Re: excessive Linux and GNU advocacy?

Aaron Crane (AC8@soas.ac.uk)
Thu, 14 Mar 1996 20:20:55 GMT


I'd like to start by apologising to all members of the list for this
message's length and inappropriateness. There is nothing technical
contained herein: feel free to skip it.

Ben Wing (wing@666.com) wrote:
> Given the recent over-extended Linux vs. GNU thread, I thought the
> following food-for-thought from Feb. 1996 Byte Magazine should be
> relevant:

<snip re alleged fanaticism among Linux users>

> the most touted achievements of Linux developers. Flames erupt
> frequently on the Usenet when a heretic suggests there's another OS
> worth running. Heated respondents pen pages of incendiary prose in
> reply.
>
> "The uncivil behavior of these few loudmouths threatens to hold Linux
> back from the stature it deserves. As with the Amiga, many people
> who could benefit from trying Linux are put off enough by these
> displays to take their interest elsewhere. Some journalists refuse
> to take Linux seriously because of the regular Usenet rants, letters
> to editors, and angry calls to computer talk shows. Linux techno-
> troopers may not realize that their irrational activism plays a
> significant role in keeping them a minority.

It simply isn't the case that this sort of thing is confined to Linux
users, or even to `minority' systems (whatever that may mean). On the
contrary, there is a certain contingent of users of *all* environments
that delight in putting down the `opposition'. Look at any of the
comp.*.advocacy groups (it doesn't matter which one, because all of the
messages are crossposted to all of the groups, but that's another story).
There are just as many fanatical OS/2, Win NT, Win 3.x, Win 95, MacOS,
whatever else users as there are Linux fanatics.

I hold that the reason many journalists refuse to take Linux seriously is
that they think any professional-standard OS needs a pricetag measured at
the very least in the hundreds of pounds. And look for example at the UK
magazine _Personal Computer World_: last month, PCW put Slackware (2.0!) on
the cover CD, proudly emblazoning it with the word `shareware'. It's more
reasonable to suppose that one of the causes for Linux's low image in the
popular computer press (apart from the stranglehold the Microsoft monopoly
has over the world) is that journalists hear something about a `free Unix-
like system', assume it's worthless, and proceed to ignore it.

> "We should see a taming of the rhetoric as commercial players get
> involved. Red Hat Linux is a publicized commercial release.
> Considering they cost vendors nothing, we should see Linux releases
> covered by proper documentation, support, and even licensed additions
> (e.g., OSF/Motif) while maintaining a consumer-friendly price."

That's right: for some users this sort of thing is important, and it seems
to me that Caldera, FT, et al, along with Posix branding (out just
recently -- I hope everyone caught the announcement) and even the
possibility of Unix branding will attract a certain (corporate?) sort of
user. If not, Linux is still the only stable Unixoid environment I can get
for free, and since Unix does what I want, I see no reason to look
elsewhere. I like having an OS that I can trust to run more than one task
simultaneously without falling over (pausing only to show you a useless
"Close/Ignore" dialogue box). I like having an OS that takes advantage of
my 32-bit processor for all programs, not just a small, selected set of
expensive commercial ones. I like having source for all my programs. In
short, I like my Linux box. Does this make me a fanatic?

But this isn't what Richard Stallman was complaining about: he thinks that
since most Linux systems rely to a large extent on GNU systems and user
software, the GNU name should be inserted whenever you talk about Linux as
a system rather than a kernel. To me, this seems fairly ill-thought-out:
all those to whom such a thing would mean anything at all know how much
GNU stuff they use -- I for one would not hesitate to acknowledge my debt
to rms, the FSF, and all the good work they have done. But referring to a
"Linux system" seems to me no worse than referring to "DOS" for "MS-DOS"
and its various work-alikes, or to "Win95" instead of "Microsoft Windows
95" with whatever (TM) or (R) branding they use. Better even, as these
are commercial products, not free programs for sharing. I approve of what
rms has done for the free software community, but I can't help feeling
that he's getting a touch of the "sour grapes" syndrome over the relative
successes of Linux and the Hurd.

> ben

Regards, and apologies again to those who found this message irritating.
--- Aaron Crane, undergrad at SOAS, University of London
Snail: International Hall, Brunswick Square, London, WC1N 1AS, England
Voice: +44 (0)171-837 0746 x7312 (ask for me in room 111)
ObSig: "Object-oriented programming is an exceptionally bad idea which could
only have originated in California." (Edsger Dijkstra)