Ozor Mox
April 8th, 2007, 05:56 PM
I realise this topic is one that is considered trivial by many and possibly overdone in many Linux-related circles, but I think it's an interesting subject nonetheless. The question is, what do I call the operating system I'm running?
Ubuntu?
It's the one name that encompasses the entire system and both the essential and non-essential software that comes with it. It also follows that, as free software is freely available to redistribute, Ubuntu have taken GNU, Linux, X, Gnome etc. and distributed them as a full operating system. If I say Ubuntu, people will know in detail what oparating system I'm talking about, although only those who have heard of Ubuntu will. Others may not know that it is a Linux-based distribution. Though many Linux distributions are similar, so it can also be argued that Ubuntu is the distribution of the same operating system as Gentoo, Mepis, Fedora, Mandriva and so on, just customised.
GNU/Linux?
I understand that GNU and the FSF are the main (not only) reason why all this exists, and therefore I understand why Richard Stallman wants to claim credit on it. It's good to get across the point of GNU, but I find a quick explanation if anyone asks will do just as well. Though based on contributions in lines of code, the argument becomes irrelevant to me. GNU, the Linux kernel, Xorg etc. etc. etc. all come together to form the operating system and it isn't written by one organisation or group. That's the point, so GNU/Linux is no more "right" than anything else. Furthermore, is it actually possible to determine if GNU took the Linux kernel and put it in as the last part of their operating system to create GNU, or if Linux took the GNU tools and formed the Linux operating system? You can look at it both ways, and as far as I know, neither is more correct than the other. I read a good argument also the other day. The USA borrows the language, and many customs and ideals from England, though they have many of their own too. Should we demand they call themselves England/USA? No. The only argument for this is to credit GNU, from what I see.
Linux?
This can be considered the right name in a technical sense, as some sources define the OS as the same as the kernel, therefore Linux is the OS. But other definitions say it is the kernel plus other software. It's not well defined, so again no real right answer. Stallman claims people who call it Linux are calling it the wrong thing. Arguable. He claims that people who call it Linux connect with an idea that non-free software is ok. Personally I think it is. I support FLOSS over non-free software wherever possible, but I think it's unfeasible to expect people to cripple their systems. Also what about when you go to work and use a Windows computer? Should you refuse to use it because it's non-free? My mobile phone runs a proprietary OS, my Sky box runs a proprietary system, and so on. I think FLOSS > non-free but non-free where absolutely necessary is fine. Also at a basic level, it is plainly clear for everyone to see that this is the best sounding name. Easy to remember and good. "Guh-noo-slash-Linux" is nasty. I tried to use it in a conversation to see, I just couldn't after about the third mention.
These are my thoughts on naming. I realise this isn't really an important issue, but there are underlying issues of freedom and so on that make it quite interesting and I wondered what others here think.
Ubuntu?
It's the one name that encompasses the entire system and both the essential and non-essential software that comes with it. It also follows that, as free software is freely available to redistribute, Ubuntu have taken GNU, Linux, X, Gnome etc. and distributed them as a full operating system. If I say Ubuntu, people will know in detail what oparating system I'm talking about, although only those who have heard of Ubuntu will. Others may not know that it is a Linux-based distribution. Though many Linux distributions are similar, so it can also be argued that Ubuntu is the distribution of the same operating system as Gentoo, Mepis, Fedora, Mandriva and so on, just customised.
GNU/Linux?
I understand that GNU and the FSF are the main (not only) reason why all this exists, and therefore I understand why Richard Stallman wants to claim credit on it. It's good to get across the point of GNU, but I find a quick explanation if anyone asks will do just as well. Though based on contributions in lines of code, the argument becomes irrelevant to me. GNU, the Linux kernel, Xorg etc. etc. etc. all come together to form the operating system and it isn't written by one organisation or group. That's the point, so GNU/Linux is no more "right" than anything else. Furthermore, is it actually possible to determine if GNU took the Linux kernel and put it in as the last part of their operating system to create GNU, or if Linux took the GNU tools and formed the Linux operating system? You can look at it both ways, and as far as I know, neither is more correct than the other. I read a good argument also the other day. The USA borrows the language, and many customs and ideals from England, though they have many of their own too. Should we demand they call themselves England/USA? No. The only argument for this is to credit GNU, from what I see.
Linux?
This can be considered the right name in a technical sense, as some sources define the OS as the same as the kernel, therefore Linux is the OS. But other definitions say it is the kernel plus other software. It's not well defined, so again no real right answer. Stallman claims people who call it Linux are calling it the wrong thing. Arguable. He claims that people who call it Linux connect with an idea that non-free software is ok. Personally I think it is. I support FLOSS over non-free software wherever possible, but I think it's unfeasible to expect people to cripple their systems. Also what about when you go to work and use a Windows computer? Should you refuse to use it because it's non-free? My mobile phone runs a proprietary OS, my Sky box runs a proprietary system, and so on. I think FLOSS > non-free but non-free where absolutely necessary is fine. Also at a basic level, it is plainly clear for everyone to see that this is the best sounding name. Easy to remember and good. "Guh-noo-slash-Linux" is nasty. I tried to use it in a conversation to see, I just couldn't after about the third mention.
These are my thoughts on naming. I realise this isn't really an important issue, but there are underlying issues of freedom and so on that make it quite interesting and I wondered what others here think.