Linux Kernel vs GNU Project !

[MaximB]

most of us don't give much credit to Richard stallman, the head of the GNU project.
without him there was no "GNU/Linux" today.
but most of us still calling Linux "Linux" and not "GNU/Linux"
yeah without Linus we still be empty handed, but his work was the final part.
BTW stallman is working for years on his new Kernel HURD, that will work with his GNU project.

so my question is that :
what IYHO was harder to make the Linux Kernel or the GNU project or maybe HURD (that still on the making) ?

Links :
Linux Kernel : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel
GNU : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU
GNU/HURD project : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurd

[IYY]

The kernel is certainly a more complex project. However, this is no reason to call the entire operating system by the name of the kernel.

[deanlinkous]

Stallman had/has very little to do with the HURD.

GNU is a collection of software so kind of vague as to what you are talking about. All of these are GNU projects
http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/

One of the most important IMO is coreutils which is composed of the following
http://www.gnu.org/software/textutils/textutils.html
http://www.gnu.org/software/fileutils/fileutils.html
http://www.gnu.org/software/shellutils/shellutils.html

I do not discredit the importance of the kernel but I also do not discredit the importance of the basic utils that make the kernel usable to me.

So to me nobody is going to JUST use a kernel and nobody is going to JUST use GNU software so I think a "system" would be composed of both and reflected in the name. So yes I think that is important enough to warrant the name GNU+Linux.

The Hurd has taken so long because it is not a race. It is not something that is a dire need. It is more (IMO) of a experiment.

I think the poll is a bit confusing since you seem to ask which was harder to make, yet seem to be discussing the name situation. Obviously if the HURD has taken 10 years and is something of a totally unique design then it would stand to reason that *technically* the Hurd is the hardest tomake.:)

[hackmeister]

So to me nobody is going to JUST use a kernel and nobody is going to JUST use GNU software so I think a "system" would be composed of both and reflected in the name. So yes I think that is important enough to warrant the name GNU+Linux.


I don't think GNU+Linux is fair. It doesn't give credit to the developers of all the components that goes into the modern distro. I will refer to my OS as KDE/GNU/Firefox/Thunderbird/Amarok/VI/xterm/OpenOffice/Linux/GIMP/Kino/MPlayer;)

[Shay Stephens]

Who's more important said the flower to the bee
It surely can't be you
So it surely must be me.


Without each other we would surely not survive
said the departing bee
as she flew back to the hive

[angkor]

I think the poll is a bit confusing since you seem to ask which was harder to make, yet seem to be discussing the name situation.

Agreed.

What are you saying? Whichever was the 'hardest' to make deserves the credit and the OS should be named after it?

Personally I don't care what people call the OS I'm running...I just care if it works and keep away from all the politics.

[MaximB]

I think that some of you got me wrong.
I'm NOT talking about who/what is more important
as without one of them, there would be NO Linux.

I am talking about what was harder to make.

[deanlinkous]

But it does give credit to what makes up the basic parts that would be considered a usable system. While not everyone will use firefox, kde, openoffice, etc... they will ALL need GNU and Linux to have something functional. ;)

And actually GNU could survive without linux but as I said I certainly do not discredit what a great work linux is and it is fantastic that we have such a great kernel.

Once again I do not understand the poll choices. :(

[angkor]

I am talking about what was harder to make.

What do you consider 'hard'? Most man hours, most technically advanced, innovative?

Probably one of the kernels is the most challenging for programmers, but I think I've read somewhere Linus finished his first kernel by himself within a year, so it probably wasn't too hard for him. It would probably have taken me a lifetime...or two.


I think that some of you got me wrong.


Maybe that has something to do with the thread title you chose and the poll options compared to your first post. ;)

[MaximB]

Agreed.

What are you saying? Whichever was the 'hardest' to make deserves the credit and the OS should be named after it?

Personally I don't care what people call the OS I'm running...I just care if it works and keep away from all the politics.

I'm NOT saying that whichever was harder to make deserves the credit.
But I think that many Linux users don't even know about the GNU project, so I'm trying to explain why it should be called GNU/Linux.
but the name has nothing to do with the actual poll...in fact it explains the poll.

[deanlinkous]

If you are strictly talking about which is harder to make then I would have to go for the HURD since it is a very complicated project, that has essentially no equal in design and is basically a new idea from the ground up.

Your first post seemed to cloud what the thread was about by talking about a few issues like why we would be empty handed without the linux kernel? I would say if linux had never come along the HURD would be further along but would probably not come near the functionality of the linux kernel. But of course BSD also springs to mind as very usable.

And since the HURD is part of the GNU project why would it be a seperate choice?

GNU should be part of the name simply because you cannot have any type of functional system without it IMO.

[angkor]

But I think that many Linux users don't even know about the GNU project, so I'm trying to explain why it should be called GNU/Linux.


I think it's good you're trying to educate people on what their OS consists of. Of course you can't force people to call something by a certain name, and I'm not saying you are but it never hurts to explain that their OS is comprised of the Linux kernel and the GNU software (along with a lot of extra software of course).

ps. There are two links in your sig that mention just Linux, I think you should change that to GNU/Linux before someone notices. ;)

[rattlerviper]

I think HURD is probably the hardest project, indeed for the sam reason Deanlinkous stated. It is a HUGE project!

I think the question that Max is trying to REALLY ask is why must Linux be called Linux and not GNULinux to give credit to both. I think that is the simpelest way to put the question perhaps.

If I'm wrong Max let me know and I apologize:)

[Shay Stephens]

But I think that many Linux users don't even know about the GNU project, so I'm trying to explain why it should be called GNU/Linux.

Calling it GNU/Linux is just plain clumsy and inelegant. I much prefer calling it Ubuntu. In the online descriptions and technical details, the GNU/Linux composition can be well described. But in everyday use, a simple "nickname" is what most people prefer to use.

I call it Ubuntu!

[MaximB]

sure if you use specific distro..call it by it's name.
but if you refer to linux call it GNU/Linux.

and Charlie - I WAS talking about which was harder to make too...

[chaosgeisterchen]

Who's more important said the flower to the bee
It surely can't be you
So it surely must be me.


Without each other we would surely not survive
said the departing bee
as she flew back to the hive

I like your posting and therefore second it.

The Free Software World has started to work against each other, I am afraid, at least it does partially. Hatred between the parties taking part in the Free Software World will lead us to nothing.

[Shay Stephens]

sure if you use specific distro..call it by it's name.
but if you refer to linux call it GNU/Linux.

That's like calling your friend by both the first and last names all the time. No one does it, they always use the first name, or even a shortened form of the first name.

It's a no win task you are embarking upon. People are lazy and will use the name that is the easiest to use. In documentation and other more formal communication, GNU/Linux should be used. But in everyday communication, it just isn't practical to use it. And I say that as a GNU/Linux supporter.

[MaximB]

I'm not asking them to actually call Linux "GNU/Linux" in daily use.
I just want them to know why "Linux" is not the full name of this OS, and why it's actually "sometimes" called "GNU/Linux".

[deanlinkous]

I prefer to just call it GNU. I stopped saying linux since others stopped saying the GNU part. ;)

[shining]

Right, why don't we just call it GNU then? It's shorter.

[BigDave708]

ps. There are two links in your sig that mention just Linux, I think you should change that to GNU/Linux before someone notices. ;)
Hmmm . . .

GNU/Linux Mod-Free Forums
CafeGNUlinux.org
GNULinuxforclinics

What do you think? ;)

[WalmartSniperLX]

Ok everyone! I just wanted to say that im still new the the opensource universe and I was wondering what exactly is Linux and GNU? What part of the GNU/Linux system is GNU, or linux? I mean im using Ubuntu now but what makes linux linux? Lol I hope this question makes sense.
](*,)

[maniacmusician]

Right, why don't we just call it GNU then? It's shorter.
lol, actually, they're both 2 syllables.

[Iandefor]

I'd have to say HURD would be the hardest of the lot. 'Twould explain rather neatly why it's been maybe 16 years and still not a stable release in sight.

[angkor]

Hmmm . . .

GNU/Linux Mod-Free Forums
CafeGNUlinux.org
GNULinuxforclinics

What do you think? ;)

Much better! ;)

[shining]

lol, actually, they're both 2 syllables.

It's still shorter to write. And it also seemed shorter to pronounce to me, but again, I might pronounce them wrong, so..
I've to admit I did think GNU was just one syllable though. :)