Non-GNU Linux
by
sfraggle
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I have a small linux distribution for the Psion Revo. Interestingly, I can name this just Linux (not GNU/Linux) because it contains no GNU software. All the normal GNU base utilities (glibc, gnu text/shellutils, bash) have been replaced with small embedded replacements (uclibc, busybox). So I can leave off "GNU/" and I am still correct.
-- were you expecting to see a sig here? perhaps you'd rather see the inside of an ambulance!
Re:Non-GNU Linux
by
quigonn
·
· Score: 2, Informative
You don't need the glibc to compile and link the kernel. The Linux kernel comes with all the functions it needs.
-- A monkey is doing the real work for me.
Re:Why are they so desperate ?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Its actually the other way round: GNU was around long before the Linux kernel was written. Essentially people have taken the GNU system and renamed it to Linux.
Pronounceability is cultural
by
yerricde
·
· Score: 2, Informative
"Linux" surely is more pronouncable than "GNU"
Are you sure? In some human spoken languages, the "gn" cluster is considered "more pronounceable" than the "ks" cluster. What's pronounceable is what you've been brought up with. Yes, speakers of English are at an advantage vs. French speakers at learning the consonant clusters of Russian because English speakers are used to clusters, but it's hard for anybody who didn't grow up in southern Africa to learn to make the hundreds of click sounds that typically start a word.
Political views
by
vlad_petric
·
· Score: 4, Informative
We strongly disapprove of his political views, but we deal with that disagreement honorably and openly, rather than by trying to cut him out of the credit for his contribution to the system. ...
If you free that Perl simply cries out for mention, and you want to write GNU/Linux/Perl, go ahead. ...
Should we say "GNU/BSD" too?
BSD systems today use some GNU packages, just as the GNU system and its variants use some BSD programs; however, taken as wholes, they are two different systems that evolved separately.
jeez...
The Raven
--
The Raven
Re:I call it linux, here's why, in a few short poi
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
> What the.. are you talking about? I fail to see either where GNU "failed" or Linus succeeded withough them. GNU has a reputation for providing a highly reliable OS that provides it users with freedoms not available with other OS's.
The failure is that there is no complete GNU OS yet; without the kernel, the GNU tools are add-ons to someone else's OS. Yes, the GNU tools span the range from boot (grub) to userland (GNOME), but without a kernel there's not complete OS, and that was the original GNU goal (a free UNIX clone).
Once the Hurd kernel is ready we'll be debating different issues, but until then, Linux is the OS that counts.
Re:Why are they so desperate ?
by
JdV!!
·
· Score: 1, Informative
cd, *giggle* <pedantic> [jan@forterie jan]$ ls/bin/cd/usr/bin/cd ls:/bin/cd: No such file or directory ls:/usr/bin/cd: No such file or directory [jan@forterie jan]$
cd is a built-in of your shell. A popular joke is to have someone write cd.c and have him wonder why it doesn't work.../<pedantic>
-- <Enter any 12-digit prime to continue>
Re:Why are they so desperate ?
by
netphilter
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Linus didn't develop an OS, he developed a kernel. This is exactly what the FSF is saying...Linux is not an OS, it's a kernel, and the GNU tools play as much a part of the OS as the kernel does. Try to do something in GNU\Linux without a kernel...now try it without GNU software. Neither work.
-- "Herbivores eat well cause their food never, ever runs."
Re:Why are they so desperate ?
by
gorilla
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Actually, the tools which were used to create Linux and make it into a self-hosted development enviroment were often Minux. At the time of creation of Linux, a lot of the people who jumped on the bandwagon were Minux users who had reached the limits of what Minux could do. That`s why the announcement was in comp.os.minux, Linux has support for Minux file systems, and for a while, you needed Minux to compile the kernel. Read the Original announcement for the details.
They are NOT enforcing a name change!
by
FooBarWidget
·
· Score: 4, Informative
They are asking you to CALL it GNU/Linux, not to change it's name! What they are *really* after is the general awareness of GNU's existence. They are not enforcing anything, and even if they can, they won't (as stated in the FAQ). You don't have to call it GNU/Linux. If you want to call it just "Linux" and educate the public by explaining the whole story in 10 minutes, go ahead (the FAQ says the same thing).
Also read this: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#T OCwhysl ash
"Following the rules of English, in the construction "GNU Linux" the word "GNU" modifies "Linux". This can mean either "GNU's version of Linux" or "Linux, which is a GNU package." Neither of those meanings fits the situation at hand.
Linux is not a GNU package; that is, it wasn't developed under the GNU Project's aegis or contributed specifically to the GNU Project. Linus Torvalds wrote Linux independently, as his own project. So the "Linux, which is a GNU package" meaning is not right."
why they made the faq
by
_KhlER3L
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The FAQ @ http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#afterker nel says:
It's not exactly GNU--it has a different kernel (that is, Linux). Distinguishing GNU/Linux from GNU is useful.
Yeah and without GNU there wouldn't be a userland and then the Linux project wouldn't even have started!
You're making a mistake here. The FSF is NOT claiming ALL credits!
Read the FAQ: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#ju stgnu
They ARE giving Linux credits!
Re:My First, Last, and Only Word on this subject..
by
vidnet
·
· Score: 2, Informative
My preference at the time was to just get rid of the trademark, to get it declared invalid because of prior use in the industry. We had enough paperwork to show that Linux had, in fact, a history of prior use. The trouble was, our lawyer convinced us that it would be a wasted efforted, that we should not even try to get Linux declared a public domain instead of a trademark. The only way for it to really be in the public domain, he explained, was for it to become generic. And Linux at the time wasn't that generic. The trademark office probably wouldn't even concider it to be generic today. We could lose the battle, he said. Or if we invalidated the old trademark, somebody could possibly come along and trademark it anew.
The solution he suggested was to transfer the trademark to somebody else. My vote went to Linux International, but there was a lot of opposition to that. Linux International was young and unproven. People were worried about Linux International being taken over by commercial interests.(...)
So all eyes looked on me.
'Just for Fun', by Linus Torvalds.
Re:What about everything else?
by
jdavidb
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Hi, I'm the article submitter.:)
where does one stop with the attributions?
Did you read the FAQ? I was hoping a few folks would and think about the ideas presented, even if they don't agree.
I did a little experiment today; I downloaded all the source code for Linux From Scratch, and moved all the GNU code into a directory. The uncompressed GNU code takes up 341648 bytes. The uncompressed Linux code (counting the kernel, the manpages, and modutils) takes up 155872 bytes.
Since you mentioned X, I uncompressed XFree86 4.1.0 and counted it: 289624 bytes. (I was actually surprised; I expected X to be bigger than GNU.)
For the record, this is not all the GNU software, either. Emacs, for example, is not counted (that would've put it way over the top), and LFS chooses many alternatives where GNU packages exist.
Now, when you talk about the tail wagging the dog, if you want to call GNU the tail, the tail is bigger than the dog.:)
Is the kernel the OS, or are the utils the OS?
Did you read the FAQ? This issue is addressed. There's some truth to both views.
Does kernel32 or command.com makes Windows the "Windows OS"?
That's what GNU is saying. Most people would say the Windows OS consists of those pieces, plus the GUI, plus many utilities. And when you say you got RedHat Linux, do you mean you got the version of Linux, the kernel, distributed by RedHat, or do you mean you got an OS comparable to Windows? Which sense are you using the term OS in there?
Slashdot Mirror
I have a small linux distribution for the Psion Revo. Interestingly, I can name this just Linux (not GNU/Linux) because it contains no GNU software. All the normal GNU base utilities (glibc, gnu text/shellutils, bash) have been replaced with small embedded replacements (uclibc, busybox). So I can leave off "GNU/" and I am still correct.
were you expecting to see a sig here? perhaps you'd rather see the inside of an ambulance!
Its actually the other way round: GNU was around long before the Linux kernel was written. Essentially people have taken the GNU system and renamed it to Linux.
"Linux" surely is more pronouncable than "GNU"
Are you sure? In some human spoken languages, the "gn" cluster is considered "more pronounceable" than the "ks" cluster. What's pronounceable is what you've been brought up with. Yes, speakers of English are at an advantage vs. French speakers at learning the consonant clusters of Russian because English speakers are used to clusters, but it's hard for anybody who didn't grow up in southern Africa to learn to make the hundreds of click sounds that typically start a word.
Will I retire or break 10K?
We strongly disapprove of his political views, but we deal with that disagreement honorably and openly, rather than by trying to cut him out of the credit for his contribution to the system.
...
If you free that Perl simply cries out for mention, and you want to write GNU/Linux/Perl, go ahead.
...
Should we say "GNU/BSD" too?
BSD systems today use some GNU packages, just as the GNU system and its variants use some BSD programs; however, taken as wholes, they are two different systems that evolved separately.
jeez ...
The Raven
The Raven
> What the .. are you talking about? I fail to see either where GNU "failed" or Linus succeeded withough them. GNU has a reputation for providing a highly reliable OS that provides it users with freedoms not available with other OS's.
The failure is that there is no complete GNU OS yet; without the kernel, the GNU tools are add-ons to someone else's OS. Yes, the GNU tools span the range from boot (grub) to userland (GNOME), but without a kernel there's not complete OS, and that was the original GNU goal (a free UNIX clone).
Once the Hurd kernel is ready we'll be debating different issues, but until then, Linux is the OS that counts.
cd, *giggle*
/bin/cd /usr/bin/cd /bin/cd: No such file or directory /usr/bin/cd: No such file or directory
/<pedantic>
<pedantic>
[jan@forterie jan]$ ls
ls:
ls:
[jan@forterie jan]$
cd is a built-in of your shell. A popular joke is to have someone write cd.c and have him wonder why it doesn't work...
<Enter any 12-digit prime to continue>
Linus didn't develop an OS, he developed a kernel. This is exactly what the FSF is saying...Linux is not an OS, it's a kernel, and the GNU tools play as much a part of the OS as the kernel does. Try to do something in GNU\Linux without a kernel...now try it without GNU software. Neither work.
"Herbivores eat well cause their food never, ever runs."
Actually, the tools which were used to create Linux and make it into a self-hosted development enviroment were often Minux. At the time of creation of Linux, a lot of the people who jumped on the bandwagon were Minux users who had reached the limits of what Minux could do. That`s why the announcement was in comp.os.minux, Linux has support for Minux file systems, and for a while, you needed Minux to compile the kernel. Read the Original announcement for the details.
They are asking you to CALL it GNU/Linux, not to change it's name! What they are *really* after is the general awareness of GNU's existence. They are not enforcing anything, and even if they can, they won't (as stated in the FAQ).
T OCwhysl ash
You don't have to call it GNU/Linux. If you want to call it just "Linux" and educate the public by explaining the whole story in 10 minutes, go ahead (the FAQ says the same thing).
Also read this:
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#
"Following the rules of English, in the construction "GNU Linux" the word "GNU" modifies "Linux". This can mean either "GNU's version of Linux" or "Linux, which is a GNU package." Neither of those meanings fits the situation at hand.
Linux is not a GNU package; that is, it wasn't developed under the GNU Project's aegis or contributed specifically to the GNU Project. Linus Torvalds wrote Linux independently, as his own project. So the "Linux, which is a GNU package" meaning is not right."
It's not exactly GNU--it has a different kernel (that is, Linux). Distinguishing GNU/Linux from GNU is useful.
khl
Yeah and without GNU there wouldn't be a userland and then the Linux project wouldn't even have started!
u stgnu
You're making a mistake here. The FSF is NOT claiming ALL credits!
Read the FAQ:
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#j
They ARE giving Linux credits!
The solution he suggested was to transfer the trademark to somebody else. My vote went to Linux International, but there was a lot of opposition to that. Linux International was young and unproven. People were worried about Linux International being taken over by commercial interests.(...)
So all eyes looked on me.
'Just for Fun', by Linus Torvalds.
Hi, I'm the article submitter. :)
where does one stop with the attributions?
Did you read the FAQ? I was hoping a few folks would and think about the ideas presented, even if they don't agree.
I did a little experiment today; I downloaded all the source code for Linux From Scratch, and moved all the GNU code into a directory. The uncompressed GNU code takes up 341648 bytes. The uncompressed Linux code (counting the kernel, the manpages, and modutils) takes up 155872 bytes.
Since you mentioned X, I uncompressed XFree86 4.1.0 and counted it: 289624 bytes. (I was actually surprised; I expected X to be bigger than GNU.)
For the record, this is not all the GNU software, either. Emacs, for example, is not counted (that would've put it way over the top), and LFS chooses many alternatives where GNU packages exist.
Now, when you talk about the tail wagging the dog, if you want to call GNU the tail, the tail is bigger than the dog. :)
Is the kernel the OS, or are the utils the OS?
Did you read the FAQ? This issue is addressed. There's some truth to both views.
Does kernel32 or command.com makes Windows the "Windows OS"?
That's what GNU is saying. Most people would say the Windows OS consists of those pieces, plus the GUI, plus many utilities. And when you say you got RedHat Linux, do you mean you got the version of Linux, the kernel, distributed by RedHat, or do you mean you got an OS comparable to Windows? Which sense are you using the term OS in there?
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.