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.

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.

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.

Well its true there isnt too much good in talking about stuff just bloody do it.

“They should stop preaching and help make free software great”

That’s one of the more magnificently idiotic statements I’ve read this month.

“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.

Shane Fagan: FSF http://bit.ly/NMmVC #postrank #linux

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.

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…

This comment system really needs to handle line breaks better…