Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
On Thu, 17 Dec 1998, E.L. Meijer (Eric) wrote:
> Personally I don't understand why people are offended by GNU/linux.
Because it looks as if GNU wants to take credit for somehow contributing
to the development of Linux when they did not. Also, you can not give
"free" tools away and then demand that people stamp your name on something
because they choose to use them. It is not RMS' decision to call it
GNU/Linux, that would be up to Linux Torvalds if he wants to call it that
and it is very arrogant of RMS to demand that it be called that.
Sure, GNU tools are free, until you use them successfully and then they
want to claim ownership of your success.
> Just start counting the number of gnu programs in debian, and see how
> important they are.
And look at how many of the most important ones were actually developed by
GNU!
> There is the gnu compiler that made linux possible
> in the first place
Which was initially developed by a private company because FSF was going
nowhere with it. Wine has been going nowhere but might improve now that
Corel is involved. lesstif has been languishing for years, HURD has been 8
years now and MIGHT be installable in 0.3 for the average person but
somehow I doubt it. Much of the GNU software is simply stuff that someone
wrote because they needed to, used the GPL and then turned it over to GNU
after they could no longer maintain it. A recent example might be kbackup.
Stallman also has a nasty habit of claiming GNU ownership of nearly
anything using the GPL. The answer is someplace in the middle. We need a
license that protects software developers from exploitation, provides an
umbrella organization to coordinate development, yet is not so extreme its
political activism. Hey, if your tool is free, it is free. Don't attach
strings. If I used Debian and created George Linux that I sold for $500 a
copy and got extremely popular and then Debian came around claiming that
it is really Debian/George GNU/Linux, I would tell Debian and GNU to
bugger off. Yeah, I used their stuff but I got successful because I did
it the right way or gave the people what they wanted.
>
> Please check out the mail list archives on pine. The pine people will
> not allow binaries of pine distributed with bugs fixed unless they
> officially approve. To approve officially means a lengthy process.
> They are their own license PITA.
I do not think you can say that since Debian never attempted to get their
binary appproved. It is ok enough for Red Hat and Caldera and other
distros. Last I checked they had packages. It is an arrogance thing ... it
is a "screw ease of use, it does not fit our political agenda" thing. That
is OK, I accept that pain for the other benefits but if Debian were to
start having too many of these painful twists to get the stuff I need, it
is bye-bye Debian. The important thing is the computer is a tool to get a
job done, it is not a political instrument to me. If I can't get my job
done the way I want to with one version, I will use one that will work. It
is a trade-off. Debian's eccentricities are tolerable considering the
technical superiority.
> attention now. Is it one of the BSD-s? No, it is linux. The reason
> for this is that it has been released under the GPL
No that is not the reason. It could be released under the BSD license and
be just as popular or any other free license. The reason it is popular is
because of the development process. It supports more hardware than any
*BSD, it is easier to contribute. Anything that will run on Linux will run
on *BSD, for the most part, applications are not the issue. It is the
technical merits of the kernel. It runs and the development process is
open with a leader that knows good code when he sees it no matter what the
source.
George Bonser
The Linux "We're never going out of business" sale at an FTP site near you!
Reply to: