Slashdot Mirror
"GNU/Linux" vs. "Linux"
ByteDancer
writes "This is an editorial
that I found over at kernel traffic which discusses in a
neutral way the whole issue with the GNU/Linux naming suggestion." I wouldn't
quite say its neutral, but I would say that its a good article.
I thought that Debian (hope I spell it correctly) IS his distro, no?
I really don't think I'd have any interest in Linux at all if it wern't for the GNU project. What would you have? Just the kernal!
It's a basic act of respect and recognition to use the term GNU/Linux. Recognition that without GNU software the Linux kernal would have no importance at all to almost all Linux users.
It really should be Edisson/Bell/GNU/Linux then, shouldn't it... because without electricity and the telephone we wouldn't really have Linux either, would we?
It need not stop there...!
That would smack of capitalism and be a no-no according to Comrade Stallman.
Seems like an error in logical typing! Telephones and electricity, haredware components, inventors, alphabets. plastics, etc. etc. are associated with and interdepentant with many things. The Linux kernal, on the other hand, is completely inside the explicit scope of the GNU project. Alva Edison isn't.
As Linux becomes more mainstream I it will suffer some ill effects from too much popularity
and commercialism. But GNU/Linux will endure despite the disrespect displayed towards it.
Well, the kernel isnt that much either, so perhaps we should shorten it... How about G/Linu/X (silent G), since X11 is also a significant part? And, of course, we could let the U signify UCB, thereby also mentioning the BSD folks, ie, G/Lin/U/X.
Hm. Of course, it's starting to look like something that would make sed do unspeakable things.
I wouldn't want to use it (I like vi) but I'm sure that the hard-core Emacs fan would want and use this feature... :)
Perhaps distributions should say on the box that they
include the "GNU toolset". After all, it is a key part of Linux
useage. I just don't care for the term "Gnu/Linux".
Linux: 471224 pages
W all-etc-etc-etc-Linux system.
GNU/Linux: 15046 pages
It's more than 30-to-1.
Case closed.
Posting from an XFree-Netscape-GNU-Digital-Bradley-Plass&Theisen-
Any way you look at the two outstanding accomplishments of the free software movement are the Linux Kernal and GNU software. The individuals the made these accomplishemts are inseparable from what they did. Without them there would be no GNU/Linux.
If Stallman doesn't continue his efforts to promote the open software movement, which is truly his movement, he knows it will be compromised out of existence. If it wern't for Stallman where would would you be. Choosing between Windows or Macs!
"Unfortunately for your argument, most people can still use linux without Gnome or KDE or Netscape or StarOffice or Quake, etc... Go home now and delete all of the GNU utilities, and then try to use Linux."
Unfortunately, for your argument, the GNU tools are completely useless without a kernel of some kind. Therefore, the name should reflect the actual OS being used, in this case Linux.
Should Windows be called GNU/Wincrap if the Cygnus GNU tools are being used? By Stallman's logic it should.
If anyone would write a new command-line toolset, throw in KDE and make a new distribution out of it, GNU and the Free Software Foundation would become completely irrelevant.
Let's call the Linux kernel for Linux and the whole system for GNU/Linux. or just GNU for short.
Stallman hasn't started the war there because
WindowMaker isn't getting as well-known as Linux.
When it does, I am pretty sure he will do the same
damn thing again.
---- To Gnu or not to Gnu, it Hurds (my ass that is)
Exactly. I set my mind against the GNU/Linux name when RMS himself used the argument that since GNU "adopted" X-Free that they don't have to use XFree in the name anywhere. Well then, let's just say that Linux has adopted GNU and we don't have to use the name.
If he wants us to put credit where credit is due, he needs to do the same thing.
Nitpicking..
Much/some of GNOME _is_ copyright FSF. GIMP stands for General Image Manipulation Program, Gtk stands for GIMP ToolKit.
Creating a operating system was one goal to get acceptance of the free software idea. All GPL software is not a part of the GNU OS plan (many GPL programs exist for Windows/DOS).
I would not mind my programs being associated with GNU principals nor would I mind having my programs be called a part of the "GNU project". "GNU" stands for an idea--freedom. I still want credit for my work (everyone deserves credit) and I would still get credit. Most people think this is an issue whether GNU has enough software in the operating system (collectively known as "Linux") to be given credit as "GNU/Linux". I believe this is more an issue of keeping an idea alive and bringing it to main stream rather than keeping it hidden in the source code (COPYING/COPYING.LIB).
I don't see why the free software community insists on keeping it called just "Linux". The word "GNU" is not crediting RMS (or just him) but a group of people. Plus it promotes the idea of freedom. I believe RMS has better things to do with his time than try to grow his ego. He has good reasons for everything he does with GNU I'm sure.
Another thing.. BSD/X licenses were created around making free software. GPL was created around promoting free software (thats why GPL software is so strict on modifying and redistribution). That is why you never see people from Berkeley/X Consortium jumping up and down trying to call it "BSD/X Linux". RMS doesn't lie when he says GNU is about keeping software freedom
Tim
cd gnome-libs/libgnome
grep 'Free Software Foundation' *.c
Turns up a number of files. Same with gnome-libs/libgnomeui. Of course there is probably way more than that also. There is also some copyright Red Hat too (grep 'Red Hat' *.c).
Tim
Linux = first name
GNU = last name
It is more appealing to retain the name "Linux" than prepending "GNU." I mean "Linux" sounds nicer than "GNU/Linux." Having a nice name is aesthetically very important. After all we know that Linux is under GPL. Just changing name will not change anything. This name problem is totally unnecessary and unproductive.
The issue is about an OS. Linux is the name of a kernel. Think of it this way.. you got:
(These aren't real package names of course)
linux.tar.gz
glibc.tar.gz
bash.tar.gz
XFree86-whatever.tar.gz
...
Right now the name "Linux" refers to the collection of programs on your hard drive that allow you to operate your computer (the above). RMS doesn't care what Linus wants to call his kernel. I.E.: RMS is not pushing for it to be gnu-linux.tar.gz. GPL has nothing to do with the naming of an OS (or an OS period). Some people call it "Red Hat", some call it "Debian". RMS wants it refered to as "GNU/Linux" (I really believe its to keep the GNU idea around rather than an ego thing).
Until RMS is proven guilty of ego enlargement, I'm still considering him a leader of free software. If you don't agree with him.. thats fine. But, don't step in the way when hes trying to do good for us--especially over such small thing as a name. There are times to step up and disagree strongly.. but this is not the time IMHO.
Unix is not trademarked by AT&T. That trademark is now owned by I believe The Open Group, which is responsible for, among other things, not giving us Motif.
Free software is about freedom.
... for a car)).
If you wish to call it 'Linux', then that is
your right, and I will understand what you mean.
If you wish to call it 'GNU/Linux', then that too is your right, and i will understand what you mean.
If I, say, want to call it 'Jacket potatoes', then that is my right, though you won't understand what I'm talking about.
Put simply, a name is some common word or phrase which we use to describe something (i.e. a noun or proper noun). So long as the name is unambiguous, and everybody knows what you are talking about, then it is a good name. If you have two or three names for the same thing then there is no problem either (e.g. ('GNU/Linux', 'Linux', 'Penguin power'... for Linux), ('Car', 'Automobile', 'rustbucket',
That would involve rewriting libc.
So what you're saying is, we should call it Lin. Well, that doesn't really flow off the toungue... neither does Ux... so we can't base it on Linux. C, as your example, is a nice hard constanant, as is NT (two); just "L" is unacceptable though, since it's also too hard to say. So we're doomed, unless we make Linux so pervasive in the industry that we don't have to call it anything at all, except "the OS".
We _must_ have world domination. Kill the BSD bigots! Flame them wrathfully!
I'll say it again; you can have my Emacs when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers. If someone wants to rewrite Emacs in Perl, Python, or *gack* Tcl, be my guest (actually, a Python scripting interface for the existing Emacs-en would be kinda cool...)
Simply because Linux is all about freedom. If Linux were proprietary almost 99% of us would not be using it. The reason its not Profit/Coca-cola is because they do not want people to realize they are all about profit. Why should we hide what we believe in and work for like companies do?
A different way to look at it is domain names. Coca-cola would be coca-cola.com I suspect. The ".com" implies they are about making money (very subtle though). Many companies do use ".com" as part of their name ("crack.com", "ebay.com", etc.). Even though ".com" is used for classifing domains companies still keep it (They let people know they have a web site while giving the impression that they are a commercial organization).
If "Linux" is only called that.. main stream people might never know about GNU or the ideas behind it. I think this is what RMS is trying to prevent (people forgetting what we are striving for). Many new people using Linux today do not know what GNU is (I know I didn't when I first came to Linux but, because I'm a programmer, I soon learned).
You can insist that people call the president of the U.S. "Bing Bang Boodle Boy" all you want, but if you walk away from any conversation where they stubbornly claim he's actually "Bill Clinton", the person who's being unreasonable is the one who's walking away, not the one who's saying "Clinton".
And I could write a new kernel that called my perl init scripts. But then it wonuldn't be called Linix or GNU/Linux but David'sDumbassWorthlessUNIXClone!...
The point is that GNU programs are a crucial lowlevel part of what makes 'Linux' what it is. So it needs to be GNULinux. This way when someone makes BSDLinux you who don't get it now will be thankful
Is it MickyD's or McDonalds? Is it Toxic Hell or Taco Bell? Is it a Dodge Ram or just a Pick'em up Truck?
Ya know... RMS is too big of a geek to relize that nobody who matters gives a crap about GNU/Linux or Linux. The slash alone is annoying, the GNU just doesn't sound technical... the whole thing is a marketing nightmare. Wake up boys and girls, this isn't Linux 1.0. It's showtime and marketing, as we have all seen, can make any OS the media darling.
It's about as bad as watching physicists tell journalists there's no such thing and centrifugal force... it's really centripedal. WHO CARES!
Ahh.. So call in GNU/Linux. Then it will be GL for short. Cause a tiny confusion with OpenGL but not too much. And with only one hard constanant to NT's two it will surely win in the end!
Whoops. Guess they don't really care what the "G" stands for. In the GTK tutorial they have it:
:-)
"It's called the GIMP toolkit because it was originally written for developing the General Image Manipulation Program (GIMP)"
Almost thought I dreamt the "General" part up for a minute.
Pitting Linux against Richard Stallman or comparing their
respecitve contributions to determine a name for an operating
system is a waste of time.
There are two important questions here:
1. Why is this community wasting so much time on this name
issue?
2. Has anybody considered that Richard Stallman is a human
being who deserves neither to be apeased, nor ridiculed, but
who may actually need others to meet him half way. That is
the only way I know of to bring out the best in another person.
Compliments and insults probably mean little to Stallman because
I feel he really is being impersonal in acting for his cause.
I am not sure that he would be happy if he is appeased in this
or any other matter, or that he would respect those who do that.
First, anyone can call a distribution of Linux anything he wants
to call it. Neither "Linux" nor "GNU" are required to appear
in the merchandising so long as the licensing is included in
the package (which stresses GNU over and over again and
Linux).
It is a complete waste of time to argue over this, and contrary
to the spirit of GNU which *expressly* prohibits packaging or
bundling a GNU product in a restrictive manner or limiting its
distribution to boxed sets, CD's, ftp sites, or any other way
GNU software can be acquired, which display a certain logo,
name, or company brand .
This is a matter between Richard Stallman and his peers, who
are generally more mature programmers and lunimaries with
whom he sometimes appears or would like to appear at conferences
and seminars. This is a personal matter. Clearly he deserves
to be featured at such events even if some others don't want
to hear what he has to say and don't stress the freedom in
Free Software as he does. (And to have his papers published
in the respective journals).
This is not a matter worthy of discussion among distribution
builders and packagers, Linux users, GNU/Linux users, or
software developers who have not contributed significantly to
what we know of as Linux and GNU today. To make a name
such an important topic detracts from the substance of Linux and
GNU. This controversy was hyped by the press to get
a good story about nerds and geeks tearing each other up
and making much ado about nothing. Mostly it gives the
impression to persons outside that this "community" is made
up of arrogant people who can never be pleased.
Personally, I feel that one has a spiritual duty not to appease
Richard Stallman. It is up to those who relate to him personally
and professionally to meet him half way, not to the rest of us.
Have some respect for yourselves, and for Richard Stallman.
If appeased, a certain spirit in him will be diminished. Appeasement
is not the same as an honest dialouge that it seems a few who
should be more willing to engage him in are afraid to undertake.
He may be somewhat arrogant, and they may be somewhat
chicken. Nobody is perfect.
Again, whether LInux wrote 1% of the code or 15% is from
GNU is irrelevant to what one calls a distribution of Linux.
These people (Linus and Stallman and others who have been
big contributors) must gain or lose respect among their peers,
not among the crowds. Celebrity really is like a millstone around
one's neck, and have never made a person one bit happier.
It does make good press but that's another matter.
Can we please live our lives and let Linux and Richard live
theirs?
COPYING
From: Richard Stallman
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 07:25:51 -0700 (MST)
cc: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
to: andyc@andyc.carenet.org
Properly speaking, Linux is the kernel that Linus wrote. He started development of the kernel, so naming it is his prerogative.
The operating system in which Linux is typically used is basically the GNU system, combined with Linux and somewhat modified. The GNU Project started development of this system, so we ought to get credit.
Mentioning GNU in names of variants of the system is a way of giving credit. The best name to use for the Linux-based variant of the system is "GNU/Linux", which means, GNU and Linux together.
It wouldn't be right to use the term "GNU Linux", because that would mean either "GNU's version of Linux" or "Linux, which is a GNU program". Those meanings don't fit the facts. "GNU/Linux" does fit.
Calling the operating system just Linux confuses most users--anyone who doesn't have a real firm understanding of the difference and relationship between the whole system and the kernel. These people see statements about "Linux", some of which refer to the kernel and some of which refer to the whole system, and they don't realize that not all the statements are talking about the same thing.
I *grok* Stallman's motivation, and this is why:
Stallman's announcement of GNU creation
A lecture he gave in Stocholm
I identify with him, and these writings are very inspiring to me. Probably most people who don't get it haven't emotionally identified with Stallman - emotion is the source of most conflict, realized or not.
I think if Stallman is to bring more people to his side, he must emotionally appeal to the hackers with newer, more widely publicized writings. I bet most people agree with him more than they are aware.
Information costs nothing to share, yet corporations become rich by restricting who you can share it with. GNU combats this peacefully by producing free information to share with everyone - a worthy organization to share the spotlight with.
FYI, these Stallman writings were found at the Stallman Shrine, apparently created by Dave Miller, kernel code hacker extraordinare.
If you can't see this point, then there really is no further we can go. His "involvement" with Linux is irrelevant to me; I don't call it Thompson/Ritchie/Linux, even though Linux definitely would not exist without them! (To be honest, I don't think it's absolutely clear that Linux couldn't exist without GNU; tools evolve when they're needed, and if there was no gcc, how do we know there wouldn't have been a rcc or a jcc or some other free compiler?)
Personally, I disagree with a lot of his positions. But that's all the more reason for him to give up this crusade. If the most visible thing that Richard Stallman has to say is "Call it GNU/Linux", then that's mindspace that is not taken up by "Let me tell you about freedom". And even worse, it gives a perfect opportunity for reasonable people to fill that mindspace with "Whatever. Call me when someone with something important to say goes to the stage."
Check out this article:
/computing/9904/08/linuxsuits.idg/index.html
:(
http://cnn.com/TECH
No mention of FSF/GNU and the GPL that protects the Linux kernel from ever becoming proprietary; very sad
Though an anathema to many on this forum (who arguably believe that "freedom" is only significant when it denotes "free market"), it's quite apparent that FSF/GNU/Free Software needs _more_ public exposure now than ever before.
Well if we were to apply the same dumb argument as Stallman used with Linux, then it should be called HURD/Mach.
BSD code is in part already intergrated in Linux, perhaps as much as GNU code is. Another reason RMS/FSF logic is flawed concerning the GNU/Linux nonsense. Linux really isn't exactly GNU system like HURD was intented to be, at least not anymore. It's evolved beyond that.
the GPL did! :)
Another example of this is when people use the term BSD. You say BSD when talking about it in general, or NetBSD when talking about a specific version of the BSD's. It's the same thing as saying/using the terms Linux or Redhat.
"Free" means "no cost" to end users.
And Linux and BSD users generally don't hear about GNU or freedom, so GNU doesn't benefit from them at all. HURD users probably do, but that's only because nobody's advocating HURD for merely working well.
WindowMaker isn't the free operating system Stallman invested his life and hands laying the foundation for.
Stallman openly moonlights as an expensive consultant. He's not opposed to capitalism by any stretch of the imagination. He just doesn't think it's right to treat software itself as capital, since it can be freely duplicated.
Actually, that mindspace is currently occupied with "isn't it great that Linux is so cheap!" If the average user had ever heard of GNU or RMS' pro-freedom position, we wouldn't be in this mess.
Joe User hears "Free" and thinks "yeah, I already knew it didn't cost anything."
So far, Linux fans have blown their chance to do so. Thanks to them, we have hordes of people who've been laboriously granted the right to fix and extend the software they use, in the hope they'll contribute further, and don't even know it.
Delco is just another corporation with their own paid marketers, and AFAIK they don't have any philosophical message about how cars should be created and reused we need to spread for them.
It's even more important than that. It makes end users ask questions, and thus find out about their rights they currently hear nothing about.
It is really a meaningless debate.
I would just call my system Linux
I believe that what RMS really wants is to get that issue into the public light. One way to do that is to get the term GNU/Linux out into the media. People will inevitably ask what GNU is, and that leads to FSF, copyleft, and discussions free software as a philosophical matter.
I agree that this is RMS's goal...to get people to recognize the concept of freedom that has enabled Linux. If people take exception with attaching the name 'GNU' to an existing name and think this is self-serving, may I propose we call it 'Free Linux'. This introduces the issue of freedom that RMS is concerned with without making it look like someone is trying to ride Linux's coattails to fame.You haven't read the arguments quite right. Bash is not merely a command-line analogue of fvwm--- a GNU/Linux system will not boot without bash. (Actually, boot floppies do--- but that's not the point.)
Look at your system startup scripts someday. They all are shell scripts run by bash, that call commands like cp, mv, mount, and so on.
Someone once said it very well here in slashdot--- when you think GNU/Linux, thinx Unix V7. The basic, common denominator Unix toolset/environment.
---
A lot of it comes down to what one calls the OS. Some people obviously go with the maxim "the OS is the kernel"; I don't, but it's a merely terminological issue anyway. The kernel is clearly called Linux. The argument, IMHO, is what the Unix (and think bare-bones Unix system--- not Apache, X, and other such non-essential stuff) clone should be called.
---
Perhaps someone should remind rms that GNU is supposedly a recursive acronym for GNU's Not Unix.
Does he want to change it to GIL, GIL Is Linux?
--
Apparently, my theory is true:
slashdot readers have a significantly lower ability to recognize sarcasm than the average population.
--
If you want to call it GNU/Linux, fine. Don't force your opinion on everyone else.
I read a little bit of the thread on the linux-kernel mailing list. One person told Stallman that this was not the place for mentioning GNU/Linux. Stallman claimed that someone else made a posting about it first, and that he felt compelled to respond. (I did not see the original post). Someone then told Stallman that he should just ignore posts that disagree with his opinion in the interest of preventing flame wars. I was highly amused by that. None of the people bashing Stallman for his GNU/Linux stand (including the author of that last message I mentioned) had any intention of simply ignoring Stallman's post, which probably would have been the way to really stop a flamewar. It takes two to tango. The easiest way for people who don't agree with Stallman to stop this whole mess is simply to ignore his comments on the topic. Writing editorials about it or bashing Stallman about it only feeds the fire.
> a GNU/Linux system will not boot without bash
There's no reason that I know of that a Linux system (or, more accurately, init) can't start anything else in the world as its command interpreter. My /etc/rc.S explicitly calls /bin/sh in the #! line. If I were to change that to /bin/tcsh or /usr/bin/perl or whatever, init should be perfectly happy using those to interpret my startup scripts. I could even replace /bin/bash and/or the /bin/sh link to it with a different Bourne derivative and not even have to rewrite my startup scripts. You said it yourself... boot floppies do it.
For that matter, I could easily imagine a dedicated-purpose Linux machine that had no shell available at all, and replaced init with one that didn't run initscripts, just directly launched its one-and-only application.
I don't intend to do this, because I think bash rocks, but my point remains - bash is not a vital part of the OS any more than any other shell, graphical or otherwise, is.
I've seen quite a few arguments for and against calling Linux GNU/Linux. The arguments for seem to be based on five major points:
:) ) However, Linux is _Linus's_ contribution, so _he_ gets to name it.
1) The kernel doesn't form the entire operating system. Other programs make up the OS as well, and the name of the OS should reflect these.
This is really two points, the second being dependent on the first. If you assume for the sake of debate that the kernel is not the entire operating system, does it follow that every program that is part of the OS should be reflected in the name? I think it doesn't.... after all, we don't call it IE/Progman/Windows/DOS. And if you assume that it does, that's where ridiculous names like "GNU/X/BSD/Apache/Mozilla/Troll/Linux" come from...
And I'm not sure this is relevant, anyway, because I have trouble accepting large amounts of userland stuff as being an integral part of the operating system. First off, it seems to me that there's pretty obviously a line between the OS and just plain old apps. The kernel is definitely part
of the OS; the program I whipped up the other day to emulate dice for Shadowrun pretty definitely isn't.
Further, it seems to me that the only sensible place to draw this line is between the kernel and everything else. Anywhere else creates grey areas of significant size. If ls/mv/cp/etc. are part of the OS, what about kfm? If bash is part of the OS, what about fvwm? If gcc is part of the OS, what about perl? If emacs is part of the OS, what about Wordperfect? (And I don't even install emacs on my systems... I'm a joe user. Does that mean my OS is incomplete?)
2) RMS and the FSF should be given credit for their huge contributions to free source.
Certainly. That's why it's GNU cc, GNU bash, GNU emacs, GNU binutils, GNU shutils, GNU libc, and so on. These are the GNU project's contributions, and vitally important ones they are. (Well, except for emacs
3) Linux is part of the GNU project, and should therefore carry the GNU name.
Well, dismissing for the moment the fact that not even all of the FSF's stuff that's indisputably a part of the GNU project has "GNU" tacked on the front of its name (bash?)...
How would you feel if you built something (using, admittedly, borrowed tools - but see 4, below), named it after yourself, spent a while using it, then your neighbor caught sight of it, and came over and said, "I've been trying to build something similar to that for years. Since I started building mine first, you have to credit me every time you refer to your creation."
That's what RMS is trying to do to Linux. If not actually wrong, it's still, at the very least, rude.
4) It wouldn't have been possible to make Linux without gcc, and other GNU tools.
Probably true, but is there a rule now that the product has to be named after the tools used to create it? As someone else said, if I build a house with Craftsman tools, does that mean I have to put Sears/Campbell on my mailbox? Is this new rule going to apply to all software? If so, do I have to call my Shadowrun dice program GNU/shadowdice from now on? Is the DOS version Borland/shadowdice? Or is it still GNU/shadowdice, because I did all the development on Linux with gcc, then copied the (99-44/100% pure portable ANSI C) code to a DOS box and just did the final compile, from identical source, with Borland?
5) We need to get GNU and the free source philosophy into the public eye.
That's a worthwhile objective. I'm sure there are better ways to accomplish it, though, then by starting a massive public flamewar that can only damage both GNU and Linux in the public eye... You think the FUD about Linux not being unified is bad now, wait 'til the MS PR guys get hold of this one...
I hope you were not including the editorial that is cited as part of this article. Because it gives a reasoned explanation for those thinking of a quick response a reason to let it pass.
RMS has contributed greatly to the cause of "Free" software. He is simply heritage that cannot be left without respect or credit.
Personally, I think many of his arguments are specious and his personality characteristics can lead many to conclude he brooks no contary views. I would hope that this is more the showman side that accentuates the negative image than reality.
I believe reasoned editorials have there place and perhaps even direct responses are in order provided that show respect for his actual contributions when "Free/Open" source was even more misunderstood than it is today.
Understand the man and cut him some slack.
Not only is EGCS GNU in name (Experimental GNU Compiler System), and in copyright (owned by the Free Software Foundation), but it is also heavily based on gcc, and thus has a whole lot of GNU Project code in it. If you're going to boycott the GNU project, you need to write a new compiler from scratch, not extent an existing GNU project one, as egcs has done.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
RMS wrote a shitty compiler called gcc 1.0.
Cygnus and Linux hackers fixed it as needed,
for embedded systems developers (Cygnus) and
the kernel (Linux hackers).
"shitty compiler"? if it was so "shitty," why did everybody start using it and enhancing it? If it was so "shitty," why didn't Cygnus go and write their own from scratch?
As for Cygnus's role, sure they've contributed to gcc for a while, but so have many other people, including several people within the Free Software Foundation. So if you want completely non-GNU code, you must write a compiler from scratch, since gcc and egcs are both inextricably tied with the Free Software Foundation and the GNU project.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
e: What Linux is. The name "Linux" is exactly whatever the majority believes it to be.
/. is willing to accept this in the case of "Linux." Why, then, don't they accept the majority's definition of "hacker"? Hypocrisy?
It seems that the majority of
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Posted by Mike@ABC:
Any tech journalist who has covered Linux over the past year knows about RMS, the Free Software Foundation, the GNU project, and the years of hard work that went into bringing open source/free software to the masses. Any journalist worthy of the title (keep yer wisecracks to yerself) should already have a grip on the history and philosophy.
But man...have you ever tried to pitch a story about history and philosophy to an editor? Might as well go write about the Commodore 64. Tech outlets are looking for the new stuff, the trends, the really nifty stuff. The best we can hope to do is make mention, every now and again, of just what open source is, where it came from, and what it can do.
Hence my earlier post on RMS and this whole debate being a shame. To me, and a number of other tech reporters, RMS is looking for credit for stuff already done. Well...it's already done. If he could bring something new, refreshing and thought-provoking to the table -- instead of correcting us everytime we forget to say GNU/Linux around him -- then all of the things you're talking about will once again come to light.
Probably shouldn't be speaking for all tech reporters here. So all of that is really just pertaining to me. But that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
Posted by Mike@ABC:
First off, that editorial, IMHO, was dead on. Can't much argue with that.
But what irks me more is that we have people like RMS, and those who feel the need to respond to him, tied up in a useless debate when they could be making significant contributions to the rest of the open source community. I mean, geez...let it go! It seems as though RMS is focused more on getting attention for past glory instead of using his considerable talents and energy for future projects.
And as for the people who respond to him and spend the time and energy defending/fighting him...you folks can end it. If you no longer pay any attention to RMS, then he'll either get the picture and move on to better things, or he'll end up irrelevant. Either way, the community and the movement moves on.
Suggestion: next time RMS gets an ant in his pants about GNU/Linux, whether it's in a post online or at a live conference, ignore it. Move on. Call it Linux, call it BSD/X/GNU/Linux/GNOME whatever. But don't give in. Either he'll see the light and drop the subject, or he'll get tossed out on his keister for causing a scene.
And everyone else gets to move on. Enough of this, already. A rose by any other name....
Posted by Mike@ABC:
I have to agree. RMS is quite brilliant. He's done a lot. But he's alienating the very people who could benefit from what he can do.
The FSF people think that the OS should be called GNU/Linux since Linux wasn't made by the FSF; a OS using only GNU software (whatever that is) is called GNU.
Please alter my pants as fashion dictates.
Since egcs stands for "Experimental GNU Compiler System", you are correct. However, a compiler is not an essential part of an OS. The majority of systems in the world don't have a C/C++ compiler. It's essential for *building* Linux, yes, but then the C compiler RMS used to start building gcc before it was bootstrap was likewise essential, but isn't credited.
Personally I'm happy writing GNU/Linux where people want me to and it won't cause confusion among the non-cogniscenti, but I'd really rather say Linux in conversation.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
I don't see why the free software community insists on keeping it called just "Linux". The word "GNU" is not crediting RMS (or just him) but a group of people. Plus it promotes the idea of freedom.
Why should the name of the OS (or kernel or Operating Environment as someone else called it) promote freedom? Why not call it FreeToModifyUnixLikeOS? The ideas of a group don't need to be expressed in the names of their products directly. That's just silly. If it were needed then every commercial product would be prefixed with profit: Profit/Coca-cola.
Many people see this behavior [insisting on GNU/Linux] as directly hypocritical to his stated cause of freedom. His insistance on this name change seems to go against the very philosophy he claims he has been fighting for. And the almost feverish intensity of his insistance seems only to highlight that hypocracy.
That is the only important thing in the article. The rest is the author's apologist plea that RMS not hate him.
The author even contradicts himself with this: So my suggestion is for people to be tolerant of Stallman, and to be aware of the deeper ideas involved. A reputation for hypocrasy cannot help the cause of freedom. RMS does injustice to the cause of freedom because most people can not and will not and should not look past his hypocrasy.
Personally, I think it's just an ego thing. Poor guy, no one wants to acknowledge GNU. If he wants GNU to gain mindshare, maybe he should hire an marketting firm.
The reason GNU has respect in the community is that the community knows what it stands for. Geeks tend not to like things that are pushed down their throats. Alienating the people who should be evangelizing GNU is the poison RMS is playing with. He should know better.
Good luck, RMS. May the cause of freedom be strengthened by the hypocritical intolerance of others' opinions.
If RMS said, in interviews, "Please call it GNU/Linux. That is the name I prefer. I understand that you have the right to call it what you wish, though." Then he would be an advocate. Instead he acts like a two year old, ignoring the interviewer until he accedes to RMS's will. I would love to see an interviewer, just end an interview rather than deal with his nonsense.
Note: I have respect his older work. I have no respect for what he says about Linux.
But if it [a license] says "This license forbids you to do the things I don't like," it is no longer free.
What utter nonsense. The GPL says "Don't link my code with non-GPL code." That sounds like something "I" don't like. By your definition, no license is Free.
But man...have you ever tried to pitch a story about history and philosophy to an editor? Might as well go write about the Commodore 64.
I can believe that. I certainly didn't mean to imply that tech journalists aren't doing their jobs. (Or that anyone else in the media isn't). It's more of a systemic issue that includes readers as well. Writers don't write it because editors don't want it. Editors don't want it because readers eyes glaze over when they read it. Readers eyes glaze over because they don't understand the importance of it. Readers don't understand the importance of it because nobody told them. (or because they didn't listen)
Perhaps RMS hopes that seeing GNU/Linux in various stories will cause them to ask questions and that those questions will lead to stories with the answers.
I don't know if that would happen or not. Based on your posts, it sounds like RMS may not be taking the best approach. Nobody ever called him a marketing genius. Perhaps someone who understands his objectives, and the ways of PR should suggest better methods to him.
I don't think that RMS is looking for personal credit for anything (as some have suggested). IMHO, he is looking for publicity for Free Software.
Regardless of the validity or lack thereof of RMS's arguments, he is absolutely right about the central issue:
The media is FINALLY hyping Linux for it's technical virtues and distributed development (as it should), but is completely silent when it comes to the fundamental philosophy of free software. The media is also silent about the fact that without that fundamental philosophy, Linux probably wouldn't exist except as an acedemic curiosity today (or as yet another proprietary system that %99.9 of the population has never heard of).
The philosophical debate rages all over the net in the form of MP3 vs RIAA, or lawsuits over linking a web page, look and feel suits, domain name trademark issues, genetic patents,and even DVD vs DIVX.
What it comes down to is that some people think it's possable to own the laws of nature and anything derived from them (everything else), some think that is fundamentally wrong, and most have no idea. These issues will, one way or another, affect everyone eventually.
I believe that what RMS really wants is to get that issue into the public light. One way to do that is to get the term GNU/Linux out into the media. People will inevitably ask what GNU is, and that leads to FSF, copyleft, and discussions free software as a philosophical matter.
>Seriously, there are people talking about doing
/etc/issue[.net] so that I could remove the phrase, but the "in your face" does create a subtle "friction" just from natural reaction. Probably not enough to switch in most cases, but enough to be a subtle influence on future behavior.
>this, either intentionally, or as a side effect
>of, another project.
There's also a general "distaste" that forms. I calmed down and stayed with debian (for the moment) when I found
My new faculty system in the fall will probably get a *bsd instead of linux. The distataste isn't the primary reason (i generally prefer the "flavor" & philosophy of the bsd distributions), but I can't honestly say that it isn't a factor.
[I can't switch right due to the mutual hostility of the ext2 and ufs file systems. FreeBSD hangs about 20% of the time on boot if there is an extended partition full of linux logical partitios physically after it on the ide drive]
No. The Linux community has developed it's own terms over the years which differs from the FSF terminology. Hence the difference in the meanings of "Linux". If the FSF had really cared about what was going on in the Linux movement, they've would've been aware of this. The fact that they seemed to have totally missed out on what the "unversal" meaning of "Linux" is shows just how out-of-touch the FSF is when it comes to understanding what going on with Linux.
Don't you know nuthin' :-)
-- Mike Greaves
Ever called Windows NT just 'NT'?
:-/
Ever called Unix System V Release 4 just 'SVR4'?
Ever called a Chevrolet Camaro Z28 just 'a Z28'?
I thought so. So all distros should put GNU/Linux on the box/CD, and it should be the full, official name. But we can all call it Linux in casual conversation. And reporters can call it Linux to RMS's face and he should take it more gently
-- Mike Greaves
Personally, I would have very little problem switching names if, say, the GNU project were to say, "Hey, Linus, wanna be part of the GNU project?" and Linus agreed. However, that ignores one fact:
-not all GNU projects have GNU in their name (despite their use of GNU in the name.) Case in point: Window Maker.
However, since the *true* reason (I assume) for the proposed name change is ego puffing, I cannot and will not use that atrocious GNU/Linux name.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
and, therefore, you'd still be using GNU tools.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Quite frankly, I'm a Linux *user*, and an quite aware of the fact that my Linux system if it weren't for the fine folks that produce free software such as yourself. Thank you!!! :^)
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Amen to that...
;^)
Although I shudder to think what he'd put together (would EMACS be used for everything?
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
The question then arises is the only GNU software software that is written by the FSF? I wonder if it
isn't. Just look at names. GNOME stands for "GNU Network Object Model Environment". Clearly
the gnome people want GNOME to be part of the GNU project, even if they didn't assign copyright
over to the FSF.
I think it may be. At any rate, the panel is (C) the Free Software Foundation (I have the "About..." dialog up right now). I can't find an official copyright in the sources, but I suspect that gnome-libs, gnome-core, and gmc may have done this. Does anyone have more information?
Of course, the name might not be the right place to give credit so much as to indicate what the
thing actually is. If that is the case, than GNU would probably be the most descriptive.
This is the way I look at it. The GNU project set out to create and collect the software necessary to make a free OS, now I'm using an OS which is built on that software.
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
I would hate to have it become really popular and then have someone start dictating what its name
should be.
Which clause of the GPL says that again?
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
Besides, it's possible to replace most of the GNU stuff in the OS (gcc is part of the OE), with BSD
tools - all of their stuff may eventually be replaced, so calling it GNU/Linux wouldn't be
futureproof.
Actually, if someone made a distro using the BSD tools, the argument for GNU/Linux would be even stronger because we'd have to tell it apart from BSD/Linux.
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
The reason he calls it GNU/Linux is that the GNU project set out to build and collect the software necessary to create a totally free operating system. He wants it to be called GNU/Linux not because Linux is GNU software but because most Linux distributions are essentially distributions of the GNU operating system. I personally wish that when he heard of Linux he had gotten together with Linus and announced that Linux was GNU's first official kernel and the world now had a free operating system. Evidently no-one (including Linus) really expected the kernel to get as useful as it has and the GNU project wanted (among other things) portability to every hardware setup under the sun and a cooler design (hence the Hurd).
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
No. They don't. They just need X code to boot X correctly. Unless the sysadmin screwed up the boot scripts. :-)
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
) Linux is not a GNU/FSF project. Linus created the kernel and should get full credit.
:-) GNU/Linux refers to the operating system that you get when you compile GNU software for Linux.
...but every operating system based on Linux contains the GNU utilities and *requires* them to boot. Before you yell 'replace them', wait..
Linux is not GNU/Linux. GNU/Linux is.
GNU/Linux is an unwieldy name, Linux is much shorter and pithier.
I agree there. I use GNU/Linux in writing but I don't think I've ever said it.
The GNU part of the name describes command line tools and not the actual operating system.
The name GNU/Linux is not future-proof because the GNU-written tools may eventually be
replaced by others (like the Perl project).
Ok. Replace GNU fileutils with Perl fileutils, GNU shellutils with Perl shellutils, GNU libc with Perl libc, etc. Then you can call your computer Perlutils/Linux. BSD/Linux is another option, of course.
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
Uhh you're saying that anything with 'GNU' in its name is part of the GNU project? That may work in most cases, but probably not for all. Yes, you're right that the GNU project extends beyond that of the FSF. RMS said something about this on the linux-kernel mailing list a while back. I think to become part of the GNU project, you and GNU just have to come to some sort of agreement, and then RMS can say "ph3ar, an0+her oNE!!!111" I think he said that even XFree86 is part of the GNU project. I wouldn't be too surprised if GNU software ended up becoming the majority of most Linux distributions.
Might I suggest you start asking human beings for help?
I don't see how this is a good idea. The only person you're hindering is yourself by giving up all the GNU tools. RMS doesn't care if 2 people are 2 million people use his software; this isn't a popularity contest for him. If you've followed his whole 'open-source' vs 'free' debate, you can see that quite clearly. The 'open-source' advocates think that it (OSS/FS) is good if lots of people end up using it, whereas RMS seems to think it's good per se.
This I can guarantee you if enough people start boycotting GNU:
(a) they won't have a system to run for about five years
(b) the GNU project will carry on like it did before, as if nothing had ever happened
(c) people will start to try to use Perl for something useful *shudder*
Anyway, if you haven't noticed, boycottition is a predominantly capitalist idea, and seems to work the best in a capitalist setting (i.e. a big popularity contest). It's normally used to send a message to someone, but it seems to all go in vain when the other side barely notices, let alone addresses it.
And don't get me started on how childish this seems. RMS says something you don't like, so you get 5 of your friends to beat him up after school. I cannot think of anything more trivial than the name of an operating system. If he wants to call Linux "GNU rules over all with infinite wisdom", I don't see what the deal is. Yes, whenever the media talks to him he tries to force them to call it GNU/Linux, too, who cares? Has anyone noticed that no one has ever tried to talk to him about it without using the using the phrases "psycho", "fanatic" or "get lost"?
I think one of the biggest contributions the GNU project has made to Linux is libc - nearly ALL linux programs use it.
Funny really, libc5 was not (totally) GNU code, but libc6 is, so Stallman's GNU/Linux claim is stronger now than it used to be.
Patrick
This is well written, and goes a good job of avoiding the emotional knee-jerk reactions of some people. I do subscribe to the logic presented. I for one adhere to the adage that an OS can be one solitary program. This was taken from the OS "dinasaur book"
More importantly, the GNU/Linux business makes as much sense to say X/Linux. The point is to tolerate Stallman's activism until the press understands the significance of hir real contribution.
I still adhere to the definition of OS as outlined the in dinasaur book.
It is the program that creates an interface that abstracts the hardware.
This is the kernel. It provides an interface for the GNU tools.
Incidentally, If I use loadlin and just boot the kernel and nothing else, have I used GNU tools? I honestly don't know and wish to know.
--- more importantly --
If Richard doesn't get off his high horse, his ego will keep people from listening to him. Richard could learn a lesson or two from Linus in this regard. Linus' ego requires a gemscope to see it. Whereas, Stallman's ego can be seen with the naked eye if it were in orbit.
Seeing people enjoy his work and effort is reward enough for Linus, Stallman --even though he deserves the credit-- will not rest until his name is in neon and thus, will never get it.
This will effect the name more than any other factor.
What they found was no accident... Richard Stallman I think it is wonderful that Lignus wrote a kernel. But the guts of all GNU/Linux distributions out there today is GNU software. We would be nowhere without it.
If we're going to prepend names to Linux based on useful applications, why not call it Gnome/Linux and KDE/Linux? Or Netscape/Linux? Or StarOffice/Linux? Wait, let's list them all! It is now called GNU/Gnome/KDE/Netscape/StarOffice/Quake/Linux. Nice and pithy, huh?
Seriously, let's just keep the name as Linux, and not add two needless syllables (Gah-Noo) in order to massage RMS's already huge ego. The next thing you know, people will start lobbying to rename the Internet to Gore/Internet...
-GNU/Eric
As I understand it, the animal gnu (which looks like a yak) is pronounced "noo", while the RMS project (which doesn't look like a yak at all, but includes yak, a lexical analyzer) is pronounced "gah-noo".
If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone here will correct me.
-Eric
Unfortunately for your argument, most people can still use linux without Gnome or KDE or Netscape or StarOffice or Quake, etc... Go home now and delete all of the GNU utilities, and then try to use Linux.
Try using Linux without X-Windows, doable but a first class pain. Should we then call Linux X/Linux or X/GNU/Linux? There's a project going on to create perl scripts that could be used to replace all the command line executables. If it succeeds should we then rename Linux to Perl/Linux?
My problems with the GNU/Linux label are as follows:
1) Linux is not a GNU/FSF project. Linus created the kernel and should get full credit.
2) GNU/Linux is an unwieldy name, Linux is much shorter and pithier.
3) The GNU part of the name describes command line tools and not the actual operating system.
4) The name GNU/Linux is not future-proof because the GNU-written tools may eventually be replaced by others (like the Perl project).
I don't mind saying GNU/Linux because Debian is GNU/Linux, and that's what I use.
You can and should call it whatever you want. I will continue to call it Linux.
-GNU/Gore/Eric
Actually the GNU version is called bison. And the original (AT&T) version is spelled yacc (for 'yet another compiler compiler').
I stand corrected...
-GNU/ERIC (Eric Really Is Cool)
Great editorial, but I have a nit. The conclusion of the article could be paraphrased as "if you don't realize tht Stallman is an activist, you might think he's a 'raving, bitter, jealous person.'" In my experience being an activist in other areas of my life, I can tell you that often the most effective actvists are embittered raving people. At times, I have been most effective when, to some extent, I've been bitter and forceful.
The editorial goes on to attribute a lot of idealism to Stallman's goals. I don't think it's necessary or productive to debate his motivation. The idea that people do things for a single reason is usually overly simplistic anyway. The question is, Is he being effective? Frankly, in these circumstances, I think so. We're seeing a lot of press on this subject, and awareness of GNU and/or Linux are on the rise. Stallman deserves some credit for this (as well as many other things).
Even so, I still call it Linux. But I'm glad he's asking the question.
--Joe Decker
I'm a nature photographer.
> Are Linux folks really interested in free software?"
And I think the answer is "No!", sad as that may be. Despite all the emphasis on "Don't argue, just code," all the code in the world wouldn't amount to a hill of beans if it weren't for the tradition of free software. The idea and tradition of Free Software, and the GPL, are the reason people can work together openly like this, and use each other's code. It's the glue that holds the whole thing together, and yet people seem to be forgetting that, and attributing the things that have happened to great code, which is simply wrong.
Not to belittle the role that Linus & others have played, my impression is that most of these people are just that, coders, and that isn't enough. It's important to realize that what we're looking for isn't just good code -- we need a situation in which we *can* code, and code effectively. And for that, IMHO, we absolutely need people like RMS.
Gr. Enough rant, I guess.
though remember, gnu is pronounced "Guh-new" (Gnome being pronouncd "Guh-nome" in the same fashion), so it'd have to be "li-guh-new-ix"
Earn cash in your spare time! Blackmail your friends!
If your gonna get technical (moronic), I'm running vmlinuz, not linux...
Earn cash in your spare time! Blackmail your friends!
Well, linux was completely rewritten from scratch. AT&T and Thompson had about as much to do with li nux as the prohibition did root beer (heh, I like that). Though, linux is licensed under GNU, no? If it wasn't that "Guh-new-li-nuhks" sounds incredibly horid, I might actually be a proponent...
Free Beer, Free Speach... who cares? I want Free Sex.
Earn cash in your spare time! Blackmail your friends!
Linux is a sexy name. GNU/Linux is not...it's hard to pronounce, it's hard to write...it may not seem like a big deal but having an unsexy name has brought down projects before.
I agree GNU should get more attention but this isn't the way to do it IMHO.
Brady
BTW: Does this mean any project that uses GNU code will not only have to be released under the GPL but also have "GNU" on the front?
glibc.
The General Public License.
The Free Software Foundation.
Say what you will about Richard Stallman, but I would rather that he didn't end up irrelevant.
Mark Fassler
fassler at frii dot com
"Are Linux folks really interested in free software? Or are they interested only in Linux?"
Yes.
I'm very interested in free software (free speech). I'm also interested in free software (free beer). And I'm interested in Linux. My interest began as "Hey - these ACC Bookstore guys are selling a really cheap Unix. Unix would look real good on my resume. I have a spare PC."
Then, after a while, it morphed into "Wow! I can download all this cool stuff and I don't have to pay!" This is about when ACC morphed into Redhat 2.0.
Now, years later, I'm mainly interested in "This isn't Windows, halelujah!", combined with "the right to poke around your software and do with it whatever you want - how can software be built any other way?".
But the bottom line is these are _all_ motivating factors (and for a lot of others, as well). Back then I was a young geek, now I'm a professional PHB (sadly, my geeking is mostly on the side for fun), but I still have all the same motivations for using Linux.
I never did give a sweet damn what RMS wants to call it (it's Linux as far as I'm concerned, but hey - as I said, I'm just a PHB), but I'm glad he and the GNU Project are out there.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
> the GNU/Linux business makes as much sense to
/sbin/init. I think that says something about the relative importance of the GNU tools in the system.
> say X/Linux
Not really. Take away X, the system still boots. Take away the BSD-derived tools, the system still boots. Take away the GNU tools, the system won't get beyond
This is the same reason that it doesn't make too much sense to say that the GNU tools on a Solaris box make GNU/Solaris. Unless you rewrite all of the system scripts and some of the other utilities, you'll still need to keep the Solaris toolset around -- the system will still depend on them, not the GNU toolset.
DNA just wants to be free...
It's just a shame some of his attitudes are so objectionable and act as the beginning of religious flame-wars.
--
What do I mean by "operating environment" as distinct from the OS? Well, it's the set of stuff you need to remain sane - compilers, editors, LaTeX -- all this stuff comes on CDs from RedHat and Debian and Slackware and friends. If you take away any bit of this, the system carries on - it can just do less.
So what's in the OS? Stuff like mount, grep, libc, fsck, ls, bash, sed, et cetera. Remove one of these things, and who knows what will happen.
Traditionally, Unix vendors have deliniated the OS by sticking all the OTHER stuff in /usr/local, or not even selling it. Linux distributions have put the OE in /usr, not in /usr/lib, cause /usr/local doesn't mean "stuff that's OE, not OS", it means "stuff that didn't come from the vendor".
Now, no-one is ever going to dare claim that GNU wrote most of the OE you get in psychotically huge distros like Debian. What is arguable, though, is that they wrote the most important parts of the OS: libc, and the toys in /bin. They also made most of the rest of the stuff possible through gcc. They wrote the important parts of the OS, except the kernel.
If the name Linux were not entrenched as a term encompassing any or all of the kernel, the OS and the OE, then sure, you might be able to make a case for calling it GNU/Linux. There are two reasons you might want to do this: one, to give credit, and two, to emphasise what GNU and the FSF stand for.
However, the name Linux no longer means the kernel. When people want to talk about what vmlinux is, they say either "the Linux kernel" or "the kernel". They don't say Linux.
The name Linux, however, is, in the minds of non-techie people, the embodiment of everything the FSF stands for anyway, so there's no need to further emphasise the GNU aspect. It's already there, shouting to the rooftops.
The question of credit where it's due is the unfortunate one. The GNU project's contribution to the Linux OS is not going to be recognised in the name. This is a pity. But names are important and valueable, and the Linux name is too valuable to the community to screw it around now. The FSF will have to grin and bear it.
Besides, it's possible to replace most of the GNU stuff in the OS (gcc is part of the OE), with BSD tools - all of their stuff may eventually be replaced, so calling it GNU/Linux wouldn't be futureproof.
Ever called that Z28 a Delco/Z28? I didn't think so. Yet, without those Delco parts that GM puts in there, it won't run. In fact, those Delco parts are the foundation of what makes the car run. The name "Z28" is just that--a name.
Linux would not work without the GNU foundation. Like it or not, the community that uses Linux has named it "Linux", not "GNU/Linux". This decision did not come from Linus, but from the community (Linus himself claims to be a little embarrased that a facsimilie of his name was used to describe the OS). Besides, like "Z28", "Linux" is just a name. It is not an attempt to describe all that goes into it.
--Be human.
As a semi-physicist, I clearly see your point and agree with most of what you say. However, I would like to further comment about acronyms (your 3rd Law). And please note the distinction between an acronym and an abbreviation.
Your example of PC vs. Mac illustrates one concept. The abbreviation PC gives the illusion of simplicity (and cost?) because it has less letters than Mac. However, Mac is only one syllable, and in the end, much easier to say (and to use).:)
Take the name Common Business-Oriented Language. Eeeeww! Ah, but shorten it to COBOL and a whole bunch of suckers then use it. This is also true for Formula Translator; this monstrousity would never do. But shorten it to FORTRAN, and once again, a whole bunch of suckers then use it. (Note: 2 syllable acronyms) However, instead of stopping there, the folks up at Waterloo took it to a fatal level with their Waterloo FORTRAN: WATFOR. Yes indeed, WATFOR!? Not content with this, the Waterloo FORTRAN IV compiler comes out (WATFIV). Chaos ensues as users are confused (Wat5 is fortran 4).
I have no idea what I'm talking about except to say that names are important (no more that 2 syllables), and acronyms sometimes work.
As for me, my sinister, evil choice of a name is GPL/Linux.
This subject was brought up before. Boycotting (which I am NOT advocating) would be an incredibly large undertaking. People who are advocating this needs to think about it, it took the FSF (or the GNU Project) 15 years to where it is today when they decide to "boycott" proprietry UNIX. There are claims of just using *BSD's code to do the rewrite. Obviously these people have not taken a close look at *BSD code. IMO, I do NOT believe it is possible to replace GNU code without a total rewrite.
If you find any illogical mistakes in my staments, please correct me.
Thank You
Hold it right there.
No it is not.
It is a kernel.
UNIX(tm) is an operating system.
Repeat after me kids, S-Y-S-T-E-M.
Of which, the kernel is but a part.
However, the line is ``Linux is a Unix
clone...'', when it ought to be Linux is
a clone of the Unix kernel...''
Do you wish to stop this madness?
with something to the effect of ``Linux is a clone
of the Unix kernel; combined with the utilities
and compilers of the GNU project(http://www.gnu.org),
it forms a completely free operating system for
your computer.''
That is it. You do not need to call it
GNU/Linux, (RMS ought to have chosen a more
marketable name than `GNU'), but if, as this
editorial acknowledges, Linux would not
exist without the GNU project, then why is it
not acknowledged in the answer to the question
``What is Linux''?
This is not a small matter.
Web sites such as linux.org and li.org quote
these lines from the kernel README essentially
verbatim; so people looking for information about
Linux(like clueless CNN reporters) will come away
with half the story, and since reporters are only
capable of telling half of any story to begin with...
No, it does not matter what other people think.
What does matter is the truth.
Which is, as the editorial notes, Linux would
not exist without the work of Richard Stallman
and the GNU project.
So, put it in writing.
In the kernel README, where it belongs.
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
Let us not forget that the FSF (or at least the Debian community, if not the FSF) is still working on the HURD -- the next-generation OS kernel.
GNU kernel + GNU utilities = GNU/Hurd
You can't argue that one very much.
Unfortunately for your argument, most people can still use linux without Gnome or KDE or Netscape or StarOffice or Quake, etc... Go home now and delete all of the GNU utilities, and then try to use Linux.
The whole argument of the BSD/Linux folks was based on strict percentages of contributed code. I think that we should rather put emphasis on _usefulness_. I (unfortunately) had to use Win NT for some work not too long ago. I found that I couldn't even survive without installing most of the GNU utilities. It took most of the pain out of Windows.
I don't mind saying GNU/Linux because Debian is GNU/Linux, and that's what I use.
The practice enabled by free software is collectivism and cooperation. That is its most important feature.
At one level, yes, it doesn't matter what any software is called, apart from the basic and natural and necessary encouragement to authors and the community provided by preserving the acknowledgement to whoever gave the original inspiration. That is, this is an application of the social process invoked when naming comets, stars, and species.
At another, more important level, the retention of the GNU prefix reminds us and all users of the reason why this was all started and works, and counteracts the all-too-common tendency, IMO, for "GNU" and "free software" to deteriorate into mere urban legends harnessed for the purpose of promotion. Remember, part of our ethos is that proper appreciation of software and the genius of its developers demands users be far more sophisticated about it than MS, IBM, or other vendors pretend they can be. IOW, free software doesn't suck like a "touchy, feelie" hyped GUI does and so it doesn't lie to the user.
There's no reason why people shouldn't make a proper living developing software under the GPL. But we should never sell our souls to do so, whether that entails forgetting the principles that GNU was founded to promote or the basic commitment to honesty and shirking of hype which characterizes the rest of the software industry.
Jan Theodore Galkowski, (Oo) http://www.smalltalkidiom.net/ MySQL,PHP,ETL,SQL,MinGW C, and plucking the Web
He's not thinking of the cause, he's thinking of himself.
The fact is, Linus got the attention and he didn't - and that bugs him to no end. But I think his pride should take a backseat to what's really important. And what's really important is the advancement of truly free software in the face of tremendous adversity.
Being recognized isn't important. Doing something worth being recognized for is.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
Is it a long O or a short O? ;-)
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
First, I remember an article on /. that advocated the BSD thing. I didn't think anyone really took it seriously and, as far as I know, no one has bothered to actually do any of that. What a waste of time it would be. Anyone that wasted years doing that would be, IMO, far more irrational than Stallman at his worst. I mean, when RMS rewrote everything, it was to make it Free and Better. This BSD thing would be 5 years of effort just so you could spit in RMS's face. And I don't think he'd even care.
/usr/bin or /bin or /usr/local/bin or whatever. This is a worthy goal in and of itself, in that it will make perl code more portable. Tcl, for example, already does this.
Second, egcs stands for Experimental GNU Compiler System, so you'll have to do better than that to purge GNU.
Third, the Perl thing has nothing to do with the GNU/Linux debate. The motivation is to stop relying on system commands in perl scripts, so you don't have to worry if something is in
Finally, even if you could purge your system of all GNU tools, you'd still owe everything you have to GNU for making it possible in the first place.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
I don't think it's an "ego" thing. RMS is an idealist, and his major ideal is freedom. He wants people to call it GNU/Linux because he wants people to be thinking about Freedom. He hasn't proposed RMS/Linux. It's important not because he wants the world to think he's a great guy but because he wants the world to *believe* in Free software.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
RMS has not once "forced" anyone to call it GNU/Linux. He may scream, shout, yell, and refuse to talk to you if you don't, but those are all freedoms themselves.
The day RMS hires a lawyer and starts to impose his will with some type of power will be the day he is a hypocrite. Until then, he's free to act as he likes.
The real disservice going on here is the notion that telling someone your opinion is in some way related to force.
You are free to put things like "Please don't use this software to do things I don't like" and it could still be free software. But if it says "This license forbids you to do the things I don't like," it is no longer free.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Gnu is an acronym for Gnu's Not Unix, but this is a joke in more ways than one, because GNU most certainly IS Unix,. Because of trademark concerns ("Unix" is trademarked by AT&T) they simply could not claim that it was Unix, and so, just to be extra safe, they claimed that it wasn't.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
> By withholding a commodity (money, sex, opinions...) to induce a certain response, you have forced compliance.
Whoa! Hold on... You're saying that if I pay someone for a candy bar, that I am "forcing" them to give me the candy bar???
So we don't have a "volunteer" army because we "pay" the soldiers.
The RMS definition of "freedom" means being able to do stuff without any attempt to stop you with the force of law or the barrel of a gun. Most people would agree that "freedom" means being able to advocate whatever you want so long as you do not impose your will with a lawyer or a gun.
You can't say RMS is a hypocrite because he he says he supports "freedom" but violates YOUR definition of "freedom" and "force".
If you really wanna play that game, then you are also a hypocrite. After all, I read your opinion and I had to think about it (ie I was FORCED to think about it).
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
I'm about to release some software in the next few months and I had originally considered GPLing it. Now I'm not so sure.
W indowsAndIsFreelyDistributable/Linux
I would hate to have it become really popular and then have someone start dictating what its name should be. It's just silly and definitely not what I would consider to be totally free. Besides, just because you tack one thing to something else doesn't necessarily mean that they are magically going to share popularity or acheive codependent mindshare. It's just as likely that the unwashed masses would simply become indifferent to the GNU abbreviation.
Names aren't supposed to describe everything that's inside something. It's not even supposed to necessarily describe all of the phylosophical intents of something. Otherwise, our names would be very strange: DNA/Paul, Procreate/Paul, or somesuch.
The point is that a name is an identifier and as such only needs to be unique. Linux is just as good a name as any other as long as there isn't something else called Linux. Giving one thing too many different identifiers will only dilute understanding.
Really, to properly represent the "cry for understanding" how many qualifiers should we include?
Linus'sUnixlikeKernelWithGNUandBSDpiecesCanRunX
Edu. sig-line: Choose rhymes with lose. Chose rhymes with goes. Loose rhymes with goose.
Comparing? THEN use THAN.
Yeah, I understand that. However, the same still holds true that the distros can call themselves whatever they want. RMS can call his distro whatever he wants to call it.
I personally think he's wrong in believing that this course will get him anything but grief. I think he's marketing up the wrong tree, so to speak. The people that use and support GNU tools already know what they are and what they stand for.
re: What Linux is. The name "Linux" is exactly whatever the majority believes it to be. It's the unfortunate thing about names and identifiers. Currently, when someone says Linux I would guess most people think of a full distro.
Thanks for the counterpoint though,
-Paul (Really wish I could downgrade this post... not sure it deserves a two and I'd rather not have it downgraded for me.)
Edu. sig-line: Choose rhymes with lose. Chose rhymes with goes. Loose rhymes with goose.
Comparing? THEN use THAN.
Heh. Sort of.
/. already considered "Linux" to be the whole ball of wax long before the unwashed masses were involved. Besides, the unwashed masses are just as likely to call it "Redhat" as they are to call it "Linux" and I'm sure we would correct them. :)
/. community will just be dragged kicking and screaming. I, for one, will be screaming too.
I think it's because the majority of
re: Hacker. So, it isn't really hypocrisy, but the definition of "hacker" is probably changing. If so, the
Edu. sig-line: Choose rhymes with lose. Chose rhymes with goes. Loose rhymes with goose.
Comparing? THEN use THAN.
Given recent events, I'm wondering if Linux is renamed, could it end up being called Gore/Linux? Of course, the media will abbreviate it and it will end up being called Gorenux. Then, as a final indignity, GNU will come to be known as Gore's Not Unix. I think that it might be best to leave well enough alone. ;^)
I think this editorial points out something really important: what Stallman is fighting for in particular may be foolish (renaming Linux to GNU/Linux), but the general problem that brought this about (Linux getting lots of recognition, and other free software getting little) is very real. As someone who uses and develops free software, but doesn't use Linux, I constantly find myself asking, Are Linux folks really interested in free software? Or are they interested only in Linux?
It will benefit a lot more people than just Stallman if the Linux community somehow can come forward with a plan to make sure that a little of the light shining on them illuminates others in the free software community. How is the Linux community going to do this?
cjs
The world's most portable OS: http://www.netbsd.org.
I think you have read wrong. Linus said that he originally called it linux as a play on his name and that he never intended for that to be the actual name. He came up w/ freax(or somethink like that, a combination of free + freak + unix) but the owner of the ftp site where he was uploading the sources didn't like the name and just left linux as the name. It just stuck after that.
-matt
I still adhere to the definition of OS as outlined the in dinasaur book.
It is the program that creates an interface that abstracts the hardware.
This is the kernel. It provides an interface for the GNU tools.
Well, WIN.COM is the Windows kernel. Does that mean that Windows should be called WIN.COM, because Windows is a collection of tools, not the kernel itself? The tools, libraries, etc. are more important than the kernel itself--a program written for GNU should behave the same regardless of your kernel, be it Linux or HURD (or is it spelled Hurd?). And a program written for Windows (the environment, not the kernel) should behave the same regardless of your kernel--be it WIN.COM or a GNU kernel (with WINE)--because the API matters, not the kernel.
Gergo
I hate to sound like an RMS-phobe. He had some terrific ideas and over time those ideas were used to build up an important software library -- the GNU utilities.
But the way I see it, the major achievement of the FSF until the 90s was a) some standardization of these utilities, and b) making them available on non-Unix platforms. Until Linus came along, there was (practically) no free Unix!
Linus has done more for the cause of "free software" by far than RMS. I don't know exactly why he was able to work the magic that RMS et alii could not, and in far less time build up a complete corporate-ready operating system that rivals the market leaders for reliability and features, whereas after years of obscure toil the FSF managed to throw together free versions of extant utility software -- in many cases, the kind of thing that students do as programming exercises. Not nearly as impressive as it could be, or should have been. RMS had some good ideas, but Linus made them work, and far exceeded the goals and grasp of the FSF.
I view this attempt to paste the GNU label on Linux as a latter-day release of a video with the latest Oscar winner billed as the star, when they were actually a bit player (e.g. starring GWYNETH PALTROW as Cab Passenger #3).
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
Renitpicking: the main gimp page www.gimp.org, disagrees with you on the acronym expansion of gimp. Check it out. From the main page on www.gimp.org:
What is the GIMP
The GIMP is the GNU Image Manipulation Program. It is a freely distributed piece of software suitable for such tasks as photo retouching, image composition and image authoring....
Just a minor detail. Otherwise I think that we are in agreement.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
The article was really good, I think that it is probably the best article I've seen written ont he subject.
Now, I've been thinking about something for a bit, what do you guys think:
GNU stands for GNU's not UNIX - it's an attempt at an operating system that's UNIX-like, but completely Free Software/Open Source. To foster this, RMS came up with the GPL and LGPL.
Now, many people point out that the percentage of GNU software in a normal Linux dist. is around 10% by weight (volume?). I.e. 10% of the bytes on a normal Linux dist are taken up by programs written by the FSF.
The question then arises is the only GNU software software that is written by the FSF? I wonder if it isn't. Just look at names. GNOME stands for "GNU Network Object Model Environment". Clearly the gnome people want GNOME to be part of the GNU project, even if they didn't assign copyright over to the FSF. So is the GIMP. After all, GIMP stands for "GNU Image Manipulation Program". And let's not forget the "GNU Image Manipulation Tool Kit" (Gtk).
And there's an even bigger group of software that may be part of the GNU project that isn't owned or written by the FSF - GPL'd software. The justification is this: the GNU project is an effort to create a completely Free operating system. What can releasing a program under the GPL mean but that you want it to be a part of a Free operating system (notice the cap in Free as opposed to free). The GPL has been acknowledged to be "viral" in nature (a horrible term but it will do for the moment). It is designed to keep a piece of software permanently Free, and to spread Free software if possible. So the goal of both is Free software.
Even if not entirely consciously, isn't every piece of GPL'd and LGPL'd software inherently a part of the GNU operating system? Sort of the theory that two people who have the same goals are working together, even if they've never met?
Is there anyone who's written GPL'd code who doesn't want GNU to be a reality, even if they don't believe that it will be a reality? Is there anyone who wouldn't want their GPL'd and LGPL'd code to be a part of GNU, if it became a reality?
So if this is true, and I'm not saying that it necessarily is, calling most Linux dists GNU/Linux makes some sense. After all, Linux is GPL'd. And I suspect that you'd find a pretty large portion of all the [software|bytes|any metric you want] to be from GPL'd software.
Of course, if this is true, it makes more sense to call a Linux system a GNU system, not a GNU/Linux system. That's an interesting implication.
On the issue of all the code under the bsd or x/mit license, that's a weird issue. They are working towards similar goals by releasing their source under their license, but on the other hand they've all but made their code public domain. calling the system a GNU/BSD system would satisfy almost everything but giving credit to X. GNU/X/BSD just won't work lingually.
Of course, the name might not be the right place to give credit so much as to indicate what the thing actually is. If that is the case, than GNU would probably be the most descriptive. Especially as most Linux systems are Sys V based rather than BSD in layout, regardless of what code is used.
I think that in the end, it's really a matter of what the distribution in question is about. RedHat should call their dist RedHat Linux, or RedHat GNU/Linux, or RedHat GNU, or RedHat RealOS, or anything that they damn well please. Suse, pacific Hi Tech, Stampede, Debbian, etc. can do the same. So if Debian calls their dist Debian GNU/Linux, than that's the right name for their dist.
As far as what is the right name for a system that contains largely GPL'd apps with some BSD licensed code, x/mit licensed code, public domain code, etc. is a bit up in the air. Calling a theoretical dist something like what I just described a Linux system seems an even worse name than GNU or BSD, Linux is just the kernel. But then again language is fluid and it now means the whole thing. If Linux eventually comes to mean nearly the same thing as GNU, then it doesn't really matter much from the GNU point of view. The X people feel fine about their work being subsumed into anyone else's (see their license) as do the BSD people (see their license), so GNU, GNU/Linux, or Linux seem the best candidates.
Or then again, we could go with something completely different and just call it Fred. Or maybe Foo. That's more in line with the hacker culture.
Note: I still don't plan to call my system GNU/Linux. I plan to call it Linux, and explain to everyone that I meet the idea of Free Software/Open Source, and write as many GPL'd apps as I can.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
Linux: 2,279,937
GNU: 582,413
It's not even 4:1.
As someone who has been a big fan of RMS's free software products since well before Linus started his train rolling (I think 1988 counts as well before), I do think RMS/FSF deserve tons of credit for getting us where we are today.
I do agree that the OS (Kernel + essential FS and utils) should be called Linux. I do NOT agree that fully packaged distros should automatically be called Linux. E.g., what I have at home I call Red Hat, a product that consists of Linux plus a bunch of applications and cool added value utils.
Given: RMS wants GNU to get some mindshare by putting it in the name.
:-)
Given: Most of us think compound names are pretty dorky.
Therefore: We call it Lignux. See, we can even pronounce it almost the same, just pretend the 'n' has a tilde over it. Like "Lin-yucks". And it'll make the francophones happy, too!
Lignux it is. Everyone's happy. Everyone get back to work.
Make of it what you will. I think it supports my position that the ratio is about 4:1.
For heavens sake, I'm getting a little bit fed up with this "GNU/Linux" vs "Linux" thing... I mean, if you think about it, doesn't it seem a little silly to be arguing amongst ourselves over such things as what to NAME an OS?? No wonder some anti-OSS folks like Bill Gates point out that the OSS community becomes more and more fractured whenever issues like money or author credits are involved.
Now admittedly, RMS has brought more attention to GNU by taking his line with "GNU/Linux," but I must agree with KT on this; is it really the sort of attention that GNU deserves?? Don't get me wrong, I do think GNU deserves some credit, but I don't think attention just for the sake of attention is what RMS would ultimately want. If attention is to be given to something, it must be for a reason. In the case of Linux, it does have such a reason: its technical merits, and the fact that it is OSS.
I mean, really--the press would not be talking so much about Linux today if it weren't for the fact that Linux is an outstanding piece of software that is distributed freely. Anyone can distribute a program for free, but when you have an entire operating system, such as "Linux" (or "GNU/Linux") distributed in such a manner, this is what really gets attention... And for this reason: people have always assumed in the past that something like an operating system could only be undertaken by dedicated professionals who made their living by selling highly secretive intellectual property, like Microsoft. And then, out of the blue, along comes "Linux," proving for the first time what seemed before to be impossible. This is what gets attention. But the GNU project, as it stood, would not have gained attention on its own, and for this reason: it was not a complete, working system--it was rather in the state that Mozilla is in right now, if you don't mind... It was Linux that finally produced a working operating system that could prove to the world that such a thing as a free OS was in fact possible... And now look at it: the unthinkable is happening... A free OS, to compete with the world's most powerful multi-billion dollar corporation?? This would have been unthinkable in the past, not because of GNU, but because of Linux.
But GNU still does get attention as a result, because as KT said, one cannot learn about the history of Linux without discovering GNU and what it stands for.
And incidently, if we REALLY wanted to give credit to all who made this complete OS possible in Stallman-style, it would then be something like:
GNU/Linus Torvalds/Alan Cox/Cygnus Solutions/MIT X-Windows/The Open Group/BSD/David S. Miller/University of Washignton/I'm sorry about the people I forgot/Linux
Now doesn't that seem a little absurd?? So my point is, let's stop these massive flame wars about how to name an OS, and unite in the common cause of promoting what the OS really stands for.
My numbers on Altavista:
+"linux" : 2,283,417
+"GNU/linux" : 18032
Comes to about 126 to 1
He'll get his credit. People aren't just going to forget that the FSF contributed a bunch of code, so do we really have to complicate the name?
Vidi, Vici, Veni
the next-generation OS kernel.
If you mean "next generation" as in "ground breaking" or "innovative" then I'm curious what about it you consider next generation.
Or do you simply mean "comes later chronologically"?
From the American Heritage Dictionary on my desk--
force v. 1. To compel to perform an action
And RMS isn't forcing reporters to call it GNU/Linux? He's not beating anyone with a truncheon or passing stupid laws, but he's certainly compelling people to use his term. Like you said yourself, it's fine and dandy to say "Please use the term GNU/Linux," but to say "Use the term GNU/Linux or I won't talk to you" is no way to advocate freedom.
And before you complain that I'm arguing semantics, keep in mind that the whole issue is about semantics.
I never said RMS was depriving anyone of their rights. I only argued that he was, indeed, compelling people to use his term, and this is a misguided way for someone to act who is a freedom advocate.
If you refuse to participate in an interview until a reporter says "Gardening for Geeks" instead of "Dynamite for Dudes," then, if the reporter complies, you are forcing him/her to do so. By withholding a commodity (money, sex, opinions...) to induce a certain response, you have forced compliance.
If you're looking for a more value-neutral word, let's just call it persuasion.
As far as RMS's tactics are concerned, a musician can rightfully change his name to an unpronouncable symbol if he likes, and every DJ in the world can call him The Artist Formerly Known As Prince, but when I go to the music store I'll still ask for the new Prince album.
And when I mention the GNU System on a Linux kernel, I'll still call it Linux.
Whoa! Hold on... You're saying that if I pay someone for a candy bar, that I am "forcing" them to give me the candy bar???
And you're saying that if my candy store charges African Americans 2000% more than everyone else, I'm not forcing them to buy candy elsewhere (or do without)?
When faced with two options, are you not "forced" to make a choice?
The RMS definition of "freedom" means being able to do stuff without any attempt to stop you with the force of law or the barrel of a gun. Most people would agree that "freedom" means being able to advocate whatever you want so long as you do not impose your will with a lawyer or a gun.
I don't imagine you or RMS would say I should have the freedom to secretly video tape women in their own bathrooms, but I would certainly not be forcing them, by any definition, to do anything. If you start saying, "Well, she has the freedom to not be taped while showering," then you're encroaching on my freedom to tape her.
Obviously, there are limits to the freedom most people would propose we all have. Privacy is one such limit that many slashdotters hold dear. The GPL places limits on your freedom as a programmer as well.
You can't say RMS is a hypocrite because he he says he supports "freedom" but violates YOUR definition of "freedom" and "force".
You're reading too much into my comments. I don't think he's violating his definition or my definition of freedom, and nothing can "violate" my definition of force. I simply think he's being a poor spokesperson. It would behoove RMS, the first time an interviewer says "Linux," to reply that he prefers the term GNU/Linux--and here are a few reasons why I think this is important, thank you very much, etc, etc.
If you want a concession from me, then fine. RMS is not by law or physical force making anyone say "GNU/Linux." He is, however, forcing people to do so by the first definition of the verb "force" in the dictionary closest to my computer.
I don't think we actually disagree. I believe it's just a matter of one person saying, "You'll burn in hell if you don't believe in God," and another replying, "Not if there is no God."
This argument is ridiculous. I don't use Linux out of any political or moral obligations, I use it because it works... Call it "Spam" for all i care...
Have you been on #linux lately on EFNet? I hadn't for a year. Mentioning free-software or GNU/Linux is likely to get you banned from this "community help" channel.
Flaming on this topic simply isn't allowed, rightly or wrongly, and will be shut-off. They choose to make it a non-issue by muffling others.
And so it goes...
-AP
One poster asked why this wasn't an issue two years ago. That answer is simple: Open Source.
Open Source is not compatible with the FSF's goals. OSS is about a development model. Freedom is literally a side benefit. The FSF is striving to completely eliminate proprietary software and the copyright laws that are used to protect it.
When Eric Raymond began saying that "Free Software" needs a better name, Stallman saw the real possibility that the FSF's ideas would be pushed to the background--and they have been.
"Open Source" is and always has been a bad idea. It's Free software. That's the goal, and the only way to get there is for companies to recognize that to obtain the benefits you have to change the business model. Open Source doesn't do that.
Money can be made with free software. It's the best model for users and the best model for developers. Only the MBA's and marketers are being hurt by this model, and I say good riddance.
Who cares if Linux is on every desktop in the world if all we can run on it are proprietary programs? I don't want to sell Open Source to companies. I want Free software, companies or not.
Seriously, there are people talking about doing this, either intentionally, or as a side effect of another project.
One group is working on replacing the standard GNU tools with BSD equivalents (and using egcs instead of gcc, which is, IMHO, quite a stretch). I think this one is a reaction the GNU/Linux naming.
A group of Perl worshipers are rewriting the Unix command set in Perl. Their system would ultimately be at least mostly FSF-free.
I expect someone will follow up this with links to the projects I mentioned (which I probably read about here, anyway).
Why not just call it "Free Linux"? This isn't as cludgey (sp?) as GNU/Linux, and it still gives credit to the FSF, and to the GPL, Linux's allmighty License.
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security
Hi, I'm Dillon, and if you call me Harry, I will correct you. If you continue to call me Harry, I will feel disrespected me and I will tell you off. If you still insist on calling me Harry, I won't talk to you at all and will leave. Am I forcing you to call me Dillon? If you respond that my name is really Dillon and it would be silly to call me otherwise, I would disagree. "Dillon" is just a handle.
Suppose I wrote a book, "Gardening for Geeks", and went on TV to promote it. If the interviewer called my book "Dynamite for Dudes", I would correct her before answering questions; if she continued, I would let her know that if she didn't learn the name of the book very quickly I would no longer answer her questions, and if she persisted, I would walk off the set.
Suppose I'm interviewed about a charity project I'm involved in, "Blankets for Bums", and the interviewer keeps calling it "Booze for Bums". I would become upset rather quickly and ultimately refuse to be interviewed.
I am compelling no one in these hypothetical situations, though my behavior would be very analogous to RMS's. It's simply a fact that if you want to talk to someone, you should refrain from using language they object to. It's called freedom of association - I don't have to associate with you if I don't want to, and if you engage in behavior that makes me not want to talk to you or be around you, I am free to ignore you or leave.
The majority of systems in the world don't have a C/C++ compiler
Yup. Removing a compiler from a system is an important part of securing it. I would not have a compiler on any system that was not used for decelopment work.
That was not the point of my post nor was it the point of the post I replied to. The point of my post was that RMS is denyine no one the right to say what they like and is not being hypocritical, as he is depriving no one of their freedoms.
RMS unreasonable? I never argued against that, because I don't think that any reasonable person can.
You addressed two examples and not the third...why? The third one dealt with a (hypothetical) project in which I was involved. RMS is involved in Linux (excuse me, GNUlix - they're like deer licks, only you use them for hunting water buffalo).
If I say "GNOT project", he has a right to object. If I say "Linux", he does not
He has a right to object to anything he wants to, which is not the same thing as saying that it's reasonable for him to do so.
Don't confuse your rights with what is reasonable. Most efforts to deprive people of their rights are very reasonable. The whole notion of rights is to permit us to do that which others believe to be unreasonable.
If we start calling linux gnu/linux then won't we also have to call freebsd gnu/freebsd? this is getting pretty egotistical of rms.
Linux should only be called GNU/Linux if the FSF created Linux. gcc, gtk, etc. were created by the FSF, but Linux wasn't. Linus Torvalds created Linux, and he didn't create Linux for the FSF. You never hear about Perl being called GNU/Perl, gperl, or GPerl, because Perl was not created by the FSF. So the same should be true with Linux.
DES Khaddafi KGB genetic jihad Uzi Rule Psix Qaddafi cryptographic Peking Mossad Legion of Doom Albanian Serbian Saddam
Call it whatever you want to call it, GNU does stand for GNU's NOT UNIX, but the reverse is true Linux is GNU, released under the GPL - as well as most of the software.
See subject.
-- Alastair
if I'm wrong, I'm sure someone here will correct me
Well, if you insist...
but includes yak, a lexical analyzer
Actually the GNU version is called bison. And the original (AT&T) version is spelled yacc (for 'yet another compiler compiler').
-- Alastair
There's no reason why it [Emacs] couldn't be your login shell.
Indeed. And it will work (with XEmacs anyway) regardless of whether you login on a text console or through xdm. At least it did the last time I regression tested it.
"Who you are speaks so loudly that I can not hear what you are saying."
Well I thought it was originally call LiNUX and the whole point of LiNUX was based on GNU when it first started.. But Linus named it LiNUX and there for it should stay named LiNUX, but w/ the distro name in front it, ie Redhat LiNUX. Until someone comes up with a distro called GNU...
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
It thought it was said like "New" not "Ga Nu"...
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
Well the makers do call it GNU HURD.. So there shouldn't be any mess over that.. People will call it HURD for short..
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
FUN!.. Even thou I have never played w/ them, or read up on them much, they sound as evil as VI..
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
Everything read about it, it seems to be more of a scientific platform.. Or was that Grasshopper?
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
That's why people call it in this syntax " linux"
Or you can use the syntax "" for the more knowlagable folks!
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
arrggg.. stupid html forms!!!
it's syntax: "Distro Name" + Linux
and: "Distro Name"
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
Li of Linux stands for 'LIKE' from the history I have read.
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
Almost sounds like 'Lick Nuts'.....
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
Freax OS.. The GNU OS for computer freaks!
Being that Freax is the original kernal name!
Move over linux, here come the Freax...
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
GuLi?
Gnux?
LIU?
GLUX?
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
I completely agree with RMS, this has gotten out of hand. When we no longer appreciate the hard work he's done, and refuse to rename the operating system and further confuse the press and newbies, we are doing the FSF a disservice.
I for one refer to my computer in order of the programs that I use most often. I call my OS KDE/GCC/VI/Apache/Gimp/Blender/StarOffice/DF. Notice that I do not use the term "Linux" in there, because how many times have I invoked linux from the command line? Never.
And I can't understand why this wasn't an issue for RMS two years ago... It has been repeatedly stated that for him it is not a popularity contest, but it somehow seems that he wants his due in the recent popularity hand out of the press. I for one cannot help but think that his recent behaviour is either a deliberate attempt to undermine mainstream acceptance of Linux, or the lunacy of an ego run amok.
And, I would like to see that the other contributors to PERL get their due. Whenever I put the directive "-Wall/Christiansen strict" in a make file, GCC gives me an error. Down with the facist reign of Larry Wall and his simple minions. I will not rest until the following name changes have been made:
Tom/PERL
Raster/RedHat
E/Gnome
Qt/KDE
Gates/Samba
GNU/Linux
And Lib/Everything
Also I suggest that any program written in C be prefaced with "Brian", because without him you wouldn't even have a language to program in.
For my part, I learned to program from a book by Ivor Horton, so I will call all of my packages Ivor/Brian/Lib/iostream.h/XXX.
I thank you and good night.
~hamnrye
Well since GNU only makes up 10-15% of the Linux code I think it should only get one character in the name. G/Linux. and since the G is silent in GNU we can still just call it Linux. There, everyone is happy :)
kmj
kmj
The only reason I keep my ms-dos partition is so I can mount it like the b*tch it is.
The issue has been brought up a number of times that RMS should start his own dist. if he want's to rename it. Is that a right we give to the dist. providers? Do we want to? I don't think the community would be so cavalier about this idea if Redhat, SuSE, Debian or Caldera decided to start calling their dist something else. If "Redhat Linux" became "Redhat OS" people would be blowing gaskets. Caldera has every right to call theirs OpenUNIX instead of OpenLinux, they don't even need to mention "Linux" anywhere. How would that go over? To suggest that RMS start a dist to call it "GNU/Linux" isn't the solution, that may just be the symptom of a future problem.
The other option I have heard a few times is the "Boycott GNU" option. I support this simply because I'd like to see another compiler written for the sake of competition... In reality these efforts are very far from being useful. Subing in the "Experimental GNU compiler system" for the "GNU C Compiler" isn't quite boycotting GNU. If these people are serious, I support their efforts just so that there will be more competition but I haven't heard anything that makes me believe that they understand how large an undertaking it is. FWIW, Stallman is a brilliant hacker and has had a lot of very very sharp people working with him and the GNU project has taken a long time to get to where it is.
What I think this really represents is a change in the community. Free Software isn't a very popular thing and it never has been. There has been a small core of devoted free software people and an increasing user base. GNU/Linux or Linux has long ago reached a critical mass where the number of free software people are out numbered by the users. I think it happened around the time Netscape was ported, it was such a killer app that so many people longed for that once it was ported a lot of people could use Linux or GNU/Linux without needing something else. As soon as the needs are taken care of the community loses a bond that it once had because they aren't all waiting for that magic app to be written. This is exemplified through the KDE vs. GNOME debates, some people just don't have the ideological concern about whether or not QT is free, it works and they have it and that is all they care about. (I think that is also why the debate is so frustrating, people are debating on entirely different levels about entirely different matters.)
Linux has lost its virinity. It's useful to people and businesses now, regardless of what they think about free software, open source software engineering, or community. The majority of the people on linux don't care about free software. Now RMS may seem a little arrogant and he may even be arrogant about wanting to change the name to GNU/Linux but it might be the better thing to do for free software. Free software is bigger than Linux (GNU/Linux) Linux needs free software but free software does not need linux (but it's arguably the best kernel going right now)
How much of our soul are we as a community willing to sell? You can play games on linux, it has 3D acceleration, you can buy and use integrated office suite applications, it has sophisticated GUIs, it's in the media with good hype, big businesses and software companies are paying attention to it and porting software to it. Should it become the next windows or should it be different this time? Some people already see Redhat as the next MS, take out the free software and they might as well be. Our community needs to focus more on the freedom to keep linux from becoming what we all hate. If it's not about freedom then what is the difference between Linux and BSD? (most users aren't technical enough to truely appriciate the real differences other than the license) Or Linux and Apple Darwin? Or Linux and the Solaris with the Sun Community License?
This is my signature. There are many signatures like it but this one is mine..
I just don't get it. The whole idea of GNU/Linux escapes me. I thought Linux was developed to fill in until GNU/Hurd was developed. So you have Linux and you don't have GNU/Hurd. Why is that so hard?
I can't seem to find the GNU distribution anyway so I'm just going to continue to use RedHat and call it Bob.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
No; IIRC it was started by two people called Debra and Ian, hence the name.
There's no reason why it couldn't be your login shell. Log in, do ^X!startx and watch your window manager and a bunch of xterms pop up, with an Emacs in each one! ("Stephen, you are twisted" - everyone else on Slashdot)
Your comment goes straight to the main point : all of the hard work of the community is bound to the same direction, writing and using a free (freedom+gratis) computing environment, for the benefits of freedom, quality and equality. Actually, the GPL is the main cement between these efforts.
Are we building GNU ? Well, looks like. Should we use the name GNU/Linux ? Well, too late, the name Linux has already been widely accepted, but we shouldn't forget the overall direction shown years ago by visonnary people like RMS and the FSF.
Whatever you call it, Free Sofware is destined to let us enter a better computing world. Think of the countries of the Third World, there is no better way than Free Software to get them to live in the same world as ours, as far as computing means are concerned.
This is what really matters, the name flamewar is peripheral white noise that should not take us out of the innovative road we are walking on.
Unite !
gdon
The Linux vs. GNU/Linux naming debate is much more than an a disagreement over names. Rather, it strikes at the heart of what we hope to defend by advocating software that is "free".
Essentially, if I modify your source or use portions of it in another project, must I give credit to you by way of incorporating your name (or some other entity) with the name of my program? This is essentially what Richard Stallman is advocating with the GNU/Linux brand. I doubt that Mr. Stallman would advocate this across the board (ie for all free software). Doing so would set a dangerous precedent. In this day and age, where free software is in the limelight and more and more developers are using free software, requiring a particular naming convention across the board would not be good.
To give weight to my argument, I look toward the GNU General Public License and Copyleft to find anything regarding naming conventions for modified or incorporated code. I find none. On the other hand, however, I find that ample latitude is given to individuals and organizations to modify and re-use free software. The only stipulation that is placed on such code is that it must remain under the GPL (which, in itself doesn't cover naming conventions).
So, is it time to update the GPL (which was last modified in June 1991) or time to decide that the GPL doesn't cover naming conventions (thereby dropping the GNU/Linux debate)?
Pronounce it "glen-ucks" or (respecting the Finnish pronunciation) "glean-ooks"?
:)
Hmmm... Add X and you have X/Glinux.
Throw in some BSD and you have BSD X/Glinux -- still pretty pronouncable.
Hmmm... "Red Hat Glinux" -- not bad.
Oops, time for my medication. Sorry.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
Is THAT why Microsoft did that? Ya know, I always wondered...
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
This brings up several interesting points:
egcs is owned by the FSF. It is definitely GNU. So they'd have to use some other compiler.
It's the same people who want to make a BSD/Linux as want to implement unix in Perl.
By making BSD/Linux, there becomes even more reason to say GNU/Linux to distinguish the two.
The thoughts brought up by the name Linux are very different than the thoughts brought up by the name GNU. Very similar to the differing philosophies of Open Source (tm) and Free Software. Open Source (tm)'s benefits are PR and quality. Free Software's benefit is freedom. Calling the OS 'Linux' is a cry for popularity. Calling the OS 'GNU/Linux' is a cry for understanding.
Yes, the name 'GNU/Linux' is a bit unwieldy, bit I'd rather have my words a bit more difficult to say than not mean my intentions.
The G isn't silent in GNU. And since Linux only makes less than 1% of a distribution, obviously, calling it GNU. with the period being part of the L in 'Linux' is much more reasonable.
Um, FSF isn't just claiming to own the code; they actually DO own it. Just because most of the development isn't done by people paid by the FSF doesn't mean much - a lot of the GCC 2.7 developers work on egcs.
I suppose you think all of GCC development prior to egcs was the FSF fucking it up?
You complain about GCC 2.8 being buggy when egcs is nearly by definition buggy and experimental?
I'm not certain about all the reasons behind removing glibc 2.1, but the developers would certainly know what is capable of compiling it before they release it.
You don't understand. Linux is a kernel. RMS does *not* want to rename Linux. He considers it the authors' right to call it whatever they want.
GNU is an idea, an operating system, a collection of libraries and utilities. He wants to call the combination of GNU with Linux "GNU/Linux".
Er, I'm not sure if you're joking or if you're Lewis Mettler in disguise.
I think you're mistaken if you think that calling it "GNU/Linux" is about the past. GNU is about the future. The FSF has a vision. They have a game plan. They are organizing a group effort to fill in all the gaps, all the software categories where free software is lacking.
The kernel is basically done. Linus has said so many times. The future of [GNU/]Linux is userland, and that's where the FSF has been concentrating its effort. Calling it GNU/Linux is, to me, much more forward-looking.
If your going to change the name, you have to keep it shorter than GNU/Linux. Here are some suggestions that use all the letters in GNU and LINUX once.
GLINUX - my personal favourite.
LIGNUX - runner up.
GNULIX - for people who don't like GNU.
GUNLIX - for people who like guns.
GNIXUL - pronounced like pixel.
GLUNIX - sticky.
XIGNUL - German pronounciation of signal.
LUGNIX - loonix.
GNUXIL - like woozle.
NIGULX - niggles.
Changes aren't permanent, but change is.
GNU/FSF has nothing in their agenda about better or new.
Their only mandate according to their website is free and open.
The suggestions on re-implementing code quite obviously place no emphasis on efficiency or capability, only on implementing functionality in a different manner than the original to avoid legal entanglement. In my view some of the suggestion on how to do so would result in technically/efficency inferior products.
Personally I find RMS's jingoistic tunnel vision repulsive and unrealistic. It taints the valid points he tries to make with me. Every GNU tool has a copyright banner on it, I don't call my Linux boxen X/Linux or apache/linux (even though my webserver would be functionally useless without an HTTP daemon), or whatever. I also don't call it a GNU/Linux, I won't call it a GNU/Linux and frankly I'm so repulsed by Stallman's self-serving anti-freedom hypocrisy that I'd correct anyone I saw doing it in my presence.
http://www.bullnet.com
Then let him call it "Free Linux"
GNU doesn't mean Free to end-users. It only means Free to people who are already aware of GNU's mission.
I believe that Stallman has been unable to successfully get public interest in his mission. Now that Linux has been successful, he sees his role being even more overshadowed, and this is his desperate attempt to hitch on.
In the office (I'm a director level manager) I don't ever take credit for anything my team does. They are given credit for everything they do and I make sure they get the credit. I will get my reward in the long run by the reflection of my team.
I think RMS would be better served by having GNU software enjoy Linux/BSD/Hurd's reflections than to make this desperate alienating ploy for free publicity.
http://www.bullnet.com
Let me start of by saying that like RMS I too want all my software to be free. Specifically I think the GNU GPL is the best license for the job. I think RMS' vision of free software for all is inevidable. However I think we are still a bit early in the "free software for everything" revolusion and thus his speaches seem so far reaching.
That said I still would rather call it just "Linux" simply because a shorter, one word name is better. Just as long as the core groups of people keep the GPL (or "real" open source license requirements - no pseudo Qt or Apple licenses) alive (GNOME, Red Hat, Cygnus) free software will be fine.
I hope some day to call my OS+software a "GNU system" or just "GNU" instead of Linux. Not because of the FSF or GNU project itself, but simply because of the license and it's power to defend against closed source. One example is how the GPL protected/helped gcc with Objective-C, egcs, and more front end and target platform support.
[Warning: Unabashed facetiousness in this post.]
When's the last time you saw a group voluntarily lengthen a name in order to make it more precise and then have the name gain any kind of acceptance? To my knowledge it always goes the other way around. Hence the proliferation of acronyms. (Play a DVD or CD on my PC for free? Whee! Alternatively, if it's a g3 running LinuxPC, should KDE be for me?)
Being a physicist, I can't help but try to indentify some fundamental laws of nature here (and then shamelessly try to attach my name to it):
Claudius's First Law of Names for Stuff: All first laws for anything are trivial and can safely be ignored.
Claudius's Second Law of Names for Stuff: As a function of usage, names for things generally get shorter and the information content of the names shrinks to zero.
Claudius's Third Law of Names for Stuff: Things with long names are susceptible to acronymization or amputation (or both). Things whose names can't be safely Bobbited will "Never Get Used (tm)."
Claudius's Fourth Law of Names for Stuff: Design flaws can generally be compensated for by choosing a suitably short name.
Demonstrations: (1) A PC is more common than a Mac. Note the shorter name. The term "PC" doesn't carry much information anymore (less info than the word "Mac"), in accordance with the Second Law. (2) Perhaps the most used computer language is C. Note the brevity. (3) The Java folks have it right. Short language name, short acronyms for stuff (JDK, awt, etc), but they'll never be able to compete with C until it's called just "J." (4) C++ is the canonical example of the Fourth Law.
As you see, the entire GNU/Linux movement is doomed since it attempts to violate the fundamental laws of names for stuff. It'd be about as fruitful to advocate building a perpetual motion machine.
There was an editorial on /. a while back that suggested that Linux could adopt the GNU project for use with its kernel. For example, it is my understanding that using the term GNU/Linux automatically gives credit to the XFree86 Project, because the XFree86 project has adopted GNU as its operating system. Thus, rather than the GNU project adopting Linux (which I doubt either RMS or Linus would agree to), Linus and the other kernel developers could decree that GNU is the official operating system for Linux, and call the whole thing Linux. Wouldn't this keep the Linux people happy, while giving GNU the credit it deserves?
In my opinion, this would be much more reasonable than the highly impractical boycott of GNU that some have proposed.
There is a difference between writing a carefully thought-out editorial and simply attempting to start a flamewar. Granted, editorials can often lead to heated debates, and perhaps the linux-kernel mailing list is not the best place for such a discussion. However, you seem to be suggesting that people withhold their opinions in the interest of avoiding flamewars; to me, the cure seems worse than the disease.
I think that the editorial is an example of how one should express an opinion, rather than bashing one's opponents or repeating what has already been said.
OK, so GNU is not UNIX. What the hell is it?
Why define yourself by what you are not?
As if the above was not bad enough, GNU sounds
ugly to a US ear. (like Hulga, Hurd, phlegm...)
But wait, there's more! GNU is recursive. This
makes the term even more confusing and useless.
Recursive anacronyms are a stupid trick.
GNU is simply a bad term in every way.
My code only runs on Linux. It will not work
on the HURD, and that makes me happy.
Long ago, RMS ignored Linux. He didn't support
a gcc port to Linux, but H. J. Lu did it anyway.
We had to keep our own version of it. The same
goes for libc, binutils, etc.
After that, RMS said Linux was a temporary
kernel, to be replaced by the Real GNU system
(a HURD-based system). Yeah, RSN too!
RMS ripped off the Linux TCP/IP stack, ext2
filesystem, and huge hardware driver collection.
If anything, the HURD should be Linux/HURD,
to give credit to all the Linux developers that
wrote the code.
I write Linux code. If RMS wants to port it,
he can start calling his system Linux/HURD.
Cygnus is playing a political game by signing
over copyright to the FSF. This lets the FSF
claim to own the code, even though Cygnus has
long been the primary developer.
Whenever the FSF gets involved with gcc, they
only fuck it up. They are responsible for the
long-delayed and super-buggy gcc 2.8 release.
They are also responsible for pulling glibc off
the archives when it was discovered that the
crummy gcc 2.8 could not compile it correctly.
SLS made the first Linux distribution.
They deserve credit for the concept.
Red Hat makes a modern distribution.
They deserve credit for the modern system.
I have a Red Hat system, not a GNU system.
Oh, before those two? That would be AT&T,
or simply Ken Thompson and coworkers.
Would Thompson/Linux be right? I think not!
glibc - Also mostly developed by Cygnus. (the head developer is a Cygnus employee) The FSF removed glibc from archive sites when they discovered that their broken gcc 2.8 wasn't up to the job of compiling glibc. Politics come first you know - else they would take their lumps and go fix gcc.
GPL - Ah, something useful! Actually, the LGPL is a better license, but RMS did that too.
The FSF - This is no more interesting than SPI or XFree86 Inc. It is just there to be a legal entity so that Stallman won't get personally sued and so that people can assign copyright to an entity that won't die in 30 years.
Why do you call it the kernel README?
Why not call it the Linux README?
Ha, I caught you. Linux is the OS, and the
kernel is simply the kernel.
Another example that is very old: the linux-kernel
mailing list. Note that it isn't called the
linux mailing list, because that would imply that
it exists for non-kernel discussion.
Gee, /bin/false is GNU software. As usual, it is
/bin is trivial junk like the above.
bloated and buggy. (it has at least two bugs)
Most of
I could get it all from FreeBSD if I wanted.
GNU stuff would suck if it hadn't been hacked
on by so many Linux users. RMS is quite lucky
that Linux users didn't just grab the BSD
userspace (which was already free) and hack it.
Many systems automatically boot into X, and run
the xdm program for logins.
These systems need a huge amount of X code to
boot correctly.
Try reading. Cygnus has long been the primary
developer of gcc. That includes much of the time
before egcs. The only change with egcs is that
Cygnus took over project management.
The name and copyright are for political reasons.
Maybe you love and respect politics. Ugh.
RMS wrote a shitty compiler called gcc 1.0.
Cygnus and Linux hackers fixed it as needed,
for embedded systems developers (Cygnus) and
the kernel (Linux hackers).
It is indeed idiotic to boycott the GNU project
in terms of software use. You could boycott it
by putting all your software under an alternate
license though, and people are starting to do
this because of the GNU/Linux crap from RMS.
Except the GNU/ is silent.
_ ___
_______________________________________________
Unless someone already knows the GNU tradition (obsession? :-) of putting "gnu" in names, "Lignux" just looks unpronouncable and weird. If Linux is to be accepted by more new people, self-imposed obstacles like this need to be avoided.
I respect the desire to raise the profile of GNU by putting it in the name, but it's just wrong in this case.
Linux is just starting to appear on the radar screens of the general population. To change the name to "GNU/Linux", "Lignux", or anything else would be completely self-defeating.
then we have to look forward to calling it Perl/Tk/Wall/Linux *grin*
seriously, though. i think RMS deserves great recognition for what he has done, and i think that, for the most part, people give him this recognition (except for those who are just entering the world of linux and think that redhat made gcc *grin* )
but aside from that, i think that he is patting himself on the back too much, when he should be letting others pat him on the back instead!
A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.
if he wants the name to be GNU Linux that badly, then he really SHOULD start his own distro :) honestly, no joke intended here!
A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.
Ok, you could call it GNU/Linux, you could call it (as the editorial suggests) X/Linux. There's also the argument about how to pronounce Linux. Lets kill two birds with one stone here. We once had the following conversation at work :
"LIEnux? you said LIEnux!!! you heretic!"
"I slipped. bad habit. sorry i can't help it"
"this is bad for reputation sort it out."
"well if Linus didn't have such a stupid name we wouldn't be in this predicament"
"so what are you suggesting?"
"well, we'd hardly have this problem if he was called 'Bob Torvolds' now, would we?"
"what, 'BOBIX'???"
"why not?"
"you're right. I like it"
and so the deed was done. lilo.conf's were changed officewide.
Bobix - the OS made by Richard Stallman and some smug Finnish businessman amongst others.
GNU may be a more correct way to refer to the tools that make the whole operating SYSTEM. Linux is undoubtedly the KERNEL behind this OS, but isn't very useful all by itself. Nevertheless, most people refer to the OS as Linux. But what is the OS itself? Well, it is something that is obtained in distributions from a variety of companies and/or organizations that make distributions with varying intents, goals and focuses. This was always the point of free software: maximum freedom and flexibility, i.e. choice. Likewise, the creators of each distribution can call it WHATEVER they want. You are welcome to make a distribution based on the Linux kernel and call it Green Hat GNU or Blue Hat GNU/Linux. You might confuse people, it might not be popular, but this is fully within your rights as defined by the GPL under which the kernel and the GNU tools are distributed. Likewise, however, the name Linux referring to the OS as a whole (including lots of userspace tools) has stuck with lots of people. So lots of us will continue to refer to it as Linux, even as we acknowledge and promote Free Software and the goals of the FSF, OSI or whatever ideology we adhere to.
My point here is that you have the freedom to call it whatever you want and so do I. Don't be surprised if you anger people and alienate them by trying to FORCE them to call it by the name of your choice (as RMS tries to do). Linux is not one product but a conglomeration of products, distributed by a number of different organizations who are free to call their distributions whatever they want, as this is permitted by the GPL. People will come to accept or reject, appreciate or hate the FSF, the GPL, the OSI, etc. on their own merits. Trying to force things down their throats is just going to alienate them.