I've been only slightly involved with this. Comments below are my personal opinion, and are do not reflect either Compaq's or X.org's position.
Several things of note:
1) the traditional UNIX vendors have not been happy with The Open Group's stewardship of X; this is mostly extricating X from TOG's grasp. Shall we say that the copyright change TOG did last year upset them as much as anyone in the Linux community?
2) Current members are listed at: http://www.x.org/current_members.htm.
Such non-sequitur's show the fallicy of the whole GNU/LINUX nonsense... I don't expect the XFree86 people share this opinion, or many others.
Here are several messages I've sent RMS on the general topic.
- Jim Gettys
> Sender: owner-linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu > From: Richard Stallman > Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 18:17:02 -0700 (MST) > To: fizban@tin.it > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu > Subject: Re: Article: IBM wants to "clean up the license" of Linux > ----- > Please show a > bit more respect for Linus and all the other people and their efforts...: > call the linux kernel "Linux" as Linus wanted to call it > > I always call the kernel Linux, for precisely that reason. Linus > Torvalds started that program, and he says the name is Linux, so I > call it Linux out of respect for him. > > I ask people to do the same thing for the operating system as a whole. > It was started in 1984 by the GNU Project. For years, before Linux > was written, we developed many components (not just "tools") of this > system, and we did so as steps in the development of the system as a > whole. (See the GNU Manifesto.) > > Linux (the kernel) doesn't come from the GNU project, and we never try > to claim any credit for it. When people say that the GNU project > "developed important parts of Linux", we explain that we don't deserve > that honor, because none of Linux is our work. And we never call > Linux a GNU program. (Some people have misinterpreted this as a > gesture of rejection of Linux; actually, it is because we're not > entitled to say so.) > > But while the GNU project played no role in the writing of Linux, it > started the development of the operating system as a whole. That's > what the GNU project was and is about. Writing dozens of programs > such as GCC, Bash and libc--not only "tools"--was just a part this > larger project. > > The system version most of us are using is the combination of Linux > and the GNU system. "GNU/Linux" is a good way to describe that > combination, and when I write that, it always means the whole > combination. The kernel is simply Linux. >
One might as well also say that the whole system should be called "GNU/X/Linux"; the X Window system contribution, in terms of number of lines of code of software, is very large. People should remember that not only "hackers" contributed, but a number of major companies, including my own, contributed large amounts to that code base, under fully free terms (where the UNIX vendors went wrong was stuff built on top, and the silly GUI wars of the beginning of the decade). In terms of total effort and number of lines of code, both GNU and X represent much larger efforts than the base operating system.
But the reality is that this is too cumbersome, whether you say "GNU/Linux" or "GNU/X/Linux. The market and men on the street now associates "Linux" with the whole combination, for better or for worse. I'm personally very gratified that our (in this case, the X Window system community, GNU community, and Linux community) are affecting a large and growing number of people, rather than withering and dying from the effects of Redmond.
So long as Linus gives credit where credit is due to the various groups that make up this community, there is little to be gained (and arguably, much to be lost) by confusing people with a more complex nomencature.
Obviously, when writing for a technical audience, (rather than the mass audience), being more clear what you mean may make sense and give credit where credit is due. But lets not confuse the mass market, which has enough trouble understanding Linux as it is. - Jim Gettys
From: jg@pa.dec.com (Jim Gettys) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 11:36:03 -0800 To: rms@gnu.org Cc: allbery@kf8nh.apk.net, fizban@tin.it, linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Article: IBM wants to "clean up the license" of Linux
For better or worse (I believe for the better), the term Linux has grown to cover the merged result of a large number of efforts of the last 15 years.
The components of the Linux system include (at least) in NO particular order: o the Linux Kernel effort, o BSD UNIX development, o X Window System, o Perl, Python, TK/TCL, o and the large efforts that go under the GNU banner. All of these are major efforts, by MANY talented individuals and corporations (some of whom put many millions of dollars into the development of the code, whether it be Digital/Compaq, HP, IBM, Sun, Red Hat, SuSE, Netscape, Cygnus, and many others). They represent many man years of sweat, often under very hard deadlines (at least in the X Window System and Netscape cases, and probably others, at great personal cost). If you tried to remove any one of them, you would end up without Linux (though some substitutes for some pieces exist).
Calling out any particular one or subset of these efforts for particular praise in a common term, when the current general term connotes all of the contributors, slights the contributions of the others; this is why I believe it is divisive. I have emotional scars left from the last round of divisiveness (the UNIX GUI wars), and CANNOT condone any action that would condone such divisions, and the results of such divisions, particularly at a time when unity is needed.
I therefore believe that uses of the term GNU/Linux are divisive and wrong. Therefore, I will not personally condone any such usage, and WILL NOT make such distinctions, and strongly discourage others in doing so. Lets spend our time giving credit to each other for what they have done for us, rather than asking others to give credit to us for what we have done for them. (to paraphrase Kennedy). One is inclusive, the other is divisive.
This is my final comment on this thread. - Jim Gettys
Slashdot Mirror
At Usenix we were showing a 1U EV6 based system
(based on the DS10, I believe).
40 of these will fit in one rack.
Is that Compaq(t) enough for you? (sorry for the
very poor pun).
- Jim Gettys
I've been only slightly involved with this.
Comments below are my personal opinion, and
are do not reflect either Compaq's or X.org's
position.
Several things of note:
1) the traditional UNIX vendors have not been
happy with The Open Group's stewardship of X;
this is mostly extricating X from TOG's grasp.
Shall we say that the copyright change TOG did last year upset them as much as anyone in the Linux community?
2) Current members are listed at: http://www.x.org/current_members.htm.
It includes: Compaq, HP, Hummingbird, IBM, SGI,
Sun, Astek, Attachmate, Barko, Jupiter Systems,
MetroLink, MITre, Peritek, Sequent, Shiman, Siemens, Starnet, WRQ, Xi Graphics.
3) I think the X Consortium registered X.org
before there were any restrictions on name length.
If you are interested in the future of X and
attending Linux Expo, you may want to attend the
BOF Thursday evening...
- Jim Gettys
The Math library (libm)...
As far as I know, there are no plans to use anything other than the normal Linux header files.
- Jim
If memory serves, the GEM compilers are written
in Bliss...
I don't think that this is particularly useful
artifact as open-source, given the historical
baggage that this implies.
- Jim
If memory serves, the GEM compilers are written
in Bliss...
I don't think that this is particularly useful
artifact as open-source.
- Jim
Such non-sequitur's show the fallicy of the whole GNU/LINUX nonsense... I don't expect the XFree86
people share this opinion, or many others.
Here are several messages I've sent RMS on the general topic.
- Jim Gettys
> Sender: owner-linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
> From: Richard Stallman
> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 18:17:02 -0700 (MST)
> To: fizban@tin.it
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
> Subject: Re: Article: IBM wants to "clean up the license" of Linux
> -----
> Please show a
> bit more respect for Linus and all the other people and their efforts...:
> call the linux kernel "Linux" as Linus wanted to call it
>
> I always call the kernel Linux, for precisely that reason. Linus
> Torvalds started that program, and he says the name is Linux, so I
> call it Linux out of respect for him.
>
> I ask people to do the same thing for the operating system as a whole.
> It was started in 1984 by the GNU Project. For years, before Linux
> was written, we developed many components (not just "tools") of this
> system, and we did so as steps in the development of the system as a
> whole. (See the GNU Manifesto.)
>
> Linux (the kernel) doesn't come from the GNU project, and we never try
> to claim any credit for it. When people say that the GNU project
> "developed important parts of Linux", we explain that we don't deserve
> that honor, because none of Linux is our work. And we never call
> Linux a GNU program. (Some people have misinterpreted this as a
> gesture of rejection of Linux; actually, it is because we're not
> entitled to say so.)
>
> But while the GNU project played no role in the writing of Linux, it
> started the development of the operating system as a whole. That's
> what the GNU project was and is about. Writing dozens of programs
> such as GCC, Bash and libc--not only "tools"--was just a part this
> larger project.
>
> The system version most of us are using is the combination of Linux
> and the GNU system. "GNU/Linux" is a good way to describe that
> combination, and when I write that, it always means the whole
> combination. The kernel is simply Linux.
>
One might as well also say that the whole system should be called
"GNU/X/Linux"; the X Window system contribution, in terms of number of
lines of code of software, is very large. People should remember that
not only "hackers" contributed, but a number of major companies, including
my own, contributed large amounts to that code base, under fully free
terms (where the UNIX vendors went wrong was stuff built on top, and the
silly GUI wars of the beginning of the decade). In terms of total effort
and number of lines of code, both GNU and X represent much larger efforts
than the base operating system.
But the reality is that this is too cumbersome, whether you say "GNU/Linux"
or "GNU/X/Linux. The market and men on the street now associates "Linux"
with the whole combination, for better or for worse. I'm personally very
gratified that our (in this case, the X Window system community, GNU
community, and Linux community) are affecting a large and growing number
of people, rather than withering and dying from the effects of Redmond.
So long as Linus gives credit where credit is due to the various groups
that make up this community, there is little to be gained (and arguably,
much to be lost) by confusing people with a more complex nomencature.
Obviously, when writing for a technical audience, (rather than the mass
audience), being more clear what you mean may make sense and give credit
where credit is due. But lets not confuse the mass market, which
has enough trouble understanding Linux as it is.
- Jim Gettys
From: jg@pa.dec.com (Jim Gettys)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 11:36:03 -0800
To: rms@gnu.org
Cc: allbery@kf8nh.apk.net, fizban@tin.it, linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: Article: IBM wants to "clean up the license" of Linux
For better or worse (I believe for the better), the term Linux has grown
to cover the merged result of a large number of efforts of the last 15 years.
The components of the Linux system include (at least) in NO particular order:
o the Linux Kernel effort,
o BSD UNIX development,
o X Window System,
o Perl, Python, TK/TCL,
o and the large efforts that go under the GNU banner.
All of these are major efforts, by MANY talented individuals and corporations
(some of whom put many millions of dollars into the development of the
code, whether it be Digital/Compaq, HP, IBM, Sun, Red Hat, SuSE, Netscape,
Cygnus, and many others). They represent many man years of sweat, often under
very hard deadlines (at least in the X Window System and Netscape cases,
and probably others, at great personal cost). If you tried to remove any
one of them, you would end up without Linux (though some substitutes for
some pieces exist).
Calling out any particular one or subset of these efforts for particular
praise in a common term, when the current general term connotes all of the
contributors, slights the contributions of the others; this is why I believe
it is divisive. I have emotional scars left from the last round of
divisiveness (the UNIX GUI wars), and CANNOT condone any action that would
condone such divisions, and the results of such divisions, particularly
at a time when unity is needed.
I therefore believe that uses of the term GNU/Linux are divisive and wrong.
Therefore, I will not personally condone any such usage, and WILL NOT
make such distinctions, and strongly discourage others in doing so. Lets
spend our time giving credit to each other for what they have done for
us, rather than asking others to give credit to us for what we have done
for them. (to paraphrase Kennedy). One is inclusive, the other is divisive.
This is my final comment on this thread.
- Jim Gettys