PDA

View Full Version : Is it better "Ubuntu Linux" or "Ubuntu GNU/Linux" ?



simone.brunozzi
March 21st, 2006, 07:12 PM
Hi there,
on 20th march in Perugia (Italy), I attended a talk with Richard M. Stallman, founder of the GNU movement and Free Software movement.

At a certain point I asked about Ubuntu, and Stallman answered (among other things) that Ubuntu doesn't adopt the "GNU/Linux" extension, as Debian does, and therefore doesn't fully ackowledge the role of GNU software.

Apart from my (2 cents) personal opinion, I would like to know if you (taken that you have knowledge of the matter) would prefer to call it UBUNTU LINUX, or UBUNTU GNU/LINUX instead.

Cheers,

abrainlessdude
March 21st, 2006, 07:16 PM
I like ubuntu gnu/linux

christhemonkey
March 21st, 2006, 07:19 PM
ubuntu linux is just so much easier to say than ubntu gnu/linux allthough the gnu bit does convey that aspect of the idea of ubntu clearer.
To be fair though i do just say ubuntu!

simone.brunozzi
March 21st, 2006, 07:27 PM
christhemonkey,
I agree that Linux is simpler than GNU/Linux; however, it's not a good reason, say, to call my last name Bru instead of Brunozzi... do you get the point? Bru would limit my "identity", as much as Linux *MAY* limit the identity of a GNU/Linux system.

Cheers,

bored2k
March 21st, 2006, 07:28 PM
Ubuntu Linux. If I were interested in it, the first thing i'd ask would be "wtf does GNU stand for?", followed by the "forget it, i don't want to know nor care about that crap, just give me the damn disc before i change my mind.".

christhemonkey
March 21st, 2006, 07:30 PM
Hmm agreed Simone, although my name is Christopher and it is generally shortened to Chris.
Though in official situations (job interviews or whatever) the full name is used, so maybe they should formally adopt the GNU bit, but i will still just call it ubuntu.

John.Michael.Kane
March 21st, 2006, 07:32 PM
Removed!!!

bored2k
March 21st, 2006, 07:33 PM
Because the GNU libraries and programs, an essential part of nearly all Linux distributions, stem from a long-standing free operating system project that predates the Linux kernel, Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation ask that the combined system (regardless of distribution) be referred to as GNU/Linux or a Linux-based GNU system. Torvalds, the creator of the Linux kernel, has said that he finds calling Linux in general GNU/Linux "just ridiculous." Still, some distributions do use this name — notably Debian GNU/Linux — while most people simply refer to the system as Linux. The distinction between Torvalds' kernel and entire Linux-based systems that contain the kernel is a perennial source of confusion, and the naming remains controversial.I too support leaving the GNU aside.

simone.brunozzi
March 21st, 2006, 07:33 PM
yes chris,
that was my point. Uninformally, I always call it Ubuntu or "Ubu" instead; however, it seems to me that it is important to know wether the community wants to acknowledge or not the GNU component of the entire system (like Debian does).

However, I don't want to say that GNU/Linux MUST be used: I quite frankly appreciate the GNU work and contribution, and would like to know your points of view.

Thanks!

bored2k
March 21st, 2006, 07:34 PM
For those who may ask what is GNU-->http://www.gnu.org/
I'm not going to tell everyone on the street "just go to gnu.org and find out.. it's super fun!", because it's not. Read my previous post.

matiastepli
March 21st, 2006, 07:38 PM
I did vote for Ubuntu GNU/Linux because I just feel closer to Richard Stallman philosophy. ;)

Regards!.

s|k
March 21st, 2006, 07:45 PM
GNU is a stupid name in my opinion, and people who go around saying 'I use GNU/Linux' always come out looking like stiff know-it-all's that make me want to upchuck. Yes GNU has made massive contribution to what we all enjoy and use today, but it's too much have people say something unpronouncable or something that comes off as making a person look...idiotic. They need a brand overhall and a PR campaign.

joflow
March 21st, 2006, 07:48 PM
GNU seems pretty much implied when it comes to free *nix OSes.

Kvark
March 21st, 2006, 07:49 PM
"Ubuntu" is better. If people know what Ubuntu is then it's redunant to add anything extra after the name. If they don't know then you'll have to explain what it is in any case.

Saying "it's a GNU/Linux distribution" will confuse most people. If they have actually heard of GNU/Linux before then they probably have a lot of weird ideas about what it's like and think it is for servers and hackers only. "distribution" doesn't mean flavour or version outside of the GNU/Linux world so that will also confuse them.

Saying "it's an alternative to Windows" will make them think it's an alternative to PC like Mac and Playstation but it's a lot easier to explain that one then the GNU/Linux stuff.

s|k
March 21st, 2006, 07:50 PM
Maybe we should call it the Ubuntu GNU/LINUX/X/Gnome/<insert every module & program &/or person's name who's ever contributed to the linux distro here repeatedly with various special characters randomly inserted within>

briancurtin
March 21st, 2006, 07:53 PM
i agree with kvark. ive never referred to ubuntu as anything more than "ubuntu"

calling it "ubuntu linux" is what i would refer to it as when talking to someone who has no knowledge at all of computers. i never have and never will call it "ubuntu gnu/linux", its just completely unecessary. yeah sure, its not "giving credit to GNU" or something, but if RMS is doing this so that he can get everyone around the world to say GNU when talking about stuff, then **** it im not saying it ever in my life.

IYY
March 21st, 2006, 07:53 PM
We must not forget that "Linux" is just a kernel. We are using GNU/Linux and should call it exactly that. You see, there are two types of distributions: ones that embrace OSS for business reasons, and ones that care about the Freedom. Redhat belongs to the first set, while Ubuntu belongs to the second. If we strip the GNU from our name, we might as well remove all references to the word Freedom from our website.

And those who say that GNU/Linux is too awkward to pronounce: when was the last time you said "Ubuntu Linux" or "Ubuntu GNU/Linux"? We just say "Ubuntu".

s|k
March 21st, 2006, 07:58 PM
I think calling it GNU/Linux reveals major personal character flaws in a person. Stay away!

John.Michael.Kane
March 21st, 2006, 07:59 PM
I'm not going to tell everyone on the street "just go to gnu.org and find out.. it's super fun!", because it's not. Read my previous post.


bored2k just was pointing it out for those who did not know what it was. anyway the link is removed..

Brunellus
March 21st, 2006, 07:59 PM
conceivably, there could be an Ubuntu OpenSolaris (which is apparently what Nexenta), in the same way that there is Debian GNU/Linux, Debian FreeBSD, and so forth

bored2k
March 21st, 2006, 08:01 PM
bored2k just was pointing it out for those who did not know what it was. anyway the link is removed..
And that's my exact point. Without the GNU, we need not to explain what it is. How can we prescribe Ubuntu as the easy way into Linux when we would need to explain such a simple yet complicated thing?

midwinter
March 21st, 2006, 08:03 PM
Ubuntu GNU/Linux seems more appropriate to me. Not that i'd go around saying that exactly...

mcduck
March 21st, 2006, 08:03 PM
Well, it's just 'Ubuntu' or 'Linux' for me. But from the options in the poll I choose 'Ubuntu Linux'.

If I run GPL software on Windows, I don't start calling it GNU/Windows. If I run it on BSD, it doesn't become GNU/BSD, and running Firefox on a Mac doesn't make me use GNU/OSX.

Now somebody wants to point out that Linux is useless without GNU software. But every OS is useless without software. And I'm not going to start adding names of every software project/company whos apps I happen to run. And to be fair, I won't add _any_ of those names to my OS'es name.

Or should I start telling people that I run 'Ubuntu GNU/Linux' and 'Macromedia/Adobe/Propellerheads/Autodesk/GNU/Windows 2000' :D

Now, if somebody asks, I of course tell about GNU project and Linux and GPL and stuff. But GNU people talking about 'GNU/Linux' sounds to me like somebody being jealous for others getting all the fame. Why it's never 'Linux/GNU'? ;)

matiastepli
March 21st, 2006, 08:09 PM
I think we should not forget that GNU refers to a set of applications, not just one in particular. Not every GPL software belongs to the GNU system.

simone.brunozzi
March 21st, 2006, 08:10 PM
Curiously, on the italian forum (up to now) there are 29 answers:
22 like GNU/Linux
2 don't care
5 prefer Linux

See here if you want:
http://forum.ubuntu-it.org/index.php?topic=20017.0

At least, I think that this discussion is important... The GNU movement surely deserves a consideration, and MAYBE a better name near "Ubuntu" and "Linux".

Cheers,

Brunellus
March 21st, 2006, 08:15 PM
I'd rather get people hooked on the software first, and the GNU later. That's how I got into it all.

briancurtin
March 21st, 2006, 08:16 PM
I think we should not forget that GNU refers to a set of applications, not just one in particular.
true. however, i dont think we need to acknowledge that set of applications in every day talks about the system we use. if you want to be proper, state GNU in the title. the other 99% of the time, you can relax and just say "yeah i use ubuntu"

barthel
March 21st, 2006, 08:18 PM
I'm sorry, but I totally disagree with RMS on this.

The only difference between "GNU/Linux" and the licensing change which led to the rise X.org is that RMS is trying to enforce "GNU/Linux" through persuasion rather than through licensing terms.

Stallman is attempting to increase the visibility of GNU's role in free software. That's all well and good. Aside from the force of his personality, his primary argument is that without the GNU programs, there is no "Linux" operating system.

To me, that's not sufficient for prefixing every invocation of "Linux", except when referring explicitly to the kernel, with "GNU/".

There's a lot of GPL'd software that's not under the "GNU" umbrella.
GNU programs are not uniqe to Linux. I even used GNU utilities on the Amiga.
If we yield to "GNU/Linux", we leave ourselves open to submitting to all such requests. Anyone up for "Wine/GNOME/X.org/GNU/Linux"?


We don't speak of GNU/BSD, GNU/Solaris, GNU/AIX, GNU/Ultrix, GNU/SCO, GNU/SystemV, GNU/Xenix, GNU/Minix or GNU/Amiga even though GNU can be used with all of them. So why should we speak of "GNU/Linux"?

There's nothing which prevents us from forking every "GNU" package. If so, then there is no longer any basis for "GNU/Linux". Nothing except respect for the historical contributions of RMS and the GNU project. But then, we would have to include "Minix" in the list, since Linus Torvalds essentially forked Linux from Minix.

And that, my friends is the bottom line. Contrary to the ideals espoused in the GPL and the FSF, Stallman is looking for public recognition of himself, GNU, and the FSF by "branding" Linux as "GNU/Linux".

But Ubuntu isn't just "GNU/Linux". It's a distribution based on the Linux kernel, the GNU utilities, the Debian packaging system, X11 from X.org, the GNOME desktop environment, the OpenOffice.org suite, and several other pieces.

I used Slackware for many years. Now I use Ubuntu. And that should be sufficient "branding" for anyone.

Gee, where *did* that soapbox come from? ;)

mstlyevil
March 21st, 2006, 08:25 PM
I just don't care. :mrgreen:

commodore
March 21st, 2006, 08:30 PM
I think you can call it just Ubuntu Linux but the official name should be Ubuntu GNU/Linux. Too bad Mark S. likes open source not free software, but Ubuntu is really, really the free software way and I think it should be Ubuntu GNU/Linux.

jc87
March 21st, 2006, 08:54 PM
[Ballmer mode on] I´m gonna to f*ck*ng kill the guys who say Ubuntu Linux is better than Ubuntu Gnu/Linux [Ballmer mode off] .

If the Debian Guys say Gnu/Linux , and Ubuntu is based on Debian .... besides RMS is a cool guy ( ok a little fanatic , but cool anyway) he and the Gnu project deserve recognition.

IYY
March 21st, 2006, 08:54 PM
Or should I start telling people that I run 'Ubuntu GNU/Linux' and 'Macromedia/Adobe/Propellerheads/Autodesk/GNU/Windows 2000'

This analogy is flawed. Without Macromedia and Adobe software, Windows will still boot and work. Without GNU software, Linux is absolutely nothing. Any little thing you do in Linux will, in some way, use GNU software. Most of what you call the "operating system" is GNU.

Think about it this way: One group of people was working for years to create an operating system. They made every piece of it except for the kernel. Then, one guy comes and makes a kernel which they end up using. Does this mean that we rename the entire project to the name of the kernel?

s|k
March 21st, 2006, 09:00 PM
[Ballmer mode on] I´m gonna to f*ck*ng kill the guys who say Ubuntu Linux is better than Ubuntu Gnu/Linux [Ballmer mode off] .

If the Debian Guys say Gnu/Linux , and Ubuntu is based on Debian .... besides RMS is a cool guy ( ok a little fanatic , but cool anyway) he and the Gnu project deserve recognition.
Is that appropriate?

matiastepli
March 21st, 2006, 09:03 PM
GNU programs are not uniqe to Linux. I even used GNU utilities on the Amiga.

Sorry, aren't you mixing things? Linux is not a platform. Neither GNU. However, GNU and Linux are portable, so they can run on others platforms.



We don't speak of GNU/BSD, GNU/Solaris, GNU/AIX, GNU/Ultrix, GNU/SCO, GNU/SystemV, GNU/Xenix, GNU/Minix or GNU/Amiga even though GNU can be used with all of them. So why should we speak of "GNU/Linux"?

IMHO because GNU/Linux was the only combination that was accepted and was token as a basis for all the other distros.


And that, my friends is the bottom line. Contrary to the ideals espoused in the GPL and the FSF, Stallman is looking for public recognition of himself, GNU, and the FSF by "branding" Linux as "GNU/Linux".

I don't agree. He cares about freedom, and I don't think he's using that as an excuse.

mcduck
March 21st, 2006, 09:08 PM
This analogy is flawed. Without Macromedia and Adobe software, Windows will still boot and work. Without GNU software, Linux is absolutely nothing. Any little thing you do in Linux will, in some way, use GNU software. Most of what you call the "operating system" is GNU.
Well, Windows will 'work', only that it's completely useless without software made by other companies and projects. Just like you can just boot the Linux kernel and it will work (not doing very much, but work anyway), but you still need GNU software to make it useful.

Anyway, this is just my point of view, but how could it be anything else :)

As I said, I'm using 'Ubuntu', and I might call it 'Linux' when I'm talking to somebody who doesn't know about all the different Linux distributions.

Virogenesis
March 21st, 2006, 09:16 PM
I vote for neither....
ubuntu is fine, linux is the kernel and as ubuntu is only based around linux I see no reason to call it ubuntu linux.
As for RMS and his GNU/Linux why should we coin it GNU/Linux lets face you do not call Mac OS X...... GNU Mac OS X Nor do you call Solaris.... GNU/Solaris same goes for BSD.
I'd rather just stick with the idea of Opensource rather than Free software and that is Stallman would call it.

ubuntu its easier linus wouldn't of cared if we called it ubuntu linux, ubuntu gnu/linux or just plain old ubuntu hes more interested in making it work & that should be our goal more than anything

Virogenesis
March 21st, 2006, 09:19 PM
Well, Windows will 'work', only that it's completely useless without software made by other companies and projects. Just like you can just boot the Linux kernel and it will work (not doing very much, but work anyway), but you still need GNU software to make it useful.

ermmm Mac OS X use the gcc compliler so you can't just boot Mac and it will work it needs GNU software.

barthel
March 21st, 2006, 09:37 PM
Sorry, aren't you mixing things? Linux is not a platform. Neither GNU. However, GNU and Linux are portable, so they can run on others platforms. Actually no. While the Amiga OS was designed for a specific set of hardware, it too can be run on other hardware platforms. But I'd prefer not to tangent into that discussion in this thread.



IMHO because GNU/Linux was the only combination that was accepted and was token as a basis for all the other distros.
With the exception of Minix, all the others I mentioned were/are proprietary flavors of Unix.



I don't agree. He cares about freedom, and I don't think he's using that as an excuse.
Between what RMS has previously written on the subject (which was cited to me in an email from RMS in response to my candidacy statement for the first GNOME Foundation board election) it's quite clear that he's looking for recognition.

Yes, he cares about freedom. But in reading between the lines of his writings on the subject, I am very much convinced that he believes that if we don't always say "GNU/Linux" that the contribution of GNU will be forgotten, and with it, the strict interpretation of "free software" implied by GNU.

Stallman was a pioneer in free software and we are all indebted to him. But if the ideals of free software will crumble into dust if RMS is no longer around to make us say "GNU/Linux", then maybe those ideals aren't strong enough to stand on their own.

Ultimately, "freedom" must be measured in the freedom to make bad choices. I and others think "GNU/Linux" is a bad choice. RMS and others think "Linux" is a bad choice. But we're agreed that a truly free operating system is the goal.

You can choose what you wish to do. But as for me and my house, we will say "Ubuntu" or "Ubuntu Linux".

KiwiNZ
March 21st, 2006, 10:03 PM
If it were an option in the poll I would vote for ..... Ubuntu

Joshuwa
March 21st, 2006, 10:14 PM
ermmm Mac OS X use the gcc compliler so you can't just boot Mac and it will work it needs GNU software.

Mac OS X, by default, does not install gcc. So you can indeed boot OS X without using gcc.

The only time gcc is installed is if the user installs the developer tools (XCode) or a stand-alone version of gcc.

It's not part of the base system.

Virogenesis
March 21st, 2006, 11:13 PM
Mac OS X, by default, does not install gcc. So you can indeed boot OS X without using gcc.

The only time gcc is installed is if the user installs the developer tools (XCode) or a stand-alone version of gcc.

It's not part of the base system.
True but its still needed for compliling.
How about freebsd, openbsd or netbsd i'm sure they have gcc installed I've never heard stallman telling people to call openbsd.... gnu openbsd

ubuntulove124
March 21st, 2006, 11:16 PM
True but its still needed for compliling.
How about freebsd, openbsd or netbsd i'm sure they have gcc installed I've never heard stallman telling people to call openbsd.... gnu openbsd
That would be an argument if the argument for calling the OS we are using GNU/Linux would rest on whether gcc is used, or not.

As this is not the case, this is pretty irrelevant.

Virogenesis
March 21st, 2006, 11:27 PM
gcc is gnu....correct..but As someone stated earlier gnu runs on kernels and my point is the bsd kernel makes use of gnu BUT you never hear stallman talking about BSD and it should be called GNU/BSD.

The point that I'm getting at is that why should we label our distros gnu/linux or even mention linux its unneeded.
All stallman wants to do is make the user(s) aware of the gnu project and what FSF does but bigger picture is.... people don't like politics and don't want to be involved with politics.

For example Stallman would say having closed codecs on linux is wrong and damaging but more open switch to linux the more people will have open codecs so by not forcing politics onto people we win.

schnappy
March 21st, 2006, 11:34 PM
gcc is gnu....correct..but As someone stated earlier gnu runs on kernels and my point is the bsd kernel makes use of gnu BUT you never hear stallman talking about BSD and it should be called GNU/BSD.

Hm, I think the clear difference is that while there might of course be some GNU code on a BSD system, GNU code is really an essential and integral part of every Linux distribution.



The point that I'm getting at is that why should we label our distros gnu/linux or even mention linux its unneeded.
All stallman wants to do is make the user(s) aware of the gnu project and what FSF does but bigger picture is.... people don't like politics and don't want to be involved with politics.

That's not true. For example, I like to be involved in politics.
For people who don't want to be involved, I think it's pretty easy to simply ignore this issue. After all, I'm not aware of RMS going around and knocking down the doors of unsuspecting linux users just to force them to call their os GNU/Linux.



For example Stallman would say having closed codecs on linux is wrong and damaging but more open switch to linux the more people will have open codecs so by not forcing politics onto people we win.
I disagree with that. I think using non-free software is always problematic if you care about a free system. However, this is really off topic and an entierely other discussion.

Virogenesis
March 21st, 2006, 11:42 PM
Hm, I think the clear difference is that while there might of course be some GNU code on a BSD system, GNU code is really an essential and integral part of every Linux distribution.
tar = gnu.... gcc = gnu..... alot of bsd is gnu



That's not true. For example, I like to be involved in politics.
For people who don't want to be involved, I think it's pretty easy to simply ignore this issue. After all, I'm not aware of RMS going around and knocking down the doors of unsuspecting linux users just to force them to call their os GNU/Linux. Thank god for that aswell



I disagree with that. I think using non-free software is always problematic if you care about a free system. However, this is really off topic and an entierely other discussion.

True but ever heard the saying the best way to destroy a system is to be part of the system for example.

would users choose to encode in mp3 or ogg if they were using linux?
more than likely ogg would be used and thats open so all in all we would win.

Gadren
March 22nd, 2006, 01:04 AM
Here are some things I posted last time this discussion came around:


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.


To sum it up, whether you like it or not, the contributions of Benjamin Franklin and electricity are significant and are so fundamental that no Linux distribution would and does for that matter work without them.

To sum it up, whether you like it or not, the contributions of Leibniz and the binary number system are significant and are so fundamental that no Linux distribution would and does for that matter work without them.

Leibniz/Franklin/GNU/Linux!

Azrael
March 22nd, 2006, 06:16 AM
Thou shalt not speak of Ubuntu GNU/Linux. Thou shall only say Debian/Ubuntu GNU/Linux. For without Debian, Ubuntu could not have been. :-?

Yagisan
March 22nd, 2006, 05:04 PM
Lots and lots of responses here, and most seem to miss the fact that the distribution is not called Ubuntu Linux, it is called just "Ubuntu". I met sabdfl at the UDU meeting and asked him why linux wasn't in the name, and he basically said these pointless arguments are why.

I don't agree with RMS on adding a GNU/whatever to the name. By that reasoning we need to name all software included. That doesn't even touch on the fact that GNU software runs on Windows.

And just for all those that think Linux systems need GNU software, just google, you'll find several Linux distributions that have an entirely BSD licensed userland.

So, in closing, call Ubuntu by it's proper name, "Ubuntu".

Regards,

Wide
March 22nd, 2006, 05:18 PM
Arguments in whats in a name are most likely due to ego issues.

They need to stop playing childish ego games & produce a product that really works.

An easy name to remember is a key to marketing strategy, if you put i every little bitty about everything masses loose intrest.



](*,)

Brunellus
March 22nd, 2006, 05:20 PM
the Free Software Movement is about egos. if it weren't how could you get people to "scratch their own itch"? The miracle is that the sum of all these titanic egos has created something that we can happily use and let the Great Old Bearded Ones argue about among themselves.

HokeyFry
March 22nd, 2006, 05:43 PM
I think that it should be "Ubuntu Linux", although it should still say somewhere not in the name that it is GNU/Linux

JebusWankel
September 1st, 2006, 04:04 AM
GNUbuntu!

argie
September 1st, 2006, 10:12 AM
I just say ubuntu. So the issue doesn't arise.

Might as well call Ubuntu, Ubuntu/Debian Gnu/Linux, and then include all the predecessors also. Then we can shorten it to an unpronounceable UDGL, and then add letters whenever you want.

I can just imagine.
Me: Hey dude! Want to try out Ubuntu Debian Guh-Noo Linux Xorg! It's awesome! Just call it UDGLX!

PS: GNU did do a lot of work (I read that page where they explain why they want GNU/Linux so badly). But it just isn't catchy, especially with that whacked pronounciation.

Rhapsody
September 1st, 2006, 11:15 AM
Well, now that this topic is back (wow, it's been here longer than I have!) I'll say I'd go for Ubuntu GNU/Linux. After hearing the figure that the Linux kernel makes up about 3% of the average 'Linux' install while GNU components make up about 25%, I really have to sympathize. There are people out there using Linux right now, who have no idea what the GNU Project is, despite using loads of their software.

Jenda
September 1st, 2006, 01:54 PM
Allow me to remind you, that the official name of operating system is Ubuntu.


Ubuntu is a free, open source Linux-based operating system

Ubuntu, the Ubuntu logo, Canonical and the Canonical logo are all registered trademarks of Canonical Ltd.
It disappoints me that you omitted the right answer from the poll :(