| |||||||||||
They call it GNU/Linux - thanks Sun!They call it GNU/Linux - thanks Sun!Posted Apr 4, 2008 7:58 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544)In reply to: They call it GNU/Linux - thanks Sun! by michaeljt Parent article: Sun Microsystems' Next Linux Move (Seeking Alpha)
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.
(Log in to post comments)
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.
|
|||||||||||