Stallman and GNU/Linux, was Re: [Sussex] BBC Video Downloads

[Steve Dobson]

Sorry for not replying earlier but I was doing the BCF thing with Nik.

On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 at 09:46:04AM +0000, Nic James Ferrier wrote:
> Steve Dobson <steve at dobson.org> writes:
> 
> >Nic Ferrier said:
> >> I don't think there was any concern about himself being
> >> sidelined. When I've been in conversations with him I've seen him get
> >> most cross about people describing Linux as an operating system, which
> >> it is not, it's a kernel. Unfortunately, people persist in that
> >> delusion. I suspect that most LUGs should really be called GUGs for
> >> example.
> >
> > No, Linux is both the name of the kernel and the OS that runs on it.
> > It is because that is the way people use the word.
> 
> No. You're wrong and so are the people that use it that way.

The people I've heard say that English is defined by how it is used are
the people that writing/compile dictionaries.  I'll take their expertise
over yours or mine.

Did you know hundred of years ago there was a campaine to get Latin and
French out of Saxon?  It failed, but the campaign to keep French pure
didn't.  The result: French stopped being the international language of
diplomacy and English took it's place.

Flexible systems almost always win over ridged ones.  That is the lessons
that can be learned by watching the world go by.  It's just as true in the
animal kingdom as it is in technology.

Having just come back from the Worthing BCF I must have talked to dozens
of people today about Linux.  Not one of them was referring to the kernel.
If you talk to people using the language the same way they do that isn't
being wrong, it is being clear.  Language is just a method of
communication, what matters is that understanding is transfered.

> > English is a living language.  Words change their means all the time.
> > Back in the 1920s calling a man "gay" was not a comment on his sexual
> > orientation.  If you don't like the way English evolves then go speak
> > Latin.  That's a dead language, it hasn't changed much (if at all) in
> > a couple of hundred years or so.
> 
> You're right, it is a living language and usage changes. But that
> doesn't mean it's completly anarchic.

I never said it was.  If 99% of the population use a word to mean a 
certain thing that that it what it means.  Do you call your mobile
phone a phone or a radio.  It has more in common with a radio
transmitter/receiver than it does with the invention of Alexandra 
Graham Bell.

>                                       Professionals have the right to
> try to force back the meaning of words. 

Who died and made you King?  This country is not a dictatorship, we use
a form of democracy here, and as such if the majority stand up and 
demand a thing it tends to happen.  Governments have made u-turns when
the wishes of the majority become clear.

> We are doing this with some success with "hacker" for example. Many
> people still only understand the pejorative sense of "hacker" but,
> because of a campaign of hackers, we are getting the media to
> understand the true complexity of the word. The BBC now use "malicious
> hacker" where once they would have used "hacker".

As I said, English is a living language.  The BBC have added the word
"malicious" in order to be clear.

> It's the same with Linux. It's the same because, to us, there is a
> useful distinction to be made between the kernel and the operating
> system.

So what is your collective noun for various distributions that run
on the Linux kernel?  There is little to differentiate a Linux OS from
a *BSD OS.  They both use the GNU tool set.  They both run, mostly, the
same applications.

>        Where there is a useful distinction to be made it is useful to
> make the distinction. Mostly, the general public and the media do not
> understand this distinction, but they will once we've explained it
> enough - just as they now begin to understand the difference between
> someone who breaks into computer systems and cross compiles a c
> library for fun.

And when I'm talking to knowledgeable people I expect them to understand
which meaning of Linux I mean from context.  When you go to your doctor
do you talk to him in medical jargon or do you use layman's terms.  I
don't know all that medical jargon, I expect him to interpret and where 
necessary ask questions of me to make his understanding of my pain better.
And when I talk to laymen about computers (like today) I try and do the
same for them - not try and teach them what it took me 20 years to learn.

> > Nic Ferrier wrote:
> >> Many people maintain that this is a falsehood. That measured in many
> >> different ways the GNU contribution is large but not overarching. If
> >> you use KDE and not GNOME for example, the amount of GNU software on
> >> your system is relatively small.
> >
> > I disagree.  While a Gnome or KDE use may not be using the GNU tool set
> > much directly the scrips that boot the computer and start the graphical
> > environment up make have use of them.
> 
> I'm affraid this is a matter of fact, unless you're going to introduce
> lexiographical realativism again.
> 
> GNOME is part of the GNU system. KDE is not.

I was talking about the /etc/init.d scripts that do make heavy use of
commands like grep(1), echo(1) and find(1).  These are all GNU tools.

> And just because you compile something with GCC and automake it
> doesn't make it a GNU program. A GNU program is blessed by Dr Stallman
> and included in the GNU distribution.

I never suggested it did.

> > The move to the web is just another form of centralised computing.  
> > Computing culture runs in cycles sometimes favouring centralisation (of
> > which the web is just one form) or individual computing.  Both have their
> > advantages and disadvantages.  If you want to get the best out of computing
> > then you need to use both.
> 
> I disagree with you again. The web is about distribution. In that
> sense it is about decentralization. Processing moves to where it is
> most convieniant for the consumer (the consumer of the processing
> power - not consumer in a capitalism sense).

But most of the processing that goes on with a web interface goes on in the
server.  It is the web server that connects to the database (often on the
same machine).  The advantages of a web interface is that you only have to
admin the application on one central system (or a small cluster of them).
A decentralisation system would have the application running on lots of
different computers, with web technology it is only a standards complaint
browser (that can be used for all web applications) that needs to be installed
or an application user's machine.  That is what I meant be centralisation
and I stand by that meaning.

Steve
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/sussex/attachments/20070204/ff06925e/attachment.pgp