“This famous controversy is there ever since I became aware of operating systems known as GNU/Linux. The GNU General Public License, which is used by Linux as well as most GNU software, armors both characters. GNU/Linux is the term coined by the Free Software Foundation, Richard Stallman and people who support FSF, for operating systems composed of the FSF’s GNU software and the Linux kernel; such systems are generally called Linux.”
I’m a free software proponent, but I have no incentive to call Linux, “GNU/Linux.” And I don’t understand why RMS makes such a big deal out of it. In my opinion, it detracts from exemplary and core philosophies of the free software movement. Everybody calls it Linux because it is shorter, more fluent and convenient, not because they feel like pissing off RMS or thwarting free software.
Edited 2006-05-05 11:37
Everybody calls it Linux because it is shorter, more fluent and convenient, not because they feel like pissing off RMS or thwarting free software.
Yep, that’s why people call Linux Linux.
It’s all about recognition and perceived control. Stallman likes to think that GNU’s software is responsible for creating just about everything in the open source world, including Linux. However, he doesn’t seem to realise that without Linux bringing open source, oh sorry, free, software to prominence in the 90s GNU software would be nowhere as widely used today and free software would not be getting talked about. He would be wise to remember that.
The clue in this control thing is that Linux is GPLed software, no ifs and no arguments, and yet Stallman and the GNU insist on having a GNU endorsed, and totally non-existant, kernel called Hurd.
… and yet Stallman and the GNU insist on having a GNU endorsed, and totally non-existant, kernel called Hurd.
Hmm, HURD exists, and it’s in a working state, just not usable. My take is that the FSF want’s it to be a little more consistent than Linux is. And there are significant diferences between both kernels.
What happened was that the Linux kernel just took off in popularity.
Hmm, HURD exists, and it’s in a working state, just not usable.
After all this time, that’s what I meant by not ‘existing’.
Stallman likes to think that GNU’s software is responsible for creating just about everything in the open source world
And he’s right, ever hear of the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC)?
The compiler, the system tools, the shell, and the basic userland tools were all created and documented by the FSF. Had they not existed, Linux would have struggled to take off at the rate that it has, as Linus would have been forced to re-write most of the tools: hell, without the free compiler, most open-source software would have gone no-where (until the mid-ninties the _only_ free compiler was GNU).
Even the BSDs use GCC.
GNU/Linux is an awkward name, and I can understand why no-one uses it; however at the same time I can understand why RMS is so pissed. After 20 years of work preparing the foundations for something like Linux, hardly anyone pays any attention to what he has to say (which is nowhere nearly as off the wall as people make out), nor to the enormous contribution he and the FSF have made to the F/OSS movement.
And he’s right, ever hear of the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC)?
Hmmm, I take it you didn’t read it then? As important as GCC and other software is (and if it didn’t exist someone would have wrote it), it would have been used by very, very few (and it certainly wouldn’t had had the *cough* funding put into it that it has!) had Linux not pushed everything on in the 90s and became popular. Pure and simple.
I know this is difficult for some people to admit, but without Linux moving forwards GNU would have still been perceived as a somewhat crackpot group of individuals whose software was rarely used by anyone. Linux is the sole, root cause of why anyone talks about free software or open source software at all.
If the essential software that Linux needs to be a complete OS wasn’t provided by the GNU then it would have been provided by someone else anyway. It’s an open source and free software world out there after all.
Edited 2006-05-05 17:53
I wouldn’t push GCC too hard as an example of why everyone must rely on FSF. It was originated by the FSF, but it’s been mostly developed by other people.
As for “had they not existed”, all Linux would have had to do was wait for the AT&T/UC-Berkeley consent decree, which freed up all of the tools in BSD, including a compiler. Linux would have required a few years more to get to where it is today, but that’s about it.
GCC wasn’t the only freely available C compiler into the 90s, although it was the most heavily developed, and feature rich.
People don’t pay attention to RMS because they heard his message, and mostly, don’t buy it. He does himself a disservice when he tries to make a big deal out of the FSF’s contributions, which, when you get down to it, amount to the GPL and Emacs.
I agree totally, maybe if RMS doesn’t have something to complain about he doesn’t feel like it’s been a good day.
:):)
We have GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd, GNU/BSD.
Linux is the kernel AND the short form of the GNU/Linux.
GNU/Linux is used when people want to be accurate, just like saying “Windows” instead of “Microsoft Windows” or “Microsoft Windows 2003 Server with Service Pack 193475 and the newest bugfixes and security fixes”.
I think Stallman is correct in sense, seriously try building a linux-from-scratch install or something and it should become abundantly clear how very much of the core system we use is in fact “GNU”. That said, I usually just say “Linux” when referring to the OS (with the occasional GNU and GNU/Linux when I feel like it). Honestly, I just think there’s bigger and much more important fights to pick.
Sometimes even when you’re right about something, it’s best to not make too much of a fuss over it. Otherwise you can come accross as narrow and petty, and the real point you’re trying to make gets ignored and blurred.
> This is what Richard Stallman said, “Actually no, that
> is not what we say. What we say is that this system is
> basically the GNU operating system, with Linux added.”
What exactly is meant by “this system”? I haven’t seen something that can be described as “the GNU operating system, with Linux added” yet, although I might not have looked hard enough. What I did see was a lot of Linux distributions including the GNU tools as well as lots of other stuff – so one might call them GNU/Linux/Gnome/Firefox/… instead of, say, Ubuntu. But the name Ubuntu is easier to use instead of enumerating all included components each time, and actually stands for more than just the software (e.g. community). And then there is of course the Linux kernel, which has by itself no technical connection to GNU.
One can easily imagine a distribution which consists of the Linux kernel and the GNU tools, and nothing more. For such a thing, the name GNU/Linux would be precise. Does RMS have something like that in mind?
On the other hand, Linux is based on the philosophy of free software. But free software is not connected to GNU either, except that the GNU project was the first well-known project to actively promote free software as such. If this philosophy was to be part of the name, the term FSF/Linux would be more precise. But free software isn’t connected to the FSF either. So FS/Linux, Free Software/Linux, Free Linux or something like that would be appropriate. And BTW, FS/Firefox, FS/Gnome and FS/OpenBSD as well (I didn’t say FreeBSD because that actually *has* “free” in its name).
Finally, for those who haven’t recognized it yet: The whole discussion *is* ridiculous. Don’t make me think about why I’m taking part in it…
“What exactly is meant by “this system”? I haven’t seen something that can be described as “the GNU operating system”
That’s easy. Let’s go back to 1984, when there were no free operating systems:
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.html
Starting this Thanksgiving I am going to write a complete
Unix-compatible software system called GNU (for Gnu’s Not Unix), and
give it away free(1) to everyone who can use it. Contributions of time,
money, programs and equipment are greatly needed.
To begin with, GNU will be a kernel plus all the utilities needed to
write and run C programs: editor, shell, C compiler, linker,
assembler, and a few other things. After this we will add a text
formatter, a YACC, an Empire game, a spreadsheet, and hundreds of
other things. We hope to supply, eventually, everything useful that
normally comes with a Unix system, and anything else useful, including
on-line and hardcopy documentation.
Unix was a modular system, so the idea is that GNU would replace each and every module, eventually making it a complete system. But RMS always had in mind that a GNU system would include non-GNU software (like a free X11 implementation). Of all the projects you mention the only one really built to make an operating system was the GNU project. It’s silly add the name of an application to the operating system name, or of a single component.
It’s technically more correct to refer to the system as GNU, but that’s not the reason RMS calls for GNU/Linux until today. The reason is that when people think of GNU it’s by definition associated with “the free operating system”, and that doesn’t happen with the name Linux. Linus himself has supported proprietary software in the past. Someone might say that “Linux needs DRM to be successful”, and as far as many people are concerned that’s completely true. But anyone can see how it’s completely ridiculous to suggest that “GNU, the operating system built to replace non-free operating systems, needs non-free software to be successful”.
But anyone can see how it’s completely ridiculous to suggest that “GNU, the operating system built to replace non-free operating systems, needs non-free software to be successful”.
So which free operating system was the FSF using to develop GNU before the AT&T/UCBerkeley deal made it possible to have a FreeBSD? (sorry for the name pun)
Which free compilers did RMS use to bootstrap GCC?
Realistically, 22 years after RMS’ announcement, GNU is nothing more than a prototype. Meanwhile, using a few tools originated by the FSF but mostly developed by other people, the open source community has released a (pun warning:) herd of Linux and BSD distributions.
GNU tools as well as lots of other stuff
The nomenclature drives from traditional UNIX systems. Remember, the GNU project provides an almost complete UNIX-replacement OS. In a UNIX, “the OS” is kernel + C library + compiler + CLI tools + etc. A GNU/Linux system is the GNU OS on the Linux kernel, just as OS X is the BSD OS on the Mach kernel.
If Linus named the OS “Lunix”, it might be classified into Unix, and GNU can’t ride on its back.
Im thinking since the Linux kernel is GNU sotware and licensed as such, to say you have a GNU/Linux OS would be like saying I have Mac OSX or a chocolate hot fudge sundae..its implied or a double statement statement.
However to obssess over such a minute detail is tedious.
Move on.
-nX
Im thinking since the Linux kernel is GNU sotware and licensed as such, to say you have a GNU/Linux OS would be like saying I have Mac OSX or a chocolate hot fudge sundae..its implied or a double statement statement.
Linux is NOT GNU software. GNU is an operating system with many modules, like GCC, glibc, bash, etc. Linux, however, is not one of these modules. There are several resources where you can learn what GNU is, I’d recommend a quick look at http://www.gnu.org.
With that said, calling GNU/Linux by Linux would be something like using XNU instead of Mac OS X. If you have no idea what these words mean please google it.
Maybe its me but I said that Kernel was GNU. It is.
“The kernel, at the heart of all Linux systems, is developed and released under the GNU General Public License and its source code is freely available to everyone. It is this kernel that forms the base around which a Linux operating system is developed.”
http://www.linux.org/info/index.html
So if you install a bunch of GNU applications like GCC, bash, and glibc atop the Linux Kernel what is the differnce?
-nX
Linux is not GNU-software. It’s GPL’ed yes, but that doesn’t make it GNU. It basically becomes GNU if it is under the control of FSF, just like a product becomes a Microsoft product if it is under the control of Microsoft.
The license is irrelevant in this regard.
It is not a double statement. “GNU/Linux” refers to a linux kernel with a GNU userland. To have a minimal operating system you need at least a kernel and userland utilities. With only the kernel, you can’t do much. Then you can use the kernel+userland to build applications on top of that.
It is for example possible to build a system, which consists of a *BSD kernel and a GNU userland (instead of the BSD userland). Examples of this are the Debian projects Debian GNU/NetBSD and Debian GNU/kFreeBSD. Another example is Nexenta OS, called GNU/Solaris, based on a GNU userland and a SunOS kernel (from OpenSolaris). And then of course, there is also GNU/HURD.
Of course, most of the time someone refers to “linux”, they refer to at least the linux kernel with the GNU userland and often at a whole linux distro. I guess RMS is just so obsessed about it, because he wants to make people aware that the GNU tools are an essential part of a linux system. I guess he probably feels like having done a lot of work on the GNU tools and then in the 90s, some guy makes a kernel and becomes all popular and gets all the attention. It’s like Linus Torvalds’ work is a lot more appreciated and recognised than Stallman’s work.
Oh well.. at least he can count me as a huge fan of his own OS… Emacs
When thinking of the relative importance of the GNU tools versus the kernel, think about which would be harder to replace. If you tell me I can’t use the GNU tools, then I don’t have the OS or DE I prefer. Which would disrupt my work for a long time. Tell me I can’t use Linux and I just switch to BSD the same day.
Maybe when just speaking casually, just “Linux” could be acceptable. But when written in formal documents or in articles credit should be given where it is due.
The firewall distro Coyote Linux doesn’t use the GNU runtime or the GNU utilities.
It does, however, use the Linux kernel.
It is “Linux”.
I’m sure there are other exceptions.
And to those exceptions (I really know nothing about Coyote to argue) you call them “Linux”.
I’m all for the parent when it says “Linux” will do the trick if you’re in casual conversations.
Paperwork and all ‘official’ stuff should give the credit to GNU when it is appropriate.
Just hope my poor english made this post at least readable.
Coyote uses Busybox:
http://www.busybox.net/about.html
and uClibc:
http://uclibc.org/about.html
to replace the GNU utilities and glibc respectively.
Yep, that’s my suggestion. Call it GNUX, pronounced “nuts” because if someone seriously debates over whether to say GNU/Linux or just Linux they’d have to be nuts.
Not really. There is Coke for example. Everyone says Coke when they mean Coca-Cola. but Coke is now the generic name for all colas.
Same as “doing the hoovering” is the generic name for vacuuming.
Maybe where you are from, but where I live, the generic word for cola is cola, not coke. or we call it “pop” I have never heard coke used as a generic term for cola. and “doing the hoovering” is NOT a generic term for vacuuming, in Canada we call it “vacuuming”, and I believe most of the US does too.
like you said, it depends where you are from.
I am from the UK, and we call cola Coke, and we call vacuuming hoovering.
Ahhh, that makes sense, different region, different slang
“Coke” is actually a registered trademark of the Coca Cola corporation. Cola isn’t. Here in Norway we use Cola. People think you’re weird if you say “Coke” 😉
I don’t quite agree with this naming fight. There’s a lot of reasons both of the sides are not right.
To start with: Just because your software is GPL licensed does NOT mean it’s part of the GNU project – it uses a GNU license but it is not part of the GNU project as ej: gcc, glibc and gimp are.This means that there’s a lot of software in a common distro which does not *NOT* belong to linux or the project GNU. Most of the free/open software out there are just projects that do *NOT* belong to any of both groups. But yes, lots of important utilities are part of the GNU project (gcc, glibc), however the amount of non-GNU and non-Linux software is bigger, and grows each day. Software gets ported to other systems more and more often (see: KDE for windows)
So duh, im my humble opinion a name is just a name, not a description. I don’t name Debian “Debian Linux” or “Debian GNU/Linux” – the name is Debian, period. If you want a description of what is in sure, it uses lots of GNU software, the linux kernel, and many other Debian free Software Guidelines-approved software (not all the GNU software is DFSG-approved, ej: things under the GNU FDL license). Everything else is poetry.
There’s people like Linus who says it should be called “Linux” because it what really makes it “different” from some POV: You can port glibc, gcc, gimp, gnome to other systems (freebsd, solaris, windows), but you can’t port the linux kernel to a NT (except using emulation or virtualization). The kernel (linux) is what really makes the system “identifiable” from some people’s POV
Other people calls to get it “Debian Linux” or “Linux” to linux system using GNU tools – it doesn’t means they’re not giving you recognition. The people who calls it “Linux” also contributes to GNU projects, etc. Nobody is stealing GNU just by no naming it. Myself, when I say “Linux” I also want to mean “GNU” because for my mind, the Linux and GNU are brothers. In my village people often names me with my brother’s name because we resemble so much, and I don’t get so angry as GNU people does. GNU wouldn’t exist without Linux, and Linux wouldn’t exist without GNU. I think that the GNU project should feel proud of hearding people pronouncing the world linux in their mouths around the world, and not the contrary.
Edited 2006-05-05 12:24
I don’t quite agree with this naming fight. There’s a lot of reasons both of the sides are not right
The fight is only between people that don’t understand the issue.
GNU/Linux makes perfect sense. One BIG reason why GNU/Linux makes sense should be obvious to everyone.
Only one kind of people (that I’ve never seen yet) can really say GNU/Linux is wrong : people that have never see anyone mix the kernel and the OS, or mix the OS and a distribution.
lots of important utilities are part of the GNU project (gcc, glibc), however the amount of non-GNU and non-Linux software is bigger, and grows each day. Software gets ported to other systems more and more often (see: KDE for windows)
That is true, but there is one very important thing you missed : without the base OS, which is almost entirely GNU, you can’t make any of your tools work on a Linux kernel, because you don’t have an OS anymore. Actually I’m wrong, you could install BusyBox (GPL product) and have an OS that is not GNU/Linux, but you’ll still have a harder time installing other software, GNU or not, if you even can.
So duh, im my humble opinion a name is just a name, not a description
You’re wrong then, a name is very important, especially in sciences like math, physics or (I will be flamed for that) computer science.
In lots of other areas too, but it seems in our age, people prefer to be confused by names that means 3 or more different things, instead of learning how to speak and use correct terms (too much word to remember). Yes, I find this sad, and means we can no longer understand what people say.
I don’t name Debian “Debian Linux” or “Debian GNU/Linux” – the name is Debian, period
Debian is Debian of course. The problem is not there, the problem is in what it is : a Linux, a Linux OS, a GNU/Linux ?
If you want a description of what is in sure, it uses lots of GNU software, the linux kernel, and many other Debian free Software Guidelines-approved software (not all the GNU software is DFSG-approved, ej: things under the GNU FDL license). Everything else is poetry
You’re wrong then. It’s basically a Linux kernel and a GNU OS, everything else is poetry. These two things are the basics for you to have even a bash prompt.
There’s people like Linus who says it should be called “Linux” because it what really makes it “different” from some POV
BS, he says that because he talks about the kernel, and can’t be bothered with how you call the rest, though he will take a jab at RMS any time.
You can port glibc, gcc, gimp, gnome to other systems (freebsd, solaris, windows), but you can’t port the linux kernel to a NT (except using emulation or virtualization). The kernel (linux) is what really makes the system “identifiable” from some people’s POV
This is BS too. You’ll have a hard time identifying your Linux kernel in a Tivo, a KISS, any embedded device, and what is on a PC.
Nobody is stealing GNU just by no naming it. Myself, when I say “Linux” I also want to mean “GNU” because for my mind, the Linux and GNU are brothers
You’re right, but it’s marketing, and very important marketing, as there is a “force” pushing to call everything Open Source, even when it’s Free Software, which is very dangerous. I see more and more people that do not even understand why the difference is important, and the same people say afterwards, that politics in Free Software is not important. Again, these are the very same people against DRM, which is contradictory. I find this alarming.
GNU wouldn’t exist without Linux, and Linux wouldn’t exist without GNU
See ? That’s the very kind of completely wrong and BS views that come from diluting what GNU is.
GNU existed and grew without Linux, and would have grown without Linux, perhaps slower.
Of course, Linux would not have existed without GNU.
I think that the GNU project should feel proud of hearding people pronouncing the world linux in their mouths around the world, and not the contrary
Which is contradictory to what you said before, as Linux is not part of the GNU project at all.
The danger I was talking about before : Open Source has no goal (no politics), while GNU has one.
Being proud of people using the word Linux is sth good for Open Source, but is no good at all for GNU.
GNU is not about hype, GNU is about bringing free tools to people.
Lots of company that use Linux in embedded Linux, like StreamCore, are not proud of anything Linux, they are there for profiting.
GNU is against that through the GPL, not thanks to popularity of Linux.
See ? That’s the very kind of completely wrong and BS views that come from diluting what GNU is.
GNU existed and grew without Linux, and would have grown without Linux, perhaps slower.
Of course, Linux would not have existed without GNU.
How come? While the former is true, it’s not like it’s impossible to make an operating system with a new userland.
As for “perhaps slower”, you must be joking. Just look at the number of free software developers before and after Linux, including those working on the Hurd. It’s quite hard to deny that Linux’s hype is one of the driving forces for the movement.
As for those who are claiming that Linux is “just a kernel” while the GNU userland is the actual OS, you are wrong. The kernel is the central part of any modern OS. While a kernel wouldn’t be much useful without its userland, the userland alone wouldn’t work at all without a kernel. The name “GNU/Linux” does make sense since these projects are forming a working OS together.
To me, the name is not a question of recognition, but rather of technicality. After all, a bare GNU/Linux system, without any program, wouldn’t be much useful. If we were really getting on recognition, the name would be long like a licence with an advertising clause…
Of course, you can call GNU a proper OS when it’s combined to their Hurd project. RMS might be an ass, but he does have a point. It’s not like anybody outside their clique is using it, though.
So fallowing your analogy I could (but I won’t
) call you “dickhead-pussface-slut” and be gone with it … a name is not just a name – by saying GNU/Linux you acknowledge the work done by FSF people and put emphasize where it’s due. Once people recognize who made contributions they will be more effectively directing their support where it is of most value – to factual contributors. You could say also it’s about marketing (as someone here already did).
by saying GNU/Linux you acknowledge the work done by FSF people and put emphasize where it’s due. Once people recognize who made contributions they will be more effectively directing their support where it is of most value – to factual contributors.
You may as well say Cygnus/Linux as say GNU/Linux if you’re going to use the name to acknowledge the work done, as a good deal of GNU software is only in the state its in because massive amounts of work done by people outside of the FSF.
This is nothing more than a storm a teacup.
What it appears is one man getting pissed off that ‘linux’ is taking the limelight from GNU – when quite frankly, if I were a FSF programmer, I would be more chuffed about the fact that people use my software everyday, rather than being concerned over whether my name is up there in lights for the world users to venerate, as if it were some sort of deity.
Browser: Lynx/2.8.5rel.4 libwww-FM/2.14
But THAT is the whole point. Stallman is not talking about “FSF Programmers” he is talking about “FSF Politicals”. The Free Software Foundation is much more about the IDEALS than the software they wrote (which is great, by the way).
I am one who deeply disagree with Stallman in his FSFs Philosofies. I’m personally more attracted to open source than to FREE software; but the man HAS a point.
As many pointed out before me. Linux is a kernel and GNU is a ‘base system suite’. Both would have existed without one another having a much more harder evolution, but would have existed.
Why call it only LINUX when it is the contribution of both sides that made it happen ?
Okay, I know GNU/Linux (pronounced GNU Plus Linux as Stallman does is even worse) is bad for casual conversations.
But people should know that Fedora Core is a GNU/Linux that Ubuntu is a GNU/Linux, same for gentoo, suse or <put-big-distro-here>.
That said… I don’t like Stallman at all… went to a speech he gave like 2 or 3 weeks ago and the guy is nuts. But even nuts have the rights to be given credit when they deserve it.
Just my BRL$ 0,20 (too big of a comment to call it 0,02)
I agree; when will it end?
I mean, we have X11 in there, some BSD licenced components, we’re going to have a spaghetti load of gobbly goop everytime Linux is mentioned – sorry, GNU/X11/BSD/MIT/Linux?
Browser: Lynx/2.8.5rel.4 libwww-FM/2.14
Indeed, although the fact that the authors says:
But the problem is that much of what people have come to associate with “Linux” is in reality rather “GNU” or third-party associations.
So maybe we should call it Mostly Guh-Noo Slash Linux.
Oh, and remember, it ain’t “Lie-nux”
😉
Actually, GNU is pronounced “new’ so it would be ‘new slash linux’.
Don’t get my started on project names, apparently metacity is pronounced some other damn way, what next? yhjksadlfjaskdf is pronounced, “chicken chunder box”? geeze.
That’s ok, in my house all Windows products are pronounced, “Aaaaargh!”
> …we’re going to have a spaghetti load of gobbly goop everytime Linux is mentioned – sorry,
> GNU/X11/BSD/MIT/Linux?
>
> Browser: Lynx/2.8.5rel.4 libwww-FM/2.14
Sorry, Lynx/2.8.5rel.4 libwww-FM/2.14?
Ironic.
My browser ID says “Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.3) Gecko/20060426 Firefox/1.5.0.3”, but most folks know what I’m talking about when I simply say “Firefox”.
Sorry, Lynx/2.8.5rel.4 libwww-FM/2.14?
Ironic.
I was surfing the web from my FreeBSD box, doing a clean upgrade of my ports, so that was the first thing I restored so that I could post and surf whilst compiling 🙂
When you use their lynx/wap stuff, it automatically pastes your browsers identification – I’d love for it to do it when posting normally – see how many Microsoft fan boys are actually running IE 😉
Why put in BSD/MIT? It’s not about licenses, you know.
And the parts in GNU/Linux which isn’t GNU software are so small they shouldn’t mentioned. If they should be mentioned then FreeBSD would have to be called GNU/FreeBSD, and GNU/NetBSD and GNU/OpenBSD because none of these systems would exists without GCC. And GCC is GNU software.
The original BSD was not using GCC, so there is no reason these forks couldn’t exist.
There are few alternatives to GCC because there is no need to reinvent the wheel… After all, GCC does a great job. If GCC didn’t existed or had a licencing issue, then the open-source advocates would have written one outside the GNU umbrella. It’s that simple.
The FSF deserves more credit for their work, but the world would still go round without them.
If they should be mentioned then FreeBSD would have to be called GNU/FreeBSD, and GNU/NetBSD and GNU/OpenBSD because none of these systems would exists without GCC.
They would exist. If GCC hadn’t been available, one of the other free C compilers would have been picked up and we’d be talking about it now.
Or the introduction of the *BSDs would have waited a few years until the AT&T/UC-Berkeley consent degree made the Berkeley C compiler available.
And the parts in GNU/Linux which isn’t GNU software are so small they shouldn’t mentioned. If they should be mentioned then FreeBSD would have to be called GNU/FreeBSD, and GNU/NetBSD and GNU/OpenBSD because none of these systems would exists without GCC. And GCC is GNU software.
So Xorg/X11 is a really minor piece of software? Linux as a desktop or terminal server could live without it?
As a desktop? Yes. Ever heard of DirectFB?
Besides that, X.org isn’t the only X-server.
But the X-server isn’t a part of any base system. And even if it was it should not be mentioned.
Do you call AmigaOS for AmigaOS/Intuition?
Or do you call Windows for NT/Windows/Explorer
X.org _may_ be important, but it’s not exactly a part of a base system. tar is much more important.
I don’t think that’s the point. You can have a perfectly running operating system without X11.
Other comments also mention that some systems should have GNU in their name because GCC was used to build the system. I don’t think that’s the point either.
To have a useful operating system, an operating system that you can run applications on, you need a kind of “core system” which consists out of a kernel and a userland. RMS’s claim is that most Linux systems have a core which is actually the Linux kernel and the GNU userland. I think his point is there almost every running linux kernel is accompanied by a GNU userland and I think he (as the FSF) wants some recognition for that.
BSD systems have their own userland. Consider for example the libc library, which is part of the userland, and you’ll see that most BSD systems have their own libc library and do not use GNU libc (glibc).
Debian uses for example the name GNU/kFreeBSD to indicate that in this Debian port, they use a GNU userland, but built around a FreeBSD kernel.
Just clarifying the “intention” of this naming scheme.
Does anyone else remember when autoconf and emacs suddenly started refering to Linux as LiGNUx 10 years ago? What a stir that caused… at this point, just drop it and be proud that the philosophy of Free Software has been a wild success, whatever it is called.
I don’t think RMS’s place is history will be lost; he is a far more crucial and interesting character than Linus. He really does very actively defend the faith and educate the public. GNU/Linux is a very appropriate name, but he really shouldn’t push it.
If someone wants to call something GNU/Linux, for a perfectly valid reason, that’s fine and calling it something else when talking to them is a bit disrespectful. However, it’s clear that the world has made up its mind on this one so making some kind of issue of GNU/Linux vs Linux is probably a bit silly. Creators have been bemoaning the world’s capricious habit of renaming and reinterpreting their work since the inventor of the first circular stone corn-grinder saw to his dismay that someone has turned it on its side and was using it as means of propulsion.
GNU *has* their own kernel, the HURD. I downloaded it and reviewed the GNU/HURD live CD http://penguinpetes.com/b2evo/index.php?title=gnu_hurd_system_hurdl…
. It may not be defined as “ready”, but it booted and ran on both machines I tried it on, and seems to only be lacking a desktop and it’s ready to go! So then you’d have a pure-GNU system… it’s a real enigma. There should be hundreds of GNU live CDs with Linux as a second-shower, not the other way round.
Not to mention that when I try BSD or Open Solaris, I find some of the exact same GNU tools in there as well. But *why* does GNU want credit for an operating system when they’re obviouly not very interested in writing one? Tons of great programs are written and released under the wonderful GNU license – credit duly noted, but these days I tend to call Linux “the Linux operating system running GNU software”. But we also have software released under the BSD lisence and the Mozilla lisence and Sun’s Java language on a Linux system, so do we call it “Sun/BSD/GNU/Firefox/Linux”?
Crank up development on the HURD and we’ll talk.
It is not about “software released under the GNU license”. It is about “software made by the GNU Project”.
And not about “all the software that run on top of that kernel” but about SYSTEM Software, Base System.
I find some of the exact same GNU tools in there as well.
Without the GNU userspace, your average Linux distro wouldn’t be an OS — almost all use GNU LibC to allow the execution of C programs, for example. They use GNU LD to support dynamic linking. They use GNU CC to compile the system.
Your average Linux system doesn’t just use “GNU tools”, they use GNU components as fundemental parts of the userspace of the OS.
When “Linux”-people start referring to Mac OSX as “Darwin”, or Windows XP as “ntoskern”, then they’ll have a platform to debate on.
I think “Gnu/Linux” is important for the same reasons Stallman thinks its important.
The FSF have made it their life’s work to write and promote the GNU operating system. Then, Linux comes out, and all their work goes essentially uncredited. And to make matters worse (for FSF), Linus Torvalds isn’t even a vocal supporter of Free Software.
Personally, i’d like to go a step further and just called the system “GNU”. With so many *nix kernels out there, its not like most people can tell a functional difference between them. We just tend to use linux because it has the biggest developer push and the best driver support.
But why stop at GNU/Linux? Shouldn’t we credit at least X.org too? And let’s say that you run Gnome – then you have lots of Gnome project software also.
Now we’d have GNU/Linux/XORG/Gnome-system, how cool is that.
In my opinion Linus was right. If you make a distro, you get to name it and choose if you want to mention Linux or GNU in it’s name.
They are just names, don’t take them too seriously.
Gnome is GNU software.
Whoops my mistake. The Xorg points still stands though.
Gnome is GNU software.
Wrong. Gnome is completely unaffiliated with GNU.
Gnome is GNU software.
It is KDE which is unaffiliated, due to historical reasons.
Gnome is GNU software.
If you don’t want to deal with the facts then that’s your problem. But Gnome has nothing to do with GNU, except for some historical naming.
GNU software is software that has FSF/GNU copyright. It’s that simple.
If you don’t want to deal with the facts then that’s your problem. But Gnome has nothing to do with GNU, except for some historical naming.
GNU software is software that has FSF/GNU copyright. It’s that simple.
Let’s deal with a couple facts here, shall we? http://www.gnome.org/about/
Quoted from the above URL:
GNOME is Free Software and part of the GNU project, dedicated to giving users and developers the ultimate level of control over their desktops, their software, and their data. Find out more about the GNU project and Free Software at gnu.org.
Let’s deal with a couple facts here, shall we? http://www.gnome.org/about/
Quoted from the above URL:
GNOME is Free Software and part of the GNU project, dedicated to giving users and developers the ultimate level of control over their desktops, their software, and their data. Find out more about the GNU project and Free Software at gnu.org.
Despite what that page says, Gnome is not part of the GNU project. At one time, it might have been, but that is long since over. The Gnome foundation has nothing to do with GNU, but if you want to spread GNU FUD then that’s your problem.
Despite what that page says, Gnome is not part of the GNU project. At one time, it might have been, but that is long since over. The Gnome foundation has nothing to do with GNU, but if you want to spread GNU FUD then that’s your problem.
Please don’t spread FUD. Here is the FSF url for GNOME: http://directory.fsf.org/gnome.html
Please don’t spread FUD. Here is the FSF url for GNOME: http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2002-May/msg00025.ht…
The official GNOME website says GNOME is part of the GNU. Someone on the Internet says it is not. Who do I believe?
The official GNOME website says GNOME is part of the GNU. Someone on the Internet says it is not. Who do I believe?
Once again, any relation that Gnome had to GNU is long since over. Why don’t you ask someone on the Gnome foundation board. Stop spreading FUD.
Once again, any relation that Gnome had to GNU is long since over. Why don’t you ask someone on the Gnome foundation board. Stop spreading FUD.
Do you have any report from any member of the GNOME foundation saying GNOME is not part of the GNU?
Do you have any report from any member of the GNOME foundation saying GNOME is not part of the GNU?
Maybe you’re a linux newbie, but a GNU project is a project controlled by the FSF – under FSF copyright. Gnome has their own foundation called the Gnome foundation. There is no connection anymore, no matter what kind of propaganda you’re trying to spread.
Maybe you’re a linux newbie, but a GNU project is a project controlled by the FSF – under FSF copyright. Gnome has their own foundation called the Gnome foundation. There is no connection anymore, no matter what kind of propaganda you’re trying to spread.
Well, the GNOME Foundation disagrees.
http://foundation.gnome.org/
The GNOME Project is an effort to create a complete, free and easy-to-use desktop environment for users, as well as a powerful application development framework for software developers. GNOME is part of the GNU Project, and is Free Software (sometimes referred to as Open Source software).
Even the GNOME Foundation says GNOME is part of the GNU project.
http://foundation.gnome.org/
Even the GNOME Foundation says GNOME is part of the GNU project.
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2002-May/msg00025.ht…
GNU projects are influenced by the FSF and typically require copyright assignment. Like I said, I can claim that GNU is a CNU (Canucklehead’s Not Unix) project, but that wouldn’t mean much either.
How do you explain the fact that the FSF is part of the GNOME Foundation advisory board?
Edited 2006-05-05 21:14
How do you explain the fact that the FSF is part of the GNOME Foundation advisory board?
That might be, but that doesn’t make Gnome a GNU project. Is Gnome an IBM project, or a Hewlett-Packard project? Nope.
RMS and the FSF don’t control Gnome like they control, say, GCC. There are rules for a GNU project and Gnome doesn’t play by those rules. RMS burned his bridge with the Gnome developers a long time ago.
RMS != FSF.
The Gnome Project is according to the Gnome Project a part of GNU Software.
The Gnome Project is according to FSF a part of GNU Software.
The only one claiming otherwise is you, and considering your past here on OSNews, you have zero credibility.
The Gnome project is not a GNU project. You can stop trolling now. Nobody believes your lies.
Did you just registered to OSNEWS just to spread that FUD?
I say:
get a life.
Mitaria, nobody is believing the GNU propaganda lies anymore.
What GNU propaganda lies?
You sound like one those Holocaust deniers or perhaps the 9/11 Conspiracy believers.
At the very least come with some evidence that Gnome != GNU Software.
How come you know better than the Gnome devs?
dylanmrjones, you can just ask the developers over at irc.gimp.org #gnome-dev if Gnome is a GNU project. They’ll set you straight.
Evidence?
I’m not going to run around for evidence. You can post it here. Post some snippets from a talk with these devs.
If they don’t consider Gnome a GNU Project then why do they say it’s a GNU Project?
You haven’t explained this.
How do you explain the fact that the FSF is part of the GNOME Foundation advisory board?
If Gnome is a GNU project then why is there a Gnome Foundation? It would just be another project under FSF.
Not necessarily.
You obviously don’t know what you are talking about, but that’s your usual style.
You can try to spread FUD, but nobody believes it.
The only one in here who believes Gnome != GNU Software is you.
The rest of us can see on gnome.org that Gnome == GNU Software.
The only troll here is you.
Dylansmrjones, why do you keep on spreading FUD and lies about Gnome? Gnome is not a GNU project.
Why do you keep lying about it, CanuckleFrog? Please prove your claim. And why do you even care? From your posts in the past it’s clear you are a Windows (or at least a non-FLOSS) zealot coming here to troll.
On http://gnome.org/about it clearly says Gnome is a GNU project.
GNOME is Free Software and part of the GNU project, dedicated to giving users and developers the ultimate level of control over their desktops, their software, and their data. Find out more about the GNU project and Free Software at gnu.org.
Now, please prove that Gnome is not a GNU Project, and please explain to me, why the Gnome devs says it’s a GNU Project if it’s not a GNU Project. Shouldn’t the devs know better?
In case you have a hard time reading, I’ll carve it out quite clear.
1) Come with prove for Gnome NOT being a GNU Project.
2) Explain why the Gnome devs call Gnome for a GNU Project. Shouldn’t they know better?
3) Explain why you, a GNU and Linux hater even care.
4) Go trolling somewhere else.
DylanMrJones, it’s clear that any relationship with GNU is long since over, and it was never a GNU project. If you want to educate yourself, then please read the mailinglists. Or you can ask the developers on irc and they will tell you the same thing.
If not, then please stop trolling and spreading FUD about the Gnome project.
The mailinglists clearly shows that the devs consider it a GNU Project. The funny thing is you only link to the critical mails, despite the fact that these mails comes from a minority. A minority without understanding of Gnome.
I want you to shut up OR post evidence in this thread. I will not do more searches for evidence.
If Gnome is a GNU project then why is there a Gnome Foundation? It would just be another project under FSF.
We’ve been telling you it is part of the GNU project, but you insist we are FUD mongers. Even the GNOME Foundations says GNOME is part of the GNU project. What more evidence do you need?
We’ve been telling you it is part of the GNU project, but you insist we are FUD mongers. Even the GNOME Foundations says GNOME is part of the GNU project. What more evidence do you need?
It’s not part of the GNU project, because it’s not a GNU project. Once again, why does the Gnome foundation exist if it’s a GNU project?
It’s not part of the GNU project, because it’s not a GNU project. Once again, why does the Gnome foundation exist if it’s a GNU project?
Crap! Are you being intentionally obtuse? See the link below. Out of curiosity, do you know what the “G” in GNOME stands for?
http://foundation.gnome.org/
Crap! Are you being intentionally obtuse? See the link below. Out of curiosity, do you know what the “G” in GNOME stands for?
If you won’t answer the question of why there is a Gnome foundation, then we can only conclude that you are trying to spread FUD about Gnome.
If you won’t answer the question of why there is a Gnome foundation, then we can only conclude that you are trying to spread FUD about Gnome.
The GNOME Foundation exist to cater for the needs of GNOME, especially. The foundation oversees the general direction GNOME is heading. A direction which is not at odds with free software, the Free Software Foundation, or the GNU project. The overall goal of the GNOME foundation and the GNU project are one and the same. You could save yourself further embarrasments by looking up the projects’ respective official websites for detailed information. And if FUD bit you in the ass, you wouldn’t know it.
The GNOME Foundation exist to cater for the needs of GNOME, especially. The foundation oversees the general direction GNOME is heading. A direction which is not at odds with free software, the Free Software Foundation, or the GNU project. The overall goal of the GNOME foundation and the GNU project are one and the same. You could save yourself further embarrasments by looking up the projects’ respective official websites for detailed information. And if FUD bit you in the ass, you wouldn’t know it.
Stop trolling and spreading FUD about Gnome. The overall goal of the Gnome foundation and the GNU project ARE not the same.
“You might be here to spread freedom, but Gnome, the Gnome Foundation,
and its members might have goals which are not aligned with yours. ”
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2002-May/msg00025.ht…
The overall goal of the Gnome foundation and the GNU project ARE not the same.
Right, and I believe you because you are a prominent member of the GNOME Foundation and a GNOME developer. I admire your “truthiness.”
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2002-May/msg00026.ht…
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2002-May/msg00040.ht…
MystillBeef, you need to educate yourself and stop spreading FUD about Gnome. Until you stop spreading RMS lies then there is no hope for you knowing the truth.
MystillBeef, you need to educate yourself and stop spreading FUD about Gnome. Until you stop spreading RMS lies then there is no hope for you knowing the truth.
I hear you Lumbergh.
I hear you Lumbergh.
What’s a lumbergh? But it’s good that you realize that Gnome is not a GNU project now.
I also just realized that the earth is flat.
As I told DylanMrJones, if you would go over to irc.gimp.net, the gnome developers will also inform you that Gnome is not a GNU project.
Right, it is a CanuckleFrog project.
It’s as much a Canucklefrog or MyStillbeef project as it is a GNU project. One day you’ll free yourself from
GNU indoctrination.
At this point, you could as well tell me the SUN is green and it wouldn’t matter to me.
That’s fine MyStillbeef. You can go on believing lies.
Man, your ability to ignore reality is amazing, you may be a modern medical miracle
Uh…I’ll go with the Gnome website’s opinion of the matter, but if you feel the need to ignore reality, go ahead
-> B O R I N G ! – there are more important things to think about .
We send a letter to Stallman proclaiming him the father of Free Software. Promise him to erect a small monument to him in exchange for him calming down about the whole Gnu/Linux thing. Look we will agree to call it “GnuLinux” every 10th or 5th time we say the Os’s name. Oh, I refuse to say “Gnu-slash-Linux”. Look I’m pretty sure Richard’s place in history is in place but he needs to realize that Gnu wouldn’t be in the place it is without Linux. Yes I know Linux wouldn’t be in the place it is without Gnu too. Its mutual success so call it what you like but don’t throw a temper tantrum every time someone shortens it. Just my $0.02.
GNU/Linux for the OS.
Linux for the Kernel.
——
Because what differentiate the GNU/Linux OS is the Free software.
Maybe that subject is a little too general, but a lotof of Unixy OSes out there use the GNU software or software compatible with GNU. So saying something that’s Unixy is GNU/Unixen doesn’t really say anything. When I switch between Unixen I just expect that a lot of the tools will be the same.
Not so true in BSD land.
For the most part, the only GNU software (as in software produced by the fsf) used by the BSDs is gcc.
Other GNU tools are available via ports, but gcc is the only one that is necessary.
gcc is definately the fsf’s biggest achievement. It has no rival and is used on almost every system/platform.
Can anyone tell me what parts of the GNU software are actually essential parts when distributing an OS based on GNU, Linux and X11?
Some examples of what I mean by “essential”:
The glibc library obviously is essential. The GCC compiler itself is necessary to _build_ the OS, but is doesn’t have to be part of the distro itself, and thus not essential in this context. Console tools like grep, man, ls, less, more and du are handy, but not essential for running a graphical desktop. EMACS is clearly not essential.
A lot of the GUI tools we use in Linux are just front ends to those same “non-essential” console tools, and a LOT of people prefer the commandline to the GUI. For a LOT of people, EMACS is essential, please, just because you don’t use a tool, or don’t “think” you are using a tool, don’t misjudge it’s impact. GUI software is not everything, and to admins, sometimes more annoying and less efficient than the command line tools
To BluenoseJake:
EMACS and many of console tools may be essential for a lot of users, but they are applications, not part of the actual OS.
If all file managers have to use ls to display the files in a directory, then ls is essential in this context, but not if this can be done through glibc instead.
Commands that are necessary when starting the OS, like mounting disks, are essential.
So what I’d like to know is basically what parts of GNU, in addition to glibc, are essential for getting most normal applications up and running. (I.e. not libraries like GTK+ that are required for _some_ applications.)
As i said earlier, a lot of the GUI tools are frontends to the console tools, so they are essential to most users, as well as Ghostscript, for postscript files, Bash, GnuCash, for bookkeeping/budgeting, The Gimp, Vi, and lots of others. Emacs is an application, not part of the OS. The GNU development toolchain is used by some Linux Distros quite often (Installing software on a Gentoo system using Portage, for example).
Linux, or GNU/Linux is more than just the the GUI, just because you think that the GUI is the end all of the OS, does not mean that it is so, and as I have already said, alot of those GUI apps call CL utilities to do thier work, even things such as k3b, a lot of the GUI archiving and backup tools, as well as user admin tools.
I personally think that Stallman is wrong, and he should count his blessings that Linux came a long to give him a kernel when GNU couldn’t get the HURD running in a reasonable amount of time, but for GNU/Linux to function as a fully capable Unix-like OS, it needs those CL utilities to lay the foundations for, and to enhance and supplement the GUI tools built with them and around them.
For a LOT of people, EMACS is essential,
Then they should crawl out from under their rocks and learn the wonders of vi.
now that’s an old war
Can anyone tell me what parts of the GNU software are actually essential parts when distributing an OS based on GNU, Linux and X11?
Only GCC. There is a Gentoo distro/port of linux with the BSD userland.
GNU Utilities ( Compliers, tools, Gnome etc , so ooooooooon )
GNU Utilities === Body
Linux === life
GNU/Linux ===== living Animal.
GNU – Linux ===== Dead body.
Linux – GNU ==== Devil ( Other type of Dead body ?)
I hate to give kudos to Big Bertha, but does Microsoft complain everytime someone says/writes/types/engraves/thinks “Windows” instead of “Microsoft Windows”?
No, but everybody knows Windows belongs to Microsoft. But people don’t know much about GNU or FSF.
That’s probably why Stallman wants GNU/Linux systems to be called GNU/Linux.
I use the sentence whenever it’s appropriate. Usually when I have to make it obvious that the kernel and whole system aren’t the same.
One of the things that the GPL protects is my ability to call software that I’ve created whatever I’d like. So even though I’m *compiling* something with GNU, I can commercially label it “Spank Monkey v10.0”.
For the man who essentially rolled the ideas together for this very same license to say that we should all have to call something what *he* wants or he’s taking his balls and going home makes someone look rediculous. I’m not going to point out which party, I’ll let you make the decision.
So the same guy that hates the BSD attribution license with such a passion seems to *really* like it’s stipulations. But, ah, he’ll just verbally berate you if you don’t agree. He’s not going to force you to.
I’m really not sure which is more irritating, having to list out 500 contributors to a BSD original license project or listen to Stallman say he’s not going to talk to anyone that doesn’t prepend “GNU” before Linux.
Stallman is not telling us how to label GNU/Linux systems. What he does want, is us to refer to the OS as a GNU/Linux-distribution rather than a Linux-distribution.
So instead of saying “Spank Monkey v10.0 is a Linux distribution” he wants you to say “Spank Monkey v10.0 is a GNU/Linux distribution”.
He doesn’t tell us what to call the systems. You’re misinterpreting the license, as well as Stallmans statement. But perhaps your english skills (as well as mental skills) aren’t better?
If we call the entire OS “Linux” then I guess we can say that Linux started in 1984 when the FSF started writing it.
Wouldn’t that be silly? But if people insist that Linux is the entire OS and the OS was started in ’84, then the logical conclusion is that Linux was started in ’84 when Linus was still learning basic maths. So maybe it’s calling the OS “Linux” that is silly.
But even more silly is when an article in the popular press describes “Linux” which they take to mean as the whole OS. But that’s not the bad part. The bad part is when they go into the history of the OS and start with something like “Linus Torvalds wrote Linux as a student” and act like that’s the beginning of the whole movement. That’s the kind of disinformation that is spread when the OS has a misrepresentative name.
What a lame article.
There is no controversy here.
Quote: “In reply to Stallman, Linus Torvalds stated: “Well, I think it’s justified, but it’s justified if you actually make a GNU distribution of Linux … the same way that I think that “Red Hat Linux” is fine, or “SuSE Linux” or “Debian Linux,” because if you actually make your own distribution of Linux, you get to name the thing, but calling Linux in general “GNU Linux” I think is just ridiculous.” ”
So if the system is a GNU-system with a Linux kernel, Torvalds actually agrees with Stallman. And Stallman agrees that a non-GNU system with a Linux kernel is not a GNU/Linux system.
So, the controversy here only exists in the mind of shallow persons, desperately needing some ad-revenue creating clicks.
You should say that to Stallman then. He seemed a bit angry when the subject came out in the last speech he gave at my university.
PS: I have to say I AGREE with Stallmans requests… yet it is probably the one thing I agree with him.
Well, I didn’t hear the speech so I don’t know whether it was in regard to Torvalds, or in regard to all the people naming the OS after the kernel instead of after the OS.
GNU/Linux is the only system I know where you name the OS after the kernel.
Basically the name should just be GNU. The Linux part should only be used to distinguish between the different GNU-systems. In which case Windows 9x/ME should be called Windows/DOS because they were Windows OS on top of DOS. Actually they should be called Windows/DOS/Command.com
We use the Linux kernel, along with a lot of GNU tools.
I use GNOME (and KDE, XFCE, jwm, icewm, fluxbox, blackbox, ede, and a few other window managers/DEs). Are these part of the OS?
They are a possible part of a distribution, but not necessarily a part of the OS, though such a view would be logical when comparing GNU/Linux with other systems.
But take a look at Linux From Scratch. It’s a base system. No X.org, no Gnome, no KDE, just GNU tools and a linux kernel.
So what they want to to say is “GNU in Not Unix, nor Linux” either .. huh ?
It seems to me if Stallman wants to espouse the virtues of free software then he should accept the consequences of free software.
I can’t believe he thinks that he could give up ownership of his creations and then expect to control how they were perceived. I don’t throw my wallet on a subway with a post-it note licencing anyone to do pretty much what they want with it and not expect someone to a) pilfer the money b) keep the wallet for their own devices and c) take my cards and screw with me (about the only recognition he should have expected).
He’s a smart guy and I think his philosphy is a great one. But, if he wanted linux to be called gnu/linux then he should have gone the apple route: using slick marketing and an iron fisted legal department to maintain the upmost control on how gnu was perceived by the public. Apple wouldn’t garnish that 30%+ margin if they hadn’t staunchly controlled how they were percieved.
Anything now is the sour grapes learnt from giving up control. Too bad he didn’t think about the consequences of his fsf philosphy back in the day.
There’s this idea that if you change the words people are supposed to use, they will think differently. For example, if we call retarded people “special”, we will think positively of them. Of course it doesn’t work that way. “Special” now has the same connotations as “retarded” does (and “retarded” itself was originally an intentional euphemism).
Anybody who cares knows the origins of the different parts of the OS. They know Linus and friends make the kernel and the FSF makes the core userspace utilities and libraries and X.org makes the windowing system, etc. They don’t need to say GNU/Linux to remind them. For those who don’t care, saying GNU/Linux is no more enlightening than just saying Linux. They don’t care about different OS components, maybe they don’t even understand how an OS works. Perhaps they don’t even care about politics at all. To them, having to say “GNU/Linux” is just more work (both in typing and in speaking). But more to the point, saying “GNU/Linux” doesn’t actually tell you anything about who did what. Unless you already know about the internal structure of the OS, you would have no idea what GNU or Linux actually referred to. And if you already knew about the structure of the OS, you would already know that GNU makes the userspace and Linus makes the kernel.
And most importantly, it’s just a name. A real travesty would be if somebody actually claimed that Linus and friends made the entire OS. That would be factually incorrect. Furthermore, there are plenty of names that stick around that aren’t fully technically correct but have a history or some other reason for their existence. If you go into /dev you will see nodes like tty0, etc. We don’t use teletypes anymore. For that matter, we don’t really use true old-fashioned terminals anymore. Yet the names remain. They’re convenient, everybody understands them and the names don’t have to be changed with every new way of implementing terminals as technology changes. And we call computers “computers”, not “Von-Neumann Binary Digital Programmable Computers” even though the latter is technically correct (and there are computers that aren’t programmable or that don’t follow the von-neumann architecture or aren’t digital, etc.). Nobody gets up in arms about making people say that mouthful just because it’s technically correct and gives credit to Von Neumann. That would be pedantry. Why the zealots can’t see that forcing people to say “GNU/Linux” is also worthless pedantry is beyond me. But Linux zealots are really in a class by themselves when it comes to getting up in arms over the most pointless of things.
RMS is just mad that he doesn’t get to control the kernel. What drives him nuts is that he can’t dictate to hardware companies about opening up their drivers. The only thing essential to a Linux system is GCC. The rest of the userland tools have already been ported over from the BSDs and there’s even a gentoo distro based on it.
Google Ulrich Drepper, glibc, and RMS to see what a control nut RMS is.
If it was really a big deal, the Linux team could just re-write all the GNU parts. Either way, Linux will be far ahead of HURD for the forseeable future.
But it’s not. It’s just a meaningless squable that’s pulled out once in awhile when either the tech writers run out of things to write about or when Stallman brings it up (which if he’s not prepared to try an enforce it through legal action, he might as well not keep bringing it up). This topic has been covered to death. It’s the equivalent of the tabloids trying to start media wars between various celebrities. They love it when Tom Cruise criticizes Brook Shields, and they love it when Stallman gets on Linus’ case. It’s just another example of sorry state of journalism.
If it was really a big deal, the Linux team could just re-write all the GNU parts.
Just re-write all the GNU parts? Just? You make it sound so trivial.
I read a lot of people here and elsewhere dismissing RMS, but I for one don’t think he gets near enough credit. I’m not so sure there would even be a free- or open-source software movement today were it not for his vision and stubbornness.
The problem with calling it GNU/mumble is two fold:
first, most of any distro isn’t GNU stuff anyway. As others have pointed out, there’s X, a window manager, whatever tools the distro is packaged with, and literally hundreds of applications that the FSF had nothing to do with.
second, most of “GNU” isn’t really FSF stuff anyway. FSF GCC was languishing when the effort got picked up by other people and far more effort has been put into it by people outside of the FSF, for example.
This, by the way, is a good thing. It’s how open-source-software is supposed to work. It gets thrown to the community and the community picks it up.
“just say NO TO DRUGS, and maybe you won’t end up like the Hurd people.”
– Linus Torvalds
I found this http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2002-May/msg00023.ht…
interesting post by RMS from about 4 years ago.
So it’s all about source code, and nothing about technical excellence and/or a good user experience.
Actually, it’s not about source code. It’s about religion.
First, if people argue that it could be GNU/X/KDE/Linux/… they should read the GNU/Linux Faq about it: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#many
As RSM said, if we would have reached the point were we have a complete free OS it wouldn’t be that important if we call it “Linux” or “GNU/Linux”. But as long as we are still fighting for a free OS which is threatened by software patents, dmca, drm, non-free drivers, non-free firmware,… it’s important to connect “Linux” with “GNU” and that the (new) users know why this system exists. This system and all the software exists not only “just for fun” but because there are people who value freedom.
Quote from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.html :
“[..]Will enough of us care? That depends on many things; among them, how much influence the GNU Project has, and how much influence Linus Torvalds has. The GNU Project says, “Value your freedom!”. Joe Barr says, “Choose between non-free and free programs on technical grounds alone!”. If people credit Torvalds as the main developer of the GNU/Linux system, that’s not just inaccurate, it also makes his message more influential–and that message says, “Non-free software is ok; I use it and develop it myself.” If they recognize our role, they will listen to us more, and the message we will give them is, “This system exists because of people who care about freedom. Join us, value your freedom, and together we can preserve it.”[..]”
Edited 2006-05-05 20:51
As RSM said,…
RMS says a lot of things, but he doesn’t get to make the rules regarding what things are called.
As RSM said,…
RMS says a lot of things, but he doesn’t get to make the rules regarding whether people call it Linux or GNU/Linux.
WTF!?
When did i even say anything about GNOME in my post?!
There’s like 30 replies in my subject, but only one dealing with part of the issues i laid out.
C’MON!
Mike, Gnome is not a GNU project. But some people are trying to employ fascist propaganda to spread FUD about Gnome.
Its definitely related to GNU in some way, but this isn’t even a peripheral issue.
Just to get this straight. GNOME is part of the GNU project.
GNOME is Free Software and part of the GNU project, dedicated to giving users and developers the ultimate level of control over their desktops, their software, and their data. Find out more about the GNU project and Free Software at gnu.org.
See
http://www.gnome.org/about/
I think what FSF also fail to realise is this; Linus could have chosen to either say:
1) I’ve learned alot from this little experiment, I’m off to contribute to *BSD
2) I’ve learned alot from this experiment, but I don’t want to feel strung to the GNU fanbase, so I’ll use the BSD userland.
FSF and Stallman should be thanking their lucky stars that Linux went with GNU, or otherwise the GPL, GNU and all the other things would never have been moved further into the mainstream – 10 years ago, no one talked about ‘opensource’ and linux was some anomolly out in the distance – if it weren’t for Linux being the ‘trojan horse’, alot of things we see today would never have been opensourced because of the lack of the profile which Linux would have otherwise given to the GPL.
As for pronouncing Linux, is there any other way? who on earth would say lienux unless they were some sort of troll looking to stir up trouble? geeze, phonetics classes, PLEASE!
Browser: Lynx/2.8.5rel.4 libwww-FM/2.14
I think what FSF also fail to realise is this; Linus could have chosen to either say:
1) I’ve learned alot from this little experiment, I’m off to contribute to *BSD
2) I’ve learned alot from this experiment, but I don’t want to feel strung to the GNU fanbase, so I’ll use the BSD userland.
FSF and Stallman should be thanking their lucky stars that Linux went with GNU, or otherwise the GPL, GNU and all the other things would never have been moved further into the mainstream
I think you should do some research into when and why GNU, the FSF, and Linux were born.
[quote]
What exactly is meant by “this system”? I haven’t seen something that can be described as “the GNU operating system, with Linux added” yet, although I might not have looked hard enough.
[/quote]
I think indeed you didn’t. In fact Linux is just the kernel. anything that is not the kernel is not Linux.
[quote]
However, he doesn’t seem to realise that without Linux bringing open source, oh sorry, free, software to prominence in the 90s GNU software would be nowhere as widely used today and free software would not be getting talked about.
[/quote]
Do you actually understand the terms you use? Free software doesn’t mean it’s open source. Take Winamp for example. Open source doesn’t have to be free. Take Linspire for example.
Do you actually understand the terms you use? Free software doesn’t mean it’s open source. Take Winamp for example. Open source doesn’t have to be free. Take Linspire for example.
Dennis, stop acting like a dick head, you well and truely know what the Stallmanites mean when they refer to their software as “free” as in “freedom” or as in “free beer”.
Opensource software can be sold, but the source must be provided; there is nothing stopping me from getting the source from Linspire, removing all the linspire branding, and re-releasing it as “Fried Tofu with Plum Sauce” if I so wished!
It is like Libertarianism, you have low taxes, because not only does it give you the freedom to give a toss about someone buy donating to chariety, but also not to give a toss about someone – its freedom baby, yeah!
[quote]
The kernel is the central part of any modern OS. While a kernel wouldn’t be much useful without its userland, the userland alone wouldn’t work at all without a kernel. The name “GNU/Linux” does make sense since these projects are forming a working OS together.
[/quote]
and the other way round.. A kernel makes not any sense without userland 😉
I use GNOME (and KDE, XFCE, jwm, icewm, fluxbox, blackbox, ede, and a few other window managers/DEs). Are these part of the OS?
Is it shipped with the base system? If so then it’s part of the operating system.