Re: it's not GNU/Linux; it's GNU [LWN.net]

From:	 Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
To:	 s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: it's not GNU/Linux; it's GNU
Date:	 Fri, 24 May 2002 15:13:15 -0600 (MDT)
Cc:	 letters@lwn.net

    You know what? How about using the acronym LINU-X from now on, to refer
    to the system Linux^WGNU/Linux?

This seems to be an attempt to excuse not solving the problem, rather
than a serious attempt to solve it.

In terms of informing the public, and in terms of fairness to the GNU
Project, there is no difference between "LINU-X" and "Linux".  Both of
them will spread the same inaccurate picture of how *and why* the
system was developed.  People will think it was started by Linus
Torvalds in 1991 just for fun, and won't know it was started by the
GNU Project in 1984 for the sake of your freedom and ours.

    Now I
    don't like Konq, so I use Mozilla. LINU-X/KDE/OpenOffice/Mozilla!!!

    So, what you're actually saying is:
    1) Linux is not Linux, it'ss GNU/Linux because it's actually GNU
    GNU deserves credits.

    2a) Linux is not X, it's X on Linux, which is actually X on GNU/Linux,
    but we should not call this system X/GNU/Linux.
    2b) Linux is not KDE, it's KDE on GNU/Linux, etc.
    2c) Linux is not {Open,K,GNOME-}office, its... etc.
    They don't deserve credits.

All of the contributors deserve credit, but some deserve it more
strongly than others.  The system is basically GNU; the GNU Project is
the principal contributor.  The others are secondary contributors.
They all deserve credit, but the principal contributor deserves it
most.

You cannot mention all the secondary contribitions in the name,
because there are too many of them.  But you can mention more than
one, and where to draw the line is up to you.  You can call the system
GNU/KDE/OpenOffice/Linux/Mozilla, and thus give credit to KDE,
OpenOffice, Mozilla and Linux, if you want.  That would not be wrong.

However, if you feel that name is too long, then you can drop some of
the secondary contributions such as KDE, OpenOffice, Linux and
Mozilla.  For instance, you might call it GNU/OpenOffice/Linux, or
GNU/Linux, or just GNU.  The one name that you shouldn't omit is the
name given by the system's principal developer -- GNU.  It's not right
to leave out the principal developer and give all the credit to a
secondary contribution such as KDE, OpenOffice, Linux or Mozilla.

The shortest legitimate name for this system is "GNU".  I prefer to
call it "GNU/Linux", for three reasons:

* This system is not exactly the GNU system--it has a different
  kernel.  Calling it "GNU/Linux" helps distinguish it from GNU.

* It would be ungentlemanly to ask people to stop giving Linus
  Torvalds a share of the credit.  "GNU/Linux" gives him equal mention.

* People who have been taught that the system is "Linux" will see the
  name "GNU/Linux" and realize it has something to do with what they
  know about.  They may not recognize this if we call it just "GNU".

(Log in to post comments)

Principal contributor?

Posted Jun 6, 2002 7:25 UTC (Thu) by morhippo (subscriber, #334) [Link]

RMS writes: "All of the contributors deserve credit, but some deserve it more strongly than others. The system is basically GNU; the GNU Project is the principal contributor. The others are secondary contributors. They all deserve credit, but the principal contributor deserves it most." Which reminds me of Orwell's Animal Farm: All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. Also I do not understand how GNU became the principal component. Historically first, yes. If you look at compilation, GCC is a vital component. glibc is used by almost all applications. But the kernel is at the base of my system. More lines of code are in KDE and QT than in all the GNU tools on my system. I hardly use any original GNU programs (bash is used a lot, though). X11 is seen on the screen all the time. I think RMS is showing some selfishness in declaring his project as principal and pushing ALL other components to a secondary position without any explanation. His insistance on "GNU/Linux" is IMHO ridiculous.

Principal contributors of the core system, eh?

Posted Jun 7, 2002 0:13 UTC (Fri) by xtifr (subscriber, #143) [Link]

X11 and KDE may be the biggest things on your system, but on many, many GNU/Linux systems, they're not there at all. My servers tend to have the Linux Kernel, a bunch of GNU software, and one or two server applications (such as Apache or Sendmail and sshd). My desktop has Linux and GNU and X11, but no gnome or kde or apache or sendmail. When you look at all these systems set up by all kinds of different people for different purposes, what do they have in common? The kernel and the GNU utilities/libraries. That's pretty much it. And most of that irreducible core system, by weight, is GNU. The optional addons like x11/kde/apache/whatever may be large, but they are optional, and thus, secondary.

I personally have no objections to people referring to the system informally as "Linux". I usually do myself. But this tired, flawed counter-argument about how "everyone whose code might be installed on a system deserves as much credit as the FSF" is just plain silly. There is more to an OS than just the kernel, but that doesn't mean that every optional application or game is really part of the OS.

Principal contributors of the core system, eh?

Posted Jun 7, 2002 16:41 UTC (Fri) by DeletedUser342 ((unknown), #342) [Link]

You rightly said that the GNU tools are important and essential on _your_ systems/servers and that there is nothing else that is equally important (besides the kernel). Well, that's nice for you. I, on the other hand, use my machine as workstation. I have completely different priorities and KDE is more perceptibale and more important to me than all the GNU tools. Sure, the system might not run if I would remove all those tools, but that's not the point. The point is that X and KDE are primary for me and GNU is only secondary.

Linux is the industry-wide established name. If you want to use a different one, feel free to do so. But please do not try to force things on others that don't make sense to them.

All this debate is completely ideological.

Principal contributors of the core system, eh? - Well, yes

Posted Jun 8, 2002 5:51 UTC (Sat) by DeletedUser1800 ((unknown), #1800) [Link]

You rightly said that the GNU tools are important and essential on _your_ systems/servers and that there is nothing else that is equally important (besides the kernel). Well, that's nice for you. I, on the other hand, use my machine as workstation. I have completely different priorities and KDE is more perceptibale and more important to me than all the GNU tools. Sure, the system might not run if I would remove all those tools, but that's not the point. The point is that X and KDE are primary for me and GNU is only secondary.

I would suggest, then, that you de-install all the GNU tools from your system - they are just wasting space and not being used. The fact is that without X, KDE, Gnome, etc. the system will still boot and be usable. Without either Linux or the GNU tools/libs this is not the case. THAT is why GNU and Linux are the key components and the rest is secondary.

All this debate is completely ideological.

You noticed. That may be because the FSF is firstly an ideological organisation. I realise ideology over anything but the dollar sign is off the corporate radar, but that doesn't invalidate it.

Principal contributor?

Posted Jun 8, 2002 23:38 UTC (Sat) by DeletedUser846 ((unknown), #846) [Link]

Any GNU/Linux distributions, be they a single floppy disk distribution or one that comes on a DVD has to have major GNU components distributed with it, otherwise, as you have rightly pointed out, they will not work. The fact of the matter is that if you were to download a Linux kernel from source you will need GNU components to compile and make it work. The point that you are arguing is more to do with what constitutes a minimal system, and that is where RMS's charitable (GNU/OpenOffice/Linux) response comes in.

More than often I ask people to use the term GNU/Linux to promote the licensing agenda of the GNU project. Without it GNU/Linux and the very active (and vocal!) community that have grown around it, and which you are part of, wouldn't be. More than often the community has taken on issues that have little to do with software but have promoted the goodwill exalted by the GNU founders.

I will admit having truncate off the GNU part of the name when speaking to people who have accepted the role of GNU (go on then, I've got my asbestos pants on!) but I've always made it a point to prepend GNU when speaking to newbies or non-GNU software users. (I'm trying to right this wrong by the way!)

So to all those arguing against, all I can say is look back at what the 3 letters have done for you and then you decide if it's worth its place at the high altar.

Re: it's not GNU/Linux; it's GNU

Posted Jun 11, 2002 15:12 UTC (Tue) by frew (guest, #482) [Link]

I definitly agree with RMS. They made all those basic but necisary things on your system. I mean, some people say that it is taking gnu forever to come out with hurd but from my understanding that isn't their fault but the fault of the people who make the Mach kernel. From what I gather Mach was promised to be made open a long time ago and still isn't. Plus what license is linux under? It's the GPL. Who made the GPL? GNU. Let's say you were to remove all the gnu software from your computer. No GCC so all your programs need to be precompiled. No glibc so you would probably have to have a lot of static linking (is that the right word?) No more bash and other shell tools. You may not use some of those tools but lets say you use a GUI configuration tool that uses m4 for configuring things. Nope. Sorry. m4 is GNU. Lets say you like making pictures with that cool paint program called gimp...nope, its gnu. How about that one desktop environment...whats it called? Oh yeah! Gnome...hmmm. OK lets say your just a normal use who doesn't need any of that and just want to do basic word prcessing and stuff. You look at the clock to see the time....oh wait....date is a gnu utility. I think I'm done ranting now. =)