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!
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
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."
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!
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
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."
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.