FSF Issues GNU/Linux Name FAQ

Unpronouncable by Methusalem · 2002-09-25 03:53 · Score: 0

Maybe they just should've chosen a pronouncable name. "Linux" surely is more pronouncable than "GNU"...

Re:Unpronouncable by AveryT · 2002-09-25 04:01 · Score: 1

But then people don't know whether to use a long "i" or a short one, i.e. Linn-ux or Line-ux.

FreeBSD is much more pronounceable.
Re:Unpronouncable by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:04 · Score: 0

Yep, we'll stick to freebizzd!

harhar =)
Re:Unpronouncable by totallygeek · 2002-09-25 04:04 · Score: 2

to pronounce GNU -> sounds like "new"

--
Click here or here.
Re:Unpronouncable by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:08 · Score: 0

freebizzduh?
Re:Unpronouncable by AKnightCowboy · 2002-09-25 04:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

to pronounce GNU -> sounds like "new"
Wrong. Come on, this is on the front page of www.gnu.org:
GNU is a recursive acronym for ``GNU's Not Unix''; it is pronounced "guh-NEW".
Re:Unpronouncable by MaxVlast · 2002-09-25 04:15 · Score: 2

From www.gnu.org: (GNU is a recursive acronym for ``GNU's Not Unix''; it is pronounced "guh-NEW".)

Besides, they're not all hard to pronounce. What about LaTeX?

--
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
Re:Unpronouncable by mughi · 2002-09-25 04:20 · Score: 2

to pronounce GNU -> sounds like "new"

No, no, no. It's "guh-nooo". Just check track 5 of ASIN: B00000I8A3
Re:Unpronouncable by RollingThunder · 2002-09-25 04:24 · Score: 2

Considering most folks, when they see that, say "lay-tecks", but it's actually "lay-teck", that's probably a bad example. ;)
Re:Unpronouncable by haxordan · 2002-09-25 04:26 · Score: 1

Actually, GNU contradicts itself. Their mascot is a gnu (http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=gnu) which is pronounced like "noo" or "nyoo." If they are goung to use the mascot, why do they insist on an improper pronunciation?

--
-h
Re:Unpronouncable by MaxVlast · 2002-09-25 04:30 · Score: 1

I know. I was trying to make a joke about things being hard to pronounce by supplying an example of one of the weirdest ones around =)

--
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
Re:Unpronouncable by jechoe · 2002-09-25 04:36 · Score: 1

Why not just contract to two into "G'nux" or "GNux" (guh-NUKS verus NUKS)?

--
Push the envelope. Watch it bend.
Re:Unpronouncable by Ultra64 · 2002-09-25 04:37 · Score: 1

...which is pronounced like "noo" or "nyoo."

No, no it's NI!
Re:Unpronouncable by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:38 · Score: 0

"Anyway when its the name of our Operating System please pronounce a hard 'G' pronounce it 'gah-nu'. If you talk operating the 'new' operating system you would get people very confused. You see we've working on it for 18 years now so its not new anymore!" -- RMS
Re:Unpronouncable by haxordan · 2002-09-25 04:41 · Score: 1

...No, no it's NI!
Well there goes my workday. Out with the work and in with the Monty Python references! *GRIN*

--
-h
Re:Unpronouncable by sgtpudding · 2002-09-25 05:00 · Score: 1

actually, isn't it pronounced "lee' nux"? at least, if you're mimicking linus' name in his native tongue..
Re:Unpronouncable by baldass_newbie · 2002-09-25 05:09 · Score: 2

Here how Linus pronounces Linux: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Peaks/3609/ linux.au

--
The opposite of progress is congress
Re:Unpronouncable by dr3vil · 2002-09-25 05:20 · Score: 1

How about Glinux? Doesn't that conform (more or less) to other GNU-type naming conventions?
Re:Unpronouncable by wrathskalon · 2002-09-25 05:41 · Score: 1

Oh heck, rename Linux, BSD/Linux, GNU/Linux, or *\/Linux* to nux (Not Unix) and be done with it.
Re:Unpronouncable by haxordan · 2002-09-25 05:52 · Score: 1

Indeed! That could be confusing. Wee should also outlaw the use of all homonyms four the sake of hour sanity! (Use of homonyms intentional.)

--
-h
Re:Unpronouncable by 0x0d0a · 2002-09-25 06:13 · Score: 2

This is despite the fact that they use a gnu (NEW) as their logo. I hate cutesy logos/names designed to be annoying or complicated to say. ...as I post this on "slashdot"...

--
May we never see th
Re:Unpronouncable by ebyrob · 2002-09-25 06:19 · Score: 2

Like they said on the great space coaster when I was a kid: "No gnus is good gnus I'm gary gnu."

Note for those who missed this experience: He pronounced the 'g's.
Re:Unpronouncable by stevew · 2002-09-25 06:53 · Score: 2

This is one place where RMS is full of s*&^...

If it's Gnu/Linux then it must be Gnu/BSD too- which make JUST as much sense even though BSD predates FSF! The BSD's depend on the GNU tools to literally the same extent.

There is simply NO WAY to justify this, it is merely a Ego trip on RMS's part.

--
Have you compiled your kernel today??
Re:Unpronouncable by Door-opening+Fascist · 2002-09-25 07:37 · Score: 1

Since the other link doesn't seem to be working, try this one from my website.
Re:Unpronouncable by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 09:02 · Score: 0

hi, you're an idiot who apparently didn't read the article. what, someone on slashdot didnt read the article? incredible!

your exact question was addressed in the FAQ. newbie.
Re:Unpronouncable by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 11:17 · Score: 0

Gaylord.
Re:Unpronouncable by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 13:07 · Score: 0

Or, why not just tell RMS to fuck off. Thanks for bash and gcc, now please shut the fuck up dirty hippy.
Re:Unpronouncable by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 14:42 · Score: 0

The FAQ is simply wrong.

It makes a logical fallicy.
In accordance with the reasons the FSF has put forward for the GNU/Linux convention, BSD *SHOULD* be called GNU/BSD.

However, this would lead to much head scratching as BSD obviously predates GNU, so they make up some spurious reason for why they don't require the same thing for BSD. Their excuse hower, rings hollow....

Why are they so desperate ? by gupg · 2002-09-25 03:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why are they so desperate for taking some of the fame and credit for Linux ? Its like a someone with an inferiority complex trying to say, oh, I had some thing to do this with - as a matter of fact, this should be named after me.

If the people who work on Linux want to, they will rename it to GNU/Linux - the FSF can't just impose a name on them and expect everyone to accept it.

Re:Why are they so desperate ? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 03:58 · Score: 0

They should at least attempt to take credit for a GOOD operating system. Why Linux? :/
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:00 · 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.
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by windex · 2002-09-25 04:02 · Score: 1, Flamebait

The last time they had a OS called GNU/*, it was GNU/Hurd, and well, I'd want something better associated with me as well.
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by gazbo · 2002-09-25 04:02 · Score: 2, Funny

I think it is because they are obsessive. No, really - these people are the ones who think that Free Software (TM) is the only ethical way of producing software.
Don't agree? Fancy a giggle? Then read this question's answer. I found it most entertaining, whilst ensuring they get zero credibility.
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:04 · Score: 0

They're desperate because they haven't managed to produce the operating system that they claimed they would. It's going to be 20 years now and there's still no GNU operating system..lots of GNU software, but no operating system. Now they're literally trying to claim Linux as their own, take the Linux kernel and call the collection the "GNU" operating system, because they failed to produce it themselves. They even have the audacity to suggest that Linux should be removed from "GNU/Linux," but out of some sort of self-serviant politeness they won't demand it be referred to as such. The FSF as a whole are egotists, and they contribute little more to the community than selfish whining and semantics.
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by (void*) · 2002-09-25 04:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

I don't understand why people keep attributing motives and emotions to an organization like the FSF. FSF wrote a lot of GNU tools like gzip, sed, cat. They consciously set out to duplicate each and every piece of the software on Unix, whether it was glamorous work or not.

Now that they've done it, I have no problems giving them a little credit by typiing GNU/Linux, but still using "Lih-nooks" conversationally. Why is spelling things this way hard? It would be hard to write an emacs Macro that inserted "GNU" everytime one typed "Linux".

Heck, if one think this is petty, then it's even pettier to complain about the pettiness. (And I know what I just did: complain about your pettiness. So there!)
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by boolean0 · 2002-09-25 04:08 · Score: 1

we had a debate about this at our Student Linux Users Group at school, we ended up deciding that it was a silly thing to debate about. yes they deserve credit for what they've done, but they ar e VERY pushy.

Stallman did not want to come speak for us unless we changed the name, he decided we were a 'lost cause'
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by gupg · 2002-09-25 04:10 · Score: 1, Troll

Quote from previous message:
>> I don't understand why people keep attributing motives and emotions to an organization like the FSF.

Because the decisions of this "organization" are made by individuals who are obviously petty and fell that they need a pat on their back for everything that is feel open source.

Linux comes from the kernel that Linus wrote - which did not have any GNU software in it !!
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by zitsky · 2002-09-25 04:10 · Score: 1

So if GNU re-created all the standard Unix utilities, why is it not called Unix/GNU or BSD/GNU? Yes I know that GNU = "GNU's Not Unix". Maybe we should give credit to everyone who worked on the FSF/GNU utilities. Who knows the history of how the utilities were written? I imagine that they were not all written by Richard Stallman himself, or were they?
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by Real+World+Stuff · 2002-09-25 04:14 · Score: 1

Someone obviously had MUCH time on their hands. They are preaching to the choir. They should have invested the time wi a "How to promote free software".BTW, Gaz I'll keep an eye on your posts and give 'em when I can.

--
If we don't fight for ourselves no one will.
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by foobar104 · 2002-09-25 04:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

When I hear, "preaching to the choir," I think you're talking about trying to convince people who already agree with you. I don't think that's what's happening here at all.

I think there's probably one guy in the world who agrees with everything on the gnu.org web site. And I don't have to tell you who he is.

This FAQ isn't preaching to the choir. It's preaching to a bunch of people who (1) don't really care, and who (2) don't like to be preached to. It's preaching to the cannibals.
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by foobar104 · 2002-09-25 04:22 · Score: 2

EXACTLY. That's the best word I've heard yet to describe Gnu's attitude: pushy.

Which is ironic, since they like to spend so much time talking about freedom and self-determination. Well, guys, we're all free to call Linux whatever we want. Bossing us around isn't going to make you any friends.
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by evilpenguin · 2002-09-25 04:28 · Score: 5, Interesting

While I agree with you about the lack of a working "Hurd," I totally disagree with you about them "contributing little." They contributed most of the systems software, compilers, and libraries that are used to build everything on your Linux (er, GNU/Linux) system. They created the license that guarantees that a programmer who gives away his code will be paid in kind. Some people are definitely hostile to the GPL, but an awful lot of us write Free Software (meaning GPL'd software) becuase we derive a lot of benefit from everyone else's Free Software and we want to keep that going.

Now, I have called it "Linux," and will continue to call it "Linux" simply because I think "GNU/Linux" is the antithesis of euphony (how's that for a pompous phrase?). Also, as an aside, do they insist that it be called GNU/FreeBSD? Don't the BSDs come with a bunch of GNU software? Or am I missing something? And do they insist that it be called GNU/Solaris when people install gcc and bash on the box? In other words, I don't agree with the FSF on this.

But to suggest that they have contributed litte is either displaying surprising malice or surprising ignorance. The FSF is one of the key reasons we have the goods today. I'd be more than willing to bet the by lines of code alone, the FSF's contribution to the average distribution dwarfs that of the Linux kernel. The FSF is based around a philosophy; an ideology in fact. And they evangelize that ideology. They want to persude you that their beliefs are right. The regard code politically. I think very few people do right now. But with DRM, Palladium, the DMCA, and many other developments, I think it is going to be more and more common.

In other words, I think the FSF's greatest contribution may turn out to be their ideology, and not their code at all. Time will tell on that point. In the meantime, even though I buy into their philosophy, I still will call it "Linux." Guess I'm not a True Believer, but rather a true believer.
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:29 · Score: 1, Funny

Wow, I thought that no one would ever recognize me for my belief in all things FSF. Now if only RMS would agree to a couple of things more on that page I'll have a fellow zelot!!!!
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by vistas · 2002-09-25 04:32 · Score: 1

I don't understand why people keep attributing motives and emotions to an organization like the FSF.

You do it to Microsoft all the time, so why not FSF? Let's be fair!
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:37 · Score: 0

Linux comes from the kernel that Linus wrote - which did not have any GNU software in it !!
Of course, the kernel would be completely useless without the GNU software that surrounds it. Plus, Linus used GNU software to write the kernel. I think calling it "GNU/Linux" is justified.
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by jgerman · 2002-09-25 04:38 · Score: 2

think "GNU/Linux" is the antithesis of euphony (how's that for a pompous phrase?).

Pompous my ass, it's the (antithesis(antithesis(of euphony)) ;) Don't apologize for using words well.

--
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by defile · 2002-09-25 04:41 · Score: 2

Also, as an aside, do they insist that it be called GNU/FreeBSD? Don't the BSDs come with a bunch of GNU software? Or am I missing something? And do they insist that it be called GNU/Solaris when people install gcc and bash on the box? In other words, I don't agree with the FSF on this.

No foolin' but this frequently asked question is answered in the FAQ. The short answer is no they don't want it to be called GNU/FreeBSD or GNU/Solaris. The long answer is an exercise for the reader.

I think I will start calling it GNU/FreeBSD because the FreeBSD project has always been annoyed that they depend on GCC and friends. Perhaps if enough people do this it will shame* them into finally making their one, complete BSD system.

*It's happened before: IIRC they refused to use less and simply enhanced more because less was GPL'd. Finally the author of less dual licensed it and put the issue to sleep.
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:44 · Score: 0

What did he compile it with? What kind of FREE tools did he use to build it? Why do you call the FSF petty?
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by WzDD · 2002-09-25 04:45 · Score: 1

> I don't understand why people keep attributing
> motives and emotions to an organization like the
> FSF.

Well, I can't speak for others, but the reason that *I* do the above is because almost everything that I've read that's come out of the FSF has been written by RMS or Bradley Khun. It's pretty easy to attribute motives and emotion to an organisation when almost the entirety of that organisation's dogma comes out of the mouths of two people.
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by DustMagnet · 2002-09-25 04:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

FSF wrote a lot of GNU tools like gzip, sed, cat.
Most of that code was donated to the FSF. For some reason, they never bothered to organize a kernel (until Hurd).
If it wasn't for Linus, I'm not sure we'd have a "GNU-OS" yet.
RMS was a great advocate for years. Now he's been totally neutralized by this stupid issue. What a waste.

--
'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by PurpleFloyd · 2002-09-25 04:57 · Score: 1

Linux comes from the kernel that Linus wrote - which did not have any GNU software in it !!
Using just the kernel is not a fun way to work on your computer. What the GNU Project did write were free versions of basic UNIX tools, things like ls and cd, all the way to rather unglamorous things like yes. Unless you use something like BusyBox for your basic UNIX tools under Linux, it's only fair to give the GNU project credit for a lot of hard work.

--

That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by SquierStrat · 2002-09-25 04:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

No, people used GNU tools to write an OS called Linux and subsequently to write software for this OS. The only OS GNU has is the unfinished HURD kernel which hasn't exactly had much success for various reasons. Linux is an operating system, Linus Torvalds started the project that created Linux and there for hehas naming rights. He named is Linux. The FSF and GNU project had nothing to do with it's creation short of the tools used for it's creation.

--
Derek Greene
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by evilpenguin · 2002-09-25 05:03 · Score: 2

Gee. Guess I should have read the actual FAQ before I posted. No, wait. I'm a slashdotter! I defend myself by saying I was answering a post, not the article, so its okay that I didn't read the article... Thanks for the pointer, though...
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by JdV!! · 2002-09-25 05:08 · 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 NightWhistler · 2002-09-25 05:09 · Score: 1

The FSF and GNU project had nothing to do with it's creation short of the tools used for it's creation.

And just about every essential program needed to actually do something with you system... think little things like "ls" ;-)

--
PageTurner Reader: open-source e-reader for Android with cloudsync. http://pageturner-reader.org
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by SquierStrat · 2002-09-25 05:12 · Score: 2

really? There aren't non-GNU replacements for all of them? My oh my, here I thought there were projects that replaced all of them effectively.

--
Derek Greene
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by JdV!! · 2002-09-25 05:12 · Score: 1

Aarrghhh... Someone labelled the Submit button with 'Preview'...

--
<Enter any 12-digit prime to continue>
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by netphilter · 2002-09-25 05:13 · 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 spudnic · 2002-09-25 05:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

The biggest problem I have with GNU is that it is too hard to say. How many people pronounce Gnome 'gahnome' rather than 'nome'. GNU is just an annoying name. And if you don't pronounce it 'gahnu' it sounds like you are saying New/Linux.

Get a real name and then maybe we'll talk!

--
load "linux",8,1
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by llywrch · 2002-09-25 05:19 · Score: 2

> Stallman did not want to come speak for us unless we changed the name [of our users group]

He made the same demand of our user group here in Portland, OR. The reaction in our mailing list was divided: many felt he could FOAD for that demand, others agreed 110% with RMS.

A big problem is that PLUG is short for ``Portland Linux/UNIX Group" -- because the various flavors of UNIX in Portland don't have their own functioning user groups. The principal activist running PLUG -- David Mandel -- is agnostic when it comes to the question ``which OS is best."

My opinion? (Warning -- flamebait follows.)

We should have offered to have changed the name of PLUG to ``Asshole Fan Club" to meet RMS' demand.

No, I didn't post this to the mailing list; tempers were already getting short concerning this topic by the time I thought of saying this.

Geoff

--
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by naChoZ · 2002-09-25 05:33 · Score: 1

The other one I hear is g-nome, like the human genome. It bugs the living hell out of me, but people who correct other people bug me more. So I simply continue to say it correctly when discussing it...
I usually refer to gnu simply as g-n-u though. Might not be correct, but it's less problematic than, like you said, referring to New/Linux.

--
"I can be self-referential if I want to," said Tom, swiftly.
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by SquierStrat · 2002-09-25 05:34 · Score: 2

Bringing, up the debate of what defines the OS. I say the kernel is the OS. I say this because one could get a number of items to perform the function os GUI, compiler, and text editor.

--
Derek Greene
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by gorilla · 2002-09-25 05:44 · 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.
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by yelligsc · 2002-09-25 05:48 · Score: 1

Not Quite.

GNU is not just development tools. It is, as another poster has mentioned, all the little things like 'ls' and much of the other stuff that makes the system WORK.

On the other hand I dont know that changing the commonly used name really makes sense.

Lets change the level of abstraction a little here, and look at just the kernel itself. Looking inside the Linux kernel source files you will see that the copyrights are held by many many different people, and not just linux. This does NOT mean we should call it the Linux/Ever/other/author/who/contributedux kernel.

Same this with the OS. The title Linux has developed to refer to the entire Kernel/Operating system components working together, and I dont see a problem with this. Whats more, the GNU utilities are, or atleast CAN be, used as the base of ANY Unix-link operating system. So instead of calling them each GNU/Linux, GNU/Otherux, and so on, why no simply refer to it as Linux or Otherux as that is the distingushing name.

Sure Linus might get more credit than he deserves, but as was also mentioned in another article today, many people might still think Bill Gates writes the majority of microsoft windows. Those who are smart enough, and care enough realize that this is not the situation.

But in the end, if you are REALLY passionate about including GNU in the title, show your support by running Debian. All you can do is show support for the causes which are important to you. This one is not important to me.

Scott.
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by eam · 2002-09-25 05:52 · Score: 1

Mod that up. This is the real reason that GNU/Linux won't make it as a name. It's too much work.
Is it a silent G, is it not a silent G?
They went to all that trouble to explain why to call it GNU/Linux, and they didn't say how to call it GNU/Linux. Not even a link to the manifesto.
FYI: It would be Gahnu/Leenooks, but that looks like someone just puked.
Sorry, RMS, I'm not convinced. I'm too lazy to say that. I'll refer to it as Linux.
I'd be willing to go as far as G/Linux (Gleenooks).
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by jcr · 2002-09-25 05:53 · Score: 2

I don't understand why people keep attributing motives and emotions to an organization like the FSF.

That would be because the actions of the FSF are inextricably intertwined with the motives and emotions of RMS.

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by eam · 2002-09-25 05:54 · Score: 4, Funny

I can't help thinking that this is a list of Frequently Asked Questions that just aren't frequently asked.
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by rvaniwaa · 2002-09-25 06:08 · Score: 3, Funny

It would be hard to write an emacs Macro that inserted "GNU" everytime one typed "Linux"

I can see it now, the Emacs office assistant: "I see you are trying to type 'Linux' Wouldn't you prefer the official name 'GNU/Linux'?

--
main(i){(10-putchar(((25208>>3*(i+=3))&7)+(i ?i-4?100:65:10)))?main(i-4):i;}
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by cascadefx · 2002-09-25 06:10 · Score: 2

Now that they've done it, I have no problems giving them a little credit by typiing GNU/Linux, but still using "Lih-nooks" conversationally. Why is spelling things this way hard? It would be hard to write an emacs Macro that inserted "GNU" everytime one typed "Linux".
Perfect idea! I think style guidelines for writing are definitely more useful, and easier to put into general use, than conversational guidelines.
As geeks/Linux users/whatever, using "Linux" conversationally is second nature by now. However, there are many things, style and format wise that we have to train ourselves into doing while writing. Typing in 4 extra characters (or implementing an automatic macro) when writing is a small step, and easy to take, step.
"Linux" for conversation.
"GNU/Linux" for written communication.
If this got picked up as the convention of the major media's style guides, or even if it appeared in a standard style guide, like "the orange book," I think it would go a long ways towards settling the debate.
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by Ian+Wolf · 2002-09-25 06:39 · Score: 2

Sorry, RMS, I'm not convinced. I'm too lazy to say that. I'll refer to it as Linux.

I'm a New Englander, which means I talk really fast and strip out all the sylables I can. I'd shorten it to just nix, but it really isn't appropriate for Linux, so it gets Linux. I appreciate the work the FSF people put in, but forget it, four sylables when two gets the job done.

Living in Cambridge, you'd think RMS would understand.

Example
"Hey Nic, wanna get a sub anna coke?"
Translation
"Hey Nicole, do you want to go get a grinder and a soft drink?"

--
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by SubtleNuance · 2002-09-25 06:56 · Score: 2

What are you talking about? did you read the FAQ? He is talking about education - to include GNU is to associate the ideals of Free Software with Linux.. its about 'mindshare' its about making sure people understand the Moral and Social issues.

i know talking about "Ideals" and "Morals" is foreign to some people, that they American Public Discourse excludes them. But really, what is so hard to understand about RMS wanting to assure people receive the Free Software Foundations' motivations when they talk about GNU/Linux.

This issues isnt about "who gets credit" -- and some people w/ opinions similar to yours believs its an RMS ego issue -- if you read his salient and lucid writing on the topic (like maybe the article above) he clearly states his purpose. No one has reason to believe RMS is petty and arrogant, dont mistake his sense of purpose and determination for greed/hubris... it may be foriegn to many, but not everyone is solely concerned for Themselves.

as always, I found RMS to be quite clear in his writing - and I cant agree with him more about the necessity for GNU /Linux, lest we forget what the situation was like BEFORE GNU.
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by b0r1s · 2002-09-25 07:02 · Score: 2

cd is built into the shell ... but bash (ie: the most common shell) is a GNU tool too.

Other things like grep, sed, diff, and all of the development tools also quite vital to linux.

--
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by God!+Awful · 2002-09-25 07:32 · Score: 2

Don't agree? Fancy a giggle? Then read this question's answer [gnu.org]. I found it most entertaining, whilst ensuring they get zero credibility.

Basically what this all boils down to is:

If you don't say Gnu/Linux then the capitalists have won.

-a

--
How to rationalize theft.
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by hanenkamp · 2002-09-25 07:54 · Score: 1

Most of that code was donated to the FSF. For some reason, they never bothered to organize a kernel (until Hurd).

Just a correction, though I agree with you in the core. The Hurd kernel has been in the works for a decade now. They're just now getting the project off the ground because they decided to use a modular kernel instead of monolithic. One might find the argument between Andrew Tannenbaum and Linus Torvalds (from 10 years ago) interesting as to why this is an important distinction.
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by mmol_6453 · 2002-09-25 07:56 · Score: 2

I like GNU. I like what they stand for. (even if I don't completely agree with it.)

But you have a point. (And someone should mod you "+1 Insightful") Jeez...to continue this post, I'll get modded to -4, Flaimbait. Oh well.

I've noticed that both Microsoft and GNU use "subversive" techniques. Only OSS'ers ever pay attention, though. When Microsoft lies or spreads FUD, (for example, Ballmer is just a front for their hard-core followers and people who believe anything, as long as it's said forcefully) everyone (including myself) in the OSS community cries foul, and we get to see good ol- BillBorg on the main page of Slashdot.

When GNU uses a subversive techniques (like claiming that certain questions are "frequently asked"), most OSS'ers see through it, and the rest figure it out reading Slashdot. But nobody really gives a damn because of the "everybody knows" attitude towards RMS's obsessive tendencies.

I'm not going to go so far as call it "hypocritical," but I can come pretty close. Rather, it's "inevitable" that knowledgable followers/supporters (of any institution) ignore the misdeeds of their leaders. (Anybody remember the "It's nobody's business" attitude about President Clinton?)

Frankly, I figure everybody already knows. :)

--
What's this Submit thingy do?
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by marksthrak · 2002-09-25 08:06 · Score: 1

Maybe 'G's are silent when followed by a "NU/" .
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by yakfacts · 2002-09-25 08:07 · Score: 2

Minux was the basis for the Linux kernel, true.

But FSF developed the rest of the operating system, as AFAIK the compiler.
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 08:20 · Score: 0

damnit! thats GNU/ls! get with the program!
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by karmawarrior · 2002-09-25 08:23 · Score: 1

There are non-GNU replacements for all of them, such as those in BSD. However, those people running the operating system popularly known as Linux do not usually use the replacements, they use the GNU versions.
Most versions of the operating system popularly known as Linux I've seen (including RedHat, SuSE, Slackware, Debian, Mandrake, and even Lindows) use GNU's bash, GNU's init, GNU's ls, GNU's grep, etc. I don't know which version of the operating system popularly known as Linux you use, but if you happen to be using one that doesn't use the above by default, by all means share...

--
KMSMA (WWBD?)
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by gorilla · 2002-09-25 08:30 · Score: 2

Some of the rest of the OS. For example, there is no GNU Init, GNU Cron, or GNU Getty at this time.
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by kasperd · 2002-09-25 08:50 · Score: 2

So if GNU re-created all the standard Unix utilities, why is it not called Unix/GNU or BSD/GNU?

You already stated the answer before asking the question. The GNU project has reimplemented the entire system, there is no part of Unix left in the GNU system.

Linux OTOH is not a reimplementation of the entire system. Linux is merely the kernel. If you take a GNU/Linux system and remove all the GNU parts and have only Linux left, everything you will get is: Kernel panic: No init found.

--

Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by tokki · 2002-09-25 08:50 · Score: 1

One of Stallman's main problems is that he wishes you to swallow his idealogy whole. Many people have concerns with the DRM, Palladium, the DMCA, and other digital rights issues, and find themselves in a position closer to Stallman and the FSF side of the argument.
However, there aren't alot of people who agree with the Stallmanism (I love that word, very fitting) viewpoint that all commercial software is evil. I think most people (aside from perhaps Microsoft) agree that free software and the idea of the GPL is great. But they also agree that it isn't the only way to benefit society.
That extremist view and ideological purism is going to further alienate people who would otherwise find themselves fairly close to their side, which is unfortunate.
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by blibbleblobble · 2002-09-25 09:02 · Score: 1

Off-topic, but with a thousand responses I guess few will notice:

Can anyone call their programs GNU if they use the GNU-GPL license? Or can you only use the GNU name (or G-reference) if it's something available on gnu.org?
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by GreyWolf3000 · 2002-09-25 09:15 · Score: 1

Moderators: I'm making a joke about the parent's .sig--of course I'm offtopic :)
From your sig:
The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls...
[appending] Like bathroom stalls...
I was but a troll on slashdot

"Trolls," said I "you do not know"
Flaming like a cancer grows.
I turned my browser to the ar-ti-cle,
I read the news-it wasn't hard at all.
And I came back with my knowledge and wrote a well thought out post,
But my karma's toast,
It was lost in the thresholds of slashdot.

--
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by evilpenguin · 2002-09-25 09:34 · Score: 2

As I understand it, it is GNU if the FSF controls the copyright. There are advantages. The GPL guarantees that the code is always yours (and everyone else's) to do with as you (they) please, but the Free Software Foundation owning the copyright means they will defend GPL violations and you don't have to. (I'm not speaking for GNU/FSF here, and I don't know that they have ever done this, so take a very large grain of salt here). A quick check of their web site shows a good place to start researching to be http://www.gnu.org/software/devel.html. That's there start page for people who want to develop GNU. Links from there should explain their position (and possibly contradict everything I've said, but they're GNU and I am not, so listen to them, not me).
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by Ian+Wolf · 2002-09-25 09:37 · Score: 2

Funniest thing I've read all day, but then again I'm biased.

--
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by TomServo · 2002-09-25 09:47 · Score: 1

AFAIK, in its initial incarnations, he didn't use free GNU tools to build the Linux kernel. I'm far from an expert, but I believe that all the original development work was done on a Minix OS that was a proprietary, non-free system that he had cheap-o access to through school.

If someone else knows more/can point out where I'm wrong, feel free.
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 10:12 · Score: 0

Heh, I love to make funny lyrics for songs (they usually get modded down but what the hell...if people laugh ;)
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 10:36 · Score: 0

From gnome users FAQ

Q: GNOME: "nome" or "guh-nome"?

A: In English, the word "gnome" is pronounced with a silent "g". However, GNOME itself is generally pronounced as "guh-nome", just as GNU is pronounced "guh-noo" when referring to the GNU Project.
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by DustMagnet · 2002-09-25 10:48 · Score: 1

I read the FAQ. I read it when it first came out ages ago. I reread it today and didn't see any new changes, but my memory isn't perfect.
Sure, the whole thing makes sence to me, but it's not going to happen. What I can't figure out is why he puts so much effort into renaming Linux? To me it's a wasted effort. There are easier ways to accomplish the same goals, so what's the reason for choosing this path?

--
'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 11:19 · Score: 0

Darn right! Nobody says "GNU" because it makes you sound like a retard! The whole pronounced "G" thing is an offensive violation of English pronunciation rules and the self-important "cleverness" in the recursive acronym is just too silly for words.
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by SubtleNuance · 2002-09-25 11:23 · Score: 2

You know what, Id agree that it is alot of effort - maybe too much.

this Faq, and light shed upon it is Good though.

GNU/Linux, and RMS' desire to have it named such, first by those "in the know" (us) will help it spread to those "not in the know" (them) ;)

i think that is really the point - not this percieved ego fit most see it as...

as for why he's in such a tizzy over it? Im not sure, im sure he knows the improtance of specific language and what happens when you are lax with language -- in light of today's 15 second sound byte.
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by bshanks · 2002-09-25 12:35 · Score: 1

perhaps, but in my view this is besides the point on this issue. The issue is that the GNU project is not getting proper credit for a system in which they made the most contribution to. Regardless of whether you support or disagree with their goals, you should still want to give credit where credit is due, barring a good reason not to.
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by bshanks · 2002-09-25 12:40 · Score: 1

well certainly the name Linux sounds better, however, that for me isn't enough of a reason to refuse to give credit where credit is due. If GNU wrote most of the code, then it should be up to them what the result is called, unless there is a really good reason to do otherwise.

(now, i have been calling the system Linux in everyday speech, although I've though GNU/Linux is more correct, but after reading the FAQ I'm going to make more of an effort to call it GNU/Linux)
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by StillaCoward · 2002-09-25 15:04 · Score: 1

Bull!

An OS *IS* a kernel. Everything else is simply a program which runs on that OS.

The kernel makes no distinction between a command shell, LS, or your little Hello World program you wrote 3 years ago.

They all make use of the same system call architecture to do the tasks which they do.

You can call it a system if you like, but to say that somehow Bash and LS are part of the OS is just not born out by the actual implementation of the system....
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 15:06 · Score: 0

Or GNU X Server....
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by netphilter · 2002-09-25 22:08 · Score: 1

So use a kernel with no tools.

--
"Herbivores eat well cause their food never, ever runs."
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by castlan · 2002-09-25 23:40 · Score: 1

They had bothered a few times. (The names are still available in archives of newsgroups and web histories, and some names are still reserved for future use.) They were unsuccessful at first, and the apperance of Linux made a simple Unix-alike kernel redundant. They went on to a fuller Unix then UNIX in many philosophy-of-technological aspects, while maintaining the Freedom that AT&T never ment to infuse into UNIX.

If it weren't for Linus, we would all be using NetBSD or FreeBSD, and there would probably be a bit more viability in MACH, which would probably be what OS researchers would use instead of GNU+Linux.

What exactly was RMS a great avdocate of? Oh, Software Freedom? Hasn't he been much more effectively neutralized by "Open Source", which has sublimated most of the force of his arguments into the very thing that forced him to become the activist he is today? (sociopathic corporate interest)

I mean commercial interests being valued over Freedom and community. "Free" as in "included free with purchase of necessary component overpriced to make up for the free trinket included", "Free with paid subscription", or "buy two, get the third FREE!" The word "free" is corrupt and useless. Everybody knows that "free" is only useful as a buzzword for advertisement purposes, and only means "prepare to deal with this opportunistic corporation's psychological warfare as it attempts to bait you into ....

Alright, let me get back to it. Open Source is the bridge back to Commercial UNIX from Free Unix. Open Source is the AFSL luring us back into submission. This time under a still powerful but now UNIX wizened Lord Jobs, with a technically appealing non-Free replacement of our would-be-software-saviours.

As for the whole "Open Source" movement, what a waste. Ask any Linux Journal reader if there is is a difference between Open Source and Free Software. Ask if Apple makes Free Software.

The DFSG were a great guideline for years. Debian is expediently free. The "F" into the Open Source DFSG reincarnation has been totally neutralized. What a waste.

UNIX is owned by the Open Group. GNU is not. "Unix", like "Linux", is not an Operating System. But at least (mis)using "Linux" isn't going to open anybody up to potential litigation (yet). Both Open Source and the Open Group value corporation over society.
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by leandrod · 2002-09-26 00:53 · Score: 2

<flamebait>
Why are they so desperate? Because the world is heading towards a new Dark Age, but now instead of Goths and the Roman Papist religious organisation we have Muslims and Copyright Owners.
<flamebait>

Seriously, because they believe freedom to be important, and they have spent 20 years' worth of time to create a system to spread freedom, only to have it misnamed, and the new name equaled with cheapness and convenience, but not freedom. Perhaps freedom yes too, but as a convenience, not as a moral absolute.

> Most of that code was donated to the FSF.

Yes, and that necessarily means the former copyright owner wanted it to be part of the GNU system. It has nothing to say about the Linux kernel.

> For some reason, they never bothered to organize a kernel (until Hurd).

That is simply not according to the facts. The historical record is that first RMS thought he would get a kernel donated (Linus & BSD declined to do that) in the short term and Hurd developed in the medium term. For various reasons, including the flakiness of Mach and the unexpected popularity of Linux and the BSDs, work is taking much, much longer than expected.

> If it wasn't for Linus, I'm not sure we'd have a "GNU-OS" yet.

I am sure; indeed we have a GNU OS now, and it is Debian GNU Hurd. It is not ready for lay users, but it is in Debian's unstable and may be part of the next major release, be it named Debian 3.1 or 4.0 or whatever.

Second, without Linux (and perhaps the BSDs) around, Hurd naturally would have gotten much more hacker attention, even if obviously less laymen's attention. Perhaps it would have gotten a better microkernel, ports to other platforms and nice installers. Probably not as nice as current GNU/Linux ones, but then with less fragmentation, forking, in-strifing and proprietariness.

> RMS was a great advocate for years.

He was always a great advocate for hackers and geeks and alternative-style people, and always unable to reach the mainstream, even if that could be more the mainstream's fault than his. Now FSF has other evangelizers, and I personally would love if he could go back to finishing GNU Hurd and specially its Lisp integration. But it seems he may well be needed to preach among the outsiders, geeks and hackers communities for a long time.

> Now he's been totally neutralized by this stupid issue.

It isn't as irrelevant as you make it sound, and may actually be helping the freedom cause. It certainly ain't stupid.

--
Leandro GuimarÃ£es Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
Re:Why are they so desperate ? by Chexsum · 2002-09-26 01:44 · Score: 0

However, there aren't alot of people who agree with the Stallmanism (I love that word, very fitting) viewpoint that all commercial software is evil.

s/commercial/proprietary

Think free as in beer - not free as in speech.

--
Pixels keep you awake!

Non-GNU Linux by sfraggle · 2002-09-25 03:57 · 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 Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:09 · Score: 0

I agree. My system is made up of less than 3% GNU software, it's not a GNU OS, and I don't rely on GNU software. I see no reason to give GNU any more credit for my OS than any other package.
Re:Non-GNU Linux by danaronson · 2002-09-25 04:24 · Score: 1

Um, How did you compile the kernel? Does it use glibc or other GNU libraries?
Re:Non-GNU Linux by quigonn · 2002-09-25 04:25 · 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:Non-GNU Linux by Paul+Neubauer · 2002-09-25 04:27 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Congratulations and thanks.

I am amused by the FSF claiming it is a matter of education. That is the first step. Alas, the FSF seems resistant to being educated.

--
I don't subscribe to RMS's GNUtopian vision.
Re:Non-GNU Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:28 · Score: 0

I agree. My system is made up of less than 3% GNU software, it's not a GNU OS, and I don't rely on GNU software. I see no reason to give GNU any more credit for my OS than any other package.

So, which libc.so are you using?
Re:Non-GNU Linux by Trifthen · 2002-09-25 04:58 · Score: 1

Actually, I had a similar thought. Should the FSF and RMS continue to demand people use the GNU/ designation before Linux, and start to impose restrictions - license or otherwise - people will stop using it. It doesn't matter if it's payment through money or recognition, people hate to be forced to do anything, so there'll be resistance.

Want me to pay for your software I can get elsewhere? Yeah, right. Want me to put the name of your software into my software, when I can just switch to something that doesn't have that restriction? Yeah, right.

They're starting to sound whiny and annoying, and people can only take so much of that before just avoiding the situation entirely. I wonder...

What was that about Vader, squeezing, and star-systems?

--
Read: Rabbit Rue - Free serial nove
Re:Non-GNU Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 05:03 · Score: 0

They're starting to sound whiny and annoying, and people can only take so much of that before just avoiding the situation entirely. I wonder...

In my opinion, they started soundy whiny YEARS ago when this first came up...
Re:Non-GNU Linux by cilyrabit · 2002-09-25 05:06 · Score: 1

As I understand it, the Linux kernel is licensed under the GPL, so it is still GNU, however without the rest of the GNU system utilities the FSF would not mind if you called it whatever you wanted.
Re:Non-GNU Linux by Dionysus · 2002-09-25 05:14 · Score: 1

Software being licensed under GPL doesn't make it GNU. Read the GPL.

--
Je ne parle pas francais.
Re:Non-GNU Linux by theLOUDroom · 2002-09-25 05:15 · Score: 1

Something can be licensed under the GPL without being part of the GNU project. GNU != GPL

--
Life is too short to proofread.
Re:Non-GNU Linux by nevets · 2002-09-25 05:26 · Score: 1

This is correct but the question still stands as what was used to compile the kernel, since the kernel uses an extensive amount of gcc extensions. But then again, should we call everything GNU/xxx if it uses the gcc extensions to be compiled?

--
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
Re:Non-GNU Linux by The+Wing+Lover · 2002-09-25 05:29 · Score: 2

So?

If I write some free game and compile it with Microsoft Visual C++, should I call it MICROSOFT/FunGame?

--
- In Capitalist America, law violates YOU!
Re:Non-GNU Linux by sfraggle · 2002-09-25 05:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well to be fair they arent really demanding anything, just asking for equal credit, but you have a valid point.

This idea of restrictions is probably one of the reasons the Linux kernel has been more successful than Hurd. Hurd is part of the GNU system and to contribute to it you have to sign over the copyright for your code to the FSF. Linux has a mixed copyright with no such restriction. People obviously like being able to do things and contribute to things with less restrictions. Also see XEmacs which is streets ahead of GNU Emacs.

--
were you expecting to see a sig here? perhaps you'd rather see the inside of an ambulance!
Re:Non-GNU Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 06:09 · Score: 0

It STARTS with the GPL license, then defangs it by mentioning that any free or commercial software is allowed to call into it ithout being bound by the GPL. So it's not REALLY GPLed after all.
Re:Non-GNU Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 06:11 · Score: 0

Apparently the intel compiler can. Goodbye GNU forever! It'd rather PAY for a compiler and not be bound by horrendous licensing restrictions than use gcc for FREE.
Re:Non-GNU Linux by njchick · 2002-09-25 06:14 · Score: 1

I guess it's the same compiler that is used to compile FreeBSD kernel. It's called gcc.
Re:Non-GNU Linux by TheAwfulTruth · 2002-09-25 06:14 · Score: 1, Troll

Intel's maybe? GNUs iron grip on Linux is fading. Personally, I say the faster the better. Maybe he finally realized it and this is a last ditch panic before he loses all control. A death rattle if you will.

--
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
Re:Non-GNU Linux by lpontiac · 2002-09-25 07:07 · Score: 2

But then again, should we call everything GNU/xxx if it uses the gcc extensions to be compiled?

If compiler used has any bearing on the name of the compiled program, then Visual C++ brings us Microsoft/Mozilla!
Re:Non-GNU Linux by wfrp01 · 2002-09-25 07:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

I can name this just Linux (not GNU/Linux) because it contains no GNU software.

But you're missing the main point. The point is not that the OS contains a whole bunch of GNU components, so therefore you owe the FSF fealty. If that were the point, than as many have (incorrectly) pointed out, it would be equally valid to request the system be called Perl/Linux, etc.

Whether or not your system is built using GNU components, you still owe the FSF a debt of gratitude for promoting free software. Or did you put your system together from scratch? You did not: you're using busybox, for example, which is licenced under the GPL.

While there are many organizations which produce free software, which organizations do you look to unswervingly promote the ideals of software freedom? The FSF.

Again, the FSF is not asking you to use GNU/Linux out of respect for the amount of code they gave you. They want you to use the name GNU/Linux to increase awareness of the principle of software freedom on which your OS is based.

Also remember - it's just a request . Not a demand. Not a EULA. Not a law. Nothing to lose sleep over.

--

--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
Re:Non-GNU Linux by dbirchall · 2002-09-25 07:54 · Score: 2

I agree with a lot of the FSF's points, but... let's talk about what GNU software is actually part of the Linux operating system. I'm using the traditional definition of OS here - the bits that provide the interface between the applications and the hardware. If it runs in userspace, it is not the OS.
By that definition, what has GNU/FSF contributed? Let's see. glibc is the big one, that's what enables them to say "oh, we're the biggest contributor." Won't get very far without the C library, yes. And... Bash. Other than that, I found nothing in the list of GNU software that is required to have a functional Linux system.
They have a valid point, but blathering on about how they wrote a chess program does not in any way make them look like major contributors to an OS. :)
This silliness all makes me glad that I'm running OS X... oh, wait, *that's* got GCC too. Sheesh. I wonder how long it is before someone wants me to call it "GNU/MacOS X!"
Re:Non-GNU Linux by dd301 · 2002-09-25 07:55 · Score: 1

This idea of restrictions is probably one of the reasons the Linux kernel has been more successful than Hurd. Hurd is part of the GNU system and to contribute to it you have to sign over the copyright for your code to the FSF. Linux has a mixed copyright with no such restriction.

That is because GNU has been through fire regarding copyrights etc. How do you enforce copyrights for the Linux kernel? See the recent problems for Mozilla when they wanted to change the license.

People obviously like being able to do things and contribute to things with less restrictions.

Unless GPL is really applied they are not really contributing now are they?

Also see XEmacs which is streets ahead of GNU Emacs.

How is Xemacs streets ahead of emacs? I don't see how it is better than emacs 21. A lot of the xemacs code was from commercial developers (SUN). You might also want to look into market shares for each.
Re:Non-GNU Linux by dd301 · 2002-09-25 07:58 · Score: 1

GNUs iron grip on Linux is fading. Personally, I say the faster the better. Maybe he finally realized it and this is a last ditch panic before he loses all control. A death rattle if you will.

Wow! I guess you like Microsoft's treatment of customers much better. GNU is about freedom. If you don't want to do something they won't force you to.
Re:Non-GNU Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 08:29 · Score: 0

Intel has their own C library for Linux? Then why does Intel's C++ for Linux 6.0 depend on glibc 2.2?
Re:Non-GNU Linux by sfraggle · 2002-09-25 09:25 · Score: 2

Whether or not your system is built using GNU components, you still owe the FSF a debt of gratitude for promoting free software.

I am grateful to the FSF for providing excellent Free Software which I use daily. But there is no GNU software in Revol. The FSF arent the only people who have contributed to promoting Free Software.

Or did you put your system together from scratch? You did not: you're using busybox, for example, which is licenced under the GPL.

But its not part of the GNU system. That is the point here. Linux is under the GPL but it is not GNU software: it was not developed for the GNU Operating System. Distros such as Redhat, Debian etc. are modified versions of the GNU system with Linux as the kernel: hence the name GNU/Linux. I use GPLed software in my distribution but none of it is part of the GNU system, so it is not a modified version of GNU. I am therefore right in calling it just "Linux".

There is a big difference between GPLed software and GNU software.

Also remember - it's just a request . Not a demand. Not a EULA. Not a law. Nothing to lose sleep over.

I agree, infact I said this in an earlier comment.

--
were you expecting to see a sig here? perhaps you'd rather see the inside of an ambulance!
Re:Non-GNU Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 09:40 · Score: 0

This is not true. They are asking for the credit precisely because so much of the code that makes up what most people call "Linux" is part of the GNU project.

At least read the freaking article before posting.... Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot this is /.
Re:Non-GNU Linux by wfrp01 · 2002-09-25 09:49 · Score: 2

I am grateful to the FSF for providing excellent Free Software which I use daily

I realize I'm being pedantic, but are you grateful for the freedom or the software.

There is a big difference between GPLed software and GNU software.

True. GNU/Linux really should apply to a system using GNU components, I suppose. I still think, though, that a lot of people completely miss the point of the FSF's name campaign. It's not about the software, it's about the principle behind the software.

--

--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
Re:Non-GNU Linux by Zebbers · 2002-09-25 10:07 · Score: 1

ummm Im sorry.
The world population doesnt equate GNU with free software. Geeks do. Grandma doesn't.

And you know what, in the business word "linux" is equated with free software. OMG Kill LINUS he stole GNUs thunder.

Give me a break. You let it go for free for whatever anyone wants to do with it. No one renamed the packages or denys the exisiting of the software...they just dont name their new product after it. Christ. Follow your own gpl. Or rewrite it so that any producting using code from your product must includes your products name in its name.
Re:Non-GNU Linux by Zebbers · 2002-09-25 10:11 · Score: 1

pardon my grammar and excessive 'ings' i have a headache ;)
Re:Non-GNU Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 12:53 · Score: 0

They are forcing me to call it GNU/Linux!
Re:Non-GNU Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 12:56 · Score: 0

Just one last tiny fucking step to go and you know it! That's the LAST step and it may even be possible to replace it TODAY! And anyone that DEMANDS that you add GNU to anything using nothing more than the damn c lib is being nothing but a natzi.
Re:Non-GNU Linux by jmorris42 · 2002-09-26 09:46 · Score: 2

> Distros such as Redhat, Debian etc. are modified
> versions of the GNU system with Linux as the
> kernel

No they aren't. The "GNU System" won't exist until GNU builds a coherent SYSTEM from their tools (and adds in X, Perl, etc) and the HURD. THAT will be the GNU System, and if Redhat took it and stuck Linus's kernel under it, your statement would be true. As it stands, I am currently running a Redhat system with Linux as it's kernel, a bunch of GNU tools (many of which are maintained by RedHat), X, Perl, etc. The total system integration is a big part of the package, at least as big as any of the individual components.

--
Democrat delenda est

Oh my god. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 03:57 · Score: 0

"We hope that you are one of those for whom right and wrong does matter."

I don't think I can add anything to that.

Ummmm.... by DJPenguin · 2002-09-25 03:57 · Score: 3, Funny

*smiling, backing away very slowly from stallman...*

Ahem.

Re:Ummmm.... by Milalwi · 2002-09-25 04:27 · Score: 4, Funny

*smiling, backing away very slowly from stallman...*

Don't make eye contact! :-)

Milalwi
Re:Ummmm.... by falzer · 2002-09-25 11:12 · Score: 1

> Don't make eye contact! :-)

Or else you'll turn into a GNU/Statue?

hah by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 03:58 · Score: -1, Offtopic

tenth post! suck it, CLiT

misnomer by Telastyn · 2002-09-25 03:58 · Score: 5, Funny

Somehow I doubt those are frequently asked questions...

Re:misnomer by rde · 2002-09-25 04:03 · Score: 5, Funny

If the list truly was a faq, top of the list, to my mind (well, okay, second to 'what the hell are you thinking') would be 'how do you pronounce gnu/linux?'

If memory serves, RMS pronounced it guh-new-slash-linux; if I remember correctly, there's yet another compelling reason to pronounce it with a silent gnu.
Re:misnomer by glwtta · 2002-09-25 04:03 · Score: 5, Funny

and yet they are frequently answered.

--
sic transit gloria mundi
Re:misnomer by huge · 2002-09-25 04:08 · Score: 2, Funny

Somehow I doubt those are frequently asked questions...

You are right, those questions probably arent that frequently asked, but atleast they are frequently repeating the same answer to almost every question... =)

--
-- Reality checks don't bounce.
Re:misnomer by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

One question I've seen before, but not answered here is the one that goes:
According to this: Original RMS post announcing the GNU project
Wouldn't a GNU OS need to "...be a kernel plus all the utilities needed to write and run C programs..."?
Since the Linux kernel is copyrighted by "me [Linus Torvalds] and others who actually wrote it.", wouldn't it rightfully not be the incarnation of the GNU project as envisioned by RMS nearly 19 years ago. Mach + the GNU tools, sure, but not Linux + the GNU tools.
Riddle me that.
Re:misnomer by foobar104 · 2002-09-25 04:34 · Score: 3, Funny

pronounce it with a silent gnu

Man, I'd give anything to live in a world where the GNU was silent.
Re:misnomer by pmancini · 2002-09-25 04:44 · Score: 4, Funny

Stallman sits in a basement, arguing with himself. He then writes the argument out (bad grammer and all - maybe he should have used a Microsoft product with helpful features like spell check and grammer check.) Finally, the dopes^H^H^H^H^Hfine people at Slashdot decide to give the fool an even bigger audience. *sigh*

What is a bigger waste of the Internet? Stallman's rants or those Bumfight tapes?
Re:misnomer by glwtta · 2002-09-25 05:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

bad grammer and all - maybe he should have used a Microsoft product with helpful features like spell check and grammer check
Oh, as opposed to "good grammer"? Where's a helpful MS app when you need one...

--
sic transit gloria mundi
Re:misnomer by salmo · 2002-09-25 05:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

Ummm. Have you read the comments here before??? Even in this thread regarding the article people are still rasing the same questions and still ignoring the FSF's justifications. They forget about this thing called morality. Or they wrongly associate morality with some sort of Southern Baptist right wing political movement.

I respect the FSF for having a philosophy and sticking to it. They're not saying you have to do anything. They are saying that they would prefer if you called it GNU/Linux, they are saying why they would prefer you to call it it that, and they are inviting you to think about it.

I recommend people actually sit down and think about what consitutes ethics. Look at Aristotle, Kant, Mill, somebody. "because it makes sense to me right now" is not a good justification for any action.
Re:misnomer by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 05:47 · Score: 0

maybe he should have used a Microsoft product with helpful features like spell check and grammer check

maybe you should have, so that you could have at least spelled "grammar" correctly
Re:misnomer by Cro+Magnon · 2002-09-25 05:50 · Score: 1

Actually, the main question IS frequently asked. "Why the !@#$% should I call the ^&*( thing GNU?"

--
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Re:misnomer by Bakaneko · 2002-09-25 08:04 · Score: 1

OK, to prove I'm the biggest pedant in the bunch, his fault really wasn't grammar, it was spelling. Technically, grammar doesn't include spelling.

Now I just hope that people finally figure out its spelled "ridiculous" as in an expansion of ridicule. Sigh.
Re:misnomer by glwtta · 2002-09-25 08:11 · Score: 2

Well, technically, I never said that his grammar was at fault - I pointed out a spelling error (occuring twice, so it's probably not a typo) and lamented the lack of a spelling checker. Rather sarcastically, too.

--
sic transit gloria mundi
Re:misnomer by bshanks · 2002-09-25 13:07 · Score: 1

well, i guess it would satisfy some of the original goal (to have a complete OS licenced as free software), but because of the free software/open source split, i guess it doens't fulfull all of the goals (i.e. it can't exactly be the flagship and rallying point of the GNU project if its creator, Linus, has important philosophical disagreements with the GNU project). Hence the Linux kernal hasn't been donated to and accepted by the GNU organization and hence can't be the completion of the GNU OS.
Re:misnomer by T.E.D. · 2002-09-26 03:24 · Score: 2

If the list truly was a faq, top of the list, to my mind (well, okay, second to 'what the hell are you thinking') would be 'how do you pronounce gnu/linux?'

If memory serves, RMS pronounced it guh-new-slash-linux; if I remember correctly, there's yet another compelling reason to pronounce it with a silent gnu.

I agree. If you read the whole FAQ, you'll come across a part where they explain why "Gnu Linux" isn't acceptable. Since there's no way to tell the difference in conversation without somehow pronouncing the '/', I'm guessing the One True Way would have to be the way you remember RMS doing it.

From reading over the other postings, it looks like I am about the most rabid RMS admirer out here today. But even I will never say "Gnu slash Linux". A construction that awkward won't accomplish anything but distract both me and my listner from the point I'm trying to get across. In short; its a crappy name.

Perhaps this is OK for RMS, as he doesn't ever talk about Linux when that relationship isn't the point he's trying to get across. So the awkwardness of the construction actually makes you stop and think right where he wants you to. But most of us have other reasons for talking about it.

I'd consider calling it "Linux Gnu", which seems to solve the problem he had with "Gnu Linux". But I'd be the only person in the world doing it, and thus noone would have a clue what I'm talking about.
Re:misnomer by pmancini · 2002-09-26 05:30 · Score: 2

Yes, I probably should have! I wish web browsers would add the feature to text and areatext boxes.

Thanks for the comment.

Could they add an answer to the following question by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 03:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

Where in the GPL does it say:
If you include this and this much of these programs in your operating system, you have to call it GNU/something ?

Thank you for writing all the stuff, we acknowledge you in the copyright statement, and many other places. But we'll call it whatever we like.

In a related article by Brento · 2002-09-25 03:59 · Score: 2, Funny

Microsoft has issued a press release saying that users should use the term Secure Windows. "As part of our new security initiatives, we believe that changing the public's viewpoint is crucial. Simply referring it as 'Windows' implies that it can easily be broken," noted an anonymous Microsoft press spokesman.

News that AOL was considering a name change to "Stable Netscape" for their web browser product could not be confirmed at press time.

--
What's your damage, Heather?

I believe they are wrong by Pave+Low · 2002-09-25 03:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

The FSF are not the language police. You can suggest we call a horse a fish, but people will not respond. Likewise, this is just as silly. They act like they dont know what you're talking about when you say "Linux" when it's quite obvious they do. It's a political battle for them, and they lost a long long time ago.

Time to call them out on this newspeak.

--
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.

Re:I believe they are wrong by don_carnage · 2002-09-25 04:21 · Score: 1, Redundant

Not trying to call a horse a fish but more like calling them a GNU/Horse and a GNU/fish. :^)

--
Wooden armaments to battle your imaginary foes!
Re:I believe they are wrong by l-ascorbic · 2002-09-25 04:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

From the FAQ:

Since many people call it "Linux", doesn't that make it right?

We don't think that the popularity of an error makes it the truth.

I think history has shown that English-speakers ignore those who try to tell them to change the way they speak. Linguistic changes are evolutionary, and often enough people making an "error" does make it right. This, however, is not an example of that. Since it was created, it has been called Linux. The FSF has come along after the fact and tried to enforce their ideology with a name change. Aside from their case's merits (or lack of), if people don't want to use a new term, no amount of whining will change that. Give up already.
Re:I believe they are wrong by bulbul · 2002-09-25 04:33 · Score: 2, Funny

Q: Isn't GNU a collection of biological tools that were included in fish?

A: People who think that a fish is an biological organism, if they hear about GNU at all, often get a wrong idea of what GNU is. They may think that GNU is a the name of a collection of biological processes--often they say "biological tools", since some of our biological tools became popular on their own.
Re:I believe they are wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:36 · Score: -1, Troll

Quote from "Question" 2: People who value freedom are more likely to call the system "GNU/Linux"

Do you not value freedom you commie bastard?!
Re:I believe they are wrong by crawling_chaos · 2002-09-25 04:38 · Score: 2

I think history has shown that English-speakers ignore those who try to tell them to change the way they speak.
I agree, but history has also shown that the folks who push GNU/Linux aren't willing to listen to any counterarguments whatsoever.
My advice is to ignore the whole thing and hope they go looking for attention elsewhere.

--
You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
-- Colonel Adolphus Busch
Re:I believe they are wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:40 · Score: 0

It's sarcasm, people. Sarcasm.
Re:I believe they are wrong by jgerman · 2002-09-25 04:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

Boy are you off. They aren't the ones creating newspeak, everyone who doesn't call the operating system by it's correct name is. That little bit of semantic engineering that shrtens the name to Linux is newspeak. In this case it's not for some nefarious purpose. The people that simply call it Linux either a) don't know any better b) don't understand the concept of an operating system or c) think it's easier to just say Linux (especially since the intended meaning is there). This does not mean that Linux is the correct way to say it, it means that it's easiest. It's what I call the OS, because no one is trying to downplay the involvment of GNU software by changing the name. If that were the case I would stick with the proper name.

While it's a good thing to make sure credit is given to GNU software by asking people to use the right name, I don't think that it's needed. But to call them language police, that's ridiculous and wrong. GNU/Linux is what it is. Linux is an easy to say name that we call it by.

--
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Re:I believe they are wrong by BusterB · 2002-09-25 04:48 · Score: 2

What about the common mispronunciation of the word 'nuclear'? Apparently, Webster's dictionary takes the same stance on popular use in the english language:
Why does Bush go 'nucular'
Re:I believe they are wrong by ajs · 2002-09-25 05:02 · Score: 2

They aren't the ones creating newspeak, everyone who doesn't call the operating system by it's correct name is. That little bit of semantic engineering that shrtens the name to Linux is newspeak.

The OS is called Linux (not just the kernel, but the idea of taking a Linux kernel and adding MIT's Windowing system and Berkely's mailer and GNU's compiler, etc... that resulting thing regardless of minor variations between vendor is, by convention, called Linux in the same way that we call some other OS "Solaris" even though it uses a great deal of System V UNIX software). The OS has been called Linux since long before Stallman got a hair up his ass over calling it GNU/Linux. When I discuss Linux, and I want to attribute its major contributors, I usually call it BSD/GNU/MIT/Open Source in general/Linux, but that's only for "special" occasions.

GNU/Linux is what it is.

And so, how is XFree86 part of GNU/Linux? Sendmail? Wu-ftpd? Bind? Evolution? KDE?

No, it is Linux. Stallman calls it GNU/Linux and he's welcome to. I just wish he'd get it through his head that creating an "us" and "them" out of the free software world is hurtful and incompatible with his stated goals.
Re:I believe they are wrong by Planesdragon · 2002-09-25 05:10 · Score: 2

everyone who doesn't call the operating system by it's correct name is

Come again?

There are two viable ways to describe operating system, Stallman's "usable computer" argument aside. (By his measurement, Windows isn't an OS until you install office, and probably Visual Studio...)

1: The kernel - just what is needed to control the hardware and run middleware + apps. DOS is an OS, Windows is an OS + explorer.

2: Everything needed to get to the basic user experience - Linux + KDE, or windows.

Now, if we use the first definition, then the issue is clear--it's Linux, 'cause that's what Linux & co want it called.

If we use the second definition, neither Linus nor GNU have final say--the distributors (bundlers? Drat, forgot the name) are. The OSes are "Red Hat Linux" or "SuSe Linux" or "Lindows", which can all be referred to as "Linux OSes" because of the claimed common base.

While it's a good thing to make sure credit is given to GNU software by asking people to use the right nam

Credit is given. AFAIK, no one has renamed GNU tools something else. Gnome is Gnome. Gnucash is Gnucash.
Re:I believe they are wrong by aardvarkjoe · 2002-09-25 06:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

The two most common reasons I hear for not saying "GNU/Linux" are (1) it sounds stupid and (2) that a Linux system is not just Linux + GNU -- it's Linux + GNU + XFree + ... Their response to that is that "You have to set a limit somewhere ... so let's limit it to just calling it GNU/Linux."

Sorry, guys, that's bullshit. If you're going to insist that everyone give you credit for your contributions, you're going to have to credit everyone. And if the FSF isn't going to credit everyone involved, I feel no need to give them extra credit. My "threshold value" is just calling the system Linux.

--

How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Re:I believe they are wrong by derch · 2002-09-25 06:05 · Score: 1

That little bit of semantic engineering that shrtens the name to Linux is newspeak. In this case it's not for some nefarious purpose.

By your own admission, those of use who say Linux do so out of ignorance or pragmatism, therefore calling the OS Linux is not newspeak. The American Heritage Dictionary defines "newspeak" as "Deliberately ambiguous and contradictory language used to mislead and manipulate the public." No one is deliberately trying to mislead or contradict.

'Linux' as applied to the entire OS may be a misnomer though. It depends on your political stance.

Personlly I see RMS and the FSF's attempt to change the popular name to 'GNU/Linux' as newspeak because they are doing it to move forward their agenda.

The truth is the OS's popular name is 'Linux' and that's not going to change just as the no one's going to change the name of Glaucomys volans from 'flying squirrel' to 'gliding squirrel'. It's a misnomer, deal with it.
Re:I believe they are wrong by ajs · 2002-09-25 06:31 · Score: 2

It's funny. before all this GNU/Linux sillyness, I used to make a point to explain how GNU contributed so many important pieces of software to the community, and how Linux would not be possible without a lot of the key work that Richard and others did.

It's too bad that now I feel tainted by all that hubris, and can't bring myself to mention those things any more. If someone asks, or I hear someone say something wildly innacurate about the history, I still bring it up, but GNU definitely lost a cheerleader when Richard took up this crusade.
Re:I believe they are wrong by jc42 · 2002-09-25 07:17 · Score: 2

> 2: Everything needed to get to the basic user experience - Linux + KDE, or windows. ...
If we use the second definition ...

It seems to me that it should be called KDE/Athena/Linux. (Athena was the MIT project where Jim Gettys started building X windows.)

I don't know about your machine, but when I log into my linux boxen, I find very little actual GNU software running. There's the kernel, linux. There's the windowing system, X windows. There's the window manager, KDE (or sometimes Gnome). And there's an assortment of background tasks, maybe a few of them are from GNU, but not many.

It's true that linux systems owe a great deal to the GNU and FSF folks. Everyone gives them a lot of credit (and code). But if you insist that the OS is more than just the kernel, the most reasonable other components to list are those that directly support the user and applications. GNU tools, for all their value, aren't a really big part of this.

The proper place for "GNU" is in the many lists of attributions. The overall "system" name is properly the assembler and the OS name. This machine is properly called "RedHat Linux". Another that I use a lot is properly "FreeBSD" (and it also contains a lot of GNU tools in its libraries).

--
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Re:I believe they are wrong by dd301 · 2002-09-25 08:04 · Score: 1

The FSF has come along after the fact and tried to enforce their ideology with a name change. Aside from their case's merits (or lack of), if people don't want to use a new term, no amount of whining will change that. Give up already.

In the beginning was FSF... If anything, Linux was after the fact. And if you want to give up, Microsoft has 93% market share and is poised to implement Palladium--now would be good time.
Re:I believe they are wrong by Omega+Hacker · 2002-09-25 08:13 · Score: 2

c) think it's easier to just say Linux (especially since the intended meaning is there

First of all, there no "think it is", it is easier to say Linux. Second, and you can ask Larry Wall to confirm this, the linguist that he is: language is about absolutely nothing but "intended meaning". When I say "dog", there is nothing in the letters d, o, g, and their relative ordering that mean "domesticated canine animal". Rather, the English language has imparted that intended meaning upon that combination of letters.

When a group of people speaking the same language all agree on using the same unique combination of letters to represent the same thing, that is what the word is.
.

--
GStreamer - The only way to stream!
Re:I believe they are wrong by lordmage · 2002-09-25 08:50 · Score: 1

I do not call MS-Windows XP... MS-Windows XP. I call it Windows. Win2k, MS-Windows, Win95, etc.. are all refering to an operating system.

Its "Proper Name" is RARELY used in conversations or even discussions.

Why should we call GNU/Linux/Redhat anything else but Redhat? Thats what we call it here. Linux.. or Redhat.. or Mandrake.

--
I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
Re:I believe they are wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 12:38 · Score: 0

"They aren't the ones creating newspeak, everyone who doesn't call the operating system by it's correct name is."

Puts me in mind of the following dialogue from "Through the Looking Glass"

Alice could only look puzzled: she was thinking of the pudding.

`You are sad,' the Knight said in an anxious tone: `let me sing
you a song to comfort you.'

`Is it very long?' Alice asked, for she had heard a good deal
of poetry that day.

`It's long,' said the Knight, `but very, VERY beautiful.
Everybody that hears me sing it--either it brings the TEARS
into their eyes, or else--'

`Or else what?' said Alice, for the Knight had made a sudden
pause.

`Or else it doesn't, you know. The name of the song is called
"HADDOCKS' EYES."'

`Oh, that's the name of the song, is it?' Alice said, trying to
feel interested.

`No, you don't understand,' the Knight said, looking a little
vexed. `That's what the name is CALLED. The name really IS "THE
AGED AGED MAN."'

`Then I ought to have said "That's what the SONG is called"?'
Alice corrected herself.

`No, you oughtn't: that's quite another thing! The SONG is
called "WAYS AND MEANS": but that's only what it's CALLED, you
know!'

`Well, what IS the song, then?' said Alice, who was by this
time completely bewildered.

`I was coming to that,' the Knight said. `The song really IS
"A-SITTING ON A GATE": and the tune's my own invention.'

So saying, he stopped his horse and let the reins fall on its
neck: then, slowly beating time with one hand, and with a faint
smile lighting up his gentle foolish face, as if he enjoyed the
music of his song, he began.

Of all the strange things that Alice saw in her journey Through
The Looking-Glass, this was the one that she always remembered
most clearly. Years afterwards she could bring the whole scene
back again, as if it had been only yesterday--the mild blue
eyes and kindly smile of the Knight--the setting sun gleaming
through his hair, and shining on his armour in a blaze of light
that quite dazzled her--the horse quietly moving about, with
the reins hanging loose on his neck, cropping the grass at her
feet--and the black shadows of the forest behind--all this
she took in like a picture, as, with one hand shading her eyes,
she leant against a tree, watching the strange pair, and
listening, in a half dream, to the melancholy music of the song.

`But the tune ISN'T his own invention,' she said to herself:
`it's "I GIVE THEE ALL, I CAN NO MORE."' She stood and listened
very attentively, but no tears came into her eyes.
Re:I believe they are wrong by Planesdragon · 2002-09-25 12:51 · Score: 2

I don't know about your machine, but when I log into my linux boxen, I find very little actual GNU software running.

Considering that a combination of MS Word and general lack of time for the necessary backups and repartitioning have kept me from trying out Linux yet, I cna safely say that I'm running 100% non-GNU software on my box. ;)

The proper place for "GNU" is in the many lists of attributions. The overall "system" name is properly the assembler and the OS name. This machine is properly called "RedHat Linux". Another that I use a lot is properly "FreeBSD" (and it also contains a lot of GNU tools in its libraries).

I agree 100%. Can we program this into a clue-stick and give it to someone to thwack Stallman with?
Re:I believe they are wrong by bshanks · 2002-09-25 13:59 · Score: 1

but if you are going to set a threshold of one word, you should call it GNU, right, because the GNU project wrote more of the code?

I think a threshold of two words is more appropriate because then people who only know it as "linux" will (at least sort of) know what you are talking about when you say GNU/Linux.
Re:I believe they are wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 14:06 · Score: 0

Boy are you off. They aren't the ones creating newspeak, everyone who doesn't call the operating system by it's correct name is.

That Linus, such a fool...
Re:I believe they are wrong by aardvarkjoe · 2002-09-25 14:43 · Score: 2

No matter how much the FSF says that their contribution is more important than that of others, it doesn't make it true. You can use the GNU system on a variety of kernels. Linux is the thing that underlies it all, and makes my system what it is. Whether or not the FSF contributed more lines of code than anyone else (and I tend to doubt it) doesn't make it more important than anyone else. Elsewhere in the discussion, it has been pointed out that about the only truly required GNU software is glibc, and (sort of) gcc.

My "threshold" remains at the one word that best describes the system. It's not GNU. It's Linux.

--

How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Re:I believe they are wrong by bshanks · 2002-09-25 15:02 · Score: 1

fair enough, if you think the Linux component was more important than the GNU component, then I agree that is a good reason for calling it Linux..

btw, some lines of source code stats are here. looks like [glibc + gcc (\lessthan) kernel], indeed (still, i would argue that in practice other GNU components are used, and also that the invention of the GPL is perhaps the single most important innovation, and finally that the Linux kernel would not have been written if there were not already other pieces of a free OS to use it with).
Re:I believe they are wrong by Russ+Nelson · 2002-09-25 15:33 · Score: 2

everyone who doesn't call the operating system by it's correct name is.

Its correct name is "Linux". Assuming something, and then reasoning from it, does not make your assumption correct.
-russ

--
Don't piss off The Angry Economist

Say It! by Bruce+Perens · 2002-09-25 03:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

With all of the folks out there trying to change Linux into just another SCO, placing NDAs on it, and in general simply not understanding what the advantage of free software is, it's time for you to reverse the trend. Say it! GNU/Linux. Be part of the soultion.

Bruce

--
Bruce Perens.

Re:Say It! by bytesmythe · 2002-09-25 04:01 · Score: 1

How do you put an NDA on GPLed software? Could you provide some links to more information about this?

--
bytesmythe
Hypocrisy is the resin that holds the plywood of society together.
-- Scott Meyer
Re:Say It! by Epesh · 2002-09-25 04:05 · Score: 1, Troll

I refuse. Stallman is an idiot. You can quote me on that all you like.

--
Everybody dies.
Re:Say It! by Planesdragon · 2002-09-25 04:08 · Score: 1, Troll

simply not understanding what the advantage of free software is

The benefits of free software are simple: It's low to no cost, and you can do what you want with it.

The benefits of the FSF agenda, on the other hand, are not so clear. Wasting time on trival things like renaming Linux ensures that they remain that way.

I have not ever given money to the FSF, and I suspect that I never will.
Re:Say It! by sg_oneill · 2002-09-25 04:08 · Score: 2

Didn't .. erm.. Unitedlinux or sumfin' do just that. The clusterfuck of GPL cheat methods. Ie... SUUUURE It's GPL, but even if it aint... YOU CANT TELL ANYONE!.
Ugh.......

--
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Re:Say It! by Drey · 2002-09-25 04:12 · Score: 1

Sorry, Bruce, but being part of the solution makes me feel like a cultist.
Re:Say It! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:13 · Score: 0

Be part of the soultion.

NO! be part of the SOUL TRAIN!
Re:Say It! by TellarHK · 2002-09-25 04:17 · Score: 2

Aw, dammit, Bruce. Here we are all caught up in RMS's apparent megalomaniacism, and you whip out an actually halfway decent reason for calling it GNU/Linux.
I really never thought much about it, because I do think RMS's insistence can be rather... silly. Really silly. Had he made the GNU/Linux arrangement with Linus years ago, it wouldn't be a big deal, but now... Eh. My concern is that RMS won't think clearly until GNU/Linux becomes the accepted term. Perhaps it should be for marketers and software vendors, but continually appearing to harass people for referring to it as simply "Linux" in casual conversation just hurts his image, as well as the GNU Project.
I'll compromise. In "formal" conversation, I'll call it GNU/Linux, but casually, it's just plain old Linux.

--
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
Re:Say It! by Suppafly · 2002-09-25 04:17 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Quite possibly the only Bruce Perens post to not make it to +5.
Re:Say It! by Christianfreak · 2002-09-25 04:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

Normally I agree with what you say Bruce but in this case no.

No one knows (i.e. the general public or pointy haired bosses) what 'GNU' means anyway and I think its just going to become more of problem as people get confused thinking it's another distro or something.

The solution in this case is to stop this stupid holy war. We have the DMCA, Palladium, and Microsoft to worry about, we don't need to fight amongst ourselves about a name and we need to ignore the select few that are trying to take credit for Linux at the expense of the thousands of people who work on it.

NDAs won't happen as long as the GPL stands up in court. If it doesn't then saying GNU a million times before you say Linux isn't going to stop companies from taking the code.

--
The Anti-Blog
Re:Say It! by alienmole · 2002-09-25 04:18 · Score: 2

Say it! GNU/Linux. Be part of the soultion.
The solution to what, for crying out loud???
The problem with GNU/Linux is that "all of the folks out there" tend to be sensitive to little things like catchy names, brand identity, etc. "GNU/Linux" is the answer to the question "how can we confuse and annoy the user base?"
The FSF would have as much chance of succeeding if it asked the community to start calling it LiGNUx. (Hope I'm not giving anyone any ideas.)
I suggest that the real solution is for the FSF to do what many other organizations with unpalatable names have done, and change "GNU" to something less klunky. In this particular case, even an off-the-shelf marketdroid who boasts of being able to "think outside the box" might actually be able to come up with something better. (And no, promoting it as being pronounced "NewLinux" is not the solution. Explain to the marketdroid that that's not far enough "outside the box"...)
Re:Say It! by rw2 · 2002-09-25 04:19 · Score: 2

Say it! GNU/Linux. Be part of the soultion.

No way.

If I'm going to call it anything to try and solve *your* problem it would be GPLed/Linux.

If I'm going to try and solve Stallmans (which is related to the 'significance' problem) I'm going to call it openoffice/xfree86/mozilla/linux/gnu in order of importance to my life.

Stallman seems to want to base it on the LOC though, so it would probably be something like openoffice/gnu/xfree86/linux, right?

Or you want to name it only by the essential core, and not applications? Fine.

xfree86/gnu/linux

Well, actually most of the gnu contribution is in command line tools (aka applications), "all they were missing was the kernel".

So maybe it should be just xfree86/linux.

Nah. This is stupid, the kernel itself is the most significant piece of what I'm installing. I think I'll stick with Linux.
Re:Say It! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:19 · Score: 0

Should I now say GNU/OS X as well since a large number of gnu utils exist under it? How about instead putting "Linux with GNU inside" on a shrink-wrap version? That would be closer to the truth much like Dell and Gateway do for their intel processor-driven machines. Last time I checked, those companies and intel for that matter don't get pissed when I don't say "my intel/Gateway machine." Branding "GNU" on everything does zilch for promoting free software. Even if you succeed in forcing everyone to brand it...no one will say it. Be serious.
Re:Say It! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:20 · Score: 0

I expected more from you, but apparently you've decided to disappoint. Here's a little conspiracy theory for you...they claim in the FAQ that "soon" they shall be packaging the "real" GNU operating system. Could this all perhaps be an attempt to attract attention to their own project?
Re:Say It! by kevinank · 2002-09-25 04:30 · Score: 4, Interesting

The benefits of the FSF agenda, on the other hand, are not so clear. Wasting time on trival things like renaming Linux ensures that they remain that way.
While I continue to use Linux in preference over GNU/Linux, I don't agree that FSF agenda is in any way either irrational or trivial. Linux is a stepping stone for learning about the free software ideology. While an ideology of free sharing to form a commonwealth is beyond what many are willing to contemplate, I am always quite happy to explain those ideals to someone who asks me: 'Hey, I just heard that some guy named Stallman wants everyone to change the name of Linux to GNU/Linux.'
The effort to rename Linux is valuable in itself. It doesn't ever need to succeed because its value is in education of those who hear of the naming conflict. We still need Linux as the stepping stone, so GNU/Linux can't really replace Linux in the public mind; and once it has then the GNU prefix will no longer be needed anyway.
Building a software commons from nothing is an incredible achievement for the FSF to have completed. I'm sorry you don't value that acheivement enough to donate to them, but hopefully there will always be enough people who do take the time to understand and value their contribution.

--
LibBT: BitTorrent for C - small - fast - clean (Now Versio
Re:Say It! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:37 · Score: 0

His posts at Hewlett Packard have now all been marked down as trolls.

Hah!
Re:Say It! by SN74S181 · 2002-09-25 04:42 · Score: 1

Stallman actually demanded for a time that it be called LiGNUx. This GNU/Linux stuff is his compromise.
Re:Say It! by alienmole · 2002-09-25 04:46 · Score: 1

Thanks, I just noticed that in another message, which quoted the actual emacs changelogs where "lignux" was used.
I'm a little disturbed that my brain was able to follow the same patterns as Stallman's in this respect... Maybe I heard it somewhere and remembered it subconsciously, yeah, that's the ticket!
Re:Say It! by jgerman · 2002-09-25 04:49 · Score: 2

Wasting time on trival things like renaming Linux ensures that they remain that way.

Wow, it's a simple concept let me spell it out for you though, since you evidentally have difficulty getting it through your head. THEY ARE RENAMING NOTHING. The FSF is only asking that it be called by it's proper name. Is it trivial, possibly, personally I feel that it's patently obvious when you use the software that the bulk of the OS is GNU, is it wrong, no. Is it renaming, not even close.

--
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Re:Say It! by alienmole · 2002-09-25 04:55 · Score: 2

Aw, dammit, Bruce. Here we are all caught up in RMS's apparent megalomaniacism, and you whip out an actually halfway decent reason for calling it GNU/Linux.
Bruce did not provide a reason, let alone a halfway decent one. He made two unconnected statements. There's no connection between calling it "GNU/Linux" and the fact that people are trying various things to encumber Linux's freedom. No connection whatsoever, except in Richard Stallman's mind, and in the minds of those who wish to curry favor with him or remain in his good books.
Stallman should apply his legendary mind to his own actions, and possibly see a therapist about this obsession of his if he is not capable of overcoming it on his own. That would truly be good for the community.
Re:Say It! by jgerman · 2002-09-25 05:00 · Score: 2

Thank you. Yes the correct answer to "What operating system are you running?" is GNU/Linux. Is it much more than a technical point? No. Are ou efforts better used eslewhere? Yes.

--
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Re:Say It! by LMCBoy · 2002-09-25 05:03 · Score: 2

No one knows (i.e. the general public or pointy haired bosses) what 'GNU' means anyway and I think its just going to become more of problem as people get confused thinking it's another distro or something.

Don't you see, that's exactly Bruce's point?! If people don't understand that GNU/Linux is not just some product that you don't have to pay for, then it will continue to be eroded in the ways Bruce mentioned (NDAs, license violations, what's next: out-and-out code theft?)

If people understand that we're talking about a Free, community-developed operating system that is owned by everyone (and by no one), then maybe, just maybe, these kind of shenanigans can be avoided. By calling it simply "Linux", you obscure the Free Software underpinnings of the OS, and tip the scales toward the ridiculous view that "GPL == public domain"! (which we saw recently coming from so-called linux companies involved with UnitedLinux...unbelievable!)

[OT]: bizarre sig for someone named ChristianFreak :p WWJD?

--
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
Re:Say It! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 05:10 · Score: 0

Or, worse, it could be that RMS whispers secret suggestions in your ear while you sleep. Mooohahah.
Re:Say It! by Planesdragon · 2002-09-25 05:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

The FSF is only asking that it be called by it's proper name.

The FSF made GNU tools, AND the GPL, and if they wanted any say in the "proper name" of what someone else has when they take GNU tools and components and makes something, they should have written it into the GPL.

If the FSF wanted to have this "proper name," they should have supported Linus in the early days and asked for the nomenclature from the get-go. Them trying to instigate a change of the popular name for the OS family after the fact is a boldfaced attempt to ride the shorttails of Linux's popularity.

If they want "GNU/Linux", they should make a "pure GNU" distribution of Linux.
Re:Say It! by zapfie · 2002-09-25 05:20 · Score: 1

YES, I'm a Christian. Got a problem with that?

No?

--
slashdot!=valid HTML
Re:Say It! by alienmole · 2002-09-25 05:21 · Score: 1

Or, worse, it could be that RMS whispers secret suggestions in your ear while you sleep. Mooohahah.
Oh geez, I'm screwed.
Re:Say It! by Christianfreak · 2002-09-25 05:23 · Score: 2

I under stand his point I just think that name changing is confusing rather than helping the issue. And if someone doesn't understand what 'GNU' means in the first place it isn't going to stop them from trying to use NDAs etc.

And [OT] The sig is a link to a webcomic that I do with a friend of mine called Naked:People in Car Chases. There are no naked people I promise :) its a joke. Check it out it's actually quite funny (not that I'm biased or anything)

--
The Anti-Blog
Re:Say It! by alienmole · 2002-09-25 05:23 · Score: 2, Funny

Make that GNU/screwed...
Re:Say It! by Zwack · 2002-09-25 05:28 · Score: 1

Greetings
I realise that you've been marked as a troll (I disagree) but that is an interesting web page that you point at.
However I disagree with some of the Rhetoric that you use, and think that if you seriously intended that page to sway people then you would change it.
You describe a conversation with Richard Stallman where IBM asked RMS to sign a declaration that he wrote Bison and was free to give it away. He refused and suggested that the IBM product that you wanted to use Bison in should be Open Source. You then say "He was effectively implying that he'd stolen the code, and released it as open source just to further his personal views on software source code availability". In no way is this Effectively Implied... If IBM came up to me and said "please sign this document saying that you wrote this code and that you are giving it away." I would refuse too. It sounds like you offered the FSF a monetary grant in exchange for a signed affidavit. Fine, but would the grant have covered the costs of having the affidavit produced? I wouldn't know where to begin in such a case and I wouldn't pay for a lawyer to look at a document that you had produced before signing it. Refusal to sign a document does not imply anything about the theft of code. The only place that it mentions theft of code is in your arguments against RMS.
Yes the GPL is viral. Is this bad. No. If I write code then it is entirely up to me how it is distributed. If I write something then I don't (usually) mind giving it away for free. I don't want someone else taking my software, changing the name and then releasing it as their own software. So I use the GPL. If I didn't care about the software at all I might use a BSD licence. More likely I would attach a document that states "This software has been placed into the public domain". If someone wants to take one of the ideas in any of the software that I have ever written then they can. Feel free. But if you are going to steal the idea and make money out of it then you need to reimplement the idea yourself. Why not? It's only fair.
Having said that I never want to meet RMS. I've heard enough about him to know that he sounds like a fanatic, and possibly a genius. Just because someone is a genius doesn't make them likable, and I generally speaking don't like fanatics. Any fanatics.
Z.

--
-- Under/Overrated is meta-moderation, and therefore is Redundant.
Re:Say It! by Planesdragon · 2002-09-25 05:30 · Score: 2

I don't agree that FSF agenda is in any way either irrational or trivial

Neither do I. But it is poorly understood, and ran by people who have somehow managed to get a repuation for not knowiwng how to get their agenda across.

The FSF needs less coders and more politicians, oddly enough. Engineers and idealism aren't a natural, or easy, mix.
Re:Say It! by Chops · 2002-09-25 05:40 · Score: 2

The benefits of the FSF agenda, on the other hand, are not so clear.

You are aware, are you not, that part of the FSF agenda is funding the development of gcc, glibc, emacs, and Gnome?
Re:Say It! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 05:47 · Score: 0

haha.

You talkin' to me?
Re:Say It! by LMCBoy · 2002-09-25 06:04 · Score: 1

Oh cool, I'll check it out :)

--
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
Re:Say It! by jgerman · 2002-09-25 06:12 · Score: 2

Uh, still wrong, Linus didn't create or name an operating system, he wrote a kernel, and named it Linux.

--
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Re:Say It! by jdavidb · 2002-09-25 06:24 · Score: 2

Thanks, I just noticed that in another message, which quoted the actual emacs changelogs where "lignux" was used.

I'm a little disturbed that my brain was able to follow the same patterns as Stallman's in this respect... Maybe I heard it somewhere and remembered it subconsciously, yeah, that's the ticket!

It's in the FAQ, for one thing. Did you read it? :)

--
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Re:Say It! by alienmole · 2002-09-25 06:47 · Score: 1

It's in the FAQ, for one thing. Did you read it? :)
I started to read it, but next thing I knew I was face down on the keyboard, snoring. I plan to try again when I'm safely in bed tonight...
Re:Say It! by jdavidb · 2002-09-25 06:54 · Score: 2

I had an Oracle trainer once tell me he fell asleep every night by reading from the the gargantuan Oracle documentation set. Seemed to actually work well for him.

--
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Re:Say It! by MSackton · 2002-09-25 06:58 · Score: 1

>NDAs won't happen as long as the GPL stands up in court. If it doesn't then saying GNU a million times before you say Linux isn't going to stop >companies from taking the code

Why is it that no one understands that there is no way that an invalidation of the GPL would allow anyone to steal any code? The GPL is *less* restrictive than copyright law. If it didn't exist, copyright law would hold sway. Copyright law (as we all know) does not allow copying and redistribution or modification of other people's stuff.
Re:Say It! by Christianfreak · 2002-09-25 07:38 · Score: 2

Why is it that no one understands that there is no way that an invalidation of the GPL would allow anyone to steal any code?

They could if its ruled that you can't give code away and keep a copyright. It's a very gray issue and I admit I don't understand all that much about it but it seems possible that a court could just as easily rule that GPL software is now in the public domain.

--
The Anti-Blog
Re:Say It! by Bruce+Perens · 2002-09-25 09:17 · Score: 2

They could if its ruled that you can't give code away and keep a copyright.
This is soooooo unlikely I don't think you need to worry about it.
Such a ruling would have a similar effect on many kinds of copyrighted material, not just GPL software.
I think you should learn a bit more before you even hazard an opinion on this, sorry. It's not a gray area at all.
Thanks
Bruce

--
Bruce Perens.
Re:Say It! by Elwood+P+Dowd · 2002-09-25 09:54 · Score: 2

People typically give away the sourcecode to their books. Somehow, they maintain copyright on the books.

--

There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Re:Say It! by Planesdragon · 2002-09-25 12:48 · Score: 2

And a lot of other people took that kernel, added GNU tools into a distribution that would be usable for a lot of folk, and called that Linux.

GNU didn't make the OS. All they did was make a bunch of tools that the guy who wrote the kernel found useful, and a bunch of people who bundled distributions also found useful. And they named most of them "Gnu*", and most of them are acronyms, and they're all GPL'd.

Stallman himself admits that Linux isn't the GNU OS... therefore, he's just trying to steal Linux's thunder since the "real GNU OS" has been so long in coming. (Is it here yet?)

Now that I think about it, if we're going to be nitpicking about "primary contributors," how about the hardware folk? Shouldn't the name of the OS be "GNU/Linux-x86" or something?

Heck, what exactly is "GNU/Linux?" Does he mean the family of OSes distrubted by RedHat, Suse, and anyone who wants to bundle a Linux kernal with some apps? What about no-GNU distributions? Are they a different catagory?

Are they? by jakuaii · 2002-09-25 04:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

Citing the first two sentences from the page:

When people see that we use and recommend the name GNU/Linux for a system that many others call just "Linux", they ask many questions. Here are common questions, and our answers.

Now, I wouldn't exactly call that desperate, especially when most of the basic OS utilities (compiler!) are GNU...

Re:Are they? by sg_oneill · 2002-09-25 04:04 · Score: 2

As in VCC\Windows? Or perhaps Eula\Windows?

All seems a little pedantic to me. I call it GNU\Linux outa habit and sometimes just 'debian' , but it really doesn't faze me either way.

--
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Re:Are they? by jakuaii · 2002-09-25 04:14 · Score: 1

As in Microsoft (R) Windows (TM) xp... Or in Debian GNU/Linux...
One has got to be pedantic if the discussion is about an official (!) name. Of course, everybody will call Windows Windows. And Doors Doors. Where were we?...
Re:Are they? by MaxVlast · 2002-09-25 04:22 · Score: 2

How about my operating system? GNU/Mac OS X/Mach? It runs on the Mach kernel (used to be called the Mach OS in the NEXTSTEP/OpenStep [OpenStep for Windows NT vs. OpenStep for Mach]) and uses a lot of GNU tools.

--
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
Re:Are they? by jakuaii · 2002-09-25 04:31 · Score: 1

MacOS X is based on FreeBSD. Read the article.
Re:Are they? by glwtta · 2002-09-25 04:39 · Score: 3, Funny

It's actually GNU/Linux not GNU\Linux, give the forward slash some credit for its work!

--
sic transit gloria mundi
Re:Are they? by MaxVlast · 2002-09-25 04:41 · Score: 2

Uh, which article?

Mac OS X is an updated version of OpenStep. Mac OS X is a series of libraries that sit on top of an operating system called Darwin. Darwin is derived from 4.4BSD-Lite and uses the OSF Mach microkernel. This underlying operating system was called Mach by NeXT back when it was their product.

section from the Peanuts NeXT FAQ might be helpful.

--
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
Re:Are they? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 05:46 · Score: 0

Sorry, didn't mean to offend. This page at apple.com says that current tools from FreeBSD are incorporated into MacOS X. Also, this entry from the GNU-Linux-FAQ (what I called "article") explicitly states why they don't want it to be called GNU/BSD.
Still, my basic point is: MacOS X isn't based mainly on the GNU operating system tools, so GNU/MacOS X is inappropriate.
I guess the horse now is really dead, btw...
Re:Are they? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 05:57 · Score: 0

"This underlying operating system "

You mean underlying kernel.
Re:Are they? by MaxVlast · 2002-09-25 06:27 · Score: 2

Actually, I mean OS. You can take away all of the gooey GUI goodness and use Darwin as a reasonable, capable operating system. The kernel is OSF Mach 3 (iirc.)

Horse. Dead. Thwack. Thwack. Thwack.

--
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
Re:Are they? by protein+folder · 2002-09-25 07:21 · Score: 1

Obviously, sg_oneill is a closet DOS user! We're on to you Mr. cd c:\GNU\Linux!

--
Your mind is squeezed by a blast of pain!
Re:Are they? by karmawarrior · 2002-09-25 08:27 · Score: 1

I think he meant the article that this entire story is about, you know, the FAQ on GNU/Linux:
Should we say "GNU/BSD" too?
No, that would not be appropriate for the history of BSD.
The BSD systen was developed by UC Berkeley as non-free software in the 80s, and became free in the early 90s. A free operating system that exists today is almost certainly either a variant of the GNU system, or a kind of BSD system.
People sometimes ask whether BSD too is a variant of GNU, as GNU/Linux is. It is not. The BSD developers were inspired to make their code free software by the example of the GNU Project, and explicit appeals from GNU activists helped convince them to start, but the code had little overlap with GNU.
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. The BSD developers did not write a kernel and add it to the GNU system, so a name like GNU/BSD would not fit the situation.
The connection between GNU/Linux and GNU is much closer, and that's why the name "GNU/Linux" is appropriate for it.

The point is Mac OS X is based on BSD, not GNU. The Posixish user space provided with Mac OS X is BSD derived. There's the occasional GNU tool, but it certainly isn't a wholesale GNU distribution with a new kernel tacked on.

--
KMSMA (WWBD?)
Re:Are they? by MaxVlast · 2002-09-25 09:01 · Score: 2

I'm not sure if I agree with that. I mean OS X has bash, gcc, emacs, bison, and more.

--
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
Re:Are they? by bovinewasteproduct · 2002-09-25 13:17 · Score: 2

I'm not sure if I agree with that. I mean OS X has bash, gcc, emacs, bison, and more.

So does FreeBSD... But as far as I know, the default editor in OS X is NOT emacs, it's vi. The default shell is NOT bash, but csh. Apple could do a OS X without GNU utils quite easily.

OS X is a BSD with a bastard version of the Mach microkernel. The same notes that apply to *BSD apply to OS X.

BWP
Re:Are they? by sg_oneill · 2002-09-27 04:33 · Score: 2

NooooOOOO! C:\cygwin\bash GNU/LINUX!!!!!

--
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.

GNU: Get over it by Neil+Watson · 2002-09-25 04:02 · Score: 4, Interesting

Wah! wah! wah! call it by my name or I'm taking my toys and going home.

No one is denying the great tools that GNU provides. I always install various GNU tools on the Sun boxes I work on to keep me from going crazy. Stop acting so childish. It's this kind of behavior that can give Open Source a reputation of being a bunch of "childish geeks."

--
UNIX/Linux Consulting

IN HONOR OF THE DIRTY GNU/LINUX HIPPY RMS... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:02 · Score: 0, Insightful

Here is the source of a tribute site devoted to his goat fucking prowess:

<html> <head> <title>StallmAnus</title> </head> <body> <center> <img src="stallman.jpg"> <p> <h1> "I am a goat fucker!" -Richard Stallman, 1994 </h1> <p> A bit of MIT/LCS lore here. <p> RMS used to live on the 7th floor of LCS. That's where he used to have his office before he resigned in protest over the commercialization of something or another. But they let him keep his office, and he lives there, because he refuses to have an apartment. (Given the rent rates in Cambridge, the assholeness of most landlords, I don't blame him. Rather than live in my office, I chose to move to Texas, and the change in rent rates and lack of state income tax resulted in an immediate %25 pay raise. RMS doesn't have that option because we have the death penalty for people like him down here.) <p> Anyway, RMS has or had a number or geek chick groupies. I wouldn't call any of the ones I've seen "hot", really -- well except for this one little psycho jewish undergrad from NYC. He would sleep with them on the sofa in his office. That's why he got kicked out off floor 7, and down to the 3 floor, is that the cleaning staff complained about pulling used condoms out from behind the sofas. No joke. You can use this information for trolling if you wish, but it's all true. <p> RMS has a phobia of water that prevents him from showering. This is part of this post I know from first hand experience, because I myself have observed him taking a sponge bath in the 3d floor mens room in LCS. Apparently once he had a girlfriend who he was totally in love with, and she convinced him to take one shower a week. It was a traumatic experience for him each time. <p> RMS also has a phobia of spider plants. When RMS starts bothering a grad student and going to his office and talking to him constantly and getting him to spend all his time writing free software, the grad student will complain to someone on the floor, and they'll let them in on the secrete -- get a spider plant in your office. The next time RMS drops by, his eyes will bulge a little and he'll say " Umm. . . I wanted to talk to you about hacking some elisp code . . . why don't you stop by my office sometime ?" and make a hasty exit. <p> One of his more nasty habits is picking huge flakes of dandruff out of his hair while talking to you. At least he doesn't eat them, like some people I know. <p> Now, I know everyone loves to make fun of RMS, and I'm feeding that a bit here, so I'd just like to say that I think he really is a genius, on the order of Socrates (another filthy slob who couldn't keep a normal living arrangement, and lived in a barrel) or Ghandi or Ezekiel. Everything he has ever said to me, while sounding naive and idealistic and stupid at the time, turned out to later be correct. <p> The only thing I fear in his philosophy is his interest in reducing population growth. Everyone else I know of who was obsessed with that "problem" turned out to have facist or totolitarian tendencies, and I think that the problem will solve itself as more and more of the world moves into a middle class type existence. <p> But on everything else, bitter experiences have taught me he is right. I will not use any non-GPLd or lGPLd software, and I look forward to being able to buy only "open" hardware. I would like to see software patents completely eliminated, and with the development of digitial communication, I see no reason why shouldn't simply repeal all of Title 17 and do away with all copyrights. They just aren't needed. I expect to spend much of my life being paid to write software, and I just don't see copyrights has helping me in anyway. <p> <h3> <a href="mailto:adamtrowe@hotmail.com">Feedback</a&gt ; </body> </html>

Until they convince the world to say GNU/Solaris.. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:02 · Score: 0

FSF got its first big break because Sun's compilers and utilities just sucked rocks.

So, when people start saying GNU/Solaris, I'll consider GNU/Linux, but until then, it's just the desparate plea of a megalomaniac.

self defeating FAQ by klokwise · 2002-09-25 04:02 · Score: 1

"The people who focus on the more superficial goals have a right to their views, but don't let them drag you along! "
thanks, i'll do just that.

Someone tell them to give up on this already by Afty0r · 2002-09-25 04:02 · Score: 1

Seriously:

1] If they want mindshare and market awareness (in other words people to talk about their product, and to consider using it) which eventually lead to more users then the system should have a friendly, easy to remember and pronounce name.

2] Authors and contributors to software are already given credit in the license and accompanying files. Why should GNU software be given a spotlight? Why not Mark Andressen, 22 from Oslo who contributed a bugfix to GCC?

I appreciate that GNU software forms a large part of the system, but this crusade is ridiculous. I think the GNU philosophy is an honourable one, but sometimes the way they wage publicity wars does them and everyone associated with them no favours.

GNU/Solaris by wiredlogic · 2002-09-25 04:03 · Score: 1

With so much GPL software installed in Solaris by default nowadays, I hope Stallman et al. will force the issue with Sun as well.

--
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.

Re:GNU/Solaris by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:20 · Score: 0

With so much GPL software installed in Solaris by default nowadays, I hope Stallman et al. will force the issue with Sun as well.

Please don't confuse GPL software with GNU software. GNU software is GPL (or LGPL), but GPL software is not necessarily GNU software. And the "free" download of Solaris 9 doesn't install that much GPL software anyway.

I'm so sick of this debate. by tommck · 2002-09-25 04:03 · Score: 1, Redundant

Soon, everyone else will ask for their piece of the name... it'll be:

GNU/XFree86/KDE/Gnome/GenuflectTowardsTheFSF/RMS/K itchenSink/Linux

T

P.S. Can't wait to see all the moderation abuse in this discussion...

--
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.

Re:I'm so sick of this debate. by 3dr · 2002-09-25 04:37 · Score: 0, Redundant

You and me both.
It is well understood how much GNU software is in a Linux distribution. However, that does not make it worthy of a "GNU/Linux" moniker.
After all, I used to admin Solaris and Irix boxes, which always had GNU software installed. The thought never occurred to me that I should have been calling them "GNU/Solaris" or "GNU/Irix".
RMS/FSF -- get off your high horse about this!
Re:I'm so sick of this debate. by jdreed1024 · 2002-09-25 05:09 · Score: 2

The problem is easily solved by calling it by the distribution. I do not run "GNU/Linux" or my computer, nor do I run "Linux". I run RedHat. Some of my friends run Debian. Others run SuSE or Mandrake. There, problem solved.
// end tongue-in-cheek section
Seriously, though, I actually use "Linux" most often in the context of "Does program $foo run on Linux?" Regardless of what RMS wants, that is perfectly correct. Programs run on the kernel (Linux), not GNU tools such as emacs/sed/gcc. When the FSF releases it's own (useful) kernel, I'll call it GNU.
No one denies that the GNU project contributed a lot to making Linux useful. People say "Linux" because people are naturally lazy and brevity is a virtue. Most people who use Linux have heard of "GNU" in the context of bash, tcsh, emacs, sed, gnucash, ghostscript. They don't need to be reminded of it - that's giving them less credit than due. All this whining about the name is what prevents people from taking RMS seriously, and what leads Joe Sixpack and Nancy NewsAnchor to brush aside the (GNU/)Linux community as a bunch of activist whiny idiots.
RMS constantly talks about taking social responsibility for one's actions. He needs to start thinking seriously about whether all this bitching about naming conventions is good for the community, and for society in general. But that won't happen, because he's right, we're wrong, and that's the way it is.

--
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
Re:I'm so sick of this debate. by jdavidb · 2002-09-25 05:54 · Score: 2

Can't wait to see all the moderation abuse in this discussion...

You mean like here where I got modded down for agreeing with RMS?

Everybody is pretty much with you. Plenty of GNU/comments (those aren't redundant?) and very little evidence that anyone actually glanced at, much less read, that FAQ.

Did you read the FAQ? You might completely disagree with it, but did you read it?

--
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Re:I'm so sick of this debate. by Frater+219 · 2002-09-25 06:00 · Score: 2

Seriously, though, I actually use "Linux" most often in the context of "Does program $foo run on Linux?" Regardless of what RMS wants, that is perfectly correct. Programs run on the kernel (Linux), not GNU tools such as emacs/sed/gcc.

Actually, most programs that run on the Linux kernel are linked against the GNU C library (glibc) and other GNU libraries which provide a significant portion of their function. I wouldn't want to be without ncurses, readline, or gtk+! These libraries dictate much more of the software's behavior than the kernel does -- and GNU readline works the same on a SunOS kernel, a BSD kernel, or a Linux kernel.
There's another catch to asking the question "Does $program run on Linux?" though: if the domain of software you're asking about includes secret-source software (proprietary, binary-only software), the answer may well be "Only sometimes!" Free software is usually portable to most or all of the platforms on which Linux runs, but secret-source programs often don't even consistently run on two distributions on the same platform!
People who ask "Does $program run on Linux?" about a secret-source program usually end up getting an answer instead to the question "Does $program run on the current release of Red Hat?" But most Free software is nowhere near as constrained as that: something like 90% of the packages that compile and run on Debian GNU/Linux for i386 also compile and run with no changes on my Debian for PowerPC systems.

gnu/linux won't cut it... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:03 · Score: 0

but gnude/linux would receive widespread acceptance.

By this logic by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:03 · Score: 0

We should probably call emacs Xemacs, since most people use it built on top of the X Window libraries, yes?

This smells of GNU/Desperation by John+Harrison · 2002-09-25 04:03 · Score: 1, Troll

We are right! Really we are! There is no reason why you shouldn't agree with us! Please!!! Pretty please?

--
Lasers Controlled Games!

It seems like its really bugging them =D by dmouritsendk · 2002-09-25 04:03 · Score: 1

To ensure that the mental health of the nice people at FSF is keept normal, please start using the GNU/ prefix when writing about (GNU/)linux.

I call it linux, here's why, in a few short points by intermodal · 2002-09-25 04:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

1: because Linus does
2: Because Linus succeeded where GNU failed
3: Because GNU/Linux is too damn long to say
4: Because I don't call programs made/depending on MS Visual Studio 6 "MSVS/[program name]"
5: and finally, because Linux is common usage as the name of the OS. This is like trying to force the metric system on me when everything around me right down to my car's odometer is in miles. Let Stallman seethe in his jealous corner...I respect what he's done in creating the FSF, but that doesnt make me want to pander to his ego.

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!

Eh. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:03 · Score: 0

Linux wouldn't be here without the FSF/GNU tools.

Yet who here would even know what the hell the FSF was, if not for Linux?

As for me, I'll keep saying Linux. I'm already reminded daily of the FSF's contributions almost any time I open up a manpage.

Besides, it gets tiring explaining that it's 'gnu', and that Linux has been around for years and isn't 'new'.

GNU/Linux, Kroupware, [a-z]clock... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:03 · Score: 0

...so much enthusiasm, so little progress...

Fighting an uphill battle by bbuda · 2002-09-25 04:03 · Score: 1

The GNU project is technically correct here, and I think very few people would argue that. However, the media and the community have settled on the name Linux by and large. This FAQ (which is quite extensive) seems like a tremendous waste of time. Anyway, don't these people have a kernel to be coding???

Moral standard? by mcg1969 · 2002-09-25 04:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

From the FAQ:
To care only about what's convenient or who's winning is an amoral approach to life. Non-free software is an example of that amoral approach and thrives on it.
I'd certainly like to know where the FSF gets its moral absolutes from. If I say that non-free software is amoral, what gives FSF the authority to say that I'm wrong? Does the FSF believe in God? Do they believe moral absolutes can be created in a vacuum?

Re:Moral standard? by mcg1969 · 2002-09-25 04:09 · Score: 1

If I say that non-free software is amoral
Sorry, meant to say non-free software isn't amoral... I hit "Preview" first I swear
Re:Moral standard? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:50 · Score: 0

You say: "I'd certainly like to know where the FSF gets its moral absolutes from."
What moral absolutes? Do you think that unless you believe in moral absolutes, the term 'amoral' has no relevance? The FSF's view is that closed-sourcers are mercenary, and ignorant of moral realities. This is plausible, whether or not 'moral absolutism' is true.
Moral authority (the authority to judge) need not be absolute or divine to exist.
Re:Moral standard? by Benefice_tkn · 2002-09-25 05:17 · Score: 1

I'd certainly like to know where the FSF gets its moral absolutes from. If I say that non-free software is amoral, what gives FSF the authority to say that I'm wrong? Does the FSF believe in God? Do they believe moral absolutes can be created in a vacuum?
amoral Pronunciation Key (-môrl, -mr-) adj.
1. Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral.
They are not claiming any such moral absolutes. They are certainly not claiming that non-free softare is immoral
They are merely claiming that non-free software is making a statement about practicality, and is itself unconcered with moral judgements.
Re:Moral standard? by mcg1969 · 2002-09-25 06:53 · Score: 1

The FSF's view is that closed-sourcers are mercenary, and ignorant of moral realities

Yes, but there is no such thing as a "moral reality" without moral absolutes. There are "moral opinions", "moral judgements", "viewpoints on morality", and so forth, but no such thing as a "moral reality".

I'm not saying that FSF doesn't have the right to judge. Of course they do. But to do so requires that you have a set of moral principles that you believe are absolute, even if other people disagree with you. You must believe that these principles are higher than individual opinion, even your own.

Now of course they didn't use the term "immoral", they used "amoral"; but even that requires a moral judgement. After all, the non-free software "movement" could claim that there are moral principles that justifies non-free software over free software. I'm not saying they do say this, or that there are such principles; just that calling something "amoral" in this case requires a moral basis too.

More power to em... by Archfeld · 2002-09-25 04:04 · Score: 2

They are wasting their effort and time on a STUPID issue, but hey it is a free world... I doubt I will ever call it anything but Linux, anymore than I am likely to add some lame corporate name to the heisman trophy, of to refer to SF Giants stadium as some companies name as well....

--
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?

At least doesn't affect me. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:04 · Score: 0

Us BSD folks don't need to worry about this.
There's no way I'm going to call the operating system
I use BSD/NetBSD. :)

Time for the obligitory BSD is dying post now.

A rose by any other name... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:04 · Score: 0

...would sound as pretentious. Don't these guys have something better to do than be anal with naming policies? That is something I expect from an overpaid, underworked, middle management, marketing executive.

I'm sorry guys... by LordHunter317 · 2002-09-25 04:04 · Score: 1

But I've always OS is synoymous with the Kernel. OS to me, means the lowest common demoninator you need to use it. Everything else is part of the Operating Environment. As such, Linux is the OS, and maybe GNU/Linux is the OE, if the OE is *pure* GNU utilities. Since Linux and *BSD use at least a GNU C/C++ toolchain, the GNU/Linux argument is out and foolish.

Its perfectly feasible and possible to create a Linux distribution that uses no GNU utilites, and instead uses original BSD utilities or the like. Then it would have to be called BSD/Linux by their arguments, which makes no sense.

What this really boils down to is that RMS has a huge-ass ego (and a small-ass dick) and he's throwing around this name to compensate for one or the other.

Re:I'm sorry guys... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 09:31 · Score: 0

OS to me, means the lowest common demoninator you need to use it.

How exactly you can use the pure kernel ? without the compiler, without libraries, without shell, even without assembler... You'd type mashine code or what ?

Its perfectly feasible and possible to create a Linux distribution that uses no GNU utilites, and instead uses original BSD utilities or the like. Then it would have to be called BSD/Linux by their arguments, which makes no sense.

Go do it ! And call it whatever you want -- BSD/Linux, LordHunter/Linux. But, if you use GNU/Linux -- call it GNU/Linux ! BTW, what exactly you plan to use as a compiler for your BSD/Linux system ?

Only because of GNU linux stands out of the crowd of zillions of free (in the sense of beer) OSes written over time: Minix, FreeBSD, OpenNSD, shmooOS... GNU can exist (and existed) without Linux, Linux is nothing without GNU.

K.L.M.

Names, names, name by hackwrench · 2002-09-25 04:04 · Score: 1

So, uh, what do I call Cygwin?

Re:Names, names, name by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 05:55 · Score: 0

GNU/ntkernel

Pronounceability is cultural by yerricde · 2002-09-25 04:05 · 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.

--
Will I retire or break 10K?

Haha by Raul654 · 2002-09-25 04:05 · Score: 2

I dunno, it must be too early in the day, but that is hilarous.

--

To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton

now that's a quality comment (not the parent) by Trolling+Stones · 2002-09-25 04:06 · Score: -1

They're certainly... thorough

Nice contribution there michael. Way to increase to slashdot's bandwidth bill (albeit a very small increase) while adding nothing useful to the conversation.

g to the oatse
c to the izzex
fo shizzle my nizzle flaming michael? what the hell am i doing?

Linux GNU? by CrosbieSmith · 2002-09-25 04:06 · Score: 1

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.

So why not Linux GNU, meaning "Linux version of GNU", which seems to be what FSF are claiming.

Re:Could they add an answer to the following quest by joshsisk · 2002-09-25 04:07 · Score: 1

Actually, they address that. RTFA.

Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, does it? by marlowe · 2002-09-25 04:07 · Score: 1

Three times fast: GNU/Linux GNU/Linux GNU/Linux.

This could be the dorkiest name since Windows Me. Or Volkswagen Golf. Fahrfergnugen, man.

--
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe Better a smartass than a dumbass.

FAQ? by sawilson · 2002-09-25 04:07 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Without taking the time to actually read
the FAQ, how many questions could you
possibly ask. More importantly, How
frequently does anybody actually ask
them? Perhaps we need to come up with
something new like:

HEAQ - Hardly Ever Asked Questions
QNEA - Questions Nobody Ever Asks
PDDTPONMA - Pointless Document Designed To Push
Our Narrow Minded Agenda

--

The most important thing any republican needs to know.

United Linux: NDA? by MyHair · 2002-09-25 04:07 · Score: 1

United Linux was released as a "closed beta", and there was either disclosure or assumption (not sure which) that the beta reviewers had to sign NDA's.

I'm too lazy to find the Slashdot story, though. It was a week or two ago.

It was, of course, a very hot discussion. An NDA for Linux? (sorry Richard, GNU/Linux)

Re:United Linux: NDA? by pix · 2002-09-25 04:16 · Score: 1

Go look at SuSE's site. The NDA is available for download and it explicitly excludes any GPL software from the non-disclosure, so there is no breach of GPL.

This is one of the Dumbest things I have ever seen by Sir_Ace · 2002-09-25 04:07 · Score: 1

Not to mention it is going to start a flame war of
nuclear proportions.... The Asbestos armor won't help with this one...

Secondly, I wrote Daydream Linux {runs on the Dreamcast sh-4} and I damn sure didn't use any GNU tools for that. They talk about 'cooperation' in their FAQ, but I got no help from them when I needed and asked for it. {from GNU/*} The dist has none of their tools, and if I hear them try to call it Daydream GNU/Linux I am all for going to **war** against the FSF.
From now on the EFF, is the only one I will be donating to, after seeing that this is the end result of donating to the FSF for years.

-- Sir Ace

Advice by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:07 · Score: 0

You know, when a bunch of Slashdotters jump on you for being overly zealous, that's probably a sign you need to lighten up.

Hmmm.. by Quill_28 · 2002-09-25 04:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

I must not understand these FSF folks very much.
Am i correct in saying that feel charging money for any software in evil?

Do they hate the BSD license?

Re:Hmmm.. by Per+Abrahamsen · 2002-09-25 05:03 · Score: 2

> Am i correct in saying that feel charging money for any software in evil?

No, they do so themselves.

> Do they hate the BSD license?

They feel it allows the code to be abused.
Re:Hmmm.. by fcrick · 2002-09-25 05:19 · Score: 1

You really should read more about GNU if you think that...

--
Your signatures belong to me.
Re:Hmmm.. by Chops · 2002-09-25 05:43 · Score: 2

Am i correct in saying that feel charging money for any software in evil?

No. The GNU GPL specifically defends your right (and Redhat's, etc.) to resell GPLed software for a profit.

OMG! Non-GNU Linux! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

YOu should be stoned and whipped publicly!

Board personifies org by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:09 · Score: 0

I don't understand why people keep attributing motives and emotions to an organization like the FSF.

An organization's board of directors has motives and emotions. Attributing motives to an organization is a personification that serves as shorthand for attributing them to its board.

Long name? by tempest303 · 2002-09-25 04:10 · Score: 2

From the faq:

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.

Well, at least they're consistant...

Still, anything more than 2-3 syllables is TOO LONG. Just the words "Linux" or "Red Hat" or "Slackware" are great, but to pronounce everything by its full name all the time would be ridiculous. I'm a Red Hat man, myself, but I never call it "Red Hat GNU/Linux" - that's would be silly. I just call it "Red Hat" - the "(GNU/)Linux" part is implied. This is really frustrating for me, because I think the GNU guys really *are* the progenitor here, and deserve equal credit to the kernel, IMHO. But on the other hand, calling it GNU/Linux is so goddamn cacophonous. People think Ogg Vorbis has a bad sounding name? GNU/Linux is 10x worse! Sadly, this leaves me just calling it "Linux", despite the fact that I think the GNU guys should be getting a piece of the credit, too. Ah, well.

Maybe it wouldn't be so hard if we didn't have to pronounce the fscking hard "G" in GNU... "noo lih-nucks" wouldn't be nearly so bad as "GuhNoo lih-nucks". Of course THEN, we'd have problems with people thinking we meant "*New*/Linux" and they'd think this was some different fork or something. Grrr!

--
The Free desktop that Just Works

Re:Long name? by foobar104 · 2002-09-25 05:13 · Score: 2

People think Ogg Vorbis has a bad sounding name? GNU/Linux is 10x worse!

Depends on whether you pronounce the "guh" and the "slash." "Noo Lih-nucks" isn't too bad, but it's ambiguous. People think you're saying "New Linux," which confuses the mundanes.

"Guh-noo Slash Lih-nucks" is really, really ugly, though.

But, in the final analysis, I'm sorry to say that I have to disagree with you. Ogg Vorbis-- or, as my friend calls it, "Ugh Mumble"-- is still the Worst. Name. Ever.
Re:Long name? by tempest303 · 2002-09-25 06:06 · Score: 2

Depends on whether you pronounce the "guh" and the "slash." "Noo Lih-nucks" isn't too bad, but it's ambiguous. People think you're saying "New Linux," which confuses the mundanes.

right... which is exactly what I said in my last paragraph. ;-)

Incidentally, Ogg Vorbis' name is not THAT bad. I just shorten it to "Vorbis" since Ogg is the umbrella project and wrapper format for the files, but Vorbis is the codec. Vorbis isn't a bad name, really. Not as catchy as MP3, but not bad. Better than the mushmouthed "doubleyoo emm ay" or "ay ay cee" or even mp3pro.

--
The Free desktop that Just Works
Re:Long name? by foobar104 · 2002-09-25 06:36 · Score: 2

Better than the mushmouthed "doubleyoo emm ay" or "ay ay cee" or even mp3pro.

Which reminds me of this old piece of trivia. WWW, the acronym meaning "world wide web," is the only known acronym in the English language to actually have more syllables than the phrase it's supposedly short for.

Not really apropos of anything, but amusing nonetheless.
Re:Long name? by belroth · 2002-09-25 09:50 · Score: 2

I tend to use w-cubed, which I write as the exponential form, but I don't think I can do superscripts on slashdot....

--
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.

How much by wafflemonger · 2002-09-25 04:10 · Score: 1

I have wondered how much of a modern distribution is actually GNU software. I know that some of the essential parts are GNU, but what about the other many many packages?

Re:How much by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 06:31 · Score: 0

60% AFK. usually between 55-70% on average.

Wrong by PhysicsGenius · 2002-09-25 04:10 · Score: 2, Troll

The problem is lack of freedom. The solution is not more restrictions. I will call it whatever the hell I want to.

This isn't a reight way... by huge · 2002-09-25 04:10 · Score: 1

I think GNU should be credited, but I think they shouldn't be begging for it...

--
-- Reality checks don't bounce.

Re:This isn't a reight way... by foobar104 · 2002-09-25 05:16 · Score: 2

I could handle begging. It's the demanding that gets on my nerves.

GNU/Whining by ceejayoz · 2002-09-25 04:10 · Score: 2

It's comments like these that make management leery of adopting Linux...

The widespread practice of adding non-free software to the GNU/Linux system is a major problem for our community. It teaches the users that non-free software is ok, and that using it is part of the spirit of "Linux".

Sounding like a cult really doesn't help your credibility.

Re:GNU/Whining by thelexx · 2002-09-25 04:45 · Score: 2

It's called having principles and trying to live by them. Something most Americans are not familiar with anymore judging by the comments so far.

"The widespread practice of silencing free speech in the American system is a major problem for our country. It teaches the people that silencing others is ok, and that using that tactic is part of the spirit of 'freedom'."

See what I mean?

--
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
Re:GNU/Whining by ceejayoz · 2002-09-25 06:23 · Score: 2

So shouldn't one be "free" to use whatever program one likes in Linux? Seems to me that telling people what programs they should and should not use is just as bad as the "non-free" software they're ranting about.

"Free" software has its place, as does proprietary software.
Re:GNU/Whining by Synn · 2002-09-25 06:42 · Score: 2

Just because there are a few nuts in the family, doesn't mean the entire family tree is nuts.
Re:GNU/Whining by ceejayoz · 2002-09-25 07:00 · Score: 2

Just because there are a few nuts in the family, doesn't mean the entire family tree is nuts.

Very true, and you and I both know that. The PHB's of the world don't, though. Having such a prominent person/organization in the community say things like this is not a good idea if you want people to listen.

If the FAQ had been worded more reasonably, I'd have no problem. Sounding like a religious document, comparing people to the atomic bomb, etc - not good for the community at all.
Re:GNU/Whining by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 09:53 · Score: 0

Who are you calling an American?
You take that back!

not naming names... by odyrithm · 2002-09-25 04:10 · Score: 0

not naming names but some slashdot folk should find in there interest to get there facts straight on there website.. *cough*Mr.Taco*cough*

--
moo

A better suggestion: GNOME/Linux; KDE/Linux. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:11 · Score: 0

This doesn't really relate, but it's an idea I've been punting around. The big complaint about "Linux on the desktop" is the lack of a standardized desktop environment, when in fact, we have two. While UIs ain't OSes, modern ones do carry much processing in themselves.

What if, instead of having one poorly-unified OS, we pretend we have two good OSes (or "OEs," for 'operating environments, if you want to be pedantic), at least as your grandmother/parents are concerned?

For the consumer, the LSB isn't enough for a true 'XPerience,' and for the technical user, it's probably more a hindrance than anything... or just basic common sense.

Of course, XFree86 is only implied in those naming conventions. Meh.

Microsoft/MacOS? by cant_get_a_good_nick · 2002-09-25 04:11 · Score: 2

If I run a Mac With Office, and Internet Explorer, and swap out my Finder for a different shell, do I call it Microsoft/MacOS? Surely, if you get a bunch of Microsoft Code on say a System 6 era Mac (maybe less so with later larger MacOS kernels) Microsoft has the bulk of the code base on that machine. And the agreement with Microsoft and Apple a few years back to ensure Office on Mac surely shows how much Apple depended on it.

Me typing this from my Cygwin/Microsoft system.

Re:Microsoft/MacOS? by borgheron · 2002-09-25 04:12 · Score: 1

No, because Word, Excel, and etc are not essential parts of the OS. The portions of GNU which are used in GNU/Linux *are* essential. GJC

--
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Re:Microsoft/MacOS? by cant_get_a_good_nick · 2002-09-25 04:52 · Score: 2
OK, haven't had a good discussion in a while....

OK, what's listed as "essential"? Remember, we can only list FSF stuff here, not general GPL stuff. Also, it can only be stuff essential for the day and day running of a machine, so gcc or other compiler tools (though desperately needed to make the machine) are also scotched. We're talking desktop here, not workstation.

glibc? definitely. score one essential, easy.

Bash? OK, I use it, but I can use pdksh. I can also get real ksh if I want. Some scripts may require a true Bourne shell, but I think most of these can use ash, which is BSD license. No bash.

Emacs? I never use it. For me this just takes up space. Besides, so many editor choices, to say one text editor is essential is kind of absurd.

Ghostscript? I think they got this wrong. Ghostview is FSF, ghostscript seems to be a University tool. No ghostview.

Gnome? No app I ever thought essential required it. Besides, there's Qt and thats a whole different flame war. No Gnome.

Command line tools, diffutils findutils and the like. Hmm, another tough call. These are essential to a UNIX-like system. But would Linux be dead without them? I think they'd port BSD equivalents. Tough call. I'll say "essential, but replaceable" here.

So I'll give you glibc, and I'll give you the command line tools with the reservation that they'd probably be ported. But many things that the FSF says are essential, aren't. They're just bundled so people don't try to get the other tools. And if you want to argue about gcc I say:
- There are other free compilers, check out lcc.
- gcc kind of got "taken away" from the FSF. It was stagnating at version 2.8, and a bunch of folks forked the code, and now the open source, non FSF controlled egcs became the mainline gcc because the FSF was too slow. yes they did the bulk of the work up to 2.8, but there were a lot of other folks helping as well.
- Almost all PowerPC code in the beginning was from Metroworks compilers. They had as big a hand in saving apple as gcc does in compiling Linux code, they're not asking for a name change.
But I do find X11 essential. And even LessTif is more essential to me than gnome. So the percentage of "essential" FSF stuff is much smaller than I think the FSF would like to think.

I'm not trying to hang Stallman. In my opinion he does that better than I could anyway. It just seems petty at times. I see where he's coming from, tring to get people to remember that Free Software helps people get stuff done, I just think he's going about it the wrong way.
Re:Microsoft/MacOS? by foobar104 · 2002-09-25 05:19 · Score: 2

Nope. The only piece of GNU software that's essential is the C library, for which there are alternatives available. Everything else is just a utility.
Re:Microsoft/MacOS? by Carlos+Laviola · 2002-09-25 05:36 · Score: 1

Essential to whom?
Re:Microsoft/MacOS? by Jason_Knx · 2002-09-25 05:46 · Score: 1

Good points in seperating essential from non-essential.

Also to consider, from the article: "An operating system, as we use the term, means a collection of programs that are sufficient to use the computer to do a wide variety of jobs. A general purpose operating system, to be complete, ought to handle all the jobs that many users may want to do.

The kernel is one of the programs in an operating system--the program that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that are running. The kernel also takes care of starting and stopping other programs."

The FSF and anyone who use the same logic in describing their systems should be very careful here. They are starting to claim that the bundling of different programs together is what makes the operating system.

One of the big arguments with MS was that they bundled unnecessary, and essential programs together and called it an OS. Many people complained that they didn't need to alot of the programs that make up MS definition of the Windows OS (Internet Explorer, Media Player, etc...) so they shouldn't be considered as part of the OS. But based on the FSF's definition that for "a general purpose operating system, to be complete, [it] ought to handle all the jobs that many users may want to do." That's a pretty broad explanation of an OS.

"We developed programs such as GCC, GNU Emacs, GAS, GLIBC, BASH, etc., because we needed them for the GNU operating system. GCC, the GNU Compiler Collection is the compiler that we wrote for the GNU operating system. We developed Ghostscript, GNUCash, GNU Chess and GNOME for the GNU system too." The inclusion of programs here is claiming to make up the OS. By the FSF's definition of an OS the arguements against MS and it's 'bundling'need to be re-evaluated. The only difference is that in most Open Source/Free Software, the bundled components can be replaced. A clear definition of an OS needs to be established for the entire software industry to use. Otherwise people may need to think again when complaining about MS purely based on what programs are associated with what's part of the OS or not.

So maybe it should be that the distros be considered the actual OS and credits being stated by the distributer of the components that make up there OS.
Re:Microsoft/MacOS? by borgheron · 2002-09-25 09:21 · Score: 1

Essential to the actual operation of the OS. Essential in the manner that without them the OS cannot boot.

GJC

--
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Re:Microsoft/MacOS? by Carlos+Laviola · 2002-09-26 04:08 · Score: 1

Then you mean the kernel.

So what should we call Windows? by digidave · 2002-09-25 04:11 · Score: 2

"If you feel even more strongly about giving credit where it is due, you might feel that some secondary contributors also deserve credit in the system's name. If so, far be it from us to argue against it. If you feel that X11 deserves credit in the system's name, and you want to call the system GNU/X11/Linux, please do."

Does this mean it should be Big Security Hole/Windows, since Big Security Hole is such an integral part of the Windows experience?

Typing this from a Big Security Hole/Crash/Windows 2000 Operating System.

--
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.

Take a page from Mozilla... by Craig+Maloney · 2002-09-25 04:11 · Score: 4, Funny

Remember, the correct pronunciation of Netcape is "Mozilla". Why can't the correct pronunciation of GNU/Linux be "Linux"? Oh, I forgot... the GNU is never silent. :)

(Tongue firmly in cheek)

Re:Take a page from Mozilla... by Omega+Hacker · 2002-09-25 08:20 · Score: 2

Oh, I forgot... the GNU is never silent. :)

You must have talked to RMS in person at some point. Or rather, have been talked at by RMS.

--
GStreamer - The only way to stream!

Next up: GNU/OSX, GNUlaris and GNURix. by BitGeek · 2002-09-25 04:12 · Score: 2

Since OS X was built using GCC, ships with emacs, etc, etc, why arent' they telling apple to rename it from Mac OS X to GNU OS X? And Solaris and Irix need to be renamed as well!

Shame on these companies exploiting free software without even giving them the credit they deserve! (I'm being sarcastic.)

I'm using the GNU compiler to build my product. This isn't by choice, it was simply the compiler that Apple ships. I'm certainly not going to call my product GNU/product. They provided a compiler. There are other ones. If they hadn't provided it and there wasn't an open source one made to fill the gap, I would have bought one. I've never called a product CodeWarrior Foo. Its always Foo, cause nobody cares what product compiled it.

I waited a long time for the GNU OS to be released. I kept hearing how it was coming soon. Well, they had the ball and dropped it. Thanks to Linus for running with it, and that people chose to call his OS Linux is fair game. Its not like GNU didn't have years where they could have released a free OS and then it WOULD have been called GNU. (These attempts to rewrite history after the fact on their part are amusing.)

Here's the deal: You make a product (open sourced or not) YOU get to name it. Within the bounds of trademark law, its your choice. You bundle other products with your product (Say a compiler) that doesn't change the nature of YOUR product.

This does seem desprate on GNUs part. OF course they would say "everyone's asking us why its not called GNU Linux" cause they're not honest enough to say "We're bitter that this kid beat us when we had a genius grant and 5 years to do it, and he did it in a couple months.".

--
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257

Re:Next up: GNU/OSX, GNUlaris and GNURix. by foobar104 · 2002-09-25 05:22 · Score: 2

And Solaris and Irix need to be renamed as well!

I can't speak for Solaris, but the GNU software that's shipped with IRIX is all optional stuff, not installed by default. The core IRIX operating system, including all the user-space shells and utilities and whatnot, is made up of BSD, AT&T, and SGI code. Not a piece of GNU code in the whole thing.

You can install GNU stuff if you want to; the software packages come on the OS CDs, and the programs go into a hierarchy rooted at /usr/gnu. But, like I said, GNU stuff is not there by default.

RMS must hate SGI. Which, perversely, makes me respect SGI just a little bit more.

Flamebait? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:12 · Score: 0

News that AOL was considering a name change to "Stable Netscape" for their web browser product could not be confirmed at press time.

What's so unstable about the Mozilla web browser?

Re:Flamebait? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:59 · Score: 0

What's so unstable about the Mozilla web browser?

Never used it, huh?

this is becoming tiresome by keyslammer · 2002-09-25 04:12 · Score: 1

The nature of the posts so far clearly demonstrates how tired this debate has become.

Bottom line is, people are going to call the system whatever they want - nobody controls it so nobody controls what you call your distro.

I do find it deliciously ironic that the world's biggest advocate of "being free to do whatever you want with the software" is working so hard to control the name used to refer to it.

FAQ? by Subcarrier · 2002-09-25 04:12 · Score: 2, Flamebait

FAQ as in questions frequently asked by Richard Stallman?

Frankly, I don't know anybody who gives a rat's ass what it is called, except for the entertainment value and the rousing flamewars.

To not sound like a complete troll, I have to say that I respect RMS for all the things he has achieved. However, every time this topic comes up, a little of that respect, however deserved, erodes away. This continuous begging for recognition is simply pathetic.

If anybody asks, I'm running liGNUx which, astonishingly, is pronounced exactly the same as Linux...

--
"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them." -- George H. W. Bush

Pot calling the kettle black? by bgarcia · 2002-09-25 04:12 · Score: 2, Flamebait

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.

What a load of crap. Sorry, but Stallman is the one who uses this issue to divide the community. An example of his behavior can be found here. I quote:

Dr. Stallman insists that the proper name is GNU/Linux. In fact, he will not agree to an interview without assurances that GNU/Linux will be used in all references.

You see, I'm ok with other people calling it GNU/Linux. But I don't want to call it that, and I don't like other people coercing me or anyone else into calling it that. It is the Stallman who is insisting on alienating the part of the community that just wants to say "Linux".

--
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.

Re:Pot calling the kettle black? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:58 · Score: 0

Dr. Stallman?

I'm assuming it's either an honorary Doctorate, or it's a Doctorate in Bong Hits.

(an appropriate response would be hell, yeah! but please log in before entering it, Richard.)

LOL: "GNU" as the *main* contributor !! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:13 · Score: 0

From the FAQ (emphasis mine):

Many other projects contributed to the system as it is today; it includes TeX, X11, Apache, Perl, and many more programs. Don't your arguments imply we have to give them credit too? (But that would lead to a name so long it is absurd.)

What we say is that you ought to give the system's principal developer a share of the credit. The principal developer is the GNU Project.

If you feel even more strongly about giving credit where it is due, you might feel that some secondary contributors also deserve credit in the system's name. If so, far be it from us to argue against it. If you feel that X11 deserves credit in the system's name, and you want to call the system GNU/X11/Linux, please do. If you free that Perl simply cries out for mention, and you want to write GNU/Linux/Perl, go ahead.

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.

Different threshold levels would lead to different choices of name for the system. 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).

What a load of crap, the so-called "principal contribution" would be nowhere without the "secondary" ones... And Linus could have used a lot of BSD code without GNU. According to their own twisted logic, I'd rather call it Linux/Xfree86 :-)

Efficient? by Schmelter · 2002-09-25 04:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

Question: "Wouldn't it be better to call the system "Linux" and teach people its real origin with a ten-minute explanation?"

Answer: "It is not as effective as calling the system "GNU/Linux", and uses your time inefficiently."

This from people who think writing a 27 question FAQ about the name GNU/Linux is an efficient use of their time.

don't deserve equal mention. by Suppafly · 2002-09-25 04:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

This system is basically a version of the GNU system, modified to use the kernel Linux. We started developing the system in 1984, years before Linus Torvalds got involved, and we also wrote the largest part of the code. In fairness, we ought to get equal mention.

Yeh, except without Linus Torvalds, there wouldn't be a kernel and then the gnu project would just be a lot of gpl clones of things you already can get for free from the various bsd projects.

Re:don't deserve equal mention. by FooBarWidget · 2002-09-25 06:01 · Score: 2, Informative

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:don't deserve equal mention. by JoeBuck · 2002-09-25 10:04 · Score: 2

If Linus had never existed, we'd be running systems consisting of the GNU tools on top of a BSD kernel. There would be NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD and GnuBSD.
Linus's contribution is important, but it is overrated.

In other news... by AtariDatacenter · 2002-09-25 04:14 · Score: 1

ESR releases a brief white paper outlining why FSF should be called FSF/Stallman. ;)

Translation: Richard Stallman needs a hug. by foog · 2002-09-25 04:15 · Score: 1

You know, I almost always find myself at least sympathizing with rms, and I even mostly agree with his arguments in this piece, but I often don't understand his priorities at all.

I mean, did the world really need another 5,000 words on why the GNU project should get more credit for the Linux phenomenon, why Linux should be more of a vehicle for Stallman's goals? Did it? rms obviously thought so.

foog

Pronunciation by billh · 2002-09-25 04:15 · Score: 2

Time to get modded into oblivion...

So, where is the official pronunciation guide? How do you propose we say this out loud?

Can anyone, anywhere, explain why most people pronounce Linux as 'Linnix'? Either pronounce it the way Linus does, or take the anglicized version of Linus (Lie-Niss) and change the 's' to 'x'. That would leave us with Lee-noox, or Lie-Nix.

This is a serious question. Does anyone have a serious answer?

Re:Pronunciation by Da+Schmiz · 2002-09-25 05:25 · Score: 2

Can anyone, anywhere, explain why most people pronounce Linux as 'Linnix'? Either pronounce it the way Linus does, or take the anglicized version of Linus (Lie-Niss) and change the 's' to 'x'. That would leave us with Lee-noox, or Lie-Nix.
I'll admit I have on occasion used the pronunciation "Lin-nix", but I generally pronounce it "Lihn-n*ks", where * is the schwa (often represented by an upside down e in dictionaries), the clipped-sounding multipurpose vowel (uh) in American pronunciation.
When I first heard about Linux, I would say "Lie-nuks", but then someone played for me the famous Linus clip "When I say it, I say it Lee-nooks". From henceforth I have always used a short i for the first syllable ("ih", a clipped rendition of the "ee" sound Linus uses, I guess), but the second syllable is often clipped and telescoped beyond recognition -- if you telescope a schwa, you get a sound not unlike a very clipped short i, producing an overall effect that sounds something like "Lin'-niks", with the emphasis on the first syllable.
I have a California accent, which means that I often clip all the syllables after the emphasised one, often telescoping the rest of the word into a single syllable. At least for me, that means "Lin'-niks" is a clipped attempt to pronounce it the way Linus does. When I'm speaking quickly, my articulation often suffers greatly, and I imagine the same is true for others.
Anyone else care to comment?

--
"Anything is better than IE, and you can quote me on that." -- Wil Wheaton.
Re:Pronunciation by aardvarkjoe · 2002-09-25 06:53 · Score: 2

I Say "Lie-nuks", based on the original poster's reasoning. However, most people I know use "Lin-nuks". (Making no attempt to evaluate the vowel characteristics of that final syllable, there.) If Linus asks people to switch pronounciations, then I probably will, as it's his baby; however, I get the impression that he probably doesn't care at all. (Which is one of the reasons why I respect him.) In any case, as there's no real confusion, I don't think it particularly matters.

--

How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Re:Pronunciation by starling · 2002-09-25 08:57 · Score: 2

The GNU/ is silent. And yes, that was a serious answer.
Re:Pronunciation by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 14:26 · Score: 0

Sinced I posted, I couldn't mod you up, so I modded up some of your other posts. Of course, with a UID like that, you probably don't need it.
Re:Pronunciation by starling · 2002-09-26 08:03 · Score: 1

Thanks, although I'm sure I'll manage to lose all the good karma somehow...

Yeah, and hillbillies by joebok · 2002-09-25 04:16 · Score: 1

want to be called "sons of the south", but it ain't gonna' happen...

to [attempt to] quote a Simpson's episode...

as usual by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:16 · Score: 1, Funny

+1 Bruce Perens

Absolutely delusional by Reality+Master+101 · 2002-09-25 04:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

If this isn't evidence of Stallman's mental illness, I don't know what is. Oh, the problem isn't with us, it's with everyone else. We insist that people use this ludicrous name that no one can cleanly pronounce, and if anyone disagrees, clearly they are dividing the community.

In other words, "if everyone would just agree with us, then there would be no disagreement". Well, no shit.

Stallman, how about this: you call it whatever you want. And how about respecting other people's decision on what they want to call it, and stop notoriously refusing to talk to anyone who disagrees with you.

--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.

Re:Absolutely delusional by beme · 2002-09-25 04:37 · Score: 1

'In other words, "if everyone would just agree with us, then there would be no disagreement".'

Well, those are other words, but I don't think you can (successfully) make the case that the FAQ actually says that. Regardless of whether you agree with them or not, they claim they are just asking for credit. Asking for credit in itself won't cause division. They then say that some people react to their request with abuse (*cough* mental illness? *cough*) and intimidation, and _that_ causes division. It's not the same thing as saying "We're not trying to cause division but _everyone_ who disagrees with us is."

I don't really care one way or the other, but it seems to me most of the hooplah comes from people misconstruing and misrepresenting the arguments. I, respectfully, think your post does just that. I could be wrong; I've never dealt with the FSF or Stallman.

--

-beme
1971
Re:Absolutely delusional by Yohahn · 2002-09-25 04:46 · Score: 2

They ask people to do something, you say "no, I won't". That is fine.

Why then do people feel the need to say "Hey.. don't call it that" very loudly? Why not just refuse to participate and be done with it?

You're being as loud and annoying as the FSF, from this perspective. It's like responding to spam on a mailing list. If you don't like it, just let it die.
Re:Absolutely delusional by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 05:01 · Score: 0

You are such a mean spirited fuck. I truly hope that one day you create 90% of a wildly successful system, and NOBODY NOTICES. Not only that, when you try and claim some of the credit, they call you delusional.
Re:Absolutely delusional by Reality+Master+101 · 2002-09-25 05:07 · Score: 2

Why then do people feel the need to say "Hey.. don't call it that" very loudly? Why not just refuse to participate and be done with it?

That would be great... if Stallman would just let it alone. But he doesn't. He is unbelievably obnoxious about this. If someone calls it "Linux" in his presence, he won't leave it along. It's not enough for him to call it that, he insists that if you are in his presence you call it that, too.

After a while, people are going to get tired of this act. If Stallman wants people to show him respect, then he needs to start respecting the decisions of others.

--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Re:Absolutely delusional by TheConfusedOne · 2002-09-25 05:56 · Score: 1

Gee, you mean like how everyone calls the x86 platform a Windows box? Or I've got an AMD or and Intel?

Heaven forbid we should give IBM any credit for creating the standard eh?

--
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Re:Absolutely delusional by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 06:13 · Score: 0

Um, IBM didn't create the standard. If it was up to them, the PC would still be a closed standard.
Re:Absolutely delusional by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 06:27 · Score: 0

Hi Richard!

Why post anonymously?
Re:Absolutely delusional by pjrc · 2002-09-25 06:41 · Score: 5, Insightful
A man works hard to help other and make the world a better place, with little gain for himself, devoting almost 20 years to a project which eventually leads to a completely free (speech/beer) operating system and applications, and what do people say....
If this isn't evidence of Stallman's mental illness, I don't know what is.
The man's been called crazy by many for a long time now...
In the first 10-12 years when there was not complete workable system, yet he labored away sacrificing personal wealth. A man such as this has a thick skin... you're just not going to phase him with the name "crazy" after others have tried repeatedly for two decades!
Oh, the problem isn't with us, it's with everyone else . We insist that people use this ludicrous name that no one can cleanly pronounce, and if anyone disagrees, clearly they are dividing the community.
The same could, and has many times been said, over the whole debate of the merits of Free vs Proprietary software. Remember, RMS started this whole crazy idea and stuck with it in the early years. Yes, years. Nowadays people regularily talk how GPL's software (or open source) has its advantages and the whole idea appeals to more than a small handful of hackers who easily written off as zealots.
I personally call it "linux" in conversation, and I rarely write GNU/Linux, but I don't say rude things like this:
Stallman, how about this: you call it whatever you want. And how about respecting other people's decision on what they want to call it, and stop notoriously refusing to talk to anyone who disagrees with you.
As an experiment, try this:
1. Quit your job
2. Start an overwhelming project, with the overall goal of allowing everyone to have freedom to make changes
3. Work with little or no pay for almost 20 years
4. Watch it finally become widely used
5. Observe people promote it for different reasons than why you started and kept with the project all those years
6. Listen to people talk about what started as your project, without knowing about you or the ideals you've tried to promote for 20 years
7. Sit by silently as millions fail to "get it" (the overall purpose, freedom vs proprietary)
--
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
Re:Absolutely delusional by Yohahn · 2002-09-25 06:45 · Score: 2

He requires it if you want HIM to cooperate with you.
That's fine. It's his choice for his actions.

If you feel that his pushing this is wrong, why act in the same "wrong" manner?

If you don't think it is wrong, what are you complaining about?
Re:Absolutely delusional by Jack+Wagner · 2002-09-25 08:26 · Score: 1

Bah. He's a hypocrite at the very least.

The popularity of Linux has made the GNU software available for millions of people who never used it before and many of those might not have ever used it otherwise. Thus Linux has proven to be a fantastic avenue for Richard and his dream of people using the useful applications the FSF people have built.

But now his ego is getting in the way and he wants to make it all about something it's not. The name is irrelevant, the fact that people are using free software is not. Well... until RMS decided he wanted to make the name an issue. Honestly, if having the GNU name on it was so impotant he should have made it part of the GPL and forced people to use it.

Richard should be happy about the success of Linux because without Linux nobody but a few geeks would know about GNU and the FSF, let alone give a damn about it.

--

Wagner LLC Consulting Co. - Getting it right the first time
Re:Absolutely delusional by Waldmeister · 2002-09-25 08:53 · Score: 1

Remembering the kneeling down RMS demanded from the KDE team after the Qt license change, because they "lost" the right to do so after violating the GPL by linking GPLed code with Qt?

I'm wondering, why he doesn't demand a similar beg for mercy from everybody not saying "guh-new linux".

Could be a little time consuming, but definitely a nice thing for his ego. ;-)
Re:Absolutely delusional by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 09:27 · Score: 0

If this isn't evidence of Stallman's mental illness, I don't know what is

If getting your panties in a bunch in response to Stallman's peccadillo's isn't a sign of mental illness, I don't know what is. Stallman's accomplishments are legion. You, however, probably can't even find your own butt with both hands.
Re:Absolutely delusional by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 10:25 · Score: 0

> 1. Quit your job
> 2. Start an overwhelming project, with the overall goal of allowing everyone to have freedom to make changes
> 3. Work with little or no pay for almost 20 years

Really? That poor bastard, living in the street for so long with no computer to work on. Oh, private consulting? Govt. and private grants? People have been playing the tortured soul routine for at least the last 2000 years and it amazes me that it still works. I think it's interesting they chose the name GNU, but maybe SHEEP would have been too obvious, even for the true believers.

And why isn't it MIT/Emacs ? Athena or Symbolics or whatever the hell he was working on/Emacs ?

The sad part is that they often write really good software, which is what it used to be all about:
getting the job done.
Re:Absolutely delusional by DeathTongue · 2002-09-25 10:52 · Score: 0

...but it does tend to divide the community...

That is the main problem I have with the use of "GNU/Linux". Stallman would better serve the Free software cause by spending time, money and energy on converting proprietary software users rather than expending effort fighting his own people, as it were.
Re:Absolutely delusional by Peter+Eckersley · 2002-09-25 12:16 · Score: 2

(taking the bait)
The popularity of Linux has made the GNU software available for millions of people who never used it before and many of those might not have ever used it otherwise. Thus Linux has proven to be a fantastic avenue for Richard and his dream of people using the useful applications the FSF people have built.
(...snip...)
Richard should be happy about the success of Linux because without Linux nobody but a few geeks would know about GNU and the FSF, let alone give a damn about it.
I have a different theory (and it is just a theory): The early work of the GNU project in the 80s was largely the result of isolated coding by small groups of (geographically) localised developers.
It was only once 'net usage started to become much more common, particularly in universities, in the early 90s, that the more decentralised method of free software development over the Internet became feasible.
That was the possibility which Linus really exploited to make the Linux kernel as succesful as it was. At the same time, the HURD was suffering from the good old-fashioned software engineering problems which can strike down overly ambitious projects.
But, it seems that Linus was really filling a void (decentralised development of a Free Software kernel) which had recently appeared; and it seems likely that if he hadn't written Linux, someone else would have done something very similar...
Note: of course, the same argument could be used to claim that if RMS hadn't championed the cause of Free Software in the early 80s, then someone else would have done the same. This may be true too, although, because hacker communities of the time were much smaller, it might have taken quite a lot longer for that to happen.

--
Fixing copyright
Re:Absolutely delusional by bshanks · 2002-09-25 13:28 · Score: 1

> After a while, people are going to get tired of this act. If Stallman wants people to show him respect, then he needs to start respecting the decisions of others.

Well, although it is perhaps legally their decision, i think people have an ethical obligation to consider the wishes of the major contributors of a piece of software as to what to call it. Perhaps it is ultimately their decision, but it's not like he shouldn't have any say in it. It's not like it's none of his business, in other words.
Re:Absolutely delusional by bshanks · 2002-09-25 13:35 · Score: 1

let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he is doing things for the good of his organization rather than (or in addition to) his own ego.

The advent of GNU/Linux is good, certainly, for FSF's cause. But, equally as certainly, if people called it GNU/Linux rather than Linux, that would be much, better for the cause. Since the GNU project created most of the software, they do deserve most of the credit, so why shouldn't they ask for it? It's only fair, and it would help their cause tremendously.

It would be illogical for the FSF to sit on their laurels and be happy about GNU/Linux when they could do more good by getting it called GNU/Linux.
Re:Absolutely delusional by bshanks · 2002-09-25 13:42 · Score: 1

i'm not sure about that.. a little more name recognition for GNU would probably give it a lot more power, power that could probably be used to convert more proprietary software users (if that is the desired goal). I think fighting for (deserved) name recognition may be a good investment for the GNU project.
Re:Absolutely delusional by Jack+Wagner · 2002-09-26 01:18 · Score: 1

I mostly agree with everything you just said, however that doesn't change anything.

It's certainly true that timing played a big part of Linux becoming popular and Linus certainly wasn't a visionary or a prophet, just a guy who wanted a better terminal emulater to read his news from the Uni, and things fell into place from there.

So no, I'm not claiming that Linus should be held in high esteem due to his brilliant forsight, I'm merely claiming that Linus/Linux was in the in the right place at the right time and it was the reason that all the great Gnu stuff got bundled and blown out to the masses.

Sure, if not Linux than maybe something else, but that's a moot point here. For the life of me I can't understand why Richard isn't thrilled about the millions of people who are using Gnu stuff who weren't using it before instead of being so hung up on the name issue. You don't see the XFree86 people making this an issue do you?

--

Wagner LLC Consulting Co. - Getting it right the first time
Re:Absolutely delusional by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-26 06:14 · Score: 0

If millions of people are using the GNU System but don't know it (they haven't heard the ethics behind it, and don't know the rights they have and ought to demand) how does that benefit Free Software?
Re:Absolutely delusional by Jack+Wagner · 2002-09-26 08:02 · Score: 1

They don't care.

Really. And despite all the passion RMS may have about free software and why it's important almost nobody else cares.[1] Most people care about stuff like politics or keeping their jobs or the failing health of a loved one or whatever. Software is a tool they use to send emails to Aunt Susie or make a cool greeting card for thier bridge club. The whole concept that using software might have some moral issues involved means nothing to them. I don't mean that to be cruel or harsh but I honestly believe that to be true.

And, if they do care they certainly have lots of opportunities to look at the software they are using and read some docs about it or click help->about or whatever. It's pretty easy to do and it's actually how I learned about GNU and the FSF. I was learning to use emacs in RedHat 5.0 and read a little about it and was lead to RMS and GNU. Nothing too difficult about it all.

But once again, this all leads to the bottom line which is that RMS wants people to use "free" software as opposed to proprietary software and Linux has been the most effective tool for that to happen. Regardless of whether the people understand it or not it serves his ultimate purpose.

[1] - Relatively speaking anyways. What percentage of the worlds population do you think would care even if they did know all about it? Less than one percent I'll bet. I know my mom and sisters and grandparents certainly wouldn't give a crap.

--

Wagner LLC Consulting Co. - Getting it right the first time
Re:Absolutely delusional by pjrc · 2002-09-27 05:41 · Score: 2

What percentage of the worlds population do you think would care even if they did know all about it? Less than one percent I'll bet. I know my mom and sisters and grandparents certainly wouldn't give a crap.
The key words that are "even if they did know all about it".
Most people are appreciative when they get something for free from others. Perhaps the feeling is short-lived, but it's polite and most people at least say the word "thanks", or perhaps think about it briefly if the source is unknown. It's that brief moment where the message they get matters.
The open-source message is something like:
This software was the result of a natural process that is more efficient than proprietary software. The developers had "an itch to scratch", and a side-effect is that in the random case where this program fits your needs, you get a superior piece for software for free.

Compare to the free-software message:
This software was crafted as part of a larger project to allow all users the freedom to exchange ideas. The developers believe so strongly in promoting free exchange of idea (expressed in programming code) that they've created this free software for you and the rest of the world.

Your mom, sisters and grandparents are probably nice people. One of these messages is quite likely to appeal to them, and perhaps elicit a feeling of gratitude. They probably would care. When they talk about the software with others, they _might_ mention it. Even if they quickly forget, perhaps later when Microsoft is spewing FUD on television or other media, they might recognize it for lies.
Every person's impression matters... even your mom and grandparents.

--
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools

Pfffft by foobar104 · 2002-09-25 04:16 · Score: 2

You know, for a group that claims to be all about freedom, GNU's public communications sure are bossy.

Re:Pfffft by sdowney · 2002-09-25 04:46 · Score: 1

That's becuase it's Free as in Free Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic.

The thick of thin things by PerlPo8 · 2002-09-25 04:16 · Score: 1

There is no question that the GNU project has contributed enormously to the Linux community. However, I think their passing acknowledgment of Linus Torvald's contribution to the "GNU/Linux OS" is insulting.

If Linux is ever going to gain supremacy over proprietary solutions, we must not put our energy into internal bickering over the symantics of what constitutes an Operating System vs a Kernel, or whether Gnome is better than KDE, etc. These "holy wars" divert energy from the real work, and threaten to rip the community apart from inside. What would make Microsoft happier than that?

--

--
"I'm don't know exactly what an AS/400 is, but I'm pretty certain I wouldn't want one up my ass" --Lou

My First, Last, and Only Word on this subject... by bill.sheehan · 2002-09-25 04:16 · Score: 5, Interesting

"Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds."

'nuff said.

Looks Like... by Yog+Soggoth · 2002-09-25 04:16 · Score: 1

...they've conceded that GNU/Hurd is dead in the water.

I sort of understand by ACNeal · 2002-09-25 04:16 · Score: 1

But I don't say "My ACDelco/THX/Craftsman Chevy"

GNU made tools and subsystems that were quite useful in the linux creation, but they weren't the only compiler or tools. Just the most accessible to the creator.

Linus wasn't a Free Software crusader when he started, from everything I have read (obviously I can't speak for him). He just grabbed the tools that would allow him to do his weekend project.

Are we going to start saying Motorolla/IBM/Apple G4?

On the flip side of the argument, how many movies, or games, or other content have all the different production companies listed somewhere in the titles.

The FSF Hurts Open Source by democritus · 2002-09-25 04:16 · Score: 1

RMS and the FSF hurt open source at least as much as they help it. Stupid campaigns like this just waste the time of people who could be coding or the money that could be used to pay programmers to work on open source.

I'd like to know about when RMS stopped caring about "free" software and became and raving zealot who wants credit for something he didn't really do (we'll disregard the fact the GPL limits your freedoms in ways that BSD and MIT licenses don't). Sure, he and the FSF people wrote some utilities, but without a kernel those utilities would be useless. And sure, they were working on Hurd, but that's been sitting in development hell longer then even Mozilla. Linus made kernel that worked. Open source is viable today because of the Linux kernel, not because of the ranting of RMS and the FSF.

Maybe Linux users should band together and port the BSD tools to Linux so we can shut RMS up. I'd love to run a GNU free Linux.

Distribution Naming by MyHair · 2002-09-25 04:16 · Score: 1

Sooner or later I expect distributions to change their naming to something like, for example "Red Hat OS" with small print at the bottom (or large at the top, depending on the target consumer appeal) "based on Linux, GNU Tools, Apache web server, MySQL [/PostreSQL], ...", etc.. (Listing major opensource contributed projects or groups of proejcts.)

Proprietary commercial vendors are already doing that with their own products. Windows 2000 says it's based on NT technology. There are other examples, but I can't think of them right now.

I'm with you. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:16 · Score: 1, Funny

But actually, what convinced me to say GNU/Linux was this picture

Re:I'm with you. by Fnkmaster · 2002-09-25 05:20 · Score: 1

LOL... that is the funniest thing I've seen all day. Thank you for bringing some laughter to my world.

Re:Could they add an answer to the following quest by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:17 · Score: 0

you mean:
---------
Should the GNU/[name] convention be applied to all programs that are GPL'ed?

We never refer to individual programs as "GNU/[name]". When a program is a GNU package, we may call it "GNU [name]".

GNU, the operating system, is made up of many different programs. Some of the programs in GNU were written as part of the GNU Project or specifically contributed to it; these are the GNU packages, and we often use "GNU" in their names.

It's up to the developers of a program to decide if they want to contribute it and make it a GNU package. If you have developed a program and you would like it to be a GNU package, please write to , so we can evaluate it and decide whether we want it.

It wouldn't be fair to put the name GNU on every individual program that is released under the GPL. If you write a program and release it under the GPL, that doesn't mean the GNU Project wrote it or that you wrote it for us. For instance, the kernel, Linux, is released under the GNU GPL, but Linus did not write it as part of the GNU Project--he did the work independently. If something is not a GNU package, the GNU Project can't take credit for it, and putting "GNU" in its name would be improper.

In contrast, we do deserve the overall credit for the GNU operating system as a whole, even though not for each and every program in it. The system exists as a system because of our determination and persistence, through many years before Linux was begun.

The operating system in which Linux became popular was basically the same as the GNU operating system. It was not entirely the same, because it had a different kernel, but it was mostly the same system. It was a variant of GNU. It was the GNU/Linux system.

Linux continues to be used primarily in derivatives of that system--in today's versions of the GNU/Linux system. What these systems their identity is GNU and Linux at the center of them, not particularly Linux alone.
---------
That answers a different question.
The answer to my question is:
No, it doesn't say that anywhere in the GPL.

No, I wont! by Royster · 2002-09-25 04:18 · Score: 1, Flamebait

And you can't make me.

The FSF has given us an amazing amount of things not the least of which is the compiler used to compile the Linus kernel.

But they should stop being self-serving grammar police and start being promoters of Free Software.

--
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i

Re:No, I wont! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:57 · Score: 0

My god, what are you? Fucking twelve?
Re:No, I wont! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 06:23 · Score: 0

If you use their software, why not respect their wishes on what to call it? Otherwise don't use it: simple. If you don't want to do that, at least don't complain about simple requests like what to call it. All they've done is give you some free software.

What about everything else? by Wee · 2002-09-25 04:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

Say it! GNU/Linux. Be part of the soultion.

But what about everything else that I use on my box? Sure, I use the GNU utils and libs and compiler along with the Linux kernel, but I also use XFree86 as well. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that on my personal desktop machines, what get the most "workout" is X. So why disparage the generous contibution they've made by leaving them out? Now I use an OS called XFree86/GNU/Linux.

But why stop there? I also use KDE extensively. That's in the user's face a lot as well. It's what everyone sees. What a newbie might think is the OS. Why leave them out? My dekstop machines wouldn't be very useful to me without KDE (or any other WM). So now I need KDE/XFree86/GNU/Linux.

I use "The Computers Formally Known As Red Hat and Gentoo" for servers as well. That's a web server and a database typically. I even run these on my "workstations" as low-end test machines. I couldn't get on without Apache and MySQL (and/or PostgreSQL, but we'll simplify). So I need to call it MySQL/Apache/XFree86/GNU/Linux.

Oh wait. Perl and PHP. I can't forget those. Perl/PHP/MySQL/Apache/XFree86/GNU/Linux is what I call my OS now. What about the work Red Hat nas put into my desktop OS? I should mention them as well...

Rinse, lather, repeat.

Ok, so that's all more than slightly contrived. But it illustrates a point: where does one stop with the attributions? I realize that most of the heavy lifting is done by the wonderful work the GNU people have done, and I know that 'Linux' wouldn't be where it is today without all that stuff. But are the GNU utils the tail or the dog? Which wags which? Without the Linux kernel, I couldn't use the "OS". I can use gcc on Solaris, but I can't use the Linux kernel there. Is everything in /bin in "user space", or is it more "core"? Will the kernel work without the GNU stuff? Is the kernel the OS, or are the utils the OS? Does kernel32 or command.com makes Windows the "Windows OS"?

My point is that everything's resting on the kernel. The kernel is called Linux. It's a simple name, with recognition. It's in use. It works. I'm afraid in this case, instead of being part of the solution I'm going to have to remain part of the precipitate.

-B

--

Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.

Re:What about everything else? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:25 · Score: 0

Rinse, lather, repeat.

I said it before and I'll say it again: Do this and you'll end up with a whole lot of soap in your eyes, buddy.
Re:What about everything else? by pete-classic · 2002-09-25 04:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

Hey, thanks for asking a question that is specifically answered in the FAQ.

My day isn't complete until I read a post that took longer to write that it would have taken to actually read the linked article, and never would have been written if the poster had done so.

Thanks again.

-Peter
Re:What about everything else? by Wee · 2002-09-25 04:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

Hey, thanks for asking a question that is specifically answered in the FAQ.
Hey, thanks for the personal attack without providing anything meaningful to the discussion. My question isn't answered in the FAQ (which I did read). It's mentioned, but it's not answered.
The FAQ says: "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."
OK? You read that too before bitching at me, right? So my questions (which were to Perens specifically, BTW) remain asked: Where does one stop? Is there really a compelling reason to advocate ignoring many groups in favor of one? Do people use GNU stuff more than KDE or X or even Perl?
The FAQ merely says "GNU is the most important secondary component, so we should include it" and Perens advocates using it as well. My point was that the threshold shouldn't be there, so why bother using it?
My day isn't complete until I read a post that took longer to write that it would have taken to actually read the linked article, and never would have been written if the poster had done so.
My day's not complete until someone takes the time out of their busy day to whine about how a discussion board shouldn't be used for a discussion.
Thanks again.
Blow me.
-B

--
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
Re:What about everything else? by amorsen · 2002-09-25 05:31 · Score: 2

The FAQ merely says "GNU is the most important secondary component, so we should include it" and Perens advocates using it as well.
The FAQ says that Linux is the most important secondary component.

--
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Re:What about everything else? by mjh · 2002-09-25 05:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

The FAQ merely says "GNU is the most important secondary component, so we should include it" and Perens advocates using it as well. My point was that the threshold shouldn't be there, so why bother using it?

Actually the FAQ says that "The principal developer is the GNU Project" implying that Linux is the secondary component. So, according to GNU/Stallman, you need to give the principle developer recognition. You're free to cut off any secondary developers at any point you choose. Call it GNU, or GNU/Linux, or GNU/Linux/perl, etc.
I disagree with this assessment. I think that GNU will still be a nice set of free utilities for Solaris if Linux didn't come along. If you ask me the principle project is on Linux distros and it's Linux.
Now, that's just an opinion. Maybe we should measure somehow. How about lines of code? Check out this. Top project is the kernel.
Well maybe it's overall contribution? The top 3 pieces of code, are not the GNU project. The first GNU project's contribution is only 15% of the contribution of the top three. 6 of the next 7 projects are GNU projects. Combined they still only account for 69% of the top three projects.
Ok. Well maybe it should be measured in terms of which code is more frequently resident in memory. Glibc runs a lot, that's for sure. But not as much as the kernel!
By what measure, other than "we were here first", can GNU make the claim that they're the principle developer?
I am a supporter of GNU and I agree with almost all of the things that they stand for... including the differentiation of open source from free software. But this silly demand is the stark exception. And it drives me crazy. I wish that they would have simplified the FAQ and put the real reason: "Because we want to ride on the PR coat tails of Linux".

--
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
Re:What about everything else? by jdavidb · 2002-09-25 06:14 · 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?

--
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Re:What about everything else? by jdavidb · 2002-09-25 06:17 · Score: 2

Okay, you read the FAQ. :) You missed something.

The FAQ says: "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."

OK? You read that too before bitching at me, right? So my questions (which were to Perens specifically, BTW) remain asked: Where does one stop?

If you stop at one item, you'd have GNU. If you stop at two, you'd have GNU/Linux. (Or maybe GNU/XFree86, according to my other post. :) ) If you stopped at three, you'd have GNU/X11/Linux (which, by the way, is what Yggdrasil, the first "Linux" distro called itself in its original announcement (check groups.google.com).

--
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Re:What about everything else? by dvdeug · 2002-09-25 08:00 · Score: 2

I think that GNU will still be a nice set of free utilities for Solaris if Linux didn't come along.

You think BSD would have just up and died if Linux didn't come along? If Linux hadn't come along, once the legal wars over BSD settled down, GNU would have taken the BSD kernel and made a GnuBSD, to which neither FreeBSD and NetBSD would have complained, or really had grounds too.
Re:What about everything else? by FredGray · 2002-09-25 08:02 · Score: 2

I did a little experiment today; I downloaded all the source code for Linux From Scratch [linuxfromscratch.org], 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.
I think you mean "megabytes" instead of "bytes."
Re:What about everything else? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 08:03 · Score: 0

Which is only valid if you accept Stallman's claims that GNU is the primary component of the system. Which is debatable.
Re:What about everything else? by sdo1 · 2002-09-25 08:06 · Score: 1

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. :)
Why exactly does bigger = better?
-S

--
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Re:What about everything else? by jdavidb · 2002-09-25 08:15 · Score: 1

Kilobytes, actually. Thank you. :)

--
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Re:What about everything else? by jdavidb · 2002-09-25 08:18 · Score: 2

Doesn't mean better at all. You probably wouldn't want to use one without the other, unless you are using an embedded Linux with smaller non-GNU alternatives to the basic utilities.

But the request is to acknowledge that GNU has contributed more.

And actually the reason they are making that request and asking for that acknowledgement is to expose people to their ideology.

--
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Re:What about everything else? by Wee · 2002-09-25 08:29 · Score: 2

The FAQ says that Linux is the most important secondary component.
Wow. Now that I missed. Yeesh. I'm going to go back and re-read the whole darn thing again...
-B

--
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
Re:What about everything else? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 08:43 · Score: 0

Hey asshole:

How does it feel to look like a total fool?
Re:What about everything else? by Bruce+Perens · 2002-09-25 09:19 · Score: 2

This isn't so much about attribution as it is about promoting the idea of free software. The BSD folks, etc., don't have the same sort of political platform - GNU does, and it's one that's important to our future.
Bruce

--
Bruce Perens.
Re:What about everything else? by SN74S181 · 2002-09-25 10:08 · Score: 1

Yggdrasil called it 'LGX' for Linux/GNU/XWindow. I have the CD set and booklet for their first release over there on the shelf to prove it.

They wanted it to be a name of THEIR choosing, and I suspect they'd have claimed that name as a trademark if alternatives hadn't taken off.
Re:What about everything else? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 10:12 · Score: 0

it's one that's important to our future.

Bwahahaha! Important to our future!

Did you voice that out in the same solemn nasal voice you used to describe the evile 'Letter to Hobbiests' in your little bit part in 'Revolution OS'?

Geez. Up until then I didn't know what a condescending snit you were.
Re:What about everything else? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 12:17 · Score: 0

I did a little experiment today; I downloaded all the source code for Linux From Scratch [linuxfromscratch.org], 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.

This actually illustrates for me the point why I don't call it GNU/Linux.

An OS is and operating system. A system that operates... To me thats the kernel and an ability to run programs. Since it is possible to make a Linux distribution that will achieve this with no GNU code, that runs programs, is useful, and is in fact an operating system, I don't consider GNU to be part of the operating system.

Seriously, I have more Corel code on my windows box than MS code, but I don't call it Corel/Windows. sed/awk/ billions of other programs are not an operating system, they are programs packaged with the operating system.

Next the FSF will be telling me they agree the IE is an integral part of Windows.
Re:What about everything else? by Peter+Eckersley · 2002-09-25 12:41 · Score: 2

Well maybe it's overall contribution? The top 3 pieces of code, are not the GNU project. The first GNU project's contribution is only 15% of the contribution of the top three. 6 of the next 7 projects are GNU projects. Combined they still only account for 69% of the top three projects.
Your reasoning here is disingenuous.
If you look at size of contributions, I would say you have:
linux kernel - 2.4M LOC
GNU (gcc + binutils + glibc + gdb) core infrastructure - 3.2M LOC
XFree86 - 1.8 M LOC
hence, the largest contributing components are GNU, then Linux, then X. It is ridiculous to say "GNU is only 69% of the size of Linux + X + Mozilla, therefore we should call it Linux!". Note also, that I didn't include GNU software like emacs, which I would say is an application and not essential to the functionality of the system.

--
Fixing copyright
Re:What about everything else? by Wee · 2002-09-25 13:13 · Score: 2

Doesn't mean better at all. You probably wouldn't want to use one without the other, unless you are using an embedded Linux with smaller non- GNU alternatives to the basic utilities.
I think here we get to the meat of the issue. If I use my MP3 streamer home applicance which runs an "embedded Linux" kernel, am I running "Linux"? What if I use an iPaq which has like a couple GNU utils on it? Am I then using "GNU/Linux"? Now what about my Gateway/AOL Touchpad (which I actually own, BTW, so this is less than hypothetical)? It runs Midori's Linux distribution, without which I don't think I'd be able to make use of the hardware. It's not embedded Linux, it has a few GNU utils (but by no means even close to all; it only has a 32MB CF card for its OS and apps), so is is "GNU/Linux" or "Midori/Linux"? Then there's all my desktop/server machines...
See what I'm getting at? Where does one stop? And why? If asked, I'd say that my MP3 player, my PDA, my touchscreen home appliance and my workstation all run Linux. I'd label the OS just "Linux", without having to think about attirbution. That's a slippery slope, a path down which one cannot travel before getting mired in the mud of always giving credit or risk slighting the next contributor to wander along and complain.
I'm just going to say "Linux", just like I say "Solaris". It's far simpler. Everyone knows who GNU is, and what they have done, without this hackneyed branding scheme or whatever it is.
But the request is to acknowledge that GNU has contributed more.
Committing a voluntary act doesn't entitle you to reparations later. They willingly contributed, and now ask to be recognized. That's fair. However, my original point (I actually did read the FAQ before posting, and now wish I would have mentioned it -- if only to make my point more distinct) is that the place at which one stops with attributions (and demands for attributions) is completely arbitrary and left unanswered by the FAQ. GNU claims that anyone can say anything they want. So what would they say if the KDE folks had a FAQ asking recognition by calling it KDE/Linux? What about my Midori machine from above? Does GNU have any right at all to contribute merrily all these years and then demand that an entire range of work change based on its views?
And actually the reason they are making that request and asking for that acknowledgement is to expose people to their ideology.
There are those that don't believe in the GNU ideology. I'm one of them. I think Software Livre is a good idea, sure, but I'm not going to give up Opera for it. I won't give up games. I won't give up all the stuff I own with embedded, non-Free/free software in them. I will pay for software and I flatly refuse as absurd the notion that all software should be Free/free.
Like I said ealier, my Linux machines all talk to the Linux kernel, and since I'm not going to give props to Midori, Perl, X, XMMS, whomever, then I won't give credit at all. It's just not a feasible proposition. I feel bad that GNU people feel left out, but since I use Open and Free and free software, I have the right to disagree.
-B

--
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
Re:What about everything else? by Russ+Nelson · 2002-09-25 15:36 · Score: 2

Cool! So if I contribute bloated, inefficient code to Linux, I get to rename Linux to Russ/Linux? Just because my code is bigger than anybody else's code?

Um, no.
-russ

--
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Re:What about everything else? by jdavidb · 2002-09-26 01:01 · Score: 2

(Slaps forehead.)

You're right! What was I thinking! Call it Linux! I can't believe I never thought of this point before!

I get to rename Linux

Linux is a kernel. An operating system, in the same sense as Windows, consists of much more than a kernel. GUI, utilities, etc. (Yes, in another sense, an operating system means just a kernel.)

"Rename" is a misnomer, too. The first Linux distribution, Yggdrasil, billed itself as "Linux/X11/GNU" (check groups.google.com for the original announcement).

The point is this: the GNU project believed in software freedom and started writing a free OS. Someone who did not believe in software freedom provided a kernel that would work with that OS and complete it. Most people who come to that OS have never heard of software freedom. RMS is asking everyone who believes in software freedom to say "GNU/Linux" so that people who are using that OS will say, "Huh? What is GNU?" and provide an opportunity for someone to tell them about software freedom and try to point people back at GNU's original goals.

You probably don't believe in software freedom. Most people here don't. I thought it was a crackpot idea when I first heard it. (And about the next thirty times I heard it after that.) That's okay; no one is going to force you to call it "GNU/Linux." The FAQ even says that. (Stallman believes in free speech.) But some of us are going to go on saying GNU/Linux, and every so often, someone else will come on over to the software freedom bandwagon.

Meanwhile, if you don't believe in software freedom, it's those goals that allow you to take GNU's code and make a working OS in conjunction with the Linux kernel. Yes, you can use non-GNU utilities (ever heard of Perl power tools? Someday I'm going to try to build a system out of a kernel, Perl, and those. :) ), but not if those utilities don't give you the freedoms GNU believes in.

--
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Re:What about everything else? by mjh · 2002-09-26 03:00 · Score: 2

You think BSD would have just up and died if Linux didn't come along? If Linux hadn't come along, once the legal wars over BSD settled down, GNU would have taken the BSD kernel and made a GnuBSD, to which neither FreeBSD and NetBSD would have complained, or really had grounds too.

It was not my intention to diss *BSD. I simply meant to suggest that GNU has already received a lot of recognition because of their deployment on Linux. As far as GnuBSD that's fine. GNU has done that with Linux, too: Debian GNU/Linux. However, what GNU would have done had BSD been the thing that came along was that they'd have insisted other distros call themselves GNU/FreeBSD and GNU/NetBSD, etc.
No one is complaining that Debian calls itself GNU/Linux. What folks are complaining about is that RMS wants things named Red Hat GNU/Linux, SuSE GNU/Linux, Mandrake GNU/Linux, etc. Fortunately, Red Hat, Mandrake, et al, are doing the smart thing. They're ignoring this futile and arrogant RMS-gasm, and continuing to do their thing.

--
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
Re:What about everything else? by dvdeug · 2002-09-26 07:40 · Score: 2

However, what GNU would have done had BSD been the thing that came along was that they'd have insisted other distros call themselves GNU/FreeBSD and GNU/NetBSD, etc.

I seriously doubt it. FreeBSD isn't a GNU system; the only core part that is really GNU is GCC and binutils. They would have built a system based off the BSD kernel and added the GNU utilities and called that GnuBSD, because that would be a GNU system.
Re:What about everything else? by jmorris42 · 2002-09-26 10:29 · Score: 2

Nope. I remember that first Yggdrasil CD and it did call it self LGX. But I still have their last release (Fall 95) and it had become "Plug and Play Linux" Just picking historical nits. :)

--
Democrat delenda est

That's what you get... by nlinecomputers · 2002-09-25 04:19 · Score: 1

I'm a big fan of Free Software(as in freedom) but when you give up, by choice, your ability to protect your rights to control the copying of the software you give up the rights to dictate terms about the name.

200lbs of compressed WAAAH!

Rush Limbaugh has a theme song. It was written by some communist type (Forgive me, I forget the name of the artist. Some commie /. troll will no doubt call me a jerk and tell me the name. Please do.) who stupidly put the song in the public domain. This guy got angered when Rush used his song. Rush did it deliberatly just to tweak the guys nose. Had the artist copywritten the work, Rush couldn't have used it. If Richard Stalman had a stronger copyright then he could force the name be called GNU/Linux.

Personally I don't call it Linux. Linux is only the kernel. I run Red Hat or Mandrake. It uses a Kernel by Linux, various tools by GNU, and a Gui by Xfree,Gnome, and KDE.

So per RMS I running REDHATGNULINUXXFREEKDEGNOME.

Of fsck it! Just give me a Mac.

Forgive any spelling or grammer errors.

--
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.

Just go AWAY by nagora · 2002-09-25 04:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

For god's sake, who thinks these are frequently asked questions.

Linux is the OS and the user may or may not run GNU software on it. With KDE and OpenOffice there are many users who never see a GNU program from one day to the next. Redefining the term "Operating System" to include the programs RMS likes to use is not a valid argument.

I wish RMS would just piss off now, he's become counter-productive to the whole free-software movement and seems to exist solely for the purpose of making it look bad.

TWW

--
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"

Re:Just go AWAY by glwtta · 2002-09-25 04:24 · Score: 2

I was not aware that Linux is the OS. Operating System has many vague definitions, but "kernel" isn't one of them.

--
sic transit gloria mundi
Re:Just go AWAY by nagora · 2002-09-25 04:36 · Score: 2

Operating System has many vague definitions, but "kernel" isn't one of them.
A program which controls access to the hardware while providing an API for other programs to request access that hardware is an OS for the hardware it has control over. The Linux Kernel generally has control over all the hardware on your machine, therefor it's the OS for your machine.
There are other definitions but I find this one the most realistic and least prone to endless debates about where the OS ends and applications start.
TWW

--
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"

Backs of giants by Spazmania · 2002-09-25 04:19 · Score: 1

We all build on the backs of giants. Where would GNU be today without the original work on UNIX at AT&T? Maybe we should call it Lucent/GNU/Linux. Or maybe Turing/Lucent/GNU/Linux; must give a nod to the father of modern computing. Or maybe God/Turing/Lucent/GNU/Linux... After all, where would Linux be if Man did not exist?

--
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.

What did Linus do? by anonymous_wombat · 2002-09-25 04:20 · Score: 1, Troll

Any idiot can write a kernel; the hard part is adding the games.

GNU failed? You're insane by gosand · 2002-09-25 04:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

Because Linus succeeded where GNU failed

Excuse me? How exactly did GNU fail? Look at what they have created.

From the FAQ:
We developed programs such as GCC, GNU Emacs, GAS, GLIBC, BASH, etc., because we needed them for the GNU operating system. GCC, the GNU Compiler Collection is the compiler that we wrote for the GNU operating system. We developed Ghostscript, GNUCash, GNU Chess and GNOME for the GNU system too.

If that is failure, I hope to fail someday.

To the point of the FAQ, I agree with pretty much everything that is pointed out. It SHOULD be called GNU/Linux, technically. But unfortunately, words change meanings and it doesn't seem that there is much you can do about it. Hackers used to be considered a good thing, now you can get jailed for it (even though it is technically cracking). Pirates used to murder and plunder, but now it someone who listens to MP3s or forwards over commercials on their TiVO.

--

My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

Popular Errors by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:20 · Score: 0

The losing line for me is :

"We don't think that the popularity of an error makes it the truth."

Unfortunately, with language, popular errors become correct if language is to change atall. An "incorrect" name has been chosen and no-one can change it now. Not even Mr Stallman.
Time to move on.

Of course that doesn't mean we can't try and teach the Slashdot editors the correct use of "its"...

Re:I call it linux, here's why, in a few short poi by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:20 · Score: 0

You know, what you probably think is Linux, is really something else. Most people think Linux and think of all those commands they are typing in. That's a shell, probably a bash shell, and everyone always thinks THAT what Linux is. Well, its not, not at all.

Wikipedia GNU/Linux definition by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:20 · Score: 0

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnu/Linux

The wikipedia has the following to say:

Some of the reasons people refer to the system as "Linux" are:

* It is shorter and thus easier to say.
* Torvalds, the creator of the Linux kernel, has referred to the combined system solely as Linux from the time of its initial release in 1991.
* Stallman only began asking people to call the system "GNU/Linux" in the mid 1990s, after the system had become popular.

wtf? by Gooberball · 2002-09-25 04:20 · Score: 1

For a while we tried the name "LiGNUx", which combines the words "GNU" and "Linux". The reaction was very bad.

I can't imagine why the reaction would be very bad... maybe because you're trying to rename Linux to LIGNUCKS? Which sounds kinda like Lignuts. Which then leads to Licknuts. And that's just no good.

--Sigs are for the weak.

Re:wtf? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:51 · Score: 0

I can't imagine why the reaction would be very bad... maybe because you're trying to rename Linux to LIGNUCKS? Which sounds kinda like Lignuts. Which then leads to Licknuts. And that's just no good.

GNU/Licknuts...
Hey, I think that's RMS' favorite hobby!!
Re:wtf? by amorsen · 2002-09-25 05:57 · Score: 2

I can't imagine why the reaction [to LiGNUx] would be very bad
There was no need for imagination at the time. The flames were hot enough to push even RMS back. He is not known for his fear of fire.

--
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?

I'm left with nothing but questions... by audiophilia · 2002-09-25 04:21 · Score: 1

The writer of this FAQ (is it RMS???) seems to make the mistaken assumption that every Linux-kernel-based distribution is merely a modified GNU/Linux distro. While this may be true for Debian, others are created completely from scratch. If I make my own distro and I happen to use GCC to compile things, am I obligated to call it GNU/Linux? Or Linux? Or am I obligated to call it anything at all? Part of the problem with this thing is the writer keeps saying that it's "right" to call it GNU/Linux, and "wrong" to call it Linux. I don't have a clear idea what "it" is. How do you define what a GNU/Linux distro is? Just because it includes GNU components?

Why Should I? by Pave+Low · 2002-09-25 04:22 · Score: 1

If I don't say it, am I part of the problem?

I don't see where changing the saying of one word changes anything besides feeding their ego.

If the FSF was successful in this quest, even Stalin or Mao would be impressed.

They claim they are trying to educate, but to me it's quite clear they are attempting to indoctrinate.

--
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.

Oh come on. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:22 · Score: 0

What ever happened to the programmer's freedom to call his software whatever the heck he/she wants?

Linus created Linux, and he NAMED it Linux. Big deal if it uses GNU tools...should everyone else that uses GNU tools change their name as well? GNU/GNOME, GNU/KDE, GNU/Kino, GNU/WindowMaker? Come on. It is not a stipulation of the GPL that you need to append the prefix "GNU/" to everything. The GPL already assures that credit is given where credit is due by itself.

And correct me if I'm wrong but...the Linux kernel was never accepted as being "part" of the GNU project, right? So by what right does the FSF have to say it should be called GNU/Linux?

Re:Oh come on. by Yohahn · 2002-09-25 04:51 · Score: 2

They didn't say you should call it the GNU/Liunx kernel. They asked you to call the operating sytem "GNU/Linux" specifically asking that you recognize the Linux Kernel's name.
Re:Oh come on. by bacchusrx · 2002-09-25 05:07 · Score: 2

That's right! The FSF is not asking you to call Linux anything other than "Linux."

The FSF is, on the other hand, asking you to call distributions of the GNU operating system, which use the Linux kernel, "GNU/Linux."

If you are skeptical about the contribution of the FSF, why not try an exercise? Install a "Linux" distribution. Afterward, remove every piece of software that was written by the GNU Project. What happens?

bacchusrx.

--
Life after capitalism? The participatory economics project
Re:Oh come on. by jmorris42 · 2002-09-26 10:44 · Score: 2

I'll call distributions whatever the publishers of said distributions name them. Until you convince Redhat to rename their product "Redhat GNU/Linux" it would be incorrect for anyone else to refer to it that way.

Of course were RH to do such a thing I'd use their preferred name when formally referring to the product. And dump their stock on the grounds they had lost their zarking minds.

--
Democrat delenda est
Re:Oh come on. by bacchusrx · 2002-09-27 06:23 · Score: 2

Sure, I agree.

However, the FSF is saying that "RedHat Linux" is a GNU/Linux distribution, not merely a Linux one.

What RedHat formally calls its product is not the same thing as what it (or we) might call the class of products to which RedHat's distinctive version belongs.

Coca-Cola Classic : cola :: RedHat Linux : GNU/Linux.

bacchusrx.

--
Life after capitalism? The participatory economics project

Blah, blah, blah ... by nbvb · 2002-09-25 04:22 · Score: 2

So they want me to call it GNU/Linux because it has some GNU tools in it?

So what?

My Solaris box has GCC installed... does that becomg Sun GNU/Solaris?

Or Mac GNU/OS X?

Stallman can bite me.

Guys like him and Raymond are what make people like me use Solaris instead.

Oh, that, and the fact that I want a working kernel.

One who's MMU isn't written by a 14-year-old Czechoslovakian in his spare time away from popping zits and whacking off.

Re:Blah, blah, blah ... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:38 · Score: 0

If this isn't a troll, I misunderstand what is.

I'll run Linux (GNU/Linux) on my sparc hardware, before going back to Solaris. It is becoming as bloated and unmanagable as a Microsoft OS...
Re:Blah, blah, blah ... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 05:39 · Score: 0

MS's OS is extremely manigable. There are only two kinds of people that say such things.

1) People that don't know what they are talking about.
2) People who are too stupid to figure it out.

Which are you?
Re:Blah, blah, blah ... by belroth · 2002-09-25 10:05 · Score: 2

Stallman can bite me.
Guys like him and Raymond are what make people like me use Solaris instead.
Don't put RMS and ESR together please....
on second thoughts DO and then we can all watch the fun....

--
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.

A bit confusing by huhmz · 2002-09-25 04:23 · Score: 1

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.

Im using Linux/gnotepad+/figlet

Ok, that's it ... I'm switching to Mac OS X by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:23 · Score: -1, Offtopic

I was like writing this paper, on my Linux ...

And it was like, "BEEPBEEPBEEPBEEPBEEP!" - gone. It was like, ... gone ...

The FSF ate my Linux and all i have now is like "BEEPBEEPBEEPBEEPBEEP" GNU/Linux ...

Distro's GNU/Linux, not Linux GNU Linux by dh003i · 2002-09-25 04:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

Distributions -- like Debian, Redhat, Suse, etc etc -- which use predominantly GNU-software along with Linus' GPL'ed Linux kernel should be called "Distro GNU-Linux"; i.e., Debian officially calls itself "Debian GNU/Linux". This makes sense, because Debian is composed mainly of two parts: the Linux kernel, and the GNU software. Hence GNU/Linux. Duh.

However, the Linux kernel itself was made by Linus, not the GNU/FSF. Though Linus licensed Linux under the GPL, that doesn't mean that he should call it GNU/Linux or GPL/Linux. There's no reason to call every piece of software licensed unde rthe GPL GPL/Software. Hence, there is no reason why Linux itself should be called "GNU/Linux". Just call it Linux.

There is also no good reason why Linux in general (in reference to the many distributions of it, not the kernel), should be called GNU/Linux. Not all Linux distributions use mainly GNU software. Most do, and those distributions should be called, "Distribution GNU/Linux" to indicate that they are mainly composed of GNU software and Linux. Those that don't, however, shouldn't.

Also, note that RMS is not forcing anyone to do anything. He's simply saying why he thinks Linux (in reference to the distributions in general) should be called GNU/Linux. I disagree with him, but that hardly makes him the language police.

--
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen

Re:Distro's GNU/Linux, not Linux GNU Linux by jdavidb · 2002-09-25 05:57 · Score: 2

However, the Linux kernel itself was made by Linus, not the GNU/FSF. Though Linus licensed Linux under the GPL, that doesn't mean that he should call it GNU/Linux or GPL/Linux. There's no reason to call every piece of software licensed unde rthe GPL GPL/Software. Hence, there is no reason why Linux itself should be called "GNU/Linux". Just call it Linux.

Yes, that's exactly what the FAQ says. The FSF is more careful about distinguishing Linux, the kernel, from the entire operating system than just about anybody else, I'd say.

--
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Re:Distro's GNU/Linux, not Linux GNU Linux by _KhlER3L · 2002-09-25 06:15 · Score: 1

You said:
There is also no good reason why Linux in general (in reference to the many distributions of it, not the kernel), should be called GNU/Linux.
You also said:
Distributions -- like Debian, Redhat, Suse, etc etc -- which usepredominantly GNU-software along with Linus' GPL'ed Linux kernelshould be called "Distro GNU-Linux";
That's the reason to call Linux GNU/Linux, in general -- because what most people think of as Linux is actually GNU/Linux. As long as RedHat, Debian, Suse, Mandrake, etc, pair GNU with Linux, and as long as those distributions are the best known and available ones, people should undertake to use a name that fairly aknowledges the main contributors. Why not?
Make the exception where the exception lies -- with Linux distros that use BSD or non-GNU/non-BSD parts. We'll call those BSD/Linux or plain Linux, or whatever. GNU/Linux is not the exception - it's the rule. So let's call it what it is.
khl
Re:Distro's GNU/Linux, not Linux GNU Linux by pyman · 2002-09-25 13:17 · Score: 0

Hence, there is no reason why Linux itself should be called "GNU/Linux". Just call it Linux.
Sure, call the kernel Linux. Thats what it is called. But when you say 'Linux', dont mean the entire system.

--
a ^= b; b ^= a; a ^= b;

Wow by kenp2002 · 2002-09-25 04:23 · Score: 0, Flamebait

After reading that I have been able to distill a few facts from the FAQ:

A> GNU People are bitter
B> GNU People are Attention Deprived
C> GNU is lining itself up to deliver an Intellectual Property Rights suit against the distro
D> GNU People are getting greedy and are planning to sue for financial gain.
E> GNU People Are Jelious of Linus' association with LINUX
F> GNU People obviously are about as far left as a liberal can get.
G> I now HATE GNU People with a passion
H> GNU People have better things to do that bitch and moan about getting "Props"
I> GNU People must be smoking on of the following:

1: Crack
2: Crystal-Meth
3: Hash
4: Pot
5: Smurfs
6: Shroom Spores
7: The original script to Tron 2.0
8: David Bowie

I can see that society has become so childish that even organizations are throwing temper-tantrums when they don't get the attention they want.

OK I got eat now, NO SOUP FOR YOU!

--
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-

Sun did it, so why can't FSF? by JLouder · 2002-09-25 04:23 · Score: 1

Changing the name of Linux sounded odd to me at first, but after thinking about it for a while, it kind of makes sense.

For example, Sun still refers to the kernel of their operating system as SunOS (perhaps not publicly so much now, but that's still what the kernel identifies itself as). They define Solaris as the "operating environment" -- the kernel with all their utilities and software.

And we don't insist on calling Mac OS X Mach, even though that's the kernel it uses.

But while the FSF certainly has a good case for "GNU/Linux," we may well be too far along in the lifecycle of Linux to make that kind of a change.

I Never Thought it was a Religious Issue 'til Now by TheWanderingHermit · 2002-09-25 04:23 · Score: 1

I started reading this FAQ and got to the answer to the 2nd question. That's where they define who they are and basically say the same stupid thing Bush is saying, "This is what we say. If you're not with us, you're against us."

It reminds me of the trials and fracas about teaching evolution in schools. That spawned a Creation Science movement, where fundies tried to create a scientific rationale behind creationism. To bolster their case, they created a religion named Secular Humanism, defined it, and started telling the opposition they were members -- the first time in history a religion was created and defined by those against it, who also determined its membership.

Isn't this the same thing? GNU's saying, "This is our stand. Those who don't agree are the ones being devisive in the community and not us." Notice they point out how wonderful and good and morally right their beliefs are, then basically say, "Those who don't say GNU/Linux are against all that."

I'm fairly new to open source (about 1 year of serious work in my home/office about 1 year piddling w/ it before that), and I always had a lot of respect for GNU.

Until now.

I'm seriously thinking it's time to wipe GNOME or any other GNU software or descendents of such from my system. On the other hand, that's being as much of a philosphical bigot as GNU is in this FAQ.

just imagine if... by boschmorden · 2002-09-25 04:23 · Score: 1

Apple releases "Apple/Windows" FAQ. Since after all, Gates did steal GUI technology from Sculley. But I guess you can go back one step further... ...Xerox released Xerox/MacOS FAQ.

Linux trademark definition by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:23 · Score: 0

The Linux Trademark (SN: 1916230) is owned by Linus Torvalds The trademark for Linux is defined as "Computer operating system software to facilitate computer use and operation."

Irony? by JonKatzIsAnIdiot · 2002-09-25 04:24 · Score: 1

Does anyone else out there appreciate the irony of the Free Software Foundation being so adamant about other people's software licensing choices?
Not to mention petty fights over names.

Re:Irony? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 05:31 · Score: 0

Human beings are petty, grubby little ego maniacs. It always comes out somewhere. Like trying to stop a flood.

That's how I already say it. Don't you? by lamz · 2002-09-25 04:24 · Score: 2

I already say "GNU/Linux" all the time, except the "GNU/" is silent.

--

Mike van Lammeren
It will challenge your head, your brain, and your mind.

GNU/Linux? please. by roXet · 2002-09-25 04:25 · Score: 1

I'm a pretty big Linux advocate, and have been for years. But I have only now settled on my distribution of choice (Gentoo, but that is beisde the point). Back when I was trying out Debian I really got on board with the whole GNU/Linux thing.

Then I actually thought about it. The whole aim of Free Software and the GPL is to make the work you do avaliable to others so that they might build upon that work and make something great. All I have ever known the GPL to ask for is the source to be made avaliable and please give credit. Nowhere have I ever seen *anything* about how you should "name" your project. Should every project that is based on another have to include the original project's name in it's name?

It really seems to me that "they" (who is the they that is referred to so much in that faq anyways?) saw that "Linux" was becoming very popular and progressing to an actual force instead of a niche OS. Then they noticed the name GNU wasn't anywhere to be seen, and why should it be?

"Hey! this Linus guy is gonna get all the credit!" "We should start a campaign!" "Yes a campaign would be nice!" "The name must be GNU/Linux." "Oh yes it must!" "We should issue a FAQ!" "Good idea, let's make it freakin' boring and anal too!!"

Didn't you hear? by sawilson · 2002-09-25 04:25 · Score: 1

The BSD troll died. Apparently he didn't have
enough market share.

--

The most important thing any republican needs to know.

How about Linux/GNU? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:25 · Score: 0

Just use Linux! GNU/Linux looks and sounds confusing to someone who doesn't know what the two are or why they should care. We need a name. A catchy name. And Linux alone is good enough for that.

Get over it already.

Who gives a shit? by RatBastard · 2002-09-25 04:25 · Score: 2

Let's be honest. Who, outside those with a vested interest, gives a shit?

--
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.

The full name is even better! by Atomizer · 2002-09-25 04:25 · Score: 1

Try explaining 'GNUs Not Unix/Linux' to your co-workers.

Well, which one is it then?

Since they're so good... by [l0l]Bobo · 2002-09-25 04:26 · Score: 1

At requesting credit where they think it is due, then how come, when they concede that X is a pretty big part of the picture, do they refer to it as X11?

X11 is short for X protocol, version 11. That's defined by the X consortium. What most people use is XFree86, developed by the XFree86 Project.

And by the way RMS, add in the code base of XFree86 and KDE, and you've got much, much more code already than all of the GNU stuff that gets installed in a typical distribution, even considering gcc.

Change the gpl.. by Suppafly · 2002-09-25 04:26 · Score: 2

If they really wanted to force their naming scheme on people, they should have added a line in the gpl to state that any operating system built using gnu tools should be prefixed by gnu/ ...
The only operating system that I know that is rightly prefixed with gnu/ is hurd because the kernel is actually worked on by the gnu people.. I have all the gnu tools installed on my windows box.. do you think i should start calling my os gnu/microsoft/windows2000?

Re:Change the gpl.. by cant_get_a_good_nick · 2002-09-25 04:30 · Score: 4, Funny

They want to enforce the GNU/Linux issue, but hate BSD's advertising clause. This is not a troll: how do they say you can do one but not the other?

The best argument by ACNeal · 2002-09-25 04:27 · Score: 1, Troll

This demonstrates that GNU tools and components aren't necesary for linux, at all. Because you can say it, everyone can say it.

Sure the tools may be widely used for linux systems, but not required.

RMS, and the rest of the FSF can take this particular gripe, and cram it. I am sick of listening to the same old whiney drivle. I will never say the two together.

Re:I call it linux, here's why, in a few short poi by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:28 · Score: 0

Because Linus succeeded where GNU failed. Exactly!
GNU prior to Linux
G oing
N owhere
U seless

GNU after Linux
G NU
N o, Name
U sage

GNU/YASTF by bryam · 2002-09-25 04:28 · Score: 1

Yet Another Stupid|Troll FAQ

Re:GNU failed? You're insane by digerata · 2002-09-25 04:29 · Score: 1

Because Linus succeeded where GNU failed

Excuse me? How exactly did GNU fail? Look at what they have created.

I believe he was referring to the fact that GNU failed to produce a widely used Kernel.

--

1;

Re:GNU failed? You're insane by Reality+Master+101 · 2002-09-25 04:29 · Score: 2

Excuse me? How exactly did GNU fail? Look at what they have created.

No doubt they have come up with some useful tools, but their stated mission was to come up with a complete Unix-like operating system. In this they failed. Yes, someday the Herd may be released, but it's too late, and probably technically too little. [ Yes, micro-kernels are kind of cool but the downsides are pretty well understood at this point. Monolithic kernels won, microkernels lost. Gnu picked wrong. Get over it. ]

--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.

Re:GNU failed? You're insane by quigonn · 2002-09-25 04:29 · Score: 1

After almost 20 years, the GNU system is still not finished. It's still missing a usable kernel. Currently, according to the GNU project, we still "have to stick to GNU/Linux systems, which are variants of the GNU system."

--
A monkey is doing the real work for me.

Remember the Berkley License? by weave · 2002-09-25 04:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

The BSD license *used* to mandate that everytime any of it was used, the program or derivitive had to give credit, as in "Portions copyright regents of california" or something like that.

Stallman thought that was ridiculous at the time, and predicted if everyone wanted that, whenever an OS booted, it'd be filling the screen with mostly copyright and credit notices. Whenever a press release or advertisement went out, there'd be pages of "portions copyrighted" credits included.

So he worked with the Berkley folks and got them to drop the credit requirement from the license.

So this GNU thing to me sounds kind of like the same thing, although the FAQ does state that they are not going to insist on it by making it part of the GPL.

However, and we should all remember, there would be no Linux today without the GNU software. Maybe you guys are too young to remember, but back about 12 years ago, the only way you could get Unix on a PC was shell out thousands of dollars for Interactive Unix or AT&T or $99 for Mark Williams Unix which used the intel small memory model (ram was limited to 64K, yes 64K). BSD was around, of course, but who could afford the money for a Sun box?

GNUs downfall was they started coding from the top down, as in, all utilities, compilers, and editors, and left the kernel to last. Then Linus comes along, does the kernel, throws a lot of gnu stuff on top, done.

Not to belittle Linus, of course, but all of this was a joint effort and we should not be so quick to forget the efforts of everyone who contributed to the GNU project for the past almost 20 years...

Re:Remember the Berkley License? by caluml · 2002-09-25 04:43 · Score: 1

Hear hear.
Most of the GNU stuff is damn good, and must have taken ages to write.

If I had any mod points, you'd get one.

--
Get your own free personal location tracker
Re:Remember the Berkley License? by subuni · 2002-09-25 05:22 · Score: 1

Maybe you guys are too young to remember, but back about 12 years ago, the only way you could get Unix on a PC was shell out thousands of dollars for Interactive Unix or AT&T or $99 for Mark Williams Unix which used the intel small memory model (ram was limited to 64K, yes 64K).

Doesn't Minix count as a way to get UNIX on a PC? It was released in 1987, was/is free, and ran on PC's.
Re:Remember the Berkley License? by weave · 2002-09-25 06:20 · Score: 1

Hmm, rings a bell. Not sure if I tried that one or not. I can't remember what state of usability Minux was during that time period.

blah blah blah by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:29 · Score: 0

I can't stand Stallman or his FSF cronies. I'm not a huge fan of the GPL. Great, free software! It gives freedom to the software and takes away freedom from developers. The BSD license gives the devlopers and the community freedom. It also gives corporations freedom. If there is "free" involved, everyone should have it, not just the programs you write. The GPL is for communists.

GNU/Footbullet by TellarHK · 2002-09-25 04:29 · Score: 2

For a while we tried the name "LiGNUx", which combines the words "GNU" and "Linux". The reaction was very bad. People accept "GNU/Linux" much better.
The shortest legitimate name for this system is "GNU", but we call it "GNU/Linux" for the reasons given below.

Since Linux is a secondary contribution, would it be false to the facts to call the system simply "GNU"?

First you trash on people for calling it Linux because it cuts out the GNU contribution and then you call it secondary? Holy craptacular hypocrisy, Stallman!

But seriously, I think remarks like that just do harm to the GNU Project's image. Really. And according to the majority of people here, people agree with me. Let alone the fact the Linux was the lynchpin that brought the GNU project's efforts out into the world as a universally useful set of tools. Nevermind that the HURD is only a few steps above Duke Nukem Forever in the legendary vaporware category (I know it exists, unlike DNF, but it's still no closer to being useful on my desk), and that you felt you had to create a monster FAQ to pressure people into doing something so counter to the nature of the community.

I'll call it GNU/Linux in formal situations, sure. It's a compromise. But damn if this bit quoted above wasn't just over the top.

--
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page

By Joe Ottinger by Real+World+Stuff · 2002-09-25 04:30 · Score: 4, Interesting

Why I Can't Stand the FSF I like open source. I use open source software when it's appropriate. I write open source software, at that, and I'm happy to do so.

That said, I really, really dislike the Free Software Foundation. When I have a choice between their offerings and someone else's, I nearly always go with the alternatives. I don't use their licenses. I don't defend them, or even their goals, really. In many ways, I'm actively antagonistic.

Why?

It's pretty simple. I thought the FSF rocked until I had to deal with them directly, and the repercussions of that interaction made me reconsider all my assumptions.

Starting Down the Slippery Slope I was working as a consultant for IBM in 1997, on their ProductManager suite. ProductManager needed a little language, for which I designed a grammar and lexer. When you need a compiler compiler and a lexer, you look at packages in the yacc and lex family... and the best of those, for C, remain the FSF's bison and Vern Paxson's flex. Not only was I trying to do well for IBM, but I was also aiming at using the best products available.

IBM, understandably, wanted to cover its pockets in the case of liability, so they had me talk to the respective authors to make sure that their code was actually theirs to give away. The reasoning was, as I understand it, that if (say) flex incorporated some copyrighted Microsoft code, and Microsoft discovered that IBM was using that code, Microsoft could sue both the author of flex and IBM. However, if IBM had a signed affadavit from the respective authors that asserted their right to distribute code, then IBM would have done due diligence to protect itself and other companies from illegal activity. It wouldn't have been a full defense, but would be enough to mitigate most damage in court. (The realisation that IBM didn't expect due diligence to be a complete shield was a blow to my faith in civil courts, too, even though that faith was pretty weak to begin with.)

So I wrote Vern Paxson and the FSF (because Richard Stallman was listed as the author of bison, which surprised me.) Vern got back with me after a few hours, and said he'd be happy to sign a form for us. When I talked to him on the phone and explained the exact situation, he reversed his position, saying that he simply couldn't honestly say that flex had no copyrighted code in it. He didn't think it did, but he wasn't able to get such an assertion from each author.

That eliminated flex for our project. I didn't mind, for a few reasons: one was that lexers are fairly trivial, and we could replace lex with something feature-comparable; another reason was that Vern was very straightforward about the situation. I got the feeling that he actually considered the needs of his potential userbase.

A few hours after Vern's initial reply came back, the FSF responded, too. (I was genuinely surprised at how rapid both responses were made.) They said that Richard Stallman was, indeed, the author of bison, and soon we managed to strike up a dialog with him directly.

Eventually, we were in a conference call with him. I was a little awed, considering that I'd been using some of RMS's tools (like Emacs) for quite some time even then. Basically, we had in mind a sort of quid pro quo, in that we wanted an affadavit signed and he wanted a monetary grant. It was also a chance for the FSF to score points in the courts, since the GPL hadn't been challenged. Our reasoning was that if IBM was using the code, and was challenged, then the FSF would be piggybacking a defense of the LGPL from IBM's defense team.

RMS would have none of it. What we were asking for, to be clear, was an assertion that the FSF had the right to apply their license to the software they made available. A denial of that assertion undermines their whole reason for being, after all, and we were certainly going to recompense the FSF for making good software available. Instead, RMS refused outright to sign the affadavit, and suggested quite bluntly that ProductManager (which costed IBM millions to develop, and was a pretty vertical product) should be open source, and we could send a check to him at this address, etc.

I was not impressed. It wasn't so much the open source spiel that bothered me, but the refusal of the assertion. If it was my code, I'd have been happy to say it was mine, as long as I knew (a la Vern Paxson's response). RMS, however, didn't even entertain the thought from the impression he gave us. Instead, he came across as a complete hypocrite, an impression confirmed with further investigation of the FSF's policies and approach. He was effectively implying that he'd stolen the code, and released it as open source just to further his personal views on software source code availability.

The Air Over There I think the FSF is on crack. They want software to be open-sourced, as a statement of ethics, and yet they advocate strong-arming companies in order to get what they want. They don't want the code, even - they just want all code to be open source, and they're willing to act like brown-shirts to do it.

If you go to their home page, for example, you see this announcement at the end of the first paragraph:

Variants of the GNU operating system, which use the kernel Linux, are now widely used; though these systems are often referred to as ``Linux'', they are more accurately called GNU/Linux systems. The opening sentence for the paragraph is "Welcome to the GNU Project web server."

Um.

Not only is the sentence about Linux inappropriate for the paragraph's subject matter, it's retarded. Their justification is something like this: "Linux is just the kernel, and GNU provides the rest of the system that makes the kernel useful, so the name should be GNU/Linux instead of just Linux."

That's idiotic. For one thing, they're targeting Linux in this, for reasons of publicity only. (Yes, that's right, I just said the FSF was a bunch of publicity whores.) If they were going to be fair about this, they'd apply that reasoning to a lot of software: "GNU/Cygwin," et cetera. To my knowledge, they don't do this. For another, they presume that GNU is central to Linux... and it's not. I know of developers who've created Linux distributions with BSD tools instead of GNU, for example, and the mere fact that it's doable suggests that maybe GNU isn't as critical to Linux as the FSF seems to suggest. Sure, maybe Linus used GNU tools to generate the kernel. Does that mean that every Visual Basic app needs to trumpet "MS/Whatever" as part of its name, too?

It gets worse. The FSF not only demands recognition (which, by the way, it got plenty of already), but it actively supports piracy, offering this newspeak as a replacement. "Use neutral terms to describe piracy," they suggest, offering "unauthorized copying" as well as "sharing information with your neighbor." Pardon me, fellows, for actually setting the price I want as recompense for my effort. The freedoms the FSF supposedly tries to work for include the rights to say "No, I wrote this with my blood, sweat, and tears, I want $100 for it or you don't have to use it."

And that brings up another annoyance with the FSF - the GPL. The GPL is a viral license, requiring programs that use GPLed code to be under the GPL themselves. In a way, that makes sense, although most other similar licenses are less militaristic;most of them respect the right of authors to keep their code proprietary, usually requesting links to the source of licensed software. The GPL, on the other hand, says that it's all open, and they choose licenses accordingly.

To wit, they have a "Lesser GPL," the LGPL, which doesn't have the same viral effect that the GPL does. The FSF has a document, called Why you shouldn't use the Library GPL for your next library (written before the LGPL was renamed to "Lesser GPL"), which explains that the LGPL is used where there's no real reason to rely on the GNU offering. In other words, all the truly useful stuff they have (and there's a good bit of it) is basically bait for the GPL; "use GetOpt, and we have you!"

That's cowardly, in my opinion, arguing from a position of weakness.

And that's the FSF for you.

http://enigmastation.com/Q260

--
If we don't fight for ourselves no one will.

Re:By Joe Ottinger by sab39 · 2002-09-25 06:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm not going to reply to most of this for lack of time (so please don't infer any position, either way, on the rest of your post from this lack of response). But the use of cygwin as an example was particularly unfortunate.

You see, Cygwin is a contraction of the words "cygnus" and "windows". And "cygnus" is a recursive acronym from "cygnus your GNU software".

Oh, and one other point I have to argue. The FSF has never claimed that the GNU tools are vital to Linux-the-kernel. It's true that it's almost certainly possible to build a system with a Linux kernel that's otherwise entirely a BSD system. But from the content of the FAQ and every argument I've ever heard from RMS, he'd want to see that system called BSD/Linux, not GNU/Linux. His point isn't that such a system isn't possible, but that no distribution in any kind of wide use actually does so.

Interestingly, if systems like that actually were in wide use, it would validate his argument further. Think about it: instructions on how to do any given operation are far more likely to depend on the toolset than on the kernel. So instructions for "Linux" (meaning Linux+GNU-tools) are less likely to apply to BSD/Linux than instructions for BSD are. It would make much more sense to have to choose between instructions for BSD versus GNU (which would cover the case of GNU tools on a BSD kernel also, as in the fledgling Debian GNU/BSD project, not to mention Hurd) than for BSD versus "Linux" as you're more likely to see now.

I've always been surprised to see so little activity in the area of switchable kernels based on the same overall operating system / distro. I suspect that the naming issue is actually partly to blame for this - if you think of the whole system as "Linux", what are you actually running if you keep the whole rest of the system the same but switch in a BSD or Hurd kernel?
Re:By Joe Ottinger by dh003i · 2002-09-25 07:01 · Score: 3

Look, the fact is, that due credit is not being given to the FSF for the fact that in most distributions, it created the vast majority of the software used for the OS and other functions.

For Distributions which don't use GNU software, they shouldn't call it GNU/Linux; i.e., instead, for example, BSD/Linux. But for distributions for which the vast majority of their software is GNU -- i.e., Debian, RedHat, Suse, Caldera, Slackware, all the major distributions -- they should be called Distribution GNU/Linux. Debian actually follows this protocol, calling itself, "Debian GNU/Linux".

The FSF should get due credit for what they contributed to most of today's distributions. Sure, distributions like RedHat and Suse mention that GNU software is predominantly used on their OS. But they give no credit to the FSF in the name of their product, whereas they do give credit to Linus. How many of RedHat's users do you think actually delve into their site looking for the credits? Its the difference between giving credit to someone in a movie at the beginning of it in big bold letters, versus giving credit to them at the end in small unreadable letters, which flash by the screen quickly, when everyone is leaving the movie theater or starting to turn off the TV.

The FSF has contributed a major part -- more than Linus -- to most of today's distributions. They deserve to be, so to speak, mentioned in the opening credits, not the closing ones; that is, in the title of the software, as opposed to in some footnote in the licensing documention. Really, all the FSF is asking for is to receive due credit in an appropriate manner, where its due. Is it that hard to give them the due credit they deserve? Is it really that hard for you to say RedHat GNU/Linux or Slackware GNU/Linux? They're asking you to say three more syllables when you say the name of a distribuion, type out four more characters when you write it.

The FSF not only demands recognition (which, by the way, it got plenty of already)

What an outrageous concept, that the FSF wants to receive some credit for distributions in which the software they wrote composes 70% of the code-base. And how does the FSF get plenty of recognition if EVERY distribution (save Debian) refers to itself as Distribution Linux, not giving recognition in the title to the FSF?

it actively supports piracy, offering this newspeak as a replacement.

Bullshit. The FSF is simply saying that we shouldn't refer to copyright infringement as if it were a felony; i.e., we shouldn't put it on par with being a pirate, which means killing, rape, and plundering. And in case you hadn't noticed, intellectual property is not a constitutional right. Its questionable that it should exist at all in its current draconian form, in which it has both an enormous scope and a unreasonably long duration.

As for your gripe with the GPL, get over it. You license things under the EULA, a draconian license which violates many of the users basic rights, or attempts to do so; i.e., no product modification, no reverse engineering, no transfer to different machines, etc. If you don't like the GPL license, then DON'T USE GPL'ed code in the software you right; keep any GPL'ed code at an arms length from your code. If you choose to include GPL'ed code in your software and distribute it, then you agree to the GPL license and have to distribute your source code under the GPL. There's no trickery involved, you idiot. All their software says, "this software is covered under the GNU GPL, etc," so you know damn well that its GPL'ed. If you use that code in your program, you do it with the full knowledge that its GPL'ed; its not like the FSF tries to hide the fact that its software is GPL'ed so that people use it in their software unwittingly and then later realize they have to release their software under the GPL. Rather, quite the contrary, they make it glaringly obvious that their code is GPL'ed.

You should also note that no one has to accept the GPL (which is why I think that its outrageous that OpenOffice requires you to accept the GPL before installing it). You only accept the GPL if you choose to modify the source code of the software and then distribute it, or use that source code in your program and distribute it.

Your position can be summed up by two statements:

1. Waahhh! Waahhh! The FSF wants partial credit for distributions in which its software is predominantly used.

2. Waahhh! Waahhh! The FSF is distributing their code under the GPL, and I don't like that.

Quit your pathetic whining and get over it.

--
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Re:By Joe Ottinger by Tonetheman · 2002-09-25 07:18 · Score: 1

no reverse engineering,
Reverse engineering is really illegal by the DMCA. Sad but true.

If you don't like the GPL license, then DON'T USE GPL'ed code in the software you right; keep any GPL'ed code at an arms length from your code. If you choose to include GPL'ed code in your software and distribute it, then you agree to the GPL license and have to distribute your source code under the GPL. There's no trickery involved, you idiot.

The problem is not trickery (idiot), the problem is that I could use only one small function from a set of GPL source and then according to the lic. I would end up having to release all of my code under the same shitty lic.

You are the idiot if you cannot see that this is viral. I have had to work around the GPL before with products that I have created and it is a pain. In most cases I took your advice I replaced the offending GPL code and put in my code... and in almost all of those cases I would have preferred to have left the GPL code and given the author credit. But that is not possible with GPL.

Hopefully enough people will realize how useless the GPL really is and start using other lic.
Re:By Joe Ottinger by ChaosDiscord · 2002-09-25 07:44 · Score: 2

(I believe "you" in this case is Joe Ottinger, since it appears that Real World Stuff has reproduced Joe's work here.)
I thought the FSF rocked until I had to deal with them directly...

...because I apparently never actually listened to their message. It's pretty simple, they believe that all software should be Free Software. No exceptions. Maybe you disagree, but don't be surprised that they refuse when you ask them to help you release proprietary software.
Instead, RMS refused outright to sign the affadavit, and suggested quite bluntly that ProductManager (which costed IBM millions to develop, and was a pretty vertical product) should be open source...

How rude of him! You asked him to support work that he finds morally reprehensible, and he refused!
Instead, he came across as a complete hypocrite...

How so? Because he refused to do you favor? He didn't agree with what you were doing (releasing closed source software) and declined to help.
If he was a hypocrite, he would have helped you spread proprietary software.
He was effectively implying that he'd stolen the code...

Sorry, try again. How did he imply this? Because he refused to sign the affadavit? He doesn't have anything to prove to you, failure to provide proof doesn't mean that he stole it. He doesn't owe you any evidence.
The FSF...actively supports piracy, offering this newspeak as a replacement. "Use neutral terms to describe piracy," they suggest, offering "unauthorized copying" as well as "sharing information with your neighbor." Pardon me, fellows, for actually setting the price I want as recompense for my effort.

The FSF has never supported piracy. They support a reevaluation of copyright laws. It's hard to have this discussion about copyright laws when we're using words like piracy. "Piracy" sounds unnecessarily threatening, not-suprising given its historical meaning of boarding ships by force, killing if necessary, and stealing physical property. "Unauthorized copying" is newspeak? No, it's accurate. Copyright infringement and unauthorized copying are nice and specific. "Sharing information with your neighbor" is also accurate, if a little manipulative, but "piracy" is just as manipulative.
Pardon me, fellows, for actually setting the price I want as recompense for my effort. ... The GPL is a viral license, requiring programs that use GPLed code to be under the GPL themselves.

Actually, it's pretty simple. Authors who chose the GPL have set a price to be able to redistribute their work: You need to distribute the derived work under acceptable terms. I doubt I'll get such a generous offer from IBM when I try to include ProductManager in my program. Yes, it's irritating, but that's the price, take it or leave it. You don't have any fundamental right to use someone elses software in your software.
In a way, that makes sense, although most other similar licenses are less militaristic;most of them respect the right of authors to keep their code proprietary, usually requesting links to the source of licensed software.

Great, other people are more generous! How about a deal, the FSF will be BSD style generous with their software as soon as IBM makes all their software BSD style generous?
In other words, all the truly useful stuff they have (and there's a good bit of it) is basically bait for the GPL; "use GetOpt, and we have you!"

Yup, just like Microsoft says, "Use MFC and we have you!", Oracle says, "Use Oracle specific remote procedures and we have you!", IBM says, "Use DB2 specific functionality and we have you!". Any number of software companies explicitly entice you to use their sourcecode and charge you.
Commercial software companies try to entice you to purchase products and bind yourself to restrictive EULAs. The FSF tries to entice you to resuse their code and bind yourself to their license. That's not a position of weakness and cowardess, that's a simple trade, just like a commericial software company.

--
Search 2010 Gen Con events
Re:By Joe Ottinger by DrXym · 2002-09-25 07:45 · Score: 2

Look, the fact is, that due credit is not being given to the FSF for the fact that in most distributions, it created the vast majority of the software used for the OS and other functions.

Perl isn't GNU, Apache isn't GNU, MySQL isn't GNU, Ghostscript isn't GNU, Mozilla isn't GNU, KDE isn't GNU, XFree86 isn't GNU, the kernel isn't GNU, Python isn't GNU, OpenSSH isn't GNU. I could go on, but this should suffice. Some of these things might be GPL'd but that is not the same thing.

Basically you can argue any way you like, but without the hundreds of non-FSF apps your distro wouldn't be useful for a damned thing. Expecting people to say GNU/Linux because the tools are mainly GNU is just plain ludicrous. Linux is a generic term for an operating system using a Linux kernel and it doesn't need some brain exception prefix that ignores the contribution of hundreds of other contributors in the process.

To hell with RMS and the FSF I will *never* say GNU/Linux. Instead of being such an ass perhaps he should work on GNU Hurd. Hurd was started even before Linux and it's still a piece of crap used by no one.
Re:By Joe Ottinger by Per+Bothner · 2002-09-25 08:52 · Score: 1

Ghostscript isn't GNU.
Wrong - Ghostscript is GNU.
Linux is a generic term for an operating system using a Linux kernel and it doesn't need some brain exception prefix that ignores the contribution of hundreds of other contributors in the process.
Well, that's the point, isn't it? "Linux" has become a generic term, even though very little of of the "personality" (or user interface) of (say) a Red Hat "Linux" system has annything to do with the kernel. Red Hat could switch to using the Hurd or some other kernel, and most people wouldn't notice any difference. So using the term "Linux" is misleading.
It's like traditionalist "grammarians" insisting that "he" means "he or she". Well, it doesn't. More importantly, the choice of words has consequences. When people read "he" they visualize a man. When girls hear "he" they don't visualize tehmselves. When people read "Linux" they visualize Linus creating a whole operating system in his attic in Helsinki.
The real question I have is why do people get so upset at the FSF's request to use the term GNU/Linux? You may disagree with it, or think it silly, or misplaced, but clearly something more than that is going to cause these strong reactions. (Nobody is requiring anybody to call it GNU/Linux!) That to me suggests that RMS is right, and that perhaps calling it GNU/Linux does encourage more thinking about issues - that sometimes people don't want to think about.
Re:By Joe Ottinger by Per+Bothner · 2002-09-25 09:00 · Score: 1

And "cygnus" is a recursive acronym from "cygnus your GNU software".
No, it's not. The Cygnus founders have said the "gnu" in Cygnus, while neat, was not something they were looking for. They was looking for an available un-trademarked name! And "Cygnus" was never a acronym, recursive or not.
Re:By Joe Ottinger by DrXym · 2002-09-25 09:14 · Score: 2

Wrong - Ghostscript is GNU.

Old versions are referred to as GNU Ghostscript to distinguish themselves from the AFPL Ghostscript version but the copyright remains with the author, not the FSF. Therefore what I said is true.
Re:By Joe Ottinger by dh003i · 2002-09-25 09:29 · Score: 2

Oh, please. Shut up you idiot. If its only "one small function" which you use in your code from a GPL'ed program, it should be no problem to replace it.

Quit whining you pathetic whiner. If its "only one GPL'ed line of code" in your program, it should be no problem to replace it with your own.

--
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Re:By Joe Ottinger by Tim+Browse · 2002-09-25 09:40 · Score: 2

and in almost all of those cases I would have preferred to have left the GPL code and given the author credit. But that is not possible with GPL.
No, but, as I understand it, there's nothing to say you can't contact the author and ask if you can use their code in your program if you credit them, but don't use the GPL.
As the author, you can give people whatever license you choose to use your code. Of course, with multiple authors, this complicates matters, but it still applies.
As you say, if you're only using one small part of the GPL'd code, then it's not a major problem to replace it with your own code. Myself, whenever I download a library/some code I want to use, pretty much the second question I ask (after "Does it do what I want?") is "What's the license?" If it's not compatible with how I want to use it, I don't use it. I am constantly surprised that so many people don't follow this trivial procedure.
Tim
Re:By Joe Ottinger by JoeBuck · 2002-09-25 09:57 · Score: 2

You were asking RMS to sign a statement that wasn't true: he was a major contributor to bison, but not its sole author. The FSF quite openly states that the origin of bison was with the research work of Bob Corbett; RMS's principal contribution was to take Corbett's stuff and make it yacc-compatible. Whoever at the FSF who told you that RMS was the sole author was misinformed; RMS himself has never given anything other than a straight answer on this matter.
The FSF gets legal assignment papers from his contributors (and, I'm told, has papers from Bob Corbett), but you were asking him to warrant that he had dotted every i and crossed every t, and he couldn't be certain of that. For you to claim that this implies that he's some kind of thief is rude. Evidently you wanted to buy such a warranty with cash, but why should the FSF bet their whole organization against the contingency that they messed up? Why should a tiny outfit provide a huge outfit like IBM with an insurance policy? For RMS to turn around and ask you for a no-strings contribution shouldn't surprise you; the FSF is a nonprofit, and that's what nonprofits do, ask for contributions. Your mistake was to treat the FSF as if they were a company operating on the basis of economic interest. They aren't.
As for the rest, RMS really believes what he states quite openly: he wants all software to be free, and the purpose of the GPL is to leverage more free software, that is, to be viral. Anyone who thinks that the quid pro quo involved in the GPL is "militaristic" has never had an IBM lawyer on their case.
Re:By Joe Ottinger by Elivs · 2002-09-25 10:05 · Score: 1

>I've always been surprised to see so littleactivity in the area of switchable kernels based on
>the same overall operating system / distro. I suspect that the naming issue is actually partly to blame for this
> - if you think of the whole system as "Linux", what are you actually running if you keep the whole
>rest of the system the same but switch in a BSD or Hurd kernel?

Q: What system are you running if you change kernels, yet keep the same tools?
A: Debian

Elivs
Re:By Joe Ottinger by Elwood+P+Dowd · 2002-09-25 12:25 · Score: 2

Um, I don't get it. All of the FSF's points stem from one belief: Proprietary software is necessarily bad (perhaps immoral) and should be destroyed. Everything that RMS/the FSF does makes perfect sense, and is perfectly defensible based on that truth.

If you do not believe that to be true, you will disagree with everything they do. This is fair. But you seem to attack their conclusions without addressing the fact that you have completely different core beliefs.

RMS was not interested in helping you create proprietary software. At all. If you were creating open source or free software, or if you were trying to create anything but proprietary software, he might have been much more willing to help you. It wasn't necesarily because he doubted his code. He didn't want you to succeed. He believed you were in the process of doing something immoral.

--

There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Re:By Joe Ottinger by Tonetheman · 2002-09-25 12:48 · Score: 1

Joe says I am a whiner (maybe) and I do usually try to check the license when I am working with other folks libraries.

I have found that a lot of people I have contacted have not been very helpful with license issues to be honest. I know that I have only done this a few times but a lot people spew the GPL rhetoric like fanatics... I want free and open software too but I want to be able to sell programs (sometimes not always) too.

So I really do think that GPL is viral. It can hinder your development unless the author of the code is willing to work with you. And I am sure that happens quite a bit.

Maybe viral is not the best word for the license since there is some negative energy in that word... more like a "replicating" license... something like that... since I am pathetic I probably am not the one to make up a new term for the GPL license.

Tone

It is a strange hard balance of using good free code like GNU code (gcc, flex, bison, emacs... etc) and still being able to make money at it.
Re:By Joe Ottinger by Tim+Browse · 2002-09-25 15:01 · Score: 2

I have found that a lot of people I have contacted have not been very helpful with license issues to be honest. I know that I have only done this a few times but a lot people spew the GPL rhetoric like fanatics...
Oh, I'm sure many of them do. But then, they have that right.
I want free and open software too but I want to be able to sell programs (sometimes not always) too.
A perfectly reasonable desire. I am sure many of these 'fanatics' might be happy for you to do that. It's just not necessarily why they wrote that code in the first place.
To be precise:
It is a strange hard balance of using good free code like GNU code (gcc, flex, bison, emacs... etc) and still being able to make money at it.
Bear in mind that this code was not necessarily written to help you make money.
Maybe viral is not the best word for the license since there is some negative energy in that word...
I can see lots of problems that might come up with using GPL code. Luckily, most people, (both of us included) have discovered the vaccine* that protects us from that particular virus - i.e., check the license. The GPL, like any license that is attached to 'free' code, can be annoying, especially when it categorically prevents you from using the code in your project.
I'm not sure I'd ever have the gall to complain about that, though :)
As for you being a whiner - I don't think so; you merely seem to be expressing a problem associated with usage of the GPL. There are people who complain much more loudly than you do about the GPL. Again, I'm not sure how they have the nerve to complain about free stuff, but hey ho, there it is.
Tinkerty-tonk.
Tim
* Sorry, can't remember if vaccines protect you from viruses - it's late - but you know what I mean :-)

why not skip a step.... by Lxy · 2002-09-25 04:30 · Score: 2

and just name it RMS/Linux already?

--

There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq

Bradley M. Kuhn by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:30 · Score: 0

This is probably the work of Bradley M. Kuhn. I'm surprised it has taken him this long to try a stupid stunt like this. Did Linus himself say Linux is pronounced GNU/Linux? I think not :)

Bradley has been obsessing about GNU/Linux and making everyone say GNU/Linux. If someone puts together a Linux based operating system and decides to call it Foo Linux, thats up to them. The Linux kernel will continue to be called Linux, and I'm pretty sure if Linus isn't going to allow GNU/ to be prefixed in front of all the kernel text. If he does, I'll just go and write a patch to reverse it :)

GNU is great, but GNU is not Linux. GNU put out some great software, but the kernel isn't part of it. Now if GNU want some recognition, maybe Bradley and Stallin need some more cash for goats or something, it would make more sense to "ask/force/request/faq" companies like RedHat and SuSE to put something like this:

RedHat Linux 7.3
"Featuring GNU software"

on their boxes, rather than something like RedHat GNU/Linux 7.3, which just looks stupid.

So folks, Linux is JUST Linux. If GNU wants us to type GNU/Linux every time we type Linux, I think we'd probably end up suing them for causing RSI :)

I have no problems giving GNU credit, but this kind of whiney crap just makes us all look stupid...

And in further news.... by HotNeedleOfInquiry · 2002-09-25 04:30 · Score: 1

Larry Elison announces Oracle is now to be called "Cost-Effective Oracle"

Autodesk announces Autocad is now to be called "All Pervasive Autocad"

Adobe anounces that Acrobat is now to be called "Universal Acrobat"

--
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...

Slash Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:31 · Score: 0

"Slash Linux", the new distribution for /. users.

(you said silent gnu, nothing about a silent "slash")

Naming... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:31 · Score: 0

In recognition of the GNU project and it's new suggested naming standards I have decided to rename my app that Swipes through selected files on my drive replacing the letter U for R.

GNU/URSwipes

GNU - Linux Userspace by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:31 · Score: 0

How about just renaming GNU?

Linux = Linux Kernel + Linux Userspace

Then we could call it plain Linux if we were talking about both, the kernel and the userspace tools.

And why not having several aliases for GNU, like Hurd Userspace and so on..

Re:GNU failed? You're insane by Willis+Wasabi · 2002-09-25 04:31 · Score: 0

Wow, did you ever miss a reference. I see all that nifty software that you quoted out of the FAQ. Funny, I don't think Linus ever wrote any competitors to any of them, so I think we can ignore all of that.

What I think the original poster was referring to was the kernel itself. Linus has been very successful with the Linux kernel, yes? The Hurd pretty much failed there. The Hurd is probably the worst example of vaporware in the history of computing. 16 years in the making, and still no stable release that you'd run on a production server (unless you had a point to prove).

Now I feel a bit sick to my stomach for writing this post that could be taken as a troll. Let me just finish this by saying I have the utmost respect for both Linus and RMS and the rest of GNU.

--
All true wisdom can be found in sigs.

Re:GNU: Get over it by Yohahn · 2002-09-25 04:32 · Score: 2

No one ever said they were going to take their toys and go home. Actually they said just the opposite, that they would not act to prevent people from just calling it "linux". They are just promoting the name "GNU/Linux".

The question is, why does this get people so riled up?

Do you use gnu echo? ls?
Are you going to stop in protest of calling it "GNU/Linux"?

Interesting interpretation of the facts.... by Can · 2002-09-25 04:32 · Score: 1

We developed programs such as GCC, GNU Emacs, GAS, GLIBC, BASH, etc., because we needed them for the GNU operating system.
...

We developed Ghostscript, GNUCash, GNU Chess and GNOME for the GNU system too.

Uh, yeah, so it made sense to develop a postscript interpreter and a financial management package before delivering a working kernel? Of course, we all know the real story of how all this happened, but by warping the truth like this, he doesn't give himself much credibility.

FSF by Zugot · 2002-09-25 04:32 · Score: 1

Shut your pie hole!

I know the FSF has done many good things for the community. I know we wouldn't be anywhere withouth gcc or glibc or the bison. Come on FSF, I don't think this is the way to go about this.

--
-- Bryan

Re:I call it linux, here's why, in a few short poi by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:32 · Score: 0

Because Linus succeeded where GNU failed. Exactly!
GNU prior to Linux
G oing
N owhere
U seless

GNU after Linux
G NU
N o, Name
U sage

two words.. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:33 · Score: 0

fuck 'em.

Classic 1) 2) ??? 3) by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:33 · Score: 0

1) Start trying to create a Kernel called Hurd
2) See that it's *not* going to happen and use Linux instead
3) Start a FAQ about why GNU should be placed in front of a kernel you didn't create
4) ??? 5) Profit through the non-profit organization FSF

Interesting by doc+modulo · 2002-09-25 04:33 · Score: 1

So the people who run that free Operating System are actually running GNU running on a Linux base.

So when's GNU running on a GNU kernel coming out?

--
- -- Truth addict for life.

Re:GNU: Get over it by Stephen+VanDahm · 2002-09-25 04:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

And it's their own fault that no one refers to the GNU project by name. GNU is a stupid-sounding name to begin with, and their made-up pronunciation (Guh-New) is counterintuitive and only makes their name even less attractive. I deeply respect the work that the FSF has done, and I have nothing but praise for the actual software they've written. But the fact is that if you want to sell your product, it really helps to have a cool name for it, or at least not a stupid name.

"Linux" is a great name. It sounds fast and high tech. When you attach "Guh-New" to the front, it loses its sex appeal. Geeks night not care, but when you're pitching Linux to your PHB (or your PHB's PHB), these trivial cosmetic things matter.

It's not just the FSF -- many free software projects have totally brain-dead names. Like the GIMP. The GIMP is an awesome product, and many of the K12 schools that spend a zillion dollars for a single copy of Photoshop that everyone has to share could outfit their entire computer lab with the GIMP for free. But as soon as the teacher walks into the classroom and says, "All right kids, let's fire up the GIMP..." every kid in the room who's seen Pulp Fiction is going to burst out laughing. Then parents might get pissed because it isn't politically correct to have a program named "GIMP" loaded on school computers. Advocates of Free Software in the classroom would do the world a great service if they repackaged the GIMP and gave it a new, school-safe name.

Free Software developers need to start thinking about more than just making cool-ass software. They need to think about how they want to present their software to the public. If they don't start thinking about their images, Free Software will never break out of the server room.

Steev

Everybody's talking about this "gnew" linux.. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:35 · Score: 0

...what ever happened to the gold one?

Re:I call it linux, here's why, in a few short poi by MSG · 2002-09-25 04:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

1: because Linus does

The FSF FAQ covers this point here:
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#h elplinu s

Generally, the FSF and likeminded people aren't much interesed in Linus' opinion of what the OS is called; his motivations don't reflect those of the Free Software movement.

In other words: Who cares what Linus calls the OS? Even smart people can be wrong.

2: Because Linus succeeded where GNU failed

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.

3: Because GNU/Linux is too damn long to say

So is Windows 2000 or Mac OS X, but they're the proper names.

I'd be willing to bet that you don't call Mac OS X "Mach", though that's the kernel it uses, and is a shorter name.

4: Because I don't call programs made/depending on MS Visual Studio 6 "MSVS/[program name]"

The GNU part of the name isn't in there because Linux is compiled by GNU tools... It's there because Linux is a kernel and that's it. Linux is not a UNIX-like OS. GNU/Linux is.

Imagine.. by nmaeone · 2002-09-25 04:35 · Score: 1

GNU/So, GNU/RMS GNU/becomes GNU/even GNU/more GNU/viral GNU/than GNU/his GNU/GPL GNU/baby. GNU/Just GNU/another GNU/Reason GNU/for GNU/me GNU/not GNU/to GNU/agree GNU/with GNU/Mr. GNU/Stallmans GNU/Political GNU/Views. GNU/I GNU/refuse GNU/to GNU/succumb GNU/to GNU/this GNU/personal GNU/propagada!

Re:GNU failed? You're insane by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:35 · Score: 0

Nice Troll.

GNU, hmmm! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:35 · Score: 0

Coward BOB says:

GNU prior to Linux
G oing
N owhere
U seless

GNU after Linux
G NU
N o, Name
U sage

Re:GNU failed? You're insane by gosand · 2002-09-25 04:36 · Score: 2

Oops. OK, so I missed the reference to the whole system. I can admit when I am wrong.

But still, a large portion of many distros are GNU stuff, and some very important pieces at that. I don't think it is wrong to ask for some credit.

--

My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

what gets on my tits a lot more is by glwtta · 2002-09-25 04:36 · Score: 2

that distribution names (particularly RH) and Linux are so often used interchangibly (ie "Linux 7.3"), so I make it a point to always refer to the particular distibution by name (eg Gentoo, RedHat, LFS), so this whole GNU/ thing doesn't come up. Well, I guess it does in the case of LFS...

--
sic transit gloria mundi

Should I say "not GNU/BSD" when talking about BSD? by SphynxSR · 2002-09-25 04:36 · Score: 1

Should I say gnu/linux or GNU/Linux? How about GNUday. GNUsundhight. Like I really need more control in my life. Maybe we should start saying GNUmorning MR. Stallman. GNUafternoon Mr. Stallman, GNUnight Mr. Stallman.

--

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.

GNU/FreeBSD? by DoctorPepper · 2002-09-25 04:36 · Score: 1

I use the GNU tools on FreeBSD, does that mean I should call it GNU/FreeBSD?

How about the folks that use GNU tools on QNX RTOS? Should they call it GNU/QNX RTOS?

I even use GNU GPL'ed tools on Windows. Should I now call it GNU/Windows 2000?

Is there a line buried somewhere in the GNU GPL License that states "If you use GNU tools, you have to preceed your operating system name with GNU"?

Or maybe if more than nn% of your operating system utilities are GNU, you need to prefix the os name with GNU?

This is getting rediculous.

--

No matter where you go... there you are.

The reason they obsess over this so much. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:36 · Score: 0

GNU/They GNU/need GNU/to GNU/get GNU/lives.

FGA by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:36 · Score: 0

Frequently Given Answers.

Or perhaps,
FGAETQNA: Frequently given answers even though question never asked.

Re:I call it linux, here's why, in a few short poi by p3d0 · 2002-09-25 04:37 · Score: 2

Dude, GNU didn't fail. You run it every time you boot that system you call "Linux". I think you're still not getting the point that your OS actually is the GNU operating system.

Having said that, I still call it Linux for one simple reason: GNU is just a stupid sounding name. In fact, any name that needs a pronunciation guide is just too nerdy to be taken seriously, and deserves oblivion.

(Before anyone says that "Linux" needs a pronunciation guide, let me hasten to say that Linus doesn't care, and you can pronounce it any way you want.)

--
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....

Let's not confuse people by caluml · 2002-09-25 04:38 · Score: 1

Let's not confuse already confused CIOs with Gnu/Linux.

-- What's that? Another free operating system? is it like Linux? What's that? It is Linux? Oh, this is all too confusing for me. We're going to stick with Microsoft - they don't change their name every 5 mins...

The media knows it as Linux.
The heads of companies know it as Linux.
To some people, GNU/Linux is only created by a company called RedHat who employs someone called Torvalds.

Live with it.
Be happy that's it's well known as Linux.

--
Get your own free personal location tracker

Credit where credit is due by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2002-09-25 04:38 · Score: 1

From the FAQ:

It would be ungentlemanly to ask people to stop giving any credit to Linus Torvalds. He did write an important component of the system.

Yeah, he's written a kernel that's actually useable.

--
#DeleteChrome

That's some good crack by dozer · 2002-09-25 04:38 · Score: 0

From the article:

The shortest legitimate name for this system is "GNU", but we call it "GNU/Linux" for the reasons given below.

In other words, if they thought they could get away with it, the FSF would try to force everybody to call it simply GNU. "RedHat GNU 8.0", etc.

I loathe this type of zealotry. How hard could it be to eradicate GNU code from my system? They just wrote glibc and a whole ton of smallish accessories (I use vi). Shouldn't be too hard, and will certainly result in a much cleaner system.

This idiocy might actually be a blessing in disguise.

What a way to end a FAQ... by angst7 · 2002-09-25 04:39 · Score: 1

We hope that you are one of those for whom right and wrong does matter.

In the end, ones decision whether or not to refer to Linux as GNU/Linux is a moral decision? Wow... let the holy wars begin!

---
Jedimom.com, the not-so-fresh feeling.

--
StrategyTalk.com, PC Game Forums

Oh forget it by retro128 · 2002-09-25 04:39 · Score: 0

Let's just bite the bullet and call it RMS/X11/Apache/GNU/Linux. Then we can continue to tag names onto it like a stock car, as every programmer who's programs are included with most distributions make a bid to have his name attached. Where does it end? Heck, this was even addressed by the FAQ, and what I got out of it was "We don't care about everyone else. We just want it called GNU/Linux".
Seriously, this is major hair-splitting. I don't think that anyone who uses Linux doesn't recognize that GNU has made a major contribution. Nobody says "Who's GNU?"
But I don't understand the reason for this FAQ. It looks like they are attacking Linux Torvalds for being an opportunist. Was it his decision to package GNU programs with the kernel? I thought that rested with the creators of the distributions. Regardless, isn't the whole point of the GNU project to provide these programs for exactly this purpose, and without strings attached? This comes off like renting a place for 15 years and then telling your landlord you own half the equity. GNU would just be another speedbump in free software land if it wasn't for the exposure that the explosive growth of Linux has given them. This is their bid to make sure that nobody makes the mistake of thinking Linus did it all himself. But in my opinion, they should call it even and stop whining. Nobody's going to start calling it GNU/Linux.

--
-R

Perversions... by Jungle+guy · 2002-09-25 04:39 · Score: 1

Look at this excerpt:

With this understanding, they [the users] can start to recognize Lindows and so-called "United Linux" as perverted, adulterated versions of GNU.

Torvalds? by mojowantshappy · 2002-09-25 04:40 · Score: 1

Is Torvalds really against free-software? Man, I am so dissalussioned, I am going to install Windows XP on my box now. Really, though, I thought Torvalds was all about free software, considering every single linux... hehe... distrobution is free. Just eems kind of odd.

--

This page was generated by a Barrel of Circus Midgets, and that is the way I like it!!!

I will call it whatever i want. by sujan · 2002-09-25 04:40 · Score: 1

Its called the first amendment of bill of rights. 'Freedom of Speech'. Yay

So.... by SomeOtherGuy · 2002-09-25 04:40 · Score: 2

What if I take Hurd and surround it with non GNU libraries and tools -- I could call it:

NON-GNU/NON-Linux

--
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.

BSD/Linux by david.given · 2002-09-25 04:40 · Score: 2

I keep hearing rumours about a distro somewhere consisting of the Linux kernel plus a BSD userland, not the GNU one. Does anyone know anything about this? It would strike me as being the perfect solution to those who feel that the FSF get up their nose (not that I care either way).

Apart from anything else, the BSD userland makes a great starting point for a cut-down server. Not only is it audited, but it's odd enough that most attacks on it will fail.

Did you actually read it? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:41 · Score: 0

If so, you may need to brush up on those sentence parsing techniques...

From the FAQ:

Why not sue people who call the whole system "Linux"?

There are no legal grounds to sue them, but since we believe in freedom of speech, we wouldn't want to do that anyway. We ask people to call the system "GNU/Linux" because that is the right thing to do.

Re:Did you actually read it? by theLOUDroom · 2002-09-25 04:51 · Score: 1

So they don't want to legally force people (Not that they could anyways)....
They still want to tell everyone else what to call it. They should support Linus' freedom to name the software he created and maintains.

--
Life is too short to proofread.
Re:Did you actually read it? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 05:57 · Score: 0

So they don't want to legally force people (Not that they could anyways).... They still want to tell everyone else what to call it. They should support Linus' freedom to name the software he created and maintains.
Where did you find the straw man you are attacking? Linus does not maintain the system they want called GNU/Linux - Linus maintain the kernel Linux, not the system the FSF wants to be called GNU/Linux system (which a lot of people call Linux.)
Note that I do not agree with GNU's goals, but I do find the use of the term "Linux" for the entire class of systems called by that name to be misleading - it gives the impression that this is a single operating system, for instance. (Not that calling them GNU/Linux helps much...) And I do think GNU deserves credit for making it possible to bootstrap that set of systems; without GNU, I do not believe there would have been any Linux movement.
Eivind, ex-GNU/Linux-user.
Re:Did you actually read it? by Hope+Thelps · 2002-09-25 06:36 · Score: 1

They should support Linus' freedom to name the software he created and maintains.

You really don't have a clue what's being discussed here do you?

I call operating systems that contain the Linux kernel and GNU tools just "Linux", just like a lot of people do. But I do comprehend the argument. I know that those systems aren't created or maintained by Linus Torvalds. I know that the FSF aren't asking anyone to call the Linux kernel, which is maintained by Linux Torvalds, anything other than Linux.

How you can contribute so forcefully to a discussion whilst apparently having no clue what the discussion is about is beyond me.

--
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2

Why "Linux" alone is OK by quigonn · 2002-09-25 04:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

The FSF is always arguing that without their GNU utilities, Linux (or "GNU/Linux" as they call) wouldn't be a complete operating system. If they had read "Operating Systems - Design And Implementation" by Andrew S. Tanenbaum (of Minix fame), they'd know that the operating system is the kernel itself. To quote from the book: "On top of the operating system is the rest of the system software. Here we find the command interpreter (shell), window systems, compilers, editors, and similar application-independent programs. It is important to realize that these programs are definitely not part of the operating system, even though they are typically supplied by the computer manufacturer. This is a crucial, but subtle, point."

--
A monkey is doing the real work for me.

I usually agree with Stallman by theLOUDroom · 2002-09-25 04:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

You know, I usually agree with Stalmann.
I'm a pretty avid linux supporter and think that the GPL is great. But I really think he needs to come off it. Linux is named for Linus. Deal with it.
Every piece of GPLed software doesn't need it's name to begin with G dammit! If I decided to write a program and call it "Foobareng" and I GPLed it and gave the copyright to the FSF, it would be nice if they kept the name. Adding GN to the front of everything is getting a little stupid. If there is a non-free eqivalent for the program that has the same name, by all means add GN or GNU to the front of the name. If not, the author's orignal name should be respected, when possible.
Linus wrote linux, he named and and he owns the trademark. Stallman should show some respect for the wishes of those besides himself. He really should acknowledge and respect to contributions of those besides himself, to the very minmal point where that author of a piece of software gets to name it. If anyone can decide to change the name of linux, it should be Linus.

Also, as another poster points out, not all versions of linux include gnu utilities.

--
Life is too short to proofread.

A Modest Proposal by jeepmeister · 2002-09-25 04:42 · Score: 1

I herby propose that GNU and Linux be commonly represented by an unpronounceable new moniker in the form of the following unprintable symbol. No...wait.

--

I don't need no estinkin' .sig
Jeepmeister

Sigh! by Per+Abrahamsen · 2002-09-25 04:42 · Score: 2

How often have we seen that argument against the GNU/Linux name? Someone should write an FAQ to answer it once and for all!

(Alternatively, /. posters should start reading the articles before posting... nah, won't happen).

Re:Sigh! by tommck · 2002-09-25 04:49 · Score: 2

How often have we seen that argument against the GNU/Linux name?
How many times have the whiners at the FSF tried to take credit for half (and the first half) of OS distributions, when, in reality, they are part of a big mixing bowl of lots of different peoples' contributions??
If they stop implying that the FSF and Linus are the only two players in the game, I'll stop pointing out that they're wrong
T

--
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
Re:Sigh! by Per+Abrahamsen · 2002-09-25 05:06 · Score: 2

If you want to critizise the FAQ, start by reading it.
Re:Sigh! by Enry · 2002-09-25 05:14 · Score: 2

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.

Fine. My threshhold is "Linux". And that's what I'll call it.

Vocabulary word of the day by azizlumiere · 2002-09-25 04:42 · Score: 1

Pueril (puerile) adj.
1-Belonging to childhood; juvenile.
2-Immature; childish.

--
-Linux is SO fast it does an infinite loop in 5 seconds.

principal developer by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:42 · Score: 0

Many other projects contributed to the system as it is today; it includes TeX, X11, Apache, Perl, and many more programs. Don't your arguments imply we have to give them credit too? (But that would lead to a name so long it is absurd.)

What we say is that you ought to give the system's principal developer a share of the credit. The principal developer is the GNU Project.

Let's see. The GNU project provides less than 50% of a Linux system, but it's the only project that provides several packages under a common "brand" name. That makes it the principal developer? And if all the non-GNU project developers created a brand name "UNG" (UNG's Not GNU) and prefixed their packages with UNG (e.g. UNG XFree86, UNG Apache,...), then suddently the GNU project would not be the principal developer anymore, even though the contents have not changed?

A good question that is not in the FAQ by gosand · 2002-09-25 04:42 · Score: 5, Interesting

I was really expecting to see this question in the FAQ:

How come you haven't talked to Red Hat and other companies about changing their references?

Surely posting a FAQ on a website may get a few people to change, but getting Red Hat to call it Red Hat GNU/Linux would be HUGE.

--

My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

Re:A good question that is not in the FAQ by slashhot · 2002-09-25 11:33 · Score: 0

Why don't you e-mail RMS to tell him what you just wrote? This would be, indeed, the proper way to deal with the problem: after persuading every vendor of a foo linux distribution based on GNU to call it "Foo GNU/Linux", everyone would get used to it.
Re:A good question that is not in the FAQ by gosand · 2002-09-26 01:36 · Score: 2

Why don't you e-mail RMS to tell him what you just wrote?

I emailed it to gnu@gnu.org before I posted it here. That is the address at the bottom of the FAQ for comments, so that is what I used. I have to think that RedHat et al have already had this suggested to them, but you never know.

--

My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

Political views by vlad_petric · 2002-09-25 04:42 · 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

petty by asv108 · 2002-09-25 04:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why should the FSF care what the name is as long as Linux is free? Don't we have enough awkward names for free software as it is? I don't see one good reason to use the term GNU/Linux and frankly I find this the FAQ to hardly be in good taste, referring to Linus Torvalds as a posterboy even if they state its "other people's choice." Should Linus have a FAQ that states RMS is a whacked zealot but say that its "other people's choice." It was the FSF "choice" to put an insulting term in the FAQ.

The very nature of the GPL itself allows people to name their software whatever they want as long as they release the source. There are no grounds for changing a name, which is commonly known, to an awkward combination of words. Any marketing guy will tell you should not have a name that people can't pronounce. GNU is certainly a hard name to pronounce and just plain weird. GNU is also to blame for why we have so many poorly named free software projects.

The idea that people should change the name of Linux is in poor taste. Much credit is given to the FSF and all the great work they have done. The FSF can be recognized for the accomplishments without having to change the name of the software which has done more to call attention to the FSF than any other project. If they have a problem with it, then they should make GNU/HURD better than Linux so they can get the recognition that they think they deserve.

FSF is right but I won't say GNU/Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:44 · Score: 0

While I agree with the FSF in that their contribution to the whole thing is frequently overlooked, I refuse to say GNU/Linux. Why? BECAUSE IT IS BLOODY DIFFICULT TO PRONOUNCE!! The "G" in GNU gets stack in my throat, becoming and ordeal.

I think that choosing GNU as their trademark acronym was very witty, but also very impractical.

The Missing Question by bulbul · 2002-09-25 04:44 · Score: 1

When did the FSF first start insisting that the operating system be referred to as "GNU/Linux" and why did they wait until the term "Linux" had become entrenched in the minds of users and the general public alike before doing so?

seems fair enough by main() · 2002-09-25 04:44 · Score: 1

at least to me

just stop it by ironfroggy · 2002-09-25 04:44 · Score: 1

I'm sick of the GNU/Linux vs Linux wars. Especially since the GNU Project themselves seem to be the only ones who care about it.

Look, if you just say Linux, you and most the people listening or reading know you mean GNU/Linux because GNU is so embedded in our minds for free software if we use Linux.

Those that don't have GNU so embedded, might even have lots of non-free software in use on the system and therefor its not really GNU because by their own definitions an operating system is a collection of programs to do things, and thus those non-free programs are included in that users operating system and it is thus no longer GNU to the name.

Besides, we're lazy and don't want to type the extra four characters. They really make a big deal out of nothing.

It's just words and language and language is ever evolving. Don't expect evolution to follow your whims.

--
Question
http://www.ironfroggy.com/

If you really want to know... by Per+Abrahamsen · 2002-09-25 04:45 · Score: 1

their moral basis is explained here.

Re:If you really want to know... by Per+Abrahamsen · 2002-09-25 04:47 · Score: 2

That should be a link. I really did preview as well. Honestely!

Overlooked question in FAQ by many /.'ers by dh003i · 2002-09-25 04:45 · Score: 5, Interesting

Here's something that many here seem to have overlooked, in their zeal to label Richard Stallman a speech-nazi:

Why not sue people who call the whole system "Linux"?

There are no legal grounds to sue them, but since we believe in freedom of speech, we wouldn't want to do that anyway. We ask people to call the system "GNU/Linux" because that is the right thing to do.

Though I don't think that Linux in general as a reference to all the distributions of Linux should be called GNU/Linux (because some Linux distributions do not use GNU software), I do think that any distribution which uses primarily GNU software along with the Linux kernel should call itself "Distribution GNU/Linux".

This is really an issue of academic credit and a kind of plaguarism. Due credit should be given to those who created/wrote something. This is the basis of the academic world.

--
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen

Re:Overlooked question in FAQ by many /.'ers by iggymanz · 2002-09-25 05:11 · Score: 1

Why GNU at the beginning? Linus has succeeded at what GNU has failed to do after 10 years, to build a kernel usable for real world application (the Hurd is half-done toy for computer scientists at best). Yes, the C compiler and utilities are grand achievements - so lets call it "Linux *GNU built" or something. I can't help thinking Linux would get even more acceptance in the business world if they were built with an alternative compiler not subject to Stallman's extreme world view. Then we could have "Liberated Business Linux", include your source code when you sell your software, or not !
Re:Overlooked question in FAQ by many /.'ers by FooBarWidget · 2002-09-25 05:16 · Score: 2

> Why GNU at the beginning?

Then call it Linux/GNU if you like. Obviously you didn't read the FAQ.
Re:Overlooked question in FAQ by many /.'ers by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 05:24 · Score: 0

You are absolutely right. "Linux" needs to drop all the GNU tools. Develop/bundle a compiler without the terrible GPL restrictions (The kernel is actually NOT GPL! Or rather it's GPL + )

Then "Linux" can be called "Linux" and may actually gain wide spread commercial acceptance. The communists can still keep their GNU OS around to play with in their basements. Meanwhile the rest of the world will have an OS that they can USE.
Re:Overlooked question in FAQ by many /.'ers by iggymanz · 2002-09-25 05:49 · Score: 1

sure I have....and when FSF incorporates the names of the authors/designers of the programming languages into the names of their compilers, maybe I'll take the FAQ seriously. g++-stroustrup, gcc-ritchie......
Re:Overlooked question in FAQ by many /.'ers by Laplace · 2002-09-25 06:00 · Score: 2

Don't forget that Linus gave Linix a GPL licsnse because he was using GNU tools. The animosity is obvious. Stallman like the kid who gets an expensive toy for his birthday, then screams and cries because it isn't the right color.

--
The middle mind speaks!
Re:Overlooked question in FAQ by many /.'ers by FooBarWidget · 2002-09-25 06:18 · Score: 2

They are not trying to *incorporate* "GNU" into the name "Linux"! They are ASKING you to CALL it "GNU/Linux". Whatever you call it is entirely up to you. If you already know that your Linux system is partially GNU, then you have already been enlightened. If you think ritchie deserves lots of credit and you *want* to call GCC "gcc-ritchie", then do so.

Again, they are not forcing anything! It's rediculous to see how people flame them down for having an opinion.
Re:Overlooked question in FAQ by many /.'ers by Bakaneko · 2002-09-25 09:48 · Score: 1

What is the point of this story, if not to flame?
What is the point of the FAQ, if not to flame?

PERHAPS it was intended to get people to think, and change their opinions, but I think based on the level of comments here its been a glorious failure.

It is occasionaly cogent in its arguements, and occasionally quite inflammatory (the side digs at Linux regarding the atom bomb are in my opinion both uncalled for and unethical.)
Re:Overlooked question in FAQ by many /.'ers by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 11:46 · Score: 0

Their FAQ is written offensively, taking snide potshots at anyone who doesn't agree with their position. They attempt to polarize people, with stupid comments.

"People who don't call Linux GNU/Linux are pro-abortion and hate kittens! We hope you don't hate foetii and kittens!"

That by itself is enough reason to ignore their shit.
Re:Overlooked question in FAQ by many /.'ers by Soulslayer · 2002-09-25 21:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

The central argument of Stallman's has always been "the kernel is useless without the tools. So the tools require equal billing" which is just plain silly.

My Nissan pickup is fairly useless without its Firestone tires, but I don't go around calling it a Firestone/Nissan. However if someone asks what tires I have on my Nissan I will tell them "Firestone Wilderness AT's" or just "Wilderness AT's" (and to forestall the lame jokes about Firestone recalls, no these are not from the bad batch and have been fine for a long time) just as if someone asks what C compiler my Linux system uses I would say "GCC" or "the GNU compiler".

Stallman also seems to conveniently ignore commercial software like Sun's Solaris/Sun OS when it began shipping with GNU tools. Why this rabid fascination with making only Linux bear the full moniker of GNU?

As iggymanz points out if Stallman were truly interested about giving credit where credit was do he would be naming all the GNU tools with the names of those that contributed to them since without the programmers, there would be no tools.

--

Once more unto the breach dear friends...
Re:Overlooked question in FAQ by many /.'ers by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-26 00:51 · Score: 0

If you changed your tires to Goodyears, would you all of a sudden call your car a Goodyear?

That's more similar to the GNU/Linux issue, because Linux is a replacement for one component of the GNU operating system -- Hurd.

Now you may say that at the time of the creation of Linux, Hurd was not useful as a kernel. However, does that mean you should call the whole system Linux? I don't think so, because if you had the defective firestone tires, you still wouldn't call your car a Goodyear after replacing them -- even though they were not useful as tires.
Re:Overlooked question in FAQ by many /.'ers by FooBarWidget · 2002-09-26 01:44 · Score: 2

> What is the point of this story, if not to flame?
> What is the point of the FAQ, if not to flame?

So you can think about the issue and decide for yourself wether you agree or not?
Posting a story only to flame down and pick on one person is always wrong, and extremely rude.

> but I think based on the level of comments here
> its been a glorious failure.

Because RMS is their most visible target so people turn on their Child Mode and flame him down, just because they LIKE to flame somebody.

There is no failure. There can't be a failure. It is not a battle. But people apparantly want to think there's a battle.

Atomic bomb mentioned? by nolife · 2002-09-25 04:46 · Score: 0, Troll

Supporting open source and open computing are one thing, politically charged opinions are the result of a much different agenda.

Check out this quote from the FAQ:

He goes even further, and rebukes anyone who suggests that engineers and scientists should consider social consequences of our technical work--rejecting the lessons society learned from the development of the atom bomb.

Wow. I have never really been interested or followed in the goals of the FSF. First impressions are lasting impressions. After reading this FAQ (freqently asked? I doubt it). I have definately formed an opinion of the FSF. These guys are nuts!

--
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.

Re:Atomic bomb mentioned? by nolife · 2002-09-25 05:05 · Score: 1

Thanks Mr Moderator for moding this as troll. It was not a troll post. I read the entire FAQ and gave my idea of what I thought. All completely related to the topic at hand. I guess it did not agree with your viewpoint and therefore you considered it as troll. I guess thats why /. has meta-moderation.

--
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
Re:Atomic bomb mentioned? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 05:19 · Score: 0

It's why /. should get rid of moderation.

Moderating is power, power corrupts!

Moderation is censorship, censorship is bad!

The machine that goes GNU/Bing! by tommck · 2002-09-25 04:46 · Score: 2

Does this mean that every machine that uses GNU product should have it?

Going to have to rewrite that Monty Python skit!

T

--
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.

What a twist of irony.... by M.C.+Hampster · 2002-09-25 04:47 · Score: 1

From the FAQ:

What is the difference between and operating system and a kernel?

An operating system, as we use the term, means a collection of programs that are sufficient to use the computer to do a wide variety of jobs. A general purpose operating system, to be complete, ought to handle all the jobs that many users may want to do.

You mean like browsing the Internet?

--
Forget the whales - save the babies.

Re:What a twist of irony.... by The+Bungi · 2002-09-25 06:32 · Score: 2

Noooo!!!! that would turn GNU/Linux into... a... monopoly!!!1!!
<wink, wink>

In related news.... by yack0 · 2002-09-25 04:47 · Score: 3, Funny

vi users have put together a FAQ entitled "Why emacs sucks"

The National Apple Institute released a bulletin on use of pears in food products "Fuck pears!"*

The Paintball Users Consortium released it's findings on "Why pump guns are better"

The folks at "Apple Computers Rule!" released a document on "Why Macs are better than PC's"

Gee, did I miss any completely blatant flame war topics?

Useless news, stuff that fills the boards up...

*sigh*

j

* credit for this to George Carlin, Place for my Stuff album.

--
-- There is no sig line, only Zuul.

Re:In related news.... by Accipiter · 2002-09-25 15:15 · Score: 2

"I've just received a message from the National Pancake Institute. It says, 'Fuck Waffles'."

Tip of the hat to Mr. George Carlin.

--
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't. :P)

Is there a parallel here? by uk_greg · 2002-09-25 04:47 · Score: 1

As I read through this thread, it occurred to me that this appears to be a debate not just about a name, but about what consitiutes an operating system. (Call the kernel Linux, but once you wrap the supporting utilities, etc., around it, it becomes GNU/Linux.)

Wasn't that also one of the fundamental architecture questions argued before the courts in the Microsoft/DOJ case? In other words,what components were critical to the Windows operating system truly being "Windows"?

I'm not sure what to make of this - it may not mean anything, and maybe I'm off base - but if nothing else I think it demonstrates that the lines between what constitutes an operating system and an operating environment, if you will, are blurry, whether it's open or closed source.

Loose definitions by datastew · 2002-09-25 04:49 · Score: 1

Today, with the GNU Hurd working, it would not make sense to [adopt Linux as the GNU kernel]. We don't want to release a GNU/Linux system as "GNU", because we are getting ready to package and release the real GNU system.

Valid for definitions of "getty ready to package and release" up to and including six years of prep work.

Will cause new problems... by smackdotcom · 2002-09-25 04:49 · Score: 1

...because if you say to your relatively non-techie friend that he or she should try using GNU/Linux as their operating system, they're going to hear it as "New Linux". And then they's going to ask you what happened to the old Linux. And then you're going to have to snap and kill them.

--

In a world without walls, there is no need for Windows.

Jesus, misplaced efforts.. seriously. by antis0c · 2002-09-25 04:49 · Score: 2

Come on? All this over trying to prepend GNU/ to Linux? Seriously. Why aren't these people battling the real issues, instead of waring amongst themselves. I don't care if Linus called it Linus Torvald's Very Own Operating System, I don't care. And neither should anyone else. When does it end? What if someone else contribs tons of code to Linux? Should we then have New/Gnu/Linux, when does the madness end?. It's Linux, live with it. If you don't like it, you are welcome to fork it.

--

..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'

End of problem by Galahad · 2002-09-25 04:49 · Score: 1

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.

Ok, I'll call it RedHat Linux; they've made many important contributions as well.

End of problem.

--
--jdp Maintainer of VisEmacs

How About by SomeOtherGuy · 2002-09-25 04:50 · Score: 2

lets rename Apache to mod_perl/Apache

or PHP/Apache or Mysql/Apache.

--
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.

CP/M by JudasBlue · 2002-09-25 04:50 · Score: 1

Okay the lynchpin of the GNU argument here seems to be that the kernel shouldn't be the operating system, but the kernel + tools should be considered the operating system, and that this is The Way It Has Always Been If You Are Right Thinking.

Someone with a better memory than I can correct me if I am wrong here (and I am sure they will, as well as moderate me out of existence) but I don't remember CP/M being an operating system + tools. And I am trying to remember what the actual OS was under my Heathkit (Zenith) S100 system I built as a kid, but I seem to remember that the OS was just that, an OS (meaning kernel).

And I haven't worked on them, but wasn't Amiga's OS the same way?

And I am thinking about early Tandy's and Commodores, which both, perforce, included a basic interpreter (which basically WAS the OS). Those weren't a collection of tools past the basic interpreter.

My memory is going, but I pretty clearly remember these OS'es, and we never thought of them as anything but OS'es, albeit tiny, toy ones in the case of Tandy and Commie, and they didn't include a plug for extra utility or compiler programs that ran on them and were used in their development.

--

7. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.

Re:CP/M by user32.ExitWindowsEx · 2002-09-25 05:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

I thought that an OS was always classically defined as the kernel-mode code....and that the stuff GNU puts out was nothing more than userland utilities.

--
"Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet

Credit is free, but can what's free demand credit? by Featureless · 2002-09-25 04:51 · Score: 2

Credit is one of those things that should be given most freely, because it is free to give, giving it makes people happy, and withholding it where it is due is unjust.

Names are, however, not easily changed, and Linux, with its widespread recognition, will be particularly difficult (I would guess impossible) to rename. Literally and metaphorically, this assumption is all over the code. So I will call it by its generally acknowledged name simply to be most efficiently understood.

GNU has contributed and continues to contribute an enormous volume of excellent of work to Linux, and perhaps Linux could not have existed without GNU. The reverse is also untrue, obviously, since most of the work in question predates Linux, and in fact GNU has a kernel of their own. I am sympathetic to GNU for the relative lack of recognition their work receives. Linux has become a famous figurehead, not GNU, and they don't see the logic in it. Sometimes, neither do I. It's a question of being in the right place (including the right place in the system, the right little spot on the political spectrum) and the right time. The press, and the public, are ficle.

GNU has an important mission, one for which the benefits are already in many ways self-evident. They see a little strife as necessary in the furtherance of that mission - both to whip GPL violators into line, and to play a larger advocacy role. I am sympathetic to this, too. You have to break a few eggs to make an omelete, etc. and if you believe in your cause, you go out and get results, even if it means judiciously ticking people off.

But is a piece of software truly free, if, by using it in your project, you might one day find yourself under constant harangue to change its name to credit that free software component's authors? Even if you only added 5% to what is 95% free, is it really free if the name change comes with the deal?

I mean, it would be only fair if you were forewarned... if it were part of your obligations under the license. That might have actually been a good idea... if GNU had more marketing experience, they might have said "branding!" and put something like that in. But they didn't. "It's free," they said, freely given to the world in the best human tradition, earnest generosity to others. It's even meant to teach us a thing or two about generosity along the way. That's how they earned their half of that free/open dichotomy we hear about.

They aren't filing any lawsuits, of course - it's just that, a harangue. And as far as it goes, my sympathy extends to their making their point about how misplaced fame and recognition can be, politely and gentlemanly, using whatever naming convention they approve of themselves, and then allowing the community to make up its mind. I would say they lose my sympathy in as much as they overstep those bounds, and claim (or appear to claim, or imply) a "right," or they act in a self-righteous or immature manner on the topic.

I mean, it's human nature to do those things, too, and frankly, I understand it, even if I'm not sympathetic towards it. But crossing those boundaries doesn't fit in with the high-minded ideals that I always thought GNU is all about.

I certainly wouldn't condone being so childish toward GNU as to criticize their opinion. They're entitled to call Linux whatever they want, and to joust at the windmill of name changes too. They've earned it and then some. And I would politely ignore them if they get too worked up in their pursuit of recognition. That kind of behavior needs no rebuke, and no one needs, or deserves, the bad blood. It's way off topic.

If I were Linus, I would give serious consideration to just giving in. As I said, credit should be given freely, because it is free to give. But in the end I would probably consider undertaking a name change, with all it entails, as unreasonable. I would point out that we use Linux to refer to operating systems based on the Linux kernel (of which there are many, and not all use GNU components), and find other ways to better credit my contributors if they feel unsatisfied.

--

Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!

NO! Absolutely not! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:52 · Score: 0

GNU would be nowhere without Linux. Linux made GNU a success regardless of what Comrade Stallman thinks. If Linux had not come along, GNU would still be as obscure as ever, only affecting the fringe, not a mainstream player. If anyone owes thanks or attribution, it goes to Linux, not the other way around.

Historical fact by Subcarrier · 2002-09-25 04:52 · Score: 2

Did you know that Linus initially wanted to call the kernel Freaks? It was Ari Lemmke, who came up with the name Linux. Fortunately it stuck.

I wonder if RMS would be rooting as eagerly for the name GNU/Freaks...

--
"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them." -- George H. W. Bush

(troll) FSF should use BSD license by bsdbigot · 2002-09-25 04:52 · Score: 1

Had the FSF created/used a license similar to the BSD license, this wouldn't be an issue; mentioning GNU in the name would be compulsory in such a case, rather than this mock-religious war they're trying to create. If having the GNU name associated with GPL'd code is so important to them, they should have made provision in the license before the fact.

BSD - do what you want, but give us due credit
GPL - do what you want, but give your stuff back

Clearly FSF has desire for the BSD licensing style!

--
main(){char I,l,O[]={'-',1-1,0,(1<<5)-1,0+'-',-10-1,-10,11-0,- 1,-100};for(I=l=0;l<10+0;put

Silence is Gnolden by richie2000 · 2002-09-25 04:52 · Score: 2

Since I have never heard a Gnu speak, I must assume they are all mutes. Therefore the GNU is silent and GNU/Linux is pronounced [li:no-ocks] instead of [all:hail:stallman]. Easy-peasy. Next!

--
Money for nothing, pix for free

If we're interested in completeness... by rk · 2002-09-25 04:52 · Score: 1

Perhaps I should call my system GNU/BSD/LaTeX/Mozilla/PHP/Linux, since my system is really made up of more than the just kernel and GPL software.

Or maybe I should get a life.

Why not "GNU and Linux"? by cocotoni · 2002-09-25 04:53 · Score: 1

Ok, they said that you can use variation GNU+Linux, but this should be spelled out. I really hate how that / in the name looks like, it sort of divides GNU from Linux.

If their idea is to associate one with the other, it would be much more appropriate to call it "GNU and Linux", or even "GNU&Linux".

Stallman by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:53 · Score: 0

Ive noticed that people tend to refer to Stallman as "Stallman" rather than by his full name, and that his personal webpage is simply stallman.org.

I propose that from now on everyone uses his full name whenever you refer to him...

Richard Monotone Stallman

Re:Stallman by jbottero · 2002-09-25 05:26 · Score: 0

So that would be GNU/Stallman?
Re:Stallman by rmst · 2002-09-25 06:03 · Score: 1

I'm not sure that this is entirely appropriate. In Referring to RMS at Stallman or even RMS, I think we're neglecting the infrastructure that allowed him to spring forth.

Therefore, I recommend referring to him as Stallman/Stallman, or Stallman/RMS, in recognition of his parents' contribution to the world and Free Software in General.

Wherever you are, Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. Stallman.

--
--------
Never call a man a fool. Borrow from him.

debian by Bassthang · 2002-09-25 04:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

To be honest, "GNU/Linux" has become interchangable in my mind with "Debian". I know that this is factually incorrect, but thats just how I think of it.

--
"What I look forward to is continued immaturity followed by death."

I'm still not convinced by SquierStrat · 2002-09-25 04:53 · Score: 2

Sorry, but I'm still not in agreement with this:
A) The GNU project did not start Linux.
B) The GNU project is still working on it's own OS! (Hurd)
C) It is unpronounceable.
D) It is a stupid thing to haggle over.
E) Everytime some GNU purist hears a person say linux, they immediately pause the conversation to waste the person's time explaining to them how evil it is to call it Linux not GNU/Linux.
F) Did I mention it is a stupid thing to haggle over?
G) Did I mention that they waste people's time with it?

--
Derek Greene

What compiler did you use? by cyba · 2002-09-25 04:54 · Score: 1

non-gcc?

Re:What compiler did you use? by Rentar · 2002-09-25 05:04 · Score: 1

non-gcc?

Well, it was probably a rethoric question, but the latest intel-c-compiler can indeed compile the linux-kernel. And I think that's a great engineering sucess, when you consider how many gcc-extension linux (yeah, I talk only of the kernel now) uses.
Re:What compiler did you use? by sfraggle · 2002-09-25 05:24 · Score: 1, Redundant

I used gcc but it was cross-compiled: gcc is not part of the system itself. The standard OS on the Psion Revo is EPOC which is also crosscompiled using gcc. Should this be GNU/EPOC?

--
were you expecting to see a sig here? perhaps you'd rather see the inside of an ambulance!
Re:What compiler did you use? by p7 · 2002-09-25 15:04 · Score: 1

What would that matter? Maybe I didn't compile it. Maybe I used the intel compiler. If someone does run a Linux kernel system compiled using the intel compiler and with no GNU software, should we call it Intel/Linux?

GNU, Hurd and religion by Vicegrip · 2002-09-25 04:54 · Score: 2

I recall one amusing post in an earlier discussion where somebody pointed out that originally the FSF wanted little do with Linux preferring Hurd for their own reasons. It also bears pointing out that Linus never chose that name. Linux was coined after people thought the name Linus had picked was silly.

Years after Linux became incredibly popular, the FSF decided the name should be changed.

One of the criticisms I read regularly about the FSF is with respect to over-controlling nature of many of their interventions. This is partly exemplified by the recommendation their faqs make that not only you license your software via the GPL, but that turn over your copyright to the FSF (in this regard I recall some colorful emails by one of the main authors of glibc on this matter).

I'm not particular to any name myself and in fact do occasionally refer to the system as GNU/Linux. I do feel, however, that this squable over names is getting rather unseemly to the point of being petty. The name was Linux back in 95 when I got my first slackware CDs-- back then, names only mattered to the filesystem.

--
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.

Fundamental Flaw by smack.addict · 2002-09-25 04:55 · Score: 2

There is a serious, fundamental flaw in the FAQ (and, in fact, in RMS's thinking). It is best captured in the following question from the FAQ:

Since many people call it "Linux", doesn't that make it right?

We don't think that the popularity of an error makes it the truth.

The fundamental flaw is the name equals credit. In fact, what people call something is a popularity contest. If people call the system Linux, then it *is* Linux. That does not change the truth of who the major contributors of the system are in any way.

In fact, the FAQ recognizes the absurdity of using a name as a forum for giving credit:

Many other projects contributed to the system as it is today; it includes TeX, X11, Apache, Perl, and many more programs. Don't your arguments imply we have to give them credit too? (But that would lead to a name so long it is absurd.)

What we say is that you ought to give the system's principal developer a share of the credit. The principal developer is the GNU Project.

If you feel even more strongly about giving credit where it is due, you might feel that some secondary contributors also deserve credit in the system's name. If so, far be it from us to argue against it. If you feel that X11 deserves credit in the system's name, and you want to call the system GNU/X11/Linux, please do. If you free that Perl simply cries out for mention, and you want to write GNU/Linux/Perl, go ahead.

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.

If names are proper tools for giving credit, then this argument holds up. However, this argument shows just how absurd it is to use names as tools for giving credit. That's why movies have short names like The Matrix and a whole list of credits at the end. Furthermore, if the GNU people had any sense of brand awareness whatsoever, they would know that names by credit generally make shitty brands anyways.

The bottom line is that the FSF should drop this GNU/Linux bullshit. It serves no purpose other than to make them look bad and make a huge mockery out of the entire open source and free software crowds.

Linux was first by Per+Abrahamsen · 2002-09-25 04:55 · Score: 2

Of course, the GNU project is older than Linux, but the first "installations" running GNU tools on a Linux kernel were refered to as "Linux".

And language is not defined by logic, but by popular use.

Re:I call it linux, here's why, in a few short poi by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:55 · 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.

Three things by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:56 · Score: 0

If they had adopted Linux as an official GNU project while they had the chance, would they still object to people calling it plain Linux? E.g. is writing "Emacs" rather than "GNU Emacs" considered acceptable?

They consider themselves proponents of software that is "free as in 'free speech'" but they are campaigning to change the way people speak and claiming people are wrong for speaking a particular way. I don't think these agendas are quite compatible. They are discrediting their primary cause.

There is probably a law in the world that says hard, painstaking, unglamourous work is rarely recognized in a person's lifetime no matter how much it achieves. I'm sure that in the history books of the future Linux and GNU will both have equal prominence.

Re:GNU failed? You're insane by intermodal · 2002-09-25 04:56 · Score: 2

well put. Linus created Linux, which is not only a useable kernel, but he also managed to get that kernel packaged by users into a freely distributable package which is gaining users all the time and is a viable operating system. The goal of the GNU project was the same thing more or less, but Linus is the one who accomplished the most important step. The tools are extremely important, but without a kernel to run them on/distribute them with that doesnt suck, they're simply not that useful, especially unless people are making software for it.

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!

Goodies by foobar104 · 2002-09-25 04:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is probably redundant (and should be moderated as such, if it is), but I just had to collect my favorite little gems.

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 whose cite only practical benefits and present free software only as an efficient development model (the open source movement).

GNU Law #1: Never, ever, pass by an opportunity to turn the conversation toward our particular political and social agenda. And don't be ashamed to really stretch to make the connection, either.

People who value freedom are more likely to call the system "GNU/Linux"...

You're not against freedom, are you?

The shortest legitimate name for this system is "GNU", but we call it "GNU/Linux" for the reasons given below. [...] It would be ungentlemanly to ask people to stop giving any credit to Linus Torvalds. He did write an important component of the system.

Well, that's mighty generous of you, Richard, throwing Linus a bone like that.

In Spanish we sometimes say "GNU con Linux".

Dude, a Google web search turned up exactly one instance of the phrase "GNU con Linux," in this context: "Todo esto es curro, pero entre todos podríamos remover GNU con Linux...ehr... digo Roma con Santiago..." Not being a speaker of Spanish, it looks to me like this example is just using "con" as a conjunction, like saying "GNU and Linux."

There were no matches at all for "GNU con Linux" as a phrase on Google Groups.

The widespread practice of adding non-free software to the GNU/Linux system is a major problem for our community. It teaches the users that non-free software is ok, and that using it is part of the spirit of "Linux".

I really don't know what to say here. The pedantry of this statement shocks and amazes me. If the phrase "It teaches the users that [blah blah] is ok" were included in a leaked Microsoft memo, I'd be up in arms. The thought that RMS would publish this sort of statement publicly is just bewildering.

With this understanding, they can start to recognize Lindows and so-called "United Linux" as perverted, adulterated versions of GNU.

Sounding more and more like L. Ron Hubbard here, RMS.

If the Linux User Group in your area has the problems describe above, we suggest you either campaign within the group to change its orientation (and name) or start a new group.

Go found your own user group... but not in a way that divides the community or anything.

[Linus] has never advocated the ideal of freedom to cooperate, which is why the name "Linux" is mostly disconnected from that ideal.

So let me get this straight. If you have never actively advocated an ideal, then you must necessarily be opposed to that ideal. And if that ideal is freedom, then we've got a real problem on our hands! Linus is opposed to freedom, everybody! Sheesh.

He goes even further, and rebukes anyone who suggests that engineers and scientists should consider social consequences of our technical work--rejecting the lessons society learned from the development of the atom bomb.

Comparing programming as a hobby to the effort to build the atomic bomb is pretty arrogant, Richard. Once again, you've shown that your ego is way out of proportion to your contributions.

People who laugh at our request probably have picked up that mistaken picture--they think our work was done by Linus, so they laugh when we ask for credit for it.

Actually, Richard, we laugh because you are asking for credit for it. Asking for credit in this way is rude and overbearing. The most common responses are to get angry, or to laugh. I'm choosing to laugh, simply so that I may not get angry.

Re:Goodies by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 05:24 · Score: 0

"Todo esto es curro, pero entre todos podríamos remover GNU con Linux"
My 2nd semester spanish comes up with:
All this is work, but we ask everyone to remove GNU with Linux.
Re:Goodies by The+Bungi · 2002-09-25 06:27 · Score: 2

Not being a speaker of Spanish, it looks to me like this example is just using "con" as a conjunction, like saying "GNU and Linux."
It's a play on a phrase like "papas con catsup" or "coca cola con ron bacardi" in that french fries always *mix* well with ketchup and cola goes well with rum, and so on. Kinda like "gin and tonic".
Hmmmm. I think I need a burger and a drink now.
Re:Goodies by Bakaneko · 2002-09-25 09:55 · Score: 1

Well, technically "con" is not "and", its "with"

I.E. its GNU with Linux.

Papas y cerveza (papas and beer)...
Chile con carne (chili with meat)...

Just being your friendly neighborhood pedant.

Of course, it DOES have philosophical implications, as "GNU con Linux" enforces the "Linux is secondary" position.

GNU y Linux would just sound odd though...

"Ngyuee Leenucks."
Re:Goodies by orasio · 2002-09-25 11:37 · Score: 1

GNU Law #1: Never, ever, pass by an opportunity to turn the conversation toward our particular political and social agenda. And don't be ashamed to really stretch to make the connection, either.

The main goal of the GNU project is social and political, not technical, they do not want a better software in the technical meaning, they want a better software in the sense that it gives more freedom to the user.

Not being a speaker of Spanish, it looks to me like this example is just using "con" as a conjunction, like saying "GNU and Linux."

Being a Spanish speaker, that means GNU with Linux. Of course, they wouldn't use it if it didn't support their views. Next time, given the doubt, you might want to use the fish, which says "All this is curro, but between all we could remove GNU with Linux... ehr... I say Rome with Santiago... ", which is a somewhat good translation.
Re:Goodies by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 11:53 · Score: 0

oh my god, you are like the world's biggest asshole. i just surfed in here to check out why this article has 1200 posts and now i know why. you are a flamebaiting troll of the lowest quality. every second post is you ranting about stallman. shut the fuck up already and let somebody else talk. your ego is just as big as stallman's is. bigger, i don't see him in here spamming like you are.

you suck. i can't even cruise slashdot at 2 anymore with trolls like you spamming /. until they max out and get a karma bonus. now im gonna have to crusie at 3 to avoid retards like you who think they know everything about everything and automatically get modded up for no reason

it's a fucking FAQ you goddamn retard! fuck off!

p.s. windows kicks all of your fucking asses anyway , so until you get some real apps, your dead. 1% market share and fallinhg. keep giving away program code and microsoft and apple will keep using it to beat you to death with and theres not a damn thing you loudmouths can do to stop it so fuck off and die
Re:Goodies by foobar104 · 2002-09-25 15:02 · Score: 2

I assert to you that politics is a lousy reason to write software. Writing software for political reasons is like having a baby for the tax write-off. It just doesn't make sense.

And as for the translation, I did use Babelfish. That translation makes about as much sense to me as the instructions on a Japanese car part. It may be a perfect translation, and the original sentence was gibberish, or at least made no sense out of context.

The antipathy.. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 04:58 · Score: 0

..towards RMS is interesting.

The fact is, FSF did more for free software than practically anyone else; their efforts inspired Linus. Linus deserves every ounce of credit he gets, but since he GETS all the credit he could ever want, there's no need for him to be political about it (not that he might be otherwise).

However, FSF just wants the same credit that Linus doesn't have to ask for. It's not that their undeserving.

The /. crowd could be a little less callous to RMS and his effort. He's a color character, but the computing world would be much less without him.

NOW, there's one problem with what I just wrote: a lot of what FSF wrote in the past, that made up the foundation of all the free OSes, is getting replaced by evolutionary development: newer apps. He might have less claim to all this in 5 years than he does now.

So, the question is, what's on his TODO list? HURD isn't the answer.

Re:The antipathy.. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 05:14 · Score: 0

"The /. crowd could be a little less callous to RMS and his effort. He's a color character, but the computing world would be much less without him."

POSIBLY, but it is also possible that it would have all happened anyway with different people. Situations cause the spontanious generation of ideas and products as much as people do.

But most of all. If RMS didn't act like such a baby, he wouldn't get treated like one. Running around contantly crying to be recognized is surely the worst thing he could do to gain that recognition.

They made one of the Classic Blunders.... by RedHat+Rocky · 2002-09-25 04:58 · Score: 1

by leaving out the most important FAQ:

"How do you pronounce that?"

--
Anything is possible given time and money.

Re:They made one of the Classic Blunders.... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 06:05 · Score: 0

I was wondering, do I have to pronounce the slash as well? like "GuhNoo slash lih-nucks".

Re:This is one of the Dumbest things I have ever s by Tassach · 2002-09-25 04:59 · Score: 2

Secondly, I wrote Daydream Linux {runs on the Dreamcast sh-4} and I damn sure didn't use any GNU tools for that

How did you compile the kernel? I didn't think it was possible to compile the kernel using anything except gcc -- it uses too many of the GNU non-ANSI-standard extensions. [how come when M$ "embraces and extends" a standard it's a bad thing, but when the FSF does it, it's a good thing?]

--
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?

All Your LUGs Are Now GUGs by FrankDrebin · 2002-09-25 04:59 · Score: 2

Somebody, quick, register all domains [a-z]{1,3}gug.[org|com|net] and cash in on the wave of GUGs that will now start popping up everywhere!

--
Anybody want a peanut?

But what does it mean? by IamTheRealMike · 2002-09-25 04:59 · Score: 2

It's perhaps offtopic, but what does GNU actually mean? I know what it's supposed to stand for, but I mean originally, back in the days. I read somewhere that it was some kind of wierd african word, does anybody know more? GNU's not UNIX is the sort of abbreviation you make up later to fit the word imho.

Re:But what does it mean? by Xenex · 2002-09-29 17:31 · Score: 2

I read somewhere that it was some kind of wierd african word, does anybody know more?

Here's some info from E2:

"The gnu, also known as the wildebeest, is a striking animal native to Africa. It has a lifespan of up to 20 years, and is constantly on the move. Gnu are not the fastest of animals, and are therefore important prey for lions, hyenas, and other predators."

Have you ever looked at the The GNU Project's logo? It is a gnu. Probably not the greatest animal to name a project after, but the characters in the name were just convenient.

So now you know.

A practical answer: by FPhlyer · 2002-09-25 04:59 · Score: 2

Here is a practical answer to the GNU/Linux naming argument:

"GNU/Linux" should be used as a formal declaration of the system. This would be suited for first reference to the system in a journalistic article, or packaging on distribution for sale on the shelf.

"Linux" should be the qolloquial reference, used for ordinary conversation or on second reference.

Additionally, the Free Software Foundation should make allowance that not all Linux distributions are "GNU/Linux" distributions. Debian is definately GNU/Linux, while Lindows is not. The downloadable version of Mandrake is GNU/Linux, while the powerpack and other boxed versions are not. If the distribution does not adhere to the free-software model, then calling it "GNU/Linux" becomes confusing. Just because the various BSDs also include some GNU tools, that doesn't mean we should call it "GNU/FreeBSD" does it? "GNU/Linux" should only be applied to distributions that adhere to the philosophy of GNU and the FSF. All other should retain their "Linux" only nomenclature.

--
Brought to you by Frobozz Magic Penguin Fodder.

And when I say we I mean me. by SpankTech3000 · 2002-09-25 05:00 · Score: 2, Funny

When reading the FAQ, please mentally substitute all instances of "We" with "I, Richard Stallman".

Thank you,
The Free Software Foundation*

* Please subsitite all occurances of "The Free Software Foundation" with "Richard Stallman"

What about just "Linux" by kryps · 2002-09-25 05:00 · Score: 1

Quoting the FAQ:

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.

So what about just "Linux" ;-)

-- kryps

in a related news... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 05:00 · Score: 0

GNU has changed its name into GNL, which stands for GNL's Not Linux.

Artaxerxes

HAHAHAHA! by TheAwfulTruth · 2002-09-25 05:03 · Score: 2

I'm going to refer to "it" as "LiGNUx" from now on! Besides being the hardest to say, it's also all ha>or like! It's got that magical 1337 mystique about it!

"Bad reaction" indeed. I can't believe any sane person would have even suggested that name.

Hee Hee Hee It'll be hours before I stop giggling about "LiGNUx".

--
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!

Too pedantic.. by robbo · 2002-09-25 05:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

I have no illusions about the contribution that the FSF has made to free software, and I'm grateful for tools like gcc, make, and even emacs.

However, I find this whole naming fiasco to be far too pedantic and divisive. While the FSF has been around far longer, Linux, and to some extent Apache are what launched GNU into the mainstream spotlight. The best thing that ever happened to GNU has been the success of these apps (I don't see Fortune magazine writing up articles on Emacs, the next generation word processor). Almost everyone who uses Linux knows about GNU and the casual users who don't are of little consequence to the promotion of free-as-in-speech software.

One last thing, the only other party that I've ever seen use the term "operating system" to refer to every package that comes with the distribution was Microsoft in their anti-trust defence. I'm willing to concede that binutils might be an essential part of the Linux OS, but I don't think the entire collection of GNU packages is OS-worthy.

Ok, flame away. I still think the FSF is a great thing, but there are bigger and better battles to fight than promoting linguistic conformance.

--
So long, and thanks for all the Phish

Re:Too pedantic.. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 05:12 · Score: 0

What about libc (which is linked to every program on the system)?
Re:Too pedantic.. by robbo · 2002-09-25 05:22 · Score: 1

Fair enough.. I don't mean to say binutils is an exhaustive list. Throw in libc, the network config utilities, etc. Things that enable other apps to do their work. We don't study gcc or emacs or apache in operating systems courses.. and while I can understand that people abuse the term to refer to the whole collection of programs, I find it ironic that the FSF if exploiting the abuse to further their own abuse-prevention agenda.

--
So long, and thanks for all the Phish

Reese's OS Cups by zoiblot · 2002-09-25 05:03 · Score: 2, Funny

So, RMS and Linus bump into each other in a hallway and discover to their horror that...

RMS: Your Linux is in my GNU!

Linus: Your GNU is in my Linux!

Why call it GNU/Linux when......... by Ride-My-Rocket · 2002-09-25 05:03 · Score: 1

... most of their tools are prefixed with GNU in some fashion?

We developed programs such as GCC, GNU Emacs, GAS, GLIBC, BASH, etc., because we needed them for the GNU operating system. GCC, the GNU Compiler Collection is the compiler that we wrote for the GNU operating system. We developed Ghostscript, GNUCash, GNU Chess and GNOME for the GNU system too.

You'd think that would be enough to let people know who wrote the tools.........

Re:Why call it GNU/Linux when......... by Quixadhal · 2002-09-25 05:20 · Score: 2

You know, as with anything, when you put a common prefix in front of lots of things, it dilutes the value of that prefix. Pretty soon, people just ignore it and stop writing it, as it becomes implied and only beurocrats enjoy writing things out just for the sake of having them written out.

There is a point, often overlooked, where ideals meet reality. I'd suggest the FSF start looking, because wasting resources quibbling over a naming convention which (if adopted) will be abbreviated away everywhere except in legal documents is absurd.

In short, grow up.

make a distribution and name it whatever you want by sc00p18 · 2002-09-25 05:03 · Score: 1

The FSF should release their own distribution -- then they can name the thing whatever they want. I think the cat is out of the bag already on this one though. No matter how hard RMS tries, most people will still always refer to the thing as Linux.

too long by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 05:04 · Score: 0

I find it easier to say just "linux" than "gnuforwardslashlinux". :-)

Our LUG debated this... by mcgrof · 2002-09-25 05:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

Our Student LUG here @ Rutgers asked Stallman if he or any of GNU's representatives could visit us. He replied saying that we'd have to change our club's name to GNU/Linux users group if we'd want him personally to visit.

So we debated it on our web forums... and on our IRC channel (#ruslug on openprojects)... and we concluded that we shouldn't. I personally concluded that we shouldn't since the name doesn't really matter. What counts is the definition of the OS. And in that definition it should be stated that it's really a GNU/X/etc system. I believe that for respect for GNU, we should refer to it as GNU/Linux only to imply respect for GNU. But in general, when talking about Linux, it really shouldn't matter what the hell we call it.

I told Stallman about our results, but he seemed rather dissapointed about it. I'm curious as to what spawned this FAQ to show up on GNU's web site. My suite-mate is desperate to get to our Algorythms class, so I can't really post much more! eek. Laters1!!%1!

--

mcgrof

Re:Our LUG debated this... by MagusX · 2002-09-25 06:34 · Score: 1

Two points:

1) Who wants to say their going to a GLUG meeting?

2) How many fratboys will show up at GLUG meetings looking for booze?

or would it have to be GNU/LUG? ah well...

It's the "X" that causes these problems by MissMyNewton · 2002-09-25 05:04 · Score: 1

with names becoming generic to the point of no return:

LinuX
XeroX
KleeneX

Note to "GNU/Linux" moniker lovers - not gonna happen

--

---

Information wants...you to shut your pie hole.

Re:GNU failed? You're insane by jgerman · 2002-09-25 05:05 · Score: 2

Uhh, Linus didn't succeed either by that logic. Together they make a complete unix-like operating system. Neither on is useful apart. Well that's not exactly true. GNU tools are used all over, Linux is useless without the GNU part, except for very few exceptions.

--
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.

Didn't want to support the PC by a1englishman · 2002-09-25 05:05 · Score: 1

I remember when I first discovered GNU in 1991. I requested their litterature. They made it quite clear that they dispised the IBM PC, and wanted nothing to do with porting their tools to it. That was a task for other developers, if they chose, without the support from the FSF. I went ahead and bought Minix.

In the interrum, GNU thrashed around trying to create Hurd. Yeah, that's progressed by leaps and bounds, hasn't it? The GNU tools got ported over to Linux, and I'm not even certain who did that in the end. Was it the FSF? I wonder.

Now, they find their tools locked arm in arm with the Linux movement. They want credit for it, but as other posters have noted, there's more to the common Linux distro than just GNU tools, and we can't name every one in the title.

My definition of an opperating system revolves more around a kernal and a set of APIs, than a set of tools. They make the OS useful, but they are not the OS. Windows is the Mach kernal with Win32, POSIX and OS/2 APIs, MacOS X is Mach with a BSD and Toolbox APIs, and Linux is the Linux kernal with POSIX and Linux APIs.

Where do you want to GNU today? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 05:06 · Score: 0

Hell about the FSF! Instead of writing papers no ones really interested in they should learn the basics of marketing and PR...

Dividing the community? by Jungle+guy · 2002-09-25 05:06 · Score: 1

From the FAQ:

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.

(skip)

It is very useful to start GNU/Linux User Groups, which call the system GNU/Linux and adopt the ideals of the GNU Project as a basis for their activities. If the Linux User Group in your area has the problems describe above, we suggest you either campaign within the group to change its orientation (and name) or start a new group. The people who focus on the more superficial goals have a right to their views, but don't let them drag you along!

Can you see a contradiction there?

GNU and Scientology by Vodak · 2002-09-25 05:06 · Score: 2

When I hear the GNU community compiling about Linux it sounds like a scientology lecture.

Stop it by LoRider · 2002-09-25 05:06 · Score: 1

Please stop calling my facial tissue kleenex

--
LoRider

OFFTOPIC: by SquierStrat · 2002-09-25 05:08 · Score: 1

Dear God...that was posted almost 2 months before I was born...that scares me. :-)

--
Derek Greene

Re:OFFTOPIC: by plugger · 2002-09-25 06:50 · Score: 1

Yikes, I was playing with 8-bit computers before you were born, now that *is* scary.

If this is how it worked in the real world... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 05:08 · Score: 0

we would have been calling the Mac OS "Adobe/Macintosh" years ago!

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2002-09-25 05:08 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Your missing the point!! by iChild · 2002-09-25 05:08 · Score: 1

After reading the FAQ it became apparent to me that ego's are not what is driving this request. Sure they want to be recognized, but to them the recognition isn't proclaiming how they are wonderful programmers. To them, recognition means that their political voice is heard. They believe strongly in the freedom of software. Saying GNU/Linux instead of just Linux could get folks closer to accepting their political viewpoint. It is a sort of subtle mental programming.

Re:Your missing the point!! by anderman · 2002-09-25 05:40 · Score: 1

They don't believe that strongly in the freedom of software, if they did they wouldn't be whining about name control.

Credit by What'sInAName · 2002-09-25 05:09 · Score: 2, Funny

Well, since we want to give proper credit, how about we just call it:

Aarnio/Almesberger/Peter/Atkins/Aycock/Baechle/B alasubramanian/
Ballabio/Banerji/Bauer/Baumgarten /Becker/Bentson/v an den Berg/Bergman/
Biro/Blundell/Bogendoerfer/Bogstad/ Boldt/Boyd/Brou wer/Burr/Callahan/Card/
Carp/Chaffee/Chang/Chen/C heshire/Jose/Coleman/Cox/ Culhane/Dassen/Davies/
Davison/Dawson/Derr/Dost/D unbar/Duwe/Eckhardt/Eiss feldt/Ekwall/Engstad/
Evans/Faith/Fischer/Fitzhar dinge/Flaxa/Foard/Fogel /Frey/Gamble/Gelinas/
Gentzel/Gladstone/Griffith/ Gorodchanin/Gortmaker/G otts/Guenther/ter Haar/
Haible/Hankins/Haritsis/Harrekilde-Petersen /Haylet t/Hein/Henderson/Hetze/
Hipp/Hohndel/Tsutomu/Holl oway/Holt/Hooft/de Icaza Amozurrutia/Jackson/
Jagdis/Johnson/Kaindl/van Kempen/Keyte/Kirch/Kluft/Knaff/Koenig/Koenig/
Kon ynenberg/Kuhlmann/Kuhn/Laarhoven/Lam/Lendecke/L entin/Lermen/Lewis/
von Loewis/Lord/Losh/Lu/Lukka/Mäkisara/Macdonald/MacDo nald/MacLean/Mackinlay/
Mares/Martin/Martin/McLag an/McLean/Melchers/Meskes /Metheringham/Metz/
Metzenthen/Middelink/Miller/M iller/Milz/Minyard/Mo enkeberg/Mosberger-Tang/
Murdock/Myreen/Naylor/Ne uffer/Niemi/O'Reilly/Page/ Pennarun/Per/Petzke/
Pizzini/Potter/Probst/Quinla n/Raymond/Reinauer/Roa dcap/La Roche/Rothwell/
Roudier/Rubini/Sailer/Sanders/Sav olainen/Schenk/De Schrijver/Schulze/
Senn/Shapiro/Shaver/Shifflett/ Sladkey/Small/Smith/ van Smoorenburg/
Snyder/Spiekman/Storner/Sullivan/Tho rn/Tombs/Torva lds/Tranter/Tridgell/
Trümper/Ts'o/Tsao/Turner/Tw eedie/Uhl/Uphoff/Urlich s/Verworner/Volkerding/
Vos/Weigert/Welsh/Wettste in/Widmaier/van Wieringen/Windau/Wirzenius/Wolff/
Xia/Youngdale/Y utaka/Zborowski/Zimmermann/Zubkoff/ Zyngier/GNU/Linux

Sorry if I missed anyone! :-)

How many people actually say "Linux" anyway? by Earthquake · 2002-09-25 05:11 · Score: 1

How many people actually say just "Linux" anyway? The term "Linux" itself has little meaning, unless you're referring specifically to the kernel. Usually, if I'm talking about a "Liunx" system, I'll say "RedHat," "Debian," "Slackware" or whatever the distribution's name is. Generally, the most specific name with the least ambiguity is the best name to use. Adding "GNU/" in from of "Linux" results in a name that is no more useful than just "Linux." You still don't know exactly what you're talking about (except that whatever it is uses some GNU software).

The only place where I see "GNU/Linux" being useful is if you want to talk about all the current, popular distributions of "Linux," which are based on GNU, like the FSF says.

the kernel is the hardest part by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 05:11 · Score: 1, Insightful

Why not just say "Linux is the GNU kernel" and release some existing version of GNU/Linux under the name "GNU"?

It might have been a good idea to adopt Linux as the GNU kernel back in 1992. If we had realized, then, how long it would take to get the GNU Hurd to work, we might have done that

So, you're admitting that a kernel was much harder to write than a bunch of trivial utilities like sed, cp, mv, ls and you're admitting that in 10 years the GNU project has not been able to produce a kernel that can replace Linux. Why do you think you deserve equal credit?
If the LINUX community cared enough about this ridiculous debate, 99% of the GNU tools could be reimplemented independently in a few months (in fact, alternatives already exist for most). Even for glibc and gcc alternatives are already available. The one thing for which no acceptable replacement exists is the Linux kernel.

Re:GNU failed? You're insane by Reality+Master+101 · 2002-09-25 05:12 · Score: 2

Uhh, Linus didn't succeed either by that logic.

Linus never stated a definition for his own success. Gnu did.

--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.

Where's the line? by jensend · 2002-09-25 05:12 · Score: 2

If I were to run Bash and GCC on Solaris, would anybody tell me I needed to call my system GNU/Solaris? I doubt it- in fact, that probably wouldn't happen even if I used tons of GNU utilities and libraries.

Somebody will say, "That's different- the fact that with Linux you're using GNU libc is what merits calling it GNU/Linux." I see more sense in this argument- after all, the C library is a more integral part of the system than Gnome or Bash. However, I don't see anybody telling me I ought to call my Linux system McGrath-Drepper/Linux.

Just call it linux. Give the FSF credit in less obtrusive ways.

Naming and Authority by scruffy · 2002-09-25 05:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

Having naming rights is essentially an indirect way to own or have authority over something. This is like trademarks in our legal system, where you get to own the name, too. This is also like parents naming their children, which indicates that the parents have authority over their children. So I think that the FSF and RMS believes that they "own" Linux, not in any legal sense, but perhaps moral ownership or moral authority.

Perhaps parental authority is closer to the mark, with the incessant claim that without GNU tools, Linux wouldn't exist (compare "without your parents, you wouldn't exist").

Another element is prophetic authority (I don't have a better name). The FSF and RMS feel that they conceived and dreamed of a free OS first (maybe more precisely, thought of a GPLed OS first). Linux fulfilled their dream, and because the FSF and RMS were the prophets, they get a kind of mystical authority over it.

Despite all talk about freedom, the FSF and RMS think that Linux is bound to them. Part of freedom, I think, is letting things go free. If you deliberately give up ownership, I think naming rights or naming obligations are part of what you have given up. At least that is what I and a lot of other people think.

When Free isn't free by rlwhite · 2002-09-25 05:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is exactly the type of garbage that has me seriously considering avoiding GNU software entirely. I have no desire to even wrongfully imply my endorsement of their absurd philosophy.

Microsoft puts a monetary price on their software and tries to lock you in.

GNU tries to indoctrinate you. That FAQ is dripping with propaganda and a condescending ideology that demands everyone to believe the FSF philosophy. "Free Software"- software given away at an intellectual price. No thank you. It's politics from a branch of ideology that has consistently led into totalitarianism. It's not free; it's absurd.
So what about the FSF philosophy itself? Why is it absurd? Because programmers have to live somehow. We don't live in a communist utopia (ie, communism without the totalitarianism) and never will. I wish we did, but it's against human nature. Face it- the FSF philosophy ultimately boils down to communism.

Programming is a valuable skill that provides many of us with a living. When I'm programming for a hobby, I'll gladly give away my code, but I can't give everything away until the supermarket, the real estate agent, etc. start giving away all their goods that I need. Let's face it, I'm not going to make my living from maintaining my code. If I'm doing my job right there shouldn't be much maintainence anyway.

Does that mean I should be able to keep my code proprietary for the rest of my life and my grandchildren's? No, just long enough for me to make a reasonable profit. In this industry, a 5 year copyright with no patents should suffice.

The answer isn't in communist ideology and revolution. It's simple intellectual property reform. Keep it simple, stupid.

Ridiculous Argument by anewsome · 2002-09-25 05:14 · Score: 2

Anyone ever seen Office Space? "If you want me to wear 37 pieces of flair, then why don't you just make them minimum 37 pieces".

This reminds me of this ridiculous GNU/Crying. If they wanted GNU attached to every project that used it's software, then why don't they just make that a requirement for using the software. If it's not a requirement and people choose not to attach GNU to the name of the project, don't be surprised.

--Aaron

Re:Ridiculous Argument by Anonymous+Custard · 2002-09-25 05:50 · Score: 1

Anyone ever seen Office Space?

Anyone ever breathe air? ;-) Let's start calling it "Michael Bolton/GNU"

--
$8.95/mo web hosting
Re:Ridiculous Argument by geek · 2002-09-25 06:04 · Score: 1

I'm not reffering to that no talent ass clown. Forget it

GNU ignores the contributions of others by Danborg · 2002-09-25 05:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

Apache - not GNU.
PHP - not GNU.
Samba - not GNU.
Sendmail - not GNU.
Perl - not GNU.
KDE - not GNU.
(The list goes on and on...)
Gee, it looks like a whole slew of important components of a Linux system are not GNU. Richard Stallman needs to grow up. (And get a hair cut.)

Re:GNU ignores the contributions of others by Danborg · 2002-09-25 05:18 · Score: 1

Not to mention XFree86!!!
Re:GNU ignores the contributions of others by ajs · 2002-09-25 08:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

Apache - not GNU.
PHP - not GNU.
Samba - not GNU.
Sendmail - not GNU.
Perl - not GNU.
KDE - not GNU.

Yep. FSF claims to be the "primary developer" of the GNU/Linux system because they wrote most of the code.

The phrase "bzzzt! Thanks for playing!" comes to mind.

You mentioned a few, but let's get that list under analysis. I just happen to have a *Linux* system here. It's specifically a Red Hat Linux 7.3 system. It's not a complete install, but it's quite functional, so it should be a fair comparison of the "required parts of GNU" vs. "the required parts of Linux".

When I do an "rpm -qa" and clean up/uniquify the output to remove all of the duplicate kde, GNOME, XFree86, etc packages (I don't count XFree86 fonts seperately from XFree86, for example) I see 677 packages. Now, let's say that some of those are man-pages (which GNU was unwilling to write for years because they didn't like the format) and other non-program packages (like redhat-relase, which is just a marker), so I'll round that down to 600.

Now, I go and look at ftp.gnu.org:/gnu, and I find that there are 216 sub-directories. Most of those are packages, but some are not.

To weed that down, I check to see which ones are installed on my system. I get a little shock... 52 GNU packages are installed on my machine.

That's it.

I check again.

And again.

Nope, that's it!

a2ps-4.13b-19 aspell-0.33.7.1-9 autoconf-2.13-17 automake-1.4p5-4 bash-2.05a-13 bc-1.06-8 binutils-2.11.93.0.2-11 bison-1.35-1 cpio-2.4.2-26 ddd-3.3.1-13 diffutils-2.7.2-5 ed-0.2-25 emacs-21.2-2 fileutils-4.1-10 findutils-4.1.7-4 finger-0.17-9 gawk-3.1.0-4 gcc-2.96-112 gdb-5.2-2 gdbm-1.8.0-14 gettext-0.11.1-2 ghostscript-6.52-9.4 glibc-2.2.5-39 gmp-4.0.1-3 grep-2.5.1-1 groff-1.17.2-12 guile-1.3.4-19 gzip-1.3.3-1 indent-2.2.7-3 less-358-24 libstdc++-2.96-112 libtool-1.4.2-7 m4-1.4.1-7 make-3.79.1-8 mc-4.5.55-5.ximian.2 ncurses-5.2-26 parted-1.4.24-3 patch-2.5.4-12 rcs-5.7-15 readline-4.2a-4 screen-3.9.11-3 sed-3.02-11 sh-utils-2.0.11-14 sharutils-4.2.1-9 tar-1.13.25-4 termcap-11.0.1-10 texinfo-4.1-1 textutils-2.0.21-1 time-1.7-16 units-1.74-1 wget-1.8.1-4 which-2.13-3

Yes, gcc was a lot of work, and a great compiler. I love it, but it's utility doesn't make up for the fact that GNU tools are a small part of a working Linux system. Hey, I've got an idea! Let's call it little-bit-of-GNU/Linux!

RMS Recommends this T-Shirt by thinktank2 · 2002-09-25 05:15 · Score: 0

Get this T-shirt

Ha ha haa..

freedom by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 05:16 · Score: 0

Doesn't this imply that a subset of the people that
won't call it GNU/Linux do not value freedom and is that really the case?

From the FAQ:
People who value freedom are more likely to call the system "GNU/Linux"...

okay... that's it!!! by DuctTape · 2002-09-25 05:16 · Score: 2

...I'm switching to BSD.

... unless they come up with another name for that.

--
Is this thing on? Hello?

Re:I call it linux, here's why, in a few short poi by hondo77 · 2002-09-25 05:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

In other words: Who cares what Linus calls the OS? Even smart people can be wrong.

Substitute "Stallman" for "Linus" and you sum up my feelings exactly.

--
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.

Antithesis of euphony? by Haeleth · 2002-09-25 05:18 · Score: 1

Cacophony, perhaps?

Re:Antithesis of euphony? by evilpenguin · 2002-09-25 05:32 · Score: 2

I think one might reasonably conclude that if I know the far less common word "euphony," that I know the much more commonly used word "cacophony." The problem is that many people think "cacophony" means merely "loud noise," when it really refers to the feeling the noise would engender. Cacophony (without running to my Funk & Wagnalls) means a jarring and unpleasant sound, whereas euphony means a pleasant sound; implying a certain satisfaction of the ear. Neither word says anything about volume or intensity of sound, but sloppy usage has made "cacophony" an imprecise word for many readers. I used the phrase "antithesis of euphony" because I wanted to steer people to my specific meaning. "Linux" is, well, almost euphonious, whereas "GNU/Linux" is definitely cacaphonous. I used the rarer word becuase I wanted to be precise.

Also to show off. ;-)

Mod this guy down by theLOUDroom · 2002-09-25 05:22 · Score: 1

Linux has always been called Linux, therefore it is not newspeak. Check up on its history and the defintion of newspeak if you don't believe me.
The FSF is trying to change the name. Linux is a kernel. You can use GNU tools on it if you want to, but those tools are not part of the kernel. Stallman should STFU and actually do something useful to the cause of free software instead of wasting everyone's time.

--
Life is too short to proofread.

Re:Mod this guy down by jgerman · 2002-09-25 06:07 · Score: 2

And no one said anything about changing the name of the kernel. Move along.

--
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.

Alright, I'll make GNU a deal... by rainmanjag · 2002-09-25 05:23 · Score: 2

I'll call it GNU/Linux from now on in writing and in speaking if RMS will please shut the @!$# up. I'm really tired of his rants.

--
http://starboard.flowtheory.net/

pronunciation? by sootman · 2002-09-25 05:23 · Score: 2

They're certainly... thorough.

Yeah, but they left off one important part--pronounciation. If you pronounce the G, it sounds bad; if you don't, it sounds like "new" which is not a useful or accurate description. I respect their work and might start writing GNU/Linux, but I can't imagine saying it.

This is how things are in America--I don't say "me'-hee-co" and "ro'-ma", I say "meks'-i-coe" and "rome" for Mexico and Rome.

--
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.

They certainly are... by supabeast! · 2002-09-25 05:23 · Score: 2

dorks.

Interesting claim by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 05:24 · Score: 0

"We developed Ghostscript" ???

Isn't Ghostscript donated to the FSF every couple of years? GNU does some development on "GNU Ghostscript", but I think "developed Ghostscript" is claiming a bit too much.

sigh by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 05:25 · Score: 0

And now the thought police would like to to meditate on the fact that they had something to do with your software.

Give it up lamos. Yes you had a lot to do with it. No people aren't going to change because you want your name in it.

I've writen several security programs for different company's but they're not called "BryanSys/Security Manager 4.0". Why becuase it's stupid. Write the software or don't but for God's sake please quit whining.

Obviously... by TheSquareRoom · 2002-09-25 05:25 · Score: 1

LinU or GNux.

Code vs License by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 05:25 · Score: 0

I wish that RMS would concentrate on the License aspect of GNU/Linux instead of who wrote the most code.

Saying that most of the operating system is licensed under GNU is much better. It is this part that, for example, Microsoft is concerned about.

After all, it's much better for our community to emphasise the freedom aspect of free software than to scrap over who wrote the most code.

A little less conversation please ... by SuperDuG · 2002-09-25 05:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

We are asking them to give the GNU Project credit for the GNU operating system.

FINE! I hereby give GNU credit on their operating system GNU/HURD. This argument is so moot, I can use gnu tools on Windows with cygwin, and on bsd with the linux compatability layer, does this mean that I use GNU/Windows and GNU/BSDOS?

FSF Needs to properly remove their heads from their asses, focuse a little less on politics and start a little more focus on the actual programs. Let's face it, all the infighting of the FREE/OPEN software is what keeps companies like MS happy.

MS-Guy-1: Ohhh no, the linux community is starting to gain more of the market share!

MS-Guy-2 It's okay, just send an anonymous email to stallman mentioning that people are still calling it linux and not GNU/Linux, that oughta throw um off for a few months. And while you're at it, write an review of both KDE and Gnome, just make sure they're exactly the same but change the names around respectively. Finally make mention of Vi is better than Emacs.

--
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed

Why it won't take off by Mr_Perl · 2002-09-25 05:26 · Score: 2

GUH-NEW-LEE-NUCKS

Wrap your tongue around that one folks, most people find "Linux" hard enough...

--

My poetry site welcomes the unusual.

Re:I call it linux, here's why, in a few short poi by Malor · 2002-09-25 05:28 · Score: 1

I've hated this stance by Stallman forever. He casually interjects this GNU/ stuff into totally unrelated topics... if someone says 'Linux' where he sees or reads it, he seems somehow duty-bound to attack. I actually exchanged some rather heated words with him for cluttering up a totally unrelated mailing list with his gripes. (He ended up calling me "a hostile person".... which I am, when someone wants to evangelize about Linux naming on a security mailing list.)

If it's REALLY the GNU part that is important, then in 25 years, the GNU name will still be around, but Linux itself will be pretty much obsolete and gone, supplanted by some other kernel to run the GNU system software. I think this is an entirely possible outcome.

If it's really Linux that's important, then things will go on pretty much as they are now.... most folks will use/say Linux, and will appreciate the great GNU tools that work in their Linux operating system.

Time will tell.

GNU failed to do an OS by imnoteddy · 2002-09-25 05:28 · Score: 1

The GNU project was supposed to do an OS. It didn't. It wrote a bunch of tools that have been useful on various OSes. To claim naming rights on an OS because your tools have been ported to it is infantile.

It is the business of the future to be dangerous. - A. N. Whitehead

--
No electrons were harmed creating this post, though some may have been subjected to electrical and/or magnetic fields.

The importance of a good name by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 05:30 · Score: 0

You know, Stallman would probably have more luck with his quest to have a hybrid name for Linux if he hadn't picked such a stupid name as "GNU".

It's hard to pronounce. Guh-noo? Noo? And no, nobody wants to have to read a FAQ to find out.

The redundant acronym thing is funny once. Then it's annoying.

The animal metaphor is the worst part. "Hurd", "yakk", etc. When I think about my operating system, I do not want to imagine a large, smelly, hairy beast.

This might be going against everything Stallman stands for, but when you choose a name for something you want other people to use, you have to choose CAREFULLY. Just look at those consulting companies that make $100k per name.

How about Linux/GNU? by Razzy · 2002-09-25 05:30 · Score: 1

I realize that your average Linux system has a lot more GNU code in it than kernel code, but all the GNU compilers and utilities are pretty worthless without a *stable* kernel to run them on (and it seems like GNU just can't quite jump this hurdle themselves, at least not yet), so I don't think this "GNU is the primary contributer" thing holds water. The question is, can the FSF settle for being second in line?

backwards by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 05:30 · Score: 0

How about Linux/GNU

Without Linux, GNU would not be nearly
as well known or propagated.

And by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 05:31 · Score: 0

The people who should care, namely people who haven't used Linux yet but could be convinced to switch, just look at this pissing match in horror (if they look at all) and think "maybe Windows isn't so bad after all."

Uh, which distros don't use GNU software? by greygent · 2002-09-25 05:33 · Score: 2

Though I don't think that Linux in general as a reference to all the distributions of Linux should be called GNU/Linux (because some Linux distributions do not use GNU software), I do think that any distribution which uses primarily GNU software along with the Linux kernel should call itself "Distribution GNU/Linux".

Which distribution? kernel-2-4-xx.tar.gz?

Favourite quote by Uerige · 2002-09-25 05:33 · Score: 1

"we are getting ready to package and release the real GNU system."

I guess they really mean it. Make yourself ready, for it won't last another decade 'til GNU.

is it possible... by davmct · 2002-09-25 05:34 · Score: 2

to convince the editors at slashdot/kuro5hin/etc to stop posting this as news, with the hope that a lack of press will eventually kill this off. it seems that every time this issue is brought back to life via the media, RMS grows more bull-headed in his "quest". we ALL know that this is nothing more than silliness to the rest of the world. its like an annoying little child who only wants his picture of a three legged cat posted on the family refrigerator. we have to realize that the little child (RMS) isn't going to go away, and just let his grumblings go to /dev/null

Re:is it possible... by /dev/trash · 2002-09-25 06:14 · Score: 1

Since when does Kuro5hin have ediitors that post stories?

I propose that... by Ender+Ryan · 2002-09-25 05:34 · Score: 2

I propose that an entirely new name be thought up by a committee made up of any major contributor that wants to be involved, FSF, Linus + kernel developers, XFree86 developers, etc.; because, really, GNU/Linux isn't any more accurate than GNU/XFree86, or GNU/cdrtools. It could be a million different thing depending on the main use of whatever machine it's running on.

The new name should be completely original and not intentionally incorporate the name of any contributor. Since most of the system components are clones of Unix-counterparts, a bastardization of the name "Unix" could be incorporated.

How about, Whineix, in recognition of the FSF's whiney nature ;-) j/k

I'm sure someone more creative than me can come up with a cool sounding bastardization of "Unix".

--
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden

I'm convinced by CustomDesigned · 2002-09-25 05:34 · Score: 1

After reading the FAQ, I was very impressed. I have always been one of those using the term "Linux" (because it is the conventional term) along with a 10 minute explanation of its GNU history.

However, they make a very good case that such explanations do not stick. In fact, I can usually see the subjects eyes glazing over as I speak. The simple strategy of changing the name will be much more effective. When someone asks, "Why do you say 'Gnu/Linux' when everyone else says just 'Linux'?", the 10 minute explanation will be much better recieved.

One thing I'm curious about. There are very frequent mentions of choosing actions because they are "right". Is Richard Stallman still an atheist? Is there some stuff on the web about his personal religious views? (Preferrably by Stallman himself.)

My Favorite Part by tokki · 2002-09-25 05:35 · Score: 1

This is my favorite part:

Linus publicly states his disagreement with the free software movement's ideals. He develops non-free software, and even obliges fellow developers of Linux to use non-free software to work on it with him. He goes even further, and rebukes anyone who suggests that engineers and scientists should consider social consequences of our technical work--rejecting the lessons society learned from the development of the atom bomb.

Cat fight! Man, RMS really doesn't like Linus. He is exagerating Linus' ideals and gives blatent misrepresentation in order to illicit a more outraged reaction from the reader. This is a common tactic by those who's ideas are too extreme to be palatable by the public. "Oh my God, Linus endorses using atom bombs?!?" Linus must eat babies too!

Linus's deadly sin here is wanting to use Bitkeeper because nothing else works as well as Bitkeeper does, and he's friends with the developer, and well, it's Linus' project so he can damn well do what he pleases... that's... what's the word for it... it will come to me... oh yeah, FREEDOM. As if using Bitkeeper is going to lead to the creation of a new super weapon that will doom us all.

From the looks of it, BitMover is a prime example of a great corporate citizen, a model for other commercial software companies. And they are the devil? It's going to take alot more exagerated remarks about your friend Linus to convince us of that, Mr. Stallman.

A simple solution by /dev/niall · 2002-09-25 05:36 · Score: 2

Just use this perl script as a proxy server making a small modification to ~s/Linux/GNU\/Linux/g.
There. Problem solved.

--
--

GNL/Linux by CowboyGNeil · 2002-09-25 05:36 · Score: 1

Why don't they change it to GNL? GNL Not Linux?

Gnu License by samx · 2002-09-25 05:37 · Score: 1

FSF, if anyone, should understand what it means to put their work under the GPL license. They are giving away a whole lot of rights to their work, including the right to name products based on that work.

Religious Purity by SanGrail · 2002-09-25 05:37 · Score: 1

The FSF doesn't want people who are just using "Open Source" software.
They don't even want people to just be using "Free Software" - they want you to agree with all of the FSF's ideas, Closed source is not just bad, it's evil, etc.

They don't want Open Source/Free Software to be popular!

They only want "pure" converts to the cause. If you are using Free Software but don't agree with all their ideas, you're a heretic.

Look at their tactics - the term "Open Source" is alot easier for people to understand, and has gained alot more publicity, and introduced alot more people to Open Source/Free Software than the term "Free Software" ever could, but again, they aren't interested in Linux/Open Source being widely used.

Personally, I am.

GNU/Linux is harder to say, has less brand value (this is important!) and personally, I see it as disparaging the non-GNU software that gets packaged with the Linux kernal - are you going to call it XFree86/KDE/GNU/etc/Linux? No.

As far as tactics go, the FSF is treating like a religious matter, so lets go with that example:
In the early years of the Christian Church in Europe, a conscious decision was made to place Churches in places of Holy significance to local Pagans, and establish Christian Holidays (holy-days) at the times of the local Pagans Holy days.
Christmas - Winter soltice/Yule, Candlemas (Candle Mass) - Imbolc, Easter - Ostara... there's parallels for every major Christian holiday.
Pagan deities were often established as Christian Saints, eg Breed/Bride/Brigid - Saint Bridget.

The point of all this, is that it worked. It was a stroke of Marketing genius!
Christmas is, today, a celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ - and yet placing the holiday at Winter Solstice (seing as the exact date of Jesus's birth was unknown) tied the birth of the Son of God in with the birth of the Sun God, and converted many local pagans who would otherwise have been more resistant.

The FSF is not interested in the local Pagans though (read: Windows users), they're more worried about the heretics (read:Open Source/Linux vs Free Software/GNU/Linux).
Everybody knows this already, but RMS refuses to talk to Linux User Groups unless they're GNU/Linux User Groups.

I want Open Source as a whole to be more widely used, so as my little stand, I am actively REFUSING to use the #@$! term "GNU/Linux".
Vive la Linux!
Vive la Open Source!

**Notes** I'm a Neopagan. Hey, I don't mind sharing my holidays...
But I'm not French.

--
---- I've fallen, and I can't get up.

And GNU is... by DJ+Wipeout · 2002-09-25 05:38 · Score: 1

...a registered trademark of the Free Software Foundation. Your point?

Re:And GNU is... by theLOUDroom · 2002-09-25 05:54 · Score: 1

AFAIK Linus holds the copyright for Linux, not the FSF. His point would be that he thinks the FSF has no right to demand we call Linux anything else.

--
Life is too short to proofread.

One of the best arguments yet for FreeBSD by werdna · 2002-09-25 05:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

Disputes like this keep FSF's more substantive arguments from being taken seriously. Efforts to define the world to suit their needs by quibbling about language may play in well-educated communities, but will be ignored or worse in the rest of the world -- the part that matters.

People in the real world see through this immediately - indeed intuitively - and quickly grow tired of the wordplay.

This issue, like many others, just gives enemies of open software more fodder on which to chew and helps our community not at all. Whatever the merits of the argument may be, FSF is clearly fighting a losing battle, and squandering a great deal of well-earned credibility and public support in the process.

I am not sure that the argument itself is persuasive, but even if I agreed with it entirely, it isn't an argument that has to be made. It hurts the community at large, and FSF in particular. RMS should cease and desist.

Re:One of the best arguments yet for FreeBSD by belroth · 2002-09-25 10:50 · Score: 2

I agree. Some of RMS pronouncements make me shudder - I sometimes think of them as Bulls (as in papal) - but the 'hit' is silent :-)
Having said that I don't want to shut him up as I value the GPL highly (and also the BSDL) and quite a lot of the software with which he is associated - I love emacs (vi is anathema) for example.
I can like some of the man's work without buying into his agenda - but it is useful to have someone thinking things through from his viewpoint because it does stimulate debate, there are 1140 comments on this topic so far.
I think we need him but I can't take too much at once.

--
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
Re:One of the best arguments yet for FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 11:58 · Score: 0

What public support? We're having this argument again because Project GNU is still being expunged from public view and the users are still being kept ignorant of their rights.
Re:One of the best arguments yet for FreeBSD by werdna · 2002-09-25 14:13 · Score: 2

What public support? We're having this argument again because Project GNU is still being expunged from public view and the users are still being kept ignorant of their rights.

Now how, precisely, would renaming a distribution educate users who do not presently know "of their rights?" Perhaps you should propose instead renaming Linux to: GNU/Linux/but-you-really-need-to-read-the-license- inside-this-box-and-read-the-screeds-at-www.fsf.or g?
Re:One of the best arguments yet for FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-26 06:19 · Score: 0

Given the name GNU, it's quite easy to find the Manifesto. Just mentioning the Free Software Foundation would be similarly effective. But there are no concrete ethics behind the creation of Linux, so that name doesn't accomplish anything.
Re:One of the best arguments yet for FreeBSD by werdna · 2002-09-26 14:26 · Score: 2

Given the name GNU, it's quite easy to find the Manifesto. Just mentioning the Free Software Foundation would be similarly effective. But there are no concrete ethics behind the creation of Linux, so that name doesn't accomplish anything.

Now how, precisely, would renaming a distribution educate users who do not presently know "of their rights?" Perhaps you should propose instead renaming Linux to: GNU/Linux/but-you-really-need-to-read-the-license- inside-this-box-and-read-the-screeds-at-www.fsf.or g?

Quite clearly, the name does nothing to create the awareness of "user rights" (whatever that means) in the minds of those not already aware of them.

Hey stupid - read the FAQ by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 05:41 · Score: 0

If you cant even read the link to the FAQ that this whole story is about, why do you feel qualified to comment on the story?

FAQ #1 by selectspec · 2002-09-25 05:41 · Score: 2

The real #1 FAQ that FSF receives:

Why are you such a GNU/Asshole?

--

Someone you trust is one of us.

What is the Proper way to Pronounce "GNU" by Vortran · 2002-09-25 05:43 · Score: 2

Here's a question they missed on the FAQ...

How am I supposed to say "GNU/Linux" if I do not know how to properly pronounce "GNU".

I believe LINUX is pronounced "LYNN-ux" with the emphasis on the first syllable... but what about GNU? I've heard "new" and "GEE-new" So what is the correct pronunciation?

Vortran out

--
Knowledge is like ignorance.. too much can be just as bad as not enough.

Re:What is the Proper way to Pronounce "GNU" by smoondog · 2002-09-25 06:11 · Score: 2

Usually when I pronounce G-N-U, I do it real slowly and clearly, "Linux"

-Sean
Re:What is the Proper way to Pronounce "GNU" by RazzleDazzle · 2002-09-25 06:19 · Score: 1

I think it is properly pronounced 'guh-nu'

However with linux, if you were to go to the source, Linus, pronounced by finnish it would be 'leenis' for Linus and 'leenix' for linux. To pronounce Linux 'lynn-ux' would mean you pronounce Linus as 'lynn-us'. Is that how you do it?

I personally say, call it whatever you like or 'ly-kee'

--
ZERO ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ONE! Just brushing up for my next big invention: Ethernet over Voice (EoV)
Re:What is the Proper way to Pronounce "GNU" by orasio · 2002-09-25 12:36 · Score: 1

It is hard to write it in English, in Spanish we usually spell it, but RMS said , when at a conference here in Montevideo City Hall, that it should be pronnounced G-NU, with a hard "G", and a short (?) "U", wich would also be the right way to pronnounce it in Spanish, if it didn't sound so awkward.

By the way, he got in an argument with the hosts, which were the Uruguayan Linux User Group (uylug) that I think changed their name after that, and spent some of his time correcting t-shirts with a black marker.

Interesting by geek · 2002-09-25 05:44 · Score: 1

RMS is putting words in my mouth, while you just took them right out! Bravo

You have that COMPLETELY backwards. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 05:45 · Score: 0

As a matter of FACT. "Kernel" plus "Kernel mode" drivers are THE definition of an "Operating System". Tools, shells and compilers are SPECIFICALLY EXCEPTED from the definition of what an "Operating System" is! RMS is completely dead wrong and so are you.

Re:You have that COMPLETELY backwards. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 06:55 · Score: 0

According to /your/ definition. I call troll!

Hypocrites.. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 05:45 · Score: 0

The GNU project has made amazing contributions to open source but they have received vast contributions from other organizations/developers and they don't go out of their way to credit them. GNU's no longer about freedom.. it's about enhancing their image so that they can have more influence. When I say they, I mean Stallman and his henchman Kuhn.

Re:Hypocrites.. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 11:45 · Score: 0

Stallman is a jive nigger, but the FSF rocks.

This is just silly... by Marcos+the+Jackle · 2002-09-25 05:46 · Score: 0

GNU/Just GNU/goes GNU/to GNU/show GNU/what GNU/a GNU/petty GNU/little GNU/man GNU/RMS GNU/is.

Bugger the FSF!

Mk.

Makes sense to me. by Crapflooder+Supreme · 2002-09-25 05:48 · Score: 1

I could take out all the GNU tools and put in the BSD tools, and then what would we have? Some kind of BSD running on the Linux kernel, that's what. But what to call it?

[Free|Net|Open]Linux?
BSD/Linux?
Linux OS X?

But *BSD is dying, so nobody would want to do that, right?

--
"Don't worry, it's not loaded." --Terry Kath

Re:Makes sense to me. by drfreak · 2002-09-25 06:25 · Score: 1

I was thinking along those lines too. Isn't *BSD compiled using gcc? Should we then call them GNU/FreeBSD or somesuch?

I, for one, do really appreciate the software that GNU has given me. I just wish they would get a new fucking name. Why can't Richard Stallman just change the name?

Organization=motives by ACNeal · 2002-09-25 05:48 · Score: 1

If there are no motives, then there is no organization. Every organization has to have stated motives, otherwise they are just a bunch of people milling about, and not an organization.

That motive might be to make money, to promote communism, or to get high. Whatever the motive, that is what the people organize around (notice how organize sounds a lot like organization).

And people attribute a motive to FSF, because FSF, and Stallman specifically, keep harping on this issue. I don't think it is petty, but it is borish.

He wants credit for work that he did. Since he doesn't believe in property rights, this is all he has. If we got rid of copyright law altogether (which he wants), then the GPL would go away, and no one would ever know Stallman, or have to hear his name again, except when he tries to correct someone.

Stallman, you can't have your cake and eat it to. Do you want to maintain rights to your IP, or not?

Re:Organization=motives by (void*) · 2002-09-28 07:38 · Score: 2

I stand corrected. And organization can have goals, which sound like motives for people. But an organization cannot ever have enotions. A man is not the organization.

*BSD is dying. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 05:48 · Score: 0

We should all keep in mind this simple truth: *BSD is dying. You don't need to be Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyists, dabblers, and dilettantes. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

READ THE FAQ by FooBarWidget · 2002-09-25 05:51 · Score: 2

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#many

" What we say is that you ought to give the system's principal developer a share of the credit. The principal developer is the GNU Project.

If you feel even more strongly about giving credit where it is due, you might feel that some secondary contributors also deserve credit in the system's name. If so, far be it from us to argue against it. If you feel that X11 deserves credit in the system's name, and you want to call the system GNU/X11/Linux, please do. If you free that Perl simply cries out for mention, and you want to write GNU/Linux/Perl, go ahead.

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.

Different threshold levels would lead to different choices of name for the system. 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)."

Again, they are not forcing you to do anything! Even if they can, they wouldn't do so because they support freedom of speech. They are ASKING you to use the name GNU/Linux so that the general public will be aware of the existence of GNU in Linux. They are NOT Linux to change it's name!

READ THE FAQ!

Re:READ THE FAQ by Danborg · 2002-09-25 06:37 · Score: 1

Well using that argument, I may well consider GNU's contribution to be "secondary". If anything, the acronym LAMP (Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP) seems most appropriate, because it focuses on the applications which provide the actual SOLUTION.
Re:READ THE FAQ by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-26 01:00 · Score: 0

you just showed your inability to understand the arguments.

First of all, Linux is not an application, it's a kernel. GNU/Linux is a kernel plus lots of tools that make what is generally referred to as an operating system. Apache/MySQL/PHP would be unuseable with only the Linux kernel, but they work together well with the GNU/Linux operating system.

I would suggest GLAMP as a much more accurate acronym.

Re:I call it linux, here's why, in a few short poi by theLOUDroom · 2002-09-25 05:51 · Score: 1

In other words: Who cares what Linus calls the OS? Even smart people can be wrong.
I care, because Linus is the author. I call the GNU utilities, such because they are part of the GNU project. The linux kernel AKAIK isn't.

--
Life is too short to proofread.

sigh by Bazzargh · 2002-09-25 05:51 · Score: 2

mv arguments /dev/GNUL

Here's why by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 05:54 · Score: 0

Because the slashbots are whiny bitchy fanboys of Perens and he said to.

The fact is, that in his own way, Stallman is a Bill Gates wannabe. He would like to be able to force (yes, force) everyone to use GPL'ed software.

GNU is a stupid name by catbutt · 2002-09-25 05:54 · Score: 1

It's their own fault for coming up with such a dorky name. "GNU's not Unix!.....get it? We're so freakin clever we came up with a recursive name."

Well, congratulations on your cleverness. But it's not a friendly name. No one likes to use it. The Linux name is entrenched, so get over it.

I have a better name...LINGNU (see inside why) by jcartaya · 2002-09-25 05:55 · Score: 1

Here it goes:

Linux
Is
Not
GNU,
NOR
UNIX

See how stupid it sounds? Anyone that knows half a thing about software appreciates GNU's immense contributions.

I believe this demand for recognition does more harm than good in promoting the advancement of alternatives to "Greedware".

To be sure, GNU represents an ideological position as much as an organization that does a lot of good based on that position; but ideologies, when used to suppress rather than promote, end up in discredit.

They are NOT enforcing a name change! by FooBarWidget · 2002-09-25 05:58 · 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 · 2002-09-25 06:01 · 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.

khl

What do we call a system which has NO GNU stuff? by RealAlaskan · 2002-09-25 06:01 · Score: 1

... people used GNU tools to write an OS called Linux ...

If an operating system includes a browser, the Linux kernel falls a bit short of being an OS. As far as I am concerned, an OS is what it takes to make the computer useful. At a bare minimum, that's going to be a kernel, some device drivers, bash and the unix command-line tools. The gnice folks at GNU are responsible for a lot of that, on my boxes.

Someone else said that the GNU portion is redundant, since all Linux machines have the GNU component. That actually makes sense, but: another post said that his (embedded?) system had NO GNU components. So, what do we call a system which has a Linux kernel and no GNU components? Pure Linux? NO-GNUs Linux? Strange?

I've enjoyed the penguin-and-gnu stickers (the slogan is something like ``GNU/Linux, the dynamic duo''). I don't think that GNU/Linux is bad publicity.

--
See what I've been reading.

Re:GNU failed? You're insane by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 06:01 · Score: 0

Yes, micro-kernels are kind of cool but the downsides are pretty well understood at this point. Monolithic kernels won, microkernels lost. Gnu picked wrong. Get over it.

Riiiight...the Linux kernel is "monolithic". *wink* That's why my distribution comes with over 800 modules.

The fact is that, while the Linux kernel can be compiled as a monolithic kernel, it ususally isn't unless a very small footprint is required or some other specialized optimization is needed. For most uses, the kernel and loadable modules that come with the distribution work just fine.

The Linux kernel is neither a monolithic kernel nor a micro-kernel as those terms were understood ten years ago. The only reason that people continue to insist that the Linux kernel is monolithic is that they want to believe that Linus won the Linux is obsolete argument. In fact, the only reason that the Linux kernel isn't obsolete is that it isn't a purely monolithic kernel and has incorporated some of the features, such as loadable modules, that were originally considered to be micro-kernel features.

Darwin/Mac OS X by interactive_civilian · 2002-09-25 06:02 · Score: 2

I'd be willing to bet that you don't call Mac OS X "Mach", though that's the kernel it uses, and is a shorter name.

Well, I don't say that because the kernel being used is officially called "Darwin".

But, I am pretty sure that I am not the only one who refers to a lot of the CLI and XFree86 software capable of running on that kernel (including a lot of GNU stuff) as being OK for Darwin/MacOS X.

But this is just my humble opinion and IANAProgrammer but only a user, so take what I say w/ whatever amount of salt you require to make it taste acceptable.

--
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks

GNU Project isn't sexy by crimoid · 2002-09-25 06:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

Lets face it, the GNU Project isn't sexy. They have little corporate sponsorship and if you mentioned GNU to your average CEO you'd be met with blank stares. Mention Linux to that same CEO and you're likely to see some name recognition.

The GNU Project desperatly wants this type of attention. They want "GNU" shoved in front of as many eyeballs as possible. Using Linux as the vehicle to make this happen is all this is about.

It is sad to see the GNU Project grasping at straws like this. It detracts from their credibility and, frankly, makes them look as desperate as they actually are. Many "brand names" are complitations of lesser parts and various Linux distributions are no different.

Requiring or even ASKING for these types of name "changes" is sad and unfortunate.

*BSD is dying by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 06:03 · Score: 0

We should all keep in mind this simple truth: *BSD is dying. You don't need to be Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyists, dabblers, and dilettantes. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Desperation, Frustration, Jelaousy, Greed by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 06:04 · Score: 0

What if Sun decides to change the licencing to GPL...then RMS would fight to get the name changed to GNU Solaris.

And they complain about credit? by TheConfusedOne · 2002-09-25 06:04 · Score: 1

From the FAQ:
The shortest legitimate name for this system is "GNU", but we call it "GNU/Linux" for the reasons given below.

So, the kernel is almost barely worth mentioning? Strangely, this is the part of the "GNU Operating System" that they still have been unable to produce.

--
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.

Why not KDE/Linux or anything else? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 06:06 · Score: 0

I have no objection to calling it GNU/Linux. But say i dont use any of the GNU products except bash. I also use more than a bunch of KDE applications. Also assume that i buy my copy from RedHat who simply calls it RH Linux. Going by the logic of the FSF, should i not call it KDE/Linux?

RMS has to be regretting... by tlambert · 2002-09-25 06:07 · Score: 2

RMS has to be regretting that the GPL doesn't have an "advertising clause"...

Of course, since Linux ads seldom mention features or use of the software RMS wrote which is bundled with the system, it would have to be a significantly more agressive "advertising clause" than the old 4 clause BSD license, where it was mostly a "hold harmless".

-- Terry

Two Words by LuckyJ · 2002-09-25 06:07 · Score: 0, Redundant

Grow Up.

READ THE FAQ by FooBarWidget · 2002-09-25 06:08 · Score: 2

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#TOCmany

"Many other projects contributed to the system as it is today; it includes TeX, X11, Apache, Perl, and many more programs. Don't your arguments imply we have to give them credit too? (But that would lead to a name so long it is absurd.)
What we say is that you ought to give the system's principal developer a share of the credit. The principal developer is the GNU Project.

If you feel even more strongly about giving credit where it is due, you might feel that some secondary contributors also deserve credit in the system's name. If so, far be it from us to argue against it. If you feel that X11 deserves credit in the system's name, and you want to call the system GNU/X11/Linux, please do. If you free that Perl simply cries out for mention, and you want to write GNU/Linux/Perl, go ahead.

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.

Different threshold levels would lead to different choices of name for the system. 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). "

lessons of the atom bomb by tijsvd · 2002-09-25 06:10 · Score: 1

I liked this part best:

[Linus] goes even further, and rebukes anyone who suggests that engineers and scientists should consider social consequences of our technical work--rejecting the lessons society learned from the development of the atom bomb.

Re:GNU failed? You're insane by jgerman · 2002-09-25 06:10 · Score: 2

Uh, YOU stated that Linus succeeded at something the GNU project failed at, so you're still wrong.

--
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.

Re:GNU failed? You're insane by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 06:11 · Score: 0

How exactly did GNU fail? Look at what they have created.

Created? Not much creativity there. Every program you listed except one is a copy of existing programs.

The lone exception, emacs, is a steaming rancid pile of shit.

This time FSF has gone too far! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 06:12 · Score: 0

This is it, I've had it with this software freedom nonsense.

They have the gall to ask me to give them credit everytime I mention Linux just because I use their software everyday! This is too much!

Join with me in the removal of all GNU software from our systems.
(dang, can't seem to bring shell prompt now, oh, well I'll get to that later).

Feh. Stallman is a nazi. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 06:13 · Score: 0

GNU/Fucktard. Get a life and a real job.

Re:My First, Last, and Only Word on this subject.. by vidnet · 2002-09-25 06:13 · 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.

Stallman's got his nuts in a twist again, so what. by ToasterTester · 2002-09-25 06:13 · Score: 2

Since one part of the FAQ say we have free speech rights to call it anything we want I will call it Fred. Red Hat Fred, Debian Fred, Mandrake Fred, and Fred KRUD. So then I will have Bob inside my DVD player (every wonder what happen to MS's Bob) and Fred on my server.

Try Pronouncing GNU / OS X / BSD by goombah99 · 2002-09-25 06:13 · Score: 0

Linux is not the only user of GNU features. OS X ports many of these as too. So GNU and Linux are not synonymous.
still can anyone even write down a phonetic pronunciation of GNU / OS X / BSD

--
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.

Stop the flaming by FooBarWidget · 2002-09-25 06:14 · Score: 2

People don't get it.

You have an opinion. You have the right to express that opinion without getting prosecuted or flamed down.
Richard Stallman has an opinion. Why can't he express it without getting flamed down? Why is he not allowed by the community to express his opinion?
Yes you read that right. It's an *opinion*, not an enforcement. They're not enforcing a name change!

You probably don't agree with his views. You don't have to. However, you shouldn't flame him down just because you disagree! That is arrogant and like being a superiorist.

I READ THE FAQ ASSWIPE by tommck · 2002-09-25 06:16 · Score: 2

I am questioning that the level of their contributions consists of the Operating System and not tools.

" 1. These unexciting but essential components include the GNU assembler, GAS and the linker, GLD, both are now part of the GNU Binutils package, GNU tar, and more."...

So, they consider an assembler part of the OS? A Linker? WTF? Some people write these as part of their Master's program... You know what? It's not part of the OS.

T

--
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.

Re:I READ THE FAQ ASSWIPE by FooBarWidget · 2002-09-25 06:23 · Score: 2

Think bash, ls, cp, rm, mv, vi, etc. Those are essential system components!

" 1. These unexciting but essential components include the GNU assembler, GAS and the linker, GLD, both are now part of the GNU Binutils package, GNU tar, and more."

Where exactly did you get that quote? I did a search through the entire page but haven't found even one line that contains the word "unexciting".

You don't get it. They are NOT forcing Linus to change the name "Linux"! They are expressing their opinion about it, yet people mod them down just because they disagree. You don't have to agree with the FSF but you don't have to mod them down either.
Re:I READ THE FAQ ASSWIPE by tommck · 2002-09-25 06:46 · Score: 2

Think bash, ls, cp, rm, mv, vi, etc. Those are essential system components!
vi is an editor... not an operating system component. ls, cp, rm, mv are all small command-line utilities that have very small functional uses. They are also not used by any graphical UIs that perform the same function. If you remove ls from the system, does the OS crash? vi? mv? They're utilities, not OS components.
" 1. These unexciting but essential components include the GNU assembler, GAS and the linker, GLD, both are now part of the GNU Binutils package, GNU tar, and more."
Where exactly did you get that quote? I did a search through the entire page but haven't found even one line that contains the word "unexciting".
here
It's their "See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html for more explanation" link...
You don't get it. They are NOT forcing Linus to change the name "Linux"! They are expressing their opinion about it, yet people mod them down just because they disagree. You don't have to agree with the FSF but you don't have to mod them down either.
I'm not modding anyone down, I just think this horse is dead and its bones have been pulverized... stop beating it.
T

--
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
Re:I READ THE FAQ ASSWIPE by FooBarWidget · 2002-09-25 09:11 · Score: 2

"vi is an editor... not an operating system component. ls, cp, rm, mv are all small command-line utilities that have very small functional uses."

RIGHT, you like can work with the commandline without a shell and ls/cp/rm/mv!

"They are also not used by any graphical UIs that perform the same function. If you remove ls from the system, does the OS crash? vi? mv? They're utilities, not OS components."

Duh. Unix is modular. You can even remove /sbin/init and replace it with your own app! Does that make init a utility too? Yes, but it's an important utility, just like the shell and basic commands like ls/mv/cp/rm.

"I'm not modding anyone down, I just think this horse is dead and its bones have been pulverized... stop beating it."

Yeah and the Taliban is already defeated, stop sending troops to Afghanistan.
Windows has already won, stop using Linux.
IE has already won, stop using Netscape/Mozilla/Konqueror/Opera.
Re:I READ THE FAQ ASSWIPE by tommck · 2002-09-25 09:29 · Score: 2

RIGHT, you like can work with the commandline without a shell and ls/cp/rm/mv!
You like, oh my god!, could write different tools... swap them out... you're not using a new OS!
Duh. Unix is modular. You can even remove /sbin/init and replace it with your own app! Does that make init a utility too? Yes, but it's an important utility, just like the shell and basic commands like ls/mv/cp/rm.
The EXACT reason that you had to hunt for "init" to make a better point is the EXACT reason that I don't find ls/mv/cp/rm or any other simple utility part of the OS! Thank you for making my point for me.
Yeah and the Taliban is already defeated, stop sending troops to Afghanistan. Windows has already won, stop using Linux. IE has already won, stop using Netscape/Mozilla/Konqueror/Opera.
Ummm... I said "I am not modding anyone down...". WTF does this have to do with any of this? I posted something.. Had nothing to do with moderation. If you call disagreeing with someone "modding them down", you need to stop reading SlashDot so much.
T

--
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
Re:I READ THE FAQ ASSWIPE by FooBarWidget · 2002-09-25 09:56 · Score: 2

Well in that case, NOTHING in userland is a system component!
Re:I READ THE FAQ ASSWIPE by tommck · 2002-09-25 10:35 · Score: 1

Bingo! And what do we have for him Bob?
We have this great new Toaster Oven!
Here's your prize... thank you for playing...
T

--
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
Re:I READ THE FAQ ASSWIPE by FooBarWidget · 2002-09-26 01:33 · Score: 2

Conclusion: Linux doesn't have any system components and is useless without a userland like GNU and other application, and GNU *does* deserve credit for providing a large part of the userland.
Re:I READ THE FAQ ASSWIPE by tommck · 2002-09-26 02:00 · Score: 2

But, as they say, where do you cut it off? (paraphrased)
I think X is a pretty big deal... What about Gnome and KDE?
I just think they're taking the wrong tack. They are a large part of the DISTRO, not a large part of the OS. Thus, they need to bitch at each separate DISTRO provider. As one guy in this thread pointed out... He has a distro that he wrote that has NO GNU stuff in it... SO, LINUX IS NOT GNU.
T

--
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
Re:I READ THE FAQ ASSWIPE by FooBarWidget · 2002-09-26 05:27 · Score: 2

You're right, Linux is not GNU. And GNU is not Linux. However, most distros *are* GNU. It just happens that HIS distro is not GNU.

> think X is a pretty big deal... What about Gnome
> and KDE?

RTFQ

This isn't simply a matter of "call it GNU/Linux or STFU". It's a matter of education. If you want to call the thing "Linux" only and educate people by explaining the history in 10 minutes, then do so.
Re:I READ THE FAQ ASSWIPE by tommck · 2002-09-26 06:02 · Score: 1

RTFQ [gnu.org]
Well, the subject of the thread addresses that comment (again)
This isn't simply a matter of "call it GNU/Linux or STFU". It's a matter of education. If you want to call the thing "Linux" only and educate people by explaining the history in 10 minutes, then do so.
It's not as simple as this... THey state "This system is basically a version of the GNU system, modified to use the kernel Linux.". They make it seem like Linux should be the part that's left out... that's crap.
They also say "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.". What I ask is, where is this "GNU operating system"?.
In a nutshell... GNU is NOT an operating system. It is a collection of OPTIONAL utilities that asissts in running an OS. My whole problem with them is their definition of an OS. I don't think that a collection of utilities is an OS.
T
P.S. We're both pretty stubborn, aren't we? :-)

--
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.

Violation of the GPL by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 06:17 · Score: 0

By trying to impose a restriction (requiring the name to be Gnu/Linux) the FSF is violating the GPL where it states that

(from Version 2 of the GPL)

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.

Also... (from section 2)

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
the scope of this License.

Red Hat is adulterous! by danpbrowning · 2002-09-25 06:17 · Score: 2

I don't know about you guys, but this section really got me laughing, hard! To paraphrase, adding non-free-as-in-Speech software makes distribuations "adulterated versions". They certainly are religious about it!

Wouldn't it be better to reserve the name "GNU/Linux" for distributions that are purely free software? After all, that is the ideal of GNU.
The widespread practice of adding non-free software to the GNU/Linux system is a major problem for our community. It teaches the users that non-free software is ok, and that using it is part of the spirit of "Linux". Many "Linux" User Groups make it part of their mission to help users use non-free add-ons, and may even invite salesmen to come and make sales pitches for them. They adopt goals such as "helping the users" of GNU/Linux (including helping them use non-free applications and drivers), or making the system more popular even at the cost of freedom.

The question is how to try to change this.

Given that most of the community which uses this version of GNU already does not realize it is such, disowning these adulterated versions, saying they are not really GNU, would not teach the users to value freedom more. They would not get the intended message. They would only respond they never thought these systems were GNU in the first place.

--
Daniel

Re:GNU failed? You're insane by Reality+Master+101 · 2002-09-25 06:20 · Score: 2

Sheesh, I never mentioned Linus at all. I only stated that GNU failed at their stated mission, which they did.

--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.

GNU/FreeBSD??? by chuckw · 2002-09-25 06:20 · Score: 2

So do we start calling it GNU/FreeBSD too? What about GNU/Apache/Linux?

--
*Condense fact from the vapor of nuance*

Re:GNU failed? You're insane by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 06:20 · Score: 0

Check this for a list of official GNU projects:

http://www.gnu.org/directory/all/

USA/Joe/BSD/GNU/Linux by the_1000th_Monkey · 2002-09-25 06:21 · Score: 1

This is so frustratingly old!

So it should be GNU/Linux because it uses GNU tools? What about the BSD tools that have been there from the beginning in nearly each distro, or that GNU tools were later derived from? Why is it not then BSD/GNU/Linux? And on my personal system, since there are tools of my own conception on it am I obliged to refer to it as Joe/BSD/GNU/Linux? Hell since it's US copyright law that gives all those various licenses their teeth maybe we should show some patriotism with USA/Joe/BSD/GNU/Linux!!

Stallman has the irritating habit of preaching a minor issue ad naseum.

--
where'd my typewriter go?

Wow by Andrewkov · 2002-09-25 06:23 · Score: 1

After reading that FAQ, all I could hear in my head was Austin Power's voice:

Nerd alert!!

Do you say Microsoft Windows XP every time too? by Kjella · 2002-09-25 06:26 · Score: 2

Seriously, it gets shortened down as much as possible without becoming confusing. Do you know the OSs 95,98,ME,2k,XP? Yes you do. You don't go about saying Microsoft Windows XP, nor are people going to call it Red Hat/GNU/Linux. Depending on who I'm talking to I might say Red Hat or Linux, but rarely both and I'm sure as hell not going to put GNU in there.

Kjella

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

Stallman has the right question, wrong answer by ajs · 2002-09-25 06:28 · Score: 2

He points out that this method of calling a full operating system distribution the same name as the operating system itself (that is, "operating system" in the classic C.S. sense, which means the kernel and to a lesser extent the support libraries) is quite unique to Linux. He is only 1/2 right.

I know of no distribution that calls itself "Linux" There is Debian GNU/Linux, Red Hat Linux, SuSE, Slackware, Yellow Dog Linux, etc. These are all "Linux systems" in the same way that BSD UNIX, System V UNIX, Solaris, HP/UX and IRIX are all "UNIX systems", named after the UNIX kernel which was written so very long ago by K&R&T at Bell Labs.

So, "Linux" is a general term in the same way that "UNIX" is a general term. It is also a specific term when used to refer to a Kernel.

The idea that we should call all of these distributions "GNU/Linux" is a suggestion that should be taken to each vendor (be they free-as-in-beer vendors or commercial vendors). Red Hat could be petitioned to call their OS Red Hat GNU/Linux, and if they wanted to, hey, more power to them. But if they don't want to, I just don't see the point in trying to force them.

Stallman also agrues that GNU/Linux is the correct term because Linux is just a completed GNU system. I disagree. I worked on GNU, though only briefly. They were talking at the time (late 80s) of not writing some of the OS themselves and instead using work that had already been done. To that end, they used X, sendmail, bind, etc.

Linux systems have done this too, but wholely independantly. These unifinished aspects of the GNU system are still unfinished, and I don't see why Stallman gets to ignore their contribution to both GNU and Linux.

I don't want to get too nit-picky. It's a long document, and an awful lot of it is reverse-speak, used to derive a certain thesis from the events, not describe the events as they actually happened. To read this document, you would think that GNU was a complete system, all except for that pesky little kernel that MIB couldn't finish without learing to actually communicate with other developers.

In reality, Linux was a long time in getting to the point that it worked well as a whole system. The GNU utilities, glibc, gcc and to a lesser extent, Emacs were all helpful. Then Linux needed init, the tools to integrate X and configure it, system installation tools, and a dizzying array of other tools are used by Linux systems. Also, Linux used existing pieces were possible, just as GNU would have. GNU was never going to have its own Windowing system, but would have used X, just as Linux does. The same is true for a large number of other tools that existed by the early 1990s, and were not GNU tools at all.

GNU created a C library and a compliler. For those two things alone, they deserve a huge pat on the back. But, to demand being cited every time someone refers to the system is too much hubris for any one project.

Re:I call it linux, here's why, in a few short poi by dimator · 2002-09-25 06:31 · Score: 2

In other words: Who cares what Linus calls the OS? Even smart people can be wrong.

Umm... so what did your parents name you? Ahh, who gives a fuck. I'm going to call you Jethro.

--
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"

Re:GNU failed? You're insane by Reality+Master+101 · 2002-09-25 06:31 · Score: 2

Monolithic != statically linked. Monolithic generally means that everything runs in Kernel space. A microkernel has a very small kernel, with messages passed to services running in user space. That's why microkernals have traditionally have had bad performance, among other problems.

--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.

Good thing BeOS died by Rhys · 2002-09-25 06:31 · Score: 1

Otherwise we'd hve to call it GNU/BeOS.

--
Slashdot Patriotism: We Support our Dupes!

Nice name by po8 · 2002-09-25 06:32 · Score: 2

Since we intended GNU to be a Unix-like operating system...

...and to make this intention clear, they named their creation "GNU's Not UNIX". I don't understand how people are so easily confused by this stuff.

What about GNU/FreeBSD? by Splork · 2002-09-25 06:33 · Score: 2

The entirety of FreeBSD (and NetBSD and OpenBSD) are compiled using the GNU compiler. Better change their names as well. gimme a break.

I suppose the FSF would like me to blow my nose in GNU/Kleenex? Linux is a just like a brand that has come into common usage as the simple easy to pronounce term for any linux kernel based operating system.

FSF wrong this time by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 06:33 · Score: 0

I usually support FSF stand on many issues, but this time FSF is plain wrong. Here are the reasons:

1. Even within FSF, only Stallman insists GNU/Linux label. I haven't heard others insisting on it.

2. People buy/use Linux system because of Linux kernel. All GNU parts are available on NetBSD, FreeBSD etc but we don't see them to be as popular. Thus it is Linux which drives usage/sell and not the GNU.

3. You can get reasonably usable system without GNU portion (atleast from end user point of view). How about Linux/X/KDE/Wine/Mozilla/Apache. Save for GCC (which only developers need), there is nothing core from GNU in Linux.

4. If you call GNU/Linux, then how about KDE, Apache, Mozilla, Wine, X and so on?

5. I use Linux at home and at work. Often times there are weeks to months without me touching a single GNU programs (I do primarily Java development in KDE environment). No, I don't use emacs.

6. Linux is a trademark. GNU is a trademark. GNU/Linux is a merger of both and can only be done, if both the parties agree.

Re:FSF wrong this time by captredballs · 2002-09-25 13:03 · Score: 2

Uh, about numbers 3 & 5:

Almost all the software on your system was either compiled by or is run by something that was compiled by the GNU compiler. I know that you address this in #3, but puleeeeease, that must be flamebait.

Every process running on your machine makes use of the GNU libc libraries. Ever look to see where /lib/libc.so.6 comes from? "lsof | grep libc", to get a taste of who is using linux and how.

Wait wait wait, this will be the best test: remove /bin/bash, restart your computer and see what happens. Next, respond to me from your windows machine.

--

I suppose I'm not too threatening, presently, but wait till I start Nautilus

Two questions: by 10Ghz · 2002-09-25 06:33 · Score: 2

1. Didn't FSF/RMS start insisting that Linux must be called GNU/Linux sometime in the 1996-1997? Why didn't they say a word in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 or 1995? It seems to me that they waited 'till Linux started getting mainstream-attention, and THEN they started demanding a name-change!

2. The FAQ claims that Hurd is working. Is it? I fail to see it anywhere.

--
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.

Here's another reason by peterpi · 2002-09-25 06:34 · Score: 1

*please read whole comment before modding*

GNU is just a really really stupid name. It is made doubly stupid by being a recursive acronym. Recursive acronyms are second only in stupidity to calling an operating system after a rather stupid animal.

Can you imagine suggesting to your boss that you use an operating system called GNU? And then when your boss answers "What the hell is GNU" trying to explain that it's a clever recursive acronym, and that all GNU has to say about itself is that it's not unix.

And it gets worse! You've just told your boss that GNU sure ain't UNIX. "Well what is it?" he asks. Then you have to tell him that it basically is UNIX, but you don't have to pay for it. (Don't even try mentioning free software ideologies at this point).

"Linux" however, sounds cool. "Linux" sounds like a hi tech operating system. "Linux" sounds similar to words like "Irix" and "Unix"; words that suggest big iron and effective computing.

Yes, this sounds very childish and silly (and it'll probably cost me karma big-time), but this is the way normal people think. Geeks might like silly names (and when I put my geek hat on, G.N.U is funny for about one minute), but normal people like flashy names. A good name is what made Red Hat my first linux distro.

Re:I call it linux, here's why, in a few short poi by Synn · 2002-09-25 06:35 · Score: 2

"3: Because GNU/Linux is too damn long to say

So is Windows 2000 or Mac OS X, but they're the proper names."

Actually the proper name for Windows 2000 is Microsoft Windows 2000. The system properties for my work machine lists it as running Microsoft Windows XP, not Windows XP.

But no one uses the full name.

Gnu Project with Linux by jms · 2002-09-25 06:36 · Score: 2

They should instead call it the "Gnu Project with Linux", or GPL for short. That would eliminate all of the confusion.

Ugh... by Junta · 2002-09-25 06:36 · Score: 2

That was just such a crock. The GNU work has the least impact and perhaps could be the most easily substituted without impacting end users, except for glibc. Linus made GNU what it is today with his kernel. Saying the shortest proper name should be 'GNU', completely omitting the key piece it needed to become whole is so self serving. Also, saying that the bare minimum threshold is GNU/Linux over anything such as XFree86, KDE, etc is really ludicrous, X has a much larger impact than the GNU tools.

This FAQ defines 'OS' to conveniently envelope work that is usually GNU, ommiting X, which I think has at least as much claim to being 'OS' as GNU.

Anyone who could care about FSF at all already understands the scenario in place. However, those people can also be turned off by the silly demands being made..

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.

Congratulations by Uruk · 2002-09-25 06:38 · Score: 2

You have proven yourself quite the Archivist. You've managed to take a 19-year old post, take one tiny snippet of that, take it out of context to boot, and cornerstone your "proof" around it. Obviously nothing has changed in the past 19 years, and obviously the sequencing of words so long ago is equally valid today. Right.

The GNU system is a complete operating system of which the kernel is only one small portion. GNU is an operating system that can work with Linux as its kernel. (although it doesn't need linux to run) On the other hand, Linux is a kernel that is almost useless without a supporting framework of software. Luckily, the GNU system exists to fill in those massive gaps in linux as an operating system. As RMS says, this isn't a mistake - when Linus was looking around for software to use with his kernel, it wasn't a mistake that he found GNU.

GNU is independent of a kernel, but needs a kernel to operate. Because of this, I don't think there is a "rightful" GNU system. Or more accurately, I would consider the "rightful" GNU system to be any operating system that consists of nothing but free as in speech software.

--
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx

Re:Congratulations by Dwonis · 2002-09-25 15:48 · Score: 2

s/free as in speech/free as in freedom/

Re:This is one of the Dumbest things I have ever s by Sir_Ace · 2002-09-25 06:40 · Score: 1

oop. I stand corrected... I did use the gcc compiler to compile the kernel {and this does imply that I needed glibc libs to do it}, **however** it is **not** part of the dist.

The part about me getting no help from them on trying to make things work on an unsupported platform/cross-compile also stands.

Re:GNU: Get over it by Pentagram · 2002-09-25 06:42 · Score: 2

Don't use GNU sofware then if you're that outraged. All they've done is give you some free software for free with a request that you call it by a certain name. At least don't whine about it if you're going to take their software and not honour that request.

Re:My First, Last, and Only Word on this subject.. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 06:44 · Score: 0

My First, Last, and Only Word on this subject...

Thank fuck for that.

The "GNU" is Gsilent! by mveloso · 2002-09-25 06:45 · Score: 1

gnuts gto gthat!

Pronunciation? by Trickster+Coyote · 2002-09-25 06:46 · Score: 2

Something not covered in the FAQ is how to pronounce the damn term. It's already enough that many seeing the word "Linux" for the first time want to call it "Lye-nucks". So how are we to say "GNU/Linux"?

"Noo Linux" -- makes me wonder what happened to the old Linux.

"Gu-noo Linux" -- sounds awkward and non-sensical and rather stupid IMHO.

"Gee-En-Yoo Linux" -- is this short for "genuine Linux"? (beware of cheap imitations!)

And how about the "/" ? Are we to pronounce the slash when using any of the above variations?

No disrespect to the folks at FSF, but I think I will be kind to my tongue and just use plain old "Linux".

In all seriousness, with the growing mainstream awareness of Linux as a viable alternative to "MS/Windows", I think using the simpler term as a "brand" identity serves the cause much better than the awkward and almost unpronouncable "GNU/Linux".

Trickster Coyote

--
Ideology is for ideots.

Re:Could they add an answer to the following quest by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 06:47 · Score: 0

This one. Read The Fucking Article.

Irony by Dirtside · 2002-09-25 06:47 · Score: 2

The real irony, as I see it, is that Stallman, someone who claims to be so in favor of freedom, is trying to dictate how we should act -- it appears that he wants to curtail our freedom. Now, he certainly has the freedom to say whatever he wants about the topic -- and I, wondrously, have the freedom to ignore him.

I don't personally think there's any logical reason to call it GNU/Linux, so I'm not going to. Isn't freedom great?

--
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased

Re:Could they add an answer to the following quest by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 06:48 · Score: 0

No, moron, he means this question which does address your question:

Shouldn't you put something in the GNU GPL to require people to call the system "GNU"?

The purpose of the GNU GPL is to protect the users' freedom from those who would make proprietary versions of free software. While it is true that those who call the system "Linux" often do things that limit the users' freedom, such as bundling non-free software with the GNU/Linux system or even developing non-free software for such use, the mere act of calling the system "Linux" does not, in itself, deny users their freedom. It seems improper to make the GPL restrict what name people can use for the system.

OK, here's a question by The+Bungi · 2002-09-25 06:51 · Score: 2

The free/open movement is known for its open implementations of closed source apps. StarOffice, the KDE groupware, etc. etc. Software is written both to satisfy a requirement and to bring a given functionality set to OSs like Linux and BSD (and to compete). Sometimes software is also written to bring balance to the force - i.e., Ogg was developed because MP3 has too much licensing baggage.

Unfortunately this is not something that can be done with GNU. There is a *shitload* of software that ships with Linux distros (not to mention the ones used to *create* the OS in the first place).

But let's think about this for a moment - how much effort would be required for creating new versions of gcc, libgc and so on (a BIG so on)?

Also, it seems to me Stallman was more than happy to let Linux use his stuff (and yes, its his stuff, judging from these inane FAQ/political statement ramblings) for the longest time but now he sees himself relegated to obscurity and he wants, quite literally, a piece of the pie. He is not associated with free software, Linus Torvalds is. And while he certainly deserves the credit, it's extremely stupid to try to force it out of everyone at this point using tactics like these.

Now, how different is this from a situation such as Unisys allowing everyone and their mother use the GIF format for years and then coming up with "oh, by the way, we just realized we have a patent on the compression method. Line up and bend over". Or the Rambus debacle? Not very different, except that Rambus didn't accuse Intel of supporting of the atomic bomb. And I do wonder WTF he was smoking when he came up with that. "Poster boy" indeed. Is it just me or does anyone else detect a bit of psychotic envy here?

Stallmans own webpage by adamtegen · 2002-09-25 06:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

I found his webpage and based on it alone I think Stallman is an extremist and loony. GNU deserves props for everything they have, done which is a lot, but this is just plain scary. Stallman calls himself a saint in his own religion.

I think he turns people off because he turns this into a religious war. I think Linus has "converted" more people to OSS by taking the more practical approach.

Contrary to what Darth/Adolf Stallman says.. by HackHackBoom · 2002-09-25 06:56 · Score: 1

He is a complete zealot who was left out of the lime-light and is jealous and forlone.

His GNU Tools are great; I use them, I use linux too. I call the thing Linux because it was the LINUX kernel which took the gnu tools and made it USEFUL as a stand-alone system.

Richard Stallman is the ANTI-THESIS of his OWN beliefs in insisting things be done his way. Freedom of SPEECH dictates I can call it Lizard-Shit/Linux and get away with it. Hmm.. Come to think of it...

Anyway,

I despise true believers... religious or otherwise.

--

"It's not stealing if you don't get caught!"

Re:I call it linux, here's why, in a few short poi by Erbo · 2002-09-25 06:58 · Score: 2

3: Because GNU/Linux is too damn long to say
So is Windows 2000 or Mac OS X, but they're the proper names.
I'd be willing to bet that you don't call Mac OS X "Mach", though that's the kernel it uses, and is a shorter name.

Do you say the full name "Microsoft Windows 2000" every time you refer to that OS? Most people would say "No, I say 'Win-two-kay.'"

Do you say the full name "Mac OS X" every time you refer to that OS? Most people would say "No, I say 'Oh-ess-ten.'" (Or maybe "Oh-ess-ecks").

Likewise, most people will not use the full name "GNU/Linux" every time they refer to that OS, but will say "Lih-nucks."

When you look at it from that perspective, "Linux" is as much a valid conversational abbreviation of "GNU/Linux" as "Win2K" is of "Microsoft Windows 2000" or "OS X" is of "Mac OS X." This means that you can still call it "Linux" in conversation, but maybe you should put "GNU/Linux" on your resume rather than "Linux," just as you would put "Microsoft Windows 2000" on there rather than "Win2K."

It works similarly with distro names. The full name of the distro I use is "Debian GNU/Linux," but, in conversation, I'm likely to just say "Debian."

--
Be who you are...and be it in style!

unlikely by Trepidity · 2002-09-25 06:58 · Score: 2

I don't see anyone replacing gcc anytime in the near future, to take just one example...

--
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10

GNU/Jersey by TheSHAD0W · 2002-09-25 06:58 · Score: 2

I'm sorry, but I won't say "GNU/Linux". It's so much simpler to just say "Linux".

I also won't say "GNU/Emacs", or "GNU/Hurd". "Emacs" and "Hurd" are quite specific, the FSF deserves some credit, but there's no need to proclaim it every time one of their creations is mentioned.

RMS may be annoyed that Linus's namesake has taken the spotlight and GNU is practically unknown to the general public. But trying to complicate naming conventions is only going to bring him grief.

Re:GNU: Get over it by danrees · 2002-09-25 06:59 · Score: 1

The reason why they aren't going to take their toys and go home is because they can't... If they spent less time moaning about people writing "Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux", maybe the FSF would have a working kernel of their own to evangelise.

Why not GNU/Unix? by jfuller · 2002-09-25 07:01 · Score: 1

I and others was using GNU utilities compiled for System V r.3.2 - and no doubt others were using GNU utils on BSD - before there WAS a Linux, and the closest thing to a free *nix was Minix and Coherent. So why weren't we being gnagged to call our systems GNU/Unix rather than just Unix? It seems to me the FSF let their complaining rights about GNU/Linux lapse by permitting the clear precedent of saying plain Unix (with unmentioned GNU emacs, gcc, GNU grep, etc.) instead of trying to get such systems called GNU/Unix.

So, why pick on Linux, rather than *BSD? by jonadab · 2002-09-25 07:01 · Score: 2

> So this GNU thing to me sounds kind of like the same thing

Not exactly, though in principle it's quite similar. The difference
is that the Berkeley license _mandated_ it, and the FSF just raves
endlessly about it.

This is however a particular interesting point given that even today
I am not aware of any complete working distribution that uses only
Gnu stuff and the Linux kernel. In particular, unless I am gravely
mistaken, every major distro would be totally crippled if you took
out parts derived from BSD. It would make as much sense to call it
BSD/Linux as Gnu/Linux. Then there are the various BSDs, most of
which use gcc and other pieces of Gnu, so why are we picking on
Linux-based systems, when systems that use a BSD kernel can be
called FooBSD with no mention of the substantial amount of Gnu
software in their distribution, and nary a complaint from RMS?
It's inconsistent, that's what it is. He should be screaming for
Gnu/FreeBSD and Gnu/OpenBSD and so on and so forth, or he should
shut up about the _name_ and go back to talking about freedom.

The fact that most people call the system "Linux" is basically
an historical accident -- Torvalds didn't originally plan to
call even his kernel that, much less any entire distribution
that included it, but somebody else thought it was a good name,
and it stuck, probably because it _is_ a catchy name. Gnu, on
the other hand, is such a pain to pronounce that even after the
Hurd finally comes out, and Debian faithfully calls it Gnu/Hurd,
it seems obvious to me that normal people are going to drop the
Gnu and just call them Hurd systems. Then we can have flamewars
about which is better, Linux or Hurd, and drag out the old crusty
microkernel/macrokernel arguments once again, oh, joy, oh bliss.

--
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.

Re:So, why pick on Linux, rather than *BSD? by weave · 2002-09-25 07:26 · Score: 2

Excellent points. A name often is accidental, but the brand identity is priceless if it catches on. Look at Federal Express. For ages, people just called it FedEx and it became a common term. That company did the wise thing and formally renamed and trademarked FedEx.
In 1983, I wrote a network OS for CP/M machines. I needed to give it a name, so I just called it K-OS, for Ken's Operating System, pronounced chaos. I put all but 5 minutes of thought into it, but it caught on around the college I worked for where it was used. I replaced the CP/M BIOS and CCP but the BDOS was still there, so maybe I should have called it CP/K-OS/M or something. Thank g-d it didn't catch on! :)
The name Linux was mainly accidental, but now has important name recognition everywhere. Deal with it, use it, capitalize on it, but us geeks should never forget its roots (nor its BSD roots either...)

Re:GNU: Get over it by Milo+Fungus · 2002-09-25 07:03 · Score: 1

This issue is at the heart of the copyleft philosophy. The GNU GPL was originally intended to provide a way to give software to the public commons without granting anyone (including the author) the right to retract the offering. The big concern with writing free software was the possibility that someone could come along and steal from the public commons. Copyleft and the GNU GPL was their way of enforcing the rules of nice play.

RMS seems to be concerned that Linus is doing something like what the GPL was designed to prevent. GNU/Linux essentially took the entire work of the GNU project and espoused it to a project with differing ideals and philosophy. That's the heart of his problems with it - this name battle is an expression of that conflict which has erupted before in the name battle over FS/OS.

I am not advocating either side in this issue. I agree with ideals from both camps.

Re:I call it linux, here's why, in a few short poi by Rastor · 2002-09-25 07:04 · Score: 1

Because GNU/Linux is too damn long to say

So is Windows 2000 or Mac OS X, but they're the proper names.

I'd be willing to bet that you don't call Mac OS X "Mach", though that's the kernel it uses, and is a shorter name.

I think your point better serves the argument against prepending the GNU/. It's not Microsoft/Windows 2000, and it's not Apple/Mac OS X. It's simply "Windows" or "Mac OS", and it's simply "Linux". Why tack the "GNU/" on the beginning, to give credit to the GNU project that contributed? Credits belong in the CONTRIBUTORS file, not in the name. Once you start down that path, it's a slippery slope; I mean, better not forget the XFree86 project, that's a huge part. So now it's XFree86/GNU/Linux. Oh wait, there are some desktops included too. OK, so it's KDE/GNOME/XFree86/GNU/Linux. It gets longer and longer, as was elucidated in this comment and elsewhere.

Linux shouldn't be called GNU/Linux any more than Windows should be called Gates/Microsoft/Windows.

Let's stop this pointless discussion... by Priyadi · 2002-09-25 07:06 · Score: 1

... and call it GNU/Linux when you are talking to Stallman, and call it Linux when you are talking to anybody else.

Why stop at including GNU in the name by egarland · 2002-09-25 07:07 · Score: 1

GNU software isn't the only thing that makes the Linux kernel useful. It's important but so is all the other free software included in the distros.

Maybe we should call it:

RedHat GNU/KDE/Apache/Perl/XFree86/MySQL/Sendmail/BIND/Li nux

Ooh, but I forgot a few things. Maybe we should call it RedHat `rpm -q -a`/Linux.

There's no I in team. Someone needs to learn to play nicely with others.

Where do you draw the line? Is GCC is more important for Linux's success than all the other pieces. Or maybe it's BASH that Linux couldn't exist without. GNU isn't *that* important. If it were RMS wouldn't have to stoop to whining to try to get attention.

Does anyone actually know what percentage of the average ditsro is copyrighted to the FSF?

Don't give things away for free and expect something in return. Just be happy that you are making a usefull contribution to mankind. Most of us out here know that RMS most certainly is making a usefull contribution to mankind and thank him for it.

-Eric

--
set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination

Re:GNU failed? You're insane by mveloso · 2002-09-25 07:07 · Score: 1

Technically, almost every modern software program is a copy of something. There are only a few commercial applications that didn't exist before. A few examples:

Visicalc (spreadsheets)
PageMaker (page layout)
Mosaic (web browser)
video games

Even free software isn't original. In the old days, it used to be called "Public Domain." The main difference is the FSF. Before, there was no organization publicizing "Public Domain", because, well, when you put something in the public domain you explicitly release all rights to it. That's no way to run an organization!

Stallman disrespects people who code for a living by adamtegen · 2002-09-25 07:10 · Score: 1

The widespread practice of adding non-free software to the GNU/Linux system is a major problem for our community. It teaches the users that non-free software is ok, and that using it is part of the spirit of "Linux".

Unless I misunderstand Stallman's intent here, "non-free software is bad". It seems to me that many many Linux enthuisiasts are in some way putting bread on the table through some association with non-free software. I'm all for OSS and its uses, but attempting to deprive so many of out livelihood is no way to win me over!

Not fair to give all the credit to one secondary.. by ebyrob · 2002-09-25 07:11 · Score: 2

It can't be fair to give all the credit to one secondary contribution (Linux) while omitting the principal contribution (GNU).

Well gee, you nearly had me up to this point Mr. Stallman. But how many people truly agree that GNU and the FSF is the "primary contributor" in Linux? And what exactly does "primary contributor" mean? For example if I write a piece of code with 2 friends, say i code 40%, one friend codes 35% and the other codes 25%. Does that mean I am the "primary contributor" and that my name should be on the app? What if my contribution is 51%? How bout if I do 95% of the work, but am partnered as an assistant to a college professor?

Personally I hold much more respect for the 51% contributor who can denigrate their own contribution and hold up the other "little players" to encourage them, rather than the 51% contributor who feels they must exercise their influence to further their own goals.

In light of this has the FSF earned the right to ask that we call our favorite OS GNU/Linux? Yes.

Is it wrong to honor this request? No.
Is it wrong not to? No.

The hacker ethic in it's purest sense existed before the FSF was created and will continue to exist when the FSF is gone. The FSF does not own the hacker ethic nor is the GPL the only way to express this ethic.

Silly! by matt-larose · 2002-09-25 07:11 · Score: 1

If any other project wanted its name listed in reference to the "operating systyem" they'd get as far as the GNU people have gotten.

I can wait the for Redhat GNU/PHP/Apache/Linux/XMMS

--
"Be glad you sailed for a better day, But dont forget there will be hell to pay" - Dave King/Flogging Molly

Re:GNU failed? You're insane by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 07:11 · Score: 0

Riiiight...the word "monolithic" doesn't imply a single executable, and never has. *wink* Gotcha...

By your definition the Mach kernel used in OS X is a monolithic kernel because:

"...in Mac OS X, Mach is linked with other kernel components into a single kernel address space."

That sounds an awful lot like your definition of a monolithic kernel, but Mach in OS X is referred to as a hybrid micro-kernel. That is, it's a hybrid between the concept of a monolithic kernel, in which everything runs in the kernel space, and a micro-kernel, in which modules are dynamically loaded into the kernel.

It's revisionist history to call the Linux kernel in its current incarnation a monolithic kernel, since monolithic did indeed originally imply that everything was statically linked into a single executable.

a slightly different argument by Trepidity · 2002-09-25 07:11 · Score: 2

Your point seems to be answering the FSF's argument that calling it GNU/Linux is proper since the GNU project deserves a large part of the credit for the overall system (by pointing out that XFree86 and others do as well). However, I think Bruce's point was slightly different -- calling it "GNU/Linux" gives a connotation of free software by reminding people that it fulfills the goals of the GNU project (to have a completely free software operating system). At the very least people will ask "what is this 'GNU' thing?" and perhaps investigate further, rather than just treating "Linux" as another operating system.

--
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10

Re:GNU: Get over it by Wdomburg · 2002-09-25 07:18 · Score: 2

>GNU is a stupid-sounding name to begin with, and
>their made-up pronunciation (Guh-New) is
>counterintuitive and only makes their name even
>less attractive.

It's only counterintuitive if you didn't grow up watching the Great Space Coaster

Matt

Re:GNU: Get over it by GreyWolf3000 · 2002-09-25 07:21 · Score: 1

Exactly--no one seems to realize its the pronunciation that's a problem--I can't physically say "guh new slash linux" out loud without stumbling over myself. There's also another cool thing here--when the Hurd is ready for widespread use, we "get" to drop the "linux" and simplify the name. Everything will be all simpler when the core OS is all GNU (is the implication)... Perhaps they're doing what they claim Linus is doing--wanting to propogate their software.

--
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.

GNU Apple by programic · 2002-09-25 07:22 · Score: 1

Mac OS X bundles A LOT of the GNU software mentioned in that FAQ into their operating system.

Apple probably should have gone with the moniker "GNU OS X" to be politically correct.

--
-- yawn. --

Re:GNU failed? You're insane by Reality+Master+101 · 2002-09-25 07:26 · Score: 2

Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. Monolithic versus micro kernels have nothing to do with how things are linked, static or dynamic. It has everything to do with whether you call subroutines directly (in the case of monolithic) versus message passing to separate processes (in the case of microkernels). Whether things are linked at compile time or run-time is totally irrelevent.

If OS/X changed Mach to be link-based rather than message-based, then it's no longer a microkernel. It doesn't matter what it originally was.

If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe Linus himself.

--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.

Re:GNU: Get over it by poot_rootbeer · 2002-09-25 07:28 · Score: 2

Wah! wah! wah! call it by my name or I'm taking my toys and going home.

Preposterous. The FSF is not threatening to rescind the rights granted to you by the GPL if you don't write and say "GNU/Linux" all the time from now on.

All they're saying is, "We think GNU/Linux would be a more appropriate term for the product commonly referred to as Linux, and here's the reasons why." You're free to disagree if you want.

Since you agree that the GNU tools are valuable, why not give credit where credit is due?

The idea of a system. by GreyWizard · 2002-09-25 07:32 · Score: 1

By what measure, other than "we were here first", can GNU make the claim that they're the principle developer?

How about the measure of system design and organization? Not only was GNU there first, they conceived the idea of developing a complete free system, which is the essential point of a modern "Linux" distribution. As a result, they did all the boring development work that a system requires, rather than choosing the thing that was most fun to work on. They are also responsible for most of the non-technical infrastructure that makes free software possible, most notably the GPL, but also more mundane acts like encouraging developers to contribute.

Things like lines of code and memory residence are easy to measure, but that doesn't make them good indications of who concieved a system. Kernighan and Ritchie wrote exactly none of the lines of code in modern Unix derivatives, but that doesn't mean we should forget about their contributions.

But the real point here is not that we should be splitting hairs to allocate credit. Instead, we should be thinking about the messages we want to send. The terms "Linux" and "Open Source" stand for a focus on narrow technicial advantage and a just-for-fun mentaility. "GNU" and "Free Software" stand for preserving meaningful liberty in a digital era. Do you really care so little about your freedom that you can't be bothered to prepend two little syllables?

--
Not all those who wander are lost.

Re:The idea of a system. by mjh · 2002-09-26 02:43 · Score: 2

The terms "Linux" and "Open Source" stand for a focus on narrow technicial advantage and a \ just-for-fun mentaility. "GNU" and "Free Software" stand for preserving meaningful liberty in a digital era. Do you really care so little about your freedom that you can't be bothered to prepend two little syllables?

If the terms GNU and Linux are so antithetical to each other, why on earth would anyone insist that they be paired together? If Linux by itself is such an affront to freedom, why pair it with GNU? That's like saying that I can turn around what murder represents for by calling it GNU/murder. Or that I can turn around what terrorism represents by calling it GNU/terrorism.
Now, of course, I don't think that Linux is antithetical to GNU. To suggest that the name Linux does not represent the exact same freedoms that GNU represents might be more meaningful if Linux were licensed under the BSD license (for example). But Linux uses the GPL and *insists* on guaranteeing the same freedoms as every FSF project. How is it that Linux represents anything other than the FSF's definition of freedom?
As far as forgetting about K&R's contribution to Unix, we haven't forgot their contribution. But we don't have to call it K&R/Unix, either.
$.02.

--
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
Re:The idea of a system. by dvdeug · 2002-09-26 17:49 · Score: 2

As far as forgetting about K&R's contribution to Unix, we haven't forgot their contribution. But we don't have to call it K&R/Unix, either.

But we do call it Unix, which is what they wanted it to be called. Seriously - the trademark is not for Unix, it's for UNIX, and companies that sell them call them UNIX, not Unix. But K&R use Unix, which is part of the reason the Jargon file uses Unix, and both of which are part of the reason most people call it Unix.

Re:What do we call a system which has NO GNU stuff by MCZapf · 2002-09-25 07:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

Those rare systems that do not include GNU components can be called "GNU-less Linux." Otherwise, "Linux" is fine with me. I agree that the "GNU" part is redundant, or at least unneeded information in the name of a distribution.

some thoughts on the logic of this by VerdeRana · 2002-09-25 07:44 · Score: 1

(1) A lot of the FSF argument is resting on the two meanings of 'operating system' - whether it refers to the kernel or to something like all non-application programs. While FSF prefers the latter meaning, when my prof talks about 'operating systems' in my OS class, she pretty much means the kernel. gcc, binutils, all the wonderful stuff GNU and others have built are amazing tools, but they're not the operating system.

If the debate boils down to a choice between these two meanings of OS, then there's no point in debating - no one is right.

(2) Just out of curiosity, if you count lines of code in the kernel vs lines of code of GNU tools, what does the ratio look like?

A simple, mathematical solution by __aaaaxm1522 · 2002-09-25 07:44 · Score: 2

In this comment, I will demonstrate a simple, mathematically sound solution to the GNU/Linux naming issue.

1. Branch the GNU toolset sources. Make any minor modifications you wish. Make sure to credit the original authors and sources, and make your source code freely available.
2. Name your branch Linux^2/GNU.
3. Install your new toolset over an existing GNU/Linux installation.

Mathematically speaking, this gives you:

(GNU/Linux) * (Linux^2/GNU) = Linux

Voila. You can now refer to your new distribution as Linux.

Let's try an analogy... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 07:46 · Score: 0

Hey, do me a favor. Take a few days off from work and help me with a construction project I'm working on. What? You won't unless I agree to your conditions (paying for your plane flight and accomodations)? STOP COERCING ME, YOU EVIL BLUE MEANIE!

Lots of good points, but... by HiThere · 2002-09-25 07:50 · Score: 2

Short names win over long names for frequently used words. If they wanted to campaing for Ginux they would probably have a better chance.

Or perhaps Li-nu-x would be a better choice (Linus's Gnu X Windows). (That works as a sound [linux], but it doesn't work written, so just drop the hyphens.)

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

Backlash should not be ignored by btempleton · 2002-09-25 07:50 · Score: 2

I believe that many people who know perfectly well what the FSF has done say "Linux" because they know it annoys Richard.

For better or worse, Richard has taken a stance of a very specific ideological purity and style of interaction that he must know will annoy people. That is his choice. But he should accept the consequence, that people will be tempted to do the opposite of what he asks. Spiteful? Sure. But that doesn't do away with it.

--
Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation

Hello? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 07:50 · Score: 0

Linus Torvalds has a trademark (though not much of the copyright) on Linux -- the kernel called Linux. The operating system on my computer is another matter altogether. That is a collection of a kernel and various programs and services and that is what Stallman wants you to call GNU/Linux, not the kernel.

and so how to you say GNU in.... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 07:54 · Score: 0

French, German, Iraqii....

Bruce is defending Microsoft! by stienman · 2002-09-25 07:55 · Score: 2

"An operating system, as we use the term, means a collection of programs that are sufficient to use the computer to do a wide variety of jobs. A general purpose operating system, to be complete, ought to handle all the jobs that many users may want to do."

MS is actually going the hard route by saying they cannot remove IE without damaging the 'operating system', however Bruce is telling us (and MS) that they don't even need to claim that. They simply need to define an 'operating system' as all the programs a user typically uses.

Bruce, I'm really sorry that someone took your tools and made a great monument without telling everyone that it wouldn't be possible without your tools. I'm sorry that everyone is less educated than you are about free software and open source and the vastly huge gulf between the two. I'm sorry that I don't 'get it'.

The question I keep asking myself is, "Who does Bruce think he is, anyway?" You talk as though you are diety's gift to free software, and that what you say is automatically correct. I understand you feel that only by pulling as hard as you can will people move to middle ground, but your tactics roll off the masses like water off a duck's back. But that's who you are, and no one expects you to change. Please realise, though, that your concepts are not going to gain any significant gound until you hire new PR, or there's a serious changing of the guard.

-Adam

Re:GNU failed? You're insane by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 07:59 · Score: 0

Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about.

Saying so doesn't make it so. :)

Monolithic versus micro kernels have nothing to do with how things are linked, static or dynamic.

I don't think that you understand the historical context of the word. I refer you again to the "Linux is Obsolete" debate.

Andy Tannenbaum said:

Most older operating systems are monolithic, that is, the whole operating system is a single a.out file that runs in 'kernel mode.'

And Linus, in 1992, did not disagree with that assessment, because that was the commonly agreed upon definition. In fact, he went on to explain why portability is not important in a kernel. If you read the discussion, it is obvious that Linus' idea in 1992 of what a monolithic kernel was is drastically different from your definition.

If OS/X changed Mach to be link-based rather than message-based, then it's no longer a microkernel. It doesn't matter what it originally was.

And if Linux is not a single executable, then it is no longer monolithic. It doesn't matter what it originally was.

If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe Linus himself.

Why would I? He's one of the revisionists! :)

A rose by any other name ... by gnugnugnu · 2002-09-25 08:07 · Score: 1

Despite the nick I semi randome chose I call it Linux

but sometimes i just call it Gnome, because that is what i use and not necessarily always on Linux.
If i were using KDE i would call it KDE because for me it is all about the desktop.

As for Distributions I call them by their names, RedHat, Mandrake, Gentoo, SuSe, and that is usually enough.
Some times call Debian by its full title
Debian Gnu/Linux as that is the name they chose for their project and I can respect that, but even then i certainly dont pronounce the slash, i mean who pronounces punctation marks! I assume (and hope) that Richard Stallman only does that to make it absolutely clear what he means.

It would be far better to concentrate on Gnu/Hurd than to continue such divisive aguements, it is enough to make me switch to Gnome/BSD.

Seeing as this post will probably get moderated to hell anyway I may as well complain about the name "Free Software", as "Freedome Software" or even better "Software Freedom" would have make far more sense but i guess it too late to try and fix it now, it is as futile as trying to get people to care about the cracker/hacker distinction.

amoral by totalnubee · 2002-09-25 08:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

Non-free software is an example of that amoral approach and thrives on it. (faq)

Did they really intend to call all developers of non-free software "amoral"? And did they do that while asking everyone to support their cause?

Good luck

--
"Even when I say nothing it's a beautiful use of negative space." - Indelible, "Fire In Which You Burn"

Re:amoral by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 08:11 · Score: 0

Uh, yeah. The FSF only exists because of the way proprietary developers treat their customers. And remember, amoral (not influenced by morality) isn't as bad as immoral (acting against morality).

Where should politics come in? by Matimus · 2002-09-25 08:11 · Score: 1

It seems like the FAQ is saying that choosing your OS should be like choosing sides in politics, critisizing Linus for putting the functionality of his product over the ideals of free software. That is complete CRAP! Seriously this is a free market society, how can somebody advocating freedom get off critisizing its own values. I appreciate the GNU project, however I never used any of the software to prove a point, and I never will. Im fine with calling it GNU/Linux, or I would have been, if I hadn't read this.

--
GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper

They chose the wrong license by JohnG · 2002-09-25 08:11 · Score: 2

If they wanted the product to be called GNU/Linux, then they shouldn't have released their software under the GPL. The GPL gives people the right to port the software to other platforms with the only legal requirement being that they release the source. If they wanted it to be GNU/Linux maybe they should have came out with their own license that clearly stated the terms of use of the software....oh..wait a minute..

sheesh! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 08:18 · Score: 0

sheesh! what a bunch of whiney b----es!

I wonder if the BSD people would become as whiney b----es as the GNU people in the majority of the GNU applications in most linux systems were replaced by the equivalent BSD tools? BSD/Linux they would whine?

GNU/Windows by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 08:18 · Score: 0

I use GNU tools on Windows so now I'm going to refer to it as GNU/Windows. That will actually help when I talk to my *nix-lovers.

Sounds like RMS/FSF is gearing up for an IPO? :-) by EdA · 2002-09-25 08:18 · Score: 1

I'm convinced it should be GNU/Linux...

WTF is your damage, RMS? by knife_in_winter · 2002-09-25 08:20 · Score: 1

Just to piss you off, I'm going to create my own distribution based on the Linux kernel, GNU software, and just for kicks, my own hot-to-trot, from-scratch version of Rendezvous called...er...HotToTrot, which will be GPL'd.

To make sure the system is pure GNU (other than Linux and HotToTrot) I will not incorporate any BSD utilities, Apache, Perl or any software that is not released exclusively under the GPL. I don't know how useful the system will be, but bear with me. I'm on a roll. I mean, if you want Apache, compile it yourself, dammit.

I will call my system Penix. I will register a trademark for Penix. Penix is my special OS. See my Penix? It is beautiful. In big bold letters on my website, I will laud the virtues of GNU and Linux and HotToTrot. I will link to gnu.org and linux.org and quote you and Linus extensively. No one will doubt that Penix is not only free, but made with GNU and Linux software. No one will doubt that I am giving credit where credit is due.

So, am I to understand that I am *still* a bad bad man if I don't call my system Penix/GNU/Linux???

Fsck you, RMS.

--

Tyler's words coming out of my mouth.

Source code lines are a flawed measure by MojoRilla · 2002-09-25 08:21 · Score: 1

Using the number of lines of source code in a distribution to tell you how important some code is compared to others is wrong.

Althought the kernel might not be the majority of the code in a Linux operating system, it is the most complex and hardest to write. Code complexity/difficulty cannot be measured by the number of lines of source.

If writing a kernel were easy, we would have seen GNU 10 years ago. However, despite the best efforts of the FSF, we still have not seen Hurd.

Also, how about using the amount of CPU time the user spends in different sections of code? I would think that the kernel would win this metric easily.

I agree with others that this is simply a pathetic attempt to grab publicity for GNU.

An easy solution... by ZiZ · 2002-09-25 08:24 · Score: 2

Is GNU/Linux too hard to say? Make the Switch!

(The previous comment is, of course, satirical. I really just say "FreeBSD".)

--
This flies in the face of science.

Re:An easy solution... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 08:34 · Score: 0

yer right saying "crap" or "toy" is a lot easier than saying "gnu/linux"

Re:My First, Last, and Only Word on this subject.. by sdo1 · 2002-09-25 08:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

My First, Last, and Only Word on this subject...

Actually, you've commented on this subject before.

(sorry... your subject sounded like a challenge to me). :-)

-S

--
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?

Re:GNU: Get over it by Chris+Siegler · 2002-09-25 08:29 · Score: 2

their made-up pronunciation (Guh-New)

Anybody else not know this? I've been to Perl and Linux meetings and never heard somebody pronounce it Guh-New. Makes you sound like a donkey.

I think they stole this from Donald Knuth anyway. He says in his FAQ that his name is pronounced Ka-NOOTH.

It's easier to say. by outlander78 · 2002-09-25 08:31 · Score: 1

There is a simple reason why many people call the OS+software distributions "Linux". It's because "GNU SLASH LINUX" is a lot longer to say.

Then there's the difficulty in explaining to people that

a) Yes, you know Linux has been around for a while, and is not "new".

or

b) No, this isn't a "new" version of Linux - it's the same OS, with the same strengths and weaknesses as always, though they are being improved over time.

(Few casual users, including most managers, will be familiar with "GNU" as opposed to "new".)

--
cheers,
Andrew

Re:GNU failed? You're insane by Reality+Master+101 · 2002-09-25 08:34 · Score: 2

I don't think that you understand the historical context of the word. I refer you again to the "Linux is Obsolete" [oreilly.com] debate.

Sheesh, do you read your own links? I quote:

"The alternative is a microkernel-based system, in which most of the OS runs as separate processes, mostly outside the kernel. They communicate by message passing. The kernel's job is to handle the message passing, interrupt handling, low-level process management, and possibly the I/O."

..and..

MINIX is a microkernel-based system. The file system and memory management are separate processes, running outside the kernel. The I/O drivers are also separate processes (in the kernel, but only because the brain-dead nature of the Intel CPUs makes that difficult to do otherwise).

And if Linux is not a single executable, then it is no longer monolithic. It doesn't matter what it originally was.

But that's the point! Linux IS a single executable.

I think you don't understand what linking is all about. Static linking is when you take all a set of modules and resolve subroutine references to produce a single executable, then the executable is run. Dynamic linking is when you take a set of modules, resolve references at run time, and then the executable runs. You still have a "monolithic" running program, it's just put together in a different way. One of the advantages to dynamic linking is that you can dynamically unlink a module and replace it with another module. But that doesn't mean it ceases to be a single running program. In other words, the program itself doesn't know the difference.

This is TOTALLY different for a microkernel architecture. The whole point of a microkernel is to have a "micro" set of services that just pass messages among a set of different processes, and the processes provide the "higher level" services.

--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.

My standard response to this- by BoneFlower · 2002-09-25 08:39 · Score: 2

GET A LIFE!

While the Linux kernel is far from everything, it is the piece of the puzzle that ties everything else together.

Therefore, the name Linux is perfectly appropriate for an OS based around it. If you feel the need to include the acronym GNU, it should be Linux/GNU, as GNU is the add on to the Linux Kernel, rather than the other way around. It would be pointless really, except for a proof of concept against the rampany GNU bigots, but anyone wiht the programming knowledge could create a complete linux system, compatible with current distros, without using a single piece of GNU code. Pointless, yes, but the fact that it can be done says that the GNU part is not central to what linux is, and that means there is no justification for this holy crusade.

Go back to the GPL... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 08:42 · Score: 0

Where in the GPL does it say that if you use GPL code that you have to add something to your product's name to indicate it?

The GNU tools were released under the GPL, and had been being used on commercial systems before Linus released the Linux kernel. So should the system I used at work have been called GNU/SunOS (well, that's what it would have been back then... now they can call it GNU/Solaris if Sun agrees). Sure, not all the tools on the SunOS system were GNU. But there were several key pieces I used everyday.

Then the Linux kernel came along, beating the Hurd by several years, and suddenly, together with the GNU tools and *many* other components, a complete, useable free system was a reality. And, due to the stipulations of the licenses, all of this software could be included in the various distributions and sold as long as certain rules were followed.

So basically, RMS and the FSF have no legitimate leg to stand on on this issue. Someone even went so far at one point to try to convince people to call it Lignux ( which led to the fact that if City University of New York came up with their own distribution, it could be called CUNY-lignux.... I can't take credit for that one, but it still makes me laugh...)

They've brought it up before, and I'm sure will bring it up again, and they are due recognition for their important part. But changing the Linux name at this point seems ridiculous.

Stallman = Bush...? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 08:43 · Score: 0

"They hate our freedoms..."
"Either you are with us or against us..."

Re:I call it linux, here's why, in a few short poi by anthony_dipierro · 2002-09-25 08:43 · Score: 2

Linux is not a UNIX-like OS. GNU/Linux is.

I see nothing in the GPL saying that you should call a fork of a program the same name as the program itself. PostNuke doesn't call itself PHPNuke/PostNuke. EGCS doesn't call itself GCC/EGCS.

Linus forked GNU, added a kernel, and called the resulting OS linux. The fact that the kernel happens to have the same name of the OS is irrelevant.

I predict... by scosol · 2002-09-25 08:45 · Score: 1

...that one day RMS is going to snap.

He's just the type- intelligient, but edgy, and living in his own world.

Mark my words, one of these days he's going to let loose on a city bus with an AK.

--
I browse at +5 Flamebait- moderation for all or moderation for none.

Re:GNU failed? You're insane by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 08:47 · Score: 0

>forwards over commercials on their TiVO.

Don't you mean GNU/TiVo? I'm sure there's something on a TiVo that's from the FSF.

Linux is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 08:51 · Score: 0

What Stallman says about Linux being mostly GNU code is fact. This whole publicity hype built around linux is a hoax. It's nothing new, as linus himself admits, and it's not even as good as FreeBSD, as anyone who's looked underneath the hood at the kludgy linux kernel knows. It's time we got the word out.

Defintion of an Operating System by drewpt · 2002-09-25 08:54 · Score: 1

I still have my college textbook from my OS class.

Kind of like the Dragon book is the book of choice when teaching a compilers class, Tanenbaum's book is the book of choice (judging by the number of CS departments that use it) when teaching an Operating Systems class.

That being said, Tanenbaum states on page 2, that the Operating System is not the collection of programs (both system and application), but rather it is just the kernel.

To make things simple Windows is an OS, and when we think of Windows, we think of all of the applications that go along with it. This is because an OS is useless without some system/application programs. BUT, in my opinion, TECHNICALLY they should be separated.

I don't understand why the FSF is making such a big deal out of this. It's all about ego, and to me that turns me off from the whole free software/open source initiative. If I wanted to deal with ego's, I'd use Microsoft products.

Carrying the ideology forward. by quag7 · 2002-09-25 08:54 · Score: 1

One argument I hear a lot, not just in this massive discussion but in other places is that RMS is "arrogant" and "preachy" and is out to make sure that his name stays on "Linux."

From everything I've read about Stallman, it seems to have less to do with Richard Stallman himself, as much as Richard Stallman's ideas. I couldn't blame the guy, frankly, if all he wanted was to preserve some credit for something he's put so much time into. Especially for someone as unwavering and principled as he is; someone who makes a living "being the asshole." It must be mystifying for him why people are so hostile to him, when the roots of his ideas - and I do believe in the sincerity of them - was creating free software in a community context.

September, 1983, Stallman posts his intentions:

Stallman Proposes GNU

Everything I have personally read from Stallman and the FSF - and I have not read absolutely everything - has been steadfast in promoting these values, or ideology if you're a little cynical, or dogma if you're VERY cynical.

It does strike me as somewhat ironic that Stallman's largest critics benefit from this philosophy daily, however annoying they may find it. I've spent enough of my life being a user of other operating systems to know that without this ideology, much of this great software would still exist, but it would be beyond my price range. Much of it which I use for my own ends would not be available to me, and I would be much less empowered. Whether it's using astronomy software to find constellations, or free word processors and text files, or grepping through massive amounts of data, free software has made my life better. Equivalents exist, but they exact a hell of a price in return, and some of them are completely beyond what I can afford.

Free as in freedom has come to generally also mean free as in beer; they are separate concepts but you generally find one with the other. I've benefitted from both. For example, I have modified the source of an SNMP firewall monitoring tool to specifically give me the information and warnings I need. I never had these options in Windows. I've modified it so much, learning about how SNMP works from the source, that it's almost become a completely new piece of software. It would have taken me 10x as long if I had to figure all of the concepts from scratch.

This is nothing new to any of you.

But witness the voluminous tide of independently-produced crippleware which makes up the bulk of Windows software. There are some excellent freeware exceptions (WarFTP, Irfanview), but most Windows software is shareware. It is not free, and the source is not available.

What has made the "Linux" world so exciting - and I speak only for me - is the fact that freedom is the rule, rather than the exception. There is more "freedom" here than there is almost anywhere else. Even my grandmother refused to give out her best recipes. When your operating system is more community minded than your own grandmother, it's impossible not to consider the role of ideas and values beyond the ones and zeroes.

FSF and the GPL's "ideology" have created so much of the environment in which the "pragmatists" who just want "functional technology" thrive. Imagine, theoretically, having the Linux kernel, but then having to pay for all of the GNU utilities? See, I do think all of this would exist without the free software concept, but it would be very expensive. And we'd be a slave to the companies that produced them in terms of patching security holes and bugs.

It seems to me that the GNU aspect of the name represents the set of values that created the "Linux" community and keeps it free and dynamic, and the Linux part of the name is the practical, technical part (in terms of how and who you market them to). They seem pretty indivisible to me.

"Linux is a stable operating system based on UNIX." Great.

"Oh, and, it will cost us nothing."

Superb.

"And if we find some problem we can probably fix it ourself rather than spending a week getting the damn vendor to *admit* that a bug exists."

Wow.

"And we can even adopt the source to meet those small details we need, precisely fulfilling every bullet point on our needs document."

(Now as for this last one, anyone who has worked for a big company trying to purchase software to fill a need will understand how incredible and unique this is.)

I have on occasion winced a bit at some of Stallman's ideas or the way he states them, but I've made an allowance for a few things - first, the man's obvious frustration at the attempted separation of the values/"ideology" from the technology - and I share some of his frustration at this. (If the ideology is so overbearing, why not just go out and buy Solaris and be "free" of it? Because just as you can, in an atmosphere of free speech, advocate fascism, you can also use and benefit from free software while simultaneously slagging it, or at least its importance. I don't mean to make a direct comparison with people who are annoyed by Stallman and fascists, just the concept of being critical of something you're benefitting from.)

Secondly, Stallman *always* has to be the asshole. He always, as a point of principle, has to be the one everyone hates, because there's a lot less risk in saying, "Linux is a fun and powerful thing to use" rather than making an "ideological" point. I think it's a total virtue that he does this, which seems contrary to a lot of the complaints I hear about him. Yes, Stallman does scare some of the suits. I think in the long run, it is a small price to pay - freedom, for me, is far more important than certain individuals not using GNU/Linux in their corporation because of intellectual property concerns and because Stallman comes off as an angry hippie. I've never personally been worried about competition with Windows. GNU/Linux will survive because people want it to; precisely because people have an emotional and ideological attachment to it that, I believe, will withstand any test from the corporate world. I am sometimes dumbfounded by the amount of time people spend defending GNU/Linux compared with, say, human rights, but it is that spirit which will ensure that it survives.

After awhile, though, being the asshole has to get to be a drag. Personally I salute him for sticking with it and, in the face of all of this criticism, not giving up the fight for expediency. He fights for community values in the face of the same community often being hostile to him (It seems to me that for him the name is far more than semantics, though many of his critics seem to think it's precisely that. I think part of his fight is to make the point that *it isn't* just semantics, a point I agree with. It would be like trying to explain American civilization on the basis of a civics lesson (There are 100 senators, 2 from each state...) without the ideology (or mythology) (Individual rights, whatever).

Now, I agree that GNU/Linux is a mouthful. Maybe if we could do this all over again, we could find a more phonetically palatable thing to call this. But I personally think that the ideology and values of free software are so central and so paramount to this community, that it's worth tripping over my tongue a bit. If anything, when talking to someone who has never used GNU/Linux or hasn't thought about the ramifications of proprietary vs. free software, it raises the question "G...what?" In a sense it's a great way of starting a discussion.

As for Stallman being "bossy," which some people have argued, this is absurd. How can someone be bossy when they have no authority over you or your actions? By simply calling it all Linux all you wind up doing is guaranteeing Stallman won't grant you an interview. Big deal. I personally think you're doing a disservice to GNU/Linux when you leave the GNU part off, but you're free to do so, just as you're free to say "The West is great because it produces the best toys, but screw the people out there whining about the Constitution or freedom." There's nothing anyone can do - or should be able to do - about that.

I have a great operating system that I use every day to talk to people, exchange ideas, play games on, and run cool software. It didn't cost me anything, and I can modify and re-distribute it to other people. I am completely benefitting from the very wonderfully strange concept of free software. There is other cool software that can do many of the same things, but I'd have to pay probably thousands of dollars for it and then be stuck with its bugs and crufty source, especially if I've made such a considerable financial investment that it's not practical to abandon it. It seems a small thing to ask to call it GNU/Linux to preserve, conceptually, its roots as free software. I think that the freedom aspect of it (And as I run the Gentoo distribution, which downloads and compiles source for every package I want to install, it is obvious to me every time I update or install something) is so fundamental and crucial, that it's worth the small inconvenience and long-windedness of tacking on the GNU.

This is true for me, and I've got no problems with Stallman, and feel personally indebted to him. His efforts have not only provided me free software (And I do not think it's a contradiction in terms when you say, "You are free to use this, provided you don't make it un-free." any more than it is not a contradiction to say that "You can use your freedom in any way you want except to abridge another's freedom."), but his ideas have also made me think, and ultimately empowered millions of people.

Seems to me calling it all GNU/Linux is a small thing to ask - especially since contrary to his many critics, it's not really about reminding people of Stallman, but reminding people of Freedom. I really do believe that. With almost anyone else, I'd immediately assume it was mainly personal, but Stallman has been so consistent in this regard that I absolutely don't think it is, *fundamentally* personal (no doubt - and I blame him not at all - he would like a little personal credit for all of his work on this - and even at that rate, it's GNU, not Stallix or something).

As someone who has used GNU software far more than I've contributed, I just don't have the stones to complain about this small thing. I think were most people who use GNU/Linux to de-emphasize the values of the community, it would be extremely damaging to the operating system.

I understand fully that there are many people who understand all of this and just don't feel the need to pronounce the full name. But I would argue that this is important in terms of precisely defining what GNU/Linux is: an OS with - love it or hate it - an ideology attached. An ideology which has been as responsible for its present form as the practical code that has gone into it. And which we all - critics and advocates - benefit from every time we sit down at the keyboard.

I am just now getting used to calling it GNU/Linux, because I read and after thinking about it, was convinced by the document on the FSF site. This debate and irritation has been going on for awhile. I have not yet fixed all of my webpages to refer to it as GNU/Linux, but I will, for the reasons outlined above. People are obviously going to do what they are going to do but I would point out that originally, I was on the other side, because I initially considered it a silly semantic argument, especially given the weighty mouthful "Guh-new-Lin-ux."

But after thinking about it, I agree with Stallman's points. Putting the freedom up there in a paramount position in the name of the thing seems appropriate and even necessary. It's worth the price, to me.

After reading all of this, I have one thing to say by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 08:56 · Score: 0

GNU/SeaOrg

Re:GNU: Get over it by Troed · 2002-09-25 09:00 · Score: 1

"Gnu" = wildebeast in Swedish.

--
it's in my head

Missing Question. . . by Farley+Mullet · 2002-09-25 09:01 · Score: 1

. . .When's the HURD going to be ready for prime-time?

Once they stop needing Linux, then they can call it whatever they want. And they have had long enough -- the FAQ says they've been working on their project since '84, and they still don't have a production level kernel. After 18 years, I think it's safe to call it vapourware. Besides, I can't help but think that the sucess of the Linux kernel has been a boon for the GNU project -- since Linux is useful for people, they've been interested in working on the GNU tools that work with it. And this explains why GNU tools have been developed so much more quickly then the HURD -- Linux users need better tools, not a replacement kernel. Frankly, the GNU folks should be thankful to Linus for providing renewed momentum to their project, not issuing FAQs dripping with envy and derision over the way the community decided to name things.

And I'm sorry if this is redundant, but since there are already over 1000 posts on the thread, I don't think many people will make it this far down anyway.

In other news... by dR.fuZZo · 2002-09-25 09:07 · Score: 2

Mozilla = Netscape/Mozilla

Istanbul = Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul

Christianity = Judeo/Christianity

Coke = Coca-Cola/Coke/New Coke/Coke

--
-- dR.fuZZo

G-N-U by Wiwi+Jumbo · 2002-09-25 09:07 · Score: 1

If he wanted us to use the term "GNU" with a straight face, he could have chosen a better phrase then "GNU is Not Unix."

Whenever I can get one of my friends/co-workers/etc to even start talking about Linux, we always get to the GPL and the GNU.

"What's GNU stand for?"

"Mumblemumblemumble..."

"What?"

"GNU is Not Unix... Ya see it's a recursi..."

But it's to late, the eyes roll, the respect is lost, the subject is changed.

Someone needs to put a stop to RMS.

--
Wiwi
"I trust in my abilities,
but I want more then they offer"

Re:GNU: Get over it by smittyoneeach · 2002-09-25 09:09 · Score: 2

Echo your respect for the work. One day I hope to achieve the skill to contribute.
It's also RMS's off-putting fanaticism. The community ends up saying: you're right, but would you go away?
1Cor13:1 is highly relevant here.

--
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear

Pardon? by robbo · 2002-09-25 09:12 · Score: 1

Should I call my Sony television a Ford/Sony because Henry Ford pioneered mass production? The FSF has done great things and certainly created some fertile soil for linux to sprout out of, and in return, the success of the kernel has done a lot of good for visibility of the FSF, but I don't think just because the GNU components are useful or that the kernel is GPL'ed, we owe it to RMS to call it GNU.

--
So long, and thanks for all the Phish

Re:Pardon? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 09:17 · Score: 0

"Linux" has been a disaster for the visibility of the FSF--most people using Project GNU have never heard of it, much less been exposed to the ethical arguments behind its creation. The FSF is trying to put freedom into everyone's hands, but what can they accomplish if they're so thoroughly whitewashed out of history that nobody knows their rights?
Re:Pardon? by robbo · 2002-09-25 09:33 · Score: 1

I'm not so sure. If you're talking about casual desktop users, I agree that the FSF or GPL matters very little. Joe Blow cares more about functional and free-as-in-beer software than about whether he can change the code or who deserves credit for emacs or apache. On the the other hand, any developer who hasn't heard about the FSF or at least the GPL must be living in a black box, and on this count, I think Linus' decision to GPL the kernel did the FSF a lot of good (not that it was some momentous decision, but how would things be different if he'd used a BSD licence? There's something to chew on..)

--
So long, and thanks for all the Phish
Re:Pardon? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 11:09 · Score: 0

Joe Blow cares more about functional and free-as-in-beer software than about whether he can change the code

This is the problem we're trying to solve. The profession can't progress while our work is owned, and users will continue getting locked in and ripped off until they demand the right to choose their own maintainers (maybe even themselves). They won't unless we explain to them that they can and why they should.
"Linux" has scuttled HURD (where do you think most of the potential developers went?) and the flock of amoral newbies it attracted has undermined open hardware efforts (vendors who think proprietary drivers are good enough are actually being taken seriously by the user base!)
Re:Pardon? by sn00perz · 2002-09-25 20:38 · Score: 0

Right on. By releasing Linix (the kernel) under GPL LInux has repaid FSF ten fold. It s true that when Linux was only starting most of GPL software came from GNU but due to Linuxses (the oses) immesne popularoty I bet now most soft relased under Stallman's license now comes from indivudual developers, teams and even corporations. Stallman has nothing to complain about.

--

Down with Crapitali$m. Anarchy NOW!

The problem with this is... by Quarters · 2002-09-25 09:17 · Score: 2

GNU is a stupid name. It doesn't evoke anything (except a slow, usually dripping wet, smelly animal)and it is hard to figure out phonetically (Ga-new? new?, gan-ew?)

It's not catchy, it's not descriptive, it's not anything but a collection of letters that some programmer thought was cool because it's actually recursive.

People don't want an OS named "GNU/". "Linux", if you intentionally mispronounce it like most people do, is good because it sounds like "Unix" and a lot of people have heard that term.

Don't even get me started on "HURD"...(shudder)

Wonderful little GNU/Generalization by Bishop923 · 2002-09-25 09:17 · Score: 2

Interesting quote from the FAQ:

While it is true that those who call the system "Linux" often do things that limit the users' freedom...

I would wager that 99.5% of those who use the term "Linux" in some way are either:
A: Refering to it because of the freedom that the system brings the user.
or most often...
B: Refering to it in technical terms with no real feeling about the freedom aspect in any particular way, simply as a tool for a job.

Making blanket statements like the quote above show the same sort of mentality that goes into racial profiling...
"Gee that guy is an Arab, It is true that they often do things to limit peoples lifespans..."

Is GNU important? by pclminion · 2002-09-25 09:20 · Score: 2

If I remove 'gcc' from the system, I can no longer compile programs.

If I remove 'glibc' from the system, I might end up having to use 'Newlib'.

If I remove 'emacs', I might end up using 'vim'.

If I remove 'bash,' I might be forced to use 'tcsh'.

But if I remove the Linux kernel, every piece of GNU software out there becomes a useless pile of bits.

Face it GNU. Without Linux, you'd be in the shitter. You waited one decade too late to produce Hurd, and once you finally did, it turned out to be a steaming load of crap. You admit as such with your idiotic FAQ -- why don't you expend your energy promoting Hurd? Because it sucks, that's why. And without a kernel, you are totally impotent.

I will now get back to hacking Linux.

Re:Is GNU important? by borgheron · 2002-09-25 09:23 · Score: 1

Without the tools and utilities and system level things GNU has created, you couldn't even build the Linux kernel.

They are interdependent to the point that they should *really* be considered ONE. GJC

--
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Re:Is GNU important? by Sunnan · 2002-09-25 10:34 · Score: 1

Izzatso?

I could use the GNU utils (at least emacs/gcc) on the netbsd kernel, or hurd.

Okay.... by Dark+Lord+Seth · 2002-09-25 09:20 · Score: 1

This is where I open a big chest, pull out my Dutch skeptism and give Mr. Stallman one Funny Look(tm) before asking "What's the big fucking deal?".

Dammit people, get your goddamn act straight. All this bickering and mud throwing in the open source community is giving Mr. Ballmer snug dreams of a future where the open source movement kills itself due to internal argueing and petty name-calling. (pun intended) Why doesn't everyone get over their damn pride and start to cooperate instead?

--
Hate me!

Re:GNU failed? You're insane by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 09:20 · Score: 0

Sheesh, do you read your own links?

Why, yes, in fact I do. The things you're quoting here have solely to do with microkernels, not monolithic kernels. I'm not arguing that Linux is a microkernel. Why are you arguing against that proposition?

But that's the point! Linux IS a single executable.

No, Linux, as it is usually distributed, is not a single executable. It is an executable plus the loadable modules. That is not what a monolithic kernel meant in 1992. Single executable means single executable. Period.

Ten years ago, there was no such thing as Plug-n-Play, and Unix-based machines generally didn't change configurations very often. Thus, the configuration of the machine was determined when the kernel was compiled. If the configuration changed, you compiled a new kernel. And it was all compiled into a single executable. The memory model that you describe is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for something to have been described as a monolithic kernel as the definition existed ten years ago.

Since that time, the definition of a monolithic kernel has evolved to include loadable modules that did not exist in a true monolithic kernel, and microkernels have evolved into whatever the hell OS X is.

But at least people like the Mach people admit that their designs are hybrids, and not true microkernels. Defenders of monolithic kernels don't seem to acknowledge that today's monolithic kernels are actually hybrids as well.

Just out of curiosity, let me ask you this directly: Do you believe that the Mach OS X kernel is a monolithic kernel? It seems to fit your definition of one, but the developers of that kernel would most likely disagree with your assessment.

The benefits of Free Software work for the FSF. by jbn-o · 2002-09-25 09:21 · Score: 1

Should the FSF and RMS continue to demand people use the GNU/ designation before Linux, and start to impose restrictions - license or otherwise - people will stop using it.

They're not demanding anything, they're politely asking for you to call the operating system GNU/Linux which gives them a share of the credit they are due. Nobody is threatening imposing restrictions on those that choose not to grant the GNU project this credit.

Like most copyright holders, they already impose restrictions in the licensing of their software. Their work is not in the public domain. I think it's clear the restrictions they've imposed on their programs have been received quite well.

It doesn't matter if it's payment through money or recognition, people hate to be forced to do anything, so there'll be resistance.

Nobody is forcing you to call the system GNU/Linux, so clearly you have misinterpreted what is being asked of you.

Want me to pay for your software I can get elsewhere? Yeah, right. Want me to put the name of your software into my software, when I can just switch to something that doesn't have that restriction? Yeah, right.

It's funny you would cite this in this as a rebuttal in this context: the ability to get a costless copy of Free Software somewhere else is a side effect of the freedoms of Free Software--the very thing being championed by the GNU Project and the FSF.

--
Digital Citizen

thought we were more of an autonomous collective.. by billstewart · 2002-09-25 09:26 · Score: 2

This is partly a reply to TomMcK's signature, and partly to the topic of whether Gnu's Not Linux.

It's one thing for the Gnu Public Virus to make everything it touches Free-As-In-Speech. But it's another thing to say that using the language makes you part of the GNU project, which is by definition Stallman and Friends. If I write a piece of free software as part of the GNU project, and they accept it, then it's GNU, but if I just write it and let the public use it freely (enforced by GPL), it's not theirs, it's *mine*. And if I write a piece of code and contribute it to the Linux community, and they pick it up, that makes it Linux. On the other hand, if RMS writes code for a project that's on Sourceforge, he's not contributing to GNU/Linux, he's contributing to SourceForge/Linux.

Yes, I read the long bloody faq, I just didn't agree with it.

--

Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks

It's simple, really by Wandering+Idiot · 2002-09-25 09:30 · Score: 0

GNURMS's proposed GNUnaming GNUconvention is awkward GNUand GNUugly. Thus, GNUwe should GNUcontinue GNUcalling the system "Linux", while GNUnever forgetting the GNUcontributions of GNURMS GNUand the GNUFSF, GNUwhich, according GNUto the GNUFAQ, is GNUall they really GNUwant.
GNU.

Being Silly by ferreter · 2002-09-25 09:32 · Score: 1

Well, I have an idea. Perhaps if Linus and Stallman could just get along there wouldn't be any issues over naming. GNU and GPL go hand in hand for "GNU/Linux" based systems why can't their respective founders do so as well? Unfortuneately I think Stallman has kernel envy.

Re:GNU: Get over it by Phong · 2002-09-25 09:32 · Score: 1

All they're saying is, "We think GNU/Linux would be a more appropriate term for the product commonly referred to as Linux, and here's the reasons why." You're free to disagree if you want.

Really? RMS actively refuses to visit any users group that has the name Linux in it without a GNU. The press is also being pressured to refer to Linux as GNU/Linux or RMS won't talk to them. These are not the actions of someone who feels that people are free to decide whatever they like. These actions are divisive and intimidating.

The biggest problem I have with the FSF arguments is that "GNU" is a software project of the FSF. It has principles that it abides by. It has people working on it. Saying that the term "GNU/Linux" means "GNU, the operating system, distinguished by having Linux as the kernel" is a total revision of history. The people working on Linux were not working on the GNU project, so the OS they created is not the GNU OS (and yes, they did create an entire OS distribution separate from the GNU project). It uses many of the same pieces, but that doesn't make it the same. Also, branding Linux after the fact with a "GNU" moniker has meaning. It should mean that "this OS follows the GNU/FSF principles of 'Free Software' and avoids all closed-source software." (The FSF seems to think that adding a simple slash between the names negates this meaning, but I think they are deluding themselves in this regard.) Since most Linux distributions do not abide by the FSF's strict principles, this makes the GNU moniker deceptive and unwarranted.

I think the best possible solution is to refer to all of Linuxdom as just "Linux". This includes the subset of Linux that is GNU/Linux (such as Debian).

Hmm. That makes me think of a tongue-in-cheek slogan: Just Linux -- that's "Just" as in justice, not "Just" as in beer.

--
..wayne..

Re:What do we call a system which has NO GNU stuff by MaxVlast · 2002-09-25 09:34 · Score: 2

BSLinux? =)

--
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome

Pronounced.... by Fizzlewhiff · 2002-09-25 09:35 · Score: 2

I'll never say GNU/Linux because in my opinion its silly to demand it. If I was the FSF I'd be busting my ass to get Hurd, er GNU/Hurd stable and get some vendors like Oracle to port some mission critical commercial software to it. Oh wait, commercial software is evil. Scratch that idea.

There's been some good points made by the Linux crowd, specifically some installations having no GNU utilities, some installations having fewer GNU code, or less lines of GNU code, etc. No matter what the percentage of GNU code is, its still Linux to me. The chicken and the egg logic used to further the GNU position is just about as pointless an argument to me. We still have our chickens and we still have our eggs and I know the difference between the two. As long as I get the job done I don't care who made what possible for who.

So to give credit where credit is due...

Linus, thank you for the kernel.
RMS, thank you for helping me appreciate vi.

--

'Same speed C but faster'

Re:Pronounced.... by Sunnan · 2002-09-25 10:37 · Score: 1

Commercial software, evil? Why, RMS loves commercial software! He even says so himself.

The tools aren't what I'm talking about by theLOUDroom · 2002-09-25 09:40 · Score: 1

When I say "I use linux" or "I use Windows" I am describing the kernel. I could have the GNU utilities installed on a windows box, BSD, or many others. I am saying my computer executes code written and compiled to run on Linux (the kernel).
If someone asks what programs I have, then that's a different story. I'll tell them I have gcc installed, and a bunch of other stuff, but gcc isn't what talks to my drives or my screen.
Get a clue. The GNU utilites are seperate from the linux kernel. They're really important, but that doesn't mean the name of another seperate component of the system should be changed. They're not the same. Stallman probably gets that (whether he'll admit it or not) but it sounds like you don't.
This thing is like Xfree86 demanding that KDE call itself, Xfree/KDE. They are two serperate things. They do different things. If the GNU utilites were being merged into the linux kernel the the name change could make sense, but they aren't.

--
Life is too short to proofread.

Re:The tools aren't what I'm talking about by Hope+Thelps · 2002-09-25 10:55 · Score: 1

When I say "I use linux" or "I use Windows" I am describing the kernel. I could have the GNU utilities installed on a windows box, BSD, or many others. I am saying my computer executes code written and compiled to run on Linux (the kernel).

If all you are talking about when you use the term "Linux" is the kernel then Richard Stallman and the FSF have no quarrel with you. This is very clear from their web site, including the FAQ linked to from the story above.

Many people, myself being one example, use the term "Linux" as a generic name for distributions that include Linux (the kernel), GNU software, and other software. These distributions that include Linux (kernel) and also GNU software are what the FSF feel should be called GNU/Linux.

The FSF call the Linux kernel Linux just as you do. They have no objection to you doing so. Do you understand yet?

--
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
Re:The tools aren't what I'm talking about by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 11:18 · Score: 0

There is no kernel named "Windows". That's the name of a set of related systems that run kernels like "NT HAL" or "kernel32.exe".
Re:The tools aren't what I'm talking about by theLOUDroom · 2002-09-25 14:03 · Score: 1

You're missing my take on this whole thing completely.
I think that distinction is really splitting hairs. In my view, because linux distros are named after the linux kernel, asking them to change their name is essentially like asking to have the kernel renamed. Because linux is named after the kernel, a change to GNU/Linux, would give many the mistaken impression the the linux kernel was part of the GNU project.

I know you think he has some point, but I consider his point to be pretty silly. I don't want to say I use GNU/Linux/XFree86/KDE/Mozilla/Gaim/GNOME/every other fricking piece of software on my system. I respect Stallmann for his contributions to the FSF, but I don't think he has much of a point.

--
Life is too short to proofread.

Re:I call it linux, here's why, in a few short poi by belroth · 2002-09-25 09:44 · Score: 2

Dude, GNU didn't fail. You run it every time you boot that system you call "Linux". I think you're still not getting the point that your OS actually is the GNU operating system.

Have you read the FAQ?

The GNU Project was named after the GNU operating system--it's the project to develop the GNU system.

The kernel for the GNU OS is the hurd, and it may even be finished sometime in the next twenty years.

--
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.

GliNUx by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 09:47 · Score: 0

GliNUx... sounds better.

Ok, ok. GNU/Linux.. by E_elven · 2002-09-25 09:55 · Score: 1

-But what does FSF stand for??

-Free software foundation.

-You mean they give stuff for free?

-No, 'free' as in free speech.

-Oh, I see.

E

--
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!

"The Ideals of Software Freedom"? Gnu's Not Linux by billstewart · 2002-09-25 09:59 · Score: 2

I look toward the FSF to promote RMS's ideas of software freedom, whatever they are at the moment. Many of them *are* good ideas. But they're not this only ideas of software freedom. In particular, RMS's insistence on mangling the the "Library GPL" into the "Lesser GPL" has irked me for a long time - there are reasonable reasons for taking that approach, even if he doesn't like them.

The GPL is a useful tool for lots of objectives, but just using it doesn't make your work part of the GNU project - According to the FSF GPL FAQ, that only happens if the developers and GNU Project agree and the developers explicitly contribute their code to the GNU Project. This *has* happened with many of the programs that are commonly used with Linux, but also *has not* been done with many of the others, so they're Not GNU.

The name GNU/Linux doesn't increase *my* awareness of software freedom - it increases my awareness of Stallman's goals of mindshare-hoarding. Has anybody done an inventory of popular Linux distributions to find out what proportion of projects have been donated to the GNU Project?

--

Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks

Did Linus ever intend to contribute to GNU? by Get+Behind+the+Mule · 2002-09-25 10:07 · Score: 2

A central part of RMS's argument is his contention that the Linux kernel is a part of the GNU project, the project to build a Unix operating system consisting entirely of GPL'd software. Everything he says presupposes that this is the case.

Did Linux Torvalds ever say or write anything to the effect that he was contributing to the GNU project? As I remember the history, Linus was dissatisfied with the Unix OS's available for x86 architectures at the time, so he decided to build his own. But IIRC he never intended it as a contribution to what the FSF was doing.

Here's what I think this is all about: The FSF set about the GNU project and failed to complete it, because they failed to get the Hurd kernel finished for very many years. Linus came along and developed his kernel, and decided to GPL it, but did so for reasons unrelated to the FSF effort. Since it was GPL'd, and since the FSF failed to get their own kernel done, RMS found it convenient to declare that the Linux kernel is a part of GNU, filling the gap that they couldn't fill.

This is why RMS's insistence on "GNU/Linux" has always struck me as an act of intellectual dihonesty akin to plagiarism. He's trying to appropriate the credit for someone else's efforts.

Of course, that impression is false if my understanding is incorrect, and Linus did intend to contribute a kernel to the GNU project. So I'd appreciate it if someone could correct if I'm wrong.

--
Always keep a sapphire in your mind

That's nothing... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 10:07 · Score: 0

Read the article. I quote:

The problem with "GNU/Linux" is that it is too long. How about recommending a shorter name?

For a while we tried the name"LiGNUx", which combines the words "GNU" and "Linux". The reaction was very bad. People accept "GNU/Linux" much better

Good Lord, they were optimistic about people's desire to do screwy pronunciations.

Look at MS. They're on top of this. English word + *two letters/numbers*.

Many other projects contributed to the system as it is today; it includes TeX, X11, Apache, Perl, and many more programs. Don't your arguments imply we have to give them credit too? (But that would lead to a name so long it is absurd.) ...If you feel that X11 deserves credit in the system's name, and you want to call the system GNU/X11/Linux, please do.

Hmm.

Today, with the GNU Hurd working...

Well, I suppose from an extremely technical standpoint, you *could* consider it working, yes.

Linus publicly states his disagreement with the free software movement's ideals...He goes even further, and rebukes anyone who suggests that engineers and scients should consider social consequences of our technical work--rejecting the lessons society learned from the development of the atom bomb.

I thought there *weren't* any open source peace loving hippies left. "Y.T. knew he was a computer guy because he had long hair and seemed gentle." I figured they were all into BSD, and got bitter and went corporate long ago.

Get over it! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 10:09 · Score: 0

If everybody who contributed a component to a linux system, the name wouldn't fit on a page. We would have to call it GNU/X/KDE/BSD ... /Linux. Why not just call it linux?

Re:GNU: Get over it by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 10:14 · Score: 0

their made-up pronunciation (Guh-New) is counterintuitive

Well, Flanders and Swann said it like that 40 years ago. That is, "guh noo", which sounds different from "guh niu" here.

Re:GNU failed? You're insane by Cryptnotic · 2002-09-25 10:18 · Score: 2

GNU didn't invent emacs.

http://www.multicians.org/mepap.html

--
My other first post is car post.

We owe Stallman a debt of gratitude by Infonaut · 2002-09-25 10:25 · Score: 2

as has been stated in the FAQ and by some posts in this discussion. But I really wonder why Stallman is so keen on calling attention to the fact that he contributed so much to the development of GNU/Linux.

Is it because he wants GNU to become a recognized ideology or name brand? Is he thinking that Ma and Pa consumer give a rat's ass about who is behind The Operating System That Will Take Over The World and Make It A Better Place?

Even if you lower your sights, and say that RMS is just interested in getting the techno-cognicenti to use the Approved Name, surely he must realize that his place in the geek pantheon has been assured? Think about it. Who in the general population knows who Doug Engelbart is? Not many people. Yet his place in the history of technology is assured. His name will be on people's lips a hundred years from now, as will Stallman's.

Saying that people should call it GNU/Linux simply because it's the "right thing to do" is naiive in the extreme. I'm reminded of the ads the good folks at Xerox put in magazines a few years ago, telling us all that we shouldn't use the term "Xerox" when referring to photocopying. "Excuse me, I have to make a photocopy of this document. I am using a Canon copier, rather than a Xerox copying device. Therefore I'm making it absolutely clear, so that you won't mistakenly assume that I'm using a high-quality Xerox product, instead of the crappy Canon product I really am using."

I appreciate your work, Mr. Stallman. I appreciate that you have a political agenda as well, and since you put in the years and years of work necessary to bring all of these great GNU tools to the world, I have no qualms about you spouting your views on software licensing or whatever else you want to spout off about.

But if you really want to make friends and influence people - if you really want to make the GNU "philosophy" stick - why don't you stop trying the sledgehammer approach? Get a real mascot that can play alongside the Linux Penguin. Come up with a "Certified GNU" seal of approval. Get friendly. Go guerilla. Subvert the system from within. People simply respond better to honey.

Either way, even if you don't ever convince anyone to use the term GNU/Linux, your place in history is assured. Your years of work have paid off. You've started something great, but you can't control it. Such is the Law of Unintended Consequences. Accept it, and you may find that paradoxically, people will start giving you and the FSF more credit.

--
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ

Linux is an operating system by markbthomas · 2002-09-25 10:28 · Score: 1

From: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: What would you like to see most in minix?
Summary: small poll for my new operating system
Message-ID:
Date: 25 Aug 91 20:57:08 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

Hello everybody out there using minix -
I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and
professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones.

Linux was an operating system from the very beginning. Just because Linus started with the kernel and pilfered lots of GNU's free software (along with XFree86, Perl, etc.), doesn't make it anything less of an operating system.

He also specifically differentiates Linux from "gnu". Note that he doesn't say:

Hello everybode out there using minix -
I'm doing a (free) kernel to go with the GNU operating system for 386(486) AT clones.

Re:I call it linux, here's why, in a few short poi by p3d0 · 2002-09-25 10:30 · Score: 1

Ok. What was your point again?

--
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....

Re:thought we were more of an autonomous collectiv by tommck · 2002-09-25 10:33 · Score: 1

Yes, I read the long bloody faq, I just didn't agree with it.

Seriously.. Some people act as if it is such basic truth that you must not have read it if you don't agree!

T

In response to the subject: "I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week." :-)

--
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.

Re:What do we call a system which has NO GNU stuff by markbthomas · 2002-09-25 10:34 · Score: 1

That's it; I'm starting a movement to replace all the GNU components with Free (as in of RMS) Software.

Anyone with me? ;-)

Re:I call it linux, here's why, in a few short poi by belroth · 2002-09-25 10:37 · Score: 2

p3d0 claimed that when I boot into linux I'm running the "GNU operating system", I'm not as I'm using the linux kernel. If I were to use the Hurd kernel (if it ever appears) then I might well be using the "GNU operating system", but right now I'm not. I use linux, and occasionally some GNU software (and a whole lot more non-GNU).

--
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.

I don't give a rat's ass by leereyno · 2002-09-25 10:44 · Score: 2

I'm not a kiss-ass. I'm not about to bend over backwards verbally and in writing to stroke the ego of one Richard M. Stallman.

To me this entire issue is a non-issue.

What suprises me most of all is that anyone even gives him the time of day when it comes to this. I swear if I'm ever in a position where I've published something that lots of people are reading and I start getting "call it gnu/linux" nasty-gram emails I'm going to dump every last one of them in the trash without any response whatsoever. My silence and lack or acknowledgement will speak volumes.

Political correctness is a social disease. We have enough of it in the world already without introducing into computer jargon.

Lee

--
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.

You people should be ashamed of yourselves! by smell_the_glove · 2002-09-25 10:46 · Score: 1

OK, you can like RMS or not, but for crying out loud, act more respectful! I doubt that most of us could accomplish in ten lifetimes than he has in his (so far). Personally, I have no problems referring to GNU/Linux as such. I wonder where I'd be if there were no gcc, emacs, or any of the *dozens* of GNU tools I use every day... probably using Windoze and hating computers. And I pay exactly *nothing* for this. And RMS started a movement which encouraged others to contribute to the same pool. And all he wants for all of this is for you to add a single syllable to the name of your OS. So do it! Show some respect!

Leningrad/Stalingrad/St. Petersburg by Sunnan · 2002-09-25 10:52 · Score: 1

But GNU's not Unix, so why should it sound like that?

Calling it Linux is like calling it Stallmanix or something. Why having a single persons name dominating a system made by the masses?

Slashdot gets trolled by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 10:52 · Score: 0

This wasn't news and it wasn't new. I've seen the page before on GNU's site, it was not just "issued" as jdavidb writes. Cripes, it has a copyright of 2001 at the bottom (though it was "updated" 9/25/2002--big deal). jdavidb lays the trap and Slashdot falls in, reviving the holy war.

Then I propose by pclminion · 2002-09-25 10:55 · Score: 2

I propose you call it GNU/NetBSD then.

This is all totally idiotic.

Re:Then I propose by Sunnan · 2002-09-25 11:04 · Score: 1

In my opinion, you have two alternatives.

You can read the FAQ (which does adress the GNU/BSD-question), and then choose on whether to agree or keep on arguing.

Or you could just shut up, keep calling it just "Linux", letting us call it GNU/Linux, and we could both spend our time on more creative and less idiotic things this argument.

Either is fine. If you're going to argue, then do read the FAQ.

Just my $0.02 by jargonCCNA · 2002-09-25 11:01 · Score: 1

Inevitably, somebody else has already said this, but I thought I just stick in my opinion, despite its assured redundancy:

RMS obviously has something large but probably entirely uncomfortable wedged firmly up his ass that is preventing him from allowing Linus Torvalds to get full credit for copying the Minix kernel from observation -- no source code, just a feature-by-feature duplication. Entirely legal, and really f*cking hard to do for a kernel. If Linus hadn't done this (for himself, I might add), the GNU Project would be nowhere. Its software would just be that -- a pile of software, and BSD would have all the fame Linux now has.

I will not support the GNU Project or the FSF until RMS pulls that stick out of his ass and accepts the fact that "Linux" is more popular everywhere (especially the mass media, where, when you think about it, it really counts when it comes to public image) that "GNU/Linux".

Or, so that Stallman won't have a problem understanding me: LIGHTEN UP, YOU STUPID FUCK!

--
Matthew G P Coe
http://mgpcoe.blogspot.com/

Re:GNU: Get over it by Tom7 · 2002-09-25 11:01 · Score: 2

This is really sensible -- though I agree with the FSF's principles and really agree about "Free Software" versus "Open Source", the name GNU/Linux is just really bad. Even just the fact that it's four syllables is too much.

Still, the worst offender (outside of perhaps the purposefully colorful NES emulator "NESticle" and the irc client "BitchX") is Ogg Vorbis. Yikes.

Stallman, just STFU! by rossz · 2002-09-25 11:13 · Score: 2

You didn't right the damn Linux kernel, so you have no f*ing right to demand it be named after your pet project.

Who the hell made you the "spokesman" for the open source movement? You're a f*ing embarassment to us.

--
-- Will program for bandwidth

Re:Stallman, just STFU! by borgheron · 2002-09-25 13:51 · Score: 1

First off, whoever modded this up to a 2 deserves to be shot. Second, RMS *IS NOT* the spokesman for the Open Source movement but the *INITIATOR* of the *FREE SOFTWARE* movement which is fundamentally different.

Open Source is a methodology of software development. Free Software is an idealogy concerning your rights regarding software. The two share some common traits, but are totally different underneath.

Third, show some respect, dude! People like you who denegrate others without knowing all of the facts should take the time to at least learn about things *before* making a comment. :)

GJC

--
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Re:Stallman, just STFU! by rossz · 2002-09-25 15:17 · Score: 2

No one modded me up. I post at 2 automatically. And no, I won't show RMS respect. He's a cartoony figure who has not earned my respect.

As for him initiating the free software movement. Bullshit. People were giving away software long before he was on the scene. We just didn't make it a big political issue.

--
-- Will program for bandwidth
Re:Stallman, just STFU! by ctid · 2002-09-25 22:10 · Score: 2

As for him initiating the free software movement. Bullshit. People were giving away software long before he was on the scene. We just didn't make it a big political issue.

Yes he is the initiator of the Free Software Movement (note the capitals). The fact that you think that free software in this context means "giving away software" just demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of the issue. In this context, it is "free" as in speech, not "free" as in beer.

--
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
Re:Stallman, just STFU! by borgheron · 2002-09-26 02:18 · Score: 1

I see. So you post at 2 because of the obvious quality of your uninformed opinions. Go to www.gnu.org to learn the difference between Free Software and Freeware.

Again, you show your lack of knowledge by not being able to distinguish between the two. And I shall not waste time explaining this one to you.

GJC

--
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep

newbie says hello by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 11:22 · Score: 0

Hello Mr. Stallman,

I'm still a newbie at using Linux ahem GNU/Linux, whatever to call it. I didn't know anything about free software before installing Linux. It was the license (GPL), not the tools nore the name, that started my interest in what GNU was.
It's probably better to leave the name at 'Linux', not confusing people too much to begin with.
Those who care will always find out through the GPL.

Roger

Re:I call it linux, here's why, in a few short poi by DrInequality · 2002-09-25 11:31 · Score: 1

This is like trying to force the metric system on me when everything around me right down to my car's odometer is in miles.

Except that the metric system is clearly better (just ask NASA), whereas the name GNU/Linux is slightly worse than just plain old Linux.

--
DROS - Open-Source Robot Software

Re:I call it linux, here's why, in a few short poi by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 11:33 · Score: 0

3: Because GNU/Linux is too damn long to say

So is Windows 2000 or Mac OS X, but they're the proper names.

I'd be willing to bet that you don't call Mac OS X "Mach", though that's the kernel it uses, and is a shorter name.

Macos is easy to say, it rolls off the tongue. Win2k sounds like y2k, which everyone got used to saying as well, so it feels less cumbersome.

GNU/Linux, however, is a PITA to both say AND type. And what's the reason for wanting it called that? "Waaah, we want our recognition! We want a FAQ that really IS a FAQ (ie: someone actually asked it more than once) along the lines of 'what the fuck did you make us all put this GNU crap on the front for?' so they can spout their ideals at every turn.

Well, fuck them. They have their recognition in the credits for every piece of code they wrote. They have their LICENSE file with working links included for anyone interested to go ahead and find out all about their philosophy and politics.

They need to wake up and realise that many more people care about using their computer to do work than using it to push some political ideal on everyone.

I'm confused, perhaps you can help by BollocksToThis · 2002-09-25 11:41 · Score: 1

My First, Last, and Only Word on this subject...

"Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds."

OK, so Linux is the first word, Torvalds is the last... but which one is the only word?

--
This sig is part of your complete breakfast.

Re:GNU failed? You're insane by Reality+Master+101 · 2002-09-25 11:43 · Score: 2

It is an executable plus the loadable modules. That is not what a monolithic kernel meant in 1992. Single executable means single executable. Period.

I simply don't understand why you think this is relevent to anything.

What is a monolothic kernel? A kernel that executes with directly-called subroutines. What is a monolothic kernel with loadable modules? A kernel that executes with directly-called subroutines.

What is a microkernel? A kernel that executes with message passing to services running in processes. What is a microkernel with dynamic linking? A kernel that executes with message passing to services running in processes.

This is what you seem determined to miss: The difference between a monolithic kernel and a microkernel is MESSAGE PASSING. How the kernel is linked is completely irrelevent.

Do you believe that the Mach OS X kernel is a monolithic kernel?

I don't know enough about it say definitively. But you can figure it out for yourself: if it uses message passing to separate processes, it's a microkernel. Otherwise, it's a monolithic kernel.

--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.

I know Godwin's Law by marko123 · 2002-09-25 11:56 · Score: 2

I realise an argument is lost when you associate your opponent with Hitler or Nazism, but is there a special name for when you accuse someone of not learning the lessons of Hiroshima?

--
http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood

Re:I call it linux, here's why, in a few short poi by jtdubs · 2002-09-25 12:25 · Score: 2

We call Mac OS X, OSX. We do this because Apple told us to. And it's up to them since they package it and sell it.

We call things whatever they are called when they are packaged. Not when they are made.

If I install Corel WordPerfect on my Win2k box, and install Cygwin, should I then call it Corel/Cygwin/Windows 2000?

I don't. I call it Win2K regardless, because that's what it is branded as.

The GNU tools don't make up all of RedHat linux. What about the kernel, Linux? What about the Windowing System, XFree86, Afterstep, Gnome, KDE? What about random-tool-x written by random-guy-x?

I don't call it GNU/X11/KDE/Linux. I don't append the names of all my installed products to my OS name. I call it whatever the box tells me to call it, possibly abbreviated.

Shit, even GNU's Linux is called Debian, not GNU/Debian or GNU/Debian/Linux.

RedHat call's it RedHat Linux. Mandrake calls it Mandrake Linux. Therefore, I abbreviate both with the common subset of Linux.

Deal with it. RMS is a conceited fuck and should shut the hell up as he is actually hurting is own cause by being such a dumb-ass.

Justin Dubs

NASA by intermodal · 2002-09-25 12:56 · Score: 2

NASA is hardly an authority on what works best for my car. Sure, it may be better for various conversions and such, but how often do I care how many feet or meters i've driven? For me and for millions of americans, miles are better than kilometers. Same goes for Linux users, IMHO.

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!

Mod +10 God Damned Straight! Re:GNU: Get over it by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 13:02 · Score: 0

What he said. It should be on the front page of slashdot for a month.

"Free Software developers need to start thinking about more than just making cool-ass software."

Names, people, names. In the real world it is called marketing. It isn't bad, it isn't sinful. It is how you get mindshare amongst the "my VCR still flashes 12:00" consumer set.

Re:GNU: Get over it by bshanks · 2002-09-25 13:11 · Score: 1

well, while i agree that the name GNU doesn't sound the best it is hard for me to say that that justifies depriving the creators of a piece of software their deserved credit, especially when that credit is a life or death issue for their organization (and i think it may be).

Now, as for GIMP, i think you're right, that one is bad enough to justify overruling the creators.

Re:GNU: Get over it by bshanks · 2002-09-25 13:21 · Score: 1

well, first off, as far as I can tell, GNU isn't threatening anything. In fact, they're handling the whole thing very decently, in my opinion. As far as I can tell, they aren't trying to force anything, they are just asking *.

Second, I don't believe it is childish to ask for credit where credit is due, especially when it may be a life or death issue for their organization (and i think it may be). If the system were already called GNU/Linux instead of Linux, I bet the FSF would have 10x the membership it has now, just because it would be more well known. It is a small thing to others, but it is critical to them; so I don't think it is childish to harp on it.

* yes i remember about how RMS didn't want to speak to some organization unless it changed its name, but c'mon, speaking is a favor and withholding a speech is not a terrible thing.

Linux Linux Linux Linux :: REDHAT by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 13:26 · Score: 0

I swear, if one is required to listen to that fucking idiot RMS to use Linux, I will convert the rest of my systems to FBSD today. I in no way want to be associated with such a fucking hippy whiner bitch as RMS. So once again: LINUX LINUX LINUX LINUX LINUX LINUX.

GNU/Lenox by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 13:30 · Score: 0

Linux shares its English language pronunciation with Lenox, the famous maker of high-quality china and crystal. Lenox has been around for a long time, and it's safe to say that no Lenox customer has ever asked for "GNU/Lenox."

There are better ways to promote oneself by Wee · 2002-09-25 13:35 · Score: 2

This isn't so much about attribution as it is about promoting the idea of free software.

Surely there are better ways to promote, ah, err... "GPL'ed Software" than to be obstinately divisive. Not all software must be Free/free. The stuff in my truck surely isn't and yet I continue to happily send my payments off. My DVD player is most certainly not Free (as in speech or umbrellas), yet I watch movies on it. Demanding what amounts to reparations in naming conventions after happily contributing to "Linux" smacks of whining, not promotion. It strikes me as disruptive and slightly childish.

The BSD folks, etc., don't have the same sort of political platform - GNU does, and it's one that's important to our future.

I'm not sure everyone who uses Open Source/Software Livre would necessarily want to be associated with those politics, Bruce. I'm a card-carrying Libertarian; voting takes me like 3 seconds (punch everything marked "L"). I believe in liberty and freedom like nobody's business. But you can't paint an entire demographic with the same political brush without getting a few runs. I agree that it's important to promote "non-closed" software, but I don't think heavy-handedness is what's called for.

-B

--

Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.

Re:There are better ways to promote oneself by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 15:48 · Score: 0

>This isn't so much about attribution as it is about promoting the idea of free software.
Surely there are better ways to promote, ah, err... "GPL'ed Software" than to be obstinately divisive.
Yes, there are better ways. But with all the press that GNU/Linux gets, it would help their cause a lot if they got some part of it.
It's really unfortunate that what should have been a simple request has turned into a holy war where people thing the FSF is the bad guy. The FSF did a lot to help give us the operating system we use. They did it as part of a sort of political adgenda: to get rid of all the proprietary restrictions on what we can do in our own homes with our own property. (I had to trash my Nvidia motherboard because their drivers didn't work the way I wanted, and I coudn't fix them: closed source.) They want the overwhelming success of their software to reflect even a little back on them, so as to maybe get them money, and moreso to advance their cause. Instead, Linus is the guy who crated Linux and changed the world.
They're really not trying to take credit for Linux. They're not trying to deny the contributions of X, perl, et al. But X, perl, et al don't want to convey a message to the world, and the FSF does. Virtually everyone who uses Linux uses GNU tools, but very few are talking about it. You would tell someone if you really like your new car, or if you like the warranty you got from Craftsman. You also may tell someone how much you like Linux, but people just aren't talking about how much they've gained from using software that's free of proprietary influence. GNU's greatest success to date has not spread the ideals it was created for remotely as much as it should have.
It's actually so bad that even /. nerds can't keep it straight. "Open Source" is used interchangeable with "Free Software", despite the huge philosophy difference. Look back on the Villanueva articles. The bill he proposed was for "Free Software". When Microsoft called it "open source", he corrected them. Then the Slashdot headline called it open source.
How would you like to go back to 1984 and tell RMS that no matter how hard he tries, no matter how good a job he does, no matter how much software he writes, he will fail, because people want all the advantages that Free Software provides, but aren't willing to think about what it takes to get it. Have him not start GNU, and you would most likely not have Linux today. Or the BSDs you have. You'd be using Windows, and it wouldn't be as good as the Windows you have, because they'd have even less competition.
Do I think he's choosing a bad way to try to get his point across - by alienating the people who should be carrying it: yes.
Do I think we're being serious ingrates by taking advantage of his work and then despising him when he asks for recognition, so that his work can mean something: yes.
But you are under no obligation to do anything. That's what the GPL is all about. Your freedom.
I'm a card-carrying Libertarian; voting takes me like 3 seconds (punch everything marked "L").
I'd rather you didn't vote. I think party-line voting is responsible for much of what's wrong in this country. Then again, we don't seem to have any other options.

Well oh Well... by ClumzyKid · 2002-09-25 13:40 · Score: 1

Sure... GNU/Linux... Sure GNU/Linux/X11/KDE/APACHE.... Oh c'mon! Really now!...

I can't imagine this is actually happening... Everyone deserves credit!

When you are chosing/asking about an OS, you indirectly (and even directly in that matter) state the kernel first off! Once you know what kind of kernel is being used everything else follows... I mean, heck! Let's use Windows in general as an example... All based around the same kernel? Nopers! Desktop? Yes! Variants? Definitely! If I say "I use Windows NT!" It's like I'm saying "Redhat Linux"... But if I say "Windows"... "Erm...Which One?" It's the same vice verse with Linux, If you say "I'm using Linux"... "Which OS/distro?" In the end result it's the kernel playing the whole game... NOTHING ELSE! Nothing else comes later ;)

One more point I use Internet Explorer/Mosaic/etc... and Netscape/Mozilla/etc... C'mon! Now Mozilla isn't making such a fuss about it being mentioned whenever Netscape is used! Is it now?!

--
Great ideas happen at 4am. Bad career moves happen at 4pm...

Re:GNU: Get over it by xean · 2002-09-25 13:42 · Score: 1

"Gnu" = wildebeast in Swedish.

I have visions of a Gnu/Hurd :-)

Re:GNU: Get over it by bshanks · 2002-09-25 13:47 · Score: 1

> "Linux" is a great name. It sounds fast and high tech. When you attach "Guh-New" to the front, it loses its sex appeal. Geeks night not care, but when you're pitching Linux to your PHB (or your PHB's PHB), these trivial cosmetic things matter.

I agree, but unfortunately, the GNU project is named what it is named. If as you point out, "these trivial cosmetic things matter", that also explains why RMS is so insistent on GNU/Linux. Because it will create name recognition for the GNU project, and that matters, a lot. So there is a "practical" reason on the other side of the argument, as well.

Change my system names... by SiliconJesus · 2002-09-25 13:51 · Score: 1

So, my Work PC is now GNU/MS/XP?
My work Sun box is GNU/Solaris?

Maybe this works in your disturbed world, but it doesn't fly in mine.

--
Clinton made me a Republican. Bush made me a Libertarian. Trump is making me question reality.

Re:GNU, Guh-noo, Gary Guh-noo by rollingcalf · 2002-09-25 13:58 · Score: 1

"No guh-noos is good guh-noos, with Gary guh-noo."

Every time I see or hear GNU/Linux I remember that stupid show.

--
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.

You clearly do not get RMS and the GNU movement. by ClarkEvans · 2002-09-25 13:59 · Score: 2

Instead, RMS refused outright to sign the affadavit, and suggested quite bluntly that ProductManager (which costed IBM millions to develop, and was a pretty vertical product) should be open source

You clearly did not understand RMS. He *knows* that proprietary software is *fundamentally wrong* and in fact *immoral*. It's not a quid-pro-quo kinda thing, never has beeen for him and it never will be.

If it was my code, I'd have been happy to say it was mine, as long as I knew (a la Vern Paxson's response). RMS, however, didn't even entertain the thought from the impression he gave us.

To provide you with that affirmation would be to help a proprietary product. This is completely consistent.

Instead, he came across as a complete hypocrite

Hunh? I don't agree with RMS -- but he is not a hypocrite -- in fact, by not accepting your "offer" and "quid-pro-quo" he clearly has affirmed otherwise.

why I will call it GNU/Linux by bshanks · 2002-09-25 14:20 · Score: 1

1. Moral obligation to give credit where credit is due (unless there is some other overriding factor)

2. The GNU Project apparently contributed more code to the system than the Linux kernel has (see http://www.dwheeler.com/sloc/redhat71-v1/redhat71s loc.html).

. 3. I am not put off by the FSF making an issue of this, because the FSF has every reason to harp on this issue; name recognition and publicity is critical for any organization. Can you imagine how much potential membership (and political voice) has been lost by the FSF already due to the lost publicity of the system being called Linux?

4. The inelegance of the sound of GNU/Linux is much less important than the obligation to try to give credit where credit is due. Since that credit is really, really important to the organization to which it is due, I think in this case the obligation trumps, even if it makes the GNU/Linux system less sexy/marketable.

5. But what about the other important components of most GNU/Linux systems? Like X, or Perl? Well, if we are going to abbreviate (and I think we must), the most important contributor is GNU (see #2). Personally, I think calling it "the GNU/Linux OS" makes more sense than calling it "the GNU OS", so let's take the top two most important components and stop there.

Re:I call it linux, here's why, in a few short poi by p3d0 · 2002-09-25 14:22 · Score: 1

If you use a GNU system, but with a different filesystem, is it no longer GNU? What about with different device drivers? A different shell? A different kernel?

The kernel is only a part of the GNU operating system, as it is with any OS. GNU/Hurd and GNU/Linux are both flavours of the GNU operating system. Nothing you quoted said otherwise.

Having said that, I note that Stallman has stopped referring to "GNU/Hurd", and now simply calls it "GNU" (though you can still find instances of "GNU/Hurd" lying around). In fact, if you wanted to make your point originally, you could have quoted this:

Since Linux is a secondary contribution, would it be false to the facts to call the system simply "GNU"?
It would not be false to the facts, but it is not the best thing to do. Here are the reasons we call that system version "GNU/Linux" rather than just "GNU":

It's not exactly GNU--it has a different kernel (that is, Linux). Distinguishing GNU/Linux from GNU is useful.

...

However, even this still says that calling it "GNU" is not incorrect (while calling it just "Linux" is), supporting my argument.

Regardless, I still call it "Linux" because "GNU" sounds dumb, and because even RMS doesn't seem to be able to describe exactly what it is.

--
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....

I'm going to avoid the whole thing by Our+Man+In+Redmond · 2002-09-25 15:01 · Score: 2

and just call my system "Red Hat." Then I can get into arguments with the Mandrake and Red Hat People instead of the Star Bellied GNU/Linux people and the Linux people who have none upon thars.

--
Someone you trust is one of us.

the Name of an OS by wwwgregcom · 2002-09-25 15:10 · Score: 1

I have noticed that an OS is usually named for its defining feature. This is seen in Windows (back in the day, having windows was a big thing), MacOS (it runs on a mac) and others. The GNU project is definetly not the defining feature of Linux. It is the powerfull, fast and stable kernel that makes Linux famous, not the mundane yet important utilities that GNU provides.

--
What signature defines me as a person?

Re:the Name of an OS by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-26 05:55 · Score: 0

You've put features before freedom. In fact, you've omitted freedom entirely. This kind of "thinking" is why Project GNU must not be whitewashed and forgotten.

It's a request that doesn't accept "no". by Russ+Nelson · 2002-09-25 15:29 · Score: 2

Lookit, RMS has asked us to call it GNU/Linux. A normal person would say "Gee, they don't want to do it. I'll stop asking." Instead, he keeps asking and asking and asking. At some point it becomes obvious (maybe even to you) that he's not really asking (since "no" is never the right answer). He's demanding.
-russ

--
Don't piss off The Angry Economist

Re:It's a request that doesn't accept "no". by wfrp01 · 2002-09-26 02:11 · Score: 2

I'm not defending RMS's personal idiosyncrocies, just trying to dispell the notion that the name campaign's purpose is to garner credit for writing a bunch of software. You know that, I'm sure, but judging from the comments people make, a lot of people don't. (Or don't care, and just want to cast aspersions at RMS).

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you agree with RMS's message, but disagree with his methods. This may or may not be true, but bear with me for a moment. What do you think is the best way to increase people's awareness of the importance of free software? It seems like, whatever the method, some repetition is required, no?

Personally, I don't know that I think browbeating people to use the name "GNU/Linux" is the most effective marketing strategy. OTOH, without spending a lot of money, RMS has succeeded in at least generating a lot of passionate discussion. It's hard to say his efforts have been a failure, even if you don't like the name. And didn't RMS's biographer suggest he may have a touch of autism? I hardly think it's fair to criticize someone for behavior that may very well be out of their control.

How would you go about doing what RMS is attempting to accomplish?

--

--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!

It's just too late. by sbaker · 2002-09-25 15:40 · Score: 2

Whilst I have a great deal of sympathy for Stallmans position, I have to say that he's just too late.

Just as all brands of flavored gelatin are 'Jello' (at least here in the US), all little plastic bricks are "Legos" (even though they aren't all made by Lego Inc and the correct name is "Lego" without the 's')...and in Britain, all vacuum cleaners are "Hoovers" and what you do when you clean your carpet is "Hoovering" - even if you are using a vacuum cleaner made by some other company to do it.

Language is a meme - and it evolves for maximum utility and not to meet the desires of individuals, marketeers or politicians. Once a word gets into the language, you can't do ANYTHING to change it. Remember people fought tooth and nail to retain the original meaning of "Gay"? God knows I've tried to preserve the word "Hacker" for its prestigious earlier purpose - and in that case there isn't a single alternative word that comes even *close* to the original term.

I can't think of a single case when the popular use of a word has been changed by begging, pleading, campaigning, legal action or repeatedly hitting people over the head with clue sticks.

The French government regularly institute LAWS to require people to use French words rather than import English words...it makes ZERO practical difference to people in the street. Once "Parking" made it into the language, "Stationnment au cote de la rue" (or whatever the heck it is) just didn't get used any more.

So, whilst I wish with all my heart that GNU was in that name somewhere, I'll still go on calling it just plain "Linux" - just like every single one of the people I talk to about it on a regular basis. The word "Linux" no longer
means "The Kernel written by Linus" - it now *means* "All that GNU stuff - and a kernel written by Linux". I just can't even *think* of it as meaning 'just the kernel' anymore.

Stallman should console himself by knowing that 'GNU' is immortalised in *plenty* of other places (The "GNU Public License" for example) and anyone who is ever likely to either know or care who built all this stuff ALREADY knows that it's "GNU stuff". He already has fame, credit and a large band of loyal worshippers. He's gotten his place in history and would do better to just quietly let it drop and not make quite such a public idiot of himself.

--
www.sjbaker.org

A way to make all parties happy. by tucay · 2002-09-25 15:40 · Score: 1

There has been some debate on the GNU/Linux naming issue on the Gentoo developer's mail list. After RMS himself requested that Gentoo Linux change its name to GNU/Linux. I feel that the distros based on Linux kernel technology could do a better job of giving credit where credit is due. Distros would would be wiser to drop the Linux moniker and some newer distros appear to be doing this like LindowsOS, Xandros and Lycoris for example. An example boot screen of a well thought out naming and credit screen would be as follows: Following kernel boot.. FreeOS (Linux Kernel on x86) Made with GNU Tools and Components FreeOS now initializing. I think RMS would be wiser to start requesting that distros give credit on their boot screens to the GNU Tools and Components. This would be akin to a manufactured hard good: Product X Made in the USA Seems like a fair way of solving the recognition problem.

Nobody runs GNU by Russ+Nelson · 2002-09-25 15:43 · Score: 2

RMS failed to create a kernel. Without a kernel, GNU is not an operating system. You could argue that Herd is their kernel, but who ever heard of Herd? Nobody. Who ever heard of the GNU operating system? Nobody. Who ever booted up GNU? Nobody. GNU has failed.
-russ

--
Don't piss off The Angry Economist

What About The Others by wolverine1999 · 2002-09-25 20:47 · Score: 1

Hmm.. I think Richard is right in the history he describes, certainly, however it is fair to say that many other components are installed in a typical Linux system. Should we change the name to include ALL of them? GNU/Linux/KDE/Netscape/Galeon/..... etc...etc...?

The defacto name is Linux, now. It's too late to change it, after the horses have left the stable.

A distribution is free to name itself and include the word GNU. Asides from that and the history lesson I don't think there's much which can be done. It is too late, whatever one's opinion may be.

--
SCIREV.NET - fanfics,reviews & more

UFAQ by azblazer · 2002-09-25 21:57 · Score: 1

You may have invented a new acronym the UFAQ.

I think that gnu.org should change their logo to a gnu in a canoe, so that we can remember the strange pronunciation, also.

Leaving jokes aside, a better name would be Free Linux. They could start a "GNU/Linux inside" marketing program for those distributions that meet their worldview.

To me it seems obvious that their are many companies that want to make money selling Linux and will never adopt the GNU/Linux label. Calling it that won't matter, either.

Don't most people call it Redhat/Mandrake/Debian/Etc. Linux, anyway?

Please don't do onto us what we do to others. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-25 21:59 · Score: 0

Well this one just does it doesn't it? After the explosive success of GNU right before Linux came onto the rader screen we know they would have made it on their own. (-sarcasm)

It is primarily because of Linux and BSD that GNU has software today and no those OS'es do not exist because of GNU. A lot of developers started aiding GNU because it came with their Linux install. Is it time to start over?

It's this kinder garden attitude from the FSF that feeds monolithic monsters. I would think that their priorities would lie elsewhere then the creation of disarray. After all, the community who did the actual coding, isn't begging for fame. In fact the things I've contributed to don't even have my name on them, I don't mind I'm just glad I aided to create the free choice people are starting to have today.

I see no reason to throw away the work that was done and suddenly accredit an organisation, who wants to take all of the credit for the (not the smallest) role they played.

Personally I want community controlled free software not something that is under the control of an organisation or company. End-to-end freedom is what I want.

Andre/John/Peter/You by jukal · 2002-09-25 22:23 · Score: 2

Somehow it sounds pretty absurd to ask people name something with such a policy. My gene base is much the same as my father's - should I rename myself Seppo/Jussi? Although I have derived some useful and some less usefull utilities from my ancestors but still I don't share same political views as they do, I am me and they are (some are not anymore) what they are. My kernel is my thoughts, not the utilities, like things called fingers punching the buttons to enter this text. Still GNU is GNU, Linux is Linux. Ofcourse you can call them what you want, we do call Windows Winblows, but it would be quite ridiculous to start a movement to push that naming through.

GNUIL? by azblazer · 2002-09-25 23:05 · Score: 1

How about GNUIL? GNU's Not UNIX, It's Linux. We get rid of the weird pronunciation by making the 'G' and 'U' silent which leaves us with nil. As in how much does GNUIL cost? nil How much credit does GNUIL get for Linux? nil

Re:GNU failed? You're insane by jgerman · 2002-09-26 00:13 · Score: 2

My mistake, I should have been clear. You did state that by inference, in responding to the reply to the original post that asked how GNU failed.

2: Because Linus succeeded where GNU failed
was the line from the original, for reference.

--
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.

Hey, buddy by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-26 01:03 · Score: 0

call me when they stop compiling the Linux kernel with GCC. Until then, they're Stallman's biatches.

Re:GNU failed? You're insane by gosand · 2002-09-26 01:43 · Score: 2

Mosaic (web browser)

I think Lynx predates Mosaic. While Mosaic was the first GUI web browser, I think Lynx came first.

--

My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-26 03:19 · Score: 0

Yet another reason I just say "gNO/Linux", and
go with *BSD for a truely free OS, rather than
deal with some fascists trying to claim credit
for other's work.

Talking about Freedom First by GreyWizard · 2002-09-26 04:22 · Score: 1

If the terms GNU and Linux are so antithetical to each other[...]

They are not antithetical, and no one said they were. Narrow technical advantage and a just-for-fun mentality are things that have their place. But the question here is whether freedom has a place too. Some of us think it does, and that it should come first when talking about what differentiates free and proprietary systems.

That's like saying that I can turn around what murder represents for by calling it GNU/murder.

No, actually, it's not. Get a grip.

[...]Linux uses the GPL and *insists* on guaranteeing the same freedoms as every FSF project. How is it that Linux represents anything other than the FSF's definition of freedom?

No one is complaining about the license used for Linux (except perhaps BSD license advocates and corporations who would like to take it proprietary). The problem is that people are using the term "Linux" -- which is the only legitimate thing to call the kernel as it is what Linus Torvalds chose -- to refer to an entire operating system built from GNU components around the GNU vision of a complete free system. Doing this implicitly gives Linus Torvalds credit for an entire operating system he didn't create.

Who should get to make the choice of what the operating system is called? Consider, as an analogy, who should get to choose what the kernel we call "Linux" is called. Obviously that would be Linus Torvalds because even if many different people and organizations contributed, he put the process in motion and guided the design. Similarly, the FSF conceived and organized the GNU system, so they have a strong claim when it comes to naming it.

--
Not all those who wander are lost.

Re:Talking about Freedom First by mjh · 2002-09-26 08:00 · Score: 2

They are not antithetical, and no one said they were.

If they're not antithetical to each other, then why would you feel the need to say this:
Do you really care so little about your freedom that you can't be bothered to prepend two little syllables?

If leaving off "GNU" means I don't care about freedom, then it would seem that Linux w/out GNU means no freedom.
Who should get to make the choice of what the operating system is called?

The people who actually put it together. I'm glad that GNU made glibc, bash, gcc, etc. I'm glad that they were able to produce those independant projects in such a way as they would fit together. But they did not put them together. They couldn't. They didn't have a kernel. And even after there was a kernel, GNU was not the first one to put together a complete operating system. Slackware was first.
I remain unconvinced that this is a legitimate gripe on GNU's part. It seems to me that it's little more than coattailing.

--
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
Re:Talking about Freedom First by GreyWizard · 2002-09-26 10:02 · Score: 1

If they're not antithetical to each other, then why would you feel the need to say this: "Do you really care so little about your freedom that you can't be bothered to prepend two little syllables?"

I'm not sure why you find this difficult to understand, but I'll try again. The concepts that "Linux" and "GNU" are associated with are not antithetical. This means that using them together is not a contradiction in terms, but it does not follow from this that they mean the same thing. It also doesn't follow that because they are not in direct opposition using "Linux" alone gives a sufficient emphasis to the freedom the "GNU" stands for. Get it?

"Who should get to make the choice of what the operating system is called?" The people who actually put it together.

That is an awefully aribitrary standard. Obviously, the people who put things together can get away with calling it whatever they want. That doesn't make it right. For example, I can repackage a GNU/Linux system and call it a "NewBSD" if I want to, but I doubt you would find that defensible. Why not? Because it is misleading. This situation is essentially the same.

I'm glad that they were able to produce those independant projects in such a way as they would fit together. But they did not put them together. They couldn't. They didn't have a kernel.

Acually, these are not truly independent projects. While they are designed to be modular enough to be useful separately (this makes them easier to test and useful for people who are forced to use proprietary systems for some purposes), they were designed as part of a complete free system. Just because they were easy to take apart doesn't mean they were never put together. This is true even though the result was not yet a complete free system.

While it's true that the GNU project took too long to finish their kernel, and it is arguable that they ought to have abandoned it in favor of Linux when it appeared, these tactical considerations aren't really relevant. Would you be pleased if, after completing 80% of a large free software project and getting bogged down on the remaining 20%, I added the missing pieces and released the product under a different name? What if people began to credit me with organizing the entire project?

Clearly in a free software community there is nothing you can do to forbid this, but I think you would find yourself doing a little "coattailing" of your own.

--
Not all those who wander are lost.
Re:Talking about Freedom First by mjh · 2002-09-26 14:30 · Score: 2

While it's true that the GNU project took too long to finish their kernel, and it is arguable that they ought to have abandoned it in favor of Linux when it appeared, these tactical considerations aren't really relevant. Would you be pleased if, after completing 80% of a large free software project and getting bogged down on the remaining 20%, I added the missing pieces and released the product under a different name? What if people began to credit me with organizing the entire project?

Ummmm... GNU does NOT comprise 80% of a Linux distro. I refer you back to this article, Section 3. Adding up the 35 projects listed, GNU provides 26%.
But it's obvious to me that I'm not going to convice you, and so far nothing that you've said is any more convincing than anything I've heard or read before. Would you agree that we disagree? Maybe we ought to just leave it at that.
I'm more than happy to go away continuing to call Linux distro's "Linux" because that's what I think they are. I will feel no guilt for doing so. Moreover, I encourage you to continue calling them "GNU/Linux" if that's what you think they ought to be called.
Cheers!

--
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.

Contradicts? by some+guy+I+know · 2002-09-26 04:43 · Score: 1

Linux' mascot is a penguin, pronounced "PEN-gwihn".
So why is Linux pronounced "LIHN-uks" and not "PEN-gwihn"?

--
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana

Re:I call it linux, here's why, in a few short poi by Skepticus · 2002-09-26 06:05 · Score: 1

Because Linus succeeded where GNU failed Hmm, GNU succeeded where Linus never started: they wrote a compiler, they wrote a text-editor, they wrote a shell... Maybe we should call the "Linux Operating System" a failure: they never got any further than a kernel.

Re:I call it linux, here's why, in a few short poi by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-26 06:10 · Score: 0

Windows is what it is. Corel and Cygnus shouldn't lie to you about what your system is made of.

The GNU System is what it is. Red Hat and SuSE shouldn't lie to you about what your system is made of.

Re:I call it linux, here's why, in a few short poi by intermodal · 2002-09-26 06:20 · Score: 2

actually I disagree. Linus did not fail to write a compiler at all...to fail to write a compiler, one must first intend to create one. Your post should say "neglected" or "did not need" to write a compiler. However, Linus being the practical man that he is, set out to create a useable operating system using whatever tools were available freely to him as parts of it and a kernel he wrote himself, and being of the opinion that his creation should be freely available to those who wanted to use, modify and scrutinize it, made it free to the public and opensource. GNU has had nearly 20 years to get a useable kernel, but has failed. Their goal included a full unix-like operating system. Linus only set out to make a kernel that could be used as the core of a unix-like operating system, and just happened by chance to use the GNU tools in it. I'm not saying that the GNU project hasn't brought forth several meritous elements to the world of free software, especially the compilers. However, this does not make them any better than anyone else who creates free software, because if everyone had to create a compiler to be respected, then nobody would have time to embark on successful, useful, and widespread projects like Linux. Get off your pro-GNU soapbox and join the pro-free-software throng. Otherwise you'll just be another seething idealist who spends all his time quibbling over semantics rather than accomplishing anything. If Linus wants to call his creation Linux, then I'll call it Linux. Even if you could technically argue he's a fork of GNU, he has the right to call it whatever the hell he wants, and i'll respect that. Stallman whining about wanting the spotlight (in more obfuscated terms) won't change the fact that if it weren't for Linus, Free Operating System would be a much more limited concept.

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!

Re:I call it linux, here's why, in a few short poi by Skepticus · 2002-09-26 08:00 · Score: 1

and just happened by chance to use the GNU tools in it.
by chance?? How can you say that?

and being of the opinion that his creation should be freely available...
He just used the GPL-license. Otherwise, there would have been the requirement that it's just for non-commercial use. So goodbye Red Hat, IBM and all others.

If Linus wants to call his creation Linux, then I'll call it Linux.
Sure, I call the kernel "Linux" too, but you've just stated yourself that that Linus didn't create anything more than just a kernel. Torvalds does not make the distinction between the kernel and the whole operating system.
Linus accidently completed the GNU-Project, thus making it a succes.Where do you get the idea of failure?

Imagine you want the build a hotel, you build it gradually brick by brick, but everyone calls you a loser. But you build it further brick by brick, you create the fundaments to nobody sees, then you continue building floor by floor, but still everyone calls you a failure because is's not finished, it still needs an elevator inside. At the same time the someone else is having fun making an elevator. "Whaw, nice elevator, now i'm looking for a building to put it in."
You say: "whauw, my/our hotel is finished" but still everyone calls you a failure, because it's not your elevator.
What should the name of the hotel be?
You: "I call it the Pong-hotel, because of my chinese fore-fathers"
. Elevator-guy: "I call my elevator "Ping", because of the sound an elevator makes when the doors go open. So it the "Ping-hotel."
You: let's be nice, let's make a deal, let's call it the Ping-Pong-hotel.

Re:I call it linux, here's why, in a few short poi by intermodal · 2002-09-26 08:21 · Score: 2

dude, i dont want this to turn into a flame war or a giant trolling or any other such crap (despite your efforts, it seems), but it was by sheer chance that the FSF's GNU project provided the tools. If they hadn't somebody else would have. Just because Linux uses the GNU tools and various GNU elements does in no way make it the GNU operating system. Linus did not complete the GNU project, he created Linux. GNU is the bastard stepchild of unix consisting of the HURD kernel, which I've never even seen anyone get running. Just because richard stallman trolls almost incessantly for attention does not make him correct. You're using completely inaccurate analogies. Software is like cooking, not like construction. FSF created a sauce, Linus provided the chicken. If I make bbq chicken, i could make my own sauce, but unless it would be significantly different, why would I when its easily and cheaply available? Linus found a sauce that fit his tastes, and added it to his chicken. That doesnt make it GNU chicken. End of discussion.

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!

Re:I call it linux, here's why, in a few short poi by Skepticus · 2002-09-26 10:08 · Score: 1

Just defending Stallman doesn't make me a troll.
but it was by sheer chance that the FSF's GNU project provided the tools.
Excuse me? GNU is a top-down re-implementation of UNIX. And Linux is a re-implementation of a UNIX-kernel. Bringing the two together is then considered a miracle??

FSF created a sauce, i could make my own sauce
Obviously, you've never visited the gnu-site, how can a sane person claim he can write all that software by himself? You are *heavily* underestimating that importance of the GNU-project.
Stallman isn't trolling, asking to call it GNU/Linux keeps stirring Slashdot and many other sites. Everyone's talking about it, and again some total newbies will have heard about GNU for the first time. It's a tactic, too.

Besides, it's not that hard to understand: Linux + GNU makes a working operating system. There's no arguing about that, is there? Linus can take the GNU-tools and call it Linux, FSF can take Linux and call it GNU. And guess what? It's the same system! Why call the thing with two different names, and refute the most simple compromise? At first it may sound a little strange to call or write "GNU/Linux", but is tcp/ip, Mercedes-Benz or Universal-Vivendi any different?

Re:I call it linux, here's why, in a few short poi by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-26 10:15 · Score: 0

"3: Because GNU/Linux is too damn long to say

So is Windows 2000 or Mac OS X, but they're the proper names.

I'd be willing to bet that you don't call Mac OS X "Mach", though that's the kernel it uses, and is a shorter name."

No, but people do call them "Win2K" and "OS X", because they're shorter. Proper name (whatever that means) != what anyone actually calls it.

Re:I call it linux, here's why, in a few short poi by intermodal · 2002-09-26 10:19 · Score: 2

You're not a troll for defending stallman, you're a troll for being a forceful asshole about it. I don't care what GNU is. It could be a top-down re-implementation of the Eiffel Tower for all I care, but it doesnt change the fact taht thats not what I said. I said that GNU is not the only people capable of these things. Whithout GNU, somebody else would have written them. Thats what I'm saying. And if they wanted to give them out for free, they shouldnt be bitching when Linus chooses to use them in his operating system. See, you're getting down to exactly why I don't like stallman and his petty infighting with the software developing community. You put out free software, someone forks it, and calls it something else. Thats what Linux is. He took a bunch of free software, and as the license allows, he integrated them into his operating system, which is distinctly not GNU. If every program that uses a shared library doesnt have to have that appended to the name, then there's no damn good reason why anyone should feel compelled to call Linux by stallman's petty wishes. I don't mean to berate his work, because I realize the GNU tools are excellent. I do however have vehement objections to his whiny, self-centered bitching. Just because Linus wouldnt have been the person who wrote the tools had GNU not made them doesnt make him any less a man than he is. It simply means, give Linus the credit he deserves, and if you want to push the bitch-factor to the limit, call it "linux with the GNU toolset" or something. Linux was initially Linus' compilation of programs, tools, and other software that comprise an operating system. He called that package Linux (after canning the name Freax). That's enough for me, and it should be enough for anyone who wants to use the thing.

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!

One quick question.... by Ambush_Bug · 2002-09-26 11:12 · Score: 1

Why in God's name did GNU wait to write the kernel until last? I mean, if Hurd worked sometime in the early 90's , wouldn't this all be moot?

Re:I call it linux, here's why, in a few short poi by Skepticus · 2002-09-26 12:03 · Score: 1

It simply means, give Linus the credit he deserves
Exactly,but I don't take away credit from someone else, that is what YOU do. You are naïve in thinking that Torvalds is so much more important than Stallman in creating the Free Software Movement.

I don't care what GNU is.
There, you said it all: I don't care about GNU. I don't care about the DMCA.I don't care about Sklyarov. I don't care about Felten. I don't care about Lessig. I don't care about patents. I don't care about DRM. Just leave me alone.
And then it's Stallman that is self-centered? He is the one that makes *rational* arguments about it. Have you even bothered to read them? You're only playing ad hominem and carelessly showing off your ignorance. People like you make me realize what it must be like to be far ahead of your time, like Stallman obviously is. Sorry if that sounds insulting, it's not meant that way, really. The vision portrayed is the GNU-project goes *far* beyond "tools" or operating systems, or even software. I really hope that one day you can grasp that historical importance. I really, really do.

Re:I call it linux, here's why, in a few short poi by intermodal · 2002-09-26 12:20 · Score: 2

its not my fault you're a presumtuous bastard. i don't care about GNU as an OS. I care about Linux. Presuming that I dont' care about the rest of that shit is the most ignorant thing you could possibly do. The simple fact that i don't give a flying rats ass whether Stallman wants to pout in the corner because nobody wants to call Linus' operating system by Stallman's name does not mean that i do not care about the freedom of information. Just because I hate stallmann's attitude and think he's an arrogant prick doesnt mean that I think the GNU project's accomplishments are shit. It just means that there's no fucking way i think he desrves to rename Linus' operating system, and as such i will never refer to it in any but a sarcastic manner as GNU/Linux. Take the stick out of your ass and get on with your life.

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!

Lines of Code again? by GreyWizard · 2002-09-26 15:09 · Score: 1

Ummmm... GNU does NOT comprise 80% of a Linux distro. I refer you back to this article, Section 3. Adding up the 35 projects listed, GNU provides 26%.

Of course it doesn't; I didn't say that it did and that wasn't the point of the analogy. The goal of the GNU project has always been to create a complete free system, not to reinvent everything from scratch. Wherever a suitable piece of free software existed it was adopted and integrated. This is a poor way to win a contest over who writes the most lines of code (one has to spend time learning how someone else's code works and testing things that doesn't get counted), but an excellent way to get a complete free system put together.

On the other hand, the GNU project probably had more than 80% of the system put together (as opposed to written from scratch) by the time Linux came along. Clearly the Free Software Foundation has done more of the work in creating a complete free operating system than Linus Torvalds or Red Hat, and most of it at a time when it wasn't a glamorous thing to be doing.

What I'm getting at is that the people who drop in the last piece are not necessarily the ones who deserve most of the credit, and I think that presenting a simplified hypothetical situation to make the point is valid.

But it's obvious to me that I'm not going to convice you, and so far nothing that you've said is any more convincing than anything I've heard or read before. Would you agree that we disagree?

I will indeed, but under protest. I feel that you have given the arguments I've made only the most casual scrutiny, refuting points I wasn't making and ignoring the rest. Under these conditions I don't think anyone could convince you of anything.

--
Not all those who wander are lost.

Let them share the Nobel prize by garyebickford · 2002-09-26 16:30 · Score: 1

I propose that Linus, ESR and RMS be nominated jointly for the Nobel Prize in economics. Each in their own way has contributed to a major revision to the classic economic model, which will have reflections and repercussions for decades if not centuries. Until now, no modern economist had conceived seriously of the possibility that intellectual property was worth more when shared than when bought and sold. It could be that the "network effect" is closely related. There is ample fuel here for doctoral theses and learned books.

Without writing academic tomes (although certainly ESR has written major pieces on the theory of open source, and RMS as well - I don't know if Linus has), these three have, with the assistance and cooperation of a large group of others,redefined not only how value is transferred and exchanged but perhaps have redefined economic 'value' itself.

Perhaps they/we have moved the definition back from the purely mercantile sense in which we in "modern times" have considered it, to the broader sense of value that pertained for all the centuries prior, which includes more than pure cash value.

There have been relatively few economic theories that have generated as major an impact on the real economic world as the 'experiment in real life' conducted by these three and those they would be glad to represent (I'm sure) in receiving such a prize. Each in their own way both saw an aspect of the situation, and implemented their part, and in so doing also participated in the experiment that appears so far to have proved their theories.

This is not the place to go into a long session about this, but I can think of no better grounds for a lively discussion in both the "geek" and the economic community than to debate the merits of nominating these three for a Nobel Prize. The thousands of people who have participated in many different ways may well have changed economics as profoundly as the DNA chain has changed biology.

Since there's 1337 comments ahead of me, I suppose this is way too late to be seen by anyone, but I'll restate a suggestion I made on Slashdot a year ago - somehow it never got posted, oh well.

--
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/

Terminology by dunstan · 2002-09-26 23:59 · Score: 2

The usage of language by people *is* a major issue.

RMS is absolutely correct to object, as I do, to the terms which large companies use to describe the act of illegal copying: Piracy, a violent crime which still goes on in some parts of the world, often resulting in the death of its victims; Theft, a crime where the victim has a piece of property removed and is no longer able to use it.

If I copy a piece of software, or a music CD, it doesn't result in anyone's death, nor does the person I copy it from no longer have the music. What does happen is two things:

a) If the copy I make results in my not buying a royalty bearing copy (from a shop) then the producer of that software/music has lost revenue. If I make a copy rather than just not using the software or listenin to the music then there hasn't been a loss of revenue
b) I have broken the law

Hence the term "Unauthorised copying" or "Illegal copying" would appear to be the most correct term to describe this activity.

I also take issue with those who describe the GPL as "viral". In the case of a computer virus, the significant feature is that it runs on your computer without your censent. On the other hand, if you incorporate some GPL licensed code into your software product you can only do this by taking action to do so. There is no difference, for example, to incorporating a piece of code from another party where the terms of use require you to pay them a royalty. The GPL simply has a different set of conditions attaching should you choose to incorporate it into your software - and in both cases if you don't like the attached conditions then you should simply not incorporate that software.

Dunstan

--
The last scintilla of doubt just rode out of town

Re:GNU failed? You're insane by ajs · 2002-09-27 01:33 · Score: 2

Actually TiVo runs Linux, so yes there is a fair amount of GNU software.

Re:GNU failed? You're insane by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-27 18:37 · Score: 0

I simply don't understand why you think this is relevent to anything.

Yes, it's obvious that you don't understand, so let me try one last time to see if I can explain it to you.

You spouted the standard line: "Monolithic kernels won and microkernels lost."

My point is that monolithic kernels only won in a revisionist sense of the word "monolithic" because monolithic kernels originally meant:

a) a single executable compiled for a specific target with specific hardware support, and

b) a memory model in which the device drivers, filesystem drivers, and so on are all run in kernel memory.

On the other hand, "microkernel" originally meant:

a) a small, platform dependent executable that runs in kernel memory, and

b) a memory model in which platform independent device drivers, filesystem drivers, and so on are all run in user memory.

In each case both of the criteria were, a decade ago, considered to be essential properties of the kernel. Portability, the ability to load device drivers and filesystem drivers, and so on, were considered to be essential aspects of a microkernel architecture, while those attributes were considered incompatible with a monolithic architecture.

There is plenty of evidence to support this in the link that I've pointed out to you twice already, but since you apparently were too lazy to read past the first paragraph, let me enlighten you by quoting some of those things here.

There is no idea in trying to make an operating system overly portable... (Linus Torvalds)

Minix is good because it is portable/Micro-Kernal/etc. Linux is not good because it is monolithic/tightly tied to Intel/etc. (Michael L. Kaufman)

The microkernel design has proven invaluable. Things like new file systems that are normally available only from the vendor are hobbyist products on the Amiga. Device drivers are simply shared libraries and tasks with specific entry points and message ports. So are file systems, the window system, and so on. It's a WONDERFUL design, and validates everything that people have been saying about microkernels. (peter da silva)

There are many, many more examples in this link, as well as in this extended version of the discussion that I found.

As for the definitions of microkernel and monolithic kernel that you listed above, they're not terribly helpful. You simply declare that your definitions are correct without anything to substantiate your claims. It's called a tautology, and it doesn't prove anything.

I don't know enough about it say definitively.

Well at least you admit that much. But really, it's not a matter of "figuring it out" for myself. I know the correct answer, and I know the answer that you would be forced to give if you used your own definitions. I wanted to see what you would answer.

I hope this helps to educate you. Given the fact that your dogma is of far greater magnitude than your ability to reason, however, I'm not optimistic.

Instigator of GNU/Linux apologizes by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-28 13:41 · Score: 0

Instigator of "GNU/Linux" Issues Public Apology comments on [OT] Why Stallman says GNU/Linux .

You're an idiot. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-30 07:12 · Score: 0

A FUCKING idiot, to boot.

Alternative. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-30 08:28 · Score: 0

You could keep the acronym, and call it "Portland Linux/Unix/GNU".

Re:What do we call a system which has NO GNU stuff by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-30 21:06 · Score: 0

Writing the compiler will keep you busy for a good while! Even the GPL-averse BSD folks use the GNU toolchain (gcc, as, ld, nm, etc.).

Last Post! by alpg · 2002-10-09 04:57 · Score: 1

"It's easier said than done." ... and if you don't believe it, try proving that it's easier done than
said, and you'll see that "it's easier said that `it's easier done than
said' than it is done", which really proves that "it's easier said than
done".

- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...

Slashdot Mirror

FSF Issues GNU/Linux Name FAQ

961 comments