentage falls in line with what I said.  They have the single biggest percentage of code yet not the majority.  And I believe it is better to use the term "Linux" over GNU because it refers to the systems that run the Linux kernel.

GNU software runs on many many more systems than just "Linux based" systems and you don't qualify those systems as "GNU" systems, nor should you on systems based on the Linux kernel.  Now when they start shipping distros with the HURD kernel then of course they should call the system "GNU".

And I don't "assume" they are whining.  I "know" they are whining.

[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]

[Calum]

it would be called GNU/Hurd, would it not?

i agree with both of you, however void main seems to put it more succinctly. i never thought of it, but of course other *nix systems are not required to call themselves gnu just because they run gnu versions of some utilities, why should linux?

also, the berkeley software stuff did all this 'let's make it free software' stuff off of their own backs and never whined in the slightest about it, so why should the free software foundation get more credit?

the only argument (and unfortunately it is significant) in favour of playing up the GNU thing is making people aware of the free software thing so that the whole movement does not fizzle out and become 'open source' in all its proprietary moneygrabbing glory...

[flap]

I'm suggesting that the assumption is that their 'whining' is about credit, rather than altruism. Now I could understand a little selfish indignation on the part of Stallman; having spent 18 years developing an operating system only to not get full recognition would bother most people, but their point is that the problem is with failing to advertise the goal of freedom, not failing to give credit.

[voidmain]

And another thing I would like to get straight here.  It may not sound like it but I am a HUGE fan of GNU software. Hell, I have been using it for well over 10 years now religiously.  I install the GNU file utilities and compiler right off on every UNIX system (AIX, Solaris, etc) that I have administered over the last 10+ years because I think GNU provides superior functionality over the vendor supplied basic UNIX utilities. In fact I also used to install all of the GNU software I could on Windows systems that I used because without GNU, Windows is completely brain dead.  

Then the Linux kernel was written which allowed me to use the GNU software on a standalone system. I have no problem calling this system a "Linux" system because the kernel really is the "heart" of the OS. GNU *is* a huge part of the OS but it is a set of utilities and applications that make up the base OS. Sure, if you based it on percentage of code it may be more correct to call it "GNU/Linux" but to me that is just awkward.

And GNU is "more" than just Linux as we mentioned, it's a set of utilities/apps that can run on most any platform. I still beleive it is better to refer to Linux kernel based systems as "Linux".  Threads like this are enough to enlighten people about what GNU software is about and their philosophy.  I for one will continue to use the term "Linux" when referring to an operating system using the "Linux" kernel along with the GNU software (or any other equivelant software).

[KernelPanic]

quote:Originally posted by void main:
And another thing I would like to get straight here.  It may not sound like it but I am a HUGE fan of GNU software. Hell, I have been using it for well over 10 years now religiously.  I install the GNU file utilities and compiler right off on every UNIX system (AIX, Solaris, etc) that I have administered over the last 10+ years because I think GNU provides superior functionality over the vendor supplied basic UNIX utilities. In fact I also used to install all of the GNU software I could on Windows systems that I used because without GNU, Windows is completely brain dead.  

Then the Linux kernel was written which allowed me to use the GNU software on a standalone system. I have no problem calling this system a "Linux" system because the kernel really is the "heart" of the OS. GNU *is* a huge part of the OS but it is a set of utilities and applications that make up the base OS. Sure, if you based it on percentage of code it may be more correct to call it "GNU/Linux" but to me that is just awkward.

And GNU is "more" than just Linux as we mentioned, it's a set of utilities/apps that can run on most any platform. I still beleive it is better to refer to Linux kernel based systems as "Linux".  Threads like this are enough to enlighten people about what GNU software is about and their philosophy.  I for one will continue to use the term "Linux" when referring to an operating system using the "Linux" kernel along with the GNU software (or any other equivelant software).

Me too

[flap]

Same here. Unfortunately though, when people read "Linux" in a magazine or newspaper and don't really know what it's about, they're usually not seeing GNU mentioned anywhere.