Stop Microsoft
Operating Systems => Linux and UNIX => Topic started by: flap on 16 September 2002, 15:19
-
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/27121.html (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/27121.html)
The tendency on this board to use the term 'Open Source' plenitfully but 'Free Software' only sparingly is indicative of the wider problem - that the 'Open Source' movement has done harm to the Free Software movement by detracting from the FSF's political/ideological goal by deliberately avoiding/ignoring it.
Fair enough if you agree with the goals of the open source movement rather than the FSF, but I suspect there is a general lack of awareness about the FSF and GNU, not helped by inaccurate statements such as this (from the Linux kernel docs): "Linux is a clone of the operating system Unix, written from scratch by Linus Torvalds"
-
i agree 100% with you. my loyalties lie with the free software foundation and richard stallman, and i agree that the open source initiative has obfuscated the concept of free software.
however neither open source nor free software are either of them very good descriptions of the sort of arrangement that gets released under the gpl and similar licences.
there is yet to be a term which sufficiently describes the "free as in freedom" ethic that these licences embody.
and re: that quote, linux was written from scratch by linus torvalds, however it is a clone of minix and it provides the same function as the unix kernel only. most of the rest of the system is from the free software foundation and its supporters.
you know that and i know that, but it is not as snappy and newcomers are less likely to understand it.
to close, i will just post this, one of my favourite links, and i reckon everybody involved in gnu/linux should definitely read this document at some point:
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/stallman.html (http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/stallman.html)
[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: Calum ]
-
You're right that 'free' is an unfortunately ambiguous term. But actually 'Open Source' *is* a good description of what the open source movement advocates; just that - 'open source'. There's no freedom implied and non intended. There are software vendors adopting 'open source' development practises that just involve them making the source available internally within their company.
Linus Torvalds is hailed and revered as the "creator" of the "Linux" operating system, yet his contribution (the kernel) actually comprises only about 3% of the code that makes up the entire GNU/Linux system.
If I'm speaking about GNU/Linux or talking about it here I'll just refer it as 'Linux' as I'm lazy, but if I were writing about it, for example on a website, I'd make the effort to use its full name. I'd urge others here to do the same.
Yes, that's definitely required reading for anyone interested in GNU/Linux. Or if you can't be bothered reading it you can find audio recordings of RMS giving speeches on this at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/audio/audio.html (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/audio/audio.html)
I'd recommend http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/audio/audio.html#TOCLinuxTag2000 (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/audio/audio.html#TOCLinuxTag2000)
-
well i frown on the whole open source thing because it is just as proprietary as closed source, but it gives people the wrong idea generally.
to be fair, the free software foundation took a decade to come up with a kernel, and linus knocked one out in his spare time...
-
well to be fair they only took so long because they used such a tricky microkernel design; admittedly a bad decision. If only they'd just developed a simple monolithic kernel like Linux we'd probably now be using a system called GNU, and we wouldn't have this situation where Torvalds (whose philosophy is much more in line with the open source movement) gets all the credit for the FSF's work and, more importantly, fails to promote the political/moral side of free software.
-
It is true that "Linux" is not an operating system, but just the kernel (which is a huge requirement for the operating system to even function). And it is true that Linus wrote the kernel used on all "Linux based" operating systems. It is also true that GNU is significant and good. However, I get a little peaved by GNU making it sound like they are the "biggest" part of a system comprised of only the Linux kernel and the rest being "GNU". The "Linux based" distros of today include much more than the Linux kernel and the GNU utilities/software. Most apps fall under the GPL (even the Linux kernel falls under thet GPL) but being licensed under GPL does not mean they were initiated or born by GNU.
For instance, XFree86 is not GPL or born from GNU and to most "Linux Based" OS users this piece of software is as significant as the Linux kernel. It is an open source version of X Window System and licensed under something similar to the X11 license. KDE, a system that many "Linux based" OS users do most of their "user" functions with includes a powerful Window manager and desktop system with many applications, is licensed under the GPL but certainly isn't GNU software. In fact I would suggest that in most Linux distros GNU born software comprises a small fraction of the bulk of the code written for the distro. It is probably true that they would be the single biggest contributor but still be a small fraction of the overall.
Now, I have nothing against GNU other than they whine too much. It is not Linus' fault that people call an entire distro "Linux". In fact I do it myself because it is easy to say and most people I talk to know that I am referring to the entire OS even though Linux is just the kernel. GPL is good and in most cases I prefer it. But other licenses are better for other people, and maybe one day they will move entirely to GPL, that certainly seems to be the trend. However, I hesitate to bash other licenses and whining so much certainly won't help the cause. Enlighten people about the GPL and the philosophy but don't whine about who's more responsible and significant, something I hope RMS and friends do more of in the future.
[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
-
i do agree re: whining, but they are doing it with their hearts in the right place, and X is a good example of essential non FSF software indeed. As far as i know they do not make software unless there is a legal way to bring out software that does the job of something that is not released under the gpl already.
why they do not build a WineX clone now is beyond me...
maybe it should be called GPL/Linux instead...
-
I think just "Linux" is fine. GNU software is used on far more systems than just "Linux based" systems so to me "Linux" better captures the whole with a short word. Enlighted people know that Linux is GPL and that there is a lot of GNU software included. Now it would certainly be improper to call a GNU/Hurd system "Linux". And people who install all of the GNU utilities on the Solaris or OSX machines do not then refer to their systems as "GNU/Solaris" or "GNU/OSX".
Regarding Wine/WineX. I have mixed feelings about this project. As far as I am concerned I would be happy if it just shriveled up and went away. It would be far more advantageous to get app vendors to produce their applications to run natively. They have no incentive to port if their app runs well under Wine, which would never run as well as a native application. However, it comes down to that little dog chasing his tail problem, which is why I have mixed feelings about it. I personally don't have a use for it. I don't use Windows apps. I use "Free and open source" apps.
-
quote:
However, I get a little peaved by GNU making it sound like they are the "biggest" part of a system
Quote from http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html: (http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html:)
quote:
One CD-ROM vendor found that in their ``Linux distribution'', GNU software was the largest single contingent, around 28% of the total source code, and this included some of the essential major components without which there could be no system. Linux itself was about 3%. So if you were going to pick a name for the system based on who wrote the programs in the system, the most appropriate single choice would be ``GNU''.
quote:
Enlighten people about the GPL and the philosophy but don't whine about who's more responsible and significant, something I hope RMS and friends do more of in the future.
This is the problem; that people assume RMS + friends are "whining" or complaining about not getting their share of the credit, when the *whole reason* why they want GNU included in the OS name is so that people *will* become enlightened about the GPL + philosophy.
-
That percentage falls in line with what I said. They have the single biggest percentage of code yet not the majority. And I believe it is better to use the term "Linux" over GNU because it refers to the systems that run the Linux kernel.
GNU software runs on many many more systems than just "Linux based" systems and you don't qualify those systems as "GNU" systems, nor should you on systems based on the Linux kernel. Now when they start shipping distros with the HURD kernel then of course they should call the system "GNU".
And I don't "assume" they are whining. I "know" they are whining.
[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
-
it would be called GNU/Hurd, would it not?
i agree with both of you, however void main seems to put it more succinctly. i never thought of it, but of course other *nix systems are not required to call themselves gnu just because they run gnu versions of some utilities, why should linux?
also, the berkeley software stuff did all this 'let's make it free software' stuff off of their own backs and never whined in the slightest about it, so why should the free software foundation get more credit?
the only argument (and unfortunately it is significant) in favour of playing up the GNU thing is making people aware of the free software thing so that the whole movement does not fizzle out and become 'open source' in all its proprietary moneygrabbing glory...
-
I'm suggesting that the assumption is that their 'whining' is about credit, rather than altruism. Now I could understand a little selfish indignation on the part of Stallman; having spent 18 years developing an operating system only to not get full recognition would bother most people, but their point is that the problem is with failing to advertise the goal of freedom, not failing to give credit.
-
And another thing I would like to get straight here. It may not sound like it but I am a HUGE fan of GNU software. Hell, I have been using it for well over 10 years now religiously. I install the GNU file utilities and compiler right off on every UNIX system (AIX, Solaris, etc) that I have administered over the last 10+ years because I think GNU provides superior functionality over the vendor supplied basic UNIX utilities. In fact I also used to install all of the GNU software I could on Windows systems that I used because without GNU, Windows is completely brain dead.
Then the Linux kernel was written which allowed me to use the GNU software on a standalone system. I have no problem calling this system a "Linux" system because the kernel really is the "heart" of the OS. GNU *is* a huge part of the OS but it is a set of utilities and applications that make up the base OS. Sure, if you based it on percentage of code it may be more correct to call it "GNU/Linux" but to me that is just awkward.
And GNU is "more" than just Linux as we mentioned, it's a set of utilities/apps that can run on most any platform. I still beleive it is better to refer to Linux kernel based systems as "Linux". Threads like this are enough to enlighten people about what GNU software is about and their philosophy. I for one will continue to use the term "Linux" when referring to an operating system using the "Linux" kernel along with the GNU software (or any other equivelant software).
-
quote:
Originally posted by void main:
And another thing I would like to get straight here. It may not sound like it but I am a HUGE fan of GNU software. Hell, I have been using it for well over 10 years now religiously. I install the GNU file utilities and compiler right off on every UNIX system (AIX, Solaris, etc) that I have administered over the last 10+ years because I think GNU provides superior functionality over the vendor supplied basic UNIX utilities. In fact I also used to install all of the GNU software I could on Windows systems that I used because without GNU, Windows is completely brain dead.
Then the Linux kernel was written which allowed me to use the GNU software on a standalone system. I have no problem calling this system a "Linux" system because the kernel really is the "heart" of the OS. GNU *is* a huge part of the OS but it is a set of utilities and applications that make up the base OS. Sure, if you based it on percentage of code it may be more correct to call it "GNU/Linux" but to me that is just awkward.
And GNU is "more" than just Linux as we mentioned, it's a set of utilities/apps that can run on most any platform. I still beleive it is better to refer to Linux kernel based systems as "Linux". Threads like this are enough to enlighten people about what GNU software is about and their philosophy. I for one will continue to use the term "Linux" when referring to an operating system using the "Linux" kernel along with the GNU software (or any other equivelant software).
Me too
-
Same here. Unfortunately though, when people read "Linux" in a magazine or newspaper and don't really know what it's about, they're usually not seeing GNU mentioned anywhere.
-
i know, but those that care will find out, and those that do not would not give a shit anyway. i sometimes refer to linux as gnu/linux when i remember, and i think that's fair...
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
Same here. Unfortunately though, when people read "Linux" in a magazine or newspaper and don't really know what it's about, they're usually not seeing GNU mentioned anywhere.
Well, not entirely true. When you or I read the magazine and see Linux mentioned we know exactly what they are talking about. (http://smile.gif) And rather than introducing too much confusion into the equation for those uninformed people reading about or are interested in getting into a GNU/Linux based system I think it is ok for them to shorten it to Linux.
If they can get their foot into the GNU/Linux door just by the use of the short easy term of "Linux", then they are much more likely to hear about GNU after the fact and to join in the enthusiasm of GNU, the GPL and "Free" software in general.
And I also will submit to you that the coming of the Linux kernel has done far more for the promotion of GNU software than there ever was, many times over. GNU should really be thanking Linus rather than dissing him (which RMS does).
[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
-
I call it GNU/Linux only when writing things like my Penguin Digital Solutions (http://forum.fuckmicrosoft.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=5&t=000712) project. I don't know why I'm doing that because I would be damn suprised if the dozy AQA examiner even knew what linux was.
-
Update.. I don't want to turn this into an RMS bashing thread but I just happened to finally read the original link that flap was referring to. I have some problems with the way RMS goes about promoting GNU/FSF.
http://www.theregus.com/content/4/26311.html (http://www.theregus.com/content/4/26311.html)
quote:
RMSI do not advocate open source, but I wrote a free software license, the GNU General Public License, that is described by some as "open source". I also launched, in 1984, the development of a free software operating system that is "Linux" by some. I hope this makes my response worth reading.
I believe is not completely accurate. Yes, they launched the development of a free software operating system, mostly a clone of UNIX. However, an operating system without a kernel is *not* an operating system. The GNU software by itself without the Linux kernel is *not* an operating system. Originally Linus wrote a kernel, and at the time the easiest thing to do was to put that kernel under the GPL and to add the rest of the GNU software/utilities so there would be a complete operating system and I see nothing wrong with calling that operating system "Linux" as I said.
Now people who program for FSF, GNU, etc all deserve a huge amount of credit and I for one am extremely thankful for the work they have done (including RMS), and I try and contribute wherever/whenever I can. But to me RMS means more to RMS than FSF means to RMS. I could have him all wrong but that's the way I read him.
[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
-
i think you are right on all points there, void main, although i'm not so sure just how selfish RMS really is, i think he is just overzealous.
-
I don't think they would claim that GNU ever managed to achieve the goal of a complete OS (before Hurd) on their own, hence they call it GNU/Linux.
To paraphrase RMS, it's not like he wants you to call it 'Stallmanix'. He doesn't claim to be the sole proponent of free software and doesn't want personal credit for the GNU project's work. I want GNU/FSF to be brought out of the limelight and to get the "credit" - and I have nothing personally to gain from that. Why is it hard to believe that RMS has the same goal?
-
Because even using only the term "Linux", one of the *major* selling points of Linux is that it is free/Free and open source. And one of the first things people learn about it is licensed under the "GPL". That should be enough. RMS's comments make me want to go out and clone my own set of UNIX utilities and write my own license called the "FPL" (Free Public License) but would follow the same rules of the GPL regarding keeping the source open and modifiable.
Since Linus is the copyright holder of the Linux kernel he could change it over to the FPL license and use FPL utilities to make up much of the OS. It is something he might seriously want to do with all of the unjustified bad mouthing he's received. Then where would GNU be?
Now, I would rather that RMS tone down his criticism of Linus and the naming of the Linux OS. And it wasn't Linus' who encouraged anyone to refer to the entire OS as "Linux". After all, he just wrote the kernel which he named Linux, it was all of the distro people that decided to call the OS "Linux", probably because before the distros the first thing you did was download the Linux kernel, then get the GNU pieces that were adapted to the Linux kernel one by one (which wasn't the entire system in the beginning). It was "natural" to refer to the system as "Linux", not imposed.
Changing it now is just grand standing in my opinion. Linux already significantly promotes GNU and Free Software, no need for a name change.
-
Here is a good editorial on all of this that I am in complete agreement with:
http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2260109,00.html (http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2260109,00.html)
quote:
What we have here is a failure to communicate...
By Evan Leibovitch
May 17, 1999
Last time, I talked about Corel's entry into the Linux distribution field, and how the company was likely to put a business-friendly face on the Debian's Linux distribution. Debian, so far, has been very popular in academia, hobbyist and research circles, but doesn't appear to be a big player in the retail and commercial fields.
I submit that one of the reasons for Debian's lackluster showing is because of its name. In November 1994, the Free Software Foundation (FSF) officially sponsored the Debian Project. And now it's officially known as "Debian GNU/Linux," instead of simply "Debian Linux," in deference to the FSF's GNU Project and its contributions to the Linux operating system. Though the FSF sponsorship of Debian lasted only a year, this particular after-effect lingers on.
One other distribution, Stampede, copied Debian's naming, but without the direct FSF connection its application of the different name is confused and inconsistent. Its home page says "GNU/Linux" but its logo and text says "Stampede Linux."
What's in a name?
The effect of all this is that newcomers who are unfamiliar with the politics might ask, "What's the difference between a Linux system and a GNU/Linux system? Is that like a Red Hat Linux system?"
The answer of course, is no, and that GNU/Linux and Linux, when referring to a full operating system, describe the same general thing. A GNU/Linux system doesn't necessarily contain more GNU components than a Linux system. So then, one must ask, why bother with the distinction? It certainly doesn't make sense to me.
The term "Linux system" is relatively easy to say (once you dispense with whether it's a soft or hard "i"), and most people know immediately what the term means. It's economical with words and has easily become a part of the Linux lingo. On the other hand, those in our world who believe in manipulating language for political means insist on the term GNU/Linux in order to pay forced homage to the FSF and GNU.
GNU leader Richard Stallman, hardly one for compromise, is barely satisfied with Debian's level of homage. He believes there's no such thing as a plain old Linux system. Did you know that what we've been calling Linux systems all this time are just GNU systems, with Linux kernels temporarily killing time until the GNU HURD kernel is ready to take its place?
Yeah, right.
What's in a Linux system?
What most of the reasonable world calls a Linux system is a collection of mostly free software that includes the Linux kernel, surrounded by myriad tools from a variety of sources. Some parts of a Linux system, including its compiler and base libraries, come from the GNU Project. The X server comes from the XFree86 Project, Perl comes from Larry Wall, the filesystem design from somewhere else, etcetera.
But that hasn't deterred the GNU/Linux crusade. At a press conference at the March LinuxWorld show in San Jose, Stallman told a reporter, "the use of the term 'Linux system' is highly inappropriate," and that he would take it as a personal insult should the term be uttered in his presence.
Stallman and his followers believe that the issue is significant based on the belief that simply calling it Linux denies the FSF of its rightful place in history. An article in Salon magazine expresses Stallman's fears best, but those who need the direct approach can read it in his own words.
Stallman has never missed an opportunity to impose his linguistic philosophies in any forum possible. The latest was in early May and started with a joke posted in the mailing list of the Greater New Hampshire Linux User Group (GNHLUG). GNHLUG member Lee Rothstein wrote a fairly innocent joke about How Linux users "do it".
Stallman's response? "Linux users are people who use the GNU system and don't know it." This comment, and others that followed, have led to a flame war on the GNHLUG mailing list that continues even as I write this.
The worst part of Stallman's ongoing tirade is that it appears to have the opposite effect of the one he desires. His humorless approach, designed to create controversy unless he gets his way completely, has increased the ranks of reactive GNU bashers who would belittle the FSF's role in the evolution of free software. The more Stallman obsesses with the naming issue and less with the code itself, the more adversaries he makes among Linux users. Stallman's greatest single software contribution to Linux -- the gcc compiler -- is now out of his control and in the hands of the once-splintered egcs team.
Some have called him divisive or destructive. Others -- even worse -- would dismiss him as a crank for insisting that he (and the GNU project) be credited in the proper names of all Linux products. The last thing the community needs is to have Stallman's plea for recognition be answered with an equally humorless retort of "what have you done for me lately?"
Looking for solutions
Thankfully, some light is emerging from the heat. It so happens that Linux International (LI) Director Jon "Maddog" Hall is a member of GNHLUG and has been following the above-mentioned e-mail confrontations. He refined an idea by GNHLUG member Matt Herbert into a solution that, to me, deals masterfully with the issue.
The plan is to create a "GNU Inside" logo, that would adorn every Linux package, in much the same way that Apache and Netscape and other logos grace Linux system boxes these days. It could also be used by BSD Unix variants and any other product that comes packaged with GNU software.
"I'm as pleased as I can be with this solution," said Rothstein, whose joke started the whole e-mail mess. "Maddog showed remarkable wisdom in the midst of the chaos."
Indeed. And I hope LI goes ahead with it, even without Stallman's blessing.
Perhaps, maybe one day, we'll be able to look back at all this and have a good laugh. Then again, I suspect some won't, and couldn't if they tried.