Happy birthday to GNU: celebrating 34 years of the free software movement
fsf.org
fsf.org
Remember that almost every tinfoil scenario that RMS has been preaching about has come true in the last dozen or so years, and it is important, now more than ever, to be able to defend the rights and freedoms of computer users.
You can also become an FSF member at: https://my.fsf.org/associate/support_freedom/join_fsf
That said, it's a shame that GNOME, Gtk, and Glibc are evidently not the best (I use none of them but I have read many complaints). Lots of other old, weird, and/or semi-abandoned projects too like Taler, the GNU version of 'yes' [0] and Hurd of course. What makes some GNU tools so great and others not-so-great? And where does this "everything but the kitchen sink" mentality come from with respect to options and configuration in GNU programs?
> Lots of other old, weird, and/or semi-abandoned projects too like Taler, ...
GNU Taler is none of these things.
> And where does this "everything but the kitchen sink" mentality come from with respect to options and configuration in GNU programs?
Did you know that GNU Emacs had an overflowing kitchen sink as its logo for a while? (I still prefer that logo over the current logo, actually.)
oh wow, http://ergoemacs.org/misc/emacs_overflowing_kitchen_sink_ico...
pretty nice, and with dataflow !
Always happy to stand corrected on these kinds of things. When it was posted here recently I got the impression that nobody was using it for much of anything, nor would they. Then again I should know better than to put too much stock in comments here. It's full of people like me repeating things they don't understand...
The GNU GCC compiler and the glibc are actually the 2 GNU projects I like most. If you are interested in high performance you won't find any better, most Linux servers (which means 99% of cloud servers) are based on these 2 projects! There are other C library implementations that may be suited better for embedded or low power devices but for servers and Desktop CPUs glibc is very good/fast.
Hat tip.
It's just a shame he'll never be as well known to the general public as someone like Steve Jobs.
You can say that again. I believe he's pretty far on Asperger's?
I view RMS as one pole of the philosophical spectrum of free software (the other being entirely proprietary). An uncompromising absolutist, his views can't survive contact with the real world intact, but they can influence the landscape as he exerts pressure on it.
And he has proven visionary and right time and time again.
I don't agree with many things he says, but I do appreciate the direction he's pulled the industry in. For that, he has my continued respect.
Well, somehow his views survived.
GNU happened and is alive today. Billions of people are using it or a variant of it. In fact, GNU/Linux is arguably the most successful OS in the planet. The GNU has projects that power almost every computer and every mobile phone and it is inside many embedded systems today. There are even laptops that run strictly on free software, which hasn't happenned until recently.
What more you want?
Broader adoption of the GPLv3 and AGPLv3, for one thing.
Getting Apple to get over their aversion of the GPL, for another. Ever wondered why macOS shipped with antiquated version of Bash, Emacs, Make...?
Apple isn't going to join the Free Software Movement. If they do, they will be something entirely different, using the same name.
Apple's business model is based on proprietary software, and limiting users.
I wonder what impact moving to all Free Software would actually have on their business?
Or at least, making all of the software that they don't charge for, Free Software?
That is explicitly not the definition of free software, which is "free" as in "freedom", not "free beer". The monetary exchange for software copies is a separate topic.
I do wish Stallman picked a less ambiguous word like "libre", but here we are.
> But it seems to me that most of their business model is selling hardware.
That's what I'm talking about. IOS is explicitly designed to be a "walled garden". That design is directly contradictory to free software design. It requires that users are unable to do certain things in IOS, meaning it requires IOS to be proprietary, and irriplaceable.
> I wonder what impact moving to all Free Software would actually have on their business?
That is a good question. Unfortunately, Apple (as it exists today) will quite certainly never show is.
> Or at least, making all of the software that they don't charge for, Free Software?
Any user level software would not be needed for their "walled garden" approach, so there is nothing but Apple's current mindset preventing them from releasing the source. Maybe someday they will realize this, after all, their current open source projects (LLVM/clang, etc.) have certainly flourished.
RMS would like for those users to know about their rights and be able to change the software on their individual devices (whether they know enough to do so themselves, or they use some modified third-party build of the software). Even if people think that not many end-users are very interested in these rights or freedoms, RMS would like them to be clearly established and clearly publicized.
If you buy a physical device which isn't controlled by some software black box, you can fix or improve it so long as you have the materials, skills and tools to do so, or you can afford for others to do that for you.
Libre software operates on the same principle. If you have the skills to understand the code, you can extend it or fix it.
What is so difficult to comprehend about this? Libre software is not about money, but the ability to learn, fix and improve the software. You can sell a 100 line free software package for a $1bn if you want to, so long as you provide the code.
Why so much propaganda has developed around this principle only shows how the free software discussions are overrun with shills.
The fact that tons of free software can be downloaded for the cost of a monthy internet subscription doesn't change financial principle.
That redistribute there is what undermines any business model that depends on selling licenses for GPL software. If you sell your 100-line code for $1bn, there is huge incentive for the customer to sell it themselves at a lower cost, undercutting you.
If avoids the current situation in which equipment manufacturers deliberately insert software into equipment roles which have historically worked fine without software to prevent the users and third-party repairers from repairing them, and criminalizing attempts to fix problems via DRM regulations.
Making software fixable by end users doesn't involve any major losses as most people, even advanced computer programmers don't have the knowledge or domain expertise to fix or extend software themselves. It only means they have the option of locating and hiring other experts to fix themselves if they need to, as goes for a lot of the sophisticated hardware and software devices out there.
My point is that the GPL undermines software-based business models. This is the foundation upon which GPL fear is built upon.
Your point, if I understood correctly, is that the GPL gives the users freedoms to modify the software. That's all well and good (and that's why I love it), but that's unrelated to the business model. Further, you dismiss the business impact of the GPL redistribution "loophole". I recommend looking at the history of all open-source based companies to understand the real impact of that loophole. For example, VA Linux Systems or any commercial Linux distribution other than RedHat (and there, the impact of CentOS), and there's a reason Ubuntu has struggled with controversial money-making strategies like including ads in desktop searches.
Undermining a business model undermines the livelihood of companies, and thus the salary and livelihood of people working in that company. That is where the fear of the GPL stems from. Understanding that fear is necessary if you hope to address it successfully.
Here's a good article about the history: https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-meme-hustler
Whom I love and respect deeply.
Thank you for all have you done for free software.
P.S. I am from small third world country. Right now I am applying and starting PhD in one of universities in USA and my field is basically OS and File systems. I have said this, to mention one thing created the interest in me to study and persue CS when I was teenager. And it was GNU.
I remember first days when I installed GNU operating system when at 2002 when I was 11. The idea and openness of Free software literally changed my life.
I am forever indebted to RMS and his crazy vision. May he be with the world for a long time.
It has played a big role in turning my life around from a college drop-out to almost getting my PhD in the USA now. If I had just stuck with proprietary software, I don't think I would know what I know today. It is that the idea that you actually could touch and understand the world, given enough time and dedication in a small, hot, dusty corner in a third world country with a cheap computer is extremely, extremely powerful. There is nothing else like it. Especially when I compare to many biologist friends from the same country as mine, they are much more disadvantaged compared to American ones, because of not having the $1M equipment and software they need back home. In the software world, I always feel like I had the level playing field, and the rest was just my dedication.
As I am almost done with this stage, I am seriously considering devoting a big part of my life to developing free software so everyone will have the same chance I had. At the same time, I feel the world has moved on, and again social mobility now is not as high as when the PC was the king anymore (but maybe it's just because I am just in a depression now, the world changes alright).
Whether you call it FS, FLOSS or OSS none of it would be where it is today without GNU.
Here's to the next 34!
I got into a discussion on it on the emacs reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/emacs/comments/701v90/guile_needs_a... but it seems a fair number of people have forgotten about or don't quite get it.
I think that's the key point: he's private where he's given no consent (i.e. being tracked on the web), and is public where he has chosen to... preach.