On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 10:12 +1000, Shayne O'Connor wrote: > by all means, do what you want - but you can have yr fruitcake and eat > it, too. If you don't think "GNU" and "Free Software" are stumbling blocks to mainstream adoption of the fruit of our community's labor, then I must conclude, to borrow a concept from Samizdata, that you and I exist in alternate realities. I have been a non-stop evangelist for our platform in Real Life (TM), in many bands and with many musicians (and the occasional fan). And based on my Real Life (TM) experience with these groups, I find the results of "GNU/Linux," "Free Software," et al, to be exceedingly suboptimal. Here's my recollection of how an exemplary conversation went down with a bassist I once worked with: "Hey man, that beat is pretty slick, whadja use to roll it?" 'A free software sampler I wrote for GNU/Linux.' "Is that like RedHat Linux? 'Cuz my brother works for an ISP and he says they all use RedHat Linux. If he hooks me up with that, could I run your software?" 'Well, RedHat Linux should really be called RedHat GNU/Linux. Linux is just a kernel, the rest of the operating system is part of the GNU project.' "What the fucks a kernel?" 'Uh, you can think of a kernel as a piece of software that talks to the hardware so the rest of the software doesn't have to. All operating systems have kernels, but a kernel by itself is not an operating system. You gotta have stuff to make, like, the taskbar in windows, and other shit, before you've got an operating system.' "So the 'Linux' is the kernel, and the 'GNU' is everything else." 'Yeah.' "I've never heard of that before." 'Well... it's kinda complex, but that's what it's supposed to be called.' "Ok, but anyway, if my brother hooks me up with Linux--" '--GNU/Linux.' "Whatever..." (At this point, the bassist is a little pissed off. He may not be a computer geek, but he's heard about Linux. It's not an uncommon term these days. However, GNU in general, and GNU/Linux in particular, is. So, I'm basically telling him that his perception of the world is wrong. In my experience, his reaction is representative of *everyone* who isn't already with the "in crowd.") "...my brother gets me RedHat, and I can run your software?" 'Yeah, that's the idea. Really, though, you don't need your brother to get RedHat for you, because it's Free Software.' "Oh, that's good, my broke ass likes free! Hahaha!" (I'm now resisting the temptation to elaborate on the definition of "Free Software" in light of his negative reaction to "GNU/Linux.) "Specimen is free too, right?" (I can resist no longer.) 'Well, yes, but that's only part of the point. When I say "free software" I mean "free as in free speech," not "free as in free beer." I mean, yeah, it costs zero dollars, but what's really important is that anybody is free to share and modify the code.' "So free software is like open sources, only you don't have to pay for it?" 'Well, you don't really have to pay for open source software either.' "Wait, I'm confused. If you don't have to pay for it, why is it, like, fifty bucks at Office Depot?" 'Well you *can* pay for it if you want to. You get stuff like professionally made CDs, manual, and technical support, and updates as they get released if you buy it. See, RedHat is what's called a GNU/Linux "distribution." They don't really own and sell GNU/Linux, what they own and sell is the service is distributing and supporting their version of GNU/Linux.' "So why are there two ways to say the same thing? It's confusing as shit!" 'They don't mean exactly the same thing, but that's basically a technicality. Free software represents the idea of software freedom, that *everyone* should be free to share and modify *all* software because that's, like, a human right. Open source means that being able to share and modify software is pretty cool and actually a good way to make software.' "A human right? That's reachin' man." I'm sure you can guess that, from here, we had a huge debate about IP. His immutable stance was that our current IP laws and enforcement is a little whack, but the idea that everything should be "open sources" (never did come around to "free software") is bonkers. I justified my position with the standard FSF talking points. Didn't work for shit. I have been through this a lot. Way too damn much. It was a CONSISTENT pain in my ass. And if you doubt my "purity," check the archives of my website: http://web.archive.org/web/20040109215919/http://www.gazuga.net/ The problem with insisting on the use of "GNU/Linux" and "Free Software" when attempting to garner broader public support is that the public has already been exposed to our platform --- and they call it "Linux" and "Open Source(s)." If you think this isn't a problem, re-read my comment about "alternate realities" above. The reason the public uses these terms, and not the others, is because they are the dominant players that emerged in the market for nomenclature. The connotations embedded in "GNU/Linux" and "Free Software" are ambiguous to those who don't know, and for the vast majority of those who learn or do know, represent a concept they don't give a petrified cat turd about. The maddening consistency of these results is what drove me to shed my own strict FSF approved views. (Not to mention the dissonance it caused with my hardcore libertarian sentiments.) Compare software freedom to gun control debates. Regardless of which side of the fence your on when it comes to keeping and bearing arms, you most likely have an opinion on the matter. But when it comes to software, people, by and large, just want to maximize quality and minimize price. Whatever value they place on "freedom," it is nowhere near enough to make them hop ship. Now, the philosophy behind what does and does not constitute a right is obviously a debatable thing. But from a pragmatic perspective, and like it or not, there simply are not enough people who care to make the freedom pitch work. At least in my dimension. Being a libertarian-anarchist, I'm of the mind that our current approach to IP is wrong. I'd much rather let the market sort it out. To that end, I am member #1301 with the FSF because I enjoy using and developing open source software, as well as being a part of the surrounding community. I personally see it as both a great symbol of freedom, and a subversive way to avoid the IP nightmare I perceive that we live in. But steadfastly insisting on the use of "GNU/Linux" and "free software" when interacting with the general public has proven to be a monumental pain in my ass that has gotten me nowhere. After years of protest, my experience forces me to conclude that ESR is right and RMS is wrong --- the ideology* simply will not sell. In my neck of the universe, that is. Now. If you want to live an ideologically "pure" life, this won't really affect you. (Good luck with that, by the way. Me, I don't argue with the weather, barring extreme circumstances of the torturing-children degree.) But for me personally --- and, I suspect, my ilk generally --- that brand of ideology and terminology has cost far more than it's worth. Whether my goal of open-source proliferation is desirable vis-a-vis working for software freedom is, of course, debatable. It is debatable in two ways. On the one hand, you might argue that it is inferior to convincing everyone of software freedom --- but as this diatribe should prove, my experience has been to the contrary. On the other hand, you might decide to argue that it is a moral imperative --- but to roughly quote David D. Friedman, "moral philosophy is an old enterprise, and its rate of progress has not been great in recent centuries." In essence, you will have to debate my libertarian perspective. And, well, I don't think you'll enjoy that. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go watch FOX news, get drunk on Jim Beam, beat my wife, molest my kids, shoot a homeless person, kick my dog, chop down a tree, drive my SUV to my local school board and demand that darwinism be replaced with creationism in the curriculum, they go to a KKK rally and give a speech in favor of Uncle Sam's two pronged War for Oil and War Against Brown People. Cheers, -Pete * Don't bother deducing from this statement that I am not ideological. It is petty, aggravating, wrong, and argumentum ad hominem. I'd hope that the final paragraph of this message has proven to supply an amply amount of the latter, anyway.
