faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf
main
parent
thread
|
Re: *sigh*
by Spark on Sunday 02/Sep/2001, @14:26
|
> It seems that nothing exists excepted GNU... The Kernel, X, the desktop, the distro tools and so and so, all is kinda stupid in comparison...
It's really not about the software.
> Do you really know that KDE is not a part of the GNU project ?
Of course. :) And so are XFree, Apache, vi, Mozilla, whatever. I'm absolutely aware of this fact.
> I feel tired that some integrists want to impose a little part of the OS in its name. You are the agressors
We are what?
All I say is that it's more than stupid to bitch against RMS for calling it GNU/Linux. It all depends on what you are talking about.
Go on calling the kernel "Linux", no problem. Talk about "Linux based operating systems". No problem either. But if you just talk about "Linux" if you refer to any Linux system out there, I'm really confused.
There was and is no Linux OS. Simple as that. You can't say anything against this.
SO you can't say that Linus is the one who produced this "OS", cause _there is no Linux OS_.
There are a lot of OS out there like Debian GNU/Linux, Linux Mandrake, Red Hat Linux, SuSE Linux, Caldera Open Desktop, ...
They basically do just that: They use the GNU foundation tools and the Linux kernel.
So the most correct naming would be something like "The Debian operating system is based on GNU/Linux", or "The Debian operating system is based on GNU software", or "The Debian operating system is based on the Linux kernel". Interesting is, that the latter is not even true.
Debian is almost kernel independent, there is Debian GNU/Hurd and even a Debian FreeBSD project.
The interesting questions are:
1) How do we call everything based on Linux?
2) What is the main part of the free system we all use and which is a great danger to MS Windows systems?
3) So how should we call the "core" of what is similar to all current "Linux based" systems like Debian, Red Hat and SuSE?
4) Is it ok from RMS to call every current Linux based system "GNU/Linux"?
5) Why does this argument even exist?
My opinions:
1) Simple as that: "Linux based systems". Those systems are not "Linux". Like every system that uses X for the desktop isn't "Xfree", but it's based on Xfree. I know that it's more difficult to express than just saying "Linux", but it's correct.
2) Let's see... it's basically Unix. Linux is POSIX compliant and therefore almost a real Unix. It is basically a free and quite easy to use "Unix".
The kernel is the "lowest" part and talks to the hardware. On top of this, we need a lot of software, like Bash, etc. Those are provided by GNU, but most of it also by BSD and others. You have alternatives, it may be possible to build a system completely without any GNU software.
Than there is Xfree. Probable the most important part here. Why? Because most of our applications depend very heavily on X. You can port X to Windows or Mac OS and you will be able to run those applications. Now imagine a System without X. You would have to start from scratch, almost.
Next on this stack come the toolkits like Qt and Gtk. They are also very important, cause some software only relys on them. So if you port the toolkit to another graphic system, you will probably be able to port most of the apps that use this toolkit.
On the very top of this, there is the software like KDE, Gnome and all the apps.
So basically we have this structure:
- Kernel
- Environment
- Graphic System
- Toolkit
- Software
Is anything of that replaceable? No, not anything but _everything_. "Linux" is the name of the most popular Kernel for such systems, but if you talk about "Linux", you talk about almost everything that would use Linux as the base.
This is what is curretly looks most of the time:
- Linux
- Different tools, most provided by GNU
- XFree
- Gtk/Qt
- A bunch of software
Which of this is most important? I think there is no answer to this question. KDE runs on "XFree", not on Linux or FreeBSD. I don't think there is any kernel-dependent code in KDE.
Is Xfree the most important part of the system? This could even be true. While this isn't exactly the best or biggest or greatest software, it might be the hardest to replace, while everything else is quite flexible.
Bottom line: I don't know. What makes our todays "Linux" systems is basically just a bunch of software that can "free"ly mixed together. And this might BE the most important part... think about it.
The key is, that distributions can use whatever they want and that everyone can mix together everything. It is basically FREE software that lead to the success of Linux/GNU/X.
So we could refer to the whole bunch of things as "free software". But this is just a description, not a name. You see, it's almost impossible to come up with a name. And maybe that's what it is. Impossible. It maybe comfortable to have a single name for all this stuff, but it seems to just not be possible!
3) The core actually is Linux. Yet.
What if the core changes? If we refer to "Linux" as the OS all the time, we might confuse people VERY much. It even confuses me.
"Linux based" still seems to be the correct term for those operating systems. And again, there is no "Linux OS" out there. Nothing. Nada.
Maybe we should talk about Unix compatible operating systems and X. If we want to talk about a specific OS, we should really use the NAME of the system. Like Debian, Red Hat Linux, etc. Those are complete (Linux based) operating systems.
4) Most "Linux" Distributions try to be compatible. There is nothing yet that for example didn't feature Xfree or the bash.
It makes sense to find a common name for everything.
And if you are REALLY honest, you should accept that all current distributions use 1:1 the GNU system environment combined with a Linux kernel.
So YES, I find the term GNU/Linux to be quite appropriate for THIS KIND of Linux based operating systems. There might be other Linux based systems in the future, so this should be called differently so you know what's going on.
That's why I think it's ok from RMS (and me) to refer to a "GNU/Linux" System if talking about this kind of Linux based systems.
Of course this is not set to stone, there is no OFFICIAL name for anything. There just ISN'T anything like "the Linux system" which could be called "GNU/Linux". It's just an appropriate name for everything that is based on GNU/Linux.
If someone comes up with a better suggestion, great! Feel free to use it. But don't just change the name for the sake of changing, cause GNU/Linux is quite well known today.
I agree that it's not nice from RMS to force anyone to say Linux. But that's just something personal about RMS. It's his opinion and he expresses his opinion in a very strong way (that's why he is such a successfull man btw). It's not that anything bad will happen to you if you don't follow his advice. You just have to be as strong as he is, if you think that your expression is more appropriate. :) This will be difficult if you prefer the term "Linux", cause we just saw that "Linux" is terrible inaccurate and misleading if you aren't talking about just the kernel. Good luck.
5) This is simple. Because the "Linux community" is a terrible mess. Everyone is doing what he want to, there are no clear rules or even guidelines. It's just a bunch of creative chaos.
There is nothing wrong with it, but under this light, they really have NO right to insist on any clear terms. It's _their_ fault that they didn't come up with anything that could be used as a reference. "Linux" is the name of the kernel. That's it. It was made to fit together with the GNU system, not the other way round.
> I prefer a freebworld to the closed intolerant GNU world.
Hm... I accept your choice to prefer anarchy style freedom, but why don't you accept other choices to prefer protected freedom?
> And a good mind, as the Linus one...
Linus is just a human beeing with faults, like anyone else too (like RMS).
Don't take anything what he says for granted just because he's the center of the Linux hype (which is not even really deserved btw).
? And I repeat that I think that the GPL is a good thing, so RMS is great. But as many great ones, he has some defaults...
Defaults? ;)
Well, of course he has.
But that has nothing to do with GNU, right?
So why do you call it a "closed intolerant world" or say things like "it tries to enslave Linux with the word GNU"?
That's simply not true.
I really don't understand your problems with the word "GNU". And I get sick of reasonings like "Sure, GNU did a lot for us, but who knows if others wouldn't have done it if there wouldn't have been GNU".
What a bunch of crap.
"Sure, Linux is nice, but who knows if something else wouldn't have been done something better, if their wouldn't have been Linux?"
Do you get the irony?
> http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/3365/1/
Quite interesting read.
And he comes to almost the same conclusion as I do.
"But I would caution the critics of the term "GNU/Linux" not to gloat in their apparent victory in this instance. For while my sense of
professionalism has bound me to one term, on a personal level, I think the GNU Project has every right to stand up and argue for this
point. The origins of GNU and Linux are intertwined more than enough to make a case for the use of the combined term."
"Just remember not to lose sight of what is really important: that it's not about personalities or egoism, no matter what some might
have you believe."
I think Brian got it right again.
And guess what? RMS didn't FORCE him to do anything, he just ASKED him to do so.
Brian still lives and RMS didn't do anything against Brian. So RMS doesn't seem to be THAT bad, right?
We need crazy guys like RMS, otherwise the world would be grey in grey.
RMS is not evil.
As RMS figured out, MS does not really fear Linux (there is no need to, Linux is not so revolutionary from a technical POV), but the GPL.
Do you remember that Ballmer said the GPL would destroy innovation and that he believes in the "American way" or crap like that?
And do you remember that Ballmer jumped around like a bunny on exctasy on a press conference, screaming out loud, how much he loved his company?
Did you ever see RMS doing anything like that? :)
Ballmer is not less (or even more) fanatic and crazy as RMS. We need someone like that on our side who is able to talk to the massses.
It's ok to NOT follow RMS in everything he says (after all he IS crazy ;)), but it's just lame to bash him for what he's doing.
Keep your energy to bash at Steve. ;) |
|
|
![[KDE Dot News]](http://www.kde.org/dot/Images/kdedotnews.gif)
