Re: RMS: users request you perhaps program HURD: they fear the path the linux kernel is going.

[Jean Louis]

* Nala Ginrut <address@hidden> [2019-11-16 09:00]:
> >> For the diversity, we never know if there're any youngmen group love to
> >> create a new FOSS operating system, no matter if it's the requirement
> >> from the market.
> 
> I hope so. But my reasonable mind tells me there must be some
> requirement from the market, since it's the foundation to be a real
> industrial level OS.

We humans invent all the time things that we do not currently need on
the market.

So there are two groups of new inventions, those which are demanded by
the market and those which are not. Products and services can create
the demand for themselves. You create something new, and get people to
like it.

> I've managed to use my GNU Artanis in real product development, and
> response to the real requirements from the market. So that GNU Artanis got
> polished much since then, and become stronger day after day. In the
> beginning, for the architecure design, the passion matters, but for
> robustness, the market requirements matters. When you get commercial
> requirements, you can employ people to work on it, and it become
> stronger.

I understand it from that viewpoint.

I know how Markdown started, there was maybe some need on the market,
but maybe also not, the author made it for himself, to be simpler than
other solutions. Before Markdown I have been using m4 with good
success, then also various HTML tools and ePerl and what else. For
some better HTML markup today I am using even Org mode. When I started
using markdown, I think before 15 years, not so sure, there was just
few people using it at all. I did not know anybody else. And I had my
own static website revision system before it was even known or
available on the market. I knew what I needed. Later on, many static
website revision systems came into existance. Demand can be
created.

> > There is high risk that what we know as free software movement over
> > the future decades gets totally corrupted into "open source" type of
> > movement and even "open source" to get corrupted into various new
> > perverted licenses and traps in the future.
> 
> I think we may have to release some limitations. If people contribute to
> FOSS, then they're actually following free software philosophy. Most
> people just want to contribute to show they good mind, and they haven't
> gotten the idea of free software philosophy, this needs time. If you
> tell them it's bad contribute to BSD licensed rather than GPLed
> projects, then you're making enemies not friends.

They may not necessarily be following free software philosophy. There
are many people who are not interested in any free software
philosophy, not even reading or understanding the license they are
using to publish their software. I have found examples on Github.

And I do agree with you that telling somebody it is bad to contribute
to BSD licensed software would be making animosity and divisions, that
is really not wanted. One would need to understand the moral stance on
GPL software and then compare it, and join if one thinks it is good to
follow such.

> After they understand the meaning of free software philosophy, then they
> may understand the problem of opensource. 
> 
> > Even the abbreviation FOSS is one way of how it gets astray, I would
> > not use it, and rather promote free software philosophy as strategy
> > for future. One has to promote how to distinguish between free
> > software and open source. Those are quite different directions, one
> > carries the motivation of freedom, while other does perverts it and
> > hides it.
> 
> To me, free software philosophy is a better mind to follow compared to
> proprietary or opensource, but it's never a religion to me. So that I
> wouldn't pick the words like FOSS or FLOSS, sometimes I use opensource
> to people who never know about free software. There's limitation for the
> people who lacks sufficient knowladge about your area, so I have to
> use the words they can understand.

Also for me is not religion, but using "open source" hides the meaning
of free software philosophy, it was designed to hide the true meaning
from its beginnings. Thus I always promoted GNU/Linux and "free
software", and have given several speeches on free software. On those
meetings people were mostly interested how to install it and how to be
free from licensing requirements. They got the point. Then somebody
comes and speaks about "open source", so I let them be.

Sure it is good to use words people understand, but that is making
slower progress. The terminology is important and it is not that new,
it is already for decades in existance. So if we are to teach people
about free software, we better teach them what came first, not what
came after. Liberating people is joy. Installing free OS on their
computer and terminating their Windoze virus OS is even more
joy. Offering them some private support and being welcomed in their
houses with cakes, food, entertainment and friendship is what is my
experience.

> As I said, when you don't treat free software a religion, many things are
> understandable. The point is how can the freedom of software can help
> the world.

Well I don't know what you mean with religion, it is certainly not. I
see it as necessity, similarly like food and water. Neither food nor
water are religion, but people must use it. Software is set of
instructions by unknown people, and if set of instructions is wanted
to do one specific thing, it should not do other thing that was not
wanted. If you order water, you don't want to get poison under the
brand of water. Only free software allows users to verify if they got
the poison or not. Even such verifications are hard, but the more
people work on certain free software project, the more trust exists
that such free software is safe.

With BSD licenses you are not ensured to get the sources. Such BSD
software with sources is good, but if you get binaries under BSD
license, you have no idea what is going on, thus it is again sales of
poison, which Windoze systems are proving over and over again since
decades.

Why Windows sucks:
https://itvision.altervista.org/why-windows-10-sucks.html

And remember, Windows has many BSD parts inside. BSD software used in
Windows was once "open source" and it is used now to trap
people. Copyleft GPL license would never allow that.

Jean