GNU/Linux

[zeroth]

Sounds like the entire GNU/Linux/Xorg/butsecks communities need to come up with a name for this damn thing that can be widely accepted and used.

how about "BOSSU"? Stands for: Best Operating System Since Unix. Make the U silent :-)

[paj12]

how about "BOSSU"? Stands for: Best Operating System Since Unix. Make the U silent :-)

I like it!

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.

Windows and the Macintosh OS are so named because the companies that distribute them have given them those names. IBM's OS/2 included code from Windows that they licensed from Microsoft, but it was still called OS/2. Macintosh OS X includes code from FreeBSD, GNU, and Konqueror, but its name does not reflect that.

That's because an operating system's name does need to reflect its component parts. This GNU/X11/Apache/Linux/TeX/Perl/Python/FreeCiv schema that people have come up with is absurd. The OS running my box is called OpenSuSE 10.0. Did they write the software? Well, some of it -- like YaST for instance -- but, for the most part, no. What they did do was put all the parts together into a complete and coherent operating system, which is more than Stallman or Torvalds has done. So sure, if it weren't for GNU or Linux we might not have this or that, but if it weren't for the people who distribute Free Software, their contributions would still be source code sitting on an FTP server somewhere.

[zeroth]

Macintosh OS X includes code from FreeBSD, GNU, and Konqueror

do they distribute sorces as well? Exactly what parts of a Mac contain Open Source code? I've always wondered this.

[rocketpcguy]

the kernel and browser of the mac is open source, i think.

calling a linux-based system by its distribution name is perfect sense, nothing against that. its just when we talk about linux based operating systems in general.

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

it sure is. and so are the GNU tools in your distribution. if you feel otherwise, feel free to 'uninstall' 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.

fair enough. but i personally think its unfair that it has to be named after only linus when the FSF's work is just as important, both in philosophy and technically.

Linus' project even got renamed. Its not called Linux, its called the linux kernel.

linus was always against the 'gnu/linux' idea. (although linux *is* named linux-2.6.16.18.tar.bz2).

i just call it linux, but my friend who got me into linux calls it gnu/linux all the time. im just saying that i understand his perspective and respect it.

[zeroth]

linus was always against the 'gnu/linux' idea.

He was also against the idea of calling the kernel "linux", but people liked it too damn much. linux doesn't *have* to be named after linus, and it wasn't his choice to keep it that way -- it was the users.

This is all unconfirmed by myself, of course, though I believe it.

edit: it would seem much harder to re-write linux than to re-write all the GNU stuff. why don't we all come together, write a set of GNU clones and call it Linux? then we can all stop this GNU/linux silliness.

[Seph64]

Yeah, I believe Linus said something to that effect (about Linux) in the Revolution OS documentry.

[ehawk]

This is absurd. It's like a group of musicians gathering in someone's garage and arguing over the band name to the point where they actually create no music.

[Parcival]

Okay guys, here some clarifications on the Macintosh:

When you say "Mac" you mean the hardware. A Mac is a computer designed by Apple.

When you say "Darwin", you mean the kernel that comes with OS X.

When you say "OS X", you mean the latest OS made by Apple. OS X is based on BSD.

When you say "Aqua", you mean the slick GUI that comes with OSX.

Apple's Safari is OSS since it is based on Mozilla. Darwin used to be open until a few weeks ago when Apple announced they want to close it. This has drawn much criticism in the Mac community since nobody can really understand the possible reasons (Apple didn't give any). Some suggest Apple fears hackers or competition, but as we in the Linux community know, these arguments are all no-brainers.

[Parcival]

This is absurd. It's like a group of musicians gathering in someone's garage and arguing over the band name to the point where they actually create no music.

Yes, that beautifully sums up this thread.

[Seph64]

Apple's Safari is OSS since it is based on Mozilla.

Half correct, it's based on Konqueror.

http://developer.apple.com/opensourc...et/webkit.html

[zeroth]

Yes, that beautifully sums up this thread.

incorrect.

This is not the musicians of the band arguing over name right now. this is the Band's fans arguing when we could be listening to the bands latest album.

the only band memebr arguing over names is Richard Stallman. what a whiner.

[paj12]

edit: it would seem much harder to re-write linux than to re-write all the GNU stuff. why don't we all come together, write a set of GNU clones and call it Linux? then we can all stop this GNU/linux silliness.

Why would anyone want to do that? If you feel that strongly about the issue, there's nothing stopping you from putting together your own OS with no GNU software. The rest of us will keep our current OSes, thank you very much. The reason people use GNU software or Linux is not because they like Stallman or Torvalds. It's because they like high-quality, usable, Free Software. The GNU software, the Linux kernel, and all the other Free Software we use on a daily basis are perfect in this respect.

To my knowledge, no usable operating system has been made that only contains GNU software and Linux kernel. Attempting to name such a mythical system seems, to me, like an exercise in stupidity. Even Debian, a self-professed "GNU/Linux" operating system, contains 14 CDs worth of software. Surely this isn't all GNU software. So who wrote it? Free Software developers, that's who. The kind that write high-quality Free Software for its own sake. The kind that don't raise a big stink or demand to see their name in lights. That's who drives the Free Software movement. Not Stallman, and not Torvalds.

Now, if you don't mind, I've got to help somebody get their Slackware machine on the Internet. After all this arguing, I feel like doing something productive.

[Parcival]

Half correct, it's based on Konqueror.

Yes, I forgot that the Gecko engine is just an optional module.

[con]

the only band memebr arguing over names is Richard Stallman. what a whiner.

Dude we aint talkin' bout George W. Bush here, show some respect :middle finger:

[quip]

Dude we aint talkin' bout George W. Bush here, show some respect :middle finger:

Yeah, man; and middle fingers always show sooo much respect.

It doesn't really show a lot of maturity to demand something that you are not willing to give.

Unless, of course, you were kidding, and I just totally missed it...