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!
Linus blew his chance for lasting immortality.
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.
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.
I didn't give a shit about that until I met RMS irl.
Since then it's Linux.
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.
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?
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?
Did you actually hit return at the end of each line, or did you C&P that from an 80-column text file you found someplace in antiquity? Or your lynx window?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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?
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.
> 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.
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 ]