Recently ive heard a lot of strange mailing list banter, mainly from the Gnome marketing mailing list. Its in regard to the FSF (Free Software foundation) terms like “Free Software” and “GNU/Linux”. The FSF believes that everyone should use the term GNU/Linux rather than just Linux and use Free Software not open source.
What im wondering is are the FSF an extremist organisation that no one takes entirely seriously?
Dont get me wrong I love the idea of free software, the ability to change share and use software for any purpose is something that I really want. On the other hand one has to understand companies like Nvidia who have trade secrets to protect and would rather not let anyone outside of the company look at the specifications for their GPUs. So Nvidia write their own proprietary drivers but at least they make drivers and thats the main thing we want, support. In order to compete in a modern world we need help even if its not in the way that we would like. The FSF dont see it that way. Richard Stallman called Miguel De Icaza a traitor and he is one of the biggest contributors to free software.
The FSF need to evolve from the hard line no means no mentality and embrace every little boost we get towards our ultimate goal of a world without the boundaries of proprietary software.
The simple fact is that if a proprietary tool for example Nvidia drivers makes it easier to use free software ill use it until something free can replace it. The FSF condemn that and they shouldnt. They should stop preaching and help make free software great. Being a voice box isnt helpful, attacking supporters isnt helpful. Actually programming, translating, answering questions for new users or writing manuals is helpful but they havent done much of those in a long time. The FSF seem to be less of a help and more of a chain around our legs.
They wrote GPL, campaign and help hosting projects but hosting is done by many other organisations (source forge, lauchpad, Gnome’s bzr repo….etc) and campaigning is useless when you are campaigning for an ideal. The best way to campaign in my opinion is to show that the alternative is better, preaching the ideal is useless. So the only thing that the FSF have contributed recently is a licence. A great licence though.
Lastly I have to say whats in a name?
Of course we recognise the GNU projects contributions but Linux is more used than GNU/Linux. Its only politics and id say if people really wanted we could be calling it Gnome/Linux or KDE/Linux. People have the right to use whatever name they want. I could start using the name “monkey” instead of “GNU/Linux” if I wanted so the FSF should just let it go. The simple fact of the matter is that Linux is a lot easier to say.
So to summarise this whole rant, the FSF need to not be so judgemental and they need to stop talking about change and instead help it. We need to stop fighting and being so negative for our own good.
“preaching the ideal is useless”
i’m not agree with you
I prefer GNU/Linux. Otherwise you end up calling Android and GNU/Linux both just “Linux” although they have an entirely different userspace. Both are “Linux” distributions, but the first one is a “GNU/Linux” whereas Android is something like “Java/Linux”. For me, Linux is a kernel, not an operating system. Debian is an operating system, Ubuntu is.
This is a subject I’ve thought a lot about recently because I’ve been doing talks on recruiting more folks to FOSS and from a business perspective I work for a company that only deals with FOSS. The selling of open source is continually a challenge when we have big companies pouring a lot of money into making open source look like it’s made by “crazy random people on the internet” and trying to convince companies that proprietary is more secure and reliable.
What im wondering is are the FSF an extremist organisation that no one takes entirely seriously?
In short, yes. If you go into proprietary shops and mention FSF you’ll get laughed out. Even worse, the extremism of the FSF frequently makes every free software promoter look like a nut.
That said, I think the FSF has a place, you need extremism in every movement. Not to mention, the FSF has a lot of good points, pushing for full freedom is great and something that I think needs to be around. What I think actually needs to happen is more of a positive and understanding voice from FOSS to emerge and make it so the world no longer associates everyone within FOSS with the extremism of the FSF. This is already starting to happen, but we need a lot more of it! More of us working for companies that push FOSS as a solution, more of us doing positive talks, more of us telling the world that Amazon and Google were built on FOSS< more of us conceding that while proprietary software has a place, FOSS is an awesome alternative.
“…is are the FSF an extremist organisation that no one takes entirely seriously?”
I have been pondering that myself, it seems that software ecosystems, even the liberal/free one, has dictatorships behind them. We have Gates/Ballmer leading the PC charge to force us into Windows, which is slightly better than Jobs’ Apple (Apple software or the highway) brigade.
Finally we have the FSF, which to me seems like this:
“you’re free to do whatever you want with your software, but don’t touch anything non-free.”
They are all at their extremes. But then I think of politics, our far-left and our far-right. Without these types, we cannot define the middle nor could we tell what our world would be like if we skewed one day.
To me, the FSF are our extremists. Apple are our counter-extremists. Windows? Right next to Apple. The middle in my opinion? Ubuntu.
Shuttleworth mocks himself with his SABDFL (self appointed belevolant dictator for life), and continues to run an ecosystem that touches on elements of both extremes to give us a great functioning, easy to use distro, that gives us access to the little jumps we may need to take for maximum performance. (nVidia, ATI)
It’d be great to have an “Extremist Graph” now, to place each company on a scale from Free and nothing else to Proprietary lock in!
T
NB: I’m at work!
The world needs idealists, if you have nothing but compromise you will have no hope of reaching the ideal.
No offense intended, but you seem to be wanting it both ways.
That is to say that the viewpoint shown here is ‘Proprietary software can be used for the good of free software, but free software is always good.’
“Embrace and extend” can be done in all areas in which multiple groups work on the same technology(of any kind) but with different goals.
The narrow and unclear nature of the patent protection agreement and the Mono community’s failure to disregard that is worrisome. I agree that we should avoid those things until we have a clear, legally binding promise that Mono, in any form, will be safe.
NVidia drivers use non-standard configuration methods that force the user to either learn a new setup method (randr vs twinview etc) or stick with what they know. I think ‘supported’ should mean ‘works the right way’ as well as ‘works’. Reminds me of all the non-standard screw heads I’ve put up with on various electronics that have needed one form of repair or another.
As a side note, what is NVidia protecting? Everyone else but VIA and PowerVR (AKA GMA 500) has opened their specifications up for the development of quality open drivers. At this point it’s possible they’ve included ATI and Intel technology that was former Trade Secret but not able to be Patented(caps for clarity). No way of knowing if that unlikely scenario exists.
PS, I have no idea why your blog thinks Conkeror on Debian is ‘Unknown MacIntosh’.
Its not very good at picking stuff up lol.
“Extremist” is one word that makes an alarm go off in my head. You are an extremist not because of what you do, but because of what everyone else does.
Think about the beginning of free software: they had to be way “extremists” in pursuing their ideals. They surely did not even care about marketing enough to choose a decent name, but they started a change in the world.
Today there is a lot of money involved in FOSS and somewhat people with different point of view have joined the community. However there are still a lot of people who understands that the FSF is actually the most important piece of the puzzle. They have ideals, simple ones, while all the other actors have (more or less) just money. They have no real friend, except hackers and activists, that is maybe why they are edgy sometimes
Anyway if there is no one to embody those ideals, the “real world” would have steered free software much more than it had. It’s only human to see the small picture and worry about nvidia drivers and software companies of today, but I bet that if you care to investigate the philosophical and economical reasons behind free software you will understand that compromising would be stupid right now. The GPL is what keeps free software together. Hackers have to keep using it and pushing for maximum freedom, because that is what makes us competitive in the long term against proprietary software.
Just imagine, as an example, if the binary driver from nvidia was forbidden by the gpl (which btw it probably is). I am pretty sure that nvidia would have to open its driver. and so we won’t need to duplicate efforts to provide a free one.
PS: “Open source” vs “free software” terminology: in 80% of the cases it’s the same, but the point of view it’s crucial: users don’t care about the source code, they care about the freedom. Developers and company care about the open development.
FSF = Extremist wakos to me.
I rather like much of what the FSF does, although I do think the whole GNU / Linux thing is a bit loopy. Carried to it’s logical extreme we should really be calling our systems gnu/xorg/kde/gnome/cups/alsa/mesa/(etc. etc.)/linux.
We should probably have a different single word name altogether for the system as a whole rather than just the kernel (+1 monkey. I love my Ubuntu Monkey OS). Guess what though. That has grown to be free/open source softwares best known OS brand. That is how people have come to know us. Deal with it.
I think the value of the FSF though is to keep us thinking about the end goal in every step we make. I run proprietry video drivers, but thanks to the FSF I’m reminded that this is an area that can still be made better rather than just resting on our other achievements in the past. Being an ATI R700 user using 3d for work on Ubuntu Monkey, I’m eagerly awaiting the .32 kernel to start helping with bug reports etc. on the free driver. The proprietry one worked (mostly), but I’m grateful to RMS ‘n’ pals for continuing to motivate people like me to keep pushing for the big picture goal: a totally free (and functional) system.
Andrea R, your line sums it all up best really:
“You are an extremist not because of what you do, but because of what everyone else does.”
Thank $DIETY for extremists. Now lets hope they get a bit smarter about picking their battles to where they help users rather than on telling them they’re wrong for the name they use.
The problem with the FSF is that their goal isn’t necessarily realistic. They want all software to be open, which I suppose is laudable, but frankly that doesn’t mesh perfectly with everyone’s desire to earn a living.
Turning most of the software world into a service industry will do no any good.
Software should be Free… I work as a Software Engineer, and I think if the software industry was turned into an “on demand service industry” things would be much better.
For one, redundancy would be eliminated. Instead of both Company X and Company Y inventing different solutions to the same problem, they could both collaborate on the same solution (directly or through a 3rd party engineering company/foundation, such as Gnome), and end up in a better place in less time and money.
Us engineers wouldn’t be spending all of our time constantly reinventing the wheel. Every day I do something someone else has done (or I’ve already done!), but I can’t use that code because it’s proprietary.
If the engineers aren’t wasting all of their time and talent constantly reinventing the wheel, we can do new, exciting things. We can add value to software used by companies internally, and externally. Imagine if, all of a sudden, productivity doubled. That’s the kind of massive change we’d see.
Bugs would be solved much faster, too. Instead of a company contacting Oracle, and waiting for them to confirm, find, then fix a bug in JRockit, an internal engineer (if available) could do it, or an engineer could be hired. The bug gets fixed faster, and everyone benefits. Plus, costs decrease due to increased competition.
Right now, the software world is very much non-capitalist – it’s tons of monopolies. If it became capitalist, which is what the Free Software movement is all about, every industry would be more productive, more profitable, and consumers would save money.
So no, the FSF is not a “fringe” organization. 20 years ago, no one thought a Free kernel was possible, or a Free compiler, or a Free userland – or even a good idea. I think we’ve pretty well proven they’re good ideas. Now you say Free drivers may not be a good idea… too much intellectual property to protect. The FSF and I disagree… and we’re already proving you wrong (look at the Intel drivers, or nouveau, or the ATI drivers, for examples).
This comment system really needs to handle line breaks better…
IIRC, GNU was an OS with an incomplete kernel before Linux was started. Really, to call it GNU/Linux is a compromise from the original authors of the GNU OS. If they actually complete the HURD kernel and succeed in replacing Linux with no other changes needed to the OS, then it would be silly to continue referring to the OS as Linux or even HURD. But both OS’s are GNU. Seems reasonable to me, if we are properly giving credit where credit is due.
However, when speaking casually, I often say just “Linux” as it is easier to say and most people understand that I am referring to the OS commonly referred to as Linux. But, if the goal is to have completely free software, then there has to be a Gold Standard that every other OS can check against see how they measure up.
Just my 2 cents…
The FSF, and especially Stallmann, are hypocrites to me. They want to tell everyone what to use and what not to use; they promote a license which they want developers to use. So far so good. But it stops when you are insulting those who don’t want to jump on your bandwaggon, like Stallmann did.
It would be easier to overlook such behavior if Stallmann himself contributed to the pool of ‘free software’ which he wants to adhere to his rules, but his coding days are long over. All he does now is travel around the world, at the cost of his foundation, and promote his ‘restrictively free’ license – and insult those who do the real work while passing by.
Yes, the FSF has become a joke; a bad one.
And I find it kind of telling that in 18 years of development they never managed to get that HURD-thingie in any useable state. They never will. They should at least have the decency to declare it officially dead.
Shane Fagan: FSF http://bit.ly/NMmVC #postrank #linux
“What im wondering is are the FSF an extremist organisation that no one takes entirely seriously?” Hopefully no one takes anyone entirely seriously. But are people taking the FSF very seriously? Certainly.
——————————————————-
Regarding this issue of calling it Linux or GNU or GNU/Linux, when you’re having Stallman speak at your event that’s one of the things he requires when you introduce him. Hey great! Don’t invite him if you don’t like his rules.
———————————————————–
I’ve yet to have a Free Software Advocate or an FSF member “correct” me for using a form they disagreed with. I call GNU/Linux many things, including among them, GNU/Linux. The *only* time I’ve ever been told that I could not refer to the OS a certain way, was by folks (numerous folks) telling me I could not call it GNU/Linux, who also simply ignored that I had referred to it multiple other ways in the same conversation. These folks generally do not have the manners to even request but instead DEMAND how *I* must speak. If I *desired* something from them, they could demand. I don’t and I don’t let them.
———————————————————–
Now on to this topic of businesses and Freed Software. Folks keep talking about how *difficult* it is to talk to businesses about Freed Software and thus why we should tread carefully, using terms like Open Source (I’m fine with either term). Or that they’ve *would be* or *have been* laughed at when talking to businesses. I have talked to hundreds of business persons, managers, business owners and thousands of others about Freed Software. In *every single instance* it has taken me all of about three minutes to explain freed software to them in a manner that they 1. understood and 2. were EAGER to embrace immediately *if* the software they needed was available under a Freed License. Those that are experiencing (or think they *will* experience) these kinds of negative reactions, simply put have to learn to speak business and not tech. That has seemed to be the main cause of these issues. Speak their language and they will come.
——————————————————-
A prime example of that is the business I am in. We had been LOCKED OUT of our data. We didn’t OWN our data, the companies who created the software did. In one terrible example they distributed a report writer with the software for years. Then all of the sudden with NO notice they dropped support, forcing everyone to go to Crystal (a fine product in its own right). The real world business costs were terrible as they had to rush around trying to get all of the reports rewritten in Crystal. From a business standpoint this is inexcusable. Because I spoke business, we’ve moved more and more towards foss (eventually we’ll be eliminating proprietary software entirely).
——————————————————-
So is the FSF extremist? #$&^^@% straight they are! And glad for it! Every business I explain the position of the FSF to agrees fully with their position, because I speak in the language of business and for business, it is about the bottom line.
“They should stop preaching and help make free software great”
That’s one of the more magnificently idiotic statements I’ve read this month.
Well its true there isnt too much good in talking about stuff just bloody do it.
That has been one of my biggest sticking points with the FSF and also in conversations with folks who use distros like GNewSense, who practically insist that you address it by the name GNU/Linux (and it really gets on my nerves when they use the royal “we” as in “We refer to it as GNU/Linux”) or it’s like you’re insulting their mother or committing some kind of mortal sin. It really just blows my mind how worked up some people get about this topic, especially considering the fact that FSF itself has stated on one of their own web pages that they believe that everyone has a perfect right to refer to the operating system in question in any manner you wish. As far as I’m concerned, it’s all just semantics. A contraction or common name, if you will, the same way just about everyone refers to facial tissue as “Kleenex”, regardless of the brand. A lot of people aren’t familiar with FOSS in the first place or barely aware of the term “Linux” to begin with, so if you start off a conversation during a public event with someone who either knows very little or nothing at all about the subject in the first place, and you start out the conversation talking about GNU/Linux you may already be confusing them right out of the gate anyway, although there are those who would probably consider this as teaching new users to address it by it’s “proper” name from the beginning.
Don’t get me wrong, I have a healthy respect for the FSF and good deal of the principles for which they stand, but this whole “GNU/Linux” vs “Linux” argument is just plain silly IMO, and actually very miniscule in the larger scheme of things. All it’s really accomplished so far is to divide some people, which has the propensity to stand in the way of getting the really important messages across, because if you turn people off right from the beginning they are going to be far less likely to listen to what else you have to say.
Anyway, I guess since I use Netbook Remix, I suppose if you want to be absolutely correct I should really refer it GNU/Minix/Clutter/Ubuntu/Linux. Oh, and I guess I should throw QT in there since some of the apps I use depend on QT libraries as well. Just to be fair, you know. In my mind, there are much bigger issues to be concerned with in the Free Software world these days without getting wrapped around the axle about something this insignificant. That’s my two cents anyway.
Yeah, they’re extremists. Kinda old legacy linux that never got weeded unfortunately. There does certainly FUD get thrown directly at Linux. The reactionary view though that I have seen a good number of times can’t be good. Linux does have good merits and I think this disguises them.
We can be thankful that RMS and FSF are on the extreme. We need people on the edges to keep the us grounded in the middle. They serve as our conscience. I don’t mind the extremism as long as we recognise it for what it is. We get into trouble when the extreme becomes our norm as we no longer have anyone to serve as our alter ego.
FSF is what it is. RMS is who he is. We don’t have to listen, but we do because it serves to let us know that there is more than one way. The problem for RMS and FSF is that they do not allow for the possibility of anything else. It is their way or the highway.
I respect both RMS and FSF, but they do not represent my view entirely. They are but one piece in the puzzle. They are an important piece, but still just one piece.
What RMS and FSF need to be vigilant of is becoming predictable and people start to tune them out. They are becoming repetitive and I see people figuratively rolling their eyes whenever RMS opens his mouth.
When he called Miguel de Icaza a traitor to FOSS this week, it caused a bit of a tempest in the teapot, but people just take it with a grain of salt, considering the source. Each time he does it RMS’s reputation takes a hit from all but his most ardent supporters. Which only increases the us and them mentality that exists in the community.
There are the purists and the rest of us. The purists have a religious fervour that the rest of us lack and this blinds them to much that is happening. They need to stay real to be relevant.