no gnu [LWN.net]

no gnu

Posted Aug 21, 2009 17:25 UTC (Fri) by juriise (guest, #38305)
In reply to: no gnu by rsidd
Parent article: 40 years of Unix (BBC)

There are different perspectives. The Linux perspective: We have the kernel, lets take whatever is available to complete the system.

The GNU perspective is NOT the opposite. The GNU perspective is not "We have some compiler, where can we find the kernel to complete the system". If that were the case, you would be completely right in deciding that the GNU tools is the little part, the kernel is the bigger part.

On the contrary, the GNU perspective is: We want to build a completely free system out of parts from anywhere free software is available. The requirement for freedom was there from the beginning, in fact it was the whole point of starting. RMS began with what was natural for him, the compiler. It was never the point to do everything himself, rather to talk people into writing software that was free, so it could be a part of the system. Probably the most important part was defining free software through the GPL and otherwise.

Linux was free, and it was chosen. Probably because it had a GPL license, and the Hurd could not be completed. The objective of GNU is nearly fulfilled. Therefore it can be called the GNU system.

Seen from GNU, the complete free system is important. Seen from Linux, the kernel is important.

to post comments

no gnu

Posted Aug 21, 2009 18:40 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] (2 responses)

Not sure what you're arguing for or against. I've never met a Linux dev that thinks "only the kernel is important." Have you?

Also, love the way you spin the exact same idea two different ways.

"the GNU perspective is: We want to build a completely free system out of parts from anywhere free software is available"

[the Linux perspective is:] "Lets take whatever is available to complete the system."

Yes, both projects adopted large amounts of existing software to help them complete the big picture. Why use pure rhetoric to make one look evil and the other look benevolent?

No accident

Posted Aug 21, 2009 19:04 UTC (Fri) by alex (subscriber, #1355) [Link]

I think the point was (as I've heard RMS say many times) is that when Linus looked around for a compiler and user-space to complete his OS it wasn't by accident he found GNU. The FSF's route map towards system freedom started by re-implementing free versions of libraries on proprietary systems as they realised starting from the kernel would be a fairly tricky task.

Who knows what would have happened if Linus hadn't written his terminal emulator/kernel. Most probably something like BSD/Debian, but we'll never really know.

no gnu

Posted Aug 21, 2009 21:49 UTC (Fri) by juriise (guest, #38305) [Link]

"Not sure what you're arguing for or against."

I am arguing for the importance of GNU, and that it is OK to call it the GNU system, when I want to point to the freedom aspect of the system.

"I've never met a Linux dev that thinks "only the kernel is important." Have you?"

I have heard that Linux is the most important part, that calling it the GNU/Linux system is taking credit wrongly, that free software is the old name for open source, they provided the compiler and the toolchain (thats it)...

I think that the biggest contribution from the GNU side is the definition of free software, the licenses, the persistent marketing. They also made some software.