FSF Issues GNU/Linux Name FAQ

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 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 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 (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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

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 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 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 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 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 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 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

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

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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

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!

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?

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 ?

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

to pronounce GNU -> sounds like "new"

--
Click here or here.

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

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 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!

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".

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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 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 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 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 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.

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.

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 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 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 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 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

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"

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.

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

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 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.

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: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. ;)

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.

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.

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?

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.

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...

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 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 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 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 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

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"?

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

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.

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

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....

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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 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 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 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.

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.

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!

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)

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'

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.

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.

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!

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

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

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

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: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 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 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.

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"

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

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!

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: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.

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

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.

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: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.

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! :-)

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: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

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 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!

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: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.

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.

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.

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.

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: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. ;-)

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?

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

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

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.

--
--

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 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 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.

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

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!

sigh by Bazzargh · 2002-09-25 05:51 · Score: 2

mv arguments /dev/GNUL

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: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?

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."

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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). "

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: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: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.

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 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.

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: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: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*

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.

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>

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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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

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.

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: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.

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...)

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.

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 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?

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.

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.

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

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

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"

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..

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: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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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: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.

"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

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

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.

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: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 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: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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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: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: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: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 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!

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: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!

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.

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.

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: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

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.

Slashdot Mirror

FSF Issues GNU/Linux Name FAQ

414 of 961 comments (clear)