Gnubuntu

[newbie2]

"Shuttleworth has been talking with RMS and there may be an idealogically pure FSF-like version of Ubuntu launched. Details in Mark's list message"
http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/48456/index.html
http://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2005-November/013261.html
:cool:

[-Rick-]

I don't see why this will make things better?

[jc87]

If debian is called debian gnu/linux , and ubuntu is based on debian why just not call it ubuntu gnu/linux , or gnu/ubuntu/linux etc....

I think the name gnubuntu sounds s little strange .

But for me , continue to call it just ubuntu linux is wrong :rolleyes:

[earobinson]

"whats in a name, is a rose less sweet if called by any other name" ... or something like that

[hoodwink]

One of the great advantages of Ubuntu (IMO) is that it offers just plain Linux, thank you maam, and none of the gnu/linux crap.

[jc87]

One of the great advantages of Ubuntu (IMO) is that it offers just plain Linux, thank you maam, and none of the gnu/linux crap.

Are you sure about that ?

1)After all ubuntu is based on debian , and debian is a GNU/LINUX distribution.

2)Have you ever heard about the gnu general public license? many of the ubuntu software is licensed under it , including the linux kernel.

3)Someone correct me if i´m wrong , but i think that many of the gnu software is part of most so called "linux distributions" , i dont know if all have some gnu software , but i think at least 90% have , that´s the reason why people like me defend the term gnu/linux.

4)By the way , dont you think the term crap a little ofensive to the people behind gnu? cant you use other terms like "stuff" or "tools" ?

I dont want to flamme about that , but as i like to say , before Torvalds there was
Stallman.

[WildTangent]

I could care less about GNU/Linux...keep it the way it is. What sounds better, "I use Ubuntu!" or "I use Ubuntu GNU/Linux!".

-Wild

[Brunellus]

Are you sure about that ?

1)After all ubuntu is based on debian , and debian is a GNU/LINUX distribution.

2)Have you ever heard about the gnu general public license? many of the ubuntu software is licensed under it , including the linux kernel.

3)Someone correct me if i´m wrong , but i think that many of the gnu software is part of most so called "linux distributions" , i dont know if all have some gnu software , but i think at least 90% have , that´s the reason why people like me defend the term gnu/linux.

4)By the way , dont you think the term crap a little ofensive to the people behind gnu? cant you use other terms like "stuff" or "tools" ?

I dont want to flamme about that , but as i like to say , before Torvalds there was
Stallman.
What he meant was that the Ubuntu community is largely unburdened by the kind of pedantic GNU orthodoxy that's so offputting to casual users.

What would GNUbuntu look like, anyway? ubuntu-base without the restricted-modules packages. Not at all like the vainilla ubuntu install, then.

I have great respect for RMS and the FSF and the gnu.org--but the constant grandstanding can irritate me. After a while, I have to ask: if you're so upset that everybody wants the Linux kernel and doesn't give enough props to your userland, why don't you get shaking and get the HURD ready for prime time?

[gonçalo]

Gnu/linux just seems to be accurate while just Linux is undestating the importance of the Gnu tools that are a part of this system. Is there any distro out there without gnu tools? if we remove stuff like gimp, gtk, gcc, et cetera what have we?

For maketing I understand the usage of only the word Linux but internally in the community why don't understand why shouldn't we refer to it as gnu/linux, afterall it's just 4 more characters.

[Malphas]

I use the two terms interchangeably, which I guess might be confusing. I tend to say GNU/Linux when I'm trying to be specific and not give the impression that I'm simply referring to the kernel.

[earobinson]

Im pretty sure if you click System -> About you get a whole speal on this

[Kvark]

Sounds like a nice idea in theory. But wouldn't Gnubuntu just become a vanilla Ubuntu with crippled hardware support etc?

And then the whole naming debate. Linux is a cool name and marketing buzzword, GNU is not. So people will keep saying "Linux" no matter whats correct or not. If you switched the kernel from Linux to Hurd but kept the GNU tools, X and Gnome then nobody would notice the difference so everyone would keep calling it just "Linux" instead of "GNU/Hurd" even though there wouldn't be any Linux kernel in it.

[Mr_J_]

I know nothing of the righteous or of the flammers, but it's always going to be Ubuntu. Just Ubuntu.

Any further information just looses the client.
That's why it's Windows for most people and not MicroSoft Windows XP.

Ubuntu - The place I call home.
Corny I know, but true.:D

[lotusleaf]

++ The concept sounds good to me. Thanks for the news, newbie2. :)

[BWF89]

I could care less about GNU/Linux...keep it the way it is. What sounds better, "I use Ubuntu!" or "I use Ubuntu GNU/Linux!".

-Wild
I'd rather say "I use Linux" and if the person I'm talking to was interested I could tell him the name of the distro I'm useing.

[joshuapurcell]

As shallow as it sounds, I believe it really does come down to nothing more than the name. It is so much easier to say "I'm running Linux" than "I'm running GNU/Linux". Hell, when/if HURD gains a following even remotely similar to what we currently call "Linux" now, then I'd still say I'm running HURD rather than GNU/HURD. It's easier to say and more importantly it gets the point across. Anyone who knows something about Linux knows that the OS that we use is more than just the Linux kernel, and GNU makes up a large majority of the rest of the software.

I'm still calling it Linux though, and so is the vast majority of users at this point. There's nothing wrong with using the name Linux to describe the OS in my mind.

[Leif]

I don't understand how this got turned into a naming debate. If gnubuntu ever materialises, it will be aimed at a very specific subgroup of linux users: those who truly believe in free software. The people likely to use this really don't need marketing talk, and are already linux users, well-versed on gnu vs linux etc. Ubuntu itself will go on as before.

I will probably not use it, since I like the comfort of 'vanilla' ubuntu, but I do have a growing respect for the ideals of free software, so I applaud this project.

[qalimas]

Next up: Did you ever run a Microsoft Windows/DOS 98 box? Windows 98 sounds better. Ubuntu sounds better than Ubuntu GNU/Linux, Ubuntu even sounds better than Ubuntu Linux. Who cares about the name? Not your average Joe. The people who generally use Linux know where GNU stands. I respect GNU, but I think the general attitude about the naming scheme is just nonsense. If it's that big of a deal, finish Hurd, it was started how many years ago? Maybe we'd call it its full technical name if there was a term that sounded better than 'GNU'.:razz:

[xequence]

To call it Ubuntu GNU/Linux is like saying Windows Propriatory XP.

Really, you shouldent include the name of what much of the software is in the name.

Debian is stupid for calling itsself GNU/Linux.

[raublekick]

Debian is stupid for calling itsself GNU/Linux.

Not really. Debian is about as specifically "GNU/Linux" as you can get. Suse and Redhat can't really callt hemselves GNU/Linux since they offer non-free stuff with it. Same with several other distros.

The "GNU/Linux" is really important to the Debian name, in my opinion.

[towsonu2003]

none of the gnu/linux crap.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????

[xequence]

Not really. Debian is about as specifically "GNU/Linux" as you can get. Suse and Redhat can't really callt hemselves GNU/Linux since they offer non-free stuff with it. Same with several other distros.

The "GNU/Linux" is really important to the Debian name, in my opinion.

Heh, its all opinion I guess. I see no need at all to name the license you use in the name of it.

[Sheinar]

I see no need at all to name the license you use in the name of it.
When they change the name to GPL/Linux, you'll have a point.

[newbie2]

I have great respect for RMS and the FSF and the gnu.org--but the constant grandstanding can irritate me.
here is 'A Rare Glimpse Into Richard Stallman's World' ;)
http://www.informationweek.com/hardware/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=175802222
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman

[iand675@gmail.com]

frankly i don't care less so long as it is free. I'm sure that sounds shallow as well, but considering that is why i switched over in the first place, I will take so long as it stays that way. Consider the main purpose of linux- to provide a free community-based OS that's available to anyone. The rest is primarily semantics.

[briancurtin]

One of the great advantages of Ubuntu (IMO) is that it offers just plain Linux, thank you maam, and none of the gnu/linux crap.
huh...?

[zenwhen]

One of the great advantages of Ubuntu (IMO) is that it offers just plain Linux, thank you maam, and none of the gnu/linux crap.

That is the most disgusting thing I have ever seen on these forums, and I have seen some pretty disgusting things said. You are using GNU/Linux right now if you are using Ubuntu. You can call it what you want, but it is what it is. Without Stallman and the FSF, there would be no Ubuntu.

Please try to learn what GNU is all about before you say anything like this on these forums again.

[gil-galad]

Suse and Redhat can't really callt hemselves GNU/Linux since they offer non-free stuff with it.

Not true. Red Hat is 100% Free software.

And calling it GNU/Linux has nothing to do with having all free software. It is about giving credit where credit is due.

[briancurtin]

That is the most disgusting thing I have ever seen on these forums, and I have seen some pretty disgusting things said. You are using GNU/Linux right now if you are using Ubuntu. You can call it what you want, but it is what it is. Without Stallman and the FSF, there would be no Ubuntu.

Please try to learn what GNU is all about before you say anything like this on these forums again.
thank you. i was trying to say the same thing as you, but all that could come out of my mouth was the "huh..." that i posted

[Gadren]

A name by itself doesn't give much credit. Those who know about the GNU Project and such are already giving credit by using their work, and adding a GNU/Linux won't make them more thankful or anything. And those who have no idea what GNU is aren't really giving much credit by calling it GNU/Linux when it doesn't mean anything to them.

[BSDFreak]

Not true. Red Hat is 100% Free software.

And calling it GNU/Linux has nothing to do with having all free software. It is about giving credit where credit is due.

It doesn't matter if it's 100% free software, not all free software is GNU software, the Linux kernel is GPL'd but it's not really GNU software.

RMS and GNU has done plenty of great things for the FOSS world but it's not the be all end all to FOSS that some people want to make it out to be.

FSF is a "movement" with a complete set of political ideals that i find limiting and/or disagree with. IMO FOSS is the best development model there is for software so i'll continue to use it while disregarding the ideals of the FSF.

[BSDFreak]

As shallow as it sounds, I believe it really does come down to nothing more than the name. It is so much easier to say "I'm running Linux" than "I'm running GNU/Linux". Hell, when/if HURD gains a following even remotely similar to what we currently call "Linux" now, then I'd still say I'm running HURD rather than GNU/HURD. It's easier to say and more importantly it gets the point across. Anyone who knows something about Linux knows that the OS that we use is more than just the Linux kernel, and GNU makes up a large majority of the rest of the software.

I'm still calling it Linux though, and so is the vast majority of users at this point. There's nothing wrong with using the name Linux to describe the OS in my mind.

Trust me, EVERY user that would use GNU/HURD would notice the difference.

The HURD is a nostalgia project that some people cling on to still because the creator of the Linux kernel does not agree fully with the FSF's ideals.

It's basically unusable for anything more than basic testing (even then it's up to you having compatible hardware which the overwhelming majority of people out there don't).