Re: cURL author receives rude LogJ4 security inquiry

[Jean Louis]

* Akira Urushibata <afu@wta.att.ne.jp> [2022-02-22 02:23]:
> In a previous post I stated that the distinction between subjective
> and objective is necessary.  Our friend Monsieur Jean Louis offered a
> lengthy reply to this message, but he did not first clarify on this
> distinction.  It is okay to say that one does not agree here but it is
> important to make clear what position one takes.  Lacking this
> distinction, the reply was deprived of structure.  I can see that
> there is information that should be useful in certain contexts.  But I
> don't think it will help the cURL author or others in a similar
> situation.

Can you be specific on how people are supposed to help cURL authors?

> I was initially puzzled by the way Jean Louis replied.  Now I believe
> I know why.  My approach to the problem had elements that were exotic
> to him, and probably, other list members as well.  That made him
> uncomfortable and he felt compelled to reply.

I just guess Akira, it is the way how you speak Japanese in different
form and then how you translate the way of speaking to English and I
cannot understand that. It seem to be kind way of talking without
pointing out who said what, thus is hard for me to understand if you
are the person making statement or you are maybe person transmitting
statements from somebody or maybe something else.

> > Linux is not "operating system", but kernel.
> 
> I think that most, if not all, list subscribers are aware of that.
> 
> The following is a book by Linus Torvalds, in which he states that
> he wrote Linux and in which he expresses strong disagreement with
> Richard Stallman's claims. 
> 
>   Just for fun
>   The story of an accidental revolutionary
>   by Linus Torvalds and David Diamond
> 
>   ISBN 0066620724
>   262 pages  Harper Business

There is no specific quote by you on what exactly was said, but I
could download the book, and let me search inside of the EPUB...

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.

He felt so proud when GNU shell worked on his system that he wanted to
let the world see.

Linus would not start making Linux kernel if GNU kernel Hurd would be
ready, which is good thing. He made the kernel that GNU system could
use.

That statement alone from the book acknowledges that GNU is operating
system.

Linus then said he admires Richard Stallman, just that he does not
like continuous pushing of the GPL -- that is clear as Linus likes
corporate powers and earns money from there.

I have reviewed that book by using "Find text" function.

And I could not find "strong disagreements with Richard Stallman
claims" -- not really, that is not my impression. He gives quite good
credits to GNU, and Richard Stallman and expresses his opinions as
from viewpoint of somebody who did not know what is free software and
somebody who mixes "open source" with free software and likes to be
rather pragmatic person.

> I am providing the above information, not because I agree with the
> content of the book, but because I understand that what our friend
> Jean Louis has said is not accepted in the greater world.

I can't relate that statement to what Linus Torvalds wrote in that
book, and I remember browsing that book before many years.

> > GNU system existed before the kernel Linux, and once somebody put 
> > GNU with any kernel, it is GNU system based on Linux kernel.
> 
> We have been saying this for a quarter century and yet it is not
> taken seriously.  To solve a problem, one must first understand its
> primary cause.

People who don't understand need not take it seriously. I don't know
technologies for astronauts, so I am not taking it seriously as I am
not going out there in the space. I need not believe that astronauts
use gold to protect themselves from destructive rays.

Thus I do not see a problem when some people don't understand what is
operating system and what is kernel. There are enough articles online
where one can clearly distinguish it.

By reading about other operating systems one may find that their
kernel is usually named different than the operating system.

There is enough written information about it:

GNU/Linux FAQ by Richard Stallman
https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html

> I would like to remind you that I work on Netpbm.  If you download
> the source and run "make" source files which I have worked on will
> be compiled into executables.  I have done work on the build
> framework.  In particular the test invoked by "make check" is all my
> work.  I have hands-on experience with makefiles and I can tell
> whether make should be considered a part of the OS.  Moreover I
> stand in a position to state whether Netpbm should be considered an
> OS component or an application.

> Unfortunately my opinion will have little or no effect upon those who
> choose not to respect me in light of my contributions to Netpbm.

Great that you work on free software. That discussion of GNU and Linux
as kernel is not related to Netpbm.

Again I think that I am not adept to understand the way of expressing
yourself in English. It seems kind way of expressing things.

Me, as non native English speaker, I have hard time understanding this
sentence:

> Moreover I stand in a position to state whether Netpbm should be
> considered an OS component or an application."

Because you use the word "whether". It is unclear, as that word is
neither nor, but whether. See:
"https://www.thefreedictionary.com/whether"; -- so I am not getting
it. You stand in the position to state... that Netpbm should be
considered an OS component or you stand in the position to state it
shold be considered application. There are two choices and I can't
understand that.


Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

In support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/