12:13 a.m.
Hello!
What’s our shared technical vision? What’s our strategy?
In a way it’s not as urgent as setting up a proper governance model, but
OTOH, it’s a key motivating factor for the geeks and activists in us.
Lack of technical leadership means that nothing happened in terms of
defining a direction since the GNU Manifesto. Maybe we cannot yet
positively define a new vision, but maybe we can have a shared view on
where GNU fits in the whole free software movement.
For example, I recently read this article:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-on-where-rust-will-fit-into-...
It’s part of a longstanding push towards non-copyleft software and away
from the GNU toolchain, but it also raises technical questions relevant
to GNU packages: on writing memory-safe programs (relevant to GCC and
notably its Rust frontend, to Guile), on assembling OSes/distros
(toolchain, Guix), on bootstrapping (Mes), on increasing OS
fault-tolerance and security (Hurd), etc.
Perhaps we can’t define yet a shared vision for GNU Assembly packages,
but we could, in this example, work out a shared response. Plus, that
would be good use of our brand new gnu.tools blog.
Thoughts?
Ludo’.
9:01 a.m.
Ludovic Courtès <ludo(a)gnu.org> writes:
For example, I recently read this article:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-on-where-rust-will-fit-into-...
It’s part of a longstanding push towards non-copyleft software
and away
from the GNU toolchain, but it also raises technical questions
relevant
to GNU packages: on writing memory-safe programs (relevant to
GCC and
notably its Rust frontend, to Guile), on assembling OSes/distros
(toolchain, Guix), on bootstrapping (Mes), on increasing OS
fault-tolerance and security (Hurd), etc.
Perhaps we can’t define yet a shared vision for GNU Assembly
packages,
but we could, in this example, work out a shared response.
Plus, that
would be good use of our brand new gnu.tools blog.
As you write, an important subset of GNU Assembly packages is
indeed concerned with systems programming. But there are many
more great GNU packages that fill roles that you wouldn’t
necessarily associate with the image that the term “operating
system” evokes. (An example is Lilypond.) These packages *do*
embody the GNU philosophy (or is it really the Emacs philosophy…?)
of blurring the often arbitrary distinction between users and
developers, granting users as much freedom from administrators and
developers as feasible.
That, I think, is a unifying theme for most GNU packages.
I’m convinced that we can formulate a shared vision for what an
operating system (and its applications) should offer to users —
and how that relates to the current state of GNU+Linux distros and
compares to other popular platforms (such as mobile phone systems
or browsers). This cannot merely be limited to technical
features, but must be derived from the promise of respecting the
users’ authority, enabling them to exercise these liberties not
just theoretically.
In my opinion it would be important *not* to limit this discussion
to system-level software, but to find a mental framework that
accommodates system-level software and non-system applications
alike.
--
Ricardo
1:41 p.m.
Hi!
Ricardo Wurmus <rekado(a)elephly.net> skribis:
As you write, an important subset of GNU Assembly packages is indeed
concerned with systems programming. But there are many more great GNU
packages that fill roles that you wouldn’t necessarily associate with
the image that the term “operating system” evokes. (An example is
Lilypond.) These packages *do* embody the GNU philosophy (or is it
really the Emacs philosophy…?) of blurring the often arbitrary
distinction between users and developers, granting users as much
freedom from administrators and developers as feasible.
That, I think, is a unifying theme for most GNU packages.
Agreed. I think Andy (and probably others before, starting with RMS)
clearly expressed the technical implications of that vision, which he
calls “the Emacs thesis”:
https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/html_node/The-Emacs-Thesis.html
This approach to “practical user freedom” can be seen at the application
level in LilyPond or GNU Radio I think, at the system level with the
Hurd and Guix, and so on.
I’m convinced that we can formulate a shared vision for what an
operating system (and its applications) should offer to users —
and how that relates to the current state of GNU+Linux distros and
compares to other popular platforms (such as mobile phone systems
or browsers). This cannot merely be limited to technical features,
but must be derived from the promise of respecting the users’
authority, enabling them to exercise these liberties not just
theoretically.
In my opinion it would be important *not* to limit this discussion to
system-level software, but to find a mental framework that
accommodates system-level software and non-system applications
alike.
I agree.
The reason I brought up Rust-on-Linux and systems software is that it
could help us start a discussion about one possible “tactic”. GNU is
well known and still dominant among free systems, but it’s also clear
that the musl/LLVM/Rust proponents are shaping up a vision to displace
GNU, probably with a mixture of technical and political motivations.
I don’t think we should remain silent while Rust-on-Linux & co. catch
the headlines. Instead, I think we should articulate a vision that
keeps the user at the center, while addressing the technical concerns
that Rust folks like to brag about: security and reliability.
Consider reproducible builds and bootstrapping: these are technical
means to guarantee user freedom and security. We have a good story to
tell and to continue with Mes¹, Guix, and the toolchain. Likewise for
modular OSes with components running in separate address spaces.
Can the systems GNU packages join forces to articulate that vision?
Can we increase the bandwidth among those packages? IOW, can we work
so these packages are a leading example for free systems?
Thanks,
Ludo’.
¹ https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog/2020/guix-further-reduces-bootstrap-seed-to-25/
1:47 p.m.
On Sat, 2021-04-24 at 15:41 +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
I agree.
The reason I brought up Rust-on-Linux and systems software is that it
could help us start a discussion about one possible “tactic”. GNU is
well known and still dominant among free systems, but it’s also clear
that the musl/LLVM/Rust proponents are shaping up a vision to
displace
GNU, probably with a mixture of technical and political motivations.
I don’t think we should remain silent while Rust-on-Linux & co. catch
the headlines. Instead, I think we should articulate a vision that
keeps the user at the center, while addressing the technical concerns
that Rust folks like to brag about: security and reliability.
Consider reproducible builds and bootstrapping: these are technical
means to guarantee user freedom and security. We have a good story
to
tell and to continue with Mes¹, Guix, and the toolchain. Likewise
for
modular OSes with components running in separate address spaces.
Can the systems GNU packages join forces to articulate that vision?
Can we increase the bandwidth among those packages? IOW, can we work
so these packages are a leading example for free systems?
Thanks,
Ludo’.
¹
https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog/2020/guix-further-reduces-bootstrap-seed-to-25/
I think that to promote software freedom we must also adapt software
for other needs such as security, performance, reliability,
accessibility, ergonomy. I think that software freedom is attained also
when the software fits the users use cases and if it does then it's a
win because more users gain software freedom. I think many users are
currently barred from attaining software freedom because the software
available that provides software freedom does not fit the users use
cases or not well enough.
I very much get behind such vision and I am eager to collaborate
towards these goals.
Léo
1309
days inactive
1315
days old
3 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Ludovic Courtès -
Léo Le Bouter -
Ricardo Wurmus