| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal)GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal)Posted Oct 24, 2006 12:26 UTC (Tue) by thebluesgnr (guest, #37963)In reply to: GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) by smitty_one_each Parent article: GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal)
So Linus Torvalds and Alan Cox are fanaticals? Because they're the ones that take issue with the name on the article.
(Log in to post comments)
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 24, 2006 13:11 UTC (Tue) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] I wouldn't have thought it six months ago, but they do seem to be presenting that character in recent statements.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 24, 2006 22:48 UTC (Tue) by grouch (guest, #27289) [Link]
It worries me that they seem so antagonistic to the organization that facilitated the creation of Linux and GNU/Linux. It also disturbs me that kernel.org seems to display some hypocrisy, when the following is read in conjunction with Mr. Cox's statements:
The above statement attributes the operating system to Mr. Torvalds while rolling the contributions of everyone who preceded him, for example, Tanenbaum and Stallman and significant numbers of contributors to their respective projects, as well as everyone who has made the operating system useful since, into "a loosely-knit team of hackers across the Net". I think the "spin-doctoring", as Mr. Cox put it, is taking place among kernel developers. The Linux kernel is the keystone of an arch. There is no question about its significance. It does not, however, comprise an entire operating system. You can strip a great deal out code from a distribution, but you cannot strip it down to just the kernel and still have an operating system. To have an operating system that has "POSIX and Single UNIX Specification compliance", you will have Linux + some significant amount of code from elsewhere. In most cases, a considerable amount of software from the GNU project will accompany that kernel. Mr. Cox said, 'I mean there is no abstract entity even that is properly called "GNU/Linux".' Red Hat is free to call their distribution "Red Hat Linux", but surely someone with Mr. Cox's experience has at least heard of "Debian GNU/Linux". Surely he does not mean to deny its existence or deny the Debian project the freedom to choose to credit GNU contributors.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 13:34 UTC (Wed) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link] "The Linux kernel is the keystone of an arch. There is no question about its significance. It does not, however, comprise an entire operating system."
No, it doesn't. And to me, neither does Linux + GNU-tools either. For me it takes Xorg and verious other tools as well.
"You can strip a great deal out code from a distribution, but you cannot strip it down to just the kernel and still have an operating system."
Again, in my book, you can't strip Xorg from a distro and still have an usable OS. Does that mean that we should call the OS Xorg/GNU/Linux? How about Xorg/KDE/GNU/Linux? Again, how do you determine who gets mentioned in the title and who does not? The amount of code? Well, KDE (for example) is HUGE, surely it should be mentioned separately?
"but surely someone with Mr. Cox's experience has at least heard of "Debian GNU/Linux"."
Yes he has. But he's not talking about "Debian GNU/Linux", he's talking about "GNU/Linux". "Debian GNU/Linux" refers to one particular distro, whereas "GNU/Linux" is used when talking about all Linux-distros. And Alan's argument is that GNU/Linux does not exist, even though FSF might insist on it. Just because Debian GNU/Linux exists does not mean that GNU/Linux exists.
What we seem to have here (again) is that some people insist that it should be called GNU/Linux, and they are trying to cram their viewpoint down everyone's throat. I don't care if you call it GNU/Linux or just Linux, but don't get your panties in a bunch if someone wants to call it just "Linux"?
What do I call it? Well, when I talk of the kernel, I talk of "The Linux Kernel". When I talk of the OS, I talk of "Linux". When I talk of some specific distro, I call it "Ubuntu", "Fedora", "Debian" and so forth.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 18:30 UTC (Wed) by grouch (guest, #27289) [Link]
A GUI is not a requirement for an operating system. As others have pointed out, you can have an operating system centered on Linux with very little else. This is what allows Linux to be used in such things as watches. Its versatility allows it also to be used for your personal computer operating system when combined with whatever array of convenient software you choose. It is also used as the core of specialty operating systems powering manufacturing processes and clusters of computers. Even though it suits you to include "Xorg and various other tools", these do not define an operating system.
You are entitled to your opinion and may name it as you please, of course. I suggest you research its history a bit. Mr. Torvalds combined his original work with that of others and had an operating system on his computer long before there was an Xorg or KDE or GNOME. Based solely on your comments, I don't think you would have considered it a "usable OS" at that time. The facts that skilled hackers recognized it as an operating system and that Mr. Torvalds (eventually) chose to release his work under the GPL resulted in its growth to where people without those skills could use it. An operating system is not defined by your needs or mine. It is an operating system if it operates a computer, not if it can be operated by a given user.
He stated, 'I mean there is no abstract entity even that is properly called "GNU/Linux".'
I stated my viewpoint. If that appears to be "cram[ming]" it "down everyone's throat" to you, that seems to be more a problem with your point of view rather than my statement of my own. My "panties" don't seem to have a place in the discussion. That seems reasonable to me. Speech requires adaptation to the audience. When writing, I deliberately include some references to "GNU/Linux", just because I consider the GPL, the GNU project and Linux to be of equal, fundamental importance. (The reference to GNU will naturally include the GPL). Without the GNU project, there may never have been a Linux. Without Linux, we might never have had a free Unix with the protections of the GPL. Without the GPL's protections, corporations might never have 'jumped on the bandwagon'. (Their influence is easily seen by checking out the copyright notices in the Linux source). The foundation of everything that makes up my favorite (and only) operating system is composed of GNU and Linux. If you take either of those away, all the works, by so many people, that make it usable for me without first requiring programming skills I don't have, would simply vanish. (This foundation, in turn, rests upon the work of Thompson, Kernigan, Ritchie, USC at Berkeley, and countless others, but those are of other operating systems).
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 26, 2006 12:06 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] "in my book, you can't strip Xorg from a distro and still have an usable OS"
Might I suggest that your book is a work of fiction? You might have had a point if you'd said "_desktop_ OS"; but you didn't, and the vast majority of OSes in the world today not only do without windowing systems, but being embedded real-time controllers, without any form of direct user interface either. They are no less operating systems for that.
Moreover, plenty of UNIX old hands are quite happy with just a command line. If I really wanted to, I could probably exist quite happily without X at all, thanks to the framebuffer, glinks, mplayer and ghostscript... but I couldn't do without glibc or the GNU toolchain at all (yes, equivalents exist - uClibC, dietlibc, busybox, the BSD userland - but the fact is that every major distribution uses the GNU libc & toolchain because it's compatible with POSIX, comprehensive, current, and comfortable to the point of being a de facto standard).
You might be scared of command lines, but as someone who prefers them, let me assure you that one very definitely CAN strip Xorg, and everything that depends on it, from a distro and still have a usable OS. You can't do that with what's in /bin.
(NB. This is _not_ an opinion on whether kernel+libc+tools should be called Linux, GNU/Linux or Linux/POSIX. I don't have one of those. Sorry.)
call the OS Xorg/GNU/Linux? Posted Nov 2, 2006 22:29 UTC (Thu) by anton (guest, #25547) [Link] Indeed, the first Linux distribution I used was called Linux/GNU/X or(as a TLA) LGX, and it was by Yggdrasil (very nice, BTW).
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 2:17 UTC (Wed) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link] For the record,>Only the fanatics are handing out damnation. is intended to be positive about spirited, collegial debate, and negative right at the Godwin's Law horizon. Disagree agreeably, and all that.
|
|
||||||||||||