"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.

Comments

Kernel Mailing List Thread

[Aaron M. Renn]

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.

My arrogant opinion...

[John Campbell]

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:

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 :) ) However, Linux is _Linus's_ contribution, so _he_ gets to name it.

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...

Quite Correct

[nowan]

> 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.

Strange solutions

[Nemesys]

What's going on here is that we have three different things: the kernel, the operating system, and the operating environment, and the *distributions* build around the Linux kernel are changing the borderline between operating system and operating environment.

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.

Wonderful Article, theoretical question

[raistlinne]

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.

Dists. and naming

[Mr T]

I guess I think this issue is important, in part, because I generally support RMS's cause and admire him. I think he's a little rough around the edge's socially sometimes but he has ideas that are very different for most of us and he's so devoted to them that he comes across like an arrogant, abrasive, lunatic, which isn't really the case. (this stuff is subjective, but RMS is definitely very sane and, from everything I have seen and heard, he is one of the gentalist and nicest people you could be fortunate enough to meet. I don't know how many people routinely call him crazy and have only read interviews or his emails)

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?