'Creating' a distribution [LWN.net]

'Creating' a distribution

Posted Aug 18, 2008 18:37 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

I like 'Debian' or 'CentOS' personally.

The only defense for "GNU" nowadays is that GNU is as critical to running your software as the
Linux kernel itself. Debian isn't, OO.org isn't, X Windows isn't, etc etc. Sure there is lots
of software that is utterly dependent on other software. But all Linux software is dependent
on both the Linux kernel and the GNU toolset.

Hell, it's more dependent on GNU then Linux, since it's much easier to swap out the Linux then
it is GNU. Even when running most "Linux" software on Windows you still often need a crapload
of GNU stuff.

The motivation behind the 'GNU/Linux' term is that currently people do place much to much a
high a emphasis on the Linux kernel. The Kernel matters much much less then is first assumed
by most people. For most people using Linux on a desktop computer life is not significantly
better under Linux 2.6.x vs 2.4.x eras. For laptops and wireless stuff, yes it is much better,
but for desktops.. not so much. Sure we know there is significant advantages to 2.6, but for a
average user all the differences are very non-obvious. HOWEVER, X Windows and GNOME have a
much much higher impact then Linux on end users. Proper OGL support would attract much more
users then a new file system. (of course a new file system is critical in terms of the future
growth in different markets)

The ultimate goal of the kernel is to be unknown, unseen, uncared for. That the Linux kernel
is given such a significant amount of interest is not a good sign.

So maybe if we downplayed the "Linux" part of "linux" then there would be a more balanced
approach to reporting, user attention, developer attention, and corporate attention given to
various different projects. (because nowadays most serious issues faced in terms of usability
don't have the Linux kernel at the center of it, except driver pains.)

But otherwise it's pretty silly nowadays to keep kicking a dead horse.

'Creating' a distribution

Posted Aug 19, 2008 0:06 UTC (Tue) by SEJeff (subscriber, #51588) [Link]

Sans gcc I have to respectfully disagree... If the FSF went nuts and was able (they wouldn't)
to revoke the license to use any gnu software, the Linux userland would simply become the BSD
userland.

Think about it and then agree.

gcc is truly a piece of work though. There isn't another compiler with the breadth of
platforms or featureset it has yet.

'Creating' a distribution

Posted Aug 19, 2008 2:20 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]

gcc isn't controlled by the FSF, it's run by Redhat nowdays.

and while there are no other compilers directly comparable to it, there are several that are
close enough that if something were to happen they would probably get a lot of attention and
mature very quickly (sort of like what happened to VCS systems when bitkeeper withdrew the
free license)

gcc control

Posted Aug 19, 2008 3:27 UTC (Tue) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]

"gcc isn't controlled by the FSF, it's run by Redhat nowdays."

This is false.

GCC is legally owned by the FSF, and all contributors sign over their work. The head release manager works for CodeSourcery, not Red Hat, and key contributors work for many companies (SUSE, IBM, Google, Intel, AMD, and others all employ people to work on GCC, as does Red Hat). The situation was different ten years ago, when Red Hat was more dominant. But while Red Hat's contributions are still important, and welcomed, their relative contribution has been decreasing over time as more and more contributors get involved.

Key decisions are made by the Steering Committee (though the technical stuff is left to the judgement of the maintainer of that particular area of the compiler), and RMS personally is involved on occasion, though not that often. Technically, the FSF does control GCC, though in practice, this control is delegated. Having a controlling organization that is perceived as neutral (the FSF and steering committee) helps companies that are fierce competitors work together on GCC.

'Creating' a distribution

Posted Aug 19, 2008 10:44 UTC (Tue) by filipjoelsson (subscriber, #2622) [Link]

The only defense for "GNU" nowadays is that GNU is as critical to running your software as the Linux kernel itself. Debian isn't, OO.org isn't, X Windows isn't, etc etc. Sure there is lots of software that is utterly dependent on other software. But all Linux software is dependent on both the Linux kernel and the GNU toolset.

I'm not sure what this "linux software" that you refer to is - but I'm pretty sure I don't use much of it. I would say that all of the software I use, at work as well as in my spare time, runs quite ok on a BSD kernel with BSD userland as well (and even *shudder* on Windows). If there's any part that is harder to swap out, I'd say it's GTK/QT.

Filip, proud Mozilla/Apache/XFCE/GTK/X/GNU/Linux user

'Creating' a distribution

Posted Aug 19, 2008 11:20 UTC (Tue) by mosfet (guest, #45339) [Link]

<blockquote>I'm not sure what this "linux software" that you refer to is - but I'm pretty sure
I don't use much of it.</blockquote>

Except that ever bit of Software you use on *BSD is compiled with GCC. Maybe this will change
in the Future with PCC or LLVM, but right now you are using GNU/BSD.

'Creating' a distribution

Posted Aug 19, 2008 11:45 UTC (Tue) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]

right now you are using GNU/BSD

Stallman himself disagrees: "A name like GNU/BSD would not fit the situation." While the BSDs do use some GNU tools, he points out that GNU systems also use BSD tools; but, overall, BSD evolved independently of GNU.