Linux OS? Not GNU/Linux ? :)

[quartercast]

I think the OS section should be split into 3:


• Angstrom (default)


• Android


• Others

 

[ekianjo]

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.

I guess I'm the one to blame

 

[diligentcircle]

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?

If you had continued to read, you would have realized that that was a rhetorical question. I continued with 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.

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.

It's not really about who contributed most. It's about who started and organized it, and who's philosophy is the driving force behind it.

As long as you keep talking about "correctness" and "falsehoods", you're preaching.

I was talking about FSF's position and what the name "GNU/Linux" means. You're saying you believe "GNU" wants credit for what they agree is rightfully called "Linux", and that "GNU/Linux" should be the name of a "Linux" distro by "GNU"? That's funny, because I thought we were arguing about whether GNU/Linux should be called "GNU/Linux" or just "Linux". I've never claimed that calling GNU/Linux "Linux" is simply factually incorrect in this topic. What I've been doing is arguing, not "preaching".

 

[DaDaDaniel]

Onpon4, you seem to miss the point of what I tried to show with the Bill Gates example. It was meant to be ridiculous.

It's not really about who contributed most. It's about who started and organized it, and who's philosophy is the driving force behind it.

And that's very much debatable. Not to belittle GNU, but they had nothing to do with organizing the Linux kernel, they didn't start the distributions popping up all over the map. If it was just GNU I would not be sitting here at my laptop running a free and open OS. I would have powerful free GNU tools I could run under an non-free OS. Or maybe one of the BSDs would be really popular. The FSF of course does not like the BSDs.


They are way too religious about otherwise good ideas. Just look at the list of distributions they don't like: http://www.gnu.org/d...on-distros.html. They bash distros just because the provide ways of obtaining non-free software or explain ways to do that. The general idea that it's better to have no software than non-free software is costing them a lot of credit with me.

 

[diligentcircle]

OK, DaDaDaniel, you don't at agree with the FSF. I don't see why you have to say things you know are silly, but that someone ignorant might take seriously, to prove that, and just because you disagree with FSF doesn't mean you need to oppose the GNU project getting credit for what it has done.

If it was just GNU I would not be sitting here at my laptop running a free and open OS.

That might be true, but might not. Since Linux is a perfectly good kernel, the GNU Hurd isn't a particularly high priority, so if Linux was never created, it very well may have caused the FSF to focus more on the Hurd. Also, the Hurd is usable right now; they don't recommend it because Linux is better at the moment.

The FSF of course does not like the BSDs.

Really? I was pretty sure they were perfectly OK with FreeBSD, just like they're OK with Linux, the kernel. You have a link? I'll look it up myself if not.

 

[DaDaDaniel]

OK, DaDaDaniel, you don't at agree with the FSF. I don't see why you have to say things you know are silly, but that someone ignorant might take seriously, to prove that,

I think everybody else understood it quite well.

and just because you disagree with FSF doesn't mean you need to oppose the GNU project getting credit for what it has done.

GNU produced a lot of great software and they rightfully get credit for that, a lot. Regarding the credit for the whole OS, that's debatable. They certainly put in a lot of effort into the groundwork. But the claim, "it's basically just GNU with the Linux kernel slapped on" is laughable. It totally ignores all the hard work the distributions and various other projects (freedesktop.org, anyone?) put into building a modern OS.

That might be true, but might not. Since Linux is a perfectly good kernel, the GNU Hurd isn't a particularly high priority, so if Linux was never created, it very well may have caused the FSF to focus more on the Hurd. Also, the Hurd is usable right now; they don't recommend it because Linux is better at the moment.

Granted, this is pure speculation.

Really? I was pretty sure they were perfectly OK with FreeBSD, just like they're OK with Linux, the kernel. You have a link? I'll look it up myself if not.

Same link as in last post, a little further down the page: http://www.gnu.org/d...istros.html#BSD


It's getting a little late over here, I have to be at work at noon. Good night.

 

[diligentcircle]

Ah, so it's the same reason they don't endorse most GNU/Linux distros. Thanks!

 

[Exophase]

It's not really about who contributed most. It's about who started and organized it, and who's philosophy is the driving force behind it.

Why should it be about who started it? Why does a philosophy have to drive things like software and operating systems? What if you don't really care about the philosophy or lack thereof?

 

[ekianjo]

Why does a philosophy have to drive things like software and operating systems? What if you don't really care about the philosophy or lack thereof?

Because the philosophy drives also what people actually do and develop. It's not just words, it translates into actions, projects, and software. And licenses on how to use the software, like GPL and other derivatives. The philosophy is very relevant.

 

[Exophase]

Because the philosophy drives also what people actually do and develop. It's not just words, it translates into actions, projects, and software. And licenses on how to use the software, like GPL and other derivatives. The philosophy is very relevant.

So what you're saying is that people would be more compelled to develop for GNU/Linux than Linux, because the latter represents ideals that the former does not? You're saying that what something is named has any bearing on what its development model is? Somehow I'm having a hard time believing this...


People develop things because it's a useful thing to do (for others as well as for themselves) and because they can. The philosophies may enable it but most people are not driven to do so simply to contribute back to the philosophy. Most people do things for pragmatic reasons. What is the actual pragmatic consequence to calling it Linux instead of GNU/Linux?

 

[ekianjo]

So what you're saying is that people would be more compelled to develop for GNU/Linux than Linux, because the latter represents ideals that the former does not? You're saying that what something is named has any bearing on what its development model is? Somehow I'm having a hard time believing this...

I think you took my comment out of context. I wasnt talking about the name in my comment - just replying to your note whether philosophy is important or not for software.

People develop things because it's a useful thing to do (for others as well as for themselves) and because they can. The philosophies may enable it but most people are not driven to do so simply to contribute back to the philosophy. Most people do things for pragmatic reasons. What is the actual pragmatic consequence to calling it Linux instead of GNU/Linux?

I'm not sure if there is any pragmatic about the name itself. I guess it's a matter of credit. Just like you tend to cite your sources when you use or copy someone else's work. It's just good practice.


This being said, the movement and the philosophy comes from GNU, and not from Linux. Linux is just using the GNU system to do something else with it. But there would be no Linux without GNU, and without the philosophy behind it.


As for me, I don't really care because I clearly understand each one's contribution in this. I guess RMS cares more because when the general public refers to Linux, they look at Torvalds as a single person who built everything while it's very far from the truth.

 

[quartercast]

Flogging a dead horse anyone?

 

[moxie]

People develop things because it's a useful thing to do (for others as well as for themselves) and because they can. The philosophies may enable it but most people are not driven to do so simply to contribute back to the philosophy. Most people do things for pragmatic reasons. What is the actual pragmatic consequence to calling it Linux instead of GNU/Linux?

I'm not sure if there is any pragmatic about the name itself. I guess it's a matter of credit. Just like you tend to cite your sources when you use or copy someone else's work. It's just good practice.

You might want to be specific if you want to say that someone somewhere is "using someone else's work" without properly "giving credit" or "citing sources". Are you aware of any instance of, say, someone using GNU software and removing the licences or version messages? Because that would be what you're implying. Not renaming entire projects after parts of the components is not.

This being said, the movement and the philosophy comes from GNU, and not from Linux. Linux is just using the GNU system to do something else with it. But there would be no Linux without GNU, and without the philosophy behind it.


As for me, I don't really care because I clearly understand each one's contribution in this. I guess RMS cares more because when the general public refers to Linux, they look at Torvalds as a single person who built everything while it's very far from the truth.

I think that in RMS mind, that might be true. In the more real reality that the rest of us lives in, the general public have about as little a clue about Linus than they have about RMS.


Actually, if we were to look at what "started linux", we might as well bring Tanenbaum into the mix, too. Surely, he was more of a catalyst to get the kernel off the ground than RMS was?

 

[moxie]

I think the OS section should be split into 3:


• Angstrom (default)


• Android


• Others

This, I agree with.

Flogging a dead horse anyone?

Yes, very. Dead, beaten to a pulp, stomped into the ground, decomposed into soil, in which has grown grass that has served as feed for a new small horse that has already grown up and been beaten to death. Again. As i said earlier, this was a dead horse back in -96/97 already.

 

[Mr_Loon]

Not really knowing a lot about the GNU / Linux naming controversy I've found this thread and the whole controversy in general more or less equally enlightening and hilarious.


Reading a little more on Wikipedia about this, the following quote from Jim Gettys, the originator of the X window system, seems to sum up the situation pretty well IMHO:

There are lots of people on this bus; I don't hear a clamor of support that GNU is more essential than many of the other components; can't take a wheel away, and end up with a functional vehicle, or an engine, or the seats. I recommend you be happy we have a bus.

 

[moxie]

There are lots of people on this bus; I don't hear a clamor of support that GNU is more essential than many of the other components; can't take a wheel away, and end up with a functional vehicle, or an engine, or the seats. I recommend you be happy we have a bus.

Excellent

 

[WizardStan]

Everyone knows the shed needs to be green!

 

[_wb_]

Everyone knows the shed needs to be green!

huh?

 

[WizardStan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_Law_of_Triviality

 

[diligentcircle]

Reading a little more on Wikipedia about this, the following quote from Jim Gettys, the originator of the X window system, seems to sum up the situation pretty well IMHO:

There are lots of people on this bus; I don't hear a clamor of support that GNU is more essential than many of the other components; can't take a wheel away, and end up with a functional vehicle, or an engine, or the seats. I recommend you be happy we have a bus.

I agree with that. However, if people are calling the bus an "engine", there's no reason I should resort to calling it an "engine" myself, and there's nothing wrong with explaining why I call it a "bus" and not an "engine".