GNU-Darwin: Three Years of Free Software Activism 374
JigSaw writes "The GNU-Darwin Distribution is a free BSD operating system and a popular source of free software for Mac OS X and Darwin-x86 users, but it is also a platform for digital activism. Founder Michael L. Love wrote an editorial speaking about the roots, goals, problems and just about everything about GNU-Darwin. Free Software is at the core of GNU-Darwin and also anything political that has an impact on digital and even rights. Is this the first truly politically oriented BSD OS?" Nope.
How curious. "Remove it"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Political? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not quite "fair" politically. (Score:4, Interesting)
In fact, we did blackout the home page as a war protest in March, and we blackened the whole website, after Apple used the DMCA, but we have never actually taken it off line. Fortunately, the situation has never warranted taking the package collection off line, which would be an even more drastic step, and our actual users have never been affected by these actions. In fact, we received many orders and messages of support as a result of our activism.
While I realize that MOST of the supporters of Darwin may in fact be politically liberal...this is not fair for the [conservative and otherwise] users that are not. I'm not looking to start a flame war, but I believe that inserting his political beliefs into his work project is less than elegant.
A nice idea, but I have my doubts that it'll work (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd like to think the editorial was right when it stated that the community hopes to pressure SCO into changing its ways, much like the effect they probably had on Apple. Unfortunately, the problem is here that SCO doesn't give a damn about the community. SCO is all about profit, pleasing investors, and making a quick buck.
Re:Darwin (Score:4, Interesting)
Quick...name one Fortune 1000 company seriously considering a move to Hurd.
Ultimately, it's not Stallmans call over what kernel is used. That's sorta the thing with the GPL. Since it's all GPLed, people can pick what kernel they like. Some folks will jump to Hurd. My own guess is that very few will abandon Linux, at least in the forseeable future.
FWIW...People who want to dispose of the Linux kernel now do have an option. Last time I checked, the Debian/NetBSD folks had something going, tho they has some "interesting" ideas about licenses. I haven't seen a mad rush that direction from either the Debian or the NetBSD camp.
That said...we could use a new toolchain on top of Linux. Not because of any "consipricy" on the part of Stallman and his cabal, but because the GNU compilers are vastly better at portability that optimization. Having something as good as the Intel compiler or the DEC Alpha compiler for ever arch would be nice...
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Zealot! (Score:5, Interesting)
Scary.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Can you imagine if you were in a restaurant and the waiter berates you for being pro/anti-abortion, pro/anti gun or being christian/jewish/whatever??
I'm sorry, this guy is really no much different than the child molesters who tempt kids with candy , only to get them into the back of their vans. Harsh, but true.
Re:That was scary (Score:2, Interesting)
On my s-list at the moment:
- GNUPG people for their antiwar stuff
- GNU/Darwin for several of their stances
- OpenBSD (well, Theo, mostly) for being upset when the hand that feeds them stops when they bit it.
The political crap doesn't further your cause, it only turns off users. For me, with GNU/Darwin, it's easy. I don't use it, because there are better [debian.org] unix-like platforms [netbsd.org] available for PPC. And there's no contest on x86.
A Geek's Guide to Political Discourse (Score:3, Interesting)
I believe it is because the way that technical people see problems is very different form the way that non-technical people see problems.
Technical problems typically involve tradeoffs. E.g. if you use this certain data structure, you will get fast deletion and insertion, at the cost of slower searching; if you use this data structure searching, deletion and insertion are all reasonably fast, but it is difficult to code.
The concept of a compromise is thus in our vocabulary, but usually it's a negative -- that is, most technical compromises suck.
The idea of a win-win scenario, where everyone wins, is very foreign to us techies. We see things in terms of "this vs. that."
RTFA to see a great example of this. The political points made are all made in terms of "Us vs. Them." They are on one side, and they are in opposition to another side. It is very warlike, in fact, and someone who does not already agree with their point of view -- who might not yet have an opinion on the matter -- is going to be very put off by the language used. And those who do disagree but who are otherwise open-minded are immediately going to be put on the defensive.
The only solution to the problem with Diebold (for example) that will help things is a solution that also helps Diebold's bottom line.
Consider this point of view: Diebold faces a long-term growth problem if they force buggy voting machines on the public. The truth always comes out, and if Diebold doesn't take action, the resulting backlash and loss of trust will bury the company. If, however, they acknowledge what is a simple technical limitation and fix it, and work with the community, they are not only likely to land contracts now, but to dominate the market in the future. This leads to substantial revenue in the future.
Notice that I'm talking about what Diebold itself is most concerned with. This is the only way to have any discussion: Talk to people in terms of their interests, not yours. Diebold doesn't care one way or another, as a company, how they make money. But obviously destruction of Democracy as an institution is bad for them: They will be the first ones lined up against the wall when the revolution comes.
Unlike technical solutions, people problems deal with people, who are irrational and emotional. If you consider someone else's point of view first, you can get them to see your side of things, and convince them to pursue another course of action. And when that happens, everyone thinks they win. And when everyone thinks they can benefit from a course of action, suddenly change becomes easy.
PLEASE NOTE: (Score:5, Interesting)
Seems to me that this 'GNU-Darwin' is no more than a political website, probably distributing the stock Darwin unchanged.
Stupid, stupid people. This can of worms has been opened before - don't they know that polotics is not considered 'added-value'? And if they don't have anything substantial to add to the core Darwin, they won't last more than it takes for them to come up with some other bandwagon.
-Adam
Re:Not quite "fair" politically. (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a crock of shit. Conservatives are big believers in volunteer work and charitable causes. I've given money to, trained with, and volunteered for the Red Cross, among other organizations.
Or does that not count? One of the appealing things about Linux is the volunteer aspect. I don't always agree with the politics of the Linux community, but I admire the work, among other reasons, for the public good that results.
Liberals and/or Democrats do not have a monopoly on good works for the sake of good works.
Insider's bombshell: How Darwin killed FreeBSD (Score:1, Interesting)
[ed. note: in the following text, former FreeBSD developer Mike Smith gives his reasons for abandoning FreeBSD]
When I stood for election to the FreeBSD core team nearly two years ago, many of you will recall that it was after a long series of debates during which I maintained that too much organisation, too many rules and too much formality would be a bad thing for the project.
Today, as I read the latest discussions on the future of the FreeBSD project, I see the same problem; a few new faces and many of the old going over the same tired arguments and suggesting variations on the same worthless schemes. Frankly I'm sick of it.
FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.
It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.
So I'm leaving core. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.
Discussion
I'm sure that I've offended some people already; I'm sure that by the time I'm done here, I'll have offended more. If you feel a need to play to the crowd in your replies rather than make a sincere effort to address the problems I'm discussing here, please do us the courtesy of playing your politics openly.
From a technical perspective, the project faces a set of challenges that significantly outstrips our ability to deliver. Some of the resources that we need to address these challenges are tied up in the fruitless metadiscussions that have raged since we made the mistake of electing officers. Others have left in disgust, or been driven out by the culture of abuse and distraction that has grown up since then. More may well remain available to recruitment, but while the project is busy infighting our chances for successful outreach are sorely diminished.
There's no simple solution to this. For the project to move forward, one or the other of the warring philosophies must win out; either the project returns to its laid-back roots and gets on with the work, or it transforms into a super-organised engineering project and executes a brilliant plan to deliver what, ultimately, we all know we want.
Whatever path is chosen, whatever balance is struck, the choosing and the striking are the important parts. The current indecision and endless conflict are incompatible with any sort of progress.
Trying to dissect the above is far beyond the scope of any parting shot, no matter how distended. All I can really ask of you all is to let go of the minutiae for a moment and take a look at the big picture. What is the ultimate goal here? How can we get there with as little overhead as possible? How would you like to be treated by your fellow travellers?
Shouts
To the Slashdot "BSD is dying" crowd - big deal. Death is part of the cycle; take a look at your soft, pallid bodies and consider that right this very moment, parts of you are dying. See? It's not so bad.
To the bulk of the FreeBSD committerbase and the developer community at large - keep your eyes on the real goals. I
a popular source of free software for OS X... (Score:3, Interesting)
On what planet? I think the poster is thinking of Fink, which is at this point quite apolitical. Everyone tends to shun GNU-Darwin, generally because the bootstrap script was originally horrendously insecure [slashdot.org]. This appears to have been fixed, but they're still downloading completely unnecessary binaries (you don't need wget to download a single file! curl does that just fine).
free ??? (Score:1, Interesting)
GPL/GNU is not free it is cripple licensed. Free software can be used by anyone for anything without any licensing/legal strings attached.
If you really want to know this, try to get your legal department to allow you to link GPL code directly into your company's commercial software. That same commercial software provides your income.
Stop flattering yourself. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's kind of sad you need to write these articles yourself. I mean, if people actually liked your distribution, they'd be writing these crappy articles for you! You don't see Linus submitting stories to Slashdot about Linux, do you?
Darwin [apple.com] already has a mature, GPL-licensed, Stallman-compatible software distribution: Fink [sourceforge.net]. Hell, it' even uses apt, the favourite software management tool of people everywhere [debian.org]. There's also the aforementioned DarwinPorts project, for people that wish to use modern, ports-like system on Darwin.
Maybe GNU-Darwin should be focusing on important things: It's not part of MetaPKG [metapkg.org], the massive collaborative Darwin software effort, which Fink and DarwinPorts primary members. Even the newcomer Gentoo has been invited to take part. But GNU-Darwin has not.
The future of Darwin software is setting sail, yet GNU-Darwin isn't on the boat. This can't possibly bode well for GNU-Darwin's future relevance on the platform. Maybe they should be working to become a part of that, instead of submitting rubbish to Kuro5hin [kuro5hin.org], Slashdot and OSNews.
Right now, GNU-Darwin is totally irrelevant, and there's nothing on the horizon to change that. If it disappeared tomorrow, no-one would notice. Instead of trolling here at Slashdot, go do something! [metapkg.org]