Slashdot Mirror
State Of Open Source In 2003 Reviewed
uninet writes "Open for Business' latest Year-in-Review article regarding GNU/Linux and Free/Open Source Software is up here. Things that made our list of notable occurrences include (not surprisingly) SCO's legal issues, MandrakeSoft's financial problems, our product pick of the year (Shuttle XPC SB62G2) and many more small and large items of note. For an interesting look back, you can find previous Slashdot coverage of OfB Year in Review articles here (2002) and here (2001)."
*sigh* I fail to understand why so many people have trouble grasping this.
The operating system is the lowest level software api that abracts the software from the hardware. Therefore the operating system is Linux. The Linux operating system includes absolutely no gnu software whatsoever. It doesn't even require an equivelent to the function of any gnu software. You don't name the operating system after software which runs on it. Even if you lived in some twisted world in which you did, it would be "Linux OS that happens to be bundled with some gnu software and other things"
When you bundle software with the Linux operating system (in the case of linux the kernel is the operating system, in the case of some microkernel systems there are more players), it's called a "Distribution", the distribution is named by whoever puts it together and distributes it.
Exactly where does Eric Stallman come in? At what point exactly does he suddenly have right to rename the linux operating system or any particular distribution?
Even if your one of those oddballs who believes that an "operating system" includes applications which run on what is actually the operating system (including all the GNU utils that ESR grumbles about), you have GNU software, which can exist independent of the Linux kernel, in which case the end result is NOT linux. And you have the Linux kernel, which can exist completely independently of any GNU software. In which case you DO still have a linux operating system.
Most people load GNU untils on Solaris, will ESR be contacting Sun and advising them they should change the name to GNU/Solaris next? Or how about BSD, is it no longer BSD if alot of people run GNU software on it and suddenly it should be called GNU BSD?
other notable components (like X) without which Linux would be nothing
Linux is nothing without X?
Come off it. It's not quite like a fish needing a bicycle, but what about the hordes of webservers, router boxen, scientific application and 3d modelling clusters to which X would be nothing more than useless overhead?
L
If they actually go and cram cruft into the binary codec itself, well then we'll drop the whole thing. mplayer supports real format, both audio and video (x86 only, but I suspect so's this). mplayer's very sleak -- no problem there.
Sig:Why copyright isn't a fundamental human right
For many people X _is_ as important for their Linux boxes as the GNU toolchain
Sure. For many people, it's MORE important. But it's not fundamental to the actual OS.
What sets the GNU tools apart from other useful subsystems like X is that the GNU tools are (by and large) the tools with which the linux environment was created, and upon which its contiinued development relies. That's not to say there aren't alternatives, but the ease of development which distinguishes linux from other systems derives from these tools. While others COULD be use, they weren't, and generally aren't, and in this linux owes a debt to GNU.
I'm actually quite happy with the benign chaos of the current naming conventions: GNU/Linux is clunky and makes for an awful product name, so most people just use Linux. Purists like the FSF, debian, &c. use GNU/Linux to ensure that the GNU toolchain is not forgotten. Neither party seems especially happy because their way isn't the ONLY way, and this tension makes for a good compromise.
L
I call the OS Linux, it's a short simple name with widespread recognition. But I don't delude myself into thinking that I'm being more mature than people who call it "GNU/Linux". The worst their doing is giving a little more information about the systems they run. If they want to add that they use the X-Window system then fine by me. They can reference their use of KDE or GNOME too. Still fine by me. Still not childish.
I can understand saying that insisting that everyone else should call it GNU/Linux is childish, but it involves the exact same level of childishness and immaturity as you insisting that everyone call it Linux.
And since by all appearances you are being childish and immature by your own stated standards, you might want to consider growing up.
Huh? On Debian You'll find a much better definition of an OS : "An operating system is the set of basic programs and utilities that make your computer run."
Therefore the operating system is Linux. The Linux operating system includes absolutely no gnu software whatsoever. It doesn't even require an equivelent to the function of any gnu software.
Linux is quite simply just a kernel that requires other programs (like ls) to be useful, or even bootable. Since many of those basic programs comes from GNU, some prefer to say "GNU/Linux" and call that an OS.
GNU is not Linux.
Correct. GNU tools, just like the kernel, are replaceable. You can make a system containing GNU without having Linux in it and you can make a system containing Linux without having GNU in it. That says nothing about whether "GNU/Linux" is a reasonable name for systems that do contain both GNU and Linux.