Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Is It Linux or GNU/Linux? (linuxjournal.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Should the Linux operating system be called "Linux" or "GNU/Linux"? These days, asking that question might get as many blank stares returned as asking, "Is it live or is it Memorex?" Some may remember that the Linux naming convention was a controversy that raged from the late 1990s until about the end of the first decade of the 21st century. Back then, if you called it "Linux", the GNU/Linux crowd was sure to start a flame war with accusations that the GNU Project wasn't being given due credit for its contribution to the OS. And if you called it "GNU/Linux", accusations were made about political correctness, although operating systems are pretty much apolitical by nature as far as I can tell.
The brouhaha got started in the mid-1990s when Richard Stallman, among other things the founder of the Free Software Movement who penned the General Public License, began insisting on using the term "GNU/Linux" in recognition of the importance of the GNU Project to the OS. GNU was started by Stallman as an effort to build a free-in-every-way operating system based on the still-not-ready-for-prime-time Hurd microkernel. According to this take, Linux was merely the kernel, and GNU software was the sauce that made Linux work. Noting that the issue seems to have died down in recent years, and mindful of Shakespeare's observation on roses, names and smells, I wondered if anyone really cares anymore what Linux is called. For once and all, I wanted to ask Slashdot crowd what they think.
The brouhaha got started in the mid-1990s when Richard Stallman, among other things the founder of the Free Software Movement who penned the General Public License, began insisting on using the term "GNU/Linux" in recognition of the importance of the GNU Project to the OS. GNU was started by Stallman as an effort to build a free-in-every-way operating system based on the still-not-ready-for-prime-time Hurd microkernel. According to this take, Linux was merely the kernel, and GNU software was the sauce that made Linux work. Noting that the issue seems to have died down in recent years, and mindful of Shakespeare's observation on roses, names and smells, I wondered if anyone really cares anymore what Linux is called. For once and all, I wanted to ask Slashdot crowd what they think.
FFS, where did I put my popcorn!
I mean, ... really?
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
The GNU suite is obviously important. We all know it. But the market decided a long time ago not to call it GNU/Linux, for a number of reasons. Why are we having this conversation, again?
I guess it didn't make my 'give a shit'-dar.
Unless you aren't using Android...
Linus blew his chance for lasting immortality.
...Some may remember that the Linux naming convention was a controversy that raged from the late 1990s until about the end of the first decade of the 21st century....
I suspect many more are actively trying to forget the Linux naming convention controversy. So much energy wasted over so little. Must be a slow news day here...
It's Systemd/Linux, at least for the next couple of years.
By the way, does anyone think ginger goes well with broccoli?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Microsoft Linux. "Your Potential. Our Passion."
GNU/Linux since Linux is only the kernel and GNU has provided most of the programs that are crucial for a working GNU/Linux system. Linux for short.
Call it whatever you want, don't correct me and I won't correct you.
But if you're talking colloquially with someone, "Linux" is fine. Just like double negatives are fine in conversation but not if you're trying to convey information in fixed form. Now stop asking dumb fucking questions, m'kay?
... little. Some cultures have their offsprints retain both their parents lastnames. Some others choose one parent, usually the father. Linus is the father of Linux. It's obvious GNU is the mother here, and wants her lastname attached as well. Actually, the DNA of a Linux system is so intermingled with GNU projects that even if Linux has some children with non GNU wives, and vice versa, we are talking about Linux, the one with GNU.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter, but it's good to note that the wife seduced Linus here, and made her have the children that have raised to fame, in large part due to the wife's traits.
Btw, my kids have both lastnames, and it's just so inconvenient for them. They have no doubts about how they came to be, the roles, but on the plus side, it's like having a tatoo, you never stop to bring to attention the fact that two different things combined to make something unique, for some specific reason.
unfinished: (adj.)
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX. Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called “Linux”, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called “Linux” distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.
They're both correct. Linux is the kernel, and much of the software is thanks to GNU. However, the naming is no different than the way the flavors of BSD and even Solaris are named. Not a one of those is GNU/*.
... or is it a very slow news day?
I purposefully avoid saying GNU/Linux because GNU is not responsible for much of the code of my machine anymore. If anything, it is dwarfed by Libre-office, Firefox/Chromium, the Linux kernel, or the X.Org-related code. So, why would GNU get credit when others do not?
I am a Graphics Stack/Freedesktop developer and I sit on the X.Org board of directors, but you don't see me mandating people to call their system X.Org/Linux or Freedesktop/Linux, do you? To me, Linux either means the Linux kernel, or a Linux-based system (including or not GNU tools).
If its systemd its called Garbage.
This is one of those pointless topics. like Mac versus PC.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Don't forget everybody's favorite, systemd. How could Linux possibly survive without it. /s
This is a copypasta, oddly on topic this time.
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux,
is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux.
Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component
of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell
utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day,
without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU
which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are
not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a
part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system
that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run.
The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself;
it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is
normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system
is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux"
distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.
I have to return some videotapes...
Is the answer
Or even Google/Adobe/Windows ?
It hasn't been GNU/Linux for a long time. There are too many alternatives for the GNU Operating System components. Look at all those micro distributions using Busybox to provide what GNU used to. GNU remains a nice package but it fell markedly short of what it was supposed to be.
nothing to see here, please move along.
But if you obey Richard Stallman then its GNU/Linux!
The basis of "GNU" was re-implementing Bell Lab's Unix. Extending Stallman's logic, if Linux is derived from GNU, and GNU was derived from Unix, the whole mess is the result of work done at Bell Labs, so it should take precedence over "GNU" in the name.
No need to explain the significance of the GNU project. Or the role it played in getting Linux out there. But on my Debian system, I have software written by:
Just to name a few. Why would GNU be special enough to be named in one breath with Linux, but not those other authors? Makes no sense to me. Therefore, "Linux based OS" or similar will do fine. Or just name the specific distro or software component(s) and be done with it.
Yeah, a certain amount of GNU software was popular, but it was never without replacement, and just as much other software was essential. I mean, how many people would have Linux as a desktop without X - always under a BSD/MIT licence? And how popular Linux would have been in server space without Apache (BSD)? There is just as much reason to call Linux "BSD/Linux" as "GNU/Linux", but it's best to drop all self-aggrandizement (include by RMS) and just call it Linux.
Since Google made Android, the distinction between Linux and GNU/Linux has become rather obvious. Just name the thing appropriately. If you are talking about kernel, say Linux. If the subject matter is Ubuntu distribution, call it Ubuntu. If a game publisher says “Tomb rider now available on Linux”, they better have it on Android. This is why I like the approach that Steam takes, where tiles are available on Windows, Mac and SteamOS. It remove expectations that the game will work on my Linux From Scratch. The only saving grace for calling everything “Linux” is Linux Standard Base, but I am not sure this is relevant today.
because not every piece of software in a Linux distribution's base install is from GNU.
We don't have time to list the author of every component of the system in the name.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Linux being known as "free software" by just about everyone that cares about computers/IT is enough reason to skip the acronym. Besides, humans are lazy by nature, so why force people to tack on an acronym that many people can't even pronounce right?
BTW - This is the best GNU definition to give to anyone who doesn't know what GNU means. It's clean, concise, and very short - yet quite complete somehow.
Are you that desperate for clicks and views?
Try posting quality instead of this garbage.
Almost all efforts through history to force (or even merely encourage) people to use one word or phrase instead of another have been failures.
Language is a fluid thing and its written on-the-fly by the people who speak it.
People say "Linux" because it's easier than "GNU/Linux" and it really doesn't matter a damn whether you think the latter is right or wrong. You stand about as much chance of changing it than getting people to stop boldly splitting infinitives, to prevent them from saying "ATM Machine" or to understand that "Gay" also means "Happy". We say "Megabyte" when it should be "Mebibyte" - and "Disk Space" when we mean "Unused bytes within a box full of flash chips".
Language does what it pleases...it's virtually impossible to control.
So, it's "Linux" - and yes, we know that the GNU folks made a gigantic contribution - without which "Linux" would simply not exist...and we regret that language is not doing what they might ideally wish it to do.
www.sjbaker.org
Call it what you want but just as with saying "I'm vegetarian" doesn't necessarily explain it well saying GNU/Linux is better for instance to separate from Android (I guess that too have GNU software though?) or Tizen or whatever if that's your intention. Depending on what you mean it's fine calling both Linux systems.
Calling it Debian could had been better except there's multiple Debian distributions so you'd have to specify more. But Fedora is fine I guess.
The GNU/Linux base is tiny. Why not include all the BSD heritage in the name?
RMS has to eventually realize GNU means nothing today.
REALLY OLD news for nerds.
I had an email exchange with RMS around the time this all started ~20 years ago and the closest thing I got was it was not GNU/BSD or GNU/TomsRtBt but it was GNU/Linux for Slackware and Debian. Everybody used `gcc` at the time, so the closest differentiator I could determine was "user environment", essentially fileutils,etc. Neither clear nor satisfying.
Personally, I prefer the term GNU/Linux for those who might need education on GNU. I firmly believe the GPL (esp.v2) is what enabled the fledgling 90s Linux to overtake the established BSD (partially hobbled by the AT&T suit). The forced publication/sublicence of the GPL was and remains far more attractive to many publishing programmers than the "take it private if you want" BSD licence.
It is more appropriate to refer to it as Systemd/pulseaudio/Linux to provide the proper importance to sources of instability.
There is no rule in English grammar about splitting infinitives. There is such a "rule" in Latin (where infinitives are single words and can't be split).
If GNU is not UNIX, why would it be Linux?
when gcc can be replaced with clang, its like the gnu core of the linux tree is falling away.
when you look at the software that you actually use that is made by the FSF its still there, but its smaller all the time.
golang is not FSF
python is not FSF
rust is not FSF
javascript and its thousand children are not FSF
mariadb is not FSF
with clang, you can do C++ without FSF
cmake is not FSF
QT is not FSF
xfce is not FSF
perl is not FSF
the biggest thing maybe that is GNU is GNOME.
This whole thing would have been so much easier if the FSF would have build a proper Linux distribution of their own and called it GNU, but they didn't (outside of that Hurd thing I booted up some 15+ years ago). So we have Debian, Ubuntu, Arch, Gentoo, SuSE, Redhat, Fedora and Co. instead and that's the names I tend to use when refering to my OS. GNU and Linux are just some small subset of software that is part of those distributions.
The name GNU/Linux still has a bit of value, as it differentiated the desktop Linux distributions from Linux distributions like Android that share almost nothing but the kernel, but it's not really a correct term, it's just the only common term I can think of that connects all those distributions.
I like pedantically correcting people, too. It's properly referred to as Solitaire/Windows.
-Dave
GNU/Hurd is a turd.
And it's Linux, period.
You have time to get involved in this debate over and over and over, but you never have time to call your mother?
Words matter. If Richard Stallman wanted people to credit him in the operating system name, he should have come up with a better name for his software than Gnu. Gnu is a weird, awkward word, and inserting it in front Linux makes it sound even more awkward.
Android it is a Linux without GNU inside. GNU was left outside. Serious it's really matter? GNU project it's really important the Linux ecosystem in generally, but also same as GNOME, KDE, Mesa, freedesktop and many more for Linux distributions, as a full blown OS, to succed, in both, desktop space and mobile space. Not only kernel, compilers, interpeters, daemons, various servers, UNIX shells, cli tools etc.
This is one of those pointless topics. like Mac versus PC.
As opposed to the important topics such as vi vs (whatever that crappy other operating system is)
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
I, and many others, including Linus Torvalds just call it Linux.
.../AT&T/UNIX/BSD/GNU/Linux
Richard Stallman insists on GNU/Linux.
Except that when RMS created the GNU system, he did it without a GNU kernel. Probably he used a BSD kernel, so RMS should call it:
BSD/GNU/Linux
Now BSD was based on AT&T UNIX, so RMS should call it:
AT&T/UNIX/BSD/GNU/Linux
What about all the O/S's, protocols, and other technology that predated UNIX, that RMS made use of? How does RMS include that in the name without offending the authors and creators???
What about all the software, protocols, drivers, and all the other technology that RMS DID NOT create nor own, that is part of any current Distro, that RMS does not give credit for in the name he prefers to use, GNU/Linux???
I, and most all professionals that use Linux or GNU/Linux, do acknowledge and appreciate all the hard work that RMS, Linus Torvalds, and all the other people have contributed to the O/S, over the years!!!
Let's all just get a life, call it Linux, and move on to more important things in the industry, like increasing security, stopping all Malware, etc..., along with opening more doors to everyone, while closing all the "windows"!!!
Ubuntu/Linux (or Debian/Linux) ...etc...
RedHat/Linux
Slackware/Linux (the few, the proud)
The name of the distro is far more informative to tell you about the nature of the system than just "GNU". Lots of distros include non-GNU software these days.
I want to get back to the debate that REALLY matters:
How do you pronounce “Linux”?
#DeleteChrome
Hmmm. According to Andy Tanenbaum:
"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 preinstalled by the computer manufacturer, or in a package with the operating system if it is installed after purchase. This is a crucial, but subtle, point. The operating system is (usually) that portion of the software that runs in kernel mode or supervisor mode. It is protected from user tampering by the hardware..."
"Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
Because I refuse to give credit to people who are nags. You gave away software for free, with a conditon to only share modified source and not to sing you praises. If people don't want to name their derived works as you like, tough! Amazon is not naming their tablet "Google Kindle" and they should have no obligation to, as it was not in Android source license. We need to put an end to passive aggressive tendencies among supposedly intelligent techies. Linus is all right, he doesn't go grumbling about Linux/Ubuntu.
GNU has shit to do with POSIX, it is just legalese to keep the actual intellectual property owners from suing the opensource community out of existence. Sticking GNU in front of everything is like Americans making up names like 'freedom fries'
I've never really understood the point of calling Linux GNU/Linux beyond stroking Sallman & Co's ego...
Most of the really fundamental GNU projects (GCC, glibc, etc.) were after all developed for proprietary Unix distros like Sun Unix and only started gaining real support after Sun stopped bundling their software development suite with the Sun Unix OS. As much as Stallman likes to talk about Free Software being "Free as in freedom and not free as in free beer" his most popular work became popular because it really was "Free as in free beer".
Then there's also the fact that products in general don't tend to be named after the whoever supplies the components or what they're made of. We don't call a "Volkswagen" a "Bosch/Volkswagen", an "iPhone" a "Samsung/iPhone" or "cornflakes" "Monsanto/Cornflakes".
"Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
Here is proof that the only valid name is the run together version: GLinux = GLiNUx (with the GL pronounced as in GLAD)
Proof: If you pronounce the embedded GNU the way Stallman does then you automatically pronounce
the embedded LiNUx the way Linus Torvalds pronounces Linux, and vice-versa.
Sorry Richard Stallman. You are correct but I am lazy.
Linux for me.
or else why not call it GNU/GPL/FOSS/Linux
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
It's Linux.
Toe-cheese Stallman's GNU doesn't own the Copyright or Trademark for Linux and The Linux Foundation doesn't own the Copyright or Trademark for GNU.
Distro builders can call it whatever the they fuck they want, (withing trademark laws), but it only applies to their specific distro since there is no attribution clause in the GPL.
I guess I’d better start calling it GNU/macOS.
(but only while using “gls” or “gcp” etc. rather than the native versions, I suppose)
#DeleteChrome
I'm tired of the "Gnu/Linux" discussion too.
Anyone who cares to can call it "Apache/Mozilla/Gnu/X/Gnome/Linux" if that's their preference, I call it Linux.
The submitter brought up an interesting tangent, though:
> although operating systems are pretty much apolitical by nature as far as I can tell.
For Richard Stallman and the FSF leaders, free software is very much political. In case anyone was unsure, he said it is just two weeks ago. For Stallman, it's about changing (part of) society, advancing a popularist ideology which has some things in common with Marxism. To Stallman,. proprietary software is EVIL, an evil which must be defeated.
For Linus Torvalds and the "open source" folks generally, it's not really political, it's simply a way of producing quality software, a good way to produce software which has several advantages. To Linus, proprietary software isn't the best match to his needs - except when it is. The kernel source control was a proprietary system he bought called Bitkeeper. He could have used open source version control, but at the time he thought Bitkeeper, the proprietary system, fit his needs better. So he used it. Later, Linus wrote git to exactly fit his needs.
What are people's thoughts on this? Free Software as a political movement, or Open Source as a better way to get software done?
In real life most of the time we would just call it "CentOS" or "Debian" or "Ubuntu".
The Distros have drifted apart quite a lot, so getting something to run on CentOS that was designed on "Debian GNU/Linux" might be harder than getting it to run on "Debian GNU/kFreeBSD".
In Addition to that: Who actually cares? We live more and more in a world, where the relevant userland parts of an OS and an Application (or a set of applications) are packaged up in either a container (without a kernel) or a VM (with a minimalized kernel) - I have quite a lot of CentOS containers running on my Ubuntu Hosts, and even a Windows VM.
Orange Juice and toothpaste! FTW!
We all know the standard arguments and only 0.0000000001 care.
However, VIM is the single, greatest, editor of all time. Comparing any IDE to vim on X/Windows just shows how stupid those people are. Unix, the entire platform, is an unlimited IDE.
No one else besides the dorks living in mom's basement cares.
vi ia an editor, newbie. nothing you said makes sense. I bet you run Windows.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
The GNU Project is important. That said, "GNU" doesn't roll off your tongue, most people don't know how to pronounce "gnu", and the all-caps presentation makes it confusing whether it's pronounced "G N U" or "gnu". I hate saying the word "gnu" even though I make my living working with the stuff.
Personally, I call it Linux for three reasons.
1) Brevity.
2) You don't need GNU software to make a Linux-based operating system. Not anymore.
3) The FSF has a lot of sensitive people working for them and this is just one more way I can make them squirm.
While we're at it let's argue over hacking vs. cracking.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
The operating system is (usually) that portion of the software that runs in kernel mode or supervisor mode. It is protected from user tampering by the hardware..."
That's a nonsense definition designed to make Minix look cool. But it's a lot of bollocks. The operating system is the collection of software which provides the functionality intended to be offered to users and developers alike. That means the kernel (for all operating systems) and the userland (for operating systems in which shell scripting is a feature — you know, like Unix, DOS, Windows... and literally every modern operating system.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That is often useless without other software, be it X, apache, language interpretors or whatever. But we only generally care about the core of a system. For example, we focus on the CPU of a computer. We focus on the core reactor of a nuclear power plant.
Well, as long as it runs vi: Who cares what the OS should be called?
The kernel is Linux, the toolset is GNU. So if we're talking about Android or VMWare or Cisco or HPs line of SDN switches it's just Linux.
If we're talking about Ubuntu and RedHat I would say it's GNU/Linux.
The reason isn't necessary political there are huge technical and legal differences between just using the Linux kernel and using the GNU or other toolsets that may not even share the same license as Linux.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
The OS name is the name of the distribution.
Because Stallman is no longer relevant for goodness sake. Whatever the history the victor is clear.... and nobody really cares. Itâ(TM)s no longer an argument to be had.... the author should just nerd out somewhere else..... yes this is news for nerds, but sheesh this is niche nerd to be asking about 20 yr old flame wars.
he meant emacs, more than an OS, larger than life itself. Thosr .el files runs everything once you pop the pill.
Maybe we can try Betamax vs VHS?
Surely everyone should know that Betamax is the superior format by now!
You don't get to name somebody else's product no matter how many aspey tantrums you throw.
... and so I way "Windows" and not "Microsoft Windows", "mac" and not "Mac OS X High Sierra", "Linux" and not "GNU/Linux". There's always time to be pedantic, specially in the linux ecosystem (mac now catching up), but I'd rather get to the point quick.
Historically there's been no Linux other than GNU/Linux, but now there's also Android/Linux so it's more important to specify if the context isn't already established.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
This was talked and commented to death 15-20 years ago. Let it go!!
Or, like I do, just run FreeBSD and forget the whole thing.
Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired
It's OS X, at least it is for anyone with actual skills in tech.
In a "fair" world it would be "GNU/Linux" - "Linux" is the kernel, GNU provides other necessary "operating system" functions.
I've taught an "intro to Linux class" a couple times and can say that most textbooks only mention the GNU project in passing (if at all - in the beginning "history" type chapter) - so from that perspective everyone knows when you say "Linux" you are referring to an operating system (if they know what an OS is)
my personal preference is to talk about "distributions" (Ubuntu/Red Hat/whatever) but don't mention GNU unless I'm in a classroom setting (and then more to drive home the technical difference between "kernel" and "operating system").
I used "Revolution OS" to fill up some class time - if you are curious (and didn't live through it). In the documentary Bill Gates is the "bad guy", Stallman the crusader/fanatic, and Linus the practical applier of knowledge.
with all of that said - my official answer to the question is "no one cares"
It ain't what they call you. It's what you answer to. http://mylyceum.us/
Isn’t this just like Linux people to argue over such stuff. A prime example of why there is so many desktop distro’s of the Linux desktop OS. Because nobody can agree on anything.
And next week we can reopen the years-long debate of is Linux pronounced lie-nucks, lee-nucks, or leh-nucks.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Anyone who cares to can call it "Apache/Mozilla/Gnu/X/Gnome/Linux" if that's their preference, I call it Linux.
Then how would you answer the following: Will an application made for "Linux" run on an Android system, which uses Linux as its kernel?
I tend to use the terms "GNU/Linux" and "X11/Linux" when distinguishing the server and traditional desktop operating environment from Android.
If anything, the license says more about Linux than any contribution.
On a Linux desktop or server, you're probably using GNU Coreutils along with Bash and glibc, even if you have replaced GCC with LLVM or Emacs with Vim. Other systems, such as Android and home network appliances, run Linux without GNU. They replace GNU with things like Google Bionic, uClibc, Newlib, and BusyBox.
Cygwin stands for Cygnus GNU/Windows. MinGW stands for Minimalist GNU/Windows.
Richard Stallman - probably has done the most harm to the reputation of open source than anyone else, arrogant despot that needs to retire....
Yes, applications written for LINUX, such as OpenVPN, will run on Android. Bash, Imagemagick, Perl, Python, ffmpeg, sed, awk, Emacs, vim, nano ... all this stuff runs fine on Android. Postgresql is a bit tricky to install.
Applications written for X11 will run on systems with X11- which doesn't include most of the hundreds of Linux systems I've owned or administered, mostly servers, along with some VPN endpoints and other types of systems. Applications written for KDE will run on KDE systems, Gnome applications on systems with Gnome, etc.
"Its not Leenoox, its Guh-nooo plaaas Leenoox."
ONLY in Stallmanland or in puritan Trisquel is Linux known as GNU (plus!) Linux, or GNU/Linux for short. The rest of the planet, Linus included call it just plain Linux.
Python
Breaks if you try to import tkinter.
Applications written for X11 will run on systems with X11- which doesn't include most of the hundreds of Linux systems I've owned or administered
Among the subset of those Linux systems that you have administered that also have a graphical user interface, how many have X11?
Applications written for KDE will run on KDE systems, Gnome applications on systems with Gnome, etc.
Most popular KDE Plasma distributions will let the administrator easily install a package containing libraries to run GNOME applications or vice versa. As far as I can tell, Android is an outlier in this sense.
The GNU/Linux argument was also propped up by the fact that you can swap out the Linux kernel with FreeBSD's kernel and keep (nearly) the entire rest of the Debian system (or other distros). In that case, it behaves very much like a Linux based distro, but there is no Linux in it. Not many people really used those other things though, and the argument kinda died out due to lack of interest.
Now enter Microsoft, who now has a "Windows Subsystem for Linux", but it's really just a compatibility layer to run all the GNU and other stuff on the Windows kernel. There's really very little "Linux" there.
OMG I cannot believe you just invoked RMS. Thats like saying Beetlejuice.. Have you any idea what you've just unleashed?
Python also breaks if you hit the tab key - on any OS. :)
Python also breaks if you update from last week's version this week's - you have to rewrite all your a scripts every time you update Python.
This reminds me of Friday during scrum one of my co-workers was proposing to do a certain thing on AWS Cloud watch and others weren't so sure it was a good idea. "It's like writing a Python script", he said. That scored him -8 points with the people he was trying to convince. I suggested that perhaps next time he was trying to say something is a good idea, don't use the phrase "it's just like Python". Lol
Everyone from magazines to newspaper articles to websites and slashdot all say "linux." So regardless of opinions, "linux" has won.
> And it's not perfect but since you can review the code you can figure out exactly where and how it doesn't do what it's supposed to do.
That's super important to me. I virtually ALWAYS find and fix any issue at all on an open source system by using one consistent method - trace the program, let look at the source to see exactly what's going on. If the issue is that I have to pass a different argument to the program, I can see that clearly. It'll say right in the source:
if (option.be_sane) {
do_what_ray_wants();
}
If there is a bug in the program, I can see it and fix it.
Whatever the problem, the solution is always the same - go look at the portion of the code that handles that and see exactly what's going on.
For the last couple of weeks a co-worker and I have been trying to enable WMI on a Windows 10 box. According to all the documentation we can find, that should be a simple 3-minute process. Yet it doesn't work. No matter what we try, Windows just returns an undocumented and apparently irrelevant error code. The Windows logs show nothing. All we can do at this point is make random guesses and try different things which are not documented to be needed. There is no process which will solve problems on Windows, or any proprietary software, because we can't look at the source and see what's going on. We can only guess at random and hope we eventually hit the Windows jackpot and happen across the lucky set of registry settings and reboots that makes it work, for no apparent reason.
"Linux" sounds like natural language. No one would ever say "GNU/Linux" as a political agenda.
Personally, I want my language to express ideas based in reality, and I'd prefer to have political-agenda-peddling outside of the core language, and to have it reflect reality as perceived by common consciousness to facilitate communication.
It fulfills these objectives naturally without figureheads, authority figures, etc. trying to push changes top-down on language.
"This has been one of the more ridiculous debates in the FOSS realm, far outdistancing the Emacs-vi rift", said Larry Cafiero
If one were intentionally trying to get people to argue with each other, and to induce animosity, they just might put topics like this forward. Is that the goal of this article, and the posting of it here? I see no upside to Linux Journal publishing this article, or slashdot highlighting it. It's not news, it's flamebait.
GNU is a mishmash of user-level applications and development utilities, not an operating system. It makes as much sense to call Linux GNU/Linux as it would to call MS-DOS Lotus/MS-DOS.
Linux.
Stallman is looking at the naming as an issue of who gets credit. For everyone else, the point of the OS having a name is primarily to denote where something can be run. If I have some software package that "runs on Linux" that means it runs on Linux, whether or not it depends on some other available software that also runs on Linux. That is why Android isn't "Linux", even though it uses the Linux kernel - Android software depends on things that are only available on Android. Likewise, "GNU" doesn't mean anything, software written for "GNU/Linux" will not run on Windows even if you have all the GNU tools installed, whereas it's likely to run on Linux with musl and busybox.
if i compile a linux kernel with a single process loaded into the init ram disk and running as init and just doing what it should (I could imagine something like this for embedded systems) without any of the usual GNU binaries/programs, then it's just "linux"
We should continue honoring the importance of GNU and Linux to the systemd project.
It shall henceforth be known as GUN/Linux
If proprietary software is evil, it must be gunned down---'nuff said.
It's pronounced GNULIX!
And Systemd is pronounced "ASS CANCER WITH HEMORRHOIDS"
viNIX ftw!
You criticized me for pointing out that for Stillman, free software is a political issue, then you linked to one of his articles in which he says it's a "political camp" and that to "the Free Software movement, non-free software is a social problem".
So you're upset that I said he thinks that, then you link to him saying that? I'm confused.
> to advance your own views
What views do you think those are? My views I'm trying to advance, you say, what views do you think I'm trying to advance?
Would I be advancing a certain view if I said Linus thinks proprietary, closed development is a "suboptimal" way of developing software? Which view would that advance? Would stating Linus' view in those terms be advocating for or against what Stallman says?
My autocorrect likes to call Stallman "Stillman". I suppose that's not the worst thing he's been called.
No, it does not really matter if we call it Linux or GNU/Linux.
Except, these days, GNU/Linux is not the only Linux based operating system in town. I count at least four different major flavors, those being GNU/Linux, Android/Linux, systemd/Linux and now recently Azure/Linux.
Except, as many has pointed out, there is also GNU/BSD, BSD/Linux, et cetera. So, calling it Linux doesn't really say anything anymore. Linux could be Android. Or Azure. Or heck, even BSD.
What I do know is that we need to come up with something new to call this systemd/wayland/Linux OS frankenmonster of modern Linux that is emerging, because Linux is just no longer doing a good job at explaining it anymore. Perhaps a recursive acronym such as SULSAW - SULSAW Use Linux, Systemd And Wayland. Or something. Whatever. Don't care what you call it, just that you call it *something*.
Because I, for one, would love to keep referring to a family of operating systems that includes Fedora and Ubuntu but excludes Android, Azure and anything else that isn't compatible with the applications running on Fedora / Ubuntu.
systemd is not an init system. It's a GNU replacement.
No. It's just an archaic definition from the days before operating system = distro of kitchen sink.
I really don't think AST's motivation in writing an operating system book was to "make Minix look cool." It was to promote Minix as a method of teaching how operating systems work.
Without GCC where are you ?
When standing on someones shoulders its common respect to acknowledge it.
It's called BSD.
Before you know it, Ubuntu people will be like "What up my GNU/Linux?" And the rest of us will be like, "Hey! That's our word!"
Linux is a kernel. 'Nuff said.
If you want to use it in terms of an OS, then you can only say...
Linux Kernel based OS.
RHEL should really be RHELKBOS - Red Hat Enterprise Linux Kernel Based Operating System
Linux+GNU
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
...GET A LIFE!
If you're going to name via dependencies then why would you only list one of the dependencies in its name rather than all of them?
It's a matter of correlation. If a system has the dependency that forms part of a platform's name, then it's far more likely than not that the system has, or that its administrator can practically install, common dependencies of other applications for the same platform. By this measure, perhaps GNU is most central to server applications and programming tools designed for Linux, and X Window System to desktop GUI apps. Hence the names "GNU/Linux" and "X11/Linux" to contrast with "Android/Linux".
And what constitutes a GNU/Linux system?
Free Software Foundation acknowledges use of Linux apart from the GNU OS while intentionally declining to give a precise definition. This has led David Johnson to write an article titled "By Any Other Name" making the reduction to absurdity argument you may have been anticipating, largely by replacing GNU with an adaptation of the FreeBSD userland. But my personal definition, based on correlation with installable dependencies, is GNU Coreutils plus two other major components of GNU, such as Bash, GCC, glibc, and Emacs. This means that Cygwin, MinGW with MSYS, and Microsoft WSL are GNU/Windows, and a full installation of DJGPP is GNU/MS-DOS or GNU/FreeDOS.
And further to your question does an application written for the GNU C runtime not run on bionic for example or do you need to include that as part of your naming convention?
Some applications are specialized to run on glibc, the implementation of the C language and POSIX standard library included with GNU. Others will run on any reasonable implementation of the C library that provides varying level of support for POSIX, such as Bionic. But many applications built for Bionic have a more central dependency they can cite, namely the Android userspace.
Whoosh!
vi ia an editor, newbie. nothing you said makes sense. I bet you run Windows.
The joke is that "Emacs is a great operating system, but it lacks a decent text editor."
Or have you not heard that one before, n00b?
GNU has contributed a licensing model. Does this mean every other fu*king project that uses the GNU licensing model needs to prepend their name with GNU/?
If it's not 2018, buy or mine Bitcoin as soon as you can and sell when it hits $17K. You're welcome, kid.
Otherwise, what has happened? First a Top Posting vs Bottom Posting thread on mutt-users and now this???
Seriously, happening live right now: http://lists.mutt.org/pipermail/mutt-users/Week-of-Mon-20180507/000169.html
Oh well, at least we all agree that Coke is the best cola.
Yes, those radicals from the 80s and 90s with free software need to be validated before they retire and start collecting Social Security benefits.
I thought this was all just whether or not any given distro shipped with the GNU core utilities by default.
eg:
Debian - GNU/Linux
Fedora - GNU/Linux
Android - Linux
My DVD player - Linux
My router - GNU/Linux
FreeBSD - BSD?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
If only somebody GNU the right answer.
To all the GNU haters who laugh at RMS's fair point,
If linux is an OS than android is the same OS debian.
RMS is both morally and technically right in my opinion.
I remember the day when I was first curious about compiled languages in 1995 and the cheapest legal Compiler for the MS platform available in my country was turbo pascal for the price of roughly 600$
GNU is what liberated me from QBasic.
I believe the term open-source did not exist at that time.
I believe that a proprietary compiler is a way bigger problem than a proprietary kernel.
For many years you had to compile the kernel to your hardware.
GNU built a system around a compiler, that is what really revolutionized the industry and made open source possible.
Actually I would not mind a free as in beer kernel so much but I would not trust a non-copyleft compiler as the only realistic option.
I believe the day c-lang kills GCC is the day Apple and google will loose their urge to contribute to the public.
Almost nobody outside FOSS enthusiasts know who he is. Few care what he says. The overwhelming majority of Linux users worldwide have never heard of him.
No doubt, Stallman has contributed some important stuff to the FOSS movement. The graceful thing would be to be happy with that. Instead, when he makes pronouncements on his Marxist politics or tries to drum up stuff nobody cares about, it looks supremely petty.
The free market is about CHOICE. The free market is what allows people to innovate, create, and distribute, and that includes FOSS.
In Marxism, the state owns and controls the means of production. In total government, there would be no FOSS; there would only be government-approved and controlled systems.
Stallman is a total economic incompetent. The very thing which has made the proliferation of FOSS possible is the FREE market.
I don't care if people use "Linux" or "GNU/Linux" I know what they mean and not going to be an prick about it.
However..
I do hate it when someone asks some question about how to install x software and so the first question, rightly, is which distro they are running (so we can point them to the correct packages) and the answer is "Linux 17.04".. Now my guess is Ubuntu of some flavour but not guaranteed and this is taking the vagueness one step too far for me ;-p
Linux-gnu, Linux with good GNUs ... Linux gets top billing and it’s possible to do Linux minus GNU, for the most part, and use other utility systems. And I can GNU on BSD. Richard has had a self importance vibe from the GNU Hurd days. But he couldn’t pull it off. Linus Torvalds get it. Provided a open source OS that Richard couldn’t.
> . One of great thing about python is you can built portable environment around it, with particular python version, libs, etc.
One of the horrible things about Python is that to run a simple script you have ship an entire separate environment for each script, with particular python version, libs, etc.
Perl, PHP, and other similar languages don't have this requirement. Perl scripts I wrote 15 years ago still run fine in an up-to-date environment, because they don't break the language with every update. They add new features and facilities, rather than removing commonly-used things, or worse, changing things around with no real benefit - just because the Python maintainers decided that they prefer left instead of right. Either way works, but switching things around without a clear need to do so is silly.
Or is it OSX/BSD? Or MacSD? Or LSD/X? Who cares?
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
" although operating systems are pretty much apolitical by nature as far as I can tell."
I assume you are new here.
This perpetual motion machine Lisa made is a joke, it just keeps getting faster and faster. - Homer
> I'm tired of the "Gnu/Linux" discussion too.... What are people's thoughts on this? Free Software as a political movement, or Open Source as a better way to get software done?
I see what you did there. The problem is you didn't see what you did there.
I'd not want to associate the crappy GNU userland tools with the quality of the Linux kernel, myself.
Might as well be Ubuntu...
There are two rules for success:
1. Never tell everything you know.
I call it Ubuntu because I use Ubuntu OS. Why do you call it Linux or GNU/Linux?
And the only thing that I could walk with two 20" long 3.5" floppy cases worth of floppies from the computer lab at school down to my apartment computer was Slackware. Therefore, for me, at least, it was Linux, then GNU. Yes I use EMACS, and for that I will be forever in your debt, but prior to that, the last time I used UNIX was on my daddy's lap in the 70s on a Bell Telephone central office computer somewhere on the east coast of america, and Dad didn't even know VI...
i am so very tired....
It's Linux. My servers run without GNU or any other user space even installed. DLL wrangling is over and lightweight containers are replacing distros fast. Security is a cinch when only your app and Linux is installed.
Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
To boil it down to it's simplest elements; if it has a GNU userland, it's GNU/Linux. There's other OSes based on Linux without a GNU userland, and there's other OSes that user a GNU userland without Linux. For example, i wouldn't call Android GNU/Linux, because it lacks much of the GNU userland, and i wouldn't call Debian/kFreeBSD GNU/Linux because it uses the FreeBSD kernel.
In short, if it's GNU/Linux, call it GNU/Linux
If you gave me a choice between a printer and a giraffe with explosive diarrhoea, i'll get my ladder and my raincoat
I think the, "naming controversy", is actually very similar to the "Nikola Tesla vs. Thomas Edison"... thing?
Nikola Tesla, today, has this reputation (little known perhaps, even still) for being this sort of quirky, intense, genius. We all seem to be quite aware that Edison gave us the light bulb. Despite that, a great many things rely on Alternating Current generation and transmission. Edison and others knew how to grasp the full spectrum of their culture. They had practical aims and applications for inventions in mind. Nikola Tesla, on the other hand I think was tortured and equally delighted by ideas and visions of what he could see being possible and also wanting to bring that forth to the world. He powered light bulbs with AC, dreamed up the radio, and was aiming to bring wireless power transmission to the masses. He may have even imagined and worked out how television could be possible(as per what I've heard in a documentary about him).
I think, the term "GNU with Linux", written as, "GNU w/ Linux" does justice. I think it sets up two important questions. What's GNU? And What's Linux? Perhaps, as well, how one goeswith the other.
Most people I think use Linux by running Linux Distributions, their Operating Systems. Other's try to honor the GNU system and spread the message of software freedom and it's roots.
Is it tomato or tomato? Yes! Move on, clickbait story!
stop pretending you can get anything done without all the components of GNU. It is and has always been GNU/Linux, we only say "Linux" out of convenience.
With windows porting Ubuntu it will be interesting
GNU/Linux/Ubuntu vs GNU/Windows/Ubuntu, leave out any part you wish....
aaaaaaa
well, obviously you mean Ubuntu?
Well actually, Debian do call their "GNU/Linux", for the very practical reason that they also try other combinations such as Debian GNU/kFreeBSD, Debian GNU/Hurd, etc.
(And if you squint at it you'll notice that none of the Linux distribution in the microsoft app store actually still has bits from Linus' kernel.
Per Stallman's classification, those should be called GNU/NTkernel, it's still your garden variety distro, but running agaisnt the WinNT kernel and it's ability to also speak a minimalist subset of Linux kernel API.
So they are thing called "Linux" distro that litteraly contain no bits of the actual Linux kernel)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
There are two main branches of Linux-based operating systems. Both use the Linux kernel, so have equal rights to call themselves Linux. But if we do so, it is unclear which one we are talking about, so we need some way of telling them apart.
We could of course decide that the most used one gets to use the name Linux, because it is the defacto standard, but nobody wants that.
The smaller of the two is GNU/Linux.
The larger is - surprise - Android/Linux.
And that's why we need to call it GNU/Linux. Not because Stallman says so, but to be able to tell it apart from the defacto standard Linux.
Lets stop the debate once and for all and use a memorable name that the average consumer can recognize and just as importantly, pronounce. Ladies and gentlemen, geeks and nerds, please support "PC Android". *ducks*
The term âoeLinuxâ can only be described as an operating system kernel while âoeGNU/Linuxâ is merely a classification of Operating Systems making use of Linux as its kernel and GNU utilities as base software. Operating systems within this classification include several Operating Systems like Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu, Slackware (... and the list goes on). There are numerous non GNU software included in those operating systems that the OS itself cannot possibly be called GNU/Linux or Linux for that matter.
Or is that too simple?
Heaven knows, there's so very many iterations of the OS. If we use a blanket term for the whole shebang, can't we all just get along?
In a Linux distribution, you see
LibreOffice or Apache OpenOffice ... ... ...
X11 + KDE/GNOME/...
Mozilla/Chrome
The Linux Kernel
Perl, Python, Tk/TCL, PHP
The GIMP, Audacity, Blender,
WINE, Vir(tualBox,
TeX, LaTeX,
And so on... None of these products are part of GNU...
The GNU parts are emacs (that most Linux users don't use), GCC (which is sometimes replaced by LLVM), basic unix tools (minor programs),... These are less than 10% of what is installed on a Linux system...
Linux is not about Free software (as in free speech) and has never been... it's about creating a whole system where everyone can find something... including the corporate world... And the most of the corporate world understood that playing nice about linux also benefit them...
Best I can tell no one on Slashdot uses Linux. Plenty of people use Debian, Ubuntu, Arch, CentOS, and Android. Hell the crazies here may be found running BSD or Slackware. But no one here actually uses Linux anymore do they?
hahahah, no.
Because this one is asking for one of the "Dead Horse" images like none before.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
You start off by referring to "the Linux operating system", but there is no such thing. Linux is just the kernel, and it takes a lot more to make an operating system. Hence what you are really referring to are "Linux based operating systems". What you call the collection of components that come together to form the operating system is entirely different.
"GNU/Linux" is not correct either. I would best describe this as the operating system framework. There is no "GNU/Linux" operating system to download and install. You must install what are typically called "distributions". So in effect, the actual operating system name is the distribution name (e.g. CentOS, Ubuntu, etc...).
Most Linux based operating systems will also heavily depend on GNU software, so you may be tempted to lump everything under "GNU/Linux". However you also have systems that use the Linux kernel with little or no GNU software (e.g. Android, OpenWRT).
You are trying to reconcile a name for two different things. Once you understand the composition of an OS and how Linux and GNU contribute to the entire system, your question becomes moot.
The other is changing your habits, or something like that.
Call a duck a duck---it's reverse-engineered UNIX
I agree with Stallman's position which maintains that GNU/Linux is the correct usage; but there's an additional point.
Right now I think using "GNU/Linux" is useful as a shorthand to differentiate our regular "Linux distros" from Android (which uses a Linux kernel) and similar projects (such as Chrome OS). All of them are "Linux". So, GNU/Linux conveys the idea that is Linux at the kernel as well as a standard GNU userland as its base.
-- Look to the Rose that blows about us--"Lo, Laughing," she says, "into the World I blow..."
Yup, the whole split infinitives thing was started by people that saw Latin as THE language and felt that other languages must obey the same rules.
Present style and usage manuals deem simple split infinitives unobjectionable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive
If you want to dive deeper that sentence has both a link and a citation, in the article.
Linsux
ed!
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
I've never thought of it that way, and it puts this stupid argument to rest. It's Linux.
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a difficult battle. - Plato
That's funny. I'm not sure sure if you're being serious or sarcastic, but that's about right. Can't even say you have a Python 3 script. Wrote some code for Python 3.2? Next month you get to rewrite it for Python 3.3. No other language does that.
If you're lucky, it just stops working entirely. If you're unlucky, it continues to run, but does something completely different under 3.3.
Its GNU/Linx. Linux is a small part of GNU ecosystem.
I don't, at this time, give a shit about this and I never have......Linux is the only name that makes sense until you talk about the distro......and that discussion opens up another can of worms.....
Thanks for that. It's not the same as having the source code, but it may be helpful at times.
Thanks for that. I've booked that for next time.
Finally, over the weekend I got my WMI issue almost solved I think. Apparently it has to do with ntlm versions and such. Windows 10 made a change in that regard.
Don't get your panties in a bunch. He restated everything you said with more words cause he wanted to show off his penis size.
Are there people who actually CARE about this ? Really ? I don't honestly care if they call it Fred's OS, if it does what I need.
I'm not sure what point you're making. I'm sure you have a good point, I'm just missing it.
I notice that I can download "Firefox for Windows" and "Firefox for Mac". "Firefox for Windows" contains no Windows code. Windows Subsystem for Linux seems similar to me - it's FOR Linux (programs), not IS Linux.
Secret brand deodorant for women doesn't contain any women. And?
Most installations are now known as Android or ChromeOS, so now the Linux part doesn't get much credit either.
I'm under the impression that there were a lot more breaking changes from 3.0 through 3.3 than from 3.3 through 3.6 (stable) or 3.7 (beta). It took time for a much-needed reboot of Python to stabilize, and in particular, 3.3 was the first version that could coexist with 2.7 on Windows through py.exe. Is this a wrong impression?
In contrast, Microsoft's "Windows Subsystem for Linux" is absolutely NOT a Linux, but has a GNU environment because it does include:
so should more properly be called GNU/NT or whatever their kernel is called. Microsoft seems to have kept everything except the Linux part of GNU/Linux.
> I'm under the impression that there were a lot more breaking changes from 3.0 through 3.3 than from 3.3 through 3.6
That's may well be right. I only know that most of the time, a Python script (any Python script) won't run on a system that has Python installed. Because of that and several other reasons, I tend to avoid Python. For simpler scripts it's quicker to write something similar in another language than to try to get the Python script working.
Once in a while breaking changes are needed. Most projects make breaking changes at a major release, such as Apache 1.x vs 2.x, rather than breaking different things with every minor release. It's also common to have a feature used in 1.x, marked it deprecated in 2.x, then remove it in 3.x.
I just call it "NotWindows"
No, nor am I upset by that. Please read my answer more closely. I said "Software certainly is political" because it is. I also asked what you meant when you used the word "political", a question you haven't answered. You should explain your own views on the matter more clearly if you want people to understand you instead of asking them to clarify your thoughts on the issue.
Digital Citizen
This argument needs sources to back up your claims. It's easy to make claims on behalf of other people's projected behavior, not so easy to back up those claims and clarify your terms (saying "many of the "GNU" contributors and leaders would have just forked the projects", for instance, is not only making claims on behalf of others but vague; how many is many?). The quotes around the terms you use are unexplained as well; GNU is the name of the OS RMS started. Also, what operating system did "GNU elbow its way into"? The way Stallman tells it in his talks and writings, which seem to be backed by how things unfolded, he posted to Usenet announcing GNU on September 27, 1983 as a "a complete Unix-compatible software system called GNU (for Gnu's Not Unix)". Work on the GNU Project would actually begin in January, 1984 by pressing various programs into service as well as programs people wrote under the aegis of the GNU Project. He also clarified the philosophy of free software as his own work on the GNU Project continued.
I don't see how this question is relevant even if its terms weren't so ironically unclear. The Linux kernel is not owned by the Free Software Foundation and never has been. Perhaps you're unwittingly underscoring the very problem this /. thread brings up by using unclear terms (like "Linux" to mean an operating system instead of a kernel).
GNU predates the open source development methodology and the Open Source Initiative. GNU is one example of a free software OS. All of the software in GNU is free for the user to run, inspect, modify, and share. GNOME was initially a response to the non-freedom of KDE at the time KDE began. KDE had a nonfree dependency (Qt was proprietary software until mid-1999) so KDE was unsuitable for GNU. There was a project called the Harmony toolkit which aimed to provide an API-compatible replacement for Qt (so one could use Harmony instead of Qt) but when Qt was relicensed as free software this project was no longer needed.
Digital Citizen
Joyent is able to do what it does (double-hulled Docker) because Linux is fundamentally the Linux kernel API (and not even the core OS). So there's your external API to the hardware environment. Internally, the programmatic interface is mainly POSIX. Third on my list are the kernel interfaces and coding conventions surrounding Linux device drivers.
I suppose that GNU can lay some residual claim over the Linux ABI, but Clang generates Linux executables just fine (alongside actual Unix), and Clang is Certainly Not Not Unix.
However, like Knuth, I do respect my computer history, so I'll end off on +1 GNU/Debian, because Debian officially onboards politics, GNU's primary calling card.
That's the only mention of Debra in Wikipedia's Debian article. Therefore it seems we can legitimately simplify this to GNUbian, even if just aurally.
Linux
Next question?
Thanks for replying. I'll explain my use of the word "political" shortly.
I'm still very curious to hear what you meant when you said "you're using the word 'political' to advance your own views".
What views do you think I was advancing?
On that basis, you then said "Frankly, your overmoderated post is all too typical of what passes for acceptable".
Clearly you're bothered by how I "advance my views", so I'd like to know what you think those are.
It doesn't get much lamer than this. Vi vs. Emacs anyone? FFS...
I feel so sig.
It's Linux. It's GNU/Linux. It's whatever you want to call it as long as you just shut the fuck up about it and let me just use my computer running whatever distro makes me happy.
- Everything even remotely container-related (Cgroups & Co) is missing. No LXC/Docker*/systemd-nspawn/etc. for you.
- Filesystems are limited to either mount an NTFS directory as a data dir, or a special NTFS directory with some metadata as a POSIX-compliant root. You can't get any other typical Linux filesystems, even the popular one, so forget about modern facilities like free snapshotting, and most of the weird stuff is either poorly supported (different visibility of mounts) or missing (layers).
And these are the first two out of the top of my head.
(We could add : no DRM gfx stack, you're limited to X forwarding over SSH, so no wayland compositing either)
(Also, in the perspective of what Microsoft wanted to achieve before pivoting to WSL: it still can't run the Android user-space successfully.
So, still no app ecosystem on Windows 10 phone that isn't a joke. But at least they got WSL to run on ARM too).
Basically, all you get is enough API to work with cli tools and daemons.
But hey, at least WSL doesn't work with systemd so at least this will keep the Devuan whiners crowd happy~~~
---
* : apparently, the latest linux docker on the latest WSL insider built could successfully run hello-world. By basically skipping and/or ignoring most of the missing stuff. It's basically a glorified chroot. You're still better off installing the windows version of docker and use WSL to control it with the CLI (and the long term path would probably be having the Windows docker able to start a separate WSL context for each container).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Woosh
> done my best to say I retain no copyright over this code, and it can be considered public domain.
In Europe "public domain" means something rather different than it does in the US. You can't legally disclaim your copyright in some jurisdictions. Creative Commons 0 license is a good way to meet that objective, because it's designed to give users maximum freedom, with the laws of different jurisdictions in mind.
WTFPL is VERY short license that does the same, though less effectively and in a more entertaining way.
Btw thanks for contributing.
Another thing I've run into has been wanting to use a chunk of code for work and it's pretty apparent that the author intended it to be free for anyone to use. For compliance with whatever, management has to have records showing what license we have for all of our code, with some documentation that we are complying with licenses. A company lawyer checks licenses to make sure we know what can mix with what. We wouldn't want to accidentally mix GPLv2 or GPLv3 code in with our "secret sauce" proprietary code. They get real nervous about "Damn Oregonian said it's cool". Their form has a checkbox for Creative Commons.
There is no such thing as “the Linux operating system”. “Linux” is an operating system kernel. Many different operating systems make use of it. Some also make use of GNU libraries and core utilities. The intersection of these two sets is noteworthy, for historical, philosophical, and practical reasons. I call them Linux/GNU-based operating system distributions, or Linux/GNU systems for short. (I put “Linux” first, since I see the slash as denoting a top-to-bottom hierarchy, and the kernel is the lowest level, on top of which every other component runs—including the GNU C Library.)
If there is an unavoidable need to shorten that description further, it should be to “GNU”, not to “Linux”. Using “Linux” (alone) to refer to an operating system, a system distribution, or a set thereof is conflictive. “Linux” is the name of a specific kernel. “GNU” is supposed to be an entire operating system. So one can at least say that these are incomplete versions of the GNU system.