Slashdot Mirror
GNU Inside?
Erbo writes "Is it "Linux," or "GNU/Linux"? For years, that question has been bitterly contended. Now, Jon "Maddog" Hall and others want to resolve this conflict, by creating a "GNU Inside" logo that distros could use on their packaging, Web sites, etc. Will a truce finally be called in this long-running flame war? ZDNet has the details. (Spotted in Linux Today) "
I have no problem with GNU (and Richard Stallman) getting the credit
they deserve. Indeed: since peer recognition is a large part of the
reason that open source folk do what they do, this is highly
desirable.
I do, however, have a problem with Linux's popularity being co-opted
by the FSF. Co-opted as in insisting that "Linux" be referred-to as
"GNU/Linux."
Perhaps "GNU Inside" branding would be a good compromise.
- pmitros@mit.edu
Of course, one of the only people who actually knows how things are has a @gnu.org email address! The point is not that RMS has "won" by having GNU software distributed with Linux to millions of computers. That's not the point. If people don't realize what the software is about, he hasn't won anything. It's tough enough convincing people that Linux doesn't actually cost anything. It's even more difficult to convince them that it's even more free than that. RMS is trying to force that issue, and I for one salute him. Now I'm not calling it GNU/Linux, and I probably never will. GNU by itself is a very, very cumbersome "word", and that's only worse. But at least I know what GNU is and I try to evangelize it as much as I can. And I would be more than happy to have such a sticker on my box (though the official gnu from gnu.org is very ugly :))
So:
1. It does not matter that Linux is not GNU.
2. It does not matter that all of the software on Linux is not GNU.
3. It does not matter that much of the software on Linux is GNU.
It's the ideas behind it, and FSF is very good at promoting those ideas. That isn't to say Linus isn't, but that's not his main goal.
Credit and name recognition are rewards. Money is a reward. Xerox probably tried to keep Stallman from learning its printer controller source code (thus compelling him to found the FSF) because it wanted money out of him. The free software model he created necessarily misallocates money; not everyone who deserves the money for coding something receives that money.
Now, RMS has never tried to berate people into donating money to the FSF -- he does solicit donations, and actively encourages people to contribute, he doesn't insist on it. When people in an audience say "I just bought a Redhat system," he doesn't say, "Write the FSF a check for the same amount, right now, or I won't answer your question."
But now that something that really matters to him is at stake -- credit for GNU -- he insists on getting it. (At least he's trying to coerse people by annoying them into submission, and not by forcing folks to sign binding agreements.)
So why is GNU important then? Because it's released under the (L)GPL.
How much code has been written by RMS and other key members of the FSF? Quite a bit, and some very significant bits, but the currenct feature rich and relatively bug free state of GNU is also due to a whole community that has been using and improving GNU tools since the eighties. Again, this would not have been possible without the GPL.
So the FSF should not strive to take explicity credit for things that a whole community contributed to. They should take credit where credit is due, namely for creating the legal and intellectual framework that enabled this and other outstanding worldwide collaborations.
Instead of "GNU Inside", I suggest GPL Inside, or something more verbose and less Intelish such as "This CDROM contains software freely licensed under the GPL and other open source licences" or whatever is more sexy.
Some final remarks: As a fluent but non-native speaker of English, the word GNU, especially when used in place of "new" really turns my stomach. Also, I have been using GNU utilities from the first day I worked on proprietary Unices about 10 years ago. I like Emacs very much, and also used a lot of GNU replacements, in particular gcc, for proprietary software, mainly because documentation was easily available (ever tried to find the original manual of commercial software in a University lab?) and they just performed consistently and well across platforms. Still, I'd never imagined saying I was using GNU/AIX or GNU/SunOS, even though I was very aware that my most important tools where GNU's. So what's the big deal about GNU/Linux?
I think the point is this: The popularity of Linux has brought the GNU tools and software to a whole new audience. Most of these new people are not Unix types or Sys Admins. These are Windows people and Linux is being presented as a viable desktop alternative to Windows. These people normally don't know or care about who wrote their software. The GNU tools come from the Unix tradition, and a large part of that includes sharing source code and free (as in speech) software. This philosophy is something completely foreign to the largest new audiences for Linux: Corporations, used to buying whatever MS and it's competition put out for them and Personal users who think their only choices in software must be purchased. One of the reasons the FSF exists to give people options when it comes to software. Unix types have always known these options existed. The newcomers are having to be introduced to this concept. As one of the main promoters of this idea, I think the FSF feels the need to make people aware of who and what they are, what they stand for, what they have to offer and how users can benefit from it.
This may sound a little 'Pollyanna', but I think FSF is a good thing that people should know about. In the media explosion surrounding Linux, the GNU project, and more importantly the choices it provides, seems to get lost in the sauce.
It's good to be out of school for a few weeks. I can actually participate in /. Only 13 days until the PhD program begins. I'll be using GPL'd software and GNU tools there too.
Personally, i don't understand what people argue about. Let me give some analogies.
There's an operating system floating around called "Windows," created by a company named Microsoft. Since this name (Windows) is a rather generic one, the OS is usually referred to as Microsoft Windows, MS-Windows, or something of the like. This is mainly to ensure that when it is referred to in (possibly overheard) conversation, others don't get the wrong impression and assume that high(ish) intellectuals are indeed speaking of various sheets of glass.
As it happens, there is another operating system floating around called "MacOS," another wildly imaginative title, additionally descriptive, and referring to its own purpose in life, which is to act as the operating system for Macintosh machines. The company that makes this operating system and these machines is called Apple, and the machines themselves are oddly often referred to as Apple Macintosh machines (though Macintosh Apple is arguably better grammar). The Apple Macintosh machines have little to do with the point here; the main point is the name of the operating system MacOS. Rarely is MacOS referred to as Apple MacOS, as the name itself describes what it is. No one will mistake MacOS for an operating system that runs on macintosh apples, McDonald's Big Macs, MAC semis, or MAC machines. There is no need to call the OS Apple MacOS, so the Apple is left out of most conversations completely.
Yet another interesting, floating OS is something named "BeOS," equally as imaginitive a name as "MacOS," yet offering nicer slogans. This operating system was written by a company named Be, and was indeed named after the company itself -- along with the BeBoxes it was intended to operate. Here too, there is no "Be BeOS," as that would be tacky and annoyingly redundant. As far as mistaking the operating system for something unrelated, well, many people may not have an idea what the OS is, and most others may have not yet tried it, but rarely do people volunteer that you may have indeed meant "cabbage" or "beehive" or something similar.
Well, this brings us to the point of Linux. If you choose to think of the GNU community as... well, maybe not the creators, but at least partners in the development of Linux, you don't have to include the name. No one is going to mistake Linux for a geometric expression or a type of car (well, some might, but there's not a lot you can do if that's the case). Until someone replaces everything GNU on a linux system with other software and distributes it, there will be no need to add a GNU to the name of Linux. It is honestly understood.
If you'd like to be a little more argumentative about it, GNU utilities are not restricted to Linux. I run a number of GNU utilities on the Solaris systems i administer, and i much prefer them to those written by Sun. FreeBSD encorporates a number of GNU utilities into their distributions. I've even gutted windows and replaced its shell (explorer) with tcsh, using many GNU utilities for its interface, when i was stuck with a windows 95 machine. I suppose i could have called this GNU/Windows, but why? I honestly don't understand the argument.
Loren Osborn
Loren Osborn
...just as soon as FreeBSD gets renamed GNU/BSD. I run emacs and the CygWin ports on my NT laptop - should I call it a GNUtop?
The whole debate is silly. Linux is Linux, BSD is BSD, HURD can be the GNU/OS or whatever they want to call it. The kernel and design should be sufficient to determine the name. Hey - SCO owns the SVR5 code from which (theoretically) all *NUXes spring (in design if not in code) - maybe we should call the GNU (when a HURD-derived version ships) SCOGNUX! Or POSIXGNUX! I hope I made a point here without making anyone's head explode from bad acronyms.
My bottom line: Linux is a great operating system, built by a group of brilliant people, using the terrific GNU tools and utilities. And no Unix would be complete without them. But RMS really needs to take his ball and go home on this one. Anybody who knows anything about Linux understands the magnitude of RMS's contribution to the software world and knows Linux would probably not have existed without him. Now please make all this go away!
What's in a name, anyway? A rose, by any other name, would still wither and die...
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
It would be really nice to see and end to this fairly stupid and devisive conflict. I understand many people's annoyance at being asked to call their Linux box GNU/Linux, but at the same time, I think that the FSF does deserve credit here. It's not just RMS looking for the limelight; a lot of people have put in a lot of time, from the early 80s to today, to create a damn fine collection of essential utilities. Utilities that, without which, much other free software would never have been written. Utilities that are far and away better than their counterparts on other UNIXes. I think the LOC argument is misleading; how much of our current software base would exists without things like a compiler, a C library, a linker, shells, editors, etc etc? I agree that it's dumb to have to trip over my tongue to say the name of my operating system, but at the same time, let's honestly recognize those who have put in thousands of hours of work for our benefit.
--
Ian Peters
RMS is not claiming that the GPL requires the name GNU/Linux to be used, so it is nonsense to claim that he is somehow making a mockery of the GPL.
RMS appears to want attention to be focused on GNU for two purposes, and credit is the less important of those two purposes (though I think it is more important to him than he admits). His more important purpose seems to be to get people to think of themselves as developing a GNU system in the sense that every program on that system would be free software -- that Linux not just be yet another platform like Windows or BeOS that software companies port all their software to and every significant program is proprietary software.
RMS seems to think that if he gets people to say GNU/Linux, people will then ask "What is GNU", and then when they find out, they will get excited about the free software message. Like any good activist, he doesn't care if he pisses people off ... sometimes I think he thinks if he hasn't pissed anyone off lately, he isn't doing his job as an advocate.
As for me, I don't think that all software must be free, but I think that more free software is a good thing, and that without RMS making noise and annoying people and inspiring other like-minded people, the trend in the Linux community would quickly be to just try to be another platform for proprietary software developers. That's a losing goal, since Microsoft is much better at that.
I was just looking through the mail archives and look what I found: Re: How Linux Users Do it. Where RMS says: 'The idea of a slogan that we and the "Linux" people could agree on is an interesting idea, and I would be glad to do that.'
It is an interesting discussion. Please read some of the other messages in that thread. RMS says some interesting things such as this: 'But if you have seen some GNU fanatics trying to fight, I guess it must happen. If and when you come across one, could you please show me? I will be glad to explain to him that this kind of fighting isn't a good thing to do. Chances are those people would listen to me and stop.'
Also, I just found a wonderful quote in an article about the controversy which addresses this very well:
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
I really don't care what Stallman thinks the operating system should be called, it's entirely his perogative. However, I think it's extremely arrogant and egotistical of him to insist everyone else call it that as well. It's not like anyone's infringing on a trademark or copyright, and for him to infringe on my freedom to call it anything I want irks me. If I want to make a distribution and call it "GNU-SUCKS/Linux" there's nothing he can do to stop me as long as I redistribute the source code.
The whole "It's a GNU system with a Linux kernel until HURD comes out" strikes me a so insulting and rude I can't believe people still talk to him. It seems to me he's effectively dissing all of the programming work of Linus, Alan and the thousands of other kernel hackers. "You're programming is pretty good as a stop-gap measure, but we're going to make a kernel eventually, so you should name your system after us."
Now, I understand that the GNU tools are very important and a remarkable technical achievement, but RMS is acting like a bully, and as far as I'm concerned that invalidates any moral crusade he's on to gain recognition for the FSF or GNU. If they want to make a "GNU Inside" sticker, good for them, I don't plan on putting it on anything until the GNU people, and especially Stallman, mature by leaps and bounds.
The way things are going is quite stupid. GNU was (and I guess is still) about choice and about the best technical choice. Instead of wasting their effort in this trivial subject (that will gain them nothing) they should try to integrate things into thair system.
...). This is real choice not having to force ppl into a all or nothing situation ...
Woulnd't it be much nicer if I had a properly componentized and integrated system such that I can plug in what ever pice I want without having to comply to any phylosify.
Imagine a system where you can choose any kernel you want (BSD,Linux,IRIX,BeOS, or even NT) use any shell you want (bash, commad.com, KDE or what ever) use any networking layer you want (TCP/IP, ATM
Husain
"for him to infringe on my freedom to call it anything I want irks me."
Thanks to the liberal, open-minded scheme that GNU utilities are distributed under you can call it _anything_you_like. You are not being prevented from calling it_anything_you_like. RMS is merely stating his viewpoint that more credit should be given to the GNU project. You are insisting that HE capitulates to what YOU want to call the system that you run every day. To stridently attack someone for stating their viewpoint, as you do in this post, belies your claim to love freedom. Or perhaps its just YOUR freedom that you care about?
Do you agree that there is a move afoot to submerge the "political" ideals of the FSF underneath a welter of new acronyms that are more "friendly" to business? Do you agree that there is a chance that the structure of the programming community could develop in very different ways depending on which ideals have hegemony?
I was particularly irritated by your post because the very things that you accuse RMS of are embodied in your own post. Further, it follows on from a particularly trite and irritating article that expresses conservative shibboleths: the idea that ANY debate over language is "political correctness" and that this is in itself a bad thing; the idea that one can label those that see the world in a different way as "political" and that they are therefore "extreme". All these merely add up to saying "stop disagreeing with me, shut up and let me win". RMS is caricatured frequently and freely whenever his views are discussed. It doesn't matter if any of these characterizations are based in fact, all that matters is the logical correctness or otherwise of the arguments. I put it to you that to have contributed such a huge chunk of the distributions that we use and to receive no overt recognition of this is insulting and demeaning to RMS and all of the FSF programmers and writers.
Anyway brother, live wild and free in the programming Utopia created for you by other people, but whatever you do don't lose sight of the fact that there is a history to it and that
there will be a future which depends on what you
believe.
RMS is making a mockery of the GPL by insisting that Linux distributions put GNU in the name. From the GPL:
0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program"
means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it,
either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language.
Linus has met and championed these conditions. The Program, Linux, is licensed in the letter and spirit of the GPL. Now, if FSF wants to package and distribute Linux and call it GNU/Linux, that is their right, because Linus followed the rules. But if Red Hat or Suse or anyone else wants to package and distribute Boomshakalakalaka/Linux, that is their right also.
I want to know from RMS, "What will it take to satisfy you other than this silly name thing? Is it money you are after? Fame? Honoraria? What is it you want?" If he can/will answer that, then everyone who has benefitted from the fanatastic software produced by FSF should make an attempt to satisfy him and then we can get on with the real business of building an environment where source code is freely distributed.
That environment is far from guaranteed. With the suits smelling money, the GPL is sure to come under attack. And if there is a pile of petty bickering going on within the community, there won't be enough resistance to prevent them from corrupting the intentions of open source and/or free software.