Thursday, December 09, 2004

Free as in Freedom - Part One: GNU/Linux

By Adam Engel

Read full article...

Posted 12/09 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. I hold no brief for Apple or Microsoft, although I have to admit I detest Microsoft and have worked on Macs for almost 20 years.

    But to say that an activist is not being true to the cause if they are working on other than GNU/Linux is simplistic. I think it’s fantastic that GNU/Linux exists. But to basically advocate for the disappearance of Microsoft and Apple is nonsensical. (Remember, Apple also makes computer hardware. Thus far nobody is offering free customizable hardware.) To my mind that is comparable to a situation where my uncle has a farm and can provide me with all the foodstuffs I need at no cost, so I want to see supermarkets done away with. It would be great if we could all be self sufficient or be able to share our surplus with others. But the world has moved beyond that stage, if in fact we were ever there.

    Microsoft became what it is today pretty much by accident. Back in the 70s when IBM was first designing their personal computer, they wanted to license an operating system called CP/M from a small company called Digital Research. IBM lawyers set up a lunch meeting with the owner. The owner, thinking he could make IBM sweat, never showed up. He went flying instead. IBM did not reschedule. They turned to Bill Gates and licensed DOS instead.

    Posted by Greg Stricherz from Minneapolis, MN  on  12/09  at  02:58 PM

  2. There are, of course positives and negatives to the extreme position of the GPL.  By using the GPL, the software has to stay free (as in speech).  How many people use the internet in windows or anything in Mac.  The tcp/ip protocols (used in internet connections) in nearly every major OS used was taken from BSD.  However, since BSD used its own License which allows someone to use the code in proprietary software, the work of many people was used to make profits for MS.  Mac’s strength is because it is based on BSD. Sun Microsystems has slowly been forced to move closer and closer to open source because of GNU/Linux.

    However, a dogmatic adherence to only the GPL has it downsides.  I have personally seen people open their minds to free software because of
    firefox (which is under the Mozilla Public License) and its better security comparded to internet explorer.  Although, we may wish that the idea itself of free software would change others minds, we have to use other tactics.  I may be more likely to tell a person not to buy a mac because it is pointless to spend +$1,500, when I can build a computer for $200 and put Debian (which actually does use the terminology GNU/Linux) which is just as stable and “pretty”.  In this case I am using free(as in beer) argument, but still achieving the same objective.

    So even though this site is running Apache (non-GPL), I am perfectly fine with that.

    Posted by Vergil from  on  12/09  at  08:08 PM

  3. Ben Okopnik is not the Editor-In-Chief of the Linux Gazette, he´s the Editor-In-Chief of Linuxgazette.net - not to be confused with the real Linux Gazette which is continues to be run as a community service by SSC. LinuxGazette.net are people who did not think a content management system would benefit the community, and are separate.

    Posted by Amar from India  on  12/10  at  09:46 AM

  4. Thank you, Adam Engel, as well as Richard Stallman, for making the importance of GNU/Linux clear to even the nominally computer literate like me. Regarding Microsoft products, one can only hope they can be turned against them, by communicating subversion. Lawrence Lessig —http://www.lessig.org—author of that book Amazon was allowing people to download free (Free Culture) is also excellent at making us understand that, as with the Patriot Act, the issue of intellectual property is central to freedom.

    Posted by Russ Wellen from Sleepy Hollow, New York  on  12/10  at  10:19 AM

  5. An interesting piece about Venezuela embracing Linux,

    Posted by Greg Stricherz from Minneapolis, MN  on  12/10  at  12:51 PM

  6. Free Software and Open Source compliment each
    other well, actually.  They’re like the difference
    between idealism and pragmatism.  Luckily, we have
    them both, and they are doing a great job at
    complimenting each other.  Open Source has made
    Free Software more palatable to some, which really
    helped it grow.  Different strokes for different
    folks.  We’re all about freedom, right?  The cool
    thing is, we can choose.  GPL, open source, BSD,
    pick your poison.  There’s something for everyone,
    and the growth of any one of them helps the growth
    of the others.  That’s why this movement is so
    huge right now.

    The GNU/Linux naming controversy is a bit
    over-argued.  In the early days, GNU made Linux a
    usable operating system, but nowadays, so much of
    the operating system was not written by GNU.
    Except for the compiler/libraries, you can run a
    very good GNU-free Linux system.  And a compiler
    is hardly enough reason to change the name of the
    operating system.  You can run a Borland compiler
    on Windows, but that doesn’t mean it should be
    called Borland/Windows.  Calling it Linux wasn’t
    an attempt to not give GNU credit, but because
    that’s the only thing that makes sense.  At the
    core is Linux, the rest is just a big jumble of
    free and open source software.  You can’t give
    them all credit, so you refer to the operating
    system by the name of the kernel.  Makes sense.

    Also, Open Source isn’t trying to “beat the
    corporations by joining them.” To the contrary,
    they’re getting the corporations to join them.
    And joining they are.  In droves.  This is
    helping free and open source software
    tremendously, as they are pouring a lot of
    resources into the movement.  It’s also helping
    the corporations.  Free Software also helps
    corporations, so this is no different.  But
    Stallman does make a very good point that you have
    to be careful about catering to corporations too
    much and forgetting about the freedoms we’re
    fighting for.  You really do need that strong Free
    Software movement there to keep everyone honest.

    Posted by Bill Mason from Sunnyvale, CA  on  12/10  at  05:02 PM

  7. Just want to correct Greg Stricherz comments in #1:

    The late Gary Kindell, the inventor of CPM, did not refuse to sign the non-disclosure to make “IBM sweat”.  The problem was that Kindell, himself a former IBM employee and quite familar with IBM business practices, could not make the meeting due to a scheduling conflict and sent his wife and another rep.  THEY being unfamilar with IBM business practices refused to sign the non-disclosure agreement.  With little time before shipping the IBM-PC and with having this misunderstanding turned to Gates who had already delivered Basic.

    Gates of cource assured IBM execs that he could deliver an OS but did not have one but unbeknowst to IBM knew where he could get a microprocessor OS.

    This is what lead to his purchase for $50,000.00 the O/S developed by Seattle Computing.  So as you can see Microsoft never “invents” they just acquire and are skilled at making money from other people’s intellectual “property”.

    This is why the GPL is so valuable and why Microsoft dispise it.

    WB

    Posted by Wilson Barber from  on  12/10  at  06:49 PM

  8. Vergil, Firefox is triple licenced: it’s MPL, LGPL and GPL. Your point is still valid, it’s just that you picked a bad example ;)
    See the Mozilla relicensing FAQ for more on this.

    Posted by Robin from Montreal  on  12/17  at  07:31 AM
    9. Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. {/if}

    Next entry: ACLU Files Lawsuit on Behalf of Protesters Arrested at Bush Rally in Pennsylvania

    Previous entry: Know Your Enemy: Political Contradictions of the Right

    [ads]

    Support Press Action