diff options
author | Iru Cai (vimacs) <mytbk920423@gmail.com> | 2016-09-16 16:17:32 +0800 |
---|---|---|
committer | GitHub <noreply@github.com> | 2016-09-16 16:17:32 +0800 |
commit | 3c2a95f00794519755dcabbacbf8628a3d8d5669 (patch) | |
tree | 3c255e87d2da466fe5d7abe84b99b6a7ad40f185 /docs/why-gnu-linux.md | |
parent | 093ce23ecf9e64d01656fd095e9567f9db6e8092 (diff) | |
download | fsfs-zh-3c2a95f00794519755dcabbacbf8628a3d8d5669.tar.xz |
review `What's in a name?' (why-gnu-linux.md)
Diffstat (limited to 'docs/why-gnu-linux.md')
-rw-r--r-- | docs/why-gnu-linux.md | 183 |
1 files changed, 13 insertions, 170 deletions
diff --git a/docs/why-gnu-linux.md b/docs/why-gnu-linux.md index 4370c79..3893cb8 100644 --- a/docs/why-gnu-linux.md +++ b/docs/why-gnu-linux.md @@ -1,200 +1,43 @@ -1. What’s in a Name? {#whats-in-a-name .chapter} -==================== - 名字的含义? ======== -@firstcopyingnotice{{To learn more about this issue, you can read our -GNU/Linux FAQ, at <http://gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html>, the essay -“Linux and the GNU System” (@pageref{Linux and GNU}), which gives a -history of the GNU/Linux system as it relates to this issue of naming, -and the article “GNU Users Who Have Never Heard of GNU,” at -<http://gnu.org/gnu/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html>.\ - @footnoterule @smallskip Copyright © 2000, 2006, 2007 Richard Stallman\ - {This essay was originally published on <http://gnu.org>, in 2000. This -version is part of @fsfsthreecite} Names convey meanings; our choice of -names determines the meaning of what we say. An inappropriate name gives -people the wrong idea. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet—but -if you call it a pen, people will be rather disappointed when they try -to write with it. And if you call pens “roses,” people may not realize -what they are good for. If you call our operating system Linux, that -conveys a mistaken idea of the system’s origin, history, and purpose. If -you call it GNU/Linux, that conveys (though not in detail) an accurate -idea. - -> 关于此主题了解更多,你也可以阅读我们的 GNU/Linux FAQ <http://gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html>,我们关于Linux 与 GNU 项目 和 从来没听过GNU的GNU用户的页面。Copyright © 2000, 2006, 2007 Richard Stallman +> 关于此主题了解更多,你也可以阅读我们的 GNU/Linux FAQ <http://gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html> 的文章 *Linux和GNU系统*,它讲了 GNU/Linux 系统的历史,它和这命名的问题有关,以及文章 *从未听过GNU的GNU用户* <http://gnu.org/gnu/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html>。Copyright © 2000, 2006, 2007 Richard Stallman > 原中译 monnand,此处略有修改 顾名则思义;我们所选的名字代表了我们所要传达的思想。一个不恰当的名字会向人们传递错误的思想。玫瑰不管叫什么闻起来总是甜的——但是如果你把它叫作笔,当人们用它写字时将会很失望。同样地,如果你把笔叫作“玫瑰”,人们可能就不知道它们能做什么了。如果你把我们的操作系统称为“Linux”,则会传达一些关于系统起源、历史和目的的错误概念。如果你称之为GNU/Linux,这将传达(虽然不详细)一个准确的概念。 -Does this really matter for our community? Is it important whether -people know the system’s origin, history, and purpose? Yes—because -people who forget history are often condemned to repeat it. The Free -World that has developed around GNU/Linux is not guaranteed to survive; -the problems that led us to develop GNU are not completely eradicated, -and they threaten to come back. - -这对我们的社区重要吗?人们是否了解系统的起源、历史和目的重要吗?是的——因为忘记历史的人往往要注定要重蹈覆辙。围绕 GNU/Linux 而开发出来的自由世界是不安全的;迫使我们开发 GNU 的问题并没有被彻底根除,而且他们总是想复辟 - -When I explain why it’s appropriate to call the operating system -GNU/Linux rather than Linux, people sometimes respond this way: +这对我们的社区重要吗?人们是否了解系统的起源、历史和目的重要吗?是的——因为忘记历史的人往往要注定要重蹈覆辙。围绕 GNU/Linux 而开发出来的自由世界是不安全的;迫使我们开发 GNU 的问题并没有被彻底根除,而且他们总是想复辟。 当我解释为什么把这个操作系统称为“GNU/Linux”比“Linux”要好时,人们有时这样回应: -> Granted that the GNU Project deserves credit for this work, is it -> really worth a fuss when people don’t give credit? Isn’t the important -> thing that the job was done, not who did it? You ought to relax, take -> pride in the job well done, and not worry about the credit. - > 就算 GNU 工程因其工作而应该得到赞誉,但如果人们不给予它这种赞誉,就真的值得如此大惊小怪的吗?不管是谁做的,反正工作被完成了,这不是重要的事吗?你应该心态平和,以干好工作为荣,而不是对荣誉的问题耿耿于怀。 -This would be wise advice, if only the situation were like that—if the -job were done and it were time to relax. If only that were true! But -challenges abound, and this is no time to take the future for granted. -Our community’s strength rests on commitment to freedom and cooperation. -Using the name GNU/Linux is a way for people to remind themselves and -inform others of these goals. - 这似乎是个明智的建议,如果所有的情况都像那样,大家干完工作后都不计得失,那这建议还真是对的!但现实充满挑战,现在还不是那样对未来想当然的时候。我们社区的力量靠的是自由与合作的保证。使用GNU/Linux这个名字是一种让人们用来提醒自己和他人了解这些目标的方式。 -It is possible to write good free software without thinking of GNU; much -good work has been done in the name of Linux also. But the term “Linux” -has been associated ever since it was first coined with a philosophy -that does not make a commitment to the freedom to cooperate. As the name -is increasingly used by business, we will have even more trouble making -it connect with community spirit. - 虽然不考虑 GNU 也能写出优秀的自由软件;许多优秀的工作是在 Linux 的名义下完成的。但是“Linux”(这个名字)从它被创造的那一刻起,就与一种不对自由协作做承诺的哲学联系在一起。随着这个名字的广泛商业使用,当我们把它和社区精神相联系时,将会遇到更多的麻烦。 -A great challenge to the future of free software comes from the tendency -of the “Linux” distribution companies to add nonfree software to -GNU/Linux in the name of convenience and power. All the major commercial -distribution developers do this; none limits itself to free software. -Most of them do not clearly identify the nonfree packages in their -distributions. Many even develop nonfree software and add it to the -system. Some outrageously advertise “Linux” systems that are “licensed -per seat,” which give the user as much freedom as Microsoft Windows. - -对自由软件来说,未来的一大挑战是来自于那些“Linux”发行版公司,为提高易用性和增强功能,将非自由的软件添加到 GNU/Linux 中。他们中的大多数都在其发行版中没有区分非自由软件包。很多甚至开发非自由软件并加入到其系统发行中。还有些甚至蛮横的地宣布那些“Linux“系统是“席位许可”的,也就是可以给用户和 Microsoft Windows 一样的“自由”。 - -People try to justify adding nonfree software in the name of the -“popularity of Linux”—in effect, valuing popularity above freedom. -Sometimes this is openly admitted. For instance, Wired magazine said -that Robert McMillan, editor of Linux Magazine, “feels that the move -toward open source software should be fueled by technical, rather than -political, decisions.”And Caldera’s CEO openly urged users to drop the -goal of freedom and work instead for the “popularity of -Linux.”[(1)](#FOOT1) - -人们用“普及 Linux ”的名义替这种加入非自由软件的行为辩护—事实是,更重视普及度而不是自由。有时这是公开承认的。例如,《连线》杂志(Wired)对 Linux 杂志的编辑 Robert McMillan 说,“感觉推动开源软件应该用技术,而不是政治决策”。并且 Caldera 的 CEO 公开劝说用户放弃自由的目标,并转而为“普及 Linux”而工作[^1]。 - -Adding nonfree software to the GNU/Linux system may increase the -popularity, if by popularity we mean the number of people using some of -GNU/Linux in combination with nonfree software. But at the same time, it -implicitly encourages the community to accept nonfree software as a good -thing, and forget the goal of freedom. It is not good to drive faster if -you can’t stay on the road. - -如果普及率指使用混合非自由软件的 GNU/Linux 的用户数量,添加非自由软件到 GNU/Linux 系统或许会增加普及率。但同时,它含蓄地鼓励社区将非自由软件当好东西接受,而忘记自由的目标。如果你的方向不对,那车开得再快也没用。 +对自由软件来说,未来的一大挑战是来自于那些“Linux”发行版公司,为提高易用性和增强功能,将非自由的软件添加到 GNU/Linux 中。所有主要的商业发行版都这样做;没有一个让自己限于自由软件的。他们中的大多数都在其发行版中没有区分非自由软件包。很多甚至开发非自由软件并加入到其系统发行中。还有些甚至蛮横的地宣布那些“Linux“系统是“席位许可”的,也就是可以给用户和 Microsoft Windows 一样的“自由”。 -When the nonfree “add-on” is a library or programming tool, it can -become a trap for free software developers. When they write free -software that depends on the nonfree package, their software cannot be -part of a completely free system. Motif and Qt trapped large amounts of -free software in this way in the past, creating problems whose solutions -took years. Motif remained somewhat of a problem until it became -obsolete and was no longer used. Later, Sun’s nonfree - -当非自由的“插件”是一种库或者编程工具时,就会成为自由软件开发者的陷阱。当他们编写基于非自由软件包的自由软件时,他们的软件不能成为完全自由系统的一部分。Motif 和 Qt 曾以这种方式诱骗了大量的自由软件,导致的问题花费数年才能解决。Motif 的问题仍然没有完全解决。Sun的非自由的Java实现现在也有类似的效果:Java 陷阱[^2],庆幸的是大多已经修复。 - -Java implementation had a similar effect: the Java Trap,[(2)](#FOOT2) -fortunately now mostly corrected. If our community keeps moving in this -direction, it could redirect the future of GNU/Linux into a mosaic of -free and nonfree components. Five years from now, we will surely still -have plenty of free software; but if we are not careful, it will hardly -be usable without the nonfree software that users expect to find with -it. If this happens, our campaign for freedom will have failed. - -如果我们的社区持续向这个方向发展,将会把 GNU/Linux 的未来引到自由和非自由拼接在一起的地步。从现在起的五年里,我们仍然确信将会有大量的自由软件产生;但如果我们不小心,用户所期望的自由软件就很难在脱离非自由软件的情况下使用。如果这事发生了,我们为自由做出的努力就前功尽弃了。 - -If releasing free alternatives were simply a matter of programming, -solving future problems might become easier as our community’s -development resources increase. But we face obstacles that threaten to -make this harder: laws that prohibit free software. As software patents -mount up, and as laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act are used -to prohibit the development of free software for important jobs such as -viewing a DVD or listening to a RealAudio stream, we will find ourselves -with no clear way to fight the patented and secret data formats except -to *reject the nonfree programs that use them.* - -如果发布自由的替代品只是简单的编程问题,随着我们社区开发资源的增加,未来解决问题可能的就变得愈加简单。但是我们面临的障碍使得这更加困难:法律禁止自由软件。当软件专利上升),并且像 DMCA 这样的法律被用来阻止开发一些用于重要工作中的自由软件时(例如看 DVD 或者听 RealAudio 音频流),我们会发现,除了**拒绝使用那些用到非自由的程序**,我们自己没有明确的方法来抵御专利和私密的数据形式。 - -Meeting these challenges will require many different kinds of effort. -But what we need above all, to confront any kind of challenge, is to -remember the goal of freedom to cooperate. We can’t expect a mere desire -for powerful, reliable software to motivate people to make great -efforts. We need the kind of determination that people have when they -fight for their freedom and their community—determination to keep on for -years and not give up. - -面对这些挑战需要许多不同的努力。但是应对任何挑战,我们首先需要牢记自由协作的目标。我们不能期待用仅仅强大、可靠的软件来激励人们作更多的努力。我们需要大家有一种决心,一种为他们和社区的自由而战的决心——一种锲而不舍的决心。 - -In our community, this goal and this determination emanate mainly from -the GNU Project. We’re the ones who talk about freedom and community as -something to stand firm for; the organizations that speak of “Linux” -normally don’t say this. The magazines about “Linux” are typically full -of ads for nonfree software; the companies that package “Linux” add -nonfree software to the system; other companies “support Linux” by -developing nonfree applications to run on GNU/Linux; the user groups for -“Linux” typically invite salesmen to present those applications. The -main place people in our community are likely to come across the idea of -freedom and determination is in the GNU Project. - -在我们的社区里,这个目标和决心主要源自 GNU 工程。我们就是这样的人——把自由和社区当作不可让步的事情;而那些称之为“Linux”的组织通常不说这些。关于“Linux”的杂志更是打满了非自由软件的广告;打包“Linux”的公司把非自由软件添加进系统;其它公司通过开发非自由的应用来“支持 Linux”;连“Linux”的用户群也邀请推销员展示这些应用。人们在社区中的有可能碰到自由的理念喝决策的主要地方,就是在 GNU 工程中。 - -But when people come across it, will they feel it relates to them? +人们用“普及 Linux ”的名义替这种加入非自由软件的行为辩护—事实是,更重视普及度而不是自由。有时这是公开承认的。例如,《连线》杂志(Wired)对 Linux Magazine 期刊的编辑 Robert McMillan 说,“感觉推动开源软件应该用技术,而不是政治决策”。并且 Caldera 的 CEO 公开劝说用户放弃自由的目标,并转而为“普及 Linux”而工作[^1]。 -但是当人们碰到它时,能体会到这与他们息息相关吗? +如果普及率指使用混合非自由软件的 GNU/Linux 的用户数量,添加非自由软件到 GNU/Linux 系统或许会增加普及率。但同时,它含蓄地鼓励社区将非自由软件当好东西接受,而忘记自由的目标。如果你的方向不对,那车开得再快也没用。 -People who know they are using a system that came out of the GNU Project -can see a direct relationship between themselves and GNU. They won’t -automatically agree with our philosophy, but at least they will see a -reason to think seriously about it. In contrast, people who consider -themselves “Linux users,” and believe that the GNU Project “developed -tools which proved to be useful in Linux,” typically perceive only an -indirect relationship between GNU and themselves. They may just ignore -the GNU philosophy when they come across it. +当非自由的“附加组件”是一种库或者编程工具时,就会成为自由软件开发者的陷阱。当他们编写基于非自由软件包的自由软件时,他们的软件不能成为完全自由系统的一部分。Motif 和 Qt 曾以这种方式诱骗了大量的自由软件,导致的问题花费数年才能解决。Motif 的问题没有完全解决,直到它废弃并不再被使用了。Sun的非自由的Java实现现在也有类似的效果:Java 陷阱[^2],庆幸的是大多已经修复。如果我们的社区持续向这个方向发展,将会把 GNU/Linux 的未来引到自由和非自由拼接在一起的地步。从现在起的五年里,我们仍然确信将会有大量的自由软件产生;但如果我们不小心,用户所期望的自由软件就很难在脱离非自由软件的情况下使用。如果这事发生了,我们为自由做出的努力就前功尽弃了。 -那些知道自己正在用的系统是源自 GNU 工程的人,能看到他们自身与 GNU 之间有一个直接的关系。他们不会自动地同意我们的哲学,但是至少他们将看到一个严肃思考它的理由。相反,那些认为自己是“Linux 用户”的人,相信 GNU 工程只是“开发了被证实在 Linux 中非常有用的工具”,他们通常只了解 GNU 与其间接关系。当他们接触到 GNU 哲学时,就会忽视它。 +如果发布自由的替代品只是简单的编程问题,随着我们社区开发资源的增加,未来解决问题可能的就变得愈加简单。但是我们面临的障碍使得这更加困难:法律禁止自由软件。当软件专利上升,并且像数字千年版权法案(DMCA) 这样的法律被用来阻止开发一些用于重要工作中的自由软件时(例如看 DVD 或者听 RealAudio 音频流),我们会发现,除了**拒绝使用用到那些的非自由程序**,我们自己没有明确的方法来抵御专利和私密的数据形式。 -The GNU Project is idealistic, and anyone encouraging idealism today -faces a great obstacle: the prevailing ideology encourages people to -dismiss idealism as “impractical.” Our idealism has been extremely -practical: it is the reason we have a free GNU/Linux operating system. -People who love this system ought to know that it is our idealism made -real. +面对这些挑战需要许多不同的努力。但是应对任何挑战,我们首先需要牢记自由协作的目标。我们不能期待仅仅用对强大、可靠的软件的渴望来激励人们作更多的努力。我们需要大家有一种决心,一种为他们和社区的自由而战的决心——一种锲而不舍的决心。 -GNU 工程是理想主义的,但是那些鼓励理想主义的人面临很大的障碍:普遍的意识形态鼓励人们把理想主义当作“不现实的”而摒弃。我们的理想主义其实已经极其实用:这是我们拥有一个自由的 GNU/Linux 操作系统的原因。喜欢这个系统的人应该知道,正是我们的理想主义实现了它。 +在我们的社区里,这个目标和决心主要源自 GNU 工程。我们就是这样的人——把自由和社区当作不可让步的事情;而那些称之为“Linux”的组织通常不说这些。关于“Linux”的杂志更是打满了非自由软件的广告;打包“Linux”的公司把非自由软件添加进系统;其它公司通过开发在 GNU/Linux 上运行的非自由的应用来“支持 Linux”;连“Linux”的用户群也邀请推销员展示这些应用。人们在社区中的有可能碰到自由的理念和决心的主要地方,就是在 GNU 工程中。 -If “the job” really were done, if there were nothing at stake except -credit, perhaps it would be wiser to let the matter drop. But we are not -in that position. To inspire people to do the work that needs to be -done, we need to be recognized for what we have already done. Please -help us, by calling the operating system GNU/Linux. +但是当人们碰到它时,能体会到这与他们息息相关吗? -如果“工作”真的做了,如果除了信誉没有其他利害攸关,也许放弃可能会更明智。但是我们没有处在那个境地。为了鼓励人们做那些需要做的工作,我们需要使我们已经做了的工作被认可。请将这个系统称为 GNU/Linux 来帮助我们吧。 +那些知道自己正在用的系统是源自 GNU 工程的人,能看到他们自身与 GNU 之间有一个直接的关系。他们不会自动地同意我们的哲学,但是至少他们将看到一个严肃思考它的理由。相反,那些认为自己是“Linux 用户”的人,相信 GNU 工程只是“开发了被证实在 Linux 中非常有用的工具”,他们通常只了解 GNU 与其间接的关系。当他们接触到 GNU 哲学时,就会忽视它。 -### [(1)](#DOCF1) +GNU 工程是理想主义的,但是那些鼓励理想主义的人面临很大的障碍:普遍的意识形态鼓励人们把理想主义当作“不现实的”而摒弃。我们的理想主义其实已经极其实用:这是我们拥有一个自由的 GNU/Linux 操作系统的原因。喜欢这个系统的人应该知道,正是我们的理想主义实现了它。 -@raggedright Dietmar Muller, “Stallman: Love Is Not Free,” 10 July 2001, -<http://zdnet.com/article/stallman-love-is-not-free/>. @end raggedright +如果“工作”真的做了,如果除了信誉没有其他利害攸关,也许放弃可能会更明智。但是我们没有处在那个境地。为了鼓励人们做那些需要做的工作,我们需要使我们已经做了的工作被认可。请将这个系统称为 GNU/Linux, 来帮助我们吧。 [^1]: 参见 Dietmar Muller 于 2001 年 7 月 10 日发表的文章[“Stallman: Love Is Not Free”](http://zdnet.com/article/stallman-love-is-not-free/) -### [(2)](#DOCF2) - -@raggedright See “Free but Shackled—The Java Trap,” at -<http://gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html>, for more on this issue. @end -raggedright - [^2]: 参见[“自由的桎梏——Java 陷阱”](http://gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html)一文 |