GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) [LWN.net]

GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal)

Posted Oct 25, 2006 18:42 UTC (Wed) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]

Linux is the kernel around which many operating systems coalesced (Slack, Debian, Red Hat, etc). Thus it's quite accurate to call these operating systems "Linux-based distributions", or "Linux" for short. Over time, depending on context, "Linux" started referring to many things: the Linux kernel, any Linux-based distribution, an amazingly successful development model, a particular server architecture, the boxes in the server room, etc.

Nobody actually chose this usage. It coalesced organically along with the software.

Well, it was organic until a few people started trying to convince everybody that they should be called GNU/Linux distributions. And then things got a little weird. :)

GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal)

Posted Oct 25, 2006 20:43 UTC (Wed) by anonymous21 (guest, #30106) [Link]

True it was organic. But calling it "Linux" only gives the linux kernel credit and leaves GNU and FSF out in the cold.

I dont see what the problem with calling it GNU+Linux is, they want some credit when you distribute Linux+GNU+other things. And therefore it is OK to give them credit.

I agree with Alan Cox that there might be misunderstanding when people say GNU/Linux because people might think that Linux kernel is a project of FSF.
I prefer GNU+Linux so as to avoid this confusion. But it is even more clumsy than GNU/Linux. Do you have any good suggestions. If one wants to give both GNU project and Linux kernel credit?

Also the following article might clear some things up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy

GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal)

Posted Oct 25, 2006 22:13 UTC (Wed) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]

Let me see... I have the choice between calling something by a clear name and leaving the majority of its developers in the cold, or calling something by a stupid sounding name and leaving the majority of its developers in the cold? Well, I know which one I choose.

If this GNU/change came about organically I might be more receptive to it. But since the FSF is lobbying everyone to give THEMSELVES more recognition, this sounds more like a poorly thought out publicity stunt than a solution to any sort of problem. I wish the FSF would spend its time on more worthy endeavors.

GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal)

Posted Oct 26, 2006 1:38 UTC (Thu) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link]

>If this GNU/change came about organically I might be more receptive to it. But since the FSF is lobbying everyone to give THEMSELVES more recognition, this sounds more like a poorly thought out publicity stunt than a solution to any sort of problem. I wish the FSF would spend its time on more worthy endeavors.

It was organically in a way. It started with one guy who noticed that the philosophies of two seperate groups working on the same system had drifted apart, so he suggested this rift in thinking be represented in the name.

Yes, "Linux" is catchier and has more commercial momentum. So it is far more marketable than the somewhat clunky "GNU/Linux" or "GNU".
But commercial viability is only the second best thing that can happen to Free Software. For some freedom is the most important asset and they would like to propagate that ideal. One of the ways to do that is to stress the GNU in GNU/Linux and hope that people will read about the ideals of the FSF (and hopefully find something of merit in them).

Fun and sharing are important in hacking, but to some not nearly as important as the underlying values of freedom the software freedoms represent.

Some value the four freedoms more than popularity and as such try to convey the intellectual legacy of the FSF by calling their os after as what they see as its most important asset, which is its ethical message and not its technical superiority nor its commercial viability.