GNU Inside? 270
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) "
Unimaginative Inside (Score:1)
Re:GNU Branding (Score:1)
I continue to lose respect for RMS/GNU (Score:1)
Yes, it has contributed a lot to the development, existence, etc of Linux. But guess what, that doesn't mean anything. There has been no license breech etc.
The long and short of it is Linux owes GNU absolutely nothing. Before you start arguing with me please realize that GNU made the choice to be the way it is and distribute the way it has. This choice made, it is completely irrational to constantly beg for credit.
End of discussion. If you disagree with me, your opinion is wrong.
Re:It's not about percentages (Score:1)
If Linux wanted to be an ass, he would be arguing with the world's great computer scientists (and their counterports in the commercial sphere) that his monolithic kernel is superior to the microkernels every advanced OS uses. Oh wait! He is!
Re:Jon 'maddog' Hall to speak in London (Score:1)
Re:A few points (Score:1)
Counterpoint: Spark plugs make up less than 1% of a car -- but try driving without them.
Re:A few points (Score:1)
Misquote (Score:1)
Linus: rms asked me if I minded the name before starting to use it, and I said "go ahead". I didn't think it would explode into the large discussion it resulted in... I never felt that the naming issue was all that important
the Free in Free Software (Score:1)
I will avoid any future public forum including Stallman, because I want to hear people talking about Linux and free software, not whining about what we should call our OS of choice.
GNU/FreeBSD does use GNU tools ! (Score:1)
What do you mean if?
The FreeBSD distribution does use GNU tools.
You don't believe me? Try typing "gcc" on FreeBSD and see what happens.
Re:Hope this works... (Score:1)
And while it is not better than every compiler on the unix market, you have to remember that unix c compilers tend to be provided by the manufacturer of the hw, and as a consequence they don't really have a large dev time spent on them.
If you have ever had the unfortionate experience of working with the amdahl cc that I had to use for a class at uni, you would understand what I mean..
- Factory
Because... (Score:1)
Re:GNU Branding (Score:1)
Wow. I'll be sure to share your staggering proof that the *BSD binutils and libc don't really exist with all my friends. If tools do not exist, people make them.
Re:Pinnacle of Arrogance (Score:1)
Re:Hope this works... (Score:2)
Re:RMS should read the GPL (Score:2)
Certainly (Score:2)
Hypothetical situation: You design a car. You are starting to work on the spark plugs, when someone brings in a pair of working spark plugs, and goes on to say he made a car. Did he? No. He made spark plugs, and you made most of the car. That's basically what's pissing of Stallman. GNU made most of the OS, including many critical parts, and GNU is not getting recognized. He actually doesn't so much care for GNU to be recognized as free (read: freedom, not economics, so not Open Source) software to be recognized. The way he thinks to do that is by calling it by GNU/Linux. Hey, we need some name for the OS to differentiate it from the kernel, so why not go with that is his logic.
One of these days, I'll learn more English. For now, pardon my horrible grammar.
The perfect subject for a slashdot poll... (Score:2)
1. Linux (no GNU)
2. Linux (GNU inside)
3. GNU/Linux
4. GNUlix
5. Tux in the sky with diamonds
Re:Seems like a good idea to me... (Score:2)
Re:MS Windows suffering (Score:2)
Windows is certainly not perfect. But your fiction about it's extreme unusablity just makes you look stupid to people who use it day in and day out to do their work (most people). Granted, you are preaching to the choir here at Slashdot.
Most people aren't geeks, and don't install new apps every two days or so, and therefore don't run into the 'damage caused by installing applications' that you speak of.
I personally reinstalled Windows on my main machine at home recently, wiping off the Linux partition. Want to know why? Because I had stuff I wanted to do, and Linux was in the way. Multimedia support on Linux sucks, and you can limp around using the brain-damaged version of Netscape as long as you like. Clue: the Windows version has more features.
There are still some linux boxes on my home network, but I'm not wasting a keyboard or monitor by plugging it into them, because they're servers, which is the thing a Linux machine is useful for. Long uptime is important on servers, after all. It isn't important on a desktop machine, unless you're one of the people who gets off on how many days your machine has been on without rebooting. The power utilities love those guys, ya know? The rest of us, after awhile, ask "why?"
But these are wasted keystrokes on my part, because Linux isn't an OS, it's a religion. Stick to your outdated 1980's technology. When history rolls you over you can sit there feeling good that your system hasn't crashed yet. That big rock out in the field is stable too.
Re:GNU Branding (Score:2)
Linux has indeed been extremely positive for GNU, but the reverse is also true. The Linux name, as a means of encompassing entire distros, uses the functionality of both Linux and GNU (and the other guys like X11 of course) for the sole purpose of crediting Linux. You don't see credits to GNU until you start reading ``COPYING'' or some other files.
X11 could also demand some respect, but it isn't as important as GNU is, and if they choose not to, why should that force rms not to seek recognition for GNU and the software model which created it? At least with X1111 you know you're using X11; with ls, you have no idea who created it, unless you do a `man ls' or something.
Wrong. (Score:3)
That's the most conservative defining line of the OS. More liberal definitions might include X and what not, but that's not terrible relevant; the point is that GNU is a core component of the OS by any definition.
RMS responce: the full quote. (Score:3)
He likes the slogan idea but only as a _supplement_ to people calling it GNU/Linux, not as a compromise. He still wants top billing.
Opinion time: I think he really is miffed at the attention Linus T. gets and so jumps up and down and yells "Me too! Me too!" How very childish.
-MikeR-
GNU Branding (Score:4)
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.
A few points (Score:4)
- pmitros@mit.edu
Re:Hope this works... (Score:4)
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.
Isn't this inherent with free software? (Score:5)
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.)
GPL inside? (Score:5)
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?
Re:Yes you can (Score:1)
And, the fact is that the distros do use bash, and not, say, ash.
You could indeed boot up a system with the linux kernel and no GNU stuff (say, with BSD stuff). But then it would clearly not be a Linux-and-GNU-based system.
---
`any secretary' (Score:1)
Yes, any secretary can learn emacs lisp. Most of those girls going under the job description of `secretary' are anything but. They're usually just receptionists (often lousy ones, at that) and do not have anywhere near the abilities of a secretary. These girls can barely operate a computer (ie turn it on, ok a bit harsh, they can type a letter in word) and can't think their way out of a hoola-hoop. Real secretaries actually do quite a lot: take dictation, though probably not as much these days; organise meatings; type letters; organise the company/department (depending on level) in general (eg getting their boss's message out to the workers). Basicly, they take care of all the little details. All this requires intelligence and a form of programming skills. A secretary should have no trouble whatsoever learning any programming language that your slightly better than average programmer can learn easily.
Don't judge secretaries by the trash ther're being replaced with. A good secretary is like a good Unix admin: can do the job of 5-10 `regular' secretaries (NT admins (NOTE: there are good NT admins out there, they're just as rare as hen's teeth)), and is about as expensive. This is probably why you have a low opinion of secretaries: the good ones are hidden by all the mediocre to bad ones.
Re:I continue to lose respect for RMS/GNU (Score:1)
Any you're not whining? Almost all I see is whining about `it must be gnu/linux' and `it must not be gnu/linux'. About the only posts I've ever seen not whining are the ones pointing out that RMS isn't advocating calling the kernel GNU/Linux.
GNU OS (Score:2)
Re:RMS' position (Score:2)
Violation (Score:1)
Eeeeehhhh,
Is it just me, or is that some sort of violation of Intel property ??
Re:Linus inside, GNU outside (Score:2)
Question is, would you be able to use Linux without all those wonderful toys GNU gives us ????
Personally I don't think so, but hey that's just me
Linux contributions to GNU (Score:2)
It's not like Linux just takes the GNU tools and gives nothing back. Alot of the effort spent in expanding the current GNU utilities, and developing new GNU programs are due to peoples involvement in Linux.
BTW, when Linus started Linux, there were other free c compilers other than gcc, which was the main piece of GNU software Linus used at the beginning. The existence of the GNU tools sped up the development of Linux, but it still could have occurred without them. Heck, he could have used the BSD tools instead.
-buffy
keep it simple (Score:1)
It would be logical to call it:
GNU-BSD-etc..etc../Linux, or even
85%GNU-10%BSD-..../Linux
(i just invented the numbers - they don't mean anything)
I know it sounds stupid - It is.
On the other hand, "GNU inside" sticker sounds like a good idea:
Short, easy to pronounce, nice little sticker and above all truth - There really is a lot of GNU stuff inside any Linux distribution.
maybe... (Score:3)
And something else I was musing on... The way I interpret things in the free software community, is that you write code that fills a niche that you see, and you get credit from your peers for doing it. Going by this, I really don't understand where RMS/GNU is coming from... After all, just about any competent admin is going to ditch the (usually crappy) tools that ship with their OS of choice and install the GNU tools... By doing so, they know about GNU, they now the quality of the tools they are choosing to use, why must we have the GNU name forced down our throats? It's not like there are many unix-types that don't know about the GNU tools... So, to me, since GNU already has the respect of its users / peers, who are they trying to get here with all this incessent cheerleading?
Anyway, long paragraph. Rant mode off.
Re:Pinnacle of Arrogance (Score:2)
Re:Why don't we just call the complete system GNU? (Score:2)
They didn't. Show me even a mention of this on http://www.xfree86.org. XFree86 isn't even under the GPL or LGPL, it uses the X license.
RMS==gadfly (Score:2)
Re:Gnu + penguin concept? (Score:1)
I think he's going to eat the penguin or crap on him.
Re:Hope this works... (Score:1)
Yes, I know, it's horrible, and I was being cynical about Star Wars yesterday, but it had to be done...
Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
Finally a solution? (Score:1)
still be using Linux... I'm using Linux, GNU is
along for the ride, however I do realise that
a large majority of the code I rely on is GNU.
I would like to credit GNU and RMS, but it easy to
see why people are upset when changing the name
to gnulix or even GNU/Linux are suggested. I think
that a GNU Inside logo would be great... I'd use it
and LIKE it... which is the point really.
Re:Linus inside, GNU outside (Score:2)
Look carefully, and you'll realise that GNU is a lot of what you love about Linux.
BTW, I think the "GNU Inside" logo is a brilliant idea. Perhaps it needs rewording, to avoid the blatant Intel "tribute".
--
We don't count I guess.. (Score:1)
Daniel
Re:Why don't we just call the complete system GNU? (Score:2)
Daniel
Linux kernel is definitely replaceable by BSD, etc (Score:1)
Linux kernel is his; nothing more (Score:2)
Re:GNU Branding (Score:1)
While it is certainly true that there are some people who use Linux that don't know what the FSF is, it is also true that there are tens of thousands of people who only know of the FSF because Linus Torvalds wrote a free kernel to host all of those nifty tools.
I personally am one of those people. I would NEVER have known about the FSF if it weren't for Linux.
Heck, I even agree with RMS in that it is important that the freedom of Linux needs to be stressed. But this argument has gotten to the point where it is doing RMS's cause harm, and I don't care if Saint Ignucius started this whole GPL bandwagon, it's now officially bigger than one person.
Re:maybe... (Score:4)
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.
Re:GNU/Linux is a misnomer (Score:3)
ANY free operating system that is compatible with Unix could be called GNU. All "Linux" distributions meet this requirement to a large extent (though some, like Suse have an uncomfortable amount of non-free code), and calling them GNU/Linux is not incorrect. Of course, neither is calling them "foo", but if the idea of software freedom is important to the distribution bundler, the GNU moniker should be adopted because it came first.
Futhermore, there are other reasons why the name GNU/Linux should be adopted:
1) Much of the core O/S code is GNU code (that is produced under the auspiscies of the GNU project). Without it nothing runs but the kernel. the same is not true of, say, X: lots of systems do not use a GUI.
2) Technically, if we separate the core O/S code into kernel and non-kernel parts, adopting a / convention makes a certain amount of sense: certainly we can envision GNU/Hurd, or BSD/Linux.
3) RMS deserves credit. This is not a rational reason, but an emotional one. Still, if we wish to credit the man for his work, and are producing a free O/S distribution, calling it GNU/Linux is the right thing to do. I suppose this is Debian's reasoning.
In my discussions with RMS, I pointed out that trying to encourage the use of a proper noun that others don't like, in the face of an already popular moniker is difficult, and encouraging the use of GNU as an adjective instead might meet with greater acceptance. However, this flies in the face of the valid technical argument above (as RMS gently pointed out to me).
To his credit, in "Open Sources", RMS does appear to take this approach, when talking about "GNU/Linux systems". He as also reminded me that GNU, as an adjective already has a specific meaning: software produced under the auspiscies of the GNU project. (I suppose that their release of a GNU system on a Linux kernel would then be called "GNU GNU/Linux"). "GNU Linux" without the slash isn't acceptable: it would mean a Linux kernel release produced by the GNU project.
To those that say that GNU/Linux is too much of a mouthful, the response could be "Well, just call it GNU, then." It all comes down to what you want to convey: a particular distribution, or an instance of a free operating system. The latter really does deserve the GNU moniker. It should not be a surprise that RMS appears to care more about conveying the idea of software freedom than market branding.
As for RMS being a stubborn crank, supposedly insulted by use of the Linux momiker when talking about a GNU/Linux system in his presense: I have to strongly disagree. I made the honest mistake of calling Debian's distribution "Debian Linux" when it is clearly called "Debian GNU/Linux" (in email), and he simply asked me to use the correct name, please. He did not insist that I call Red hat's distribution "Red hat GNU/Linux", though I'm sure he'd like me to (I made clear why I do not, and he did not seam miffed in any way -- disappointed perhaps, but that did not come across.). Methinks stories of his arrogance are just plain FUD.
RMS and I are not in perfect agreement about what should be called GNU/Linux. He has convinced me to encourage others to consider calling their Linux distributions GNU/Linux to reflect the technical nature of the system as well as stress it's free nature as well (and this I do). It is possible to engage the man in debate without having to be in perfect agreement.
Bottom line: If RMS, the father of the modern renaissance of free software, says that he named a free Unix-like operating system "GNU", and wants others to use that name, I am not about to argue that he is wrong, only that people aren't required to heed this particular wish. I suspect that some people want to call some free operating systems something else and get RMS blessing to do so. This ain't gonna happen. RMS has stated his position and is standing by it. It's funny that others seam to be uncomfortable disagreeing with him. Perhaps they are not as sure of their convictions as he is?
what's the point? (Score:4)
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.
GNU/Solaris? GNU/Windows? (Score:2)
Not once when someone asked me what platform I was running did I say, oh I've got a GNU/Windows desktop machine and my server is an UltraSparc2 running GNU/Solaris.
This whole argument is completely rediculous, and about RMS being unhappy that when "Open Source" hit it big, it wasn't because of the Hurd project.
I wonder if RedHat or one of the other companies compiled their distribution using another compiler, like Metrowork's upcoming CodeWarrior compiler, would he still object to just calling it Linux?
Is he upset about the fact that 1/10th of an average distribution is FSF code? Is he upset that all of it is compiled with his utilities? Should Quake have been called GNU/Quake, being compiled with DJGPP? He's bitching a lot about this and not really being all that clear why and what he really wants.
It seems unreasonable to even ASK that Linux be called GNU/Linux if its based on the fact that FSF tools are being used to build the software, since, as I said, he didn't gripe about Quake, or any of the other programs using them.
If its the fact that FSF code makes up some small but significant portion of an average Linux distribution, I'd think calling it XFree86/Linux makes more sense. I've got more X crap on here than FSF. Hell, I've got more Mozilla stuff on here than FSF.
Re:RMS should read the GPL (Score:4)
Loren Osborn
I'll call it GNU/Linux... (Score:5)
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...
Re:GNU in Use (Score:2)
Maybe something like GNU Now Underneath?
RMS' position (Score:2)
I dunno. I'm ok with the idea of a "GNU Inside" sticker. I'm not ok with RMS's particular interpretation of "free software" when it means "you can use our software as long as you aggressively promote our name". The only other software group I'm aware of that insists on such visible name recognition is Microsoft *cough*
The problem I see.... (Score:2)
I wonder if peoiple will still say "but 90% isn't GNU" as they do with the GNU/Linux debate (which, btw, I don't take a side on - I don't care.), or just ignore it completely.
We now return you to your regular gnu flamewar. (/sarcasm)
Hope this works... (Score:5)
--
Ian Peters
Re:Hope this works... (Score:2)
So why can't RMS be like "the great artists and artisans of medieval times"? The name GNU implies RMS. He wants it be called GNU/Linux for his own personal gratification. It's as simple as that.
I think the writers of free software do deserve credit. But according to RMS, people don't deserve, nor should they desire, credit for their work. According to him, that's just an excuse for proprietary non-free software. Yet when it comes to his own foundation's name, he demands that people give the FSF, and hence RMS, credit. That seems awfully hypocritical to me.
GNU branding (Score:2)
Re:Hope this works... (Score:3)
"... Utilities that are far and away better than their counterparts on other UNIXes
What? Ever benchmarked gcc against a commercial compiler?
Well, yes, but there are other aspects to the point.
Would you rather have GNU find with, for example,
the constraint options -mindepth -maxdepth, or
the find that ships with solaris which lacks these? Would you prefer something like ncftp,
or do you enjoy the default ftp client? Are you
so enamoured of the stock vi that you don't want the luxury of something like elvis or vim?
How about sh rather than zsh or bash?
The point is that GNU (and many other libre) utilities are (for the most part) far and away better than their counterparts.
After using them, they make the originals look like utter crap.
Who are the idiots who gave the above posting a 5? (Score:3)
At the time I posted my reply, the note I'm replying to was rated "5". Why?
NiceGuy has written a flame, saying nothing that hasn't been said before on Slashdot. Now, he has a right to his opinion, but moderation isn't supposed to be about "I agree/I disagree".
No new facts are presented; worse, the posting puts quotes around statements that are not being made (RMS has never claimed that Linux is good only as a stop-gap), an unethical technique in a debate (it's called a straw man argument).
The purpose of moderation is to try to move the gems to the front. This was not a gem; a similar posting that made the opposite point would also not be a gem.
Re:RMS should read the GPL (Score:4)
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.
A name (Score:3)
The silly part is that a name is not really important, linux could be named Freenux and our lives would continue the same. A name is not important, the important is what describes and in the "thing" we should put our efforts, not in how to call it. There's a long way to go, things to be made and remade but we can cut this stupid flame war and turn people's heads to what's important.
GNU made a BIG contribution to free software, but if people forgets that is people's fault (who usually is very ungratefull).
IMHO, Linux is Linux, GNU is GNU and BOTH of them create an enviroment that we can call GNU/LINUX, but please leave the option to people (yes that ungratefull people)
Just my 2 cents
Re: Linux-based G'noo (Score:2)
Actually, Stallman wrote:
Anyone who hasn't read the original GNU (`g'noo', not `noo') manifesto really should--see http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html [gnu.org]
GNU/Linux Pronunciation suggestion (Score:3)
Seriously, I have to agree with other comments regardng "where to stop". I think my Linux installation uses more than just GNU. I use my VIM editor more than any other tool, so maybe I'll call my Linux VIM/Linux. After all, developers needed an editor to create the source for GNU.
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
Re:Linux kernel is his; nothing more (Score:2)
Linus worked in the Linux kernel; nothing more. The kernel is his, no problem; the typical Linux system is not his; and he is not in a position to claim anything but the kernel.
So now you're back to calling it GNU/XFree86/Cheeseplant/Spanner/Linux or whatever. If you're taking the line that the GNU project should be mentioned because of its contribution, then all contributors should be so mentioned, otherwise it wouldn't be fair.
Or you could quote RMS' line about "The GNU project adopted XFree86". Fine. The Linux project adopted GNU. So it's called Linux.
I think the sticker is a nice compromise - I think it's more likely to promote awareness of the GNU project than insisting on a more complicated pronunciation of the name of the OS. Human nature tends towards simplification of names - "Bob" from "Robert", "Win95" from "Microsoft Windows 95" (which is, after all, the name on the box) and "Linux" from "GNU/Linux".
Plus a cool logo/slogan works better than deliberately injecting naffness into a name.
--
Re:RMS should read the GPL (Score:2)
Yeah, I vote for that one! Sounds way cooler than 'GNU/Linux'
belbo (oh my, another zero level post...)
Won't happen... (Score:2)
My personal intro to GNU (Score:3)
That said, I'm getting really tired of this flame war. Why take a chance of slowing the Linux momentum by changing the name - this would hurt both GNU and Linux. The FSF will naturally recieve more donations as Linux grows because Linux is so tied to GNU and companies that want to further Linux (ie IBM, Intel) can do so by funding the FSF.
If anything, RMS should work on his on distro or Linux standard that is based on GNU. (ie GNU/Linux 1.0 complient) - in a sence, something like POSIX. This makes a lot more sense than trying to brand the kernel, which has very little to do with GNU
The Decay of the Spirit of Free Software (Score:3)
No one seems to be getting the central issue here. It's not about the hard work of the members of the FSF, or the XFree86 Team, or Linus and his cadre of kernel hackers, or any other group. It's about the whole, the atmosphere, the new great wonder of the world that a vast network of individuals has created. But I can't be surprised about what has happened. People want power. People like exclusive groups. Free software, to these people, has either become too accessible or too far out of their grasp.
Item 1: Accessibility. Many (not necessarily most, and certainly not all) *BSD users have cited that they have fled to it because "too many people are using Linux." To them, Linux was an exclusive club, but no longer. I've seen GIMP plugins that are only free for use under open-source operating systems. I've seen people protest the porting of GTK to Windows because they believe it is an inferior operating system. We must stop treating free software like it is ours; we must treat it as everyone's.
Item 2: Controllability. This is what RMS is worried about. Once upon a time, he used to be part of the scene. He created some great software: a compiler, a complex editor. Then, he got RSI. Now, he can mostly just sit back and watch as free software slips out of his grasp, as his dream of a GNU system goes in directions he never intended. So what does he do? He attaches himself to the one most visible place: the name. Microsoft is big on control. Ever see that "Designed for Windows" logo they grant? Without that, no major software chain will risk buying your Windows software. In the same vein, I see Debian Linux turning into Debian GNU/Linux after the FSF gets involved, and journalists claiming that the "true" name of Linux is GNU/Linux after talking to RMS.
People need to realize that nobody owns free software, that it has become like an organism with its own free will. We can either try to foster this organism or we can try to control it. But like we would from the childhood experiment of transferring an outdoor plant to an indoor pot and watching it wilt and die slowly, we must realize that trying to push free software around is not the way to improve the situation. We must contribute in a positive fashion, with software, or through dissemination. We must not try to put free software in a fishbowl for only us, or force free software into a corral so it runs where we want it to. This will only lead to fragmentation, a breaking of the great network into little conflicting pieces. It may be impossible to prevent, but we must try to keep this great thing we have going for as long as we can.
Debian's lackluster? (Score:3)
I thought Debian was one of the most popular distributions out there, second only to RedHat. Umm. Maybe SuSE.
I submit that one of the reasons for Debian's lackluster showing is because of its name.
Are you serious?
I seriously doubt the GNU/Linux name has any influence on its popularity.
Alejo.
What's GNU? (Score:3)
I would be less than 1/5th does.
Okay, you and I know what GNU is, but does your mother, your brother, your uncle and your grandmother, all of them who know what Linux is, know what GNU is?
I would bet less than 1/10th of the people who have heard of Linus Torvalds have heard of Richard Mars Stallman. How many times have you read about Torvalds on your newspaper? How many times have you read about Stallman?
On the other hand, I agree that pronouncing GNU/Linux is harder.
Some people have criticized Stallman and the FSF supporters by saying they should add a clausule to the GPL saying that the name of anything GPLed must begin with "GNU/". That is, IMO, childish. The FSF is not legally forcing anyone to call Linux GNU/Linux, just making a polite request.
There are some guys trying to make up a complete Linux distribution with no GNU software. That fails to see the point. If it wasn't because of GNU software such as Emacs and GCC, there would be no such thing as what we know as (GNU/)?Linux.
Stallman says the reason why we should call it GNU/Linux is to keep in mind the real strength of the system: the freedom. If you call it GNU/Linux, you are reminding everyone how it all started back in 1984. Linux is usually associated with speed, stability and technical characteristics. What is, on the other hand, the first thing that comes to your mind when you think about GNU? Okay, technical excelence, but they state it everywhere, their main objective is to build a free operating system, not just a technically excelent one. By calling it GNU/Linux you are mentioning the freedom behind it, its principal characteristic.
And since GNU/Linux is rather hard to pronounce, I at times leave out the
Just my thoughts, you are welcome to call it Linux, GNU/Linux, Jose or whatever you want.
Alejo.
Why don't we just call the complete system GNU? (Score:2)
And RMS responds! (Score:5)
It is an interesting discussion. Please read some of the other messages in that thread. RMS says some interesting things such as this [codemeta.com]: '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.'
GNU/Linux is a misnomer (Score:5)
Also, I just found a wonderful quote in an article about the controversy [codemeta.com] which addresses this very well:
I like it... (Score:2)
I think this would be an excellent opportunity to not only spread the word on GNU, but to fund them as well, if they were to sell the stickers themselves.
Ken Crandall [mailto]
Is a little imagination really so difficult? (Score:2)
I mean, c'mon, I realize that innovation isn't exactly a commodity within the free software community, but we've already seen this particular Intel slogan ripped off once for the promotion of Linux. It's bad enough that Hall even came up with this braindead idea, but it's worse to see so many people actually pleased with it. Please rethink this whole idea and either drop it or come up with something else -- it's embarrassingly pathetic.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Pinnacle of Arrogance (Score:4)
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.
Re:Hope this works... (Score:2)
Re:I would much rather call it Linux (Score:5)
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
Gnu + penguin concept? (Score:2)
In case no one has seen it, I have it here [mit.edu].
As good as this design is, I came across it only by chance, and have never seen it anywhere else. If it could be cannibalized (remove "Debian," maybe touch up here and there) it would make a splendid logo for the purpose at hand . . .
(P.S.: And if "GNU Inside" is too Intel-ish-- and I suspect it is-- why not use, say, "GNU System" or "The GNU System?")
Giving credit to Stallman (Score:2)
That being said, just calling any given Linux distribution GNU/Linux isn't the right way. It's simply too difficult to pronounce - that's not a way to make a brand.
Everyone who knows anything about Linux knows that the GNU bit is implied - it is the very foundation of Linux, but I won't be inserting it into every sentence that comes out my mouth just because of the vanity of RMS.
I'll stick the GNU sticker to my box and then I'll just stick to GNU.
insulting, rude, bully, freedom (Score:4)
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.
Re:Hope this works... (Score:2)
GNu is Not uSoft (Score:2)
Maybe it's time to change GNU to GNu (where the u is actually a lower case mu). GNu = GNu is Not uSoft.
rweems at home dot com
Re:Misquote (Score:3)
The full quote:
Seems like a good idea to me... (Score:3)
The thing that stick in my gut is that this is all such a waste of time. I'll be PC here and state that I am gratefull for all of the work that RMS has done, as well as the FSF. I'm a big emacs fan (well actually xemacs lateley) and I appreciate the work RMS has contibuted towards that software.
However....it seems so hypocritical on the part of RMS to make this an issue. If his goal is to promote free (like free speech not free beer) software then he should be thrilled by the fact that Linux gives him the opportunity to do so. Idealistically the name (should) means nothing. So what is the true goal here...promote free software or promote the awareness of RMS and the FSF.
Maybe RMS is not as idealistic as he wants to think he is.
So yeah...lets compromise and get on with it already.
It's not about percentages (Score:2)
I'd still like to give the HURD a try, and I'll even call it GNU/Hurd if that's what RMS wants!
Re:maybe... (Score:2)
Everybody else?
I'm more or less a semi-informed bystander here, I don't have a strong opinion here either way... here's what occurs to me from following this:
All the trade press is giving Linux lots of eyeball-time and it is starting to become a topic of discussion in many shops, including my own, as 'Linux'. (my poor braindead mgmt sticks with NT, they 'dabble' in a little Solaris, Linux is not on the 'approved' list)
But "Linux" is at least on their radar. If FSF finished Hurd tomorrow and was able to get a GNU/Hurd distribution together, would outsiders like my management make the connection that this was a viable alternative to NT same as "Linux"?
So it seems to me that a possible reason for this is to make GNU part of this radar-blip, so that anytime someone outside of the Linux community talks/thinks/reads about it the TLA "GNU" is prominent. This makes it easier to later replace the 'linux' in GNU/Linux with something else and still retain the connotation that "Linux" alone now has?
RSM from Salon... (Score:2)
"It's a mistake to ask that question," said Stallman, fixing upon me a baleful look. "Because that makes it sound like there is one winner and one loser and it's an all-or-nothing thing. You're leading yourself into confusion mentally if you formulate it that way. As I see it, I'm sure to have a certain amount of success."
For me, that sums up the futility of the debate. RSM knows that "Linux" is the term that will be used most widely. He just wants to get as many people as possible to use "GNU/Linux". As long as people are aware of his efforts, they'll be reminded of GNU, regardless of whether they say "Linux" or "GNU/Linux."
Can anyone give a timeline on this issue? (Score:3)
Also, the point has been made many times that Linux would not be what it is today without GNU. However, I think it is safe to say that GNU would not be what it is today without Linux. Linux has given GNU a lot of vitality. Maybe Linux needs GNU more than GNU needs Linux, but this is nitpicking.
Anyway, "GNU Inside" sounds ok to me. It's not very innovative, so I guess the slogan fits.
GNU in Use (Score:3)
So what about, "GNU in Use" or "GNU Used Here"? Try them out loud. Seems pretty catchy and (shudder) marketable, IMHO.
Re:insulting, rude, bully, freedom (Score:5)
So long as you don't say it in his prescence. If you do so, he will repeatedly infringe upon your right to free speech by interrupting you until you use his terminology. He prevents you from saying your peace with your words in his presence. Specifically, he has done this during press conferences--he wouldn't even let a reporter finish a question with the word "Linux" in it until said reporter amended it to "GNU/Linux". Politicians in debate have more respect than that.
RMS certainly has the freedom to call it GNU/Linux, and in fact to ask that we do. The way that he does it (interrupting you until you capitulate) is an abuse of free speech and an infringement on everyone else's free speech. You can correct me after I've finished, thank you.
RMS is merely stating his viewpoint that more credit should be given to the GNU project.
Interpert it that way if you wish. Literally, RMS is stating his viewpoint that Linux should be called GNU/Linux. I've heard a couple of explanations for this, but none from RMS himself.
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?
I am insisting upon the right to speak my dissenting viewpoint, in my own words. He has the right to tell me what he thinks I should call it. My problem with RMS in this respect (and understand that I have a lot of respect for this man otherwise) is that he will usurp the floor and hold it hostage while you have it, in order to get his words to come out of your mouth. He denies you freedom of speech. This is entirely different from complaining about it when he has the floor.
Re:GNU Branding (Score:3)
Personally I believe either, and both could be equally correct in the correct context.
The GNU project was to create a free, open unix-like operating system, and as a result, there was a description of the target they were aiming for.
Linux is the correct name for the kernel, of that there is little doubt, but when people describe the whole system, that's when the fun starts.
If you consider GNU as an abstract description of a type (or characteristic) of OS (free/open unix clone), then saying Debian/Redhat etc are GNU systems is correct. Saying the same systems are Linux systems is equally correct, as that is the kernel they are based on.
The problem lies in that by saying GNU/linux, are you accrediting "ownership" (for want of a better term) of linux to GNU? I think not.
A few examples may make the point I'm trying to describe clearer
"The GNU compilier, gcc" is GNU in both abstract, and actual (cause they wrote it)
Redhat distribution is GNU/linux in the abstract term, but not in the actual
Debian is GNU/Linux is both, as that was Debian's choice to call it that.
So, Linux is acceptable to me, as is GNU/Linux, as the latter can refer to the abstraction (distribution has all the characteristic's of the GNU project) or the actual (this distribution was put togther based on GNU)
Does this make any sense, or is this all doublethink?
--
Why not Gnulix? (Score:2)
As many people have pointed out, Linus / Linux owe a debt to RSM for evangelizing all things Open and coding an inhuman number of important utilities. RSM and entire Open movement, though, are the recipient of a lot of current acclaim because Linuxs wrote a kernel which set the ball rolling.
GNU/Linux is awkward; I can't see people using it any more than I can see "Oh, I really like your new Daimler-Chrysler Mercedes-Benz!"
So as a boggle and scrabble player, I'd like to suggest the name "Gnulix" (pronounced "NOO-licks," "NYOO-licks", or even "GNOO-licks") for systems incorporating both the Linux kernel and GNU utilities.
It uses all of the letters of both "gnu" and "linux," with no overlap or waste. It also contains the letters for gin, gun, ix, nil, and lug (any others?).
Has this been said before? Seems I couldn't be the first to combine these words
But if this gives you an idea and you make a new distribution, feel free to send me a copy!;)
timothy
RMS should read the GPL (Score:4)
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.
GNU name no longer applies. (Score:2)
It's now been over 12 years, and the kernel is still not ready. In that time, the GNU project has assimilated other, non-GNU projects as part of the operating system, including the free X implementation XFree86, the GNOME desktop and the GIMP. These did not originate from the FSF, but are freely licensed under the GPL. However, history aside, what gives them precedence to claim these tools as part of the GNU system, and not Linux? I could easily say that a Linux system comprises these tools, plus the relevant GNU ones (mostly the C library and the compiler) and BSD contributions.
To say GNU/Linux is misleading. It may give GNU more coverage, but then logic dictates we should include tribute to the BSD people, the X people, and the many other contributors. To give a similar example, when the HURD is finally ready, are they willing to call it HURD/Mach, considering it is built on the free Mach microkernel from CMU?
I respect the fact that RMS made the first full-blown effort to create a fully working free Unix-type system. His contributions live on in Linux, and the "GNU inside" branding is not a bad idea at all. But his insistence on the "GNU/Linux" name is contradictory to common-sense.