Linus Torvalds interview on CNN

[Jamon Camisso]

Giles Orr wrote:
> On 5/19/06, Jamon Camisso <jamon.camisso-H217xnMUJC0sA/PxXw9srA at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> Got to hand it to Linus for being rather humble throughout, especially at
>> the end.  [SNIP]  So many people in various development (distros,
>> projects, etc.) could take a few lessons from Linus, perhaps step back
>> and make their projects less about ego and more about their project.
> 
> Linus has always been amazing that way - he has opinions, including
> some very strongly held ones (he has publicly stated that certain
> products are crap and he doesn't want to work with them), but it never
> seems to be about _him_.  I've always had a huge respect for him
> because of this.

Agreed. He somehow manages to keep out of the major flame wars and such, 
as he says, facilitating communication more than anything else. Seems 
like his approach is to work quietly and tirelessly so as to be able to 
maintain his ability to do precisely that.

> Stallman on the other hand ...  It's not about him, but it's sure as
> hell about HIS project.  I think using the phrase "GNU/Linux" is
> counterproductive: no one is going to say it in daily use (too long
> when you can just say one or the other) so it becomes nothing but a
> political statement, a burden.  I also think it's true that GNU, as
> good as their products are, really wouldn't be widely known without
> Linux.  Everybody on this mailing list knows that gcc, ls, find, tar,
> and a hundred other utilities we use daily are courtesy of GNU.
> Saying "GNU/Linux" is an uphill battle to explain to newbies that
> someone other than Torvalds built a major part of the infrastructure.
> THEY DON'T CARE!  When they learn enough about Linux, they'll figure
> it out.  They don't need (or want) to know until then.

I guess that's my question really: is it necessary to have an ideologue 
now versus 1985? Of course maintaining and developing GNU is of the 
utmost importance, but is it necessary to have Stallman constantly 
badgering about his FSF? As you point out, we take GNU for granted. So 
is it a matter of needing him to remind those who grow complacent or 
unaware, or is such a role entirely redundant now that there are 
hundreds of self-sustaining FLOSS communities? (I dislike that term as 
well).

>> What are people's thoughts on open source vs. free software? Can such a
>> distinction exist?
> 
> I wanted to download Xen today.  The distinction is important to me
> because Xen is "free," but apparently no longer entirely "open."  They
> want an email address before they'll let me have it and that pisses me
> off.  And yes, I want the right to modify it myself, even though I'll
> hardly ever use it.  I also want the guarantee that later versions
> will remain free (okay, the GPL doesn't totally guarantee that - but
> if someone goes closed-source, someone else can fork from the previous
> free codebase).  There are frequently hidden costs to
> free-but-not-open software, the least of which is advertising spam in
> your inbox.  You often have to click on a EULA for that free software
> that states that the software company and/or the BSA has the right to
> inventory your computer any time they want.  Don't snort and say
> "they'd never do that!"  They pay lawyers thousands of dollars to
> write those things, and they don't put any of that stuff in casually.
> 
> Am I sounding paranoid?  Think about what I said anyway - some of it
> might be true.

I agree wholeheartedly.

On an almost entirely unrelated and more technical note, has anyone 
tried using gnash on amd64 with Firefox? Looking forward to having an 
open source flash player, I won't use Flash otherwise.

Jamon
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml