| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
They call it GNU/Linux - thanks Sun!They call it GNU/Linux - thanks Sun!Posted Apr 3, 2008 21:31 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544)Parent article: Sun Microsystems' Next Linux Move (Seeking Alpha)
One move they made was that they've started calling it GNU/Linux: Not all the time, but half the time, and that's a big improvement. Stallman put online a good article not so long ago:
(Log in to post comments)
They call it GNU/Linux - thanks Sun! Posted Apr 4, 2008 7:36 UTC (Fri) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link] The policy of calling the whole system "GNU" does beg the question - what proportion of the average free software-based system is actually GNU software? And of that software, how much of it can be considered part of the core of the system and how much as tools? Does the compiler suite count as a development tool or as part of the system core? Does the fact that it is required to build the system affect the equation? Does Gnome consider itself to be primarily part of GNU (is Solaris GNU?), or an independent project? Which proportion of free software systems (desktops or otherwise) use Gnome? And while we are at it, what proportion of such a system is actually Linux? (As a side note, I like to talk about the systems as being "Debian", "Ubuntu", "Gentoo" or whatever in order to sidestep the issue. That at least seems to me to be an uncontroversial description of them.)
They call it GNU/Linux - thanks Sun! Posted Apr 4, 2008 7:58 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] David Wheeler looked into this in his paper More than a Gigabuck, saying: ...the total of the GNU project's code is much larger than the Linux kernel's size. Thus, by comparing the total contributed effort, it's certainly justifiable to call the entire system ``GNU/Linux''... And he didn't include GNOME when doing that count. As the system gets bigger, the GNU proportion may decrease, but it was still 8 years of work by the GNU project that made most of an operating system before Linus's 1991 kernel project. Most large companies push the name "Linux", and push the myth that Linus Torvalds developed an operating system in 1991. It's an easy push since "Linux" is a shorter name than "GNU/Linux" and because journalists love printing the story of the college student who spent the cold months of one year writing an operating system that's competing with that of the world's richest man. It doesn't matter that it's not true, it's a great story and no one will check :-/ The reason these companies push that myth is because they don't want their customers to hear the GNU philosophy and start thinking that they deserve certain freedoms from all the software they use. That would hurt profits. I'm glad Sun is bucking the trend.
They call it GNU/Linux - thanks Sun! Posted Apr 4, 2008 8:20 UTC (Fri) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link] Interesting paper. So by far the largest part of GNU's contribution to Redhat (we can probably generalise from that) is the development suite, in which I would include Emacs, and glibc. I would not count glibc as "just" part of the development suite, as an "average" computer user does not need a compiler and friends on their computer, however indispensable they may be to create the system, but try to remove glibc from a GNU/Linux-based system... Re the Linux myth companies though, my personal suspicion that they just don't care much about the GNU philosophy rather than actively trying to sabotage it. Never attribute to malice what can be explained by laziness :)
They call it GNU/Linux - thanks Sun! Posted Apr 5, 2008 19:22 UTC (Sat) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link] If the toolchain (development tools) were a reason to call the project GNU/whatever, then "GNU/" would need to be prefixed to the BSDs and Mac OS X too. Even RMS does not make that claim. As for glibc, the maintainer of many years, Ulrich Drepper, made his opinion clear some years ago. Many other userland utilities and libraries on linux systems, that would be regarded as essential features of a Unix-like system, come from BSD and other sources, not GNU. RMS's claim seems to be that he had a vision of developing a free operating system, using pre-existing software as far as possible (notably X and TeX) and filling in any gaps (notably toolchain, C library, coreutils) via the GNU project; though the biggest gap of all, the kernel, remained unfilled in 1991, Linux came along and made use of GNU work (just as GNU had made use of MIT's or Knuth's work); therefore the combined system must be called GNU/Linux, even though GNU never felt the need to acknowledge other projects in this way. Moreover, his claim minimises the importance and difficulty of the kernel. The GNU project has failed to produce a usable kernel, not only in 1991, but to this day. And the main reason Linux has more users than the BSDs is the kernel: most software runs fine on BSDs, but their kernels lag in hardware support and modern features. Nobody has written a free kernel comparable to Linux from scratch; but there are several free C libraries, a few free compilers (eg TenDRA, LLVM), and BSD versions of almost all the GNU coreutils and fileutils. So insisting on GNU/Linux sounds very much like stealing credit. RMS had the big ideas early on, and he is credited with them. He deserves no direct credit for today's working Linux systems -- at least, no more credit than hundreds of other contributors.
It's more than GCC Posted Apr 7, 2008 9:49 UTC (Mon) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] There's Glibc, which cannot be replaced (except for toy projects and purpose built tiny distros). There's Bash, coreutils, diffutils, findutils, grep, gzip, readline, tar, screen, etc. Most of these could in theory be replaced by BSD software, but the easiest way to do that is to wipe your GNU/Linux installation and install FreeBSD :-) The "it's replaceable" argument actually implies removing the "Linux" from "GNU/Linux" since GNU cannot be replaced (glibc at the very least) but the Linux kernel can and has been replaced with the kernels of FreeBSD, NetBSD, and Solaris. Writing development tools was an essential part of making an operating system. In fact, some of GNU's best work was in enabling others to help by producing the development tools and the licences. As well as GCC and GDB, the GNU project wrote Make, Gawk, GNU sed, Bison, binutils, gettext, among others. We're not talking about a one trick pony here.
It's more than GCC Posted Apr 7, 2008 14:55 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] glibc is replaceable by uClibc. uClibc lacks some important things glibc has got (most notably the binary compatibility commitment), but is still perfectly *usable* (well, it supports most of POSIX by now, at least the parts people actually use).
It's more than GCC Posted Apr 7, 2008 15:39 UTC (Mon) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] That, as Mr. Clinton will agree, depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. I mean, sure, it *is* possible in a post to an LWN story. But where're the uClibc based distros? And I don't mean toy projects, unused experiments. /coriordan smokes a cigar
It's more than GCC Posted Apr 7, 2008 18:05 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Well, I know my systems wouldn't boot without it (it's damn useful as a libc in an initramfs: klibc is too small to handle a lot of stuff you might reasonably put in there, but uClibc happens just fine).
They call it GNU/Linux - thanks Sun! Posted Apr 4, 2008 9:03 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] > the total of the GNU project's code is much larger than the Linux kernel's size. Well, that might be relevant if anybody installed the total of the GNU project's code on their system. Has anybody compared something sensible, like the amount of code in a default Red Hat install? (insert standard "people say Linux simply because GNU/Linux looks awkward" argument here) I'm very curious... what companies are trying to push some sort of anti-GNU myth? Do you have any evidence to back this up? Why would any of them care enough to play mind games to somehow prevent their customers from hearing the GNU philosophy? That seems awfully unlikely doesn't it?
They call it GNU/Linux - thanks Sun! Posted Apr 7, 2008 9:09 UTC (Mon) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] IBM is an example. They have TV ads saying that Linus wrote an operating system. It's not a big conspiracy constructing a delicate false world. It's a simple naming decision based on priorities. If they want to help the free software movement, they could call it "GNU/Linux" all or some of the time, and if they don't, they can just call it "Linux" and publish ads with fantasy tales of it's creation.
They call it GNU/Linux - thanks Sun! Posted Apr 7, 2008 20:32 UTC (Mon) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] Then this sounds like a false dichotomy...? Just because IBM doesn't particularly care about the GNU project, that doesn't mean that they're conspiring with other companies to prevent people from hearing about it either. Lies are pushed through TV adverts every day... If an IBM advert is the best indicator of an anti-free-software conspiracy, well, I don't think you have much to worry about. :)
They call it GNU/Linux - thanks Sun! Posted Apr 7, 2008 21:14 UTC (Mon) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] Ah, maybe you misread my post. I said there's *no* conspiracy. IBM doesn't need to conspired with anyone to undermine the GNU project. A sufficient number of companies will do it of their own free will. The point is that most companies that profit from using, distributing, and providing services related to GNU software never tell the public or their customers that it is GNU software. The GNU project developed the software as a way to spread the philosophy, so when people spread the software while minimizing the link to the philosophy, they're undermining the GNU project. The GNU project works to give users freedom. So people undermining the GNU project are harming the cause of the free software movement. Sun decided to start acknowledging the GNU project. Fair play to them.
They call it GNU/Linux - thanks Sun! Posted Apr 4, 2008 12:49 UTC (Fri) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link] All technical arguments aside, I call it GNU/Linux because rms politely asks me to. "Over time, calling the system GNU/Linux spreads awareness of the ideals of freedom for which we developed the GNU system. It is also useful as a reminder for people in our community who know about these ideals, in a world where much of discussion of free software takes a totally practical approach. When we ask you to call the system GNU/Linux, we do so because awareness of GNU slowly but surely brings with it awareness of the free software ideals of freedom and community." I think it's a valid request, and to me it's not overly cumbersome. Granted, at first it feels a bit strange in a conversation where the other parties are using "linux", but then again, the system being "strange" and "unorthodox" is what got me to run it in the first place.
They call it GNU/Linux - thanks Sun! Posted Apr 4, 2008 11:41 UTC (Fri) by oblio (guest, #33465) [Link] "The policy of calling the whole system "GNU" does beg the question - what proportion of the average free software-based system is actually GNU software? And of that software, how much of it can be considered part of the core of the system and how much as tools? Does the compiler suite count as a development tool or as part of the system core? Does the fact that it is required to build the system affect the equation? Does Gnome consider itself to be primarily part of GNU (is Solaris GNU?), or an independent project? Which proportion of free software systems (desktops or otherwise) use Gnome? And while we are at it, what proportion of such a system is actually Linux? (As a side note, I like to talk about the systems as being "Debian", "Ubuntu", "Gentoo" or whatever in order to sidestep the issue. That at least seems to me to be an uncontroversial description of them.)" ___ Furthermore, a lot of the most used F/OSS software is not GNU. MySQL is not GNU, PHP is not GNU, Apache is not GNU, Sendmail, Qmail, Postfix, Tomcat, KDE, OpenOffice, Inkscape, BIND, ZSH, PostgreSQL, SQLite,... are not GNU. GNU is a sort of glue these days, being the toolkit with which these applications are built. And except for GCC and GDB, everything is replaceable. Look at FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, for example. It is an important part, and probably the most politically aware, but it is *not* the end-all-be-all some GNU supporters are portraying. A lot of people outside GNU are helping F/OSS too.
They call it GNU/Linux - thanks Sun! Posted Apr 4, 2008 12:44 UTC (Fri) by grouch (guest, #27289) [Link]
Remove all of those and you can still have an operating system -- you can still interact with your computer. Remove either the GNU software or Linux and you don't have an operating system, in the typically-named "Linux" or "GNU/Linux" distribution. The kernel by itself is not an operating system. The shell, coreutils and essential libraries standing alone are not an operating system. I run Debian GNU/Linux. I can strip out everything except GNU code and Linux code and still operate my computer. Everything I add to those increases the convenience and utility of my computer, but removing either of those leaves me with a powered paperweight. If my operating system did not already have a name, either "GNU/Linux" or "GNU+Linux" would be a logical choice as the two parts are essential to gain the characteristics of the operating system I prefer.
They call it GNU/Linux - thanks Sun! Posted Apr 4, 2008 16:59 UTC (Fri) by oblio (guest, #33465) [Link] "Remove all of those and you can still have an operating system -- you can still interact with your computer. Remove either the GNU software or Linux and you don't have an operating system, in the typically-named "Linux" or "GNU/Linux" distribution. The kernel by itself is not an operating system. The shell, coreutils and essential libraries standing alone are not an operating system." ___ And there are BSD licensed version for all of those, except GCC, GDB and a few others. My point is that you could probably run the Linux kernel with a BSD userland, and with software on top of that from outside the GNU ecosystem, and still have a full system. GCC is GNU's powerbroker :)
They call it GNU/Linux - thanks Sun! Posted Apr 4, 2008 17:00 UTC (Fri) by oblio (guest, #33465) [Link] Substitute "versions" with equivalent "applications/tools" :)
They call it GNU/Linux - thanks Sun! Posted Apr 4, 2008 18:57 UTC (Fri) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Currently, there isn't a BSD C library that works with the Linux kernel. There is uClibc, designed for embedded use (LGPL), as well as Cygnus newlib, also for embedded use (non-copylefted, BSD-like terms).But generally if you're on a desktop, laptop, or server, you rely on GNU libc.
They call it GNU/Linux - thanks Sun! Posted Apr 4, 2008 20:08 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Except, perhaps, when booting (some people use klibc in their initramfs/initrd; some use uClibc; nobody without disk space to throw away uses glibc).
They call it GNU/Linux - thanks Sun! Posted Apr 5, 2008 3:27 UTC (Sat) by grouch (guest, #27289) [Link]
So, if I understand you correctly, your point is that there are probably other operating systems besides GNU/Linux. I can probably agree with that. ;) I still prefer GNU/Linux, however, and have had no need for any other operating system for quite a few years. Any replacement would have to have at least as strong an emphasis on user freedoms. I've grown accustomed to being in control of my computer and data.
You are right - in a sense this IS the reason to use GNU/Linux Posted Apr 5, 2008 14:44 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] And there are BSD licensed version for all of those, except GCC, GDB and a few others. Yup. That's exactly why it's better to use GNU/Linux name! For example Android is Linux-based system but not GNU/Linux system. And since the GNU glue is gone it feels quite different then "normal" Linux (really GNU/Linux) system. The same it true for OpenWrt and other systems without GNU userland. Once upon time the story way simple: we can omit GNU in GNU/Linux since it's there by default. It was even justifiable back then. But today people are talking about "triumph of the GNU on mobile phones" when they talk about Android exactly because they don't distinguish GNU and GNU/Linux. Today we have all four combinations in real use: nonGNU/nonLinux (like Windows), nonGNU/Linux (like Android), GNU/Linux (most Linuxes out there) and even GNU/nonLinux (like Debian GNU/kFreeBSD or Gentoo/FreeBSD). In many ways Debian GNU/kFreeBSD is closer to Debian GNU/Linux then to Android so GNU/Linux name makes perfect sense. And yes, the main reason to use GNU/Linux are two facts:
They call it GNU/Linux - thanks Sun! Posted Apr 15, 2008 23:05 UTC (Tue) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link] > The policy of calling the whole system "GNU" does beg the question - what proportion of the average free software-based system is actually GNU software? That question isn't relevant to the request to call the operating system GNU. It deserves that name because that's what the creators of the operating system called it from the beginning, that's what its name has been for 25 years of effort toward making that operating system, and that's what they consistently and politely ask us all to call it. Linus is responsible for *one* program in a free software operating system: Linux. (Two, if you count 'git'.) Linux is a very important program, but it is *not* an operating system by itself. GNU, plus the program Linux, *is* an operating system, and it deserves to be called by the name its creators want us to call it. Calling it GNU/Linux acknowledges the fact that Linux is a very important part of the operating system, but it is still *one* program. No single program deserves the title of "operating system". The fact that it's an operating system at all, with thousands of parts crteated by many people but all managing to work together well, is because of the consistent efforts of the people creating GNU as an operating system.
|
|
||||||||||||