Re: cURL author receives rude LogJ4 security inquiry

Jean Louis wrote:
> * Jacob Bachmeyer <[email protected]> [2022-02-23 04:09]:
>   
>> Jean Louis wrote:
>>     
>>> * Akira Urushibata <[email protected]> [2022-02-22 02:23]:
>>> [...]
>>> So I can see that Linus is giving credits to GNU, GCC, Richard
>>> Stallman, and that he did not know nothing about free software before
>>> he heard Stallman's speech in Helsinki.
>>>
>>> Linux kernel was at that time proprietary.
>>>
>>> He liberated kernel due to Stallman's talk.
>>>
>>> I can also read a sentence where Linus says on page X: "Richard
>>> Stallman wants to make everything open source" -- this shows clear
>>> misunderstanding on side of Linus on what "open source" means and what
>>> is "free software."
>>>
>>> Linus also said: "Richard Stallman deserves monument in his honor for
>>> giving birth to GPL"
>>>
>>> There is quote that he acknowledges that his new system won't be big
>>> and professional as GNU.
>>>
>>> To me I see clear misunderstandings of Linus in his youth when he was
>>> thinking that by making the kernel he is making "operating system".
>>>
>>> It is misunderstanding.
>>>       
>> My understanding of the history here is that Linus *was* more-or-less making
>> a homebrew operating system at the time.  I remember a quote describing
>> Linux:  "My terminal emulator grew legs."
>>     
>
> OK, though I don't see in that book that he was making "operating
> system", though I can see that he was intending to make it, though
> never made it in the sense how we understand operating systems today.
>
> [...]
>
> Then in chapter VI Linus wrote about making a scheduler in kernel and
> talking, that it will become "operating system", so his intentions
> were verbally and on the first sight towards "operating system", and
> practically it was just kernel.
>
> [...]
>
> That Linus Torvalds had serious misunderstandings on what "operating
> system" is shows the paragraph in the same VI chapter of the book
> where he says "So, I shifted my thinking of it as a terminal emulator
> to thinking of it as an operating system"; and I find such cognitions
> nice and exciting, changes that happened in the mind of young excited
> and ambitious Linus Torvalds. Youth is often like that, we have high
> desires, potential, we want to reach very high, we may say we will be
> best in the world in some subject. I don't find it wrong by any
> means. Just that what Linus wrote at the time never was an "operating
> system". It was kernel. Book is about the kernel.
>
> [...]
>
> The book, in other words, says it all and clear. It confirms
> Stallman's statement that Linux is kernel and GNU is operating
> system.
>   

A big part of the misunderstanding here is probably due to Linux's 
origin as a bare-metal terminal emulator.  Bare-metal applications which 
essentially integrate their own specialized operating system were 
somewhat rare on IBM-PC-type systems, but very common on other 
microcomputers and a few did exist for IBM-ish PCs if I understand 
correctly.  They were much more common on floppy-based systems lacking 
hard disks, such as most Apple IIs.  Insert disk, power on machine.  
While Apple II hard disks did exist, they were very rare.

As I understand it, Linus essentially used a *nix-like environment as an 
extension interface for his terminal emulator because he was familiar 
with Unix at his university; indeed, the primary use of that terminal 
emulator was to dial in to the university's modem pool for access to 
Unix.  This is a likely basis for his "nothing big and professional like 
GNU" remark.  It grew from there.

Note that this is all history to me -- these events occurred before I 
was old enough to type, so I certainly have no first-hand knowledge.

> [...]
> The term "open source" is made for the reason of marketing. RedHat
> will tell you that, as they have corporate strategy of promoting "open
> source" and of course not "free software":
>
> What is open source?
> https://www.redhat.com/en/topics/open-source/what-is-open-source
>
> ,----
> | Peterson proposed the idea of replacing "free software" with the term
> | "open source" to a working group that was dedicated, in part, to
> | shepherding open source software practices into the broader
> | marketplace.
> `----
>
> How I coined the term 'open source' | Opensource.com
> https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source-software?extIdCarryOver=true&sc_cid=701f2000001OH7EAAW
>
> ,----
> | The introduction of the term "open source software" was a deliberate
> | effort to make this field of endeavor more understandable to newcomers
> | and to business, which was viewed as necessary to its spread to a
> | broader community of users. The problem with the main earlier label,
> | "free software," was not its political connotations, but that—to
> | newcomers—its seeming focus on price is distracting. A term was needed
> | that focuses on the key issue of source code and that does not
> | immediately confuse those new to the concept. The first term that came
> | along at the right time and fulfilled these requirements was rapidly
> | adopted: open source.
> `----
>   

That is an interesting new view on some old history.

> Thus the term "Open Source" is there to help the market sell more of
> the software. This is because "Free" impairs the ability to sell
> according to their viewpint. I just think they are not good enough
> marketers, rather opportunists who will chose whatever way they need
> to get to the money.

That is what I describe as the "free software for moral retards" 
position, yes.  Suits have a distinct tendency to be allergic to moral 
arguments for some strange reason.  Perhaps because morality generally 
opposes greed?


-- Jacob