Which one is more important to you? Gnu Project or Linux kernel

[opengl_cpp]

There is no doubt that we have a big and active community of users and developers. Our community is affected by some factors and the most important ones are Gnu project developers and Linux kernel developer, in other words (Richard Stallman's philosophy vs Linus Torvalds' one).

Which one do you think is more crucial to our community?

For example can Ubuntu change to other kernels such as Hurd, BSD, ... or it can change to other philosophy such as proprietary softwares?

[gnomeuser]

Linux kernel, we are well on the way to replacing former tools where GNU have provided the only credible alternative.

eglibc is one option case where the maintainer has made the ecosystem spread an alternative. Sure it is a patchset on top of it but where will it go. Ubuntu already uses it.

llvm and clang are quickly becoming not just an alternative but an appealing alternative. It's selfhosting, multiple vendors are deeply invested in improving the code based (Google, VMWare and Apple to mention just a few). The quality is high and the license is appealing. Not to mention we will be supporting it in the future for uses such as improvements to the video drivers which drives our interface needs.

Mono presents a whole GNU free toolchain, compiler and framework including community driven commons of libraries, bindings and state of the art applications.

The GNU project to me looks to be headed in the general direction of all aging citizens, Florida. Where retirement can be enjoyed.

[prodigy_]

In the context given (FOSS community) your question doesn't make much sense. Because, what's more important - grub or sh? Simply put, neither. While bootloader and shell are essential parts of a Unix-like OS, any particular implementations are irrelevant because there are viable alternatives.

Likewise there is BSD kernel, for example, and a lot of non-GNU development/management tools.

[samalex]

I think they go hand and hand, but if the Linux Kernel were to disappear I think the community would move forward with GNU Hurd, which is the GNU kernel RMS was working on before the community ran with Torvalds' Linux Kernel in the early 90's.

GNU Hurd has been in development all these years, but it's slow coming. I think Debian and even FreeBSD are close to releasing versions of their distros using GNU Hurd Kernel instead of the Linux/BSD Kernel, but don't expect much from it.

So if I had to pick one I'd say the GNU project deserves more credit then it normally gets, and even before Linux came around in 1991 the GNU apps were becoming standards on most Unix systems.

Now'days though it's hard to separate GNU from Linux.

Sam

[mickie.kext]

I think that both Linux kernel and GNU are very important. I would not chose. Without GCC, there would not be Linux, or it would not be Free. Without Linux, GNU would be much less important and would be dependent on proprietary UNIX.

You can't put one against another. They are both very important.

[Bachstelze]

None of the above. But if I really had to choose one, it would probably be GNU.

[gsmanners]

GNU is and will be for a very long time the most important aspect of free software.

Low level VMs have been raved about for the past 10 years. Supposedly, everyone was going to be using Java instead of C by now, but it didn't happen for a good reason. That much abstraction presents far too much overhead. I would have to be made of solid unobtainium to believe that embedded systems and low level VMs are the way of the future.

[RiceMonster]

GNU is and will be for a very long time the most important aspect of free software.

Low level VMs have been raved about for the past 10 years. Supposedly, everyone was going to be using Java instead of C by now, but it didn't happen for a good reason. That much abstraction presents far too much overhead. I would have to be made of solid unobtainium to believe that embedded systems and low level VMs are the way of the future.

You think Java isn't being used? Seriously?

[mickie.kext]

You think Java isn't being used? Seriously?

gcj

[gnupipe]

Both are important to me (equally).

[phrostbyte]

Linux without GNU is blind, and GNU without Linux is lame. :)

[BuffaloX]

I think historically GNU is more important than Linux.
Without GNU it is unlikely Linux would have been a success.
Without Linux GNU would definitely have had another kernal either Hurd or BSD or a fork or something else.

It's a common misunderstanding that the Linux Kernal is a much bigger development effort than the GNU tool chain.
The reality is that if you detract drivers from the Kernal which I think is fair, GNU has several times more development than the Kernal!

Some seem convinced that the Linux kernal is the major reason for the GNU/Linux success, but there is little reason to believe a GNU based OS would have been less successful or of lesser quality with another Kernal.

The combination of GNU/Linux is good, maybe even near optimal. I appreciate and acknowledge the success and importance of Linux, but find it sad that some people disses RMS and GNU, when it is the foundation upon which GNU/Linux is built.

[NightwishFan]

I think I could live using GNU/Gnome on top of BSD/Hurd using Debian. So I pick GNU.

[Penguin Guy]

GNU is the most important, although "Linux" sounds way better.

[JDShu]

Linux without GNU is blind, and GNU without Linux is lame. :)

Words of a genius!

[Duncan J Murray]

There is no doubt that we have a big and active community of users and developers. Our community is affected by some factors and the most important ones are Gnu project developers and Linux kernel developer, in other words (Richard Stallman's philosophy vs Linus Torvalds' one).

Which one do you think is more crucial to our community?

For example can Ubuntu change to other kernels such as Hurd, BSD, ... or it can change to other philosophy such as proprietary softwares?

The GNU project is the most important - because of the GNU GPL. There are plenty of other alternative operating systems and kernels available, but it was GNU/Linux that really pioneered the open source movement.

GNU/Linux wouldn't be what it is today if the thousands of people collaborating across the world with full access to the source code were not able to do so.

But I still call it just 'Linux' - because I don't see the point of using the full name all the time.

Duncan.

[opengl_cpp]

WOW.Thanx.
Well, Personally I think:
GNU Project is 75% important.
Linux Kernel 25% important.

As some of you mentioned there are some good alternatives to Linux kernel.
I think Gnu Project gives us the sheer freedom to choose our favorite kernel and tools to place around it. There are a lot of Operating systems that live on Gnu based tools. I can even claim that some OSs like windows and mac benefit from Gnu Project.

[wojox]

Without the Linux kernel Gnu would be dead in the water. I vote kernel. You can run the kernel without Gnu.

[Bachstelze]

Without the Linux kernel Gnu would be dead in the water. I vote kernel. You can run the kernel without Gnu.

And you can run GNU without the Linux kernel.

[JSeymour]

Without the Linux kernel Gnu would be dead in the water. I vote kernel. You can run the kernel without Gnu.Why do you say that? I used various & sundry GNU things long before I ever did my 1st Linux install. I continue to use GNU things on non-Linux platforms.

That being said: I would not be able to choose. I think they're equally important--to me, anyway.

[wojox]

And you can run GNU without the Linux kernel.

touche'

[wojox]

Why do you say that? I used various & sundry GNU things long before I ever did my 1st Linux install. I continue to use GNU things on non-Linux platforms.

That being said: I would not be able to choose. I think they're equally important--to me, anyway.

There's lots of routers that run
Linux with their own commands and are Gnu free. Don't get me wrong Gnu is great with Linux. Their like pea's and carrot's. ( Forrest Gump ) :D

[Simian Man]

Linux far and away, the kernel is a pinnacle of open source software engineering. It is more complicated than anything in the GNU project, but works well and is designed and managed well.

Many of the GNU tools are just archaic or badly designed: gdb, ddd, autotools, emacs, etc. Many are completely half-assed implementations of better technology: dotgnu, gnash, gnustep, etc.

Really the most important, useful and well-designed piece of software they have is GCC. And GCC as we know it today isn't even the version that was started by GNU. It is EGCS, the version that Cygnus forked because Stallman was a control freak about what code was added. After that, GNU GCC died alone and EGCS was renamed to GCC.

GNU have given a lot of software to the community, and are certainly to be commended for that. But the quality of most of it often leads me to better alternatives when they exist and longing for better alternatives when they don't.

[MrNatewood]

in the context given (foss community) your question doesn't make much sense. Because, what's more important - grub or sh? Simply put, neither. While bootloader and shell are essential parts of a unix-like os, any particular implementations are irrelevant because there are viable alternatives.

Likewise there is bsd kernel, for example, and a lot of non-gnu development/management tools.


+1