GNU/Linux [Archive] - JustLinux Forums

hard candy

05-05-2006, 04:59 PM

I had emailed some people to see if they had any contributions for the computer joke thread. Heard back from Richard Stallman today. And now I'm feeling guilty, so I want to share the guilt.
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
To: "Joel White" <JWHITE@mail.mcg.edu>

"We are running a thread at
http://www.justlinux.com/forum/showthread.php?t=133062&page=1&pp=15 "

I have never worked on Linux, so it would make no sense for me to
post on a site called justlinux.com.

Actually, I fear it is worse than that. I cannot check, because I
have no connection in this bus, but I suspect that what they are
calling "just Linux" is not just Linux--that it is really the GNU
operating system. Most people, when they talk about GNU, call it
"Linux", and that's terribly unfair to us in the GNU Project.

Read http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html to see what I'm
talking about here."

From the FAQ:
Why do you call it GNU/Linux and not Linux?
Most operating system distributions based on Linux as kernel are basically modified versions of the GNU operating system. We began developing GNU in 1984, years before Linus Torvalds started to write his kernel. Our goal was to develop a complete free operating system. Of course, we did not develop all the parts ourselves--but we led the way. We developed most of the central components, forming the largest single contribution to the whole system. The basic vision was ours too.
In fairness, we ought to get at least equal mention.

Wouldn't it be better for the community if you did not divide people with this request?
When we ask people to say "GNU/Linux", we are not dividing people. We are asking them to give the GNU Project credit for the GNU operating system. This does not criticize anyone or push anyone away.
However, there are people who do not like our saying this. Sometimes those people push us away in response. On occasion they are so rude that one wonders if they are intentionally trying to intimidate us into silence. It doesn't silence us, but it does tend to divide the community, so we hope you can convince them to stop.

However, this is only a secondary cause of division in our community. The largest division in the community is between people who appreciate free software as a social and ethical issue and consider proprietary software a social problem (supporters of the free software movement), and those who cite only practical benefits and present free software only as an efficient development model (the open source movement).

This disagreement is not just a matter of names--it is a matter of differing basic values. It is essential for the community to see and think about this disagreement. The names "free software" and "open source" are the banners of the two positions. See "Why Free Software Is Better Than Open Source".

The disagreement over values partially aligns with the amount of attention people pay to the GNU Project's role in our community. People who value freedom are more likely to call the system "GNU/Linux", and people who learn that the system is "GNU/Linux" are more likely to pay attention to our philosophical arguments for freedom and community (which is why the choice of name for the system makes a real difference for society). However, the disagreement would probably exist even if everyone knew the system's real origin and its proper name, because the issue is a real one. It can only go away if we who value freedom either persuade everyone (which won't be easy) or are defeated entirely (let's hope not).

Some more good things to think about at Gnu/Linux FAQ (http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html)

Whew! This had made me think about some things and realize I need to think some more. Mr. Stallman has a very good point. "JustGnu/Linux"?

EnigmaOne

05-05-2006, 05:38 PM

...beats calling it "JustOld/Linux".

(Yes. I'm fleeing now.)

hard candy

05-05-2006, 05:57 PM

...beats calling it "JustOld/Linux".

(Yes. I'm fleeing now.)

Excellent, now that's using the right side of your brain. :)

GliderMike

05-05-2006, 06:09 PM

Well I hope this doesn't bring on the flames of the GNU wrath for me, but this is where I disagree with Stallman. I don't see GNU/Linux as, or use it for, an ethical or social philosophy that supports the theory that all software in the world should be free. I like, use, and trust Linux because it's better than the proprietary alternatives and I like the freedom (not as in beer) it allows.

While I continually speak to the benefits of Linux, and open source in general, I'm not a software evangelist like Stallman. There is a large place for open source software, there is also a place (albeit a smaller place) for proprietary software.

Use what works best for you and use what doesn't restrict your freedoms. That should be the deciding factor in technology, not a utopian and frankly communistic vision of software of from each according to his ability and to each according to his need with no room for stategic, well thought out parternships with private enterprise.

Seph64

05-05-2006, 06:20 PM

When Richard Stallman puts out a distro called GNU/Linux (and if I use it as my main OS) then I'll call it GNU/Linux. ;) The guy relax a bit, and stop getting so damn angry just because everyone doesn't agree with him.

Right now I'll continue to use Gentoo Linux.

hard candy

05-05-2006, 06:38 PM

Parcival

05-05-2006, 07:23 PM

And I can see his point about ignoring those contributions and us kind of leaving the GNU contributors outside.

Stallman makes two mistakes:

He believes that he can control language. Yet language evolves. People call it Linux because it's easier to call it this way in everyday lingo than GNU/Linux. A single individual can try to change language (consider e.g. discussions on gender and language), but if the big mass doesn't like what you're thinking, it's not going to be used in everyday language.
He believes when we call it Linux instead of GNU/Linux we don't give him proper credit. Rubbish. I call it Linux because it's a cool name, but when a newbie asks what Linux is and how it came into existence I explain how it happened and that the FSF played a major role in it.

I have a big respect for what Stallman achieved with his actions. However, propaganda sometimes is nothing more than mere whining, like it is the case here with the JustLinux domain. Sometimes I feel these people never grow up. It's kinda like those FSF fundamentalists in our LUG who give you evil looks at a LUG meeting when you happen to talk of "open source" instead of "free software". They simply miss the point. A LUG meeting is for having fun and exchange tipps. Battles on ideology have to be fought somewhere else, namely against those proprietary software and hardware giants.

I remember we had heated discussions on wether it should be called GNU/Linux or if just Linux is okay when I was a newbie in these forum. The fact that Stallman is still in the same whining mode shows how little he has progressed politically in all these years.

ArgPirate

05-05-2006, 07:26 PM

I feel this argument is just a little bit nit-picky. I mean, yes i understand gnu contributed some very important tools and continues to do so, but then again so do alot of groups. The term Linux, is much more than the kernel, its much more than the gnu tools also. I suppose it sucks for them that linux stuck better than GNU/linux, but thats the way us lazy humans work.

Really, I think X is as important to the desktop linux than the gcc compiler is. I dont hear xorg saying "hey it should be X/GNU/Linux.

I mean this paragraph righ here

Should we always say "GNU/Linux" instead of "Linux"?
Not always--only when you're talking about the whole system. When you're referring specifically to the kernel, you should call it "Linux", the name its developer chose.

When people call the whole system "Linux", as a consequence they call the whole system by the same name as the kernel. This causes many kinds of confusion, because only experts can tell whether a statement is about the kernel or the whole system. By calling the whole system "GNU/Linux", and calling the kernel "Linux", you avoid the ambiguity.

So my whole system right now, includes the kernel, and GNU's tools? thats it? I seem to see alot of apps that plenty of developers spent blood, sweet, and tears creating and i dont see them hollering they should be included in the name.

So, inconclusion, to me, linux is the name, not GNU/Linux not X/GNU/Linux not KDE/GNOME/GNU/OTHERDEVS/Linux.

Seph64

05-05-2006, 07:59 PM

His point is that the GCC, the basic programs such as binutils, gawk, sed, glibc, Emacs, etc all were present and contrributed by the GNU Organization. Linux was the kernel. And I can see his point about ignoring those contributions and us kind of leaving the GNU contributors outside.
And yes you are already using the GNU Linux distribution, it may be called Gentoo but it started as the GNU Linux distro. Where do you think Robbins, et al got their source from?

But there's more to an OS than the tools that build the programs. I doubt the GNU Project was directly behind KDE or GNOME, I doubt Richard Stallman writes code that makes The GIMP any better (although go ahead and correct me if I am wrong). And does the FSF submit code to make portage, apt, yast and any other package manager more efficient?

Sure the GNU tools are responsible for what we have today, and their efforts don't go unappreciated. But the the name GNU/Linux would imply, at least in my point of view, that the system includes nothing but GNU software + Linus' kernel. Which is why I said, "When Richard Stallman writes a distro named GNU/Linux (and if I use it as my main OS) then I'll call it GNU/Linux."

Richard Stallman needs to come out of his castle and walk amongst us commoners. ;)

Actually, I'll give them a little leeway and say that perhaps a few people from the FSF perhaps do take time to submit code to some of the software I list.

ehawk

05-05-2006, 09:21 PM

True, honest....I don't write or say "GNU/Linux" ONLY because it doubles the effort required to say/post it. That's all. No Disrespect intended. I think the GNU foundation is awesome, I idolize RSM, and I think the GPL is perhaps the greatest document of the 20th century (even including the works of the UN, Einstein, Wittgenstein, and Godel). But it seems like such a pain every time I start adding that 1.5 syllables "Guh-New". Those particular vocalizations are not trivial to enunciate, and then tack on linux. It's simply difficult to say, doesn't smooth or blend together at all.

I'm happy to start using glinux, as that would recognize the contributions of GNU, Linus, and the minix/unix heritage without adding new inconvenience.

If I have a friend named Timothy, I call him Tim. If he insists on me calling him Timothy, I'll acquiesce, but I'll also think he's being anal.

No one who has been using linux for more than a year is ignorant of the wonderful contributions of the GNU foundation, and we all recognize their efforts and (when discussing it) express our gratitude. Perhaps an unmentioned reason he insists on this GNU/ bit is not just "truth in advertising" but a hope that someone stops you in the middle of a conversation to ask about the GNU/ part, and thus hijacks what was a conversation about some aspect of the operating system, forcing a discussion of the GNU foundation and its philosophy.

Case in point. He was approached in the spirit of friendship and light-heartedness, and he destroys the good will of the interaction over the fact that this site is not called "JustGNU/linux.com" Wow...

Honest, Rich, *grin*, everyone admires you. You're not going to be forgotten. Your contributions will not be forgotten or obscured by the "limelight" of Linus. GCC alone was enough to secure your place in history.
We love you. :)

If GNU ever gets HURD working effectively, they can distribute the GNU operating system, but I'll probably just start calling it gosix.

And there is no problem of confusing the kernel with the OS. When most people mean the operating system, they say "linux". When they are talking about the kernel, they say "linux kernel" (which, in my opinion, is still easier to say than "GNU/Linux").

dark_moon

05-06-2006, 01:40 AM

freedom is a weird thing.
untimately RMS phylosophy is anarchy.
anarchy is a good thing.
anarchy would suggest that anyone who wants to lead is not fit to be a leader.
i remember talking to some of my cuban freinds when i used to live in miami.
they had been put in jail by a leader seeking freedoms revolution for diong stuff like selling bananas or playing jazz during their off hours. freedom has a way of going bezerk and becoming oppressive.
software website freedom is to offer your work to the world on the terms that you choose not on terms dicated by others. the word gnu/linux is a dictated word. a word not laced with freedom.
i've always taken justlinux as a term denoting "don't use this website to discuss religion or whatever". lets talk about justlinux.

the problem with companies like MS is monopoly position to take away my right to do.
that doing as i want could be a website name.
what we need is a level playing field without leaders. with freedom.
Stallman wrote gcc and is most likely responsible for as much value added to the world economy as a small country like france. don't want to downplay that. He might even be a major force of freedom but his freedom is tainted with do this don't do that. ie. its not really freedom at all. which makes him among othe things (like castro) a cool guy but not a guy that likes to contribute jokes. I;m afraid a guy who want to lead which makes him totally unqualified to be a freedom leader.

Piko

05-06-2006, 02:09 AM

OMG, I think we should call it KDE/GNOME/(insert every group too add something to linux)/GNU/Linux. It would be some where around 6.34 x 10^1000000000000000 letters long.

Mr. Stallman, your one of many who helped Linux become more then just a kernel. You may be one of the big reasons, but your not the only.

Anyways, just becuase you slap GNU infront doesn't mean everyone is going to go "Oh! It's opensource. I..did..not...know..that.", they'll go, "Crap, it's to damn long to write, and I'm just going to keep calling it Linux."

Mr. Stallman, thank you, but let us call it what we want, isn't that what opensource, and the GPL stand for, freedom?

ehawk

05-06-2006, 03:06 AM

OMG, I think we should call it KDE/GNOME/(insert every group too add something to linux)/GNU/Linux. It would be some where around 6.34 x 10^1000000000000000 letters long.

Mr. Stallman, your one of many who helped Linux become not just a kernel. You may be one of the big reasons, but your not the only.

Anyways, just becuase you slap GNU infront doesn't mean everyone is going to go "Oh! It's opensource. I..did..not...know..that.", they'll go, "Crap, it's to damn long to write, and I'm just going to keep calling it Linux."

Mr. Stallman, thank you, but let us call it what we want, isn't that what opensource, and the GPL stand for, freedom?

Oooh...watch it...."free software"....not "opensource" :) If you want to distinguish free as in speech from free as in beer, some have suggested "libre software"

EnigmaOne

05-06-2006, 03:23 AM

Oooh...watch it...."free software"....not "opensource" :) If you want to distinguish free as in speech from free as in beer, some have suggested "libre software"
Rainbow Linux!

I call it F(/)LOSS...just to keep my dentist happy.

Hey...He's the guy with the drill--and the call on how much Novacaine I get.

Parcival

05-06-2006, 03:43 AM

If you want to distinguish free as in speech from free as in beer, some have suggested "libre software"

Maybe I should pm Brian and suggest we need a new domain:

justlibreGNUKDEr0x0rzlinux. com

Anybody check if the domain is still available? :D

mrrangerman43

05-06-2006, 09:31 AM

Credit to whom credit is do.

GNU/Linux LINUX GNU........ just as long as we have somthing other than just microsoft.

I have a question, I heard some place that Microsoft Vista is going to use a Linux kernel, I have no idea if that is true or not, but if it is, will they call it Microsoft/Vista/Linux? :rolleyes: :D

hard candy

05-08-2006, 10:13 AM

" From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>

Subject: Re: Computer related humor

Well, I have started a thread about this issue, the use of a kernel name
for an OS and we will see where it goes. Maybe you have prodded some of
us into thinking more about this. I know I am thinking about it now.

Thank you for thinking about it.

You'll probably find that you only convince a fraction of the people.
I find that many are attached to the idea of calling the system
"Linux", and will grasp at absurd straws to justify it. (Lots of
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html is responding to some of
these straws.)

However, you can help us by saying "GNU/Linux" when you speak and write,
regardless of what anyone else does. Each additional person that says
"GNU/Linux" helps the GNU Project that much more."

Some more thoughts as listed in Wikipedia:
"The use of the word "Linux" to refer to the kernel, the operating system, and entire distributions, often leads to confusion about the distinctions between the three. (Many of the important GNU packages are a key part of almost every Linux distribution.) Media sources frequently make erroneous statements such as claiming that the entire Linux operating system (rather than simply the kernel) was written from scratch by Torvalds in 1991; that Torvalds directs the development of other components such as graphical interfaces or the GNU tools; or that new releases of the kernel involve a similar degree of user-visible change as do new versions of proprietary operating systems such as Microsoft Windows, where many things besides the kernel change simultaneously."
And "In response to suggestions (see below) that Stallman's renaming efforts stem from egotism or personal pique, RMS has responded that his interest is not in giving credit to himself, but to the GNU Project:

Some people think that it's because I want my ego to be fed. Of course, I'm not asking you to call it "Stallmanix". [1]

Stallman has admitted to irritation, although he believes it to be justified:

If this thread is annoying, please imagine what it is like to see an idealistic project stymied and made ineffective, because people don't usually give it the credit for what it has done. If you're an idealist like me, that can ruin your whole decade. (linux-kernel mailing list, 3 Apr. 1999)

In response to another common argument (see below), the FSF acknowledges that many people have contributed to GNU/Linux and that a short name cannot credit all of them, but argues that this cannot justify calling the system "Linux":

Since a long name such as GNU/X11/Apache/Linux/TeX/Perl/Python/FreeCiv becomes absurd, at some point you will have to set a threshold and omit the names of the many other secondary contributions. There is no one obvious right place to set the threshold, so wherever you set it, we won't argue against it. [...] But one name that cannot result from concerns of fairness and giving credit, not for any possible threshold level, is "Linux". It can't be fair to give all the credit to one secondary contribution (Linux) while omitting the principal contribution (GNU). (FSF, "GNU/Linux FAQ") "
And on the other side:

" Eric S. Raymond writes (in the "Linux" entry of the Jargon File):

Some people object that the name "Linux" should be used to refer only to the kernel, not the entire operating system. This claim is a proxy for an underlying territorial dispute; people who insist on the term GNU/Linux want the FSF to get most of the credit for Linux because RMS [Stallman] and friends wrote many of its user-level tools. Neither this theory nor the term GNU/Linux has gained more than minority acceptance.

Linus Torvalds has said in the documentary Revolution OS, when asked if the name GNU/Linux was justified:

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. "

dark_moon

05-11-2006, 02:25 AM

this is the same community that faked going all bonkers over a suposed "advertising" clause
in xfree yes ?
but an "advertisement" for the lumbering GNU imposed on everyone is a good thing ?

seems like this website used to have a different name i forget what.
way lots more people used it back then.

people are leaders only when they are the first to go somewhere new and others happen to follow.
The instant they stop being first going somewhere new or others stop following them they are no longer leading. They do however usually try to retain the no longer valid position.

do we all use FSF liscence because we have to or because we like it ?
i like BSD liscense better but use FSF liscence because i suposedly have to.
we all link to glibc yes ?

the kernel hackers are always way going someplace new and i follow.
i use Linux
not GNU/Linux as in the advertising clause.
i wish glibc and libc++ were BSD liscense because its more free.

ToddM

05-11-2006, 05:55 PM

oivey! (sp?) ;)

I'm glad reading this thread wasn't on my first visit to anything about GNU/Linux. I'm just excited when I run across someone who has any clue there is anything besides M$ Windows (R) as an operating system for a IBM pc clone. (sheez).

Personally, I learned about GNU and Linux once I had decided to try it and bought a book. Yes, I'm one of those people that even reads all the introduction before jumping to the first chapter. I'd have to say it's all interesting and I believe in giving (or receiving) credit where credit is due. If you are making a statement to journalist or are writing a book/article/... give the appropriate credit. If you're talking to your neighbor about this alternative OS for his IBM pc clone that still doesn't understand the difference between Windows, an Office Suite, and the world wide web what's the point?

By the way, the next person that says you have to be an expert on the topic to understand contextual differences between a distro and the kernel when it's called Linux should be locked into a room with lots of computers and the power turned off. I'm barely past the newbie stage and even I have the intelligence to understand the difference.

</rant> :D

have fun.

cybertron

05-12-2006, 11:53 AM

http://www.register.com/retail/product/domain/searchresults.rcmx;jsessionid=1885FC8DA82C56D4344B 39E43FE8D6DE.euapp02?action=searchresults&formName=box&searchString=justlibreGNUKDEr0x0rzlinux&selectedTLDs=.com&newCustomer.x=23&newCustomer.y=12

Looks like it is.:)

I can't believe I actually looked that up. Must be the nerves getting to me today.

Parcival

05-13-2006, 11:57 AM

I can't believe I actually looked that up. Must be the nerves getting to me today.

Try to leave away coffee for a couple days. ;)

cybertron

05-13-2006, 12:18 PM

I'd have to start first. Either way all of the stress inducing stuff is over now so the next time I do something like that I'll have to find a different excuse.:)

rocketpcguy

05-13-2006, 04:38 PM

Linus Torvalds has said in the documentary Revolution OS, when asked if the name GNU/Linux was justified:

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. "

but almost everything of any distribution is related to GNU, either directly or because it was compiled with the GNU compiler, and licenced under the GNU written licence. its more gnu that linux, i dont see why people didnt start calling it gnu instead of linux.

ArgPirate

05-13-2006, 08:23 PM

but almost everything of any distribution is related to GNU, either directly or because it was compiled with the GNU compiler, and licenced under the GNU written licence. its more gnu that linux, i dont see why people didnt start calling it gnu instead of linux.

Because GNU is sort of a crappy name. Sounds like something you might get from a prison cell in gautemala. No disrespect for the folks at GNU. Great project, not a bad name for a project but for a whole OS? i dunno it just doesnt seem right.

I really think thats why linux caught on as a name, it just sounds better.

cybertron

05-14-2006, 02:23 AM

I thought for a second maybe that was supposed to be a joke...:)

ehawk

05-14-2006, 10:21 PM

It might be because when Linus let it loose as a community project, several years went by before the FSF made a stink about it....and by then, the name was already established....but I believe Linux is successful CHIEFLY due to the contributions of RMS. It's all about the license. Take a look at the BSDs...they have their own kernels...similar capabilities.....but the community effort backed Linux because of the GPL. Copyleft is the greatest thing to happen to modern computing, not the apps, not the even the OS (again, compare with the BSDs). Again, RMS, we love you...no need to be nit-picky...be above the fray, quietly confident and self-assured of our respect for you....we appreciate your efforts on our behalf.

paj12

05-21-2006, 06:33 PM

My apologies for dredging up this old thread, but I've been doing a lot of thinking on this issue lately I feel I should add my thoughts to this discussion.

Mr. Stallman's request to have people call the OS GNU/Linux seems downright reasonable to me. His organization has written most of an operating system from scratch. The only thing missing was Mr. Torvalds' kernel, which fit the bill for a Free UNIX-like OS perfectly. He feels deserves credit for his organization's contributions to the Free Software movement, and I believe it would be unreasonable to deny him. This set me to thinking. I read all of Mr. Stallman's essays on the topic and did a lot of soul-searching, and I've come to the conclusion that I need to modify my behavior.

Henceforth, I will refer to distributions of "Linux" as a "Free Software Operating System". I've decided to do this for a couple of reasons:
1. A Free Software OS is not Linux, nor is it GNU. It is, first and foremost, the product of a culture of Free Software. To credit all the contributors to the Free Software movement in the manner that Mr. Stallman would have us credit the GNU organization would take several pages of text. I suggest, therefore, a name that emphasizes what Free Software has in common: the fact that it's Free Software.
2. Using the name "the GNU/Linux operating system" would suggest, to those unfamiliar with the term, that all Free Software OSes are controlled by two central groups. We all know who controls "Microsoft Windows" or "Adobe Photoshop". The distinction becomes less clear when the software is a collection of contributions from many different people. I believe that the name I've chosen emphasizes that no central person or group controls the Free Software movement.
3. It's true that the vast majority of Free Software OSes are based GNU's toolkit and the Linux kernel, but one could just as easily build a Free Software OS based the Minix kernel and the BSD tools and the user wouldn't see an appreciable difference. Why then, should the name of the system emphasize portions of the system that, quite frankly, aren't that important to the end user? The user doesn't care what kernel runs their system. They don't care what version of gawk they have. They care that they have an OS that allows them to use their computer as they see fit and doesn't infringe upon their freedom.

So, from now on, I will use the term "Free Software Operating System". If I want to refer to a particular OS or a portion of that system, I will call it by the name its author or distributor has assigned it, such as Slackware, SuSE, the Linux kernel, or the GNU binutils. This will, at first, require me to carefully audit myself when I write or speak about Free Software, but hopefully I can get to a point where it comes naturally. This will allow me to focus on explaining the benefits of Free Software to people rather than getting caught up in silly issues like what kernel or compiler a particular operating system uses.

That's my feeling regarding the matter. It's a free world, though, so call the system what you want. Call it "Linux", "GNU/Linux", or "Free Software OS" or anything else you want. A rose by any other name smells just as free. ;)

ehawk

05-21-2006, 11:17 PM

Then get ready to explain your nomenclature to everyone. The first thing they will ask is, "Do you mean linux?" Language should inform, not confuse. Since there are multiple "Free Software Operating Systems", you'll still need to specify to which one you are referring.

paj12

05-22-2006, 12:07 AM

Then get ready to explain your nomenclature to everyone. The first thing they will ask is, "Do you mean linux?" Language should inform, not confuse.
My response to that question would be, "Yes, it's built on the Linux kernel, but that's only part of the story." Besides, I only meant that I would use the Free Software OS designation when referring to GNU/Linux-based OSes in general. I don't think the designation I've chosen is any more confusing than simply slapping the label "Linux" on hundreds of OSes that happen to use that kernel.

What's the first question a new user usually asks on this forum? It's almost always something along the lines of, "Which distro of Linux should I try? I'm a noob and I'm completely lost." Because people insist on calling all distros "Linux", a new user thinks they're all the same. Those of us who've tried different distros know that Slackware, for instance, couldn't be more different from Linspire, yet they both get the "Linux" label. That, to me, is confusing.

Since there are multiple "Free Software Operating Systems", you'll still need to specify to which one you are referring.
I agree. Luckily, this work is already done for me, because distributors of Free Software OSes assign unique names to their product to distinguish it from other similar OSes. SuSE, Slackware, Gentoo, Fedora Core, and Debian are all Free Software OSes built on the Linux kernel and the GNU tools. FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD are Free Software OSes derived from BSD. MINIX 3 is a Free Software OS based on the Minix kernel and the GNU tools. You get the point.

I just wanted to try to explain my views on the subject based on what I've learned so far. If I come across new information that contradicts my views then I'll try to incorporate that into my understanding.

Advocates of Free Software like Mr. Stallman continually emphasize the importance of using precise terminology when referring to Free Software. But in striving to gain recognition for his organization's contribution to the Free Software movement, he has raised the question in my mind: "What about everybody else?" Whether you call the system "Linux", "GNU/Linux", "X11/GNU/Linux", or "KDE/X11/GNU/Linux" you're always leaving out somebody who has contributed to the system in a meaningful way. My solution is to use a neutral name and acknowledge contributors elsewhere such as in documentation, splash screens, or the Help>About screen in GUI apps. Someone else may solve the problem of recognizing contributors to the Free Software movement in a different way, and that's okay. There is no central organization that can dictate the rules of the Free Software game, and I kind of like it that way.

Seph64

05-22-2006, 11:06 AM

His organization has written most of an operating system from scratch.

At that particular point in time. GNU/Linux has now evolved to KDE(GNOME)/X/GNU/Linux if following that logic.

As I have said earlier, I don't believe that you base the name of an operating system on the tools used to compile the base system. Most modern distros, like Mandriva, Fedora, and SuSE don't just put together the 'base' system (filled with the GNU software), they also include other applications like GIMP, KDE (or GNOME), X(Free86/org).

Trying to force people to call Linux "GNU/Linux" seems like the actions of an arrogant dictator saying "It's my way or the highway". Exactly the opposite of his original intent of creating "free" software. How can you say GNU/Linux is free when you basically tell people "You should only call it GNU/Linux." Basically Richard is acting like General Zod telling people to kneel before him.

He wants to make sure people acknowledge that GNU was initially responsible for what we have today? That's good, go on a propaganda frenzy, just don't force everyone to bow down before you and call it GNU/Linux.

Though I agree, calling it Linux seems to be rather idiotic. Linux should be alrights be called something else (GNU/Linux is fine for those who want to call it that), how about FLinux? F for free, and of course Linux for the kernel. Gentoo Flinux sounds pretty neat to me! Or for those GNU fanboys... GLinux, G = Gnu!

Oh, don't listen to me, this is just the ravings of someone who didn't get enough sleep last night. ;)

rocketpcguy

05-22-2006, 12:40 PM

Trying to force people to call Linux "GNU/Linux" seems like the actions of an arrogant dictator

when did he force anyone?

anyway, GLinux is the best, because G can be silent, and everyone can talk about linux, when RMS thinks everyones talking about glinux. :)

Seph64

05-22-2006, 01:18 PM

Well he said that he won't visit any "linux" sites unless those linux sites include "GNU/" in the title, and he goes around making such a big deal about it. Okay, maybe he's not being a dictator about it.

con

05-22-2006, 01:54 PM

quip

05-22-2006, 02:20 PM

Maybe kinda of a far shot but..... let's say you were the one that worked your a** of for years with a project called Z, and all of a sudden some guy comes along with the last piece and calls it Y, and ofcourse everyone starts calling it Y...How would you react?

I'm not sure...it would depend on what I thought was important.

If I thought having project Z completed was the most important thing, I would be a little sore, but pleased that the world now had something that it needed, whoever got the credit.

If I thought it was just as important that everyone knew I did a lot of it, and why I did it, then I would be sore about it, and let everyone know.

Here's the difference: One of the above scenarios involves ego, and one doesn't. I'm not saying I wouldn't have done exactly the same thing as Stallman, but let's at least recognize it for what it is: ego.

And let's not forget that while Richard and GNU have done a tremendous amount for free software and linux, and while the OS I am using right now probably wouldn't exist without him (or at least not how I know it), it wasn't some trivial piece of the puzzle that Linus created; it was the middle piece that holds all the rest of it together. It's the piece the the GNU project _still_ hasn't put together.

I don't say this to diminish what RMS et al have done for not only Linux users, but the world--not only their software, but their philosophy, which is equally important. However, most people seem to jump to one side or the other when discussing this issue, and are reluctant to state it how it really is, although I will.

RMS is jealous; and not just for personal reasons, but probably because his contribution of the GNU philosophy could get lost in the clamor for free (as isn beer) software. What he doesn't realize (or doesn't want to acknowledge) is what many in this thread have already stated: Linux is more than the kernel, more than the utilities (most of which are GNU utilities, I know), more than the DE one uses, more than the apps (which the majority of users benefit from more than all of the GNU utilities); and thusly cannot give credit to all who have contributed, even the few who have contributed the most, which includes RMS. That's why it's referred to as one name that caught on faster than the rest: Linux.

That's my opinion, anyway.

paj12

05-22-2006, 08:31 PM

Maybe kinda of a far shot but..... let's say you were the one that worked your a** of for years with a project called Z, and all of a sudden some guy comes along with the last piece and calls it Y, and of course everyone starts calling it Y...How would you react?
In that case in would be fair and correct to call the resulting product Y/Z. However that's not the case with Free Software OSes. The total contributors to all these different system would be enough to fill the alphabet many times.

That argument also assumes that the name of the system is the only proper place to acknowledge contributors to that system. I submit that it is not. Documentation, boilerplates in the code, web sites, splash screens... All are acceptable places to acknowledge contributors to a Free OS.

Web sites, in particular, have an almost unlimited capacity for text, depending on how it's organized. Many web sites have a "Powered by Apache" or "Powered by Linux" badge on their main page if their web server runs code from those projects. Maybe what we need is a "Powered by GNU" or a "Graphics Provided by X11" badge on the main page of distributors of Free OSes. Any project that wants recognition for their efforts can make such a badge and ask distributors to include it in their web site as an acknowledgment.

I his argument for "GNU/Linux" Mr. Stallman raises a very pertinent point. How do we pay respect contributors to something as large as the Free Software movement. His solution: to put some of them in the title of the OS that results from these contributions. There are many other ways to avoid slighting the contributions of Free Software developers, though. You just have to use a little imagination.

ehawk

05-22-2006, 11:03 PM

If I possessed the genius and good will of RMS, I wouldn't mind in the least. I would realize (as everyone here does) that anyone who has used linux for more than a year knows and acknowledges the wonderful contributions of the FSF. Again, the GPL and gcc alone are enough to warrant adoration.

RMS got the McArthur Foundation genius grant, not Linus (at least I don't think he ever got one). RMS is recognized as the patron saint of free software, and rightfully so. He should accept our thanks with a smile, and our "evangelizing/proselytizing" should be thanks enough....spreading the "good news" of free software. That's what he hoped for (I think)....a community-driven movement supporting the freedom of code. Mission accomplished!

con

05-23-2006, 03:36 AM

cybertron

05-23-2006, 08:56 PM

Web sites, in particular, have an almost unlimited capacity for text, depending on how it's organized. Many web sites have a "Powered by Apache" or "Powered by Linux" badge on their main page if their web server runs code from those projects. Maybe what we need is a "Powered by GNU" or a "Graphics Provided by X11" badge on the main page of distributors of Free OSes. Any project that wants recognition for their efforts can make such a badge and ask distributors to include it in their web site as an acknowledgment.

Ironically, I think requiring that would violate the GPL. I may be mistaken, but isn't that sort of thing exactly what caused the split between XOrg and XFree86? I guess I'm a little fuzzy on exactly what happened there, but as I recall XFree wanted all distros that used its code to have some sort of acknowledgement that wasn't allowed by the GPL.

On the one hand, I kind of like the idea despite the potential issues with the GPL, but on the other it could get a bit out of hand if every piece of software that goes into a major distro started requiring the distro to acknowledge it. Which is why I leave these debates to people who are more knowledgeable/have stronger opinions than me.:)

paj12

05-23-2006, 09:36 PM

Ironically, I think requiring that would violate the GPL.
Requiring it would be a violation of the GPL; requesting it would not. Mr. Stallman is requesting that people call the system "GNU/Linux". He does not require it, nor does he seek to enforce it through a license. My suggestion was based on the fact that people often sport "Powered by Apache" badges on their web sites. They're not required to, but they feel that Free Software developers are important enough to deserve a little advertisement and recognition.

zeroth

05-24-2006, 02:54 PM

its not GNU/Linux OR Linux! its GNU/Xorg/Samba/Linux/Grub/KDE/Fluxbox/nVidia! or, if you prefer, GNU/Xfree/Samba/Linux/lilo/Gnome/Fluxbox/nVidia!

...

It would be best to call it by its distribution which would encompas ALL packages: Gentoo. or Slackware. or Red Hat.

It's all POSIX, and its all Semantics.

Stallman is requesting that people call the system "GNU/Linux".

what a whiner.

Stallman fanboys keep your comments to yourself. I respect the man, but he's a damn whiner.

rocketpcguy

05-24-2006, 03:10 PM

its GNU/Xorg/Samba/Linux/Grub/KDE/Fluxbox/nVidia!
heres something i got from a friend: "the fact is that a linux kernel based system can run without X, samba, kde/gnome/etc; without all these you can still use a very functional command-line computer. however, that system would not survive as a functioning or workable linux computer without GNU tools, or without itself (Linux), hence the term GNU/Linux, two essentials for it to just boot whatever distribution."

zeroth

05-24-2006, 03:20 PM

rocketpcguy

05-24-2006, 05:11 PM

and Xorg or XFree is *ESSEITIAL*

no it isnt, a computer can work fine without it. and even basic programs needs glibc, but thats GNU too.

paj12

05-24-2006, 05:53 PM

heres something i got from a friend: "the fact is that a linux kernel based system can run without X, samba, kde/gnome/etc; without all these you can still use a very functional command-line computer. however, that system would not survive as a functioning or workable linux computer without GNU tools, or without itself (Linux), hence the term GNU/Linux, two essentials for it to just boot whatever distribution."
Really? (http://www.linuxdevices.com/)

The "fact is" that the amount of software one can subtract from the bare kernel depends entirely on what the user considers a usable system. You consider a GNU/Linux system sufficient for your computing needs, and for some it is. Some people can use a computer without ever leaving emacs. The rest of us, however, need a little bit more software in the stack. Software projects have sprung up to fill this need.

If you look at the vast majority of Free, UNIX-like operating systems out there, you'll find that there is software in there that is not written by the GNU project and is not part of the Linux kernel. Don't these developers deserve recognition for their efforts too? Especially projects like KDE and X11, since a GUI is considered by many people to be essential to their computing experience? You might say no because you consider them to be "secondary contributions", but I say a computer system is the sum of its parts, both hardware and software, and all the parts are important.

rocketpcguy

05-24-2006, 06:34 PM

embedded linux can be called linux, without gnu.

you see, KDE would not have existed without GNU, but GNU would exist fine without KDE. the most we could call it is GNU/X/Linux

but even gnu/linux is such a bother, it is easier to remember to mention gnu philosphy when you talk about linux.

zeroth

05-24-2006, 08:27 PM

no it isnt, a computer can work fine without it. and even basic programs needs glibc, but thats GNU too.

GNU/Linux/vi

emacs doesnt count, so don't even mention it :-)

even with that, you can't do everything a system *SHOULD* do.

Play [retail] games, edit photos, watch movies.

if it can't do *everything* that an Operating System *SHOULD* do, then its not a *COMPLETE* Operating System. its just GNU and Linux. not a "Linux Distribution".

paj12

05-24-2006, 09:42 PM

you see, KDE would not have existed without GNU, but GNU would exist fine without KDE. the most we could call it is GNU/X/Linux
Then why does KDE run on OSes that don't even include GNU? I'm, referring specifically to FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD. There's even a project to better integrate KDE with FreeBSD to provide a more coherent desktop experience for users of that particular OS. We, as users of Free Software, owe a lot to the GNU project, but saying no other Free Software would exist without GNU is disingenuous and slights the contributions other people have made.

zeroth

05-24-2006, 10:54 PM

Then why does KDE run on OSes that don't even include GNU? I'm, referring specifically to FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD. There's even a project to better integrate KDE with FreeBSD to provide a more coherent desktop experience for users of that particular OS. We, as users of Free Software, owe a lot to the GNU project, but saying no other Free Software would exist without GNU is disingenuous and slights the contributions other people have made.

I agree with what you say. What side are you on? I haven't really decided entirely.

It is silly to call an Operating system by its individual parts.

"What operating system do you run?" - "Windows/DOS/Explorer/NTFS/FAT"

Windows wouldn't exist if DOS was never created. without Explorer there would be no Start Menu, Task Bar, or Window Manager (err?). Without NTFS drivers they would be using FAT. without FAT, DOS wouldn't have been created.

silly. very silly. Just call the OS by its distribution. I run Gentoo :-)

edit:

GNU applications are simple applications (other than gcc and emacs, and a few others I'm sure). linux *COULD* have been developed just fine without GNU. the Kernel is the heart of an OS. the kernel is much more important than the programs. cant run programs with no kernel. you can run a kernel without programs. Linux.

paj12

05-25-2006, 12:25 AM

What side are you on? I haven't really decided entirely.
I think both sides of this argument are silly. Mr. Stallman's request to be acknowledged for his work is reasonable, but the way he wants people to go about it is unreasonable. People who want to call the system "Linux" are equally unreasonable, because there's a lot more to an operating system than the kernel.

In the context of operating systems, GNU is unimportant. The reason Free operating systems exist is not because of GNU, and it's not because of Linux. Free OSes exist because a culture has developed that encourages the creation of Free Software and emphasizes sharing and cooperation instead of copyright- and patent-enforced fiefdom of proprietary software.

If GNU had not written the basis for a Free, UNIX-like OS, someone else would have. In that context, GNU is unimportant. However, without licenses like the GPL, we would not have a means of protecting Free Software from proprietary interests that would like to abolish it from the face of the Earth and reign in those serfs that have strayed from the manor. In that, context GNU is extremely important. It all depends on how you look at it.

Operating system distributors that include the GNU system in their products should credit the GNU project in some way, but asking them to call their system "GNU/Linux" is disingenuous because it slights the work of others who have contributed parts to the system that we now consider indispensable in its use. Putting all these contributors in the name of the system is impractical, so another way is needed if we are to acknowledge their work.

rocketpcguy

05-25-2006, 12:52 AM

when i said KDE would not have existed without gnu, its mainly because it depends on gnu (at least the compilers and tools), even on other operating systems.
i am sure that kde would not have existed as free software if it wasnt for gnu, look at its history when it had non-free libraries.

im talking about what everything *needs* to run. how about if, right now, you remove every single program in your machine, here, that was made by the GNU foundation or links against any GNU libraries?
you can live in linux without KDE, just use gnome. you can live without gnome, use kde. who needs both? use xfce or fluxbox. i can run my system without vi. but can everything else in a *linux* distribution work without GNU?

a GPL licence isnt obvious, the free software foundation worked hard to make the world you live in.

paj12

05-25-2006, 02:34 AM

how about if, right now, you remove every single program in your machine, here, that was made by the GNU foundation or links against any GNU libraries?
That's actually an interesting question. Obviously, if I removed all the GNU software from my computer running the SuSE operating system, it would crash and burn because it is written to rely on GNU software. But that raises the question in my mind: what would it take to replace GNU in Free OSes that run the Linux kernel and the GNU software? There are plenty of instances of people porting GNU to kernels other than Linux, but I've never heard of anyone porting other systems to the Linux kernel.

There are actually quite a few programs that are designed to replicate the functionality of GNU programs. Most of these are intended for use with embedded systems with limited memory where the GNU software would be (get this) too bloated. I think BusyBox might make a good substitute for the coreutils package. Programs from BSD could be used to fill in any gaps in functionality. uClibc is designed to be a drop-in replacement for glibc. They claim that all that's needed to port a program to uClibc is simply recompiling the source. GRUB could be replaced by LILO; it's actually the default bootloader for the Slackware operating system. There are a number of shells that could replace bash such as tcsh, ksh, or zsh.

There are way too many GNU programs for me to list them all and ponder possible replacements. Besides, I don't know enough about how operating systems work to know what is or isn't a good replacement for a particular program. Suffice it to say, however, that if the GNU project fell off the face of Earth tomorrow, we would be able to make do. That's not to say that GNU is trivial or unimportant. It's just not unique. What I'm trying to emphasize is that instead of focusing on one kernel of set of tools, we should focus on the fact that there are a huge number of Free Software OSes that are of an extremely high quality. The GNU software and the Linux kernel figure prominently in the vast majority of these OSes, but that's really tangential to the goals of the Free Software Movement: to create high-quality, usable software that does not infringe upon the user's four basic freedoms (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html).

P.S. Damn. Why does it seem that every time I post in this thread, I end up writing a freaking novel?

rocketpcguy

05-25-2006, 06:50 AM

busybox/uClibc is a (GNU GPL licenced) cut down version of pure gnu tools for small devices, and distributions dont use them.
of course you could use alternatives to GNU tools. but we could use an alternative kernel instead of linux, that doesnt mean we shouldn't call linux 'linux' anymore just because you can replace it with something else.
major linux distributions depend on gnu, which makes it fair to say theyre GNU/Linux. if they used alternatives, fine, don't call it gnu/linux.

thats just from a technical standpoint, which is not what RMS is talking about. he just wants more people to know about free software. when you tell your collegue about gnu/linux, s|he certainly will ask about GNU, after which you can give the free software lecture. its only because of that that RMS wants GNU in linux, just to spread the word (more than to give credit to GNU, which he also wants to do).

zeroth

05-25-2006, 10:36 AM

All the hardware support come straight from the kernel. the kernel is the most important part of an Operating System. Sure, other parts may be *neccessary*, but not as neccessary as a freakin kernel :-)

Linux. *BSD. Mac (Darwin?). Windows. These are all kernels. why shouldn't we call it by its kernel, where all the compatibility and functionality lies?

hard candy

05-25-2006, 11:27 AM

Some interesting tidbits:
Google hits:
1. "Gnu/linux" = 54,500,000
2. "linux" = 1,290,000,000
3. "gnu" = 660,000,000
4. "Richard Stallman" = 8,170,000
5. "Linus Torvalds" = 17,800,000
6. "Microsoft" = 2,380,000,000
7. "Windows XP" = 599,000,000
8. "Bill Gates" = 82,200,000
I have no idea what the above results imply, but I thought it was cool to do it. And the connection to the present thread? Really twisted logic would say there is some relevance, but I cannot figure it out. :cool:

"So if you were going to pick a name for the system based on who wrote the programs in the system, the most appropriate single choice would be GNU. But we don't think that is the right way to consider the question. The GNU Project was not, is not, a project to develop specific software packages. [...] Many people have made major contributions to the free software in the system, and they all deserve credit. But the reason it is an integrated system — and not just a collection of useful programs — is because the GNU Project set out to make it one. We made a list of the programs needed to make a complete free system, and we systematically wrote, or found people to write, everything on the list. (Stallman, "Linux and the GNU Project")".

"Because of this confusion, legal threats and PR campaigns apparently directed against the kernel, such as those launched by the SCO Group or the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (AdTI), have been misinterpreted by many commentators who assume that the whole operating system is being targeted. These organisations have even been accused of deliberately exploiting this confusion:

Generally, SCO's Caldera v IBM Complaint is vague and confusing as to whether the accusations involve the Linux kernel, the GNU/Linux operating system, Linux distributions, Linux applications, or whatever. (Mike Angelo, MozillaQuest Magazine, 28 April 2003).

SCO has used "Linux" to mean "all free software," or "all free software constituting a UNIX-like operating system." This confusion, which the Free Software Foundation warned against in the past, is here shown to have the misleading consequences the Foundation has often predicted. (Eben Moglen, FSF Statement on SCO v IBM, 25 June 2003).

I guess we can all be glad the world found it so hard to say GNU/Linux, because SCO fell right into the pit, equating Linux, the kernel, with GNU/Linux, the everything, kernel plus the applications. (Pamela Jones, Groklaw 31 October 2003).

In particular, Stallman criticized the [Ken Brown/AdTI] report for capitalizing on common confusion between the Linux kernel, which Stallman says "Linus really wrote," with the full GNU operating system and associated software, which can be and generally is used with the Linux kernel. (Lisa Stapleton, LinuxInsider, 27 May 2004).
from GNU/Linux naming controversy -Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy)

rocketpcguy

05-25-2006, 12:06 PM

Linux. *BSD. Mac (Darwin?). Windows. These are all kernels. why shouldn't we call it by its kernel, where all the compatibility and functionality lies?

sorry, thats wrong. if you every tried free/*/bsd, you would know that its a complete operating system, not just the kernel. Same thing with Windows, "windows" isn't the kernel, its the operating system.
your mention of darwin brought up an interesting point: would it make sense to call all mac machines "Darwin" instead of "Mac"?

with a distribution, its fine to say its "slackware linux" or "fedora linux" (although * gnu/linux would make sense). however, calling a genric linux based system just 'linux' is like calling a mac 'darwin'. there is no alternative name to describe what's needed to get a basic working linux operating system, but the name "GNU/linux" comes close.
there are only two things in a normal linux distribution that would break everything if you remove it, the kernel, linux, and GNU tools/libraries.

i probably still will call it linux, only because im lazy to add gnu everytime. but im only trying to say that gnu/linux is justified.

Seph64

05-25-2006, 12:25 PM

ArgPirate

05-25-2006, 01:12 PM

When people call Windows, "windows" it refers to the OS. When people call Unix, "Unix" it refers to the OS. When people call BSD (it's a derivitive of Unix), "BSD" it refers to the OS. But when you call Linux, "Linux" you refer to the kernel... Kinda breaks the mold doesn't it?

This is really the heart of the issue isnt it? The truth is, at this point, no matter what anyone says, no matter who says it, or when, Linux is not a kernel. I'm sorry. Linux is an OS. Yes, when Linus first created the his kernel he named it linux but the word, as they are often know to do, has evolved. In no longer means the kernel Linus built, it means the OS the FOSS world built.

Check your package managers, I bet most of them refer to the kernel as linux-kernel or linux-image or kernel-something. If you read a job description do you and it says "Must be able to work with Linux" does that read "Must be able to work with the linux kernel". Really. You could site 100 examples. "I'm going to upgrade the linux kernel on my gentoo box" Not my linux.

My point is, some of these posts try seem make it sound like the word Linux is ever, ever, ever, used to indicate the linux kernel.

I'm sorry that the name doesnt include the specific name of the GNU project, but really when a new person reads the name Linux they dont assioate it with the kernel, and by the time they find out the history of the name they are going to know GNU's and MANY other project's involvment.

rocketpcguy

05-25-2006, 01:40 PM

ArgPirate: you must be new to the discussion. the point of the discussion is why, like you said, everyone is using 'linux' as the entire OS and not just the kernel. everyone knows everyone calls it linux, its obvious. but is it right?

Linux is not a kernel. I'm sorry. Linux is an OS.
and all hackers are evil, are they? just because everyone uses the term, it doesnt mean its right.
linux is an OS, yes, but its not enough for it to work in most distributions. you cant 'see' the OS, you need GNU utilities and libraries to make that happen, and paste X/KDE/whatever.

zeroth

05-25-2006, 02:03 PM

All interactin with hardware must be done through the kernel. the kernel is the most important part of an Operating System.

The kernel in windows is called "The Windows Kernel", because it has no other name.

Darwin, I once thought, was the GUI environment on a Mac. I could google this but I really don't care :-)

I wou;dnt mind calling linux "G-N-U Linux", but the approprite term is "Guh-noo slash linux." what a mouth full. even so, it disregards the gui. if it doesn't have a gui, it isn't fulfilling my computing needs.

to come at this from another angle, don't say "my operating system is linux", simply say "I run linux" which means simply that.

ArgPirate

05-25-2006, 02:14 PM

ArgPirate: you must be new to the discussion.
Actually ive been following it pretty closley.

linux is an OS, yes, but its not enough for it to work in most distributions. you cant 'see' the OS, you need GNU utilities and libraries to make that happen, and paste X/KDE/whatever.

My point here is that the term "Linux" does not mean a kernel anymore, at all. Linux, is a kernel, a GNU collection of tools, and, at least on my system, about another 700megs of additional code of varying importance. Linux is the name the collection of things.

Is it Right? Yes, of course it is right. People like like point out they Windows is not named after the kernel, nor is Mac named after the kernel. In that same vein, is Windows and Mac named after the Compiler and the core set of tools? I dont think so. Windows and Mac are names bestowed upon them by the companies, Microsoft and Apple. Who made the OS? Did Linus? I don't think so, Did GNU? Not quite. And do they get to name them? The Community created the OS, as we see it today. The Community named the OS, and the name that evolved for the OS is Linux.

Linus' project even got renamed. Its not called Linux, its called the linux kernel. The website? www.linux.org? nope www.kernel.org. from that site

If you're new to Linux, you don't want to download the kernel, which is just a component in a working Linux system. Instead, you want what is called a distribution of Linux, which is a complete Linux system.

I mean, if you really want to discuss why the name linux evovled to mean a complete OS when including some other projects name would have been more descriptive then we can. That argument though is going to be one of symantics and language, similiar to perhaps why you call your car a car instead of an "Internel Combustion powered 4 wheeled multiseated passenger carring device".

zeroth

05-25-2006, 02:22 PM

Sounds like the entire GNU/Linux/Xorg/butsecks communities need to come up with a name for this damn thing that can be widely accepted and used.

how about "BOSSU"? Stands for: Best Operating System Since Unix. Make the U silent :-)

paj12

05-25-2006, 03:30 PM

how about "BOSSU"? Stands for: Best Operating System Since Unix. Make the U silent :-)
I like it!

Is it Right? Yes, of course it is right. People like like point out they Windows is not named after the kernel, nor is Mac named after the kernel. In that same vein, is Windows and Mac named after the Compiler and the core set of tools? I dont think so. Windows and Mac are names bestowed upon them by the companies, Microsoft and Apple. Who made the OS? Did Linus? I don't think so, Did GNU? Not quite. And do they get to name them? The Community created the OS, as we see it today. The Community named the OS, and the name that evolved for the OS is Linux.
Windows and the Macintosh OS are so named because the companies that distribute them have given them those names. IBM's OS/2 included code from Windows that they licensed from Microsoft, but it was still called OS/2. Macintosh OS X includes code from FreeBSD, GNU, and Konqueror, but its name does not reflect that.

That's because an operating system's name does need to reflect its component parts. This GNU/X11/Apache/Linux/TeX/Perl/Python/FreeCiv schema that people have come up with is absurd. The OS running my box is called OpenSuSE 10.0. Did they write the software? Well, some of it -- like YaST for instance -- but, for the most part, no. What they did do was put all the parts together into a complete and coherent operating system, which is more than Stallman or Torvalds has done. So sure, if it weren't for GNU or Linux we might not have this or that, but if it weren't for the people who distribute Free Software, their contributions would still be source code sitting on an FTP server somewhere.

zeroth

05-25-2006, 03:43 PM

Macintosh OS X includes code from FreeBSD, GNU, and Konqueror

do they distribute sorces as well? Exactly what parts of a Mac contain Open Source code? I've always wondered this.

rocketpcguy

05-25-2006, 04:06 PM

the kernel and browser of the mac is open source, i think.

calling a linux-based system by its distribution name is perfect sense, nothing against that. its just when we talk about linux based operating systems in general.

All interactin with hardware must be done through the kernel. the kernel is the most important part of an Operating System.
it sure is. and so are the GNU tools in your distribution. if you feel otherwise, feel free to 'uninstall' them.

The Community created the OS, as we see it today. The Community named the OS, and the name that evolved for the OS is Linux.
fair enough. but i personally think its unfair that it has to be named after only linus when the FSF's work is just as important, both in philosophy and technically.

Linus' project even got renamed. Its not called Linux, its called the linux kernel.
linus was always against the 'gnu/linux' idea. (although linux *is* named linux-2.6.16.18.tar.bz2).

i just call it linux, but my friend who got me into linux calls it gnu/linux all the time. im just saying that i understand his perspective and respect it.

zeroth

05-25-2006, 04:33 PM

linus was always against the 'gnu/linux' idea.

He was also against the idea of calling the kernel "linux", but people liked it too damn much. linux doesn't *have* to be named after linus, and it wasn't his choice to keep it that way -- it was the users.

This is all unconfirmed by myself, of course, though I believe it.

edit: it would seem much harder to re-write linux than to re-write all the GNU stuff. why don't we all come together, write a set of GNU clones and call it Linux? then we can all stop this GNU/linux silliness. :D

Seph64

05-25-2006, 05:04 PM

Yeah, I believe Linus said something to that effect (about Linux) in the Revolution OS documentry.

ehawk

05-25-2006, 06:09 PM

This is absurd. It's like a group of musicians gathering in someone's garage and arguing over the band name to the point where they actually create no music.

Parcival

05-25-2006, 06:51 PM

Okay guys, here some clarifications on the Macintosh:

When you say "Mac" you mean the hardware. A Mac is a computer designed by Apple.

When you say "Darwin", you mean the kernel that comes with OS X.

When you say "OS X", you mean the latest OS made by Apple. OS X is based on BSD.

When you say "Aqua", you mean the slick GUI that comes with OSX.

Apple's Safari is OSS since it is based on Mozilla. Darwin used to be open until a few weeks ago when Apple announced they want to close it. This has drawn much criticism in the Mac community since nobody can really understand the possible reasons (Apple didn't give any). Some suggest Apple fears hackers or competition, but as we in the Linux community know, these arguments are all no-brainers.

Parcival

05-25-2006, 06:52 PM

This is absurd. It's like a group of musicians gathering in someone's garage and arguing over the band name to the point where they actually create no music.

Yes, that beautifully sums up this thread. :)

Seph64

05-25-2006, 09:03 PM

Apple's Safari is OSS since it is based on Mozilla.

Half correct, it's based on Konqueror.

http://developer.apple.com/opensource/internet/webkit.html

zeroth

05-25-2006, 09:38 PM

Yes, that beautifully sums up this thread. :)

incorrect.

This is not the musicians of the band arguing over name right now. this is the Band's fans arguing when we could be listening to the bands latest album.

the only band memebr arguing over names is Richard Stallman. what a whiner.

paj12

05-25-2006, 11:34 PM

edit: it would seem much harder to re-write linux than to re-write all the GNU stuff. why don't we all come together, write a set of GNU clones and call it Linux? then we can all stop this GNU/linux silliness.
Why would anyone want to do that? If you feel that strongly about the issue, there's nothing stopping you from putting together your own OS with no GNU software. The rest of us will keep our current OSes, thank you very much. The reason people use GNU software or Linux is not because they like Stallman or Torvalds. It's because they like high-quality, usable, Free Software. The GNU software, the Linux kernel, and all the other Free Software we use on a daily basis are perfect in this respect.

To my knowledge, no usable operating system has been made that only contains GNU software and Linux kernel. Attempting to name such a mythical system seems, to me, like an exercise in stupidity. Even Debian, a self-professed "GNU/Linux" operating system, contains 14 CDs worth of software. Surely this isn't all GNU software. So who wrote it? Free Software developers, that's who. The kind that write high-quality Free Software for its own sake. The kind that don't raise a big stink or demand to see their name in lights. That's who drives the Free Software movement. Not Stallman, and not Torvalds.

Now, if you don't mind, I've got to help somebody get their Slackware machine on the Internet. After all this arguing, I feel like doing something productive.