Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
- Abraham Lincoln
Some people don’t grok Mr. Lincoln.
Anyway, check the link to hear how one brave soul calls out the GNU Project as “failures as developers and as free software idealists”.
It’s also painfully ignorant how he continually assumes that someone is suggesting to use “GNU” instead of Linux in all cases, including cases where GNU software may not even be present.
The strangest thing I think is that the author, Michael Lustfield, claims at the start that he “went into this with no bias one way or another”, yet it is painfully obvious he is grasping at straws to interpret or ridicule the FSF.
Case in point:
Today there are many different variants of the GNU/Linux system (often called “distros”). Most of them include non-free software—their developers follow the philosophy associated with Linux rather than that of GNU. But there are also completely free GNU/Linux distros. The FSF supports computer facilities for two of these distributions, Ututo and gNewSense.
This doesn’t make much sense.
Um, it makes perfect sense. It’s clear, factual, acknowledges that many distros do not follow their own philosopy, and lists a couple that do. What the hell “doesn’t make much sense” here?
Every “rebuttal” (to be generous) along the way is of similar quality.
Another case in point:
A Linux system can easily exist without GNU. However, the same can’t be said about the other way around. The “GNU system” does not exist without GNU.
This is so wrong, I can only assume Mr. Lustfield means to say that the “GNU system” does not exist without Linux. Which of course, is still wrong. Been wrong for a long time, in fact. (This isn’t counting GNU/Hurd of course)
I’m not sure if the problem is because Mr. Lustfield is ignorant of other kernels, if he doesn’t understand what a kernel is, doesn’t understand what GNU is, doesn’t understand what an operating system is, or simply doesn’t care and just wants to rag on the FSF and GNU. I’m of the opinion it’s all of the above.
Of course, the supreme deliciousness is that Mr. Lustfield is so very involved in (surprise, surprise) Ubuntu, which of course is a derivative of …. Debian GNU/Linux:
Debian is a free operating system (OS) for your computer. An operating system is the set of basic programs and utilities that make your computer run. Debian uses the Linux kernel (the core of an operating system), but most of the basic OS tools come from the GNU project; hence the name GNU/Linux.
It’s always strange to me people who choose to deride and ridicule the work and effort of predecessors – especially when they absolutely depend on that work to post up such drivel!
#1 by saulgoode on January 6, 2010 - 9:05 am
Since Mr Lustfield is an Ubuntu user, I wonder if he is aware that 99.9% of the applications and shared libraries on his system depend upon the standard C library (the Debian package named ‘libc6′). In Ubuntu, just like in most (but not all) distributions based upon the Linux kernel, this library is provided by the GNU Project (GLIBC). Applications written for Ubuntu almost never interface with the Linux kernel directly — to do so would generally be considered extremely poor programming practice. Instead, programmers target the functionality provided by GNU’s GLIBC (or alternately, target functionality provided by a library which itself targets GLIBC).
After affording all other arguments their proper due, this to me most closely distinguishes an “operating system”: that is, the platform upon which programmers design their software to run. The programmer in me would be far more comfortable in calling the typical “Linux + GLIBC”-based distribution “GNU” than “Linux”. This would be a more technically accurate terminology with regard to what an “operating system” comprises.
Nonetheless, one could swap out the Linux kernel and still have his program written for the GNU libraries function perfectly. One could also swap out the GNU libraries and still employ the Linux kernel (as long as the substitute LIBC were compatible). I find the term “GNU/Linux” is typically the most accurate manner in which to portray this relationship. Yes, Ubuntu COULD be written without relying upon GNU for its functionality, but the simple fact of the matter is IT ISN’T.
Contrary to Mr Lustfield’s proposition, the preference for “GNU/Linux” given by the FSF is not an attempt to garner undeserved recognition of the GNU project’s contribution. And unlike him, knowledgeable Free Software advocates are quite willing to recognize and properly attribute the authorship of non-Linux GNU-based distributions and non-GNU Linux-based distributions.
Mr Lustfield also errs in his implication that it is the FSF who excessively enforces the terms of GNU-licensed software (“If you had the legal grounds I very much doubt you wouldn’t have gove after anyone and everyone by now.”). Ironically, it has been the non-GNU “BusyBox/Linux” distributions that have been most visibly and ardently litigious; and while their legal representation, the Software Freedom Law Center, is officially a representative of the FSF, the most publicized cases have little to do with GNU.
Note that I have nothing against these coders enforcing their copyrights; I applaud their stance and commend the SFLC for their efforts. I just note that the “anti-Free Software” crowd often present these cases as evidence of FSF “fundamentalism” being over-zealous in enforcing their ideals while at the same time proclaiming these Busybox/Linux programmers as being sided with them in being opposed to the ideals of the FSF.
The rest of his diatribe is almost too painfully misguided to address. He sees hypocrisy where there is none; he makes accusations of deceit such has not taken place; and he labels those with opposing viewpoints as “whiners” while himself engaging in a rant of left-handed proportions. Nonetheless, it was an entertaining read; as was yours, Jason.
#2 by Jason on January 6, 2010 - 6:23 pm
Saul,
Thank you for the comments – excellent point about glibc!
#3 by Rex on January 6, 2010 - 11:48 pm
Methinks that Mr. Lustfield is a Microsoft shill wanting to disparage GNU/Linux. Nothing more, nothing less.
Maybe next time Mr. Lustfield should read the talking points that Microsoft gave him before spouting off. In my opinion he looks pretty dumb here.
#4 by Jason on January 7, 2010 - 9:51 am
I don’t think he’s a Microsoft shill, he seems fairly active in the Ubuntu community.
I do think he has swallowed hook, line, and sinker the anti-Free Software talking points that come out of some parts of the “Open Source” community.
It is sad that a certain segment of the “Open Source” community could be so easily taken for Microsoft shills though. I’ve often said that Novell’s actions with Mono and Moonlight, for example, are perfectly in step with Microsoft’s “Evangelism is War” practices. Similar thing here: a so-called “Open Source” enthusiast rails against GNU and the FSF is a manner that would do Steve Ballmer proud indeed.
#5 by hitchi on January 10, 2010 - 12:34 am
What about the communist “card”?Is anyone buying that still?That’s so fucking witch hunt 50′s!!!
Who else came with that argument about free software before?