Richard Stallman's thoughts on Gentoo

Message

CliveHarris · Post by **CliveHarris** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 12:02 pm

I went to a lecture by RMS last night and, in the discussion afterwards, I asked him if he had any recommendations about Linux distributions (sorry, GNU/Linux distributions!). The gist of his answer was that the only distro he unreservedly supported was "Ubuntu", but Gentoo came out better than most because it would only install packages the user specifically asked for, so you know exactly what you're getting. His main criticism was the inclusion of "unfree" packages in the portage tree.

When I explained to him about the package masking policy, where "unsafe" packages had to be specifically asked for, he approved and thought it was a step in the right direction.

I think to get him fully onside you would have to mask or remove all the "non-GPL-compatable" packages. However, perhaps there is a case for having a keyword or USE flag which would allow a "pure GPL" user to filter out incompatible packages.

As for myself, I'm not quite so particular. I've installed the Nvidia graphics drivers and a few other "unfree" packages. I don't like it but I'm willing to compromise where necessary.

By the way, after that we grabbed Richard's laptop to see what he was running. It turned out to be a customised version of Debian.

moocha · Post by **moocha** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 12:09 pm

I don't see a way to do that *and* at the same time not to fall into the same trap as Debian, namely a slow development cycle... That's the good thing about distributions - there are so many of them that one can choose if one doesn't like one

PingEnt · Post by **PingEnt** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 12:22 pm

CliveHarris wrote: I think to get him fully onside you would have to mask or remove all the "non-GPL-compatable" packages. However, perhaps there is a case for having a keyword or USE flag which would allow a "pure GPL" user to filter out incompatible packages.

Hmm, I think I've heard/read something about a "ACCEPT_LICENSE=" keyword thing that is being devolped for Portage, but maybe I've dreamt the whole thing

miqorz · Post by **miqorz** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 1:01 pm

So the Lord thy God has spoken. SO IT SHALL BE DONE.

Stormy Eyes · Post by **Stormy Eyes** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 1:12 pm

It's not like "non-free" packages are installed by default. You have to ask for a non-GPL package just like you have to ask for everything else, so what's Stallman's beef?

miqorz · Post by **miqorz** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 1:14 pm

Stormy Eyes wrote:It's not like "non-free" packages are installed by default. You have to ask for a non-GPL package just like you have to ask for everything else, so what's Stallman's beef?

He's a GPL zealot, but can you blame him?

CliveHarris · Post by **CliveHarris** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 1:14 pm

After I got back from the meeting, I told my 9-year-old daughter that I had met the man who had written most of the programs on her computer. She looked puzzled for a minute and then said "Is he very famous - you know - like Bill Gates? He must be very rich! Did you shake his hand?"

Stormy Eyes · Post by **Stormy Eyes** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 1:14 pm

miqorz wrote:So the Lord thy God has spoken. SO IT SHALL BE DONE.

Get it right, man. It's supposed to be "So it shall be written. So it shall be done." (Eddie 6:66), 'cos Iron Maiden fucking rules.

miqorz · Post by **miqorz** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 1:25 pm

Stormy Eyes wrote:
miqorz wrote:So the Lord thy God has spoken. SO IT SHALL BE DONE.
Get it right, man. It's supposed to be "So it shall be written. So it shall be done." (Eddie 6:66), 'cos Iron Maiden fucking rules.

I know this, But he said it - So it isn't written!

CliveHarris · Post by **CliveHarris** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 1:29 pm

It's not like "non-free" packages are installed by default. You have to ask for a non-GPL package just like you have to ask for everything else, so what's Stallman's beef

I think his point was that you shouldn't be able to ACCIDENTLY install non-GPL packages. i.e. you shouldn't get them unless you specifically ask for them. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I can see his point.

By the way. No, I didn't shake hands with him. I'm sure all celebrities must get heartily sick of sycophants "pressing the flesh" just to brag about it afterwards!

miqorz · Post by **miqorz** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 1:32 pm

If I ever met RMS, he'd kick my ass for using FreeBSD, lol.

Stormy Eyes · Post by **Stormy Eyes** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 1:46 pm

CliveHarris wrote:I think his point was that you shouldn't be able to ACCIDENTLY install non-GPL packages. i.e. you shouldn't get them unless you specifically ask for them. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I can see his point.

How in the dark eternal do you install something like Flash or RealPlayer by accident? How do you install anything in Gentoo by accident? I can understand installing something unwanted as a dependency, or if you're drunk, but by accident?

miqorz · Post by **miqorz** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 1:47 pm

Stormy Eyes wrote:
CliveHarris wrote:I think his point was that you shouldn't be able to ACCIDENTLY install non-GPL packages. i.e. you shouldn't get them unless you specifically ask for them. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I can see his point.
How in the dark eternal do you install something like Flash or RealPlayer by accident? How do you install anything in Gentoo by accident? I can understand installing something unwanted as a dependency, or if you're drunk, but by accident?

I think he means installing something without knowing it's not GPL.

richk449 · Post by **richk449** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 2:02 pm

From what CliveHarris said, Stallman liked Gentoo because you don't have to worry about "accidentally installing real player" or something like it. He is making a contrast between Gentoo, where the user makes all the choices, and the RedHat/Suse/Mandrake/etc type distros where there is a default installation that often includes non-free (as in freedom) software.

Miqorz - you should just put the fact that you run BSD in your sig, so that you dont have to bring it up in every thread.

Athas · Post by **Athas** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 2:14 pm

Stormy Eyes wrote:
CliveHarris wrote:I think his point was that you shouldn't be able to ACCIDENTLY install non-GPL packages. i.e. you shouldn't get them unless you specifically ask for them. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I can see his point.
How in the dark eternal do you install something like Flash or RealPlayer by accident? How do you install anything in Gentoo by accident? I can understand installing something unwanted as a dependency, or if you're drunk, but by accident?

Subtle nonfree packages kan be pulled in as dependencies. Personally, I'd a USE-flag that made Portage barf if it encountered a nonfree license in a package it was about to install. Then I would be able to deal with it on a case by case basis.

If I ever met RMS, he'd kick my ass for using FreeBSD, lol. Laughing

I doubt it, apart from the fact that Stallman isn't very strong, his website used to run on FreeBSD.

miqorz · Post by **miqorz** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 2:32 pm

richk449 wrote:From what CliveHarris said, Stallman liked Gentoo because you don't have to worry about "accidentally installing real player" or something like it. He is making a contrast between Gentoo, where the user makes all the choices, and the RedHat/Suse/Mandrake/etc type distros where there is a default installation that often includes non-free (as in freedom) software.

Miqorz - you should just put the fact that you run BSD in your sig, so that you dont have to bring it up in every thread.

lol

spb · Post by **spb** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 2:55 pm

Athas wrote:Personally, I'd a USE-flag that made Portage barf if it encountered a nonfree license in a package it was about to install. Then I would be able to deal with it on a case by case basis.

GLEP 23.

ciaranm · Post by **ciaranm** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 3:03 pm

We had this discussion with him a while back... He started out demanding that we removed all non-Free stuff from the tree, and then backed down to "only accept fsf-approved licences by default" when GLEP 23 was mentioned.

senectus · Post by **senectus** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 3:29 pm

RMS is a legend

But I honestly believe that by the time his hard on for "GPL ONLY" environments are a commercial possibility, he'll be well past caring.

But you always need "extremist hippies" to balance out the evil being done by the capitalist henchmen currently wrecking the world.

edit: yes I'm aware of how contradicting the above statements are

RMS is a powerhouse of philosophical brilliance.. I just think that he's come too early

ciaranm · Post by **ciaranm** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 3:36 pm

senectus wrote:RMS is a legend
But I honestly believe that by the time his hard on for "GPL ONLY" environments are a commercial possibility, he'll be well past caring.

Well, since you need some *BSD licenced stuff to be able to build the "GPL ONLY" userland, that's kinda tricky... I think he cares more about "FSF approved" licences than purely GPL.

Post by **pjp** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 5:26 pm

CliveHarris wrote:I think to get him fully onside

I didn't know we were trying. RMS can keep is unreasonable ideals to himself, and the software he develops. Thanks.

tomk · Post by **tomk** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 6:00 pm

CliveHarris wrote:However, perhaps there is a case for having a keyword or USE flag which would allow a "pure GPL" user to filter out incompatible packages.

Me and a few others wrote a licenses2kill script which will remove any packages with licenses that you don't want.

wdreinhart · Post by **wdreinhart** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 7:29 pm

Stormy Eyes wrote:so what's Stallman's beef?

He's tormented by the knowledge that someone, somewhere is writing non-GPL software.

Liquid · Post by **Liquid** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 8:47 pm

pjp wrote:I didn't know we were trying. RMS can keep is unreasonable ideals to himself, and the software he develops. Thanks.

Why so aggressive with RMS?

moocha · Post by **moocha** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 9:14 pm

Liquid wrote:
pjp wrote:I didn't know we were trying. RMS can keep is unreasonable ideals to himself, and the software he develops. Thanks.
Why so aggressive with RMS?

Reflecting in kind

Fanaticism tends to make people suspicious of one's motives.

Richard Stallman's thoughts on Gentoo

Richard Stallman's thoughts on Gentoo

Re: Richard Stallman's thoughts on Gentoo

Is he ... like Bill Gates?

Re: Richard Stallman's thoughts on Gentoo

Re: Richard Stallman's thoughts on Gentoo

Re: Richard Stallman's thoughts on Gentoo

Re: Richard Stallman's thoughts on Gentoo