Linux OS? Not GNU/Linux ? :)

[_wb_]

DaDaDaniel: feel free to do so, but if you're going to use a substantial part of BSD, I will insist that you call it BSD/Linux (assuming you're going to use that kernel)

And this is the problem. Yes, I see the smiley, but I do not take kindly to the idea that random people on the net feel entitled to the right to insist what I'm going to call most anything at all. Just don't. It makes me want to break stuff. Or even worse, give up on Linux and start running VMS or something.

You can call an airplane "horse" and a kitchen table "zebra", I couldn't care less. You can be as accurate or inaccurate as you want to be in your usage of language, terminology and naming - be as sloppy as you want to be. Really. Call it Linux, call it Unix, call it Microsoft NT if you want to.


But here we're not talking about how you privately like to call things, we're talking about what name we, the Pandora community on this forum, use as the title of one of our subforums. And I like to think that all of us (including me) have a say in that. I'm sorry if that makes me an annoying preaching zealot in your opinion.

 

[moxie]

But here we're not talking about how you privately like to call things, we're talking about what name we, the Pandora community on this forum, use as the title of one of our subforums. And I like to think that all of us (including me) have a say in that. I'm sorry if that makes me an annoying preaching zealot in your opinion.

No, you're not. If you were, you wouldn't be one. And the zealot part, of course, comes not from you having your say (you do. Me too), it comes from holding the idea that you are "correct" and everyone who don't agree are stupid, uneducated, and needs to be told the Proper Teachings.


And actually, I bet you're wrong. The vast uneducated majority (the idea of "the vast uneducated majority who needs to be tutored by us enlightened übermenschen" in itself makes me more than a bit angry) doesn't go around calling the OS "Linux". I bet they're calling it "Ubuntu". Which, nowadays, make a lot more sense - We no longer run our machines through bash, writing code in emacs and compiling it with GCC. Or, rather, those uneducated masses don't, anyway. They use firefox or chrome, LibreOffice, spotify, some sort of IM app...None of it, possibly, GNU software. And yes, that software in turn depends on software that depends on...And somewhere down the line, there is the glibc that in turn sits on top of the kernel. But really - For todays casual linux users, all of that is somewhere deep, deep down the software stack, and the idea that where exactly inbetween deep down and deeper down you draw the line to determine what you really, correctly, ought to call your OS is laughable. Really.


I can agree that it is a bit strange to have forums for "Android" and "Linux". However, the solution for that would not be to demand that you'd call the second one "GNU/Linux", it would be to change it to "Ångström". That would open up for a bunch of subforums, for Gentoo, Arch, Slack, and so on. Which might be a good idea or not.

 

[diligentcircle]

Well, my parents certainly don't know anything about software licences or philosophy. And why should they? The computer is just a tool for them, and that's perfectly okay.

You're making a huge assumption there. My mom, sure, but my dad has been advocating GNU/Linux and open source for years; he first brought it up to us when Fedora Core 4 was the latest Fedora release. He's not exactly a GNU/Linux expert (he programs for mainframes, I think, so it's not in his league), but he's not a noob.

And please explain what you mean by you "didn't understand this until recently". Do you mean that you didn't know about the differences between the ideas of the free software and open source camp? I honestly thought that anybody using a free OS for some time could not possibly have missed that. Or do you mean you did not "understand" in a born again kind of way?

Neither. I meant exactly what I said: I got the impression, like many others, that Linus Torvalds was the main guy behind GNU/Linux.

There are people who believe that GNU/Linux was done entirely by Linus Torvalds, ...

And like the people who think Windows was entirely done by Bill Gates, they are idiots, or at least very uninformed.

How can I respond to this?


First off, if anyone is to GNU/Linux what Bill Gates is to Windows, it's Richard Stallman, not Linus Torvalds. Linus is just behind the kernel, not the whole OS. Didn't you say you understand this?


Second, I didn't mean that people think only one person did it all. I meant that people think Linus is the source, where it started, and the main guy behind it. This is false.

and as a result, these people look at Linus's beliefs and values seriously, but completely ignore the beliefs and values that actually created it, i.e. the ones of the GNU project and the FSF. This is a real problem.

These people do neither care about Linus' nor RMS' beliefs and values.

I'm sorry, but this is absurd. Just because you're looking toward the wrong person out of ignorance doesn't mean you don't care about their beliefs and values.

If they kernel is just that small missing part, why wasn't the FSF able to make their own in decades?

It's a long story. Simply put, the GNU project made a choice that ended up making the Hurd take much longer to complete. gnu.org gives more detail.

Oh, and thanks for completely ignoring my, and others', point why people don't always react to kindly to this topic. It's the preaching! Honestly, there is nothing wrong with having different opinions on free/open/closed software. These are opinions, there is no moral right or wrong here. Unfortunately the FSF people, who have some good ideas, and some weird ones, quite often come across like vegans shouting "meat is murder" at the dinner table.

No one here is even "preaching". Someone lightheartedly brought it up, you and Moxie complained, and you threw in falsehoods you were apparently aware of. I corrected you and some others explained why they say "GNU plus Linux". How is this preaching? Should I just let you spread falsehoods? Should others not even talk about why they choose to say "GNU/Linux", and why they think it's correct? If that's it, what makes your opinion so special?

 

[ekianjo]

Wow, here I am, coming back after posting an innocent first post, with more than 10 replies. I knew the subject is a sensitive one, but I didn't expect so many discussions to happen

 

[_wb_]

Gentoo, Arch, Slack and so on are not based on Ångström, so it wouldn't make a lot of sense to make them subforums of an "Ångström" forum. One thing they all have in common though, is that they're all based on GNU/Linux, while Android is not. So why do you think that "GNU/Linux" would be a bad name for the forum in which those GNU/Linux distributions are discussed?

 

[moxie]

I wasn't about to make them subforums of the Ångström subforum, either - Why would I do that?

 

[_wb_]

One of the nicest things about the Pandora is that it is Open, that is, we value our freedom to do whatever we want with our hardware and software. This is exactly what motivated the GNU project, and the GNU project is the main reason why the software side of the Pandora project was possible in the first place. This is a quite crucial philosophical point. It is true that many people don't care about this. I have no problem with that. But it seems like you explicitly want to encourage people to not care about these philosophical/political issues; you seem to think that for the "casual user", these things are irrelevant. In my opinion, that is a mistake, at least in the long term.

 

[_wb_]

I can agree that it is a bit strange to have forums for "Android" and "Linux". However, the solution for that would not be to demand that you'd call the second one "GNU/Linux", it would be to change it to "Ångström". That would open up for a bunch of subforums, for Gentoo, Arch, Slack, and so on. Which might be a good idea or not.

I assumed from the above that you proposed an "Android" forum and an "Ångström" forum, where the latter one has a bunch of subforums for Gentoo, Arch, Slack etc. Looks like I misunderstood you.

 

[moxie]

And please explain what you mean by you "didn't understand this until recently". Do you mean that you didn't know about the differences between the ideas of the free software and open source camp? I honestly thought that anybody using a free OS for some time could not possibly have missed that. Or do you mean you did not "understand" in a born again kind of way?

Neither. I meant exactly what I said: I got the impression, like many others, that Linus Torvalds was the main guy behind GNU/Linux.

Well, that makes sense. It is always the newly converted that are most eager to evangelize.

There are people who believe that GNU/Linux was done entirely by Linus Torvalds, ...

And like the people who think Windows was entirely done by Bill Gates, they are idiots, or at least very uninformed.

How can I respond to this?

By acknowledging that it is right? You cannot possibly believe that, whilst at the same time claiming that you have, you know, tried to check it out? It is not as if Linus will put himself forward as "The guy who wrote your OS", and it only takes you a quick look at the normal boot-up messages of you linux box to see the name GNU scroll by dozens of times. Now, everyone starts off uninformed, there's no shame in that. But you can't simultaneously claim that you believe Linus is the guy behind all the stuff on your 'puter, and at the same time claim you're not uninformed?

and as a result, these people look at Linus's beliefs and values seriously, but completely ignore the beliefs and values that actually created it, i.e. the ones of the GNU project and the FSF. This is a real problem.

These people do neither care about Linus' nor RMS' beliefs and values.

I'm sorry, but this is absurd. Just because you're looking toward the wrong person out of ignorance doesn't mean you don't care about their beliefs and values.

And I maintain that the real problem is that you think that most people care about Linus or RMS or their values (that is delusional), and that it is a real problem if people get them wrong. It isn't. It really, truly, outside that bedroom of yours, does not matter.

Oh, and thanks for completely ignoring my, and others', point why people don't always react to kindly to this topic. It's the preaching! Honestly, there is nothing wrong with having different opinions on free/open/closed software. These are opinions, there is no moral right or wrong here. Unfortunately the FSF people, who have some good ideas, and some weird ones, quite often come across like vegans shouting "meat is murder" at the dinner table.

No one here is even "preaching". Someone lightheartedly brought it up, you and Moxie complained, and you threw in falsehoods you were apparently aware of. I corrected you and some others explained why they say "GNU plus Linux". How is this preaching? Should I just let you spread falsehoods? Should others not even talk about why they choose to say "GNU/Linux", and why they think it's correct? If that's it, what makes your opinion so special?

As long as you keep talking about "correctness" and "falsehoods", you're preaching. RMS would want you to think it is "correct", but that is his opinion, and he invests considerable work in spreading that opinion. He is somewhat successful amongst his faithful, too. Still, the idea that the Proper Name Ought To Be GNU/Linux is not a fact - it is an opinion.


Note that there is noone, least of all Linus, that is denying that just about every linux distribution out there lives by GNU code. And nobody has tried to hide that, or to claim ownership of GNU software, or whatever. It is not a question of credit. It is a question of who gets to decide on names. Who gets to rule over language. That is - Politics. Opinion. Possibly religion. But not "fact" and "correct".

 

[DaDaDaniel]

Wow, here I am, coming back after posting an innocent first post, with more than 10 replies. I knew the subject is a sensitive one, but I didn't expect so many discussions to happen

https://www.youtube.com/embed/193hOTS5xUI?feature=oembed


I had a long post written replying to onpon4, when my Firefox crashed (hadn't done it in ages...). Now it's just "what Moxie said".


Edit: And it crashed again when I posted this. I guess it doesn't like the YouTube video in the preview.

 

[moxie]

One of the nicest things about the Pandora is that it is Open, that is, we value our freedom to do whatever we want with our hardware and software. This is exactly what motivated the GNU project, and the GNU project is the main reason why the software side of the Pandora project was possible in the first place. This is a quite crucial philosophical point. It is true that many people don't care about this. I have no problem with that. But it seems like you explicitly want to encourage people to not care about these philosophical/political issues; you seem to think that for the "casual user", these things are irrelevant. In my opinion, that is a mistake, at least in the long term.

No, I explicitly do not want to shovel these issues down peoples throats. I explicitly believe that neither I, nor anyone else, have the rights to decide what words someone else can or cannot use. I explicitly believe that if you package software with a particular license, for instance the GPL, that details how you may or may not use the software, then there is nothing wrong with abiding by the license. Which does not, in any way, say that the software authors get to name a project in which the software is part. That, also, is part of the idea of free, dependable software - No hidden strings, no retroactive clauses.


And if there is anything that will beyond any doubt prove to casual users that these things are irrelevant, then it is when they twig to the fact that a big ongoing GNU topic is the desire to name other peoples projects. If anything will turn them off from the very real and very important questions concerning our online freedom, governmental privacy issues, the closedness of software and so on, it is going to the GNU webpage and find the issue of whether Linux should be called Linux or GNU/Linux being front-page stuff. That is so silly it is beyond words. The name is not an issue. Really. Not compared to the real issues one could be focusing on instead.


And trying to force other peoples use of language can never be done in the name of freedom.

 

[_wb_]

Here's the full fragment, for those of you who haven't seen Life of Brian:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/gb_qHP7VaZE?feature=oembed


Splendid satire by good old Monty Python, hugely funny, but I hope you're not implying that our little discussion about naming and philosophy is as meaningless and pointless.

 

[DaDaDaniel]

It was just meant as a funny remark directed at ekianjo. Nothing implied.


I would like to add that I see you arguing rather non-preachy for a name change of this forum.

 

[_wb_]

One of the nicest things about the Pandora is that it is Open, that is, we value our freedom to do whatever we want with our hardware and software. This is exactly what motivated the GNU project, and the GNU project is the main reason why the software side of the Pandora project was possible in the first place. This is a quite crucial philosophical point. It is true that many people don't care about this. I have no problem with that. But it seems like you explicitly want to encourage people to not care about these philosophical/political issues; you seem to think that for the "casual user", these things are irrelevant. In my opinion, that is a mistake, at least in the long term.

No, I explicitly do not want to shovel these issues down peoples throats. I explicitly believe that neither I, nor anyone else, have the rights to decide what words someone else can or cannot use.

Do you consider renaming this particular forum to "GNU/Linux OS" instead of "Linux OS" as a form of "shovelling issues down peoples throats"?

 

[Exophase]

onpon4, no offense, but anyone who thought that Linus Torvalds was the main contributor to the Linux kernel (never mind what people commonly call Linux) is way out of touch to begin with. This has never been about attributing personal credit. It's about semantics towards what is entitled to be called an OS and what ideology deserves the most visible mindshare.. or something like that.


Most "Linux" distros consist of the Linux kernel, some GNU userspace, and some non-GNU userspace. The problem I have with the whole "GNU/Linux" thing is that there isn't really a standard GNU system. Oh sure, there's this big collection of GNU software, but regardless of rms's motivations pretty much anything can be GNU (or so it would seem?). And different distros are using different pieces of GNU software - where they're not including something GNU they're either including an alternative or nothing at all. Even the really core parts of GNU like gcc, binutils, glibc, and all the shell stuff, can be replaced by other things (and occasionally is). But usually not in a wholesale fashion, which makes it difficult to delineate between GNU and not-GNU.


It gets especially absurd when rms starts talking about how the GNU banner includes various games. So if a distro has non-GNU games too, why shouldn't they get a stake at the title? Or is it only dictated by whichever single entity contains the most lines of code?


The thing that mystifies me is FSF's obsession with educating the vast public about "issues" that only really apply to programmers. Isn't it enough that the model/ideology reaches out to programmers, allowing them to perpetuate it? Isn't it enough that the Linux kernel was driven by GPL? FSF is quite obsessed with semantics (as they argue, words matter because they tell us what to expect of something), but I think they need to get a better grip of real world linguistics, because we constantly use names for things that aren't taxonomically correct or are otherwise misleading.

 

[moxie]

Do you consider renaming this particular forum to "GNU/Linux OS" instead of "Linux OS" as a form of "shovelling issues down peoples throats"?

No. I see it as a form of shoveling when I see it argued that it should be done because it is Proper and Correct, and when it is implied that those who think otherwise are uninformed ignoramuses. I would, however, oppose it on the grounds that it would be a ways of bending over for a contraproductive political campaign.

 

[_wb_]

Let me try to summarize the various arguments given for each name (as a name for this forum), and please add to this if I forgot something. I am assuming that we want two forums, one for Android discussion, and one for the other currently existing OS'es (official OS, Slackware, ArchARM, PanDebian, etc.).


"Linux OS"


+ people will recognize this "brand" more easily


+ people do not care about philosophy/politics, we should not shovel things down their throats


- Android is also based on linux, so this name doesn't really distinguish one from another


- arguably the name is incorrect since the kernel is only part of the OS ("Linux-based OS" could solve this)


"GNU/Linux OS"


+ GNU is an important component of the OS (and so is of course Linux)


+ the set of values embodied by the GNU Project is closely related to those of the Open Pandora project


+ Android is not a GNU/Linux OS, so the distinction is clear


- harder to pronounce


- might sound preachy/pedantic and thus scare away casual users

 

[ekianjo]

"GNU/Linux OS"


+ GNU is an important component of the OS (and so is of course Linux)


+ the set of values embodied by the GNU Project is closely related to those of the Open Pandora project


+ Android is not a GNU/Linux OS, so the distinction is clear


- harder to pronounce


- might sound preachy/pedantic and thus scare away casual users

You forgot :


- likely to spark hateful discussions between FSF supporters and the rest of the world

 

[_wb_]

The thing that mystifies me is FSF's obsession with educating the vast public about "issues" that only really apply to programmers. Isn't it enough that the model/ideology reaches out to programmers, allowing them to perpetuate it? Isn't it enough that the Linux kernel was driven by GPL? FSF is quite obsessed with semantics (as they argue, words matter because they tell us what to expect of something), but I think they need to get a better grip of real world linguistics, because we constantly use names for things that aren't taxonomically correct or are otherwise misleading.

I don't think these issues only apply to programmers. Do you consider the Pandora being open or closed down also only relevant for developers? I don't. Similarily, even if you never program at all, there is an important difference (even from the point of view of just the end-user) between Free Software and Closed Software. For example, the problem of all kinds of vendor lock-in mechanisms is quite important for the broad public, not just for programmers.


I agree that the effectiveness of the "linguistic approach" of the FSF is very much debatable, but I don't see the advantage of knowingly propagating misleading names either. For the general public, it is probably hopeless, just like the meaning of the word "hacker" has somehow been modified to denote some mallicious attacker instead of just a clever programmer. This doesn't mean that in geeky subcultures like the Pandora community, we necessarily have to follow the linguistic practices of the general public. I still use the words "hack", "hacking", "hacker" in its original sense (see http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/H/hack.html) when I am talking to colleagues - why not?

"GNU/Linux OS"


+ GNU is an important component of the OS (and so is of course Linux)


+ the set of values embodied by the GNU Project is closely related to those of the Open Pandora project


+ Android is not a GNU/Linux OS, so the distinction is clear


- harder to pronounce


- might sound preachy/pedantic and thus scare away casual users

You forgot :


- likely to spark hateful discussions between FSF supporters and the rest of the world

Yes, but that one applies to both options I guess

 

[DaDaDaniel]

You forgot :


- likely to spark hateful discussions between FSF supporters and the rest of the world

No, that's entirely your fault. Had the forum been named GNU/Linux from the beginning, nobody would have brought it up.