Posted by: Anonymous
[ip: 200.105.168.90]
on September 02, 2008 01:09 AM
> gNewSense's latest release should prove that FOSS developer's
> time would be better spent at improving their software rather than
> wasting their time with the FSF.
The FSF originally did develop free software and did create a distribution to promote that software, but it has since decided to decided to focus on the structural, legal, and activist issues which weren't being done by other groups in the free software world.
Until the mid-90s, the FSF was dedicated to creating free software and it paid programmers to create the GNU Tools which are included in every distribution of GNU/Linux today. It also sponsored the creation of a distribution which would promote freedom. It was called Debian, and it initially attracted many developers because it was THE distribution sponsored by the FSF. Debian eventually decided to go its separate way when RMS demanded that Debian include debugging info in the software which slowed down execution and made the binaries much larger. For the first decade FSF was one of the principle organizations developing and promoting free software, but when Linux began to take off in the mid-90s, the FSF realized that its original mission to create a clone of UNIX had largely been accomplished. There were hundreds of different groups developing free software and many distributions to deliver it in a nice packaged form. Other groups and businesses were doing a great job of developing free software, so the FSF decided to focus on what wasn't being done by the other groups: namely, political, legal, and activist work. This shift was partly caused by the fact that the FSF was broke. When the FSF was one of the few organizations developing free software, it received a sizable amount of money to pay developers, but by the mid-90s, the rise of the comercial Linux companies dried up the contributions to the FSF. RMS might have been able to do what the Linux Foundations has done and gotten contributions from tech companies to continue software development, but his rhetoric and style scared off the corporate crowd with the deep pockets and many users stopped sending contributions to the FSF, asking why they should pay for development of free software when they can get it for free from companies like Red Hat. In addition, RMS was constitutionally unsuited for the role since he was a horrible project manager, a inadequate promoter and a very divisive figure.
The FSF decided to shift its focus from software development to the general promotion of free software and its values. In the end, we all benefitted from this decision. First of all, it helped decentralize and diversify development of free software since no one group controlled the movement. Plus, it allowed the FSF to focus on the political, legal and activist issues, which no other group was willing to do.
People who say that the FSF should focus on creating free software rather than talking about it and its values, should realize that that plenty of other groups today are focused creating free software (and do a much better job than the FSF ever did as software developers.) Rather than compete with all these different groups, the FSF wisely focuses on what isn't being done and helps to coordinate efforts of many different groups, so that the dream of the GNU Project can be realized. Today the FSF acts as the chief cheerleader and promoter for essential projects like coreboot and Gnash, which are the last pieces preventing people from using 100% free software in their computers. Likewise, the FSF publicly encourages people to use distributions which only include free software such as Ututo and GNewSense.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Understanding the focus of the FSF
Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 200.105.168.90] on September 02, 2008 01:09 AM> time would be better spent at improving their software rather than
> wasting their time with the FSF.
The FSF originally did develop free software and did create a distribution to promote that software, but it has since decided to decided to focus on the structural, legal, and activist issues which weren't being done by other groups in the free software world.
Until the mid-90s, the FSF was dedicated to creating free software and it paid programmers to create the GNU Tools which are included in every distribution of GNU/Linux today. It also sponsored the creation of a distribution which would promote freedom. It was called Debian, and it initially attracted many developers because it was THE distribution sponsored by the FSF. Debian eventually decided to go its separate way when RMS demanded that Debian include debugging info in the software which slowed down execution and made the binaries much larger. For the first decade FSF was one of the principle organizations developing and promoting free software, but when Linux began to take off in the mid-90s, the FSF realized that its original mission to create a clone of UNIX had largely been accomplished. There were hundreds of different groups developing free software and many distributions to deliver it in a nice packaged form. Other groups and businesses were doing a great job of developing free software, so the FSF decided to focus on what wasn't being done by the other groups: namely, political, legal, and activist work. This shift was partly caused by the fact that the FSF was broke. When the FSF was one of the few organizations developing free software, it received a sizable amount of money to pay developers, but by the mid-90s, the rise of the comercial Linux companies dried up the contributions to the FSF. RMS might have been able to do what the Linux Foundations has done and gotten contributions from tech companies to continue software development, but his rhetoric and style scared off the corporate crowd with the deep pockets and many users stopped sending contributions to the FSF, asking why they should pay for development of free software when they can get it for free from companies like Red Hat. In addition, RMS was constitutionally unsuited for the role since he was a horrible project manager, a inadequate promoter and a very divisive figure.
The FSF decided to shift its focus from software development to the general promotion of free software and its values. In the end, we all benefitted from this decision. First of all, it helped decentralize and diversify development of free software since no one group controlled the movement. Plus, it allowed the FSF to focus on the political, legal and activist issues, which no other group was willing to do.
People who say that the FSF should focus on creating free software rather than talking about it and its values, should realize that that plenty of other groups today are focused creating free software (and do a much better job than the FSF ever did as software developers.) Rather than compete with all these different groups, the FSF wisely focuses on what isn't being done and helps to coordinate efforts of many different groups, so that the dream of the GNU Project can be realized. Today the FSF acts as the chief cheerleader and promoter for essential projects like coreboot and Gnash, which are the last pieces preventing people from using 100% free software in their computers. Likewise, the FSF publicly encourages people to use distributions which only include free software such as Ututo and GNewSense.
#