Linux OS? Not GNU/Linux ? :)


The point here is that FSF and the GNU project already *gets* credit for GNU where it is included in linux based operating systems. Yes we give credit where credit is due, and the FSF is due its fair share.


However, the naming of a system has nothing whatsoever to do with credit, no matter how much Stallman (or anyone else) insists otherwise. Regardless of how much credit is due to FSF and the GNU project for all the work they did on GNU, that doesn't give them naming rights for any derivative project.


- Neelix
 
Regardless of how much credit is due to FSF and the GNU project for all the work they did on GNU, that doesn't give them naming rights for any derivative project.
The issue relates to what is the context involved. In RMS's view, "Arch Linux" in the context of the kernel program provided by the Arch team is no problem. "Arch Linux" in the context of a complete system that includes GNU and Linux and others would not give proper credit to GNU. "Ubuntu system" would be fine in any context. "Ubuntu Linux" in the context of a complete system that includes GNU and Linux and others would not give proper credit to GNU.
 
The context is irrelevant. The names used to refer to a system or even a combination of components only serve to communicate which item is being referred to. Indicating credit is not part of that function so unless someone is specifically identifying the portion of a system that GNU provided, there is no reason that they should need to use the term GNU as part of the label they use.


- Neelix

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The GNU project is a project to provide a complete free operating system (it was originally intended to be a complete replacement to Unix). Torvalds principally authored the Linux project. Some people had the bright idea of combining the Linux kernel together with the incomplete GNU operating system (the incomplete GNU kernel was the missing final piece) to form a complete OS. The Linux system together with the GNU system form the principle components of such a system.

GNU+Linux by itself is a full system; it is a complete replacement to Unix (Unix is considered a complete system). GNU+Linux are normally used as a basic platform for further work. As far as I know, no other software systems are as fundamental (to the system as a whole) and contribute as much work (in terms of lines of code) as the GNU system and the Linux system.

The problem I have with this, and what everyone else is saying about it, is that GNU + Linux only forms a complete system because that's what GNU defines as a complete system. It isn't based on any precedent outside of their own and the rest of the world actually tends to define "operating system" definitely.


People didn't port GNU software to Linux with the intention of forming a so-called complete operating system, they ported programs that were useful tools, which included GNU and non-GNU software.


You mention that Windows is a complete system. That's interesting, because by GNU's criteria I think they would disagree. It was questioned if people at large would still call Windows Windows if Notepad, Explorer, Paint, and Internet Explorer were all replaced. In my opinion, save for Explorer, yes, it would still be, in fact it very often is because those programs very often are replaced by people still calling the system Windows. I can't quantify this precisely but I believe that what the majority are, when speaking to concepts like Windows or operating systems in general, referring to the system that defines how you run software and what software you can run. Therefore it provides program launching and hardware abstraction (including multitasking). This also implies some user interface method for running programs and managing files, which historically was delegated to command shells but now more often refers to GUIs with window managers and what have you, at least on typical desktop systems. The parts that GNU are most known for are either much less used on Windows, easily and often replaced, or not included at all (gcc/ld for example). The only really strong analog I see is with glibc, and even there that doesn't necessarily apply to all programs.


The whole thing is and always will be a semantics game for what "operating system" means. FSF scoffs at the notion of equivocating operating system with kernel, although that's what computer science students are usually taught in operating systems classes (please tell me if you were in an OS class that turned into writing compilers, or even more than a very bare bones shell). Others will scoff at the notion that GNU's "system" is anything resembling what a user expects out of a modern OS. The argument can go on forever. There's really no absolute or empirical basis to decide a winner.


Sadly FSF is very caught up in arguing semantics and declaring authority over many words and phrases.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem I have with this, and what everyone else is saying about it, is that GNU + Linux only forms a complete system because that's what GNU defines as a complete system. It isn't based on any precedent outside of their own and the rest of the world actually tends to define "operating system" definitely.


People didn't port GNU software to Linux with the intention of forming a so-called complete operating system, they ported programs that were useful tools, which included GNU and non-GNU software.
The precedent is the system that was the Unix OS. The precedent is in RMS's expertise as an operating system author. People combined Linux together with the GNU OS. Other non-GNU software are undoubtedly important contributions to the system. That doesn't change the GNU role as being the core to the system on top of Linux.

You mention that Windows is a complete system. That's interesting, because by GNU's criteria I think they would disagree. It was questioned if people at large would still call Windows Windows if Notepad, Explorer, Paint, and Internet Explorer were all replaced. In my opinion, save for Explorer, yes, it would still be, in fact it very often is because those programs very often are replaced by people still calling the system Windows. I can't quantify this precisely but I believe that what the majority are, when speaking to concepts like Windows or operating systems in general, referring to the system that defines how you run software and what software you can run. Therefore it provides program launching and hardware abstraction (including multitasking). This also implies some user interface method for running programs and managing files, which historically was delegated to command shells but now more often refers to GUIs with window managers and what have you, at least on typical desktop systems.
Windows is still complete without any application software (such as Notepad, Internet Explorer or Windows Media Player). Windows is complete without a graphical interface to interact with the system and it's still true without a command line interface. Windows is complete without a decent software development system (Visual Studio). What makes it complete is the fact that it enables other software to run; this other software cannot run without the Windows OS. The other software complements and extends the Windows OS to form an OS that is more useful than the base by itself.

The parts that GNU are most known for are either much less used on Windows, easily and often replaced, or not included at all (gcc/ld for example). The only really strong analog I see is with glibc, and even there that doesn't necessarily apply to all programs.
Combining GNU with Windows doesn't imply that GNU becomes a dependancy to Windows. GNU's role would be to extend the already complete Windows system.

The whole thing is and always will be a semantics game for what "operating system" means. FSF scoffs at the notion of equivocating operating system with kernel, although that's what computer science students are usually taught in operating systems classes (please tell me if you were in an OS class that turned into writing compilers, or even more than a very bare bones shell). Others will scoff at the notion that GNU's "system" is anything resembling what a user expects out of a modern OS. The argument can go on forever. There's really no absolute or empirical basis to decide a winner.


Sadly FSF is very caught up in arguing semantics and declaring authority over many words and phrases.
In the days of old, the kernel program did not exist in isolation - it always existed within the context of the rest of the system. The kernel was always the means to the end, which include examples as paying your employees their due (payroll), aiming the battleship cannons properly so they hit their target (ballistics) or attaining populace insight through the census (census processing). RMS attains his authority as a pioneer and a master of the field of computing. RMS believes in clear understanding so he takes the time to clarify confusion. I believe that too many people use language without properly considering how clear their message is.


I studied computer science under the pioneers of the field who developed their craft outside of academia. Two of my professors limits the OS to the system that controls the computer (the kernel). One professor defines OS as the collection of software that makes a computer usable. I consider all three correct.


I personally don't have much care for GNU/Linux naming and I understand what people mean when they say "I use Slackware Linux". I enjoy the art of debate because it explores knowledge.
 
There were two new sections added at the same time - this one, and the Android one. The threads in the Android one represent just getting on with things, and what's the most active thread in here? A bunch of semantics, and people fighting the semantic battle of someone they've most likely never even met. :p
 
There were two new sections added at the same time - this one, and the Android one. The threads in the Android one represent just getting on with things, and what's the most active thread in here? A bunch of semantics, and people fighting the semantic battle of someone they've most likely never even met. :p

You didn't read the last line of the previous post, I guess:

I enjoy the art of debate because it explores knowledge.

That's the point of this whole discussion.


By the way, the section on Android is not very interesting so far. Asking recommendations for best games/apps on Android seems to be the main interest. Hardly anything "new" to talk about, since it's software already published and available on many other devices, and Pandora is not even the best device to run them either.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There were two new sections added at the same time - this one, and the Android one. The threads in the Android one represent just getting on with things, and what's the most active thread in here? A bunch of semantics, and people fighting the semantic battle of someone they've most likely never even met. :p

To be fair, the Android section was needed as a place to put a number of ongoing conversations that didn't have another home, so were clogging up he gingerbread beta thread. There was no such need behind the creation of this section, which as best I can tell was created on the basis that if Android got its own forum there should be a complimentary forum to discuss the existing OS. :)


- Neelix
 
There were two new sections added at the same time - this one, and the Android one. The threads in the Android one represent just getting on with things, and what's the most active thread in here? A bunch of semantics, and people fighting the semantic battle of someone they've most likely never even met. :p

You didn't read the last line of the previous post, I guess:

I enjoy the art of debate because it explores knowledge.

That's the point of this whole discussion.
Oh, no, I read it and don't dispute that - I just found it humourous that this area seems remarkably unproductive compared to its twin, where folks are actually speaking about doing stuff with it, even though Android is designed more around consumption. :p


Do carry on, by all means. I just found it amusing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh, no, I read it and don't dispute that - I just found it humourous that this area seems remarkably unproductive compared to its twin, where folks are actually speaking about doing stuff with it, even though Android is designed more around consumption. :p

We (as in people in this forum) have been doing stuff with "Linux OS" for years on Pandora. We did not wait for Android to get things done around :) It's unfair to call it "unproductive". And there is still active development for the current "Linux OS" whereas any Android development depends, I believe, a lot on Notaz's interest on the matter.
 
Oh, no, I read it and don't dispute that - I just found it humourous that this area seems remarkably unproductive compared to its twin, where folks are actually speaking about doing stuff with it, even though Android is designed more around consumption. :p

We (as in people in this forum) have been doing stuff with "Linux OS" for years on Pandora. We did not wait for Android to get things done around :) It's unfair to call it "unproductive". And there is still active development for the current "Linux OS" whereas any Android development depends, I believe, a lot on Notaz's interest on the matter.
I really shouldn't have to explain myself again, here, but I'm very well aware of this, and if you read my post, you'll see that I actually never said that people were being or have been unproductive - I said that *this area* *seems* (as in "looks like") such when compared to another section where there are usage/installation/etc. discussions. If you really can't see how semantics (in comparison to usage, tips, suggestions, etc.) don't look like a very productive usage of a forum section to an "outsider", that's fine. It really is just that I found it mildly amusing that the hottest topic in this section is about RMS' semantic battle, that's all. Seriously, *that's all*.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It really is just that I found it mildly amusing that the hottest topic in this section is about RMS' semantic battle, that's all. Seriously, *that's all*.

Alright, I see what you mean now. Well to be fair all the "software news" and "beta testing" should be under "linux OS" section to give a fair representation of what is going on around "linux os" for Pandora. Then this thread would not appear to be so prominent.
 
^ That is true. I must admit to slight bepuzzlement at the existence of this section, really, at least as far as the top level of the forum goes.
 
^ That is true. I must admit to slight bepuzzlement at the existence of this section, really, at least as far as the top level of the forum goes.

Yeah. Do we really need this section actually?? "Software news" is only for Angstrom on Pandora. Same for "Beta testing" - these two do not concern android at all. Why is there a separate section for "Linux Os" then?
 
^ Why? We don't have the power to add or remove sections or anything like that. We're just forum-janitors. :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I enjoy the art of debate because it explores knowledge.
That's the point of this whole discussion.


By the way, the section on Android is not very interesting so far. Asking recommendations for best games/apps on Android seems to be the main interest. Hardly anything "new" to talk about, since it's software already published and available on many other devices, and Pandora is not even the best device to run them either.

:D Somehow I think this makes for an interesting characterization of people. Why is asking about what software runs well (rather down to earth, practical, directly useful information) less interesting than carrying on a decades old flamewar about philosophical foundations and political maneuvering? This, in a way, marks also the difference between GNU/FSF these days, and those "defectors" that just try to make a useful system for ordinary people.
 
This, in a way, marks also the difference between GNU/FSF these days, and those "defectors" that just try to make a useful system for ordinary people.
I'm curious what you mean by defectors. Are you implying the GNU project is not a practical project that makes useful systems for any people?
 
Back
Top