It was back 4-5 decades down the line, when a MIT researcher was fed up with the proprietary licences that he had to manage in order to develop a new concept. The problem he had to face is that, most of his time he was concerned of the budget overruns rather than coding standards ;).
His name, as many of you would have guessed, was Richard Stallman, the father of Free Software and family head of Free Software Foundation! He had the novel idea of sharing....
"You are not humane if you cheat with your neighbours.....",
were his common words.
He started the much needed Free Software Foundation, which was NOT an organization or license but a movement, simply a mass movement.
FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION
Thought the flow of events are too long to discuss I wish to tell you how Operating Systems evolved and eloped:
1. I dont remember the first seeds of operating systems but, System V, developed by Kerningham and Ritchie was one the first and full fledged OS developed. They developed it on a very meek m/c.
2. Following System V, BSD( Berkeley Software Distribution ) also started knitting their own Operating System. Finally there was UNIX which was a development version of System V.
3. The UNIX operating system was becoming pretty famous, but the problem being, the source was not open to people.
This is what led to Stallman's thinking of equality, freedom to code and the Free Software Foundation. Influenced by the efficiency of UNIX he sat down to write the whole Operating System( he left the Kernel for the end ) on his own. This can be considered the very root of Open Source Community. Not surprisingly people joined him on his detour towards a new world where there was no owner but contributors galore.
Stallman remarks that he was amazed to see the pace at which patches were included into the system and he was delighted that this methodology worked. He named this Operating System as GNU - GNU Not Unix. But why such a name?? As GNU was much more like UNIX but it had a different philosophy all together, he wanted people to know that there's something different from UNIX, and "that" something is the sole reason GNU is being developed. Hence the Recursive Acronym.
When Stallman had finished the GNU set of utilities, he sat down to write the kernel that would make the system complete( right now GNU utils were made on UNIX ). Interesting development took place at this step, a Finland Phd student was writing a kernel on the very same lines and amazingly he had completed it before Stallman could do it! He was none other than Linus Torvalds.
Linus himself thought on the lines of freedom to source and mild licensing. The GNU took Linus's kernel and attached their patch of utilities. By the while, Linus maned his kernel Linux as it meant Linus+Unix=Linux. The duo of Gnu and Linux is till date famous as GNU/LINUX. Here's a pic of the same.
1. I dont remember the first seeds of operating systems but, System V, developed by Kerningham and Ritchie was one the first and full fledged OS developed. They developed it on a very meek m/c.
2. Following System V, BSD( Berkeley Software Distribution ) also started knitting their own Operating System. Finally there was UNIX which was a development version of System V.
3. The UNIX operating system was becoming pretty famous, but the problem being, the source was not open to people.
This is what led to Stallman's thinking of equality, freedom to code and the Free Software Foundation. Influenced by the efficiency of UNIX he sat down to write the whole Operating System( he left the Kernel for the end ) on his own. This can be considered the very root of Open Source Community. Not surprisingly people joined him on his detour towards a new world where there was no owner but contributors galore.
Stallman remarks that he was amazed to see the pace at which patches were included into the system and he was delighted that this methodology worked. He named this Operating System as GNU - GNU Not Unix. But why such a name?? As GNU was much more like UNIX but it had a different philosophy all together, he wanted people to know that there's something different from UNIX, and "that" something is the sole reason GNU is being developed. Hence the Recursive Acronym.
When Stallman had finished the GNU set of utilities, he sat down to write the kernel that would make the system complete( right now GNU utils were made on UNIX ). Interesting development took place at this step, a Finland Phd student was writing a kernel on the very same lines and amazingly he had completed it before Stallman could do it! He was none other than Linus Torvalds.
Linus himself thought on the lines of freedom to source and mild licensing. The GNU took Linus's kernel and attached their patch of utilities. By the while, Linus maned his kernel Linux as it meant Linus+Unix=Linux. The duo of Gnu and Linux is till date famous as GNU/LINUX. Here's a pic of the same.
The Linux Tux flying under the Gnu Bull, Gnu/Linux duo :D
The Open Source Initiative
OSI Trademark Logo
The open source initiative to me was more of a "Commercial Move" aimed at popularising the "Openness of softwares". The benifit? Well, by the name of Free Software Foundation it seemed like they were talking of the "Free Beer" more than "Free Speech"! There were not much of industry involvement or support to the FSF, simply because they didnt see any profitable marketing strategy and the FSF philosophy was more of a NGO... heh.
Open Source Foundation took the task of commercialising the very basics of FSF, though obviously, with some changes. I would not jump to the theoretical aspects, rather would take an example to illustrate the same.
UBUNTU
Known as the household face of "Linux". Here are some facts that'll spill the can of beans, right in front of you.... hmmm. So the first question is, what is Ubuntu, Open Source or Free Software, well it's an Open Source product. Free Software would not have allowed to have any proprietary software support, but Ubuntu has repositories which openly support binary only softwares. Take for example the RealPlayer for Linux, Flashplayer Plugins and lots more! If Stallman was to endorse Ubuntu, he simply would have stripped all those binary only softs.
But dear frnzz, if Open Source would not have been there... Ubuntu wouldnt have been whats it's today... the commercial benifits it claims as having openess to all... whether Proprietary of Free software, is what fills up it's cashbanks. But on the same hand, whatever activity or project it takes up are per Free Software standards.
Undoubtedly.... Open Source has had a practical approach to survive in the market! Some people have called Free Software Foundation as being communal( Communal -- Forcing Some Act ), I personally feel.... having a rigid and unbending view has been their problem.... that is why they never became a reality, remained a mere movement! Open Source has taken the steps in the right direction... and you might find Stallman screaming around.... telling peopple that they are DIFFERENT from OSI. For the facts GNU Operating System is perhaps one of the few "Free Software Project" under the Operating Sys catagory, you might google others, I dont really care.
Open Source or FSF... why should I do it ??
Many of my friends and a new budding programmer asked me recently. Whats the initiative to work in Open Source after all.
I dont want to convince anybody, I work in open source because I love to code, and Open Source projects is where I have no restrictions to learn, read, code and contribute. I love to help my neighbours and if that needs some initiative, you better start preparing for a English Vocab paper as Microsoft have changed strategies for new employees :)
Conclusion
The talk is highly shortened, partly because I've my exams up sleeves and because the History is never easy to interpret. But my feeling about the whole OSI and FSF thingy lies on the commoness of ideas and NOT on the differences. Where FSF is an ideology, Open Source is it's realization and in real time dynamics you need to have optimization( i sound an Engineer here ;) ).
Whats important for me is, if the source is made open... i can use it for modifying... I can code because I love it... I have access to the most intricately written media players, chat clients and his highness.... Kernel! I dont care a damn of what people make out of differences b/w FSF and OSI. I am with the concurrunt views.
Open Source Foundation took the task of commercialising the very basics of FSF, though obviously, with some changes. I would not jump to the theoretical aspects, rather would take an example to illustrate the same.
UBUNTU
Known as the household face of "Linux". Here are some facts that'll spill the can of beans, right in front of you.... hmmm. So the first question is, what is Ubuntu, Open Source or Free Software, well it's an Open Source product. Free Software would not have allowed to have any proprietary software support, but Ubuntu has repositories which openly support binary only softwares. Take for example the RealPlayer for Linux, Flashplayer Plugins and lots more! If Stallman was to endorse Ubuntu, he simply would have stripped all those binary only softs.
But dear frnzz, if Open Source would not have been there... Ubuntu wouldnt have been whats it's today... the commercial benifits it claims as having openess to all... whether Proprietary of Free software, is what fills up it's cashbanks. But on the same hand, whatever activity or project it takes up are per Free Software standards.
Undoubtedly.... Open Source has had a practical approach to survive in the market! Some people have called Free Software Foundation as being communal( Communal -- Forcing Some Act ), I personally feel.... having a rigid and unbending view has been their problem.... that is why they never became a reality, remained a mere movement! Open Source has taken the steps in the right direction... and you might find Stallman screaming around.... telling peopple that they are DIFFERENT from OSI. For the facts GNU Operating System is perhaps one of the few "Free Software Project" under the Operating Sys catagory, you might google others, I dont really care.
Open Source or FSF... why should I do it ??
Many of my friends and a new budding programmer asked me recently. Whats the initiative to work in Open Source after all.
I dont want to convince anybody, I work in open source because I love to code, and Open Source projects is where I have no restrictions to learn, read, code and contribute. I love to help my neighbours and if that needs some initiative, you better start preparing for a English Vocab paper as Microsoft have changed strategies for new employees :)
Conclusion
The talk is highly shortened, partly because I've my exams up sleeves and because the History is never easy to interpret. But my feeling about the whole OSI and FSF thingy lies on the commoness of ideas and NOT on the differences. Where FSF is an ideology, Open Source is it's realization and in real time dynamics you need to have optimization( i sound an Engineer here ;) ).
Whats important for me is, if the source is made open... i can use it for modifying... I can code because I love it... I have access to the most intricately written media players, chat clients and his highness.... Kernel! I dont care a damn of what people make out of differences b/w FSF and OSI. I am with the concurrunt views.
May the Source be With you!
