Hi, Jeff. Thanks for your response. Notes follow.
--- In LINUX_Newbies@
>
> Ugh... here we go again...
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:47, Darksyde <m_alexander61@
> > Hi all!
> > With no desire to stir up a riot, I am interested in hearing everyone's opinion on a matter. It seems that there is a bit of
> > a division growing in the GNU/Linux community, one which has probably been developing for years.
>
> Heh... yeah... regardless of intent, this (like the vi vs. emacs
> debate and the various distro vs. distro debates) ALWAYS stirs up a
> riot of some sort... and this division you mention has existed a LOT
> longer than GNU has... going back to the early days of Unix when all
> the forking first started and everyone + brother just had to have a
> UNIX of their own.
Debates, even discussions, can bring passionate feelings out, but I believe that divisions are not necessarily related to other divisions. Distro vs. distro is a matter of preference of course, and this debate can have very positive results such as causing users to try out other distro's. I think the GNU vs. Linux thing is more philosophical in nature, and could have very bad consequences. It could also have a good outcome if the two sides (of the same coin) work together again.
>
> > On the one hand there are those of us who use a variety of distro's developed and maintained by for-profit organizations
> > or at least by individuals who have some affiliation with such companies.
>
> The argument could be made that the people in this crowd see the OS
> for what it is, a tool to do a job.
Yes, and a great tool at that. With proper care it might soon become the most popular tool of its kind.
>
> > Then we have the GNU-crowd who feel that it is unfair and contrary to the original philosophy of GNU/Linux to
> > incorporate non-free packages and to (minor beef here) minimize the importance of GNU in the original development of
> > the wonderful platform we enlightened folk use today.
>
> It's not all rainbows and puppies, and sometimes not so wonderful a
> platform, due to the division within the *nix communities,
> inattentiveness of hardware developers, and so forth. It could be
> argued here that this second group you mention are of the sort who
> view the OS as a religion. This is where the Zealots come from, who
> seem to confuse an OS platform with a philosophy and development
> paradigm.
But isn't philosophy inherent in any idea? GNU/Linux began with the philosophy of open source, and that idea propelled it. Of course, Linus' kernel was the foundation but it couldn't exist alone. A business model is useful for generating income to provide developers with the resources they need but the freedom of the independence of the project from corporate influence is of immense value.
> > Surely this riff has been developing for years, possibly since the development of Red Hat? I'd like to know how the
> > non-newbs (or even fellow old newbs) feel about this issue and if you feel that there might be some problems ahead.
> > I'm sure the evil empire (M$) would love this, capitalist bastards that they are!
>
> Try developing for decades, though I would not say it's really
> developing. You've had people on both sides of the fence since the
> beginning, but the real division didn't occur, I think, until ATT
> decided they actually cared about UNIX and wanted to sell it, and
> Berkely decided that UNIX should remain free and open as it had been
> since the late 60s.
>
> Beyond that, I personally could care less. As I have stated before
> here and elsewhere, Linux is a great OS, and I make my living by
> testing and using it, but it's still, in the end, just a tool. It's no
> different than the two socket sets I have in my tool box. One full
> set of SAE sockets, and one full set of Metric sockets. They are both
> similar, both are used to for the same thing, but they approach it
> differently, and generally don't work across borders... Sure, you can
> tighten/loosen a SAE nut or bolt with a metric socket, but the metric
> socket will always be a bit loose and you could strip the bolt/nut.
>
> I don't really think that there are any real problems ahead beyond the
> ones that are already there. Linux isn't going ANYWHERE, regardless
> of what RMS likes to think. The corporate world has seen too much
> financial savings in using Linux and BSD to just stop at this point.
> I still think Linux has a bit to go before reaching that critical mass
> that earns it ubiquity, but it's close.
I didn't realize that Stallman was predicting dire consequences. I'm not sure how great the division is but certainly some amount of reconciliation would only speed up ubiquity. The impression I get is that Stallman primarily wants the system to remain open and free, which is one hell of a great idea. And he wants more credit to be given to the GNU project which put Linux where it is today.
>
> At this point, the whole debate is, as it has been for some time,
> detrimental to progress, and turning a tool into a religion is really
> a silly excercise at best.
To turn it into a religion would certainly be silly, as religion is another term for dogma. However, to maintain the FOSS philosophy will benefit everyone except for companies who seek to capitalize on Linux.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I drank the kool-aid too, and I am a firm believer
> in the F/OSS development model, but as has been pointed out here and
> on Linux@ several times, the divisions formed because of this freedom
> can be just as big an impediment as the limited number of developers
> and code review that occurs in proprietary models.
>
> And for what it's worth, you lose points when you start in with the
> "evil empire M$ blah blah" crap. They haven't done anything that any
> other corporate entity hasn't tried, and using blatantly incendiary
> terms like that just weaken your own position. Just think, the ONLY
> real reason that Microsoft is what it is today, is because IBM turned
> their noses up at Bill Gates back in the day. That gave them the
> desire and basically carte blanche to become what they have become.
I'm not trying to earn points here, nor do I mind losing them (I say this with no animosity). Microsoft and Intel started a revolution that brought PC's into the average household, systems far beyond the Amiga and such. However, simply because MS followed in the footsteps of other giant corporations by focusing more on profit than on a reliable product, by suing anyone who posed a threat to them by using loose interpretations of copyright law, and by insuring their hold on the market by creating a monopoly, I can't support them. Whatever position you may assume I have, my "blatantly incendiary" remark against M$ is an expression of my opinion, and shouldn't be considered controversial outside of a Windows forum. I truly admire Gates, especially his generosity toward charitable causes, but I have no love for M$ and I don't care if that ruffles some feathers.
>
>
> And in any case, while I'm not particularly a fan of Windows as an OS,
> they have created some really cool things, and stolen some others.
> But in reality, they are not terribly different than the Railroad
> barons or Newspaper Magnates of old.
Yep, Windows contributed much, and I use XP in VBox, but that is due to the fact that a few apps I need are dependent upon Windows.
>
> Anyway, that's just my opinion, and it probably stinks as much as
> everyone elses ;-)
It's also as valid as anyone else's.
Cheers!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jeff
>
> --
>
> Charles de Gaulle - "The better I get to know men, the more I find
> myself loving dogs." -
> http://www.brainyqu
>
No comments:
Post a Comment