Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 6 Mar 1996 17:14:50 +0100 (MET) | From | Michael De La Rue <> | Subject | Re: Linux isn't an operating system (end;quick access-howto request) |
| |
I feel a flame war coming on.. lets see if I can avoid starting it..
On Tue, 5 Mar 1996, Richard Stallman wrote: >[stuff] > There are a number of whole operating systems using the Linux kernel, > Most of them are more or less close variants of the GNU system, so I > recommend the term "Linux-based GNU system" for them. > > I'm going to talk to the author of the article about this distinction.
This is bad because
1 It's too long 2 It's not marketable 3 X Windows isn't called X Windows and NOBODY cares.
I think it's too late to change the name and even if it had been that originally it would be called Linux nowadays.
Lilo steps in:- >Linux users use quite a bit of GNU software, and we're all grateful that >it's available. We also use a fair amount of non-GNU software. I don't >believe it's a fair characterization to consider Linux a ``GNU-based >system.'' There are very few cases in which we are using GNU software in >which some alternative doesn't, or couldn't, exist. All kudos to >GNU-*style* licensing, which is another matter entirely....
Linux GNU X doc TeX Linux GNU{ Linux runtime{ Linux{Torvalds} HLJ libc } GNU } X consortium Andrew Consortium Knuth }
Things to note
Linus is the most important because his bit is at the heart
HLJ is the most important because his bit lets you run a program
GNU are the most important because their bit lets you do something
X are the most importa....
Bill Gat...
The good point RMS is making is that the article misses out crediting a huge number of people without whom Linux would be useless. Linus Torvalds is just one of the most important; probably IMHO the most important, but then again that could go to the author of GCC, which allowed all of the free operating systems to start up. GCC alone probably justifys the Linux + GNU claim, certainly for me doing C++ development.
As far as getting publicity and users to the operating system goes that isn't important, but an article like this also has other effects. Amoung the ones which RMS would probably like are A) more money and B) more support for GNU. Which seems pretty fair to me. We all benefit from things added to GCC in particular and the rest as well.
>> One way to help unify the community, and gently encourage more >> cooperation, is to use the term "Linux-based GNU system" to >> describe these systems more accurately. > >Linux is nothing if not pluralistic. Too much unification is probably not >the most useful thing in the world. It discourages the diversity which has >been one of Linux' strengths.
I disagree 386BSD ... uuhh sorry PatchBSD + BSDI .. no NetBSD/FreeBSD .... ummm OpenBSD is nothing if not pluralistic. We are a (very well run) dictatorship, where Linus Torvalds dictates and keeps everything running.
It's that one single unifying thing which makes Linux successful; that everyone knows they can apply any change to the kernel, just as long as its good enough for linus to pass it.
GNU on the other hand can't have one leader, so they have to have a somewhat less open system.
>There are many GNU-based Linux systems. Unless one is a GNU developer, >though, one is less likely to consider one's system a ``Linux-based GNU >system,'' and justifiably so. > >lilo
One wouldn't bother with it.. I have enough trouble keeping the name Linux in my head.. Seriously, is it so difficult to think
a linux kernel a linux lib-C gnu compiler gnu tools etc.
and to say
Written by many people, including Linus Torvalds and people from the GNU project...
or something similar.
RMS again:- >I would expect that most of the people who speak of "the Linux >operating system" think of this as just a minor lack of precision. > >But aside from being unfair (which by itself would not be worth >fussing about), it also tends to split the community and thus >discourage communication and cooperation. When the people who use >what is essentially the GNU system think of themselves as "Linux >users", and not as "GNU users", often they don't see a reason >cooperate with the people who maintain the GNU software. This leads >to version-skew and unnecessary incompatibility.
I guess this partly refers to the discussion that has been being had on the linux-gcc list.
This is agreed, somehow people have to be persuaded to contribute more to GNU, but it's hard to know when and how. Somehow, more effort has to be put into making changing GNU software seem accessible to everyone. Probably just a coherent GNU set of WWW pages would be enough to help, but what is really needed is more integration of GNU people into the Linux development field.
With people like HLJ, the question shouldn't be `can I accept this patch' but `can I refuse it'. Sure, occasionally a bug will come throug from him, but almost always, what he does will fix bugs. There has to be some effort to get what he wants done into the GNU libc.
More generally, there needs to be much more FSF presence in the Linux community. HLJ's argument about glibc not compiling on linux is very strong. At one point it was suggested not to use the official GNU source releases of GCC because the linux binary releases had had to be patched by hand. I think a requirement
``all official FSF software releases should compile under the standard stable Linux of the moment out of the box''
would help in many ways. I don't think that it would be that difficult? Nowadays, that must make up a vast proportion of the people using GNU software. Just the improvement of knowing that standard GNU sofware was being tested on all those machines would be worth it.
Also has some consideration been put into making access to GNU development versions more easy?
>One way to help unify the community, and gently encourage more >cooperation, is to use the term "Linux-based GNU system" to >describe these systems more accurately.
As a final note to RMS:- If you do go to talk to the person, please mention the other people that did the rest.
P.S. Put another way
who cares about a name, especially a long one
it's not strictly a `Linux based GNU system', it has more than that
people should credit more than just Linus in these articles, but it's not really the way newspapers work. They like singlular achievements better
how do we distinguish GNU's Debian from Red Hat? Surely Debian is an L + G system, because GNU are the people supporting it.
<http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~mikedlr/biography.html> Scottish Climbing Archive: <http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~mikedlr/climbing/> Linux/Unix clone@ftp://src.doc.ic.ac.uk/packages/linux/sunsite.unc-mirror/docs/
| |