| |||||||||||||
How much GNU is there in GNU/Linux?How much GNU is there in GNU/Linux?Posted Jun 1, 2011 13:59 UTC (Wed) by orospakr (guest, #40684)Parent article: How much GNU is there in GNU/Linux?
It would be interesting to see the same numbers run for only the packages in Ubuntu's ubuntu-desktop/ubuntu-minimal package tree (ie., the "standard install"). These numbers appear to be including their entire repository.
I realize that "operating system"/"not operating system" is a false dichotomy. However, I think we can generally agree that while it might be reasonable to include things like a desktop and possibly even a web browser as part of the OS, perhaps including stuff like Eclipse, game system emulators and astronomy software might be pushing it.
(Log in to post comments)
How much GNU is there in GNU/Linux? Posted Jun 1, 2011 15:09 UTC (Wed) by donbarry (guest, #10485) [Link]
Stallman's seminal contribution, to my mind, transcended the coding, as central as that was -- it was in articulating the vision of a free operating system, providing the first roadmap, hacking copyright to keep such a system free, and organizing and inspiring others to join him in making it happen. Those who were not involved with computers in the 1980s are unaware of the centrality of Stallman as a figure then. Only in the late 90s did well-organized corporate opposition to the FSF emerge, resulting in the creation of the pathetic shill-central of the "Open Source Institute", the elevation of minor fringe figures like ESR into (for a while at least), wise prophets, and the calculated exclusion of Stallman from visible speaking roles at most industry conferences, and organized campaigns of vilification and character assassination against him.
I regard the code I've produced within my subdiscipline as an extension of
How much GNU is there in GNU/Linux? Posted Jun 1, 2011 15:53 UTC (Wed) by lethargo (subscriber, #26367) [Link]
I don't call it GNU/Linux. However, regardless of the percentage of GNU code, I think it is important to tell people that GNU had a central role in its creation. Why? Because it helps remind us of the value of idealists in society going forward. In any extended description of my Linux to the uninitiated, I feel like...
1. I should point out that the majority of code contributed today is by people working for corporations. To me this is important to point out because its fair, and because it helps remind my (relatively politically left-leaning) self that corporations as not inherently evil, but instead corporations are what they are, and are perfectly valid, great, and efficient in a particular role in society.
2. I should point out that the thing wasn't started by corporations. People motivated primarily by profit did not (and probably would not) initially create this thing I consider so beneficial. Idealists, and academics, did.
I may not agree with all of Stallman's positions. However, recognizing the importance of Stallman/FSF/GNU in creating "Linux" (as an OS, not just a kernel) helps remind us that idealists (and for that matter academics) are important and should be valued in society going forward. (End soap box...thank you)
How much GNU is there in GNU/Linux? Posted Jun 1, 2011 16:05 UTC (Wed) by thumperward (guest, #34368) [Link]
That's as may be, and I've never seen anyone contradict it. However, that's not the FSF's position, which is that the use of GNU's compiler, shell, and the various userspace utilities which made up GNU's output in the early 90s constitutes the labelling of the resultant system as a "variant of GNU". The reason those things were used back in the day was that they compiled on the 386 and were available for nothing. Until it became obvious that Linux was the best vector for getting the FSF's message across, it was commonly understood that the two were orthogonal. That this is no longer commonly understood is not because it were never true, but rather because the FSF has spent nearly two decades attempting to obscure this.
How much GNU is there in GNU/Linux? Posted Jun 3, 2011 14:53 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] Then why didn't RMS insist that it be called GNU/Solaris? All Sun machines I saw did have gcc as their choice C compiler, and ran assorted packages from a collection of GNU (and other) software packaged for its awfull package system... What about DG/UX (Data General's Unix), where the official C compiler was gcc, as were the development tools, and AFAIR much of the userland also, came directly from GNU? That was the state of the art Unix system in the 90's, much as today it's a Linux kernel beneath essentially the same sort of mix of applications from a variety of sources...
How much GNU is there in GNU/Linux? Posted Jun 3, 2011 14:46 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] Better get a grip on the BSD saga. The "freeing" (final removal of the last restrictions, really) was due to people at UCB, as part of a much earlier stream of "software should be shared" movement than GNU. Inspiration probably flowed from BSD (and similar) movement to RMS, not the other way around.
|
|||||||||||||