GNU/Linux or just Linux?

[juancarlospaco]

Linux its a Typo for LiGNUx

[sydbat]

<snip>

If Richard Stallman says it, it must be true.

If Richard Stallman eats his toe jam, does that mean we all have to do the same?

Religious zealotry, regardless of the context, is still religious zealotry.

[Bachstelze]

If Richard Stallman eats his toe jam, does that mean we all have to do the same?

Religious zealotry, regardless of the context, is still religious zealotry.

Trolled.

[philinux]

http://stagevu.com/video/gplkfhejhren

[sydbat]

Trolled.

You're welcome!

[Vantrax]

Sorry if my post didn't make clear what I meant, I didn't meant to state that Linux and GNU OS are two different things, where I said GNU OS is usually reffered as GNU/Linux.

I wanted to point out that Linux is the kernel, nog GNU/Linux .

I almost, ALMOST let this slide....

GNU/Linux would make sense if GNU code made up a significant portion of the code base.

According to the FSF's own site even the FSF compatible distributions are only 15% GNU at best. With something like Ubuntu that number will be even lower, but lets assume that is right.

If the other 85% of the Open Source Community is fine with it being called Linux as a consistent brand of Operation System, why is the FSF/GNU project so mad about it.

When they release a distribution they can call it whatever they want, and name it however they want. In the mean time this is Ubuntu Linux, and it might have 10-15% GNU in it, but that does in no means make it GNU/Linux with Linux being only the kernel.

[mickie.kext]

If the other 85% of the Open Source Community is fine with it being called Linux as a consistent brand of Operation System, why is the FSF/GNU project so mad about it.

Torvalds' code is less than 1% of Linux kernel, but kernel is still called Linux... and whole system along with it. And Linux kernel is 1.5% of the system.

Why FSF is pissed about it? It makes confusion that Linus wrote whole system, and ignorant people keep saying that Linus contributed more than RMS which is not true. RMS started GCC, Emacs, Make, wrote GPL, fouded FSF, wrote GNU manifesto, started whole free software movement and built all that practically from nothing. He also visited Berkley and lobbied CSRG to completely finish their UNIX rewrite (called BSD) and release it under Free license despite looming AT&T threat. (Some people say that RMS intentionally set up BSD to AT&T lawsuit by doing that...)


And what Linus did? He wrote a kernel which is important but not more that all of the above. He named it after himself and convinced his friend who administered server to say that he did it.

Now, whole system is called Linux.

Irony is that Stallman does not want system to be called Richardix but GNU/Linux, and people call him egoistic. He asks credit for all GNU developers, not just him, while at same time gives credit to Linus too. While Torwalds call it Linux and completely disregard anyone but him. He even personally holds trademark over Linux name.

[dvwolfman]

This is an interesting discussion, the issue seems complicated, I want to represent Ubuntu in context properly when I talk about it, I am listening, I understand much of this issue arises because of transitionary elements in the documentation in early open source culture, is that right? I am studying GPL(s) Compliance policy and such for a project.

[DoctorMO]

I agree with you mickie.kext, too much is said to defend Linus on his deliberate renaming of an existing project to suite his own ego. I'm not convinced that the operating system should be called Linux and I can't be convinced of it's rationality for calling it Gnu or Gnu/Linux.

I'd rather just call it Ubuntu or Debian. If you have to pick out something generic to classify everything then pick out the standards because so long as the operating system follows the standards then it doesn't matter what components are used.

Desktops: POSIX+FreeDesktop.org specifications, "FreeDesktop" or FDO sounds fine to me.
Server: FreePosix server sounds fine too, although on a server it's more important to know it's Gnu than what ever the kernel is just so you don't trip over the BSD tool-chain differences.

I submit my rationale based on history and with a view to look at the problem from a perspective other that the media hyped, ego-centric and much malformed Stallman vs Torvalds debate, which is really about two men who couldn't work together despite agreeing on almost everything, and a media which loves to whip up controversy.

Those who call Ubuntu "Linux" don't know what they're talking about.

[KiwiNZ]

From a commercial marketing perspective GNU/Linux sounds weird and will not market well.
Linux sounds good , its simple , adds to anything and does not sound like a swamp bug.

Examples

Ubuntu GNU/Linux..........Ubuntu Linux
Redhat GNU/Linux..........Redhat Linux
Yoper GNU/Linux............Yoper Linux

Adding the GNU makes it look weird. Also Linux has brand recognition , GNU does not except for the inner sanctum of enthusiasts , the last thing Linus needs is brand dilution.