It is too early to judge, clearly, but a question comes immediately to my mind: how can this be positive for Linux? Microsoft never kept it a secret they want Windows to be the most used platform by open source projects.
Also, the comparison with FSF does not really fit ;-)
Sandy
· 3 months ago
more open source stuff > less open source stuff
more open source stuff on Windows -> more stuff on Windows can be ported to Linux
more open source stuff on Windows -> Better Windows/Linux interoperability
I'm sure there are plenty of other easy answers to your "how" question.
Anybody spinning the Codeplex Foundation as a negative thing for Linux needs to go for a walk and try thinking about it again.
Sandy
· 3 months ago
Ooh, I forgot my favorite answer: open source stuff on proprietary platforms as a gateway drug to Linux. :-)
Aaron Roe Fulkerson
· 3 months ago
@Sandy,
All great points. I'm amazed by the inability of some in the open source community to understand the simple and obvious fact that everyone benefits from more contributions to open source regardless of the technology or platform the open source code is being developed with and on. I write about this at the MindTouch blog: http://www.mindtouch.com/blog/2009/09/13/codepl...
AlbertoP
· 3 months ago
Sandy, I asked, since I actually do not see a positive effect for Linux from this initiative.
- I disagree on the quantity statement. Why "more" is necessarily better is not really clear. OSS has too many projects, even big and famous, without enough resources to go on, or without sufficient quality to compete with the "closed" alternative. It would be better to concentrate the efforts.
- I disagree with what you say about open source products being ported from windows to linux, the trend is opposite, and hard to invert, since the biggest number of users is on Windows anyway, especially for the desktop applications Linux desperately needs and not many (or nobody) is working on. Of course I would be happy to be contraddicted (with evidence) about this.
- Linux/Windows interoperability, as in all other cases involving different systems, is achieved using standard formats, and not necessarily using the same application, which is just another form of lock-in. Not much, in spite of the efforts has been done in this direction. A simple example is represented by the office formats interoperability. Microsoft released the specifications of legacy formats (.doc, .xls, ...) years ago, and OpenOffice is quite far from a complete sopport, since it is still unable to properly manage many relatively simple documents. The same can be said about OOXML, which is not fully supported even using the Novell OOXML converter (no proper management of embedded objects, and not always faithful conversions).
The Fiddler
· 3 months ago
No positive effect != bad effect.
- More open source stuff may imply less closed source stuff, which *is* good. How many closed source projects, even big ones, die from lack of resources? What happens to its users then?
- Open source gives you the ability to port a project to Linux. Closed source? No chance.
- With open source, you can fix interoperability issues by implementing standard formats. With closed source you are left at the whims of the vendor. Think Skype.
AlbertoP
· 3 months ago
Hi stapostol, my workding was intended. I said "not positive" since I'm not one of those who thing everything MS does is wrong in principle. I'm actually quite happy of Mono and other efforts, like Moonlight.
- No. More open source stuff does not necessarily mean "less closed" stuff, since there are requirements to be met. In particular "open" is not enough to replace "closed" software, if the functionalities are not there. And this is a well known issue affecting many popular Linux applications, starting from OpenOffice. The usual reply "but it's enough for most users" is quite out of place due to the interoperability issues.
- Yes, open source gives you, in theory, the ability of porting an application to Linux. In practice, you need to think to that since the beginning, or the port becomes a huge effort if you start developing without thinking to a port in advance. In particular, porting from Windows to Linux is not as easy as porting from a UNIX flavour to another.
- Right, with open source you can, always in theory, implement standard formats. But at this time I'm not aware of any open source suite 100% compatible with OOXML or 100% compatible with MS legacy office formats, even if the specs are out there in the wild, to quote the same example I did before. Skype, on the other side, does quite a good job supporting all major platforms (Win/Mac/Lin). I don't think we can blame them if they choose to keep their code closed. It's a choice. My point has not been, since the beginning, against closed source software, but against moving open source software to a foundation led by a not exactly open source friendly and Linux friendly company, since this could not be positive for Linux as OS, and especially as desktop OS (which is something not many believe in, I guess).
The Fiddler
· 3 months ago
Mono and Moonlight are not Microsoft efforts.
I do not wish to derail this discussion any more, but you seem to be ignoring a simple fact: all three points you make affect closed source applications to a much larger extent than open source ones.
OpenOffice is not 100% compatible with OOXML. Guess what, MS Office is not 100% compatible either, but the difference is there's nothing you can do about it.
Skype does not do a "good job of supporting all major platforms". In fact, Skype/Linux is downright awful: it's still on version 2 when on windows it's on version 4; there's no amd64 support; fullscreen video behaves badly; it crashes a lot... The Skype protocol itself is completely closed, which means you cannot create a better client even if you wanted to.
You don't seem to have any problems with this, yet you are distrustful of Microsoft taking part in an open source effort.
Maybe it's just a different point of view, but I much prefer Microsoft becoming more open source friendly than staying on the other side of the fence forever. I distrust Skype much, *much* more, simply because they have shown no intention of ever playing well with others.
AlbertoP
· 3 months ago
Hi stapostol, Mono and Moonlight are part of Novell efforts to improve the interoperability with MS products, and they were two examples of positive things.
I don't ignore the fact you cannot change closed source products. I simply say that this initiative is not going to help in the direction of bringing more open products of high quality to Linux. I never said anything else, since the beginning. Just check ;-)
[From here on, it is a reply to other points and it might be OT]
Skype, for your information, has a different numbering for Linux versions, and yes, it is behind with respect to the Windows version, but it is fully functional. The next release is going to support PulseAudio, enhanced video, a more efficient protocol and SMS. I live abroad for work and use Skype at least three times a day to keep in touch with friends and relatives, and I do not experience all these crashes. It is 32 bit, but modern distributions like SUSE manage that transparently. You are right on one point: it is closed, but it works, and it is what counts.
I'm not distrustful with Microsoft itself. Never said that. I said, and repeat, that I do not see the advantages of this initiative for *Linux* as an operating system, especially for the desktop, since the declared purpose of Microsoft is to have Windows as reference platform for the development of open source project (see, for example, the MS statements about making apache work on Windows).
I would *love* to have Microsoft really be more open, but frankly that's smoke in the eyes. Microsoft is doing this with one purpose, and it is not of becoming more open, but of keeping its market share. Is this wrong? No. Just do not push it as a friendly behaviour towards Linux. Take a look at how much effort Microsoft is putting in Linux, for example considering the effort they're putting in Hyper-V drivers, released to fix a licence issue. Even Greg K. H., who was proclaiming victory, had to complain about their lack of efforts.
In all this, Skype is a minor player. Microsoft is not. There is nothing wrong in keeping a protocol closed. Skype is not forcing you to use their products, while this cannot be said so clearly for Microsoft. You find Microsoft at school, at work, you depend on their technology to access to services of certain offices, banks and other online providers. Interoperability with them is not a choice, it is a requirement. As a consequence, the comparison just does not stay up. [/OT]
cbo
· 3 months ago
IMHO:
Linux (and OS X) is only mentioned as an means to catch the attention of otherwise non interested community. The true beneficiary is, of course, the platform, which if only had remained in its intended niche (Windows) would never acquired the critical mass of even become relevant for the industry to pay attention. This is only good for .Net because it takes one step more in making the underlying OS irrelevant. As more people see that in a non distant future Operating Systems may very well go out of the game in computing (f.e. http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2009/08/VMware...) is critical to own an API for which one can reclaim some kind of tax or credit.
rajdeva
· 3 months ago
But it seems these days, Microsoft is doing more good for open source than the FSF
lefty
· 2 months ago
Sad but true.
marthinus
· 3 months ago
My opinion is if Linux can not stand on its own feet then maybe it should not stand at all. OSS on the other hand has nothing to do with Linux and everything to do with freedom of choice.
Kamujin
· 3 months ago
It seems to me like Microsoft is a company with 2 warring factions. It also seems to me that the more cooperative faction is gaining traction. This encourages me.
How ironic would it be, if an open minded, open standards, cooperative Microsoft helped to save us from the single hardware vendor / software vendor monopoly that Apple is trying to create.
Eric Sink
· 3 months ago
You got fired by RMS? What a great thing to put on your resume/CV !
Luiz Carlos Querino
· 3 months ago
I think the whole GNU/Linux thing really ridiculous. Changing the OS name to "recognize" the importance of GNU software on it is just a stupid egotrip.
Of course, GNU importance is undisputable. RMS is also one of the "founding fathers" of modern OSS, but I really think the GNU/Linux was completely pointless and unnecessary.
After reading what he did to Miguel, I thought: "My god, I was right, some guys at the open source community really have inflated egos and sometimes act like dictators".
These kind of guys are the ones that, despite what they say, really want that the community continues like some kind of "secret society", only selected members are allowed and they must obbey to their rules.
They have "enemies", like Microsoft, and acknowledging that the enemy has created something good is a "sin".
That'z why I love Mono: it is made by open-minded, non-radical, altruist people, who is humble enough to assume that yes, Microsoft and others made good things and can also "join the club".
Congratulations, Miguel, for you courage to stand for your opinions and for being open to new ideas. Being "fired" by RMS really made me admire you as a person even more (as a programmer, you got me way back there with mc and mcedit ;-)
Markus
· 3 months ago
I don't understand how people can come up with all this "renaming" arguments. First let me say that I don't have a strong opinion on this topic. Sometimes I say "I have a Linux System", sometimes I say "I use GNU/Linux" and sometimes I even say "I run GNU".
But if you look at the history than you can see that there was never an attempt to rename Linux! Linus Torvalds developed a kernel which he called Linux. Both FSF and RMS always called Linux Linux. But before Linux they started to develop an operating system which they called GNU. GNU was almost done as Linux showed up. People combined Linux with GNU to get a complete operating system. Even if you are completely neutral than "Linux" is as OK as "GNU" for the operating system. An compromise which could make everyone happy and recognise every project could be "GNU/Linux". This was FSF's proposal. But whether you go for "Linux", "GNU" or "GNU/Linux" there is never something renamed!
The funny thing I recognise. That many people who are vocal about "FSF want to rename Linux to GNU/Linux" are the same people who have no conscience-smitten by renaming "Free Software" to "Open Source" which compared to "Linux vs GNU/Linux" is a real renaming.
Ed Ropple
· 3 months ago
If you actually say "I use GNU," you are telegraphing a disinterest in actually communicating with people. Nobody, not even geeks, really gives a crap about *what* to call it, but since everybody *does* call it "Linux," you are apparently taking pride in being one of those sad, tired people who are more interested in elongating their nerd-erection by using terms nobody gets, necessitating that they ask "what?" and make you feel superior. Stop it.
GNU lost the PR war. Tough for them, but nobody else really cares. Maybe someone would care if the organization wasn't run by congenital pot-stirrers.
Kamujin
· 3 months ago
I must wholeheartedly agree with you.
A name is an identifier. To the point that the word "Linux" serves as a properly unambiguous label, one should use it. Should there arise a situation where further specification is necessary, then and only then, would the elongated label be appropriate.
Ed Ropple
· 3 months ago
Pretty much. I mean, it's not like there's some (worthwhile) alternative. I mean, what? FOX? Is that even still maintained?
GNU is *implied*. Being pedantic about it ruins your ability to actually communicate with other people.
rajdeva
· 3 months ago
"founding fathers" yeah right, more like the guy who scared away everybody from open source....
rajdeva
· 3 months ago
what were you thinking when you joined something that RMS was a part of?
Avatar X
· 3 months ago
Congrats Miguel!.
FakeRMS
· 3 months ago
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.
The Fiddler
· 3 months ago
Yeah, yeah, the necessary offtopic interjection to explain the difference between GNU and Linux, the OS, the kernel, blah blah blah. Frankly, noone gives a damn.
Users like to call this OS "Linux" not "GNU slash Linux (tm)". Just like they prefer to say "Windows" rather than "Microsoft Windows Vista Enterprise Edition with Service Pack 3 (tm x 3)".
Besides, Linux is simply more catchy than GNU/Linux.
I can see how this can be annoying for those who work on GNU but the hard truth is that noone else cares. In other words, use GNU/Linux all you like in marketing material or technical discussions but the users have the final word on how they are going to call it. They do not mean this as some subtle attack against GNU - it's simply how things work.
Ed Ropple
· 3 months ago
Did you look at the name? I think there's some mighty fine trolling going on.
Without a signature there's no way to verify this claim.
rajdeva
· 3 months ago
or calling "Microsoft Windows Vista Enterprise Edition with Service Pack 3" just "Service Pack 3" :-D
Daniel
· 3 months ago
It's funny that you get along better with Microsoft than with the FSF, don't you think?
Afterall, who is helping Free Software more than Microsoft? I can't think of anyone!
Way to go Miguel! ;)
Yanko Kaneti
· 3 months ago
Well, Miguel, I am looking forward to your resignation from the board when it inevitably starts addressing "the licensing and intellectual property needs of commercial software companies" before the needs of the larger FOSS community.
Kamujin
· 3 months ago
"looking forward to" or "predicting"?
I don't think either of us are "looking forward to" that event.
PopCatalin
· 3 months ago
Sorry but GPL is not the only kind of OS or free OS out there, also GPL makes it hard (or simply imposible) for any other piece of software out there to be integrated unless it's GPL also.
So when you say FOSS community you actually mean GPL comunity, but the later is just a subset of the much larger OS community.
I don't want to start a religious war, but OS as a concept of having the source and ability to modify it, it's much much more important than GPL will ever be.
Dan Ballard
· 3 months ago
Ha I see flamewars breaking out already 0_o ah well, I just wanted to pop in and say a big congratulations! I think its a wonderful opportunity and a nice gesture. And the anecdote about the FSF was priceless and made me laugh horribly :)
Albert
· 3 months ago
Who produces the engine has the right of name. That's how it works in auto industry. The name or brand is more an honoration of core work excellence. Let's stick to it. Microsoft improves their image and opens their door to improve interoperability. I see the F/OSS community as an intermediate core between the big players in software industry, independent from market domain. The interesting question is where will it lead us in the long term? Where do you lead the community, Miguel? Regarding your post, the first thing I see is a direct benefit for you in person.
Anshul
· 3 months ago
Classic Icaza promotion of Microsoft stuff. Way to go Miguel!! First Mono, second Moonlight now Codeplex...whats next? Joining Microsoft as the Head of their so-called "Open Source Center"? I would be *seriously* surprised it if didn't come true.
migueldeicaza
· 3 months ago
I like to promote a number of projects, companies, products and social movements. Your Microsoft hatred prevents you from seeing beyond what you want to see. You seem to exhibit the traits of a fundamentalist, someone that can only see the world in black and white.
I am not sure exactly what you find so outrageous, and why you found the need to use double admiration marks. Perhaps I can explain. Since I work in Mono and Moonlight there are significant technological touch points with Microsoft; If I worked on say an open source Flash player or a PDF renderer, I would engage Adobe more; If I worked on device drivers for the kernel, I would be engaging the OEM and hardware community.
As for working for Microsoft as a replacement for Sam Ramji, I can see why you think I should work there or take that job. I have been trying to bridge the open source world and Microsoft for a long time, discussing and engaging with folks at Microsoft and in our community to find consensus and areas of collaboration. Many years ago I learned that you can achieve more by engaging other people than by insulting or attacking. In general, Outrage is not a very sophisticated human trait, it is rather primitive. You might want to look into that.
But I do that as a side thing. My real passion is writing software, and in particular software that helps Linux become better. This is where Mono and Moonlight came from: from the desire of bringing a great technology to Linux. And as a programmer, I rather continue to work writing software and working with the fantastic Mono team at Novell and the Mono community to improve Mono, improve Linux and improve open source than work as a bridge-builder at Microsoft.
Miguel.
rajdeva
· 3 months ago
"...trying to bridge the open source world..." If you can do this it would be the greatest thing since Linux for the open source community.
Anshul
· 3 months ago
Miguel, You are entitled to your own views...and so am I entitled to mine. Your intentions seem to be more at creating fissures than uniting any community. In your position, you are able to make crucial decisions regarding technology and thus have chosen Microsoft's .NET for Mono. I too, in my area (yes I am a corporate Opensuse user)...I am disassociating from Opensuse GNOME and Novell forever.
I may be a small fry compared to a heavy hitter like you who has done a lot of work...but I will influence decisions that I can take.
mythz
· 3 months ago
It's unfortunate that some people can't see past their own prejudices. By taking a fundamentalist view you're really only hurting yourself as you will exclude 'best-of-class' software (since your available software set will be smaller) when you make technology decisions.
I think you'll find that most of your customers (that you influence with your technology decisions) will not share your fundamentalist view as they normally only care about using the best-technology for the job that provides the most value with the lowest cost, so in this regard you are doing them a disservice.
I personally choose to use C#/VS.NET+ReSharper for most of my server-side development because after evaluating a lot of languages and frameworks in the past (C++ / PHP / Python / Java) it is the one that makes me the most productive and by extension gives my employer the most value.
Mono has basically given the software I produce 'extra value' because now the software I write can be deployed on a host of Operating Systems, which is fantastic as I believe that Linux is the best deployment platform taking into consideration 'cost / remote administration / etc'.
Anshul
· 3 months ago
My customers do not depend on Mono. I am not a Mono/.NET programmer. None of my products belong to Mono/.NET. My aim in boycotting Novell/Opensuse is to protest against their actions and deeds. FWIW, my products are manufacturing test systems.
I am not a fundamentalist. Its funny how easy it is to label someone as that, even when I'd agree to disagree with Miguel on his choices. Neither you nor Miguel can convince me otherwise. Heck, if you did try to (and you're trying to), it makes you a fundamentalist too.
mythz
· 3 months ago
By protesting/boycotting anyone you are effectively making technology decisions based on something other than merit, which you're fine to do as it is your opinion and you should be happy with your decisions at the end of the day.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, I'm only stating my opinions as well that *I* chose the 'best tools for the job for me' based on the best technology available. Other people may not come to the same conclusion and prefer 'Java / python / C' which is totally fine as well.
I also believe that open-source is the best model for software development as well and that Mono is a valuable contribution to Linux/OSS as it allows for software that previously would only run on Windows/.NET to run on Linux/Mono. As a prime example applications based on my open-source webservices stack (http://www.servicestack.net/) now have the opportunity (and do) run on Linux.
Kamujin
· 3 months ago
You claim "I am disassociating from Opensuse GNOME and Novell forever." No wonder you are a small fry. I suspect with a "take my ball and go home" attitude like this, you will be a small fry "forever".
Honestly, it's this kind or blind hate and infighting that makes me think Linux has no chance at being more than a minor platform. How can humanity trust Linux with a significant market share, if you guy act like 2 year olds every time you don't like something. Grow the hell up.
migueldeicaza
· 3 months ago
I can only be "creating fissures" in the community if the community has prejudged that bridging the Microsoft world and the open source world is somehow against its interests.
The following is a repost from a discussion earlier this year, I am pasting it because it describes my position: ----------------------------------------- [...] What I believe is happening is that at the core, you are anti- Microsoft and you do want to fight anything that comes from them. [...] I read this story on Ben's book. A shoe company sends two salesmen to a rural area in Africa, and after a couple of weeks, he receives a telegram from one of his sales people, it reads "ABORT MISSION, NOBODY HERE WEARS SHOES, GOING BACK HOME". Then he receives a message from the other sales man and it reads "GREAT BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY, NOBODY HERE HAS SHOES. SIGNED LEASE FOR STORE".
I like the second world, the world of possibility. A world where we can help Microsoft become a better open source citizen. I see a world where we can grow the pie, instead of a world where we have to divide the pie, where hackers at every company share knowledge and code.
When your world is a world of hate, fear and impossibilities you give up early.
gromble
· 3 months ago
So, what does Microsoft really control in this foundation? It's rather pointless unless Windows or MS Office is made open source... If THAT happens then we're talking and people in the community might think better of Microsoft. But currently the info page is full of pretty words trying to make Microsoft look good to the community but lacks any kind of commitment and substance. Codeplex as is is just a bunch of small java script proof-of-concept projects for Internet Explorer.. What will change this time around?
Sandy
· 3 months ago
You're wrong. There are a ton of useful open source projects on Codeplex, especially for .NET (or Mono) developers.
Microsoft encouraging open source > Microsoft discouraging open source
Yes, it would be nice if they freed their own software, and it's good to encourage them to do so, but that doesn't make the big step they're making with the Codeplex Foundation somehow insignificant.
Name
· 3 months ago
The codeplex mission statements sound like a bunch of mealy-mouthed lawyer speak. Lots of words but an amorphous lump of nothing in the end. "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." This is nothing but EEE on steriods. MS is going to use the opensource model as a free R&D lab just as it used consumers who paid to try out its BETA software aka W3.x, W9x, Me, 2k.
MS is NOTHING if not a consumate marking firm and master corporate raider. They will find a way to use and abuse the opensource community model ( stroking individual developers to create an illusion of softness), meanwhile hiding opensource from the general consumer with its consumate skills of obfuscation, deflection and misdirection.
This kind of behavior reminds me of a serial abuser, trashing their victim, then feigning repentance with a token olive branch, then a new beating, then mock remorse, then another choking, then a crying jag....lather, rinse, repeat.
dylanmccall
· 3 months ago
Bridges are cool :)
I was worried when I saw your name there because I immediately thought that the negative thinkers would tear you apart. Kudos for not worrying about them.
I am cautiously optimistic about this. Hopefully this won't be a complete perversion of the spirit of open source software...
The sad thing I see from many people is a bizarre desire for Microsoft to go and create its own, competing open source ecosystem detached from all our GNU stuff. That is not the way forwards; it flies right in the face of the openness and sharing that happens to be our biggest strength. Microsoft isn't going anywhere, so we can either try to get them speaking our language or create a huge mess for our end users. Hostile competition would KILL open source, and the only way to avoid that is being open with all parties involved, including Microsoft.
AJB
· 3 months ago
"I hope that I can last more on this foundation than I lasted at the FSF, where I was removed by RMS after refusing to be an active part of the campaign to rename Linux as GNU/Linux."
You know, your entry would have stood on its own without this last part. All you do by making gratuitous jabs like this is cement the opinions of your detractors and give them fuel with which to burn their fires, and you make some of us wonder if, maybe, they aren't entirely insane and maybe they have at least something resembling a point.
Kamujin
· 3 months ago
His "detractors" opinions are by definition, well established. And if his claims are true, yet you think less of him for speaking the truth, your support is of questionable value.
AJB
· 3 months ago
I think Mono is great software. It has been my informal observation that great things tend to succeed, somehow, despite their founders. Examples that come to mind include Wikipedia, Debian, and OpenSSH. Or GNU, even.
AJB
· 3 months ago
"And if his claims are true, yet you think less of him for speaking the truth, your support is of questionable value."
So what if it's true? What value is added to the blog entry by making that statement? I don't see any, so then the question becomes, why make a statement like that in this context, regardless of it's truth?
The answer is that it's a dog whistle, meant to convey a specific message (RMS is too ideological, RMS is petty, RMS demands complete ideological submission, RMS is a control freak, etc.) to sympathizers, without yourself appearing to dirty yourself with making the attack explicitly. It might work but it makes you look all the more foolish not only for making gratuitous personal attacks, but for attempting to hide them.
If their point was that Miguel does not really suffer fools gladly, then yes, they might have something resembling a point.
Albert
· 3 months ago
I think the negative comments towards Microsoft have got no ground. Open source isn't a religion and Microsoft isn't the devil. They have simply got a well engineered product and fortunately, for customers and developers, they cooperate in this context which makes the usage of Mono and Mono related technologies even more attractive and thus certainly guarantee impact on the market. That can only be beneficiary for Linux. Blocking this development will only result in presenting the F/OSS community itself inflexible and indoctrinating. Microsoft made the turn and shakes hand.
rajdeva
· 3 months ago
Great news, thank you and especially Microsoft for making .Net and Silverlight (Mono+Moonlight) happen on Linux.
"...campaign to rename Linux as GNU/Linux." funny stuff, to get Linux you can go to kernel.org, where do you go to get "GNU/Linux" ? (Free Software idiots)
Anachron
· 3 months ago
"funny stuff, to get Linux you can go to kernel.org, where do you go to get "GNU/Linux" ? (Free Software idiots)"
Well, there's a difference in naming schemes here. We name the operating systems from MS for Windows. They run the ntoskrnl.exe kernel. There's no colloquial name for the windows kernel AFAIK. The free operating systems however have richer naming schemes. Take for instance Ubuntu (quote from ubuntu.com): "Ubuntu is a community developed, Linux-based operating system ..." It is based on Linux, meaning Linux is the kernel. The Linux kernel is what you get from kernel.org. In addition to the kernel you will need a range of tools, applications and so on to build an Operating System. Those tools and applications often originate from the GNU project. Which is why RMS urges us to use the denomination GNU/Linux when talking about OS's based upon Linux and GNU tools.
When we use only the name Linux for the whole operating system, it's because it is shorter and a widely known term. In the strictest sense it is erroneous. Read more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_c...
And to answer your question: You go to anyplace on the internet that can supply you with a distro to get GNU/Linux.
rajdeva
· 3 months ago
People know about the OS as Linux. no body, at least new users know or care about GNU. Why do you want to confuse end-users. It seems most of the "Free Software" people just want to confuse new users. The whole GNU project, which is fsf.org's project went nowhere. They should just shut up and let the people actually do some work, do their work....
fodev
· 3 months ago
You must be young.
GNU was a famous project back in the early 90's and so was Minix and so was Linux and so was BSD.
The GNU community was building their operating system (Hurd). Minix had one, but was not licensed for commercial use and the BSD folks were initially not set for running on low-end 386 machines.
Mind you, the GNU Hurd was built on top of the joint BSD + CMU Mach kernel. And you have never seen Richard Stallman refer to Hurd as a "BSD/CMU/GNU/Hurd system". Or call the Hurd a "CMU/Hurd" operating system or the "Mach/Hurd" operating system. He never thought about crediting others that were not part of his own movement (GNU).
Linux appeared in this environment, it was a toy operating system, and the community that was formed around Linux put together the operating system from the kernel, and anything they could get their hands on. They built a car out of scrap metal essentially.
They used GNU code, BSD code, public domain code, Usenet code, MIT code, CMU code, anything they could get their hands on.
This was a community that was born *out of the Linux kernel* and that happened to use scrap tools from anywhere they could. Just like RMS was building his Hurd out of anything he could (BSD/CMU code that he does not credit) the Linux community did not credit every possible source in the name of the project.
I am all for giving credit to RMS for his work, but I do not see myself calling Linux a GNU/BSD/CMU/X11/GNOME/KDE/Xfce/Blender/Apache/Linux system.
In the same way that I do not say Mozilla/Firefox, Mozilla/Thunderbird, Sun/MySQL, Apache/Hadoop, Guido/Python. I say Firefox, Thunderbird, MySQL, Hadoop, Python.
And there is a lot of story behind each name, but being a prick about "Mozilla/Thunderbird" is not going to matter a bit, other than confuse people.
rajdeva
· 3 months ago
"They used GNU code, BSD code, public domain code, Usenet code, MIT code, CMU code, anything they could get their hands on." wow Linux must be a license hell!
what are "Usenet code" and "CMU code" ?
"I am all for giving credit to RMS for his work, but I do not see myself calling Linux a GNU/BSD/CMU/X11/GNOME/KDE/Xfce/Blender/Apache/Linux system."
I wonder why they start calling it Linux in the 1st place...
migueldeicaza
· 3 months ago
Not any different than running a Windows system every day. Every time you install a third party program, it comes with its own EULA. Not a big deal.
joe
· 3 months ago
It seems like Richard Stallman is the Emmanuel Goldstein of the greater FOSS community.
I'm pleased to hear about this, Miguel, and I agree: greater levels of engagement are a good thing, not a bad one. No amount of wishing on the part of the Microsoft-haters is going to make them go away in any sort of a hurry, and if you make up your mind to be a paranoid, the world at large might as well be out to get you, from your point of view.
All Comments
Also, the comparison with FSF does not really fit ;-)
more open source stuff on Windows -> more stuff on Windows can be ported to Linux
more open source stuff on Windows -> Better Windows/Linux interoperability
I'm sure there are plenty of other easy answers to your "how" question.
Anybody spinning the Codeplex Foundation as a negative thing for Linux needs to go for a walk and try thinking about it again.
All great points. I'm amazed by the inability of some in the open source community to understand the simple and obvious fact that everyone benefits from more contributions to open source regardless of the technology or platform the open source code is being developed with and on. I write about this at the MindTouch blog: http://www.mindtouch.com/blog/2009/09/13/codepl...
- I disagree on the quantity statement. Why "more" is necessarily better is not really clear. OSS has too many projects, even big and famous, without enough resources to go on, or without sufficient quality to compete with the "closed" alternative. It would be better to concentrate the efforts.
- I disagree with what you say about open source products being ported from windows to linux, the trend is opposite, and hard to invert, since the biggest number of users is on Windows anyway, especially for the desktop applications Linux desperately needs and not many (or nobody) is working on. Of course I would be happy to be contraddicted (with evidence) about this.
- Linux/Windows interoperability, as in all other cases involving different systems, is achieved using standard formats, and not necessarily using the same application, which is just another form of lock-in. Not much, in spite of the efforts has been done in this direction. A simple example is represented by the office formats interoperability. Microsoft released the specifications of legacy formats (.doc, .xls, ...) years ago, and OpenOffice is quite far from a complete sopport, since it is still unable to properly manage many relatively simple documents. The same can be said about OOXML, which is not fully supported even using the Novell OOXML converter (no proper management of embedded objects, and not always faithful conversions).
- More open source stuff may imply less closed source stuff, which *is* good. How many closed source projects, even big ones, die from lack of resources? What happens to its users then?
- Open source gives you the ability to port a project to Linux. Closed source? No chance.
- With open source, you can fix interoperability issues by implementing standard formats. With closed source you are left at the whims of the vendor. Think Skype.
- No. More open source stuff does not necessarily mean "less closed" stuff, since there are requirements to be met. In particular "open" is not enough to replace "closed" software, if the functionalities are not there. And this is a well known issue affecting many popular Linux applications, starting from OpenOffice. The usual reply "but it's enough for most users" is quite out of place due to the interoperability issues.
- Yes, open source gives you, in theory, the ability of porting an application to Linux. In practice, you need to think to that since the beginning, or the port becomes a huge effort if you start developing without thinking to a port in advance. In particular, porting from Windows to Linux is not as easy as porting from a UNIX flavour to another.
- Right, with open source you can, always in theory, implement standard formats. But at this time I'm not aware of any open source suite 100% compatible with OOXML or 100% compatible with MS legacy office formats, even if the specs are out there in the wild, to quote the same example I did before. Skype, on the other side, does quite a good job supporting all major platforms (Win/Mac/Lin). I don't think we can blame them if they choose to keep their code closed. It's a choice. My point has not been, since the beginning, against closed source software, but against moving open source software to a foundation led by a not exactly open source friendly and Linux friendly company, since this could not be positive for Linux as OS, and especially as desktop OS (which is something not many believe in, I guess).
I do not wish to derail this discussion any more, but you seem to be ignoring a simple fact: all three points you make affect closed source applications to a much larger extent than open source ones.
OpenOffice is not 100% compatible with OOXML. Guess what, MS Office is not 100% compatible either, but the difference is there's nothing you can do about it.
Skype does not do a "good job of supporting all major platforms". In fact, Skype/Linux is downright awful: it's still on version 2 when on windows it's on version 4; there's no amd64 support; fullscreen video behaves badly; it crashes a lot... The Skype protocol itself is completely closed, which means you cannot create a better client even if you wanted to.
You don't seem to have any problems with this, yet you are distrustful of Microsoft taking part in an open source effort.
Maybe it's just a different point of view, but I much prefer Microsoft becoming more open source friendly than staying on the other side of the fence forever. I distrust Skype much, *much* more, simply because they have shown no intention of ever playing well with others.
Mono and Moonlight are part of Novell efforts to improve the interoperability with MS products, and they were two examples of positive things.
I don't ignore the fact you cannot change closed source products. I simply say that this initiative is not going to help in the direction of bringing more open products of high quality to Linux. I never said anything else, since the beginning. Just check ;-)
[From here on, it is a reply to other points and it might be OT]
Skype, for your information, has a different numbering for Linux versions, and yes, it is behind with respect to the Windows version, but it is fully functional. The next release is going to support PulseAudio, enhanced video, a more efficient protocol and SMS. I live abroad for work and use Skype at least three times a day to keep in touch with friends and relatives, and I do not experience all these crashes. It is 32 bit, but modern distributions like SUSE manage that transparently. You are right on one point: it is closed, but it works, and it is what counts.
I'm not distrustful with Microsoft itself. Never said that. I said, and repeat, that I do not see the advantages of this initiative for *Linux* as an operating system, especially for the desktop, since the declared purpose of Microsoft is to have Windows as reference platform for the development of open source project (see, for example, the MS statements about making apache work on Windows).
I would *love* to have Microsoft really be more open, but frankly that's smoke in the eyes. Microsoft is doing this with one purpose, and it is not of becoming more open, but of keeping its market share. Is this wrong? No. Just do not push it as a friendly behaviour towards Linux. Take a look at how much effort Microsoft is putting in Linux, for example considering the effort they're putting in Hyper-V drivers, released to fix a licence issue. Even Greg K. H., who was proclaiming victory, had to complain about their lack of efforts.
In all this, Skype is a minor player. Microsoft is not. There is nothing wrong in keeping a protocol closed. Skype is not forcing you to use their products, while this cannot be said so clearly for Microsoft. You find Microsoft at school, at work, you depend on their technology to access to services of certain offices, banks and other online providers. Interoperability with them is not a choice, it is a requirement. As a consequence, the comparison just does not stay up.
[/OT]
Linux (and OS X) is only mentioned as an means to catch the attention of otherwise non interested community.
The true beneficiary is, of course, the platform, which if only had remained in its intended niche (Windows) would never acquired the critical mass of even become relevant for the industry to pay attention.
This is only good for .Net because it takes one step more in making the underlying OS irrelevant. As more people see that in a non distant future Operating Systems may very well go out of the game in computing (f.e. http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2009/08/VMware...) is critical to own an API for which one can reclaim some kind of tax or credit.
How ironic would it be, if an open minded, open standards, cooperative Microsoft helped to save us from the single hardware vendor / software vendor monopoly that Apple is trying to create.
Of course, GNU importance is undisputable. RMS is also one of the "founding fathers" of modern OSS, but I really think the GNU/Linux was completely pointless and unnecessary.
After reading what he did to Miguel, I thought: "My god, I was right, some guys at the open source community really have inflated egos and sometimes act like dictators".
These kind of guys are the ones that, despite what they say, really want that the community continues like some kind of "secret society", only selected members are allowed and they must obbey to their rules.
They have "enemies", like Microsoft, and acknowledging that the enemy has created something good is a "sin".
That'z why I love Mono: it is made by open-minded, non-radical, altruist people, who is humble enough to assume that yes, Microsoft and others made good things and can also "join the club".
Congratulations, Miguel, for you courage to stand for your opinions and for being open to new ideas. Being "fired" by RMS really made me admire you as a person even more (as a programmer, you got me way back there with mc and mcedit ;-)
But if you look at the history than you can see that there was never an attempt to rename Linux! Linus Torvalds developed a kernel which he called Linux. Both FSF and RMS always called Linux Linux. But before Linux they started to develop an operating system which they called GNU. GNU was almost done as Linux showed up. People combined Linux with GNU to get a complete operating system. Even if you are completely neutral than "Linux" is as OK as "GNU" for the operating system. An compromise which could make everyone happy and recognise every project could be "GNU/Linux". This was FSF's proposal. But whether you go for "Linux", "GNU" or "GNU/Linux" there is never something renamed!
The funny thing I recognise. That many people who are vocal about "FSF want to rename Linux to GNU/Linux" are the same people who have no conscience-smitten by renaming "Free Software" to "Open Source" which compared to "Linux vs GNU/Linux" is a real renaming.
GNU lost the PR war. Tough for them, but nobody else really cares. Maybe someone would care if the organization wasn't run by congenital pot-stirrers.
A name is an identifier. To the point that the word "Linux" serves as a properly unambiguous label, one should use it. Should there arise a situation where further specification is necessary, then and only then, would the elongated label be appropriate.
GNU is *implied*. Being pedantic about it ruins your ability to actually communicate with other people.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.
Users like to call this OS "Linux" not "GNU slash Linux (tm)". Just like they prefer to say "Windows" rather than "Microsoft Windows Vista Enterprise Edition with Service Pack 3 (tm x 3)".
Besides, Linux is simply more catchy than GNU/Linux.
I can see how this can be annoying for those who work on GNU but the hard truth is that noone else cares. In other words, use GNU/Linux all you like in marketing material or technical discussions but the users have the final word on how they are going to call it. They do not mean this as some subtle attack against GNU - it's simply how things work.
EDIT: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html
Afterall, who is helping Free Software more than Microsoft? I can't think of anyone!
Way to go Miguel! ;)
I don't think either of us are "looking forward to" that event.
So when you say FOSS community you actually mean GPL comunity, but the later is just a subset of the much larger OS community.
I don't want to start a religious war, but OS as a concept of having the source and ability to modify it, it's much much more important than GPL will ever be.
ah well, I just wanted to pop in and say a big congratulations! I think its a wonderful opportunity and a nice gesture. And the anecdote about the FSF was priceless and made me laugh horribly :)
I am not sure exactly what you find so outrageous, and why you found the need to use double admiration marks. Perhaps I can explain. Since I work in Mono and Moonlight there are significant technological touch points with Microsoft; If I worked on say an open source Flash player or a PDF renderer, I would engage Adobe more; If I worked on device drivers for the kernel, I would be engaging the OEM and hardware community.
As for working for Microsoft as a replacement for Sam Ramji, I can see why you think I should work there or take that job. I have been trying to bridge the open source world and Microsoft for a long time, discussing and engaging with folks at Microsoft and in our community to find consensus and areas of collaboration. Many years ago I learned that you can achieve more by engaging other people than by insulting or attacking. In general, Outrage is not a very sophisticated human trait, it is rather primitive. You might want to look into that.
But I do that as a side thing. My real passion is writing software, and in particular software that helps Linux become better. This is where Mono and Moonlight came from: from the desire of bringing a great technology to Linux. And as a programmer, I rather continue to work writing software and working with the fantastic Mono team at Novell and the Mono community to improve Mono, improve Linux and improve open source than work as a bridge-builder at Microsoft.
Miguel.
You are entitled to your own views...and so am I entitled to mine. Your intentions seem to be more at creating fissures than uniting any community. In your position, you are able to make crucial decisions regarding technology and thus have chosen Microsoft's .NET for Mono. I too, in my area (yes I am a corporate Opensuse user)...I am disassociating from Opensuse GNOME and Novell forever.
I may be a small fry compared to a heavy hitter like you who has done a lot of work...but I will influence decisions that I can take.
I think you'll find that most of your customers (that you influence with your technology decisions) will not share your fundamentalist view as they normally only care about using the best-technology for the job that provides the most value with the lowest cost, so in this regard you are doing them a disservice.
I personally choose to use C#/VS.NET+ReSharper for most of my server-side development because after evaluating a lot of languages and frameworks in the past (C++ / PHP / Python / Java) it is the one that makes me the most productive and by extension gives my employer the most value.
Mono has basically given the software I produce 'extra value' because now the software I write can be deployed on a host of Operating Systems, which is fantastic as I believe that Linux is the best deployment platform taking into consideration 'cost / remote administration / etc'.
I am not a fundamentalist. Its funny how easy it is to label someone as that, even when I'd agree to disagree with Miguel on his choices. Neither you nor Miguel can convince me otherwise. Heck, if you did try to (and you're trying to), it makes you a fundamentalist too.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, I'm only stating my opinions as well that *I* chose the 'best tools for the job for me' based on the best technology available. Other people may not come to the same conclusion and prefer 'Java / python / C' which is totally fine as well.
I also believe that open-source is the best model for software development as well and that Mono is a valuable contribution to Linux/OSS as it allows for software that previously would only run on Windows/.NET to run on Linux/Mono. As a prime example applications based on my open-source webservices stack (http://www.servicestack.net/) now have the opportunity (and do) run on Linux.
Honestly, it's this kind or blind hate and infighting that makes me think Linux has no chance at being more than a minor platform. How can humanity trust Linux with a significant market share, if you guy act like 2 year olds every time you don't like something. Grow the hell up.
The following is a repost from a discussion earlier this year, I am pasting it because it describes my position:
-----------------------------------------
[...]
What I believe is happening is that at the core, you are anti-
Microsoft and you do want to fight anything that comes from them.
[...]
I read this story on Ben's book. A shoe company sends two salesmen
to a rural area in Africa, and after a couple of weeks, he receives a
telegram from one of his sales people, it reads "ABORT MISSION, NOBODY
HERE WEARS SHOES, GOING BACK HOME". Then he receives a message from
the other sales man and it reads "GREAT BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY, NOBODY
HERE HAS SHOES. SIGNED LEASE FOR STORE".
I like the second world, the world of possibility. A world where we
can help Microsoft become a better open source citizen. I see a world
where we can grow the pie, instead of a world where we have to divide
the pie, where hackers at every company share knowledge and code.
When your world is a world of hate, fear and impossibilities you give
up early.
But currently the info page is full of pretty words trying to make Microsoft look good to the community but lacks any kind of commitment and substance. Codeplex as is is just a bunch of small java script proof-of-concept projects for Internet Explorer.. What will change this time around?
Microsoft encouraging open source > Microsoft discouraging open source
Yes, it would be nice if they freed their own software, and it's good to encourage them to do so, but that doesn't make the big step they're making with the Codeplex Foundation somehow insignificant.
MS is NOTHING if not a consumate marking firm and master corporate raider. They will find a way to use and abuse the opensource community model ( stroking individual developers to create an illusion of softness), meanwhile hiding opensource from the general consumer with its consumate skills of obfuscation, deflection and misdirection.
This kind of behavior reminds me of a serial abuser, trashing their victim, then feigning repentance with a token olive branch, then a new beating, then mock remorse, then another choking, then a crying jag....lather, rinse, repeat.
I was worried when I saw your name there because I immediately thought that the negative thinkers would tear you apart. Kudos for not worrying about them.
I am cautiously optimistic about this. Hopefully this won't be a complete perversion of the spirit of open source software...
The sad thing I see from many people is a bizarre desire for Microsoft to go and create its own, competing open source ecosystem detached from all our GNU stuff. That is not the way forwards; it flies right in the face of the openness and sharing that happens to be our biggest strength. Microsoft isn't going anywhere, so we can either try to get them speaking our language or create a huge mess for our end users.
Hostile competition would KILL open source, and the only way to avoid that is being open with all parties involved, including Microsoft.
You know, your entry would have stood on its own without this last part. All you do by making gratuitous jabs like this is cement the opinions of your detractors and give them fuel with which to burn their fires, and you make some of us wonder if, maybe, they aren't entirely insane and maybe they have at least something resembling a point.
So what if it's true? What value is added to the blog entry by making that statement? I don't see any, so then the question becomes, why make a statement like that in this context, regardless of it's truth?
The answer is that it's a dog whistle, meant to convey a specific message (RMS is too ideological, RMS is petty, RMS demands complete ideological submission, RMS is a control freak, etc.) to sympathizers, without yourself appearing to dirty yourself with making the attack explicitly. It might work but it makes you look all the more foolish not only for making gratuitous personal attacks, but for attempting to hide them.
"...campaign to rename Linux as GNU/Linux." funny stuff, to get Linux you can go to kernel.org, where do you go to get "GNU/Linux" ? (Free Software idiots)
Well, there's a difference in naming schemes here. We name the operating systems from MS for Windows. They run the ntoskrnl.exe kernel. There's no colloquial name for the windows kernel AFAIK.
The free operating systems however have richer naming schemes. Take for instance Ubuntu (quote from ubuntu.com):
"Ubuntu is a community developed, Linux-based operating system ..."
It is based on Linux, meaning Linux is the kernel.
The Linux kernel is what you get from kernel.org. In addition to the kernel you will need a range of tools, applications and so on to build an Operating System.
Those tools and applications often originate from the GNU project.
Which is why RMS urges us to use the denomination GNU/Linux when talking about OS's based upon Linux and GNU tools.
When we use only the name Linux for the whole operating system, it's because it is shorter and a widely known term. In the strictest sense it is erroneous.
Read more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_c...
And to answer your question: You go to anyplace on the internet that can supply you with a distro to get GNU/Linux.
GNU was a famous project back in the early 90's and so was Minix and so was Linux and so was BSD.
The GNU community was building their operating system (Hurd). Minix had one, but was not licensed for commercial use and the BSD folks were initially not set for running on low-end 386 machines.
Mind you, the GNU Hurd was built on top of the joint BSD + CMU Mach kernel. And you have never seen Richard Stallman refer to Hurd as a "BSD/CMU/GNU/Hurd system". Or call the Hurd a "CMU/Hurd" operating system or the "Mach/Hurd" operating system. He never thought about crediting others that were not part of his own movement (GNU).
Linux appeared in this environment, it was a toy operating system, and the community that was formed around Linux put together the operating system from the kernel, and anything they could get their hands on. They built a car out of scrap metal essentially.
They used GNU code, BSD code, public domain code, Usenet code, MIT code, CMU code, anything they could get their hands on.
This was a community that was born *out of the Linux kernel* and that happened to use scrap tools from anywhere they could. Just like RMS was building his Hurd out of anything he could (BSD/CMU code that he does not credit) the Linux community did not credit every possible source in the name of the project.
I am all for giving credit to RMS for his work, but I do not see myself calling Linux a GNU/BSD/CMU/X11/GNOME/KDE/Xfce/Blender/Apache/Linux system.
In the same way that I do not say Mozilla/Firefox, Mozilla/Thunderbird, Sun/MySQL, Apache/Hadoop, Guido/Python. I say Firefox, Thunderbird, MySQL, Hadoop, Python.
And there is a lot of story behind each name, but being a prick about "Mozilla/Thunderbird" is not going to matter a bit, other than confuse people.
what are "Usenet code" and "CMU code" ?
"I am all for giving credit to RMS for his work, but I do not see myself calling Linux a GNU/BSD/CMU/X11/GNOME/KDE/Xfce/Blender/Apache/Linux system."
I wonder why they start calling it Linux in the 1st place...
I loved that movie!
I don't like living that way, myself.
I've always thought that the "naming wars" were inane and self-serving: language has a life of its own, and trying to bully people into calling "Linux" "GNU/Linux" is as doomed to failure as l'Académie Française's attempts to insist that the French populace all call their Walkmans "balladeurs" and their emails "courriels"...