GNU/Busybox ?!? [LWN.net]

GNU/Busybox ?!?

Posted Mar 16, 2007 23:06 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
In reply to: GNU/Busybox ?!? by anonymous1
Parent article: The road to freedom in the embedded world

Well ya.

Plus you have things like Gnome, which you know is GNU, that aren't getting any smaller!

The thing that is ironic about all of this is that for the majority of 'Linux' software out there has software created or maintained by GNU project as it's most fundamental dependancy.

That is, since the majority of GNU is very portable, and so then is the software that runs on it.

So the end effect is that it's much much much more easier to remove the 'Linux' out of the 'GNU/Linux' then it is to remove the 'GNU' and actually have a usable operating system.

But all of that has very little to do with this 'GNU/Busybox' term stuff.

I think that in this case, if you've been paying attention to exactly how Nokia 770 works is that it does replace a lot of GNU functionality with BusyBox to reduce the footprint, but in fact it still has a whole lot of GNU-provided userland to make it compatable with 'linux' software.

So it actually is a combination of GNU + Busybox-based userland as a basis for running 'Linux' software.

Were as typically for Linux PCs you only use busybox for initrd and the whole userland is GNU-based.

They realy should start using the + sign instead of the / sign for these things nowadays. That / has become only a way to invoke hugely political motivated and outspoken feelings in the whole anti-RMS/GPL league.

(Log in to post comments)

GNU/Busybox ?!?

Posted Mar 18, 2007 8:11 UTC (Sun) by malor (subscriber, #2973) [Link]

What's really stupid about the whole thing is that RMS just had to shut up on this issue for five or six years and everyone else would eventually figure it out.

The Linux kernel is easily replaceable, but it's harder to do without the GNU system software. It can be done, but it's less pleasant by far. People WOULD figure this out; with the huge number of Linux kernel issues these days, more and more folks are realizing that the kernel can be swapped for something else without as much pain as they'd think. All RMS had to do was just be patient, and everything would have worked out.

But, instead, he insisted on renaming someone else's project, and on top of THAT, forcing the name of HIS software in front. (that single thing probably irked people more than anything else.) So of course he ran into hostility. Now, the GPL3 is coming under significant fire, and I guaran-damn-tee you one of the primary reasons the Linux devs have been so vocal that it's bad is because they feel that RMS tried to hijack their project.

The truth would have come out on its own; his insistence on naming rights badly damaged the community, as can be seen with the heated vitriol over GPL3. He made enemies out of people who were on his side, and has made life a little harder on all of us.

It's hard to tell yet, but he MIGHT have traded away GPL3's success to get some people to use a term he liked. If that's how it works out, it was a very bad bargain.

GNU/Busybox ?!?

Posted Mar 19, 2007 16:42 UTC (Mon) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link]

I don't begrudge the man his desire to promote the project he founded. I just wish he had found a way that wasn't offensive, tasteless, confusing, and assinine to do it. He's a bullheaded guy and that's a trait we all needed him to have, but it's too bad he doesn't have the wisdom to consult others on his presentation.

As for bullheadedness on "GNU/Linux" damaging GPL3 chances, I really doubt that one. He gained some minor dents in his goodwill from the Linux crowd (a big one), but the license is really going to be adopted or rejected on its merits (or perceived merits) and not on its creator.

GNU/Busybox ?!?

Posted Mar 19, 2007 22:53 UTC (Mon) by malor (subscriber, #2973) [Link]

Well, maybe so, but judging from the sheer vitriol of many of the anti-GPL3 comments I've seen, particularly from the kernel devs, I think the objections are as much personal as technical. Even another comment in this thread talked about the 'v3 kool-aid', which worries me. That kind of wording is about FSF (aka Stallman's) motives, not actual merits or faults of the license.

I do hope you're right, but I'm not at all convinced that's the case.

GNU/Busybox ?!?

Posted Mar 22, 2007 1:43 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

Well the problem is that:
"OSS is about a better software development methodology not a religion"

Is just as political stance as anything else, but people refuse to acknowledge it as such, so that automaticly clouds their judgement.

"I am not religous like you" and "I am not political like you" is not realy a effective way to deal with people in a debate. It's only a couple levels above personal insult and is ultimately quite pointless and irrelevent to anything people are talking about.

Unfortunately it's difficult for people who see GPLv3 as RMS's baby to look at it objectively when they feel that RMS has gone out of his way to fuck with them not only on a project-wide, but also on a personal basis in order to push his agenda. (I think that their is pretty decent justification for them to feel that way.)