PDA

View Full Version : The problem of "GNU/Linux" "duplicity"



Name change
May 26th, 2009, 08:45 PM
No this is not about the naming scheme. It's about is the "bundling" of GNU and Linux in one OS a good or a bad thing.
As you know Linux is just an kernel and GNU is the underlying system that makes most of "stuff" work.
But history tells us that GNU and Linux weren't meant to be part of same OS.
Linux was a hobby kernel developed by Torvalds "for fun".
And GNU was a part of OS called GNU HURD developed by Stallman.
But the HURD development wasn't going anywhere so Linux was choosen by Stallman to be an "interim" kernel to test GNU.

So the question is do you believe this is a good or a bad thing?
The way I see it can be both. Good and bad.
So first the good points about this:
-It's "modular" if we could decide to change any part of it by something else if we wanted...
-It has more opportunities for openness and development. If you're not satisfied by something you can develop it by your self. It might be harder when things are closely linked in one "whole" OS.

Bad things:
-Again the "modularity" as said before GNU and Linux were not developed so that they would work together. But the comment here could be that that "was" ancient" history and now they truly are a whole system.

So what's your opinion on this (hope this isn't an "re-occurring discussion) matter?
Is GNU/Linux any better or worse than other OS in which all components were developed with it in mind?
Is BSD, Solaris any different in this sense or do they use GNU to some extent to?
Or what about OS X, AFAIK it's all diferent "unixes" thrown together :D...
And Windows isn't a shining example of tightly developed OS either...
If someone isn't sure I'm not trying to troll; I just want a healthy discussion.

pro003
May 26th, 2009, 08:55 PM
As far as I'm concerned - LINUX is a GLOBAL PROJECT DEVELOPED BY FREE PEOPLE FOR FREE PEOPLE. :popcorn:

IN ONE WORD: LINUX = FREEDOM.

monsterstack
May 26th, 2009, 08:58 PM
I think so long as everything works okay, then that's all we need. Debian have made GNU/FreeBSD (http://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/) and GNU/NetBSD (http://www.debian.org/ports/netbsd/) [debian.org], for instance. Gentoo did a Gentoo/BSD (http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gentoo-alt/bsd/index.xml) [gentoo.org] stylz thing, too. Debian even have a somewhat-working (but by no means awesome) version of GNU/Hurd (http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/) [debian.org] available, if you have balls of steel. The point is that the GNU tools are versatile enough to work on a other stuff than just plain old Linux. that they weren't originally designed for each other doesn't really matter all that much.

Name change
May 26th, 2009, 09:05 PM
I think so long as everything works okay, then that's all we need. Debian have made GNU/FreeBSD (http://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/) and GNU/NetBSD (http://www.debian.org/ports/netbsd/) [debian.org], for instance. Gentoo did a Gentoo/BSD (http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gentoo-alt/bsd/index.xml) [gentoo.org] stylz thing, too. Debian even have a somewhat-working (but by no means awesome) version of GNU/Hurd (http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/) [debian.org] available, if you have balls of steel. The point is that the GNU tools are versatile enough to work on a other stuff than just plain old Linux. that they weren't originally designed for each other doesn't really matter all that much.
I agree with you...
And GNU/HURD sounds tempting to try... Just to see how far it came :D

Tibuda
May 26th, 2009, 09:13 PM
I think so long as everything works okay, then that's all we need. Debian have made GNU/FreeBSD (http://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/) and GNU/NetBSD (http://www.debian.org/ports/netbsd/) [debian.org], for instance. Gentoo did a Gentoo/BSD (http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gentoo-alt/bsd/index.xml) [gentoo.org] stylz thing, too. Debian even have a somewhat-working (but by no means awesome) version of GNU/Hurd (http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/) [debian.org] available, if you have balls of steel. The point is that the GNU tools are versatile enough to work on a other stuff than just plain old Linux. that they weren't originally designed for each other doesn't really matter all that much.

Don't forget Cygwin.

subdivision
May 26th, 2009, 09:30 PM
As far as I'm concerned - LINUX is a GLOBAL PROJECT DEVELOPED BY FREE PEOPLE FOR FREE PEOPLE. :popcorn:

IN ONE WORD: LINUX = FREEDOM.

You didn't even read his post did you?

Also "LINUX = FREEDOM" is two words and a symbol.

hanzomon4
May 26th, 2009, 09:36 PM
Ya know Gnu/Linux always felt shaky... Ubuntu has never felt as rock solid as my OS X or Windows. It's little things like parts of gnome crashing, cryptic errors about to many files being open, firefox crashing and not restarting because it's still running after it disappeared, to the usual audio and video problems. It always seemed temperamental like a bipolar girlfriend. I don't know why that is or if it has anything to do with this paring of Gnu to something other then Hurd but I always felt that it was the modular nature of Gnu/Linux that caused this wobbly-ness. Of course it could just be that I know every part of the system but.. I never have my audio just die in OS X, little parts of the interface don't up and die on me either.

Name change
May 26th, 2009, 09:40 PM
Ya know Gnu/Linux always felt shaky... Ubuntu has never felt as rock solid as my OS X or Windows. It's little things like parts of gnome crashing, cryptic errors about to many files being open, firefox crashing and not restarting because it's still running after it disappeared, to the usual audio and video problems. It always seemed temperamental like a bipolar girlfriend. I don't know why that is or if it has anything to do with this paring of Gnu to something other then Hurd but I always felt that it was the modular nature of Gnu/Linux that caused this wobbly-ness. Of course it could just be that I know every part of the system but.. I never have my audio just die in OS X, little parts of the interface don't up and die on me either.
The Firefox "lingering on" after I quit it happens to me too..
And audio is dying for me to, sometimes...

That's the down side of modularity; to many small projects not enough communication.
But on the other hand that's the "magic of Linux" :D

hanzomon4
May 26th, 2009, 09:55 PM
I know right? I've said this before the OS is amazing when everything is working but those little hiccups amount to one big oops and that just kills it.

ibuclaw
May 26th, 2009, 10:30 PM
Also "LINUX = FREEDOM" is two words and a symbol.

Well, you are the pedantic one then ;)


Also, I have never really worried about duplicate efforts in general.
Mixing flavours of everything is a good thing, and encourages productivity and new ideas.

Just look at the History of UNIX Poster (http://www.fpdimages.com/html/StoreOpenSystemsBanner.htm), including UNIX, 4.3BSD, HP-UX, Dynix, Irix, 4.4BSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, AIX, SunOS, Solaris, Ultrix, Macintosh, NextSTEP DragonFlyBSD, Linux, Minix. Hurd, BeOS, SVR, QNX, Darwin ... and possibly many many other countless continued efforts in varieties of Unix-like systems...

Should I continue with the list or call it a night? :)

samjh
May 27th, 2009, 02:54 AM
So what's your opinion on this (hope this isn't an "re-occurring discussion) matter?I have no likes or dislikes about the GNU/Linux relationship. My only gripe is Richard Stallman trying to hijack Linux's name by insisting it be called GNU/Linux, when the only reason for the success of GNU was the result of piggy-backing on Linux.

Is GNU/Linux any better or worse than other OS in which all components were developed with it in mind?From a technical point of view, no.

Is BSD, Solaris any different in this sense or do they use GNU to some extent to?That depends.

BSD originally didn't use GNU. None of the Unices did, including Solaris and Minix. GNU became popular due to Linus Torvalds using GCC to compile the Linux kernel, and the eventual porting of GNU tools from the Hurd kernel to the Linux kernel. You have to remember that BSD, Solaris, and most of those traditional Unix and Unix-like operating systems predate GNU by many years.

Once GNU became proven on Linux, FreeBSD adopted some GNU tools, so users could use GNU tools if they wished. BSD originally used PCC and BSD's own system tools and libraries. PCC was the dominant C compiler of the 1980s, and most compilers written thereafter were based on PCC. Now, NetBSD and OpenBSD has replaced GCC with PCC, returning to its BSD roots.

Indeed, most Unices and Unix-like operating systems used their own system tools and libraries. GNU was virtually unheard of until the early 90s, and only gained prominence after the Linux emerged from being a hobby OS to something mainstream.


Or what about OS X, AFAIK it's all diferent "unixes" thrown together :D...
And Windows isn't a shining example of tightly developed OS either...
If someone isn't sure I'm not trying to troll; I just want a healthy discussion.OS X isn't "different unices thrown together". OS X is built on the Mach kernel, which was used by NeXT, the brainchild of Apple co-founder, Steve Jobs. The developers of Mac at NeXT used some old BSD patches (the old Berkeley SD, not the modern Free/Net/OpenBSD).

Mac OS uses its own system tools and libraries, derived from NextSTEP (which, as the name suggests, were for NeXT Computers). Like others mentioned earlier in my post, Mach and NeXT predate GNU.