I find Wikipedia very useful, so for people who don't yet use or contribute to Wikipedia, here are some pages on free software that might be useful or that maybe you can improve:
First is the "free software front door" of English Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Free_software
Articles with self-explanatory titles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_community http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_project
About the GNU OS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU
About the GNU+Linux OS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux
About GNU+Linux distros: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_distribution
About "open source", "FLOSS", "Software libre", etc: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_terms_for_free_software
About free software licences, the different standards, etc: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_license
And some detailed articles on people and organisations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation_Europe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Moglen
And there's too many more to mention, but here're a few more anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_European_Patent_Conv... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_the_patentability_of_computer-impl... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Patent
And most free software projects have an article about them too.
Free software portals for other languages also exist, such as: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Freie_Software http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portail:Logiciels_libres
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
About the GNU OS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU
About the GNU+Linux OS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux
Most people don't know GNU at all. Most of the others think it's a project. GNU was from the beginning an operating system. There is no need to say GNU OS. You don't say OpenBSD OS or Windows OS, do you? With the Linux OS it is different. Only we at the FSF(E) know Linux is just a kernel. In the beginning it was proprietary, so it is absurd to say Torvalds started "Linux" or "open source" software. The media always write stuff like this. I just fixed the "Linux" (meaning GNU/Linux) article in german Wikipedia. The "emergence of Linux" and the "chronology" both started with 1991.
On the talk page of the english article about "Linux" I started some discussions about renaming all the related articles and changing the use of the name Linux in Wikipedia. Maybe you can comment on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Linux#Requests_for_comment
Other older discussions (of this year) are already archived and titled "Jan 2007 flame wars": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Linux/Archive_11
Maybe I was not very ably. I see now some weak points in my argumentation. But I don't know what to say to them after all these discussions. That's why I called for comments in Wikipedia and now I ask you.
Max Moritz Sievers mms@fsfe.org writes:
There is no need to say GNU OS
Sometimes I find it useful because if you don't explicitly tell people you're talking about an OS, they will think you're talking about "tools and libraries" or "GNU userland".
it is absurd to say Torvalds started "Linux"
Wikipedia will continue to say some absurd things for almost as long as society says them :-/ If Wikipedia existed two millenia ago, there would have been an "Is flat vs. is round" flame war on Talk:Earth for at least a decade.
Even if you "win" the Wikipedia argument this month, the argument would probably start again in the near future. For a long term solution, we have to continue educating free software users. Here're a few paragraphs that RMS posted recently on this topic: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html
And he talks about it in the transcript I recently posted: http://fsfeurope.org/documents/rms-fs-2006-03-09.en.html#gnu-and-linux
But I don't know what to say to them after all these discussions.
I'm no expert, but from similar discussions here are some principals I find useful:
1. Be as concise as possible. Try to sum the argument up in two or three sentences. If you use twenty sentences, they will pick the weakest one and ignore your good points.
2. Try to keep the discussion short. If you are responding to someone who made twenty points, pick the one or two most important ones and ignore the others (for now at least). If the discussion becomes long, no new people will join in because they won't have enough time to read the existing discussion - or people will join in but will repeat things that have already been said, so the discussion will just go in circles.
3. If there are multiple issues, separate them. If you try to explain to someone the two points of why the name of the OS should be changed, and why the description should be changed at the same time, they will reply about the one that they feel strongest about or the one that they have the best arguments about. If you take them one at a time, the discussion will be more focussed and there will be fewer opportunities for the other person to change the topic if they realise their contradictions are being exposed.
I find that RMS has become quite good at rebutting logically flawed arguments. He has decades of experience. Here are transcripts of 14 of his talks, plus some other transcripts where you might find good arguments or styles: http://ciaran.compsoc.com/texts/
I find that RMS has become quite good at rebutting logically flawed arguments. He has decades of experience. Here are transcripts of 14 of his talks, plus some other transcripts where you might find good arguments or styles: http://ciaran.compsoc.com/texts/
Another good source is `How to Win Friends and Influence People'.
Today on LXer I found an article about an academic interdisciplinary study on the economic / innovative impacts of FLOSS.
The article is: http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/78650/index.html
The final draft of the study, done by an international consortium, led by the United Nations University / University of Maastricht's (NL,EU) department of innovation, is: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/ict/policy/doc/2006-11-20-flossimpact.pdf
Please note that, at least in some places, Linux is called correctly Gnu/Linux.
bye
--- Stefano Spinucci FSFE Fellow
Hallo.
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 03:23:41PM +0100, Stefano Spinucci wrote:
Today on LXer I found an article about an academic interdisciplinary study on the economic / innovative impacts of FLOSS.
The article is: http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/78650/index.html
The final draft of the study, done by an international consortium, led by the United Nations University / University of Maastricht's (NL,EU) department of innovation, is: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/ict/policy/doc/2006-11-20-flossimpact.pdf
Please note that, at least in some places, Linux is called correctly Gnu/Linux.
Again i will try to bring up discussion about "WTF that GNU is?". I may sound offensive, but not offencive e-mail was rejected: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.user/263850 due to unspecified policy. I'm subscribed now, so i think this message will reach its destination.
First of all i'm glad to see people surfing Internet and pointing us to (very unknown) wikipedia resource.
Also i'm glad to see library rats _discussing_ all, but issues in GNU vs Linux problem.
So let me point you to some information to analyze. Maybe somebody knows, but i'm sure (after wikipedia links) somebody doesn't. (bother to read all threads)
1. 10+ years of the discussion: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=104931588910174&w=2 http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=104931588909978&w=2
2. FSF problems with GCC: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/450746 http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/josh/sparse.git;a=blob;f=FAQ;h=aad658282a72477837629e7f521ed4cced5f45dc;hb=HEAD
3. FSF problems with glibc maintainer -- mister Drepper (look@wikipedia).
4. Read carefully, who (David MacKenzie) is deserving acknowledgment for GNU tools here: http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/a/apache/apache_1.3.34-4/apache.copyright
5. My message above about Debian and GFDL.
After all i see with Linus Torvalds: linux, sparse, git, i bet people, especially like those, who just discussing things, must build momument to him. Developers also, as base for them is brought by Linus. There are already set of tools like klibc, POSIX utils, dash, busybox, (ft)jam, that all can very soon replace all GNUish crap. Yes crap, until somebody from FSF with face problems not by ass. So what, if Linus will start linux_U_space (userspace for linux) project just to do that for fun?
Maybe i'm too young to understand something more, than i do, anyway after 6+ years of being with *-linux-gnu-*, i think FSF+RMS is wrong. And don't mix GNU GPLv2 document with all that, please.
Good bye. -- -o--=O`C info emacs : not found /. .\ ( is there any reason to live? ) #oo'L O info make : not found o ( yes --- R.I.P. FSF+RMS, viva ) <___=E M man gcc : not found `-- ( Debian Free Operating System )
Again i will try to bring up discussion about "WTF that GNU is?".
A operating system, much like BSD. That several millions of users use without knowing about it.
1. 10+ years of the discussion: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=104931588910174&w=2 http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=104931588909978&w=2
Yes, and people have argued for as long about micro- vs monolhitic-kernels, emacs vs vi, unix vs vms, and what not. Some people like to discuss things, me included.
2. FSF problems with GCC: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/450746 http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/josh/sparse.git;a=blob;f=FAQ;h=aad658282a72477837629e7f521ed4cced5f45dc;hb=HEAD
Looks more like Jörn not being willing to sign a 2 sided piece of A4. Copyright assignments are important if you wish to be able to enforce the license of a project without having to talk to each copyright holder.
3. FSF problems with glibc maintainer -- mister Drepper (look@wikipedia).
Wikipedia doesn't have the full story. But conflicts happen in any project, big or small, and some conflicts are less pretty since sometimes you have two strong willed people.
Also note that the GNU C library is not Ulrich's project, he might be one of the caretakers of it, but in the end it is the head of the GNU project that decides who is and who is not the maintainer. If Ulrich, or anyone else, doesn't agree to follow the policies of the GNU project, then they should stop down as maintainers, it is quite that simple. That is what a GNU maintainer does, sees to that the policies of the GNU project are followed.
4. Read carefully, who (David MacKenzie) is deserving acknowledgment for GNU tools here: http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/a/apache/apache_1.3.34-4/apache.copyright
Well, yes, since David and Larry wrote a tool for the GNU project, like many other hackers. Many GNU programs output who wrote the tool, you can type `tool --version' and see, this is what `diff --version' outputs: Written by Paul Eggert, Mike Haertel, David Hayes, Richard Stallman, and Len Tower.
Maybe i'm too young to understand something more, than i do, anyway after 6+ years of being with *-linux-gnu-*, i think FSF+RMS is wrong.
It would be most interesting to hear why you think the FSF and/or RMS are wrong; and about what they are wrong about. But don't confuse the two, the FSF is not RMS, nor is RMS the FSF.
You think that the GNU project is crap, but you haven't articulated why you belive so. Nobody is forcing you to use GNU, you could equally use OpenBSD or similar, which is also a free operating system. Or you could build a operating system using the tools you suggested and use that.
Cheers.
On 19-Jan-2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
Again i will try to bring up discussion about "WTF that GNU is?".
GNU is an operating system, that is, a collection of software that allows a computer to be used. The GNU project began to develop this operating system in 1983. Millions of computers run GNU, the majority using a kernel called Linux, which was the first kernel to complete the operating system for general use.
I assume you're aware of these facts, but perhaps the above summary will be useful to you.
URL:http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html
Also i'm glad to see library rats _discussing_ all, but issues in GNU vs Linux problem.
The "problem" is that the majority of people who run GNU don't realise its name, and by extension, who created it and why. By believing it was created in 1991 by a programmer who doesn't advocate software freedom as a principle, they don't realise the importance of that principle in the existence of the operating system.
So let me point you to some information to analyze.
- 10+ years of the discussion:
- FSF problems with GCC:
- FSF problems with glibc maintainer -- mister Drepper
- Read carefully, who (David MacKenzie) is deserving acknowledgment
for GNU tools 5. My message above about Debian and GFDL.
You have pointed to many disparate areas of discussion, but haven't told us why you think these relate to the problem of calling GNU by the wrong name.
After all i see with Linus Torvalds: linux, sparse, git, i bet people, especially like those, who just discussing things, must build momument to him.
Linus Torvalds deserves credit for the work he has done, especially since the majority of it has been free software of high quality.
The problem comes when people attribute the entire operating system to one person, which is not deserved; and especially when the purpose of creating that operating system is lost in the discussion.
Developers also, as base for them is brought by Linus. There are already set of tools like klibc, POSIX utils, dash, busybox, (ft)jam, that all can very soon replace all GNUish crap. Yes crap, until somebody from FSF with face problems not by ass.
I don't understand what this paragraph says. It seems to be attempting to insult the quality of GNU, but I don't see why you would do that.
Maybe i'm too young to understand something more
You do seem to be angry and prone to baseless insults, which are qualities of immaturity. I hope you can come back in a spirit of discussion instead of antagonism.
than i do, anyway after 6+ years of being with *-linux-gnu-*, i think FSF+RMS is wrong.
The operating system under discussion is called GNU, the kernel under discussion is called Linux. Those are historical facts, recorded in all the communications about their creation and ever since.
Are you saying that there is some particular statement you think is incorrect? If so, which statement by whom? Are you saying something else is "wrong"? If so, what?
And don't mix GNU GPLv2 document with all that, please.
I don't see how that document is relevant yet, but if it becomes so, I won't be constrained to avoid discussing it if necessary.
I'm not going to continue, because it's clear to me, that employees and fanboys do not see problems.
I wish you to have made something really useful (in contest of my first and second message).
Good bye. ____
Some words from a fanboy (Jeremy Allison, Samba Team)...
http://samba.org/samba/news/articles/low_point/column23.html
<quote> I would encourage any US Linux users to make a donation to either the Free Software Foundation or the Software Freedom Law Center though, as these foundations will be the ones leading any defense you might end up needing. </quote>
--- Stefano Spinucci FSFE Fellow