GNU/Linux

[zeroth]

no it isnt, a computer can work fine without it. and even basic programs needs glibc, but thats GNU too.

GNU/Linux/vi


emacs doesnt count, so don't even mention it :-)

even with that, you can't do everything a system *SHOULD* do.

Play [retail] games, edit photos, watch movies.

if it can't do *everything* that an Operating System *SHOULD* do, then its not a *COMPLETE* Operating System. its just GNU and Linux. not a "Linux Distribution".

[paj12]

you see, KDE would not have existed without GNU, but GNU would exist fine without KDE. the most we could call it is GNU/X/Linux

Then why does KDE run on OSes that don't even include GNU? I'm, referring specifically to FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD. There's even a project to better integrate KDE with FreeBSD to provide a more coherent desktop experience for users of that particular OS. We, as users of Free Software, owe a lot to the GNU project, but saying no other Free Software would exist without GNU is disingenuous and slights the contributions other people have made.

[zeroth]

Then why does KDE run on OSes that don't even include GNU? I'm, referring specifically to FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD. There's even a project to better integrate KDE with FreeBSD to provide a more coherent desktop experience for users of that particular OS. We, as users of Free Software, owe a lot to the GNU project, but saying no other Free Software would exist without GNU is disingenuous and slights the contributions other people have made.

I agree with what you say. What side are you on? I haven't really decided entirely.

It is silly to call an Operating system by its individual parts.


"What operating system do you run?" - "Windows/DOS/Explorer/NTFS/FAT"

Windows wouldn't exist if DOS was never created. without Explorer there would be no Start Menu, Task Bar, or Window Manager (err?). Without NTFS drivers they would be using FAT. without FAT, DOS wouldn't have been created.

silly. very silly. Just call the OS by its distribution. I run Gentoo :-)

edit:

GNU applications are simple applications (other than gcc and emacs, and a few others I'm sure). linux *COULD* have been developed just fine without GNU. the Kernel is the heart of an OS. the kernel is much more important than the programs. cant run programs with no kernel. you can run a kernel without programs. Linux.

[paj12]

What side are you on? I haven't really decided entirely.

I think both sides of this argument are silly. Mr. Stallman's request to be acknowledged for his work is reasonable, but the way he wants people to go about it is unreasonable. People who want to call the system "Linux" are equally unreasonable, because there's a lot more to an operating system than the kernel.

In the context of operating systems, GNU is unimportant. The reason Free operating systems exist is not because of GNU, and it's not because of Linux. Free OSes exist because a culture has developed that encourages the creation of Free Software and emphasizes sharing and cooperation instead of copyright- and patent-enforced fiefdom of proprietary software.

If GNU had not written the basis for a Free, UNIX-like OS, someone else would have. In that context, GNU is unimportant. However, without licenses like the GPL, we would not have a means of protecting Free Software from proprietary interests that would like to abolish it from the face of the Earth and reign in those serfs that have strayed from the manor. In that, context GNU is extremely important. It all depends on how you look at it.

Operating system distributors that include the GNU system in their products should credit the GNU project in some way, but asking them to call their system "GNU/Linux" is disingenuous because it slights the work of others who have contributed parts to the system that we now consider indispensable in its use. Putting all these contributors in the name of the system is impractical, so another way is needed if we are to acknowledge their work.

[rocketpcguy]

when i said KDE would not have existed without gnu, its mainly because it depends on gnu (at least the compilers and tools), even on other operating systems.
i am sure that kde would not have existed as free software if it wasnt for gnu, look at its history when it had non-free libraries.

im talking about what everything *needs* to run. how about if, right now, you remove every single program in your machine, here, that was made by the GNU foundation or links against any GNU libraries?
you can live in linux without KDE, just use gnome. you can live without gnome, use kde. who needs both? use xfce or fluxbox. i can run my system without vi. but can everything else in a *linux* distribution work without GNU?

a GPL licence isnt obvious, the free software foundation worked hard to make the world you live in.

[paj12]

how about if, right now, you remove every single program in your machine, here, that was made by the GNU foundation or links against any GNU libraries?

That's actually an interesting question. Obviously, if I removed all the GNU software from my computer running the SuSE operating system, it would crash and burn because it is written to rely on GNU software. But that raises the question in my mind: what would it take to replace GNU in Free OSes that run the Linux kernel and the GNU software? There are plenty of instances of people porting GNU to kernels other than Linux, but I've never heard of anyone porting other systems to the Linux kernel.

There are actually quite a few programs that are designed to replicate the functionality of GNU programs. Most of these are intended for use with embedded systems with limited memory where the GNU software would be (get this) too bloated. I think BusyBox might make a good substitute for the coreutils package. Programs from BSD could be used to fill in any gaps in functionality. uClibc is designed to be a drop-in replacement for glibc. They claim that all that's needed to port a program to uClibc is simply recompiling the source. GRUB could be replaced by LILO; it's actually the default bootloader for the Slackware operating system. There are a number of shells that could replace bash such as tcsh, ksh, or zsh.

There are way too many GNU programs for me to list them all and ponder possible replacements. Besides, I don't know enough about how operating systems work to know what is or isn't a good replacement for a particular program. Suffice it to say, however, that if the GNU project fell off the face of Earth tomorrow, we would be able to make do. That's not to say that GNU is trivial or unimportant. It's just not unique. What I'm trying to emphasize is that instead of focusing on one kernel of set of tools, we should focus on the fact that there are a huge number of Free Software OSes that are of an extremely high quality. The GNU software and the Linux kernel figure prominently in the vast majority of these OSes, but that's really tangential to the goals of the Free Software Movement: to create high-quality, usable software that does not infringe upon the user's four basic freedoms.

P.S. Damn. Why does it seem that every time I post in this thread, I end up writing a freaking novel?

[rocketpcguy]

busybox/uClibc is a (GNU GPL licenced) cut down version of pure gnu tools for small devices, and distributions dont use them.
of course you could use alternatives to GNU tools. but we could use an alternative kernel instead of linux, that doesnt mean we shouldn't call linux 'linux' anymore just because you can replace it with something else.
major linux distributions depend on gnu, which makes it fair to say theyre GNU/Linux. if they used alternatives, fine, don't call it gnu/linux.

thats just from a technical standpoint, which is not what RMS is talking about. he just wants more people to know about free software. when you tell your collegue about gnu/linux, s|he certainly will ask about GNU, after which you can give the free software lecture. its only because of that that RMS wants GNU in linux, just to spread the word (more than to give credit to GNU, which he also wants to do).

[zeroth]

All the hardware support come straight from the kernel. the kernel is the most important part of an Operating System. Sure, other parts may be *neccessary*, but not as neccessary as a freakin kernel :-)

Linux. *BSD. Mac (Darwin?). Windows. These are all kernels. why shouldn't we call it by its kernel, where all the compatibility and functionality lies?

[hard candy]

Some interesting tidbits:
Google hits:
1. "Gnu/linux" = 54,500,000
2. "linux" = 1,290,000,000
3. "gnu" = 660,000,000
4. "Richard Stallman" = 8,170,000
5. "Linus Torvalds" = 17,800,000
6. "Microsoft" = 2,380,000,000
7. "Windows XP" = 599,000,000
8. "Bill Gates" = 82,200,000
I have no idea what the above results imply, but I thought it was cool to do it. And the connection to the present thread? Really twisted logic would say there is some relevance, but I cannot figure it out.

"So if you were going to pick a name for the system based on who wrote the programs in the system, the most appropriate single choice would be GNU. But we don't think that is the right way to consider the question. The GNU Project was not, is not, a project to develop specific software packages. [...] Many people have made major contributions to the free software in the system, and they all deserve credit. But the reason it is an integrated system — and not just a collection of useful programs — is because the GNU Project set out to make it one. We made a list of the programs needed to make a complete free system, and we systematically wrote, or found people to write, everything on the list. (Stallman, "Linux and the GNU Project")".

"Because of this confusion, legal threats and PR campaigns apparently directed against the kernel, such as those launched by the SCO Group or the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (AdTI), have been misinterpreted by many commentators who assume that the whole operating system is being targeted. These organisations have even been accused of deliberately exploiting this confusion:

Generally, SCO's Caldera v IBM Complaint is vague and confusing as to whether the accusations involve the Linux kernel, the GNU/Linux operating system, Linux distributions, Linux applications, or whatever. (Mike Angelo, MozillaQuest Magazine, 28 April 2003).

SCO has used "Linux" to mean "all free software," or "all free software constituting a UNIX-like operating system." This confusion, which the Free Software Foundation warned against in the past, is here shown to have the misleading consequences the Foundation has often predicted. (Eben Moglen, FSF Statement on SCO v IBM, 25 June 2003).

I guess we can all be glad the world found it so hard to say GNU/Linux, because SCO fell right into the pit, equating Linux, the kernel, with GNU/Linux, the everything, kernel plus the applications. (Pamela Jones, Groklaw 31 October 2003).

In particular, Stallman criticized the [Ken Brown/AdTI] report for capitalizing on common confusion between the Linux kernel, which Stallman says "Linus really wrote," with the full GNU operating system and associated software, which can be and generally is used with the Linux kernel. (Lisa Stapleton, LinuxInsider, 27 May 2004).
from GNU/Linux naming controversy -Wikipedia

[rocketpcguy]

Linux. *BSD. Mac (Darwin?). Windows. These are all kernels. why shouldn't we call it by its kernel, where all the compatibility and functionality lies?

sorry, thats wrong. if you every tried free/*/bsd, you would know that its a complete operating system, not just the kernel. Same thing with Windows, "windows" isn't the kernel, its the operating system.
your mention of darwin brought up an interesting point: would it make sense to call all mac machines "Darwin" instead of "Mac"?

with a distribution, its fine to say its "slackware linux" or "fedora linux" (although * gnu/linux would make sense). however, calling a genric linux based system just 'linux' is like calling a mac 'darwin'. there is no alternative name to describe what's needed to get a basic working linux operating system, but the name "GNU/linux" comes close.
there are only two things in a normal linux distribution that would break everything if you remove it, the kernel, linux, and GNU tools/libraries.

i probably still will call it linux, only because im lazy to add gnu everytime. but im only trying to say that gnu/linux is justified.

[Seph64]

When people call Windows, "windows" it refers to the OS. When people call Unix, "Unix" it refers to the OS. When people call BSD (it's a derivitive of Unix), "BSD" it refers to the OS. But when you call Linux, "Linux" you refer to the kernel... Kinda breaks the mold doesn't it?

[ArgPirate]

When people call Windows, "windows" it refers to the OS. When people call Unix, "Unix" it refers to the OS. When people call BSD (it's a derivitive of Unix), "BSD" it refers to the OS. But when you call Linux, "Linux" you refer to the kernel... Kinda breaks the mold doesn't it?

This is really the heart of the issue isnt it? The truth is, at this point, no matter what anyone says, no matter who says it, or when, Linux is not a kernel. I'm sorry. Linux is an OS. Yes, when Linus first created the his kernel he named it linux but the word, as they are often know to do, has evolved. In no longer means the kernel Linus built, it means the OS the FOSS world built.

Check your package managers, I bet most of them refer to the kernel as linux-kernel or linux-image or kernel-something. If you read a job description do you and it says "Must be able to work with Linux" does that read "Must be able to work with the linux kernel". Really. You could site 100 examples. "I'm going to upgrade the linux kernel on my gentoo box" Not my linux.

My point is, some of these posts try seem make it sound like the word Linux is ever, ever, ever, used to indicate the linux kernel.

I'm sorry that the name doesnt include the specific name of the GNU project, but really when a new person reads the name Linux they dont assioate it with the kernel, and by the time they find out the history of the name they are going to know GNU's and MANY other project's involvment.

[rocketpcguy]

ArgPirate: you must be new to the discussion. the point of the discussion is why, like you said, everyone is using 'linux' as the entire OS and not just the kernel. everyone knows everyone calls it linux, its obvious. but is it right?

Linux is not a kernel. I'm sorry. Linux is an OS.

and all hackers are evil, are they? just because everyone uses the term, it doesnt mean its right.
linux is an OS, yes, but its not enough for it to work in most distributions. you cant 'see' the OS, you need GNU utilities and libraries to make that happen, and paste X/KDE/whatever.

[zeroth]

All interactin with hardware must be done through the kernel. the kernel is the most important part of an Operating System.

The kernel in windows is called "The Windows Kernel", because it has no other name.

Darwin, I once thought, was the GUI environment on a Mac. I could google this but I really don't care :-)

I wou;dnt mind calling linux "G-N-U Linux", but the approprite term is "Guh-noo slash linux." what a mouth full. even so, it disregards the gui. if it doesn't have a gui, it isn't fulfilling my computing needs.

to come at this from another angle, don't say "my operating system is linux", simply say "I run linux" which means simply that.

[ArgPirate]

ArgPirate: you must be new to the discussion.

Actually ive been following it pretty closley.

linux is an OS, yes, but its not enough for it to work in most distributions. you cant 'see' the OS, you need GNU utilities and libraries to make that happen, and paste X/KDE/whatever.

My point here is that the term "Linux" does not mean a kernel anymore, at all. Linux, is a kernel, a GNU collection of tools, and, at least on my system, about another 700megs of additional code of varying importance. Linux is the name the collection of things.

Is it Right? Yes, of course it is right. People like like point out they Windows is not named after the kernel, nor is Mac named after the kernel. In that same vein, is Windows and Mac named after the Compiler and the core set of tools? I dont think so. Windows and Mac are names bestowed upon them by the companies, Microsoft and Apple. Who made the OS? Did Linus? I don't think so, Did GNU? Not quite. And do they get to name them? The Community created the OS, as we see it today. The Community named the OS, and the name that evolved for the OS is Linux.

Linus' project even got renamed. Its not called Linux, its called the linux kernel. The website? www.linux.org? nope www.kernel.org. from that site

If you're new to Linux, you don't want to download the kernel, which is just a component in a working Linux system. Instead, you want what is called a distribution of Linux, which is a complete Linux system.

I mean, if you really want to discuss why the name linux evovled to mean a complete OS when including some other projects name would have been more descriptive then we can. That argument though is going to be one of symantics and language, similiar to perhaps why you call your car a car instead of an "Internel Combustion powered 4 wheeled multiseated passenger carring device".