Linux Advocates and Freedom Advocates

by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Some Linux advocates have had the bitter experience of being labelled "faux" advocates and dismissed as being invalid advocates who must be ostracised. People who are Linux advocates arrive from a wide spectrum of backgrounds, either political, philosophical, or whatever. Some Linux advocates engage in parallel activism in the areas of feminism, government transparency, censorship/free speech, and science, to name just a few. Those do not interfere with the goal of advancing Linux, or GNU/Linux.

It is disheartening to see and I regret to say that some Linux advocates get muzzled because to them, GNU/Linux advocacy needs to accompany a broader agenda, which may or may not convey some of the same principles adhered to by GNU/Linux luminaries.

It is fair to say that Linux is apolitical because the project's founder rarely mixes his technical work with political burden. But if by "Linux" one refers to a broader system, for instance GNU/Linux with some vast desktop environment like KDE, then it is fair to say that freedom advocacy deserves plenty of room. KDE and GNU both market themselves as being pro-freedom, more so than Linux.

When Linux advocates argue that freedom takes precedence over power (as in the power of a program), they should not be dismissed as "radical", "extremist", etc. It is most likely that these people actually represent the views of many Linux developers, where by "Linux" they refer to a system far bigger than a kernel. Whether immersion of politics in software contributes to infighting, division and alienation of corporate participation is a subject which merits debate. But open discussion is definitely compatible with the underlying strengths of Free and Open Source software.

-- Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Related articles

• GNU and Linux: It's Not Just About Attribution But Also Philosophy
• Linux or GNU/Linux: Is the Distinction Worth Preserving?
• Why Advocacy of Linux Must Not Tolerate Censorship
• The Linux Inside Stigma
• What Is Our Goal Here?

Read More

Why Advocacy of Linux Must Not Tolerate Censorship

by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

When  the GNU/Linux system was created 30 years ago it was motivated by the belief that -- as much as we may wish to control others -- in order to guarantee everyone's individual freedom we must decentralise and mitigate/neutralise remote control. Isolation between users and developers was annulled. Every user was capable of doing what a developer could. This clever 'hacking' of unwanted relationships between users and developers, such as the exclusivity in access to code, was removed in the licence sense.

Linux thrived owing to the adoption of licensing requirements that assure each and every contributor will retain full control over the entire system, dependants included. It sure is a motivator for many who work for FOSS-centric companies. It's a recruitment tool, too.

If code is law, as Professor Lessig put it, then using code we can control behaviour too. If we are to honour the same principles that motivated the GNU/Linux system, then we must reject the notion of censorship, no matter the platform. Not every commit -- so to speak -- needs to be accepted upstream, but its existence should be allowed and its integrity honoured. Free software is about a diversity of practices, not about imposition from above or the direct and at times explicit coercion of one over another.


Over the years I have come across thin-skinned people that excuse their practice of censorship by calling those whose opinions they do not agree with "trolls", or some of those equally insulting terms like "shills". This labelling is being used suppress comments or writers -- an issue I am familiar with as a former writer for some online news sites. My experience there taught me the role played by editors to whom controversial but otherwise truthful statement are too 'hot' to publish. This is how ideas get silently killed, or spiked. It manufactures the habit of self censorship -- an unnecessary restraint which limits one's scope of thinking.

Speaking for myself, I never deleted comments or suppressed replies, even though many of them (thousands among tens of thousands) included insults and sometimes libel. We must learn to tolerate opposing views and even disruption. That is what freedom is about.

In order to stay true to the standards of Linux and GNU as successful, leading projects that respect and harbour all voices we must stay true to the same principles that made Free software thrive. Failing to do so would lead us down the path of many failed projects which -- unlike Linux -- no longer attract volunteer contributors (who at times, in due course, found way to get paid for it as well).

Advocacy which is hinged on amplifying oneself while silencing the rest is not advocacy, it is marketing. And marketing is almost antithetical to what science-driven programming strives to achieve. In science, bad ideas die based on their merit, or lack thereof. The messengers earn or lose credibility based on their words. Let bad commentary die based on readers' assessments. Don't suppress it at an editorial level as that would project weakness, not strength.



- Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Related articles

• Linux or GNU/Linux: Is the Distinction Worth Preserving?
• Advocacy by Highlighting Flaws Found in the Opposition
• The Low Point - a View from the Valley
• Software To Love

Read More

Linux or GNU/Linux: Is the Distinction Worth Preserving?

by +Katherine Noyes

As a young reporter just starting to cover Linux not so very many years ago, I quickly learned that simply calling it “Linux” is a grave mistake in the eyes of some.

“It should be GNU/Linux,” they'd urge. “Linux is just the kernel.”

That distinction was made crystal-clear for me when I had the opportunity to interview none other than Richard Stallman, whose willingness to be interviewed was actually conditional upon LinuxInsider's agreement to use the term “GNU/Linux.” (Image credit: springfieldpc.dyndns.org)

“Linux is just one component of the GNU/Linux system, which is, in turn, just a part of the world of free software,” Stallman told me back then. “You'll have no chance of understanding or explaining anything about the Free World if you don't keep those distinctions straight.”

The Free Software Foundation, of course, provides a very nice explanation of the difference on its site.

Rarely sighted

Fast forward to today, and I still occasionally hear the same argument made. Just the other day, in fact, I was reminded by a reader of the distinction.

Take a quick scan through the Linux media, however – including not just LinuxInsider but also Linux Today, Linux Journal, the Linux Line section at PCWorld, and the site you're reading now, among numerous other publications – and you'll soon get a pretty strong indication that the distinction is rarely upheld.

You won't see it made routinely by the Linux Foundation or on Linux.com, and Linux creator Linus Torvalds himself has reportedly dismissed it.

My question to you, fellow Linux Advocates, is whether it's really still worth making. Personally, I don't think it is.

More than a mouthful

I realize that there are strong historical and philosophical reasons for separating the Linux kernel from the GNU system.

I also realize that it's technically more accurate to call it GNU/Linux.

What I'm also aware of, however, is that few beyond the inner core of free software enthusiasts still adhere to or understand the distinction; to most mainstream users, it's baffling. The term GNU/Linux is klunky and unwieldy in printed text, and even more so when you're speaking.

Meanwhile, as Linux advocates, we all want to promote Linux, and to advance its use over proprietary counterparts – right? We'd like to see Linux covered as much as possible for all its many successes, making clear to the mainstream world that it is now a fully competitive alternative.

Are those goals worth sacrificing in the interests of a linguistic distinction? I'm thinking not.

Connecting the dots

Please make no mistake: I am nothing if not an advocate for Linux and free software in general.

Personally, however, I'd rather see Linux trumpeted on the pages of PCWorld and other mainstream publications as “Linux” than see stories passed by because of the niggling debate over its name, which tends to make editors groan. Personally, I'd rather be able to have a conversation with an SMB about the advantages of “Linux” than have to bog down my speech with the clumsy “GNU/” as well, thereby potentially confusing them.

Realistically, we're lucky if mainstream users and readers today are familiar with Linux, per se; I generally make sure to add the “Linux” name to headlines involving distros such as Ubuntu and Fedora to help them make that connection.

But to add “GNU/” to the conversation? It's unreasonably idealistic, and just doesn't make sense. If we want to advance the use of Linux in the mainstream world, let's leave the history and the deep-seated philosophy for the background.

It won't get lost, I promise; rather, it will still be fully available for those who care. For all others, it will free up the “Linux” term to help us chip away faster at all the many proprietary monopolies in this computing world.

In closing, I offer you this last bit of evidence. Go to Wikipedia.org's home page and search on "GNU/Linux." What do you get? It redirects you to "Linux." That, I think, sums up the prevailing sentiment nicely.

-- Katherine Noyes

Related articles

• Following The Freedom
• Software To Love
• The GNU/Linux "Desktop"
• The Great Debate: Is it Linux or GNU/Linux?

Read More

Following The Freedom

By +Robert Pogson

One of the beauties of GNU/Linux is the freedom to change things. A couple of years ago, I converted most of the PCs in my home to GNU/Linux but another family member converted some to Ubuntu GNU/Linux while I used Debian GNU/Linux. At first there wasn't much difference in the user-interface so we got along well enough. Mostly the Ubuntu GNU/Linux systems just ran a browser or a multimedia application so users were interacting with that rather than the OS. Lately, Canonical has been "innovating" a little more than I like and recent versions are a jarring experience for the user of Debian GNU/Linux or that other OS:

• sluggish, jerky performance,
• slow updates,
• windowing widgets in top-left instead of top-right...,
• various problems with audio and video

Read More

Guest Writer Robert Pogson on Deck

As part of a regular weekly series, Katherine and I will be having Guest Writer appearances on Linux Advocates.

Robert Pogson, Technology Analyst

We are pleased to announce that +Robert Pogson, Technology Analyst, has kindly and graciously accepted an invitation to write and will be making a 'Guest Writer' appearance this coming week.

Robert offers up this short bio about himself:

"Robert Pogson is an old man in his sixth career, retirement. That leaves time for writing about GNU/Linux in his spare time between gardening, hunting, grandfathering, and walking around.

GNU/Linux found him in the Arctic of Canada trying to keep five PCs running for one class at a time in his classroom. That other OS did not work. GNU/Linux did. Since then he has introduced thousands of students and teachers to GNU/Linux and they have enjoyed increased reliability and performance for very little cost.

He has learned about Free Software and sharing. That's the right way to do IT and he doesn't miss an opportunity to tell everyone about it."

Robert Pogson is a regular commentator on +Katherine Noyes' LinuxInsider Linux Blog Safari column.  He also maintains his own blog website providing regular insightful stories covering all manner of  Information Technology related trending topics.

On behalf of Katherine Noyes, myself, and staff, I would like to extend a special thank you to Robert for donating his time to Linux Advocates.  --Dietrich

Related articles

• Guest Writer Matt Asay on Deck (linuxadvocates.com)
• Guest Writer Bruce Byfield on Deck (linuxadvocates.com)
• Guest Writer Aaron Seigo on Deck (linuxadvocates.com)

Read More