When is it worth saying it's Linux? (The H) [LWN.net]

When is it worth saying it's Linux? (The H)

Posted Jan 29, 2010 21:09 UTC (Fri) by BeS (guest, #43108)
Parent article: When is it worth saying it's Linux? (The H)

>So is Android a Linux device or is it different operating system with a Linux kernel?

I think this sentence is correct. Android is a different operating system (you could call it Android or Android/Linux) with a Linux kernel.

Android is not a GNU system. That's why most GNU/Linux user will feel a difference. Android vs GNU/Linux or BSD vs MacOS are good examples why an operating system is more than a kernel.

to post comments

When is it worth saying it's Linux? (The H)

Posted Jan 29, 2010 21:24 UTC (Fri) by blitzkrieg3 (guest, #57873) [Link]

It's technically correct, but still misleading. Vendors (other than Debian) still refer to their distros as "Linux" (SuSE Linux Enterprise Server or Red Hat Enterprise Linux). I think newer distros such as Ubuntu and Android try to distance themselves from Linux, probably for that reason. But to the public, Linux based and Linux OS (as RH and SuSE term it) is the same thing.

I guess RMS was right all along, now we're all confused...

When is it worth saying it's Linux? (The H)

Posted Jan 29, 2010 23:11 UTC (Fri) by renox (guest, #23785) [Link] (12 responses)

Replace 'GNU system' with 'LSB compliant distributions' and your post would be more accurate (GNU/Linux doesn't describe an API, it's an 'advocacy/political' naming)

Android vs LSB compliant distributions
FreeBSD vs Debian kFreeBSD vs MacOS X.

When is it worth saying it's Linux? (The H)

Posted Jan 29, 2010 23:57 UTC (Fri) by donbarry (guest, #10485) [Link] (1 responses)

Where do you think the LSB got their "standards" from? GNU, of course.
GNU itself was emulating Unix (GNU's not Unix!) but the particular
feel of the LSB was set by packaging choices made by distros on top of GNU. It
goes beyond merely Posix.

As for naming, of course it's political. But politics isn't merely advocacy -- it's also
about history. There are facts in politics. And as in history, one seeks to
understand where false histories arise, and in whose service.

When is it worth saying it's Linux? (The H)

Posted Jan 30, 2010 0:32 UTC (Sat) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

LSB gets far more of it's standards from the single unix standars (SUS) and POSIX, it then layers some file location and library standards on top of those

When is it worth saying it's Linux? (The H)

Posted Jan 30, 2010 0:56 UTC (Sat) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link] (9 responses)

Now maybe I'm wrong, but I always understood the GNU/Linux to mean that it's the Linux Kernel with the GNU toolchain underneath. Linux is nothing more than the Kernel. The GNU system is GCC, GLIB, ELF, BASH, etc. The rest of the Distribution composes non GNU tools like X. Without the GNU toolchain Linux isn't interesting or really even usuable (you need GCC to compile it after all). RMS was right when he said that Linux wouldn't exist if he and his supporters hadn't spent years creating the GNU system that Linux runs on top of. The one part RMS never finished was the kernel to use the toolchain, but he put in place the toolchain to make the development possible and HURD died on the vine when Linux appeared.

Sure over time things have changed and some of the original GNU toolchain programs have been forked and are no longer part of the groups RMS set up but the fact remains, Linux doesn't exist without the GNU underneath. Even Android with it's segmented operating environment and security is still GNU/Linux underneath. I'd say it's probably GNU/Linux/Andriod/*whatever* in order of importance.

When is it worth saying it's Linux? (The H)

Posted Jan 30, 2010 1:14 UTC (Sat) by gdt (subscriber, #6284) [Link] (7 responses)

This whole discussion, from Lignux onwards, is bikesheding of the worst type --- not just what colour is the bikeshed, but who gets named on the plaque.

Yeah, Android is interesting in its hiding of Linux. Because the Google developers have so obviously tried to allow its replacement with Vxworks or some other alternative should running Linux underneath their API not work out. In that sense, Android is not really a Linux phone. Using Linux is merely a business decision, a decision that Google have carefully coded to be altered if circumstances demand.

When is it worth saying it's Linux? (The H)

Posted Jan 30, 2010 1:25 UTC (Sat) by Kit (guest, #55925) [Link] (4 responses)

By that logic, isn't Maemo not a Linux distribution, as the applications are programmed using a cross-platform toolkit (GTK or Qt) (mostly)? It might not be to the same extent, but it seems like the same arguments could be made.

And really, on a consumer level device like a netbook, phone (especially phone), tablet, or what have you, the only *interesting* piece (to the user) is the UI, not what's running underneath.

When is it worth saying it's Linux? (The H)

Posted Jan 30, 2010 1:52 UTC (Sat) by donbarry (guest, #10485) [Link] (3 responses)

"the only *interesting* piece" ?

Sure, the only interesting piece is the uI -- and how it may grow. That demands
freedom. Freedom to inspect, alter, share, study, distribute the source. Freedom to
recompile it and get it to actually run on the device. In short, the freedoms that rms
identified that we should insist on. To say that the only interesting piece is the UI
without talking about its growth is to lock oneself into a computer era which never
changes, and to accept that which is granted to us gratefully.

We call such mammals sheep.

When is it worth saying it's Linux? (The H)

Posted Jan 30, 2010 2:19 UTC (Sat) by Kit (guest, #55925) [Link] (2 responses)

> Sure, the only interesting piece is the uI -- and how it may grow.

I don't particularly see how "how it may grow" is really related to the conversation. The closest I can fathom is that you're implying that because Android is less free (either because of its development model, or because it can be locked down), we should be more critical of it in ways we wouldn't have otherwise cared, though that's mostly just a wild guess.

> We call such mammals sheep.

Everyones a sheep when it comes to something. It's simply impossible to give a damn about everything that matters in life (doubly so if you want to accomplish anything), so we pick our battles. I don't see how not being all that concerned about the license of your software makes one worthy of being called names.

When is it worth saying it's Linux? (The H)

Posted Jan 30, 2010 3:39 UTC (Sat) by viro (subscriber, #7872) [Link] (1 responses)

You are arguing either with a Markov chain or with an MBA; either way it's pointless, even if its sheep-related fantasies are somewhat fascinating.

When is it worth saying it's Linux? (The H)

Posted Jan 30, 2010 5:42 UTC (Sat) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link]

I think this may be the best response I have ever seen.

When is it worth saying it's Linux? (The H)

Posted Jan 30, 2010 5:41 UTC (Sat) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link] (1 responses)

>This whole discussion, from Lignux onwards, is bikesheding of the worst type --- not just what colour is the bikeshed, but who gets named on the plaque.

So, if someone were to take the BSD userland, port it to run over the Linux kernel, and call the result "Linux", anyone from the BSD projects who complained would just be bikeshedding?

When is it worth saying it's Linux? (The H)

Posted Jan 30, 2010 10:48 UTC (Sat) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]

I suppose I agree.

BSD userland on Linux would be just as much 'Linux' as Android or Debian.

Calling everything Linux was such a horrible idea anyways. Linux software,
Linux community, Linux kernel, Linux OS. All of it is confusing and just
kinda difficult to understand. Just a bad idea all around.

It's like Smurfs using the word Smurf for everything. Sure if your a smurf
and you grew up around smurf and understand the politics and usage then you
can usually discern the meaning based on context, but even then it gets
confusing in long discussions with lots of people.

Sure GNU/Linux is awkward and is either too-'PC' or un-'PC' depending on
the crowd your running with). But at least it does a better job explaining
what is going on. It's certainly more accurate to say GNU/Linux then to
just say 'Linux'.

Right now I see three major variants of Linux out there. There is
Busybox/Linux for embedded systems, GNU/Linux is the most full fledged
version, and then you have Android. If that is not good enough and
GNU/Linux is too political and stupid then that is fine, but so far nothing
better has really come along. Not unless you want to stop using Linux
altogether except to talk about the kernel and start calling things Debian,
Fedora or whatever to reference the entire OS.

When is it worth saying it's Linux? (The H)

Posted Feb 1, 2010 21:08 UTC (Mon) by tbird20d (subscriber, #1901) [Link]

Sure over time things have changed and some of the original GNU toolchain programs have been forked and are no longer part of the groups RMS set up but the fact remains, Linux doesn't exist without the GNU underneath. Even Android with it's segmented operating environment and security is still GNU/Linux underneath. I'd say it's probably GNU/Linux/Andriod/*whatever* in order of importance.

This is not correct. Android doesn't have GNU code in it's core system at all. Many other embedded systems also omit GNU software. Linux (the kernel), does not have "GNU underneath", and exists just fine without GNU.