| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
I'll explain:I'll explain:Posted Oct 25, 2006 2:26 UTC (Wed) by bronson (subscriber, #4806)In reply to: I'll explain: by khim Parent article: GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal)
Hm. I really don't understand your reasoning here. glibc is the reason that you want to call everything GNU/Linux? That seems strange since glibc is downright tiny compared to all the other projects you mentioned.
Even though you've may have never seen it yourself, glibc is very easy to replace. You'll agree that my Sharp Zaurus is a full Unix-like environment, won't you? It doesn't run glibc and, I assure you, it's not a chimera.
If I produce your GNU-free Linux chimera, will you agree that the phrase "GNU/Linux" is silly and start saying "Linux Kernel" like everybody else?
(Log in to post comments)
I'll explain: Posted Oct 25, 2006 7:58 UTC (Wed) by khim (guest, #9252) [Link] You'll agree that my Sharp Zaurus is a full Unix-like environment, won't you? It doesn't run glibc and, I assure you, it's not a chimera. It's not chimera, it's a joke. Commands have less options. Compiler is missing. When you add compiler (GNU compiler, BTW) - you can not compile a lot of programs because libc is missing a lot of features. In short: GNU/xxx things are closer to each other then xxx/Linux. If I produce your GNU-free Linux chimera, will you agree that the phrase "GNU/Linux" is silly and start saying "Linux Kernel" like everybody else? Ha-ha-ha-ha. You are jocking, right ? Take step back and look on the situation from some distance. You are saying: I'd say: huh ? If there are two different linux-based things and one includes GNU while another is not - then it's perfectly reasonable to use name GNU/Linux. Especially if the GNU come to this world first. Like TCP/IP: TCPv1, TCPv2 and TCPv3 were not IP-based, but once IP was invented this combination become popular and thus got a separate name TCP/IP. The situation with Linux and GNU/Linux was different because Linux always assumed GNU as well. Today it's still so to a large degree (non GNU-based Linuxes are jokes so when you are talking about Linux everyone assumes you are talking about GNU/Linux), but if you'll manage to produce fully-functional Linux system without GNU parts... you'll finally justify name GNU/Linux 100% (because then you'll have two different "Linux systems" and you'll need some way to distinguish them). May be time already come because while Bosybox/Linux is a joke it's very popular in embedded world so some way to distinguish fully functional GNU/Linux systems (commonly found on PC but also on PlayStation 2/3 and in other places) and shrinked (and not-fully functional) Busybox/Linux (can be found in some routers, on Nintendo DS and in other places)...
I'll explain: Posted Oct 25, 2006 16:11 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] From the point of view of compiling and running non-sysadmin-as-root things, glibc/coreutils and uClibc/busybox are similar: they're POSIX. glibc is a more complete implementation than uClibc, but there's no magic GNU sauce that makes uClibc 'not a toy'.
(However, it *is* targetted at a different domain, and I'd not expect to see distros using uClibc springing up because of uClibc's intentional total lack of ABI guarantees.)
I'll explain: Posted Oct 25, 2006 17:28 UTC (Wed) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link] "It's not chimera, it's a joke. Commands have less options. Compiler is missing"
Um, Zaurus is a PDA, not a developer-workstation. you shouldn't be typing any "commands" in to a PDA in the first place. The fact that you could do it, is just an added bonus. But just because it's not as flexible or powerful as a full-blown workstation does not mean that it's a "joke". Yet it can still be considered to be an Linux-system.
I'll explain: Posted Oct 25, 2006 18:57 UTC (Wed) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] Specificially how is my Zaurus a joke? It is more capable than most of the full-fledged Unix environments from the 80s and early 90s. And it actually does host a compiler.Pray tell, what is the magic command-line switch that it is missing? I assure you, it's no joke. I don't know where you got that misconception.
I'll explain: Posted Oct 25, 2006 8:04 UTC (Wed) by khim (guest, #9252) [Link] To make myslef 100% clear... Hm. I really don't understand your reasoning here. glibc is the reason that you want to call everything GNU/Linux? Of course not. It's other way around: if GNU/Linux are totally glued together - then any name for this combination will do (either GNU or Linux). But since they are not (you can easily replace Linux part and you can replace GNU part - but with a lot of limitations as a result) it's good idea to call this combination GNU/Linux to distinguish it from other combinations (Busybox/Linux or GNU/OpenSolaris).
I'll explain: Posted Oct 25, 2006 16:14 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Now that I can agree with: that or just call all of them by the name of the distro until you must be detailed ('Debian, that's Linux with X.org and glibc and the GNU tools').
In practice this is complete dancing around how many angels can argue on the head of a pin anyway. It doesn't matter a *damn* what distros are called (although actively disgusting names are probably a bad idea).
|
|
||||||||||||