GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal)

Posted Oct 25, 2006 18:30 UTC (Wed) by grouch (subscriber, #27289) [Link]

No, it doesn't. And to me, neither does Linux + GNU-tools either. For me it takes Xorg and verious other tools as well.

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.

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?

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.

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.

He stated, 'I mean there is no abstract entity even that is properly called "GNU/Linux".'

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"?

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.

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.

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).

Posted Oct 26, 2006 12:06 UTC (Thu) by lysse (subscriber, #3190) [Link]

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.)

Posted Nov 2, 2006 22:29 UTC (Thu) by anton (guest, #25547) [Link]