Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

GNU/Linux VS Linux


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 2072

2072

    Casio over god

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewherebourg
  • Interests:Cinema, Programming, Music and a lot of thing...

  • Calculators:
    AFX2 ROM 1.02, CFX-9940GT+, FX-180P-Plus

Posted 14 November 2005 - 01:00 AM

Just an announcement:

I recently said that I would make MLC2 open source. after throughly reading on gnu.org. I decided against it.

I now intend it to be Free Software.

See these sites for the reason:

http://www.gnu.org/p...or-freedom.html
http://www.gnu.org/g...ux-and-gnu.html




Very interesting links :)

This one is also good to read:

http://www.gnu.org/g...nu-project.html

Edited by 2072, 16 November 2005 - 11:52 PM.


#2 2072

2072

    Casio over god

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewherebourg
  • Interests:Cinema, Programming, Music and a lot of thing...

  • Calculators:
    AFX2 ROM 1.02, CFX-9940GT+, FX-180P-Plus

Posted 14 November 2005 - 02:34 AM

By the way, I just added a bad word filter to replace Linux by <{GNULINUX}> :)

#3 huhn_m

huhn_m

    Casio Maniac

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1956 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany / Dresden
  • Interests:Assembler(!!!)<br />Computers and Programming<br />Operating Systems<br />Programmable Calculators<br />Maths and everything arround it<br />

  • Calculators:
    FX-82SX / AFX 2.0+ (ROM 1.03) / FX 1.0+ (ROM 1.03)

Posted 14 November 2005 - 10:09 PM

verry good idea.

Read those while compiling gentoo ... quite interresting how careless people get. I even noticed that I nearly never mentioned gnu though I know that GNU is the main part of the OS. (Though I have a stuffed out gnu-gnu sitting next to my tux in front of my computer :) )

#4 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 November 2005 - 05:42 AM

Maybe you should read This to see what the GNU project really thinks.

"However, one so-called freedom that we do not advocate is the "freedom to choose any license you want for software you write". We reject this because it is really a form of power, not a freedom."

So if I spend months writing a fantastic program, I should be forced to give it away for free? Yeah, right

And sorry, calling l.i.n.u.x vs GNU/<{GNULINUX}> was a battle that was lost a long time ago. It doen't make much sense anyway. Sure the average L.i.n.u.x. system is based on GNU tools. To function as a 2005-era OS it also needs an X server, a system like KDE or Gnome, etc. Calling it GNU/X11/Apache/<{GNULINUX}>/TeX/Perl/Python/FreeCiv etc is absurd.

To quote Linus, when asked about calling it GNU/<{GNULINUX}>:

"Well, I think it's justified, but it's justified if you actually make a GNU distribution of <{GNULINUX}> ... the same way that I think that "Red Hat <{GNULINUX}>" is fine, or "SuSE <{GNULINUX}>" or "Debian <{GNULINUX}>," because if you actually make your own distribution of <{GNULINUX}>, you get to name the thing, but calling <{GNULINUX}> in general "GNU <{GNULINUX}>" I think is just ridiculous."

Wake me when HURD works as well as l.i.n.u.x.

#5 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 November 2005 - 05:45 AM

"Well, I think it's justified, but it's justified if you actually make a GNU distribution of GNU/<{GNULINUX}> ... the same way that I think that "Red Hat GNU/<{GNULINUX}>" is fine, or "SuSE GNU/<{GNULINUX}>" or "Debian GNU/<{GNULINUX}>," because if you actually make your own distribution of GNU/<{GNULINUX}>, you get to name the thing, but calling GNU/<{GNULINUX}> in general "GNU GNU/<{GNULINUX}>" I think is just ridiculous."


Sorry, this annoying filter thing distorted the Quote. Of course it should be

"Well, I think it's justified, but it's justified if you actually make a GNU distribution of L.inux ... the same way that I think that "Red Hat L.inux" is fine, or "SuSE L.inux" or "Debian L.inux," because if you actually make your own distribution of L.inux, you get to name the thing, but calling L.inux in general "GNU/L.inux" I think is just ridiculous."

#6 huhn_m

huhn_m

    Casio Maniac

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1956 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany / Dresden
  • Interests:Assembler(!!!)<br />Computers and Programming<br />Operating Systems<br />Programmable Calculators<br />Maths and everything arround it<br />

  • Calculators:
    FX-82SX / AFX 2.0+ (ROM 1.03) / FX 1.0+ (ROM 1.03)

Posted 15 November 2005 - 05:04 PM

"However, one so-called freedom that we do not advocate is the "freedom to choose any license you want for software you write". We reject this because it is really a form of power, not a freedom."

So if I spend months writing a fantastic program, I should be forced to give it away for free? Yeah, right


You misunderstood everything that is to misunderstand.
Free is as in free speach not as in free beer.

Btw. you should not call linux (only the kernel) <{GNULINUX}> but should give credit to the GNU if you use the OS <{GNULINUX}> where most parts were written by the GNU community.

So you can charge for it but should give others insight and the chance to alter and distribute it. And I didn't say that the Linu.x Kernel is bad but that it is only a tiny peace of software while it was integrated in an already existing OS called GNU. So you should give credit to the work of the GNU community just as you'd like to get credit for your work.

Edited by 2072, 16 November 2005 - 07:02 AM.


#7 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 November 2005 - 01:51 AM

I don't think I'm the one with the misunderstanding. I know perfectly well what the difference is between libre and gratis. The problem is 'free as in speech' leads directly to 'free as in beer'.

Suppose I write some fantastic software. I sell it to customer A for $100, and with a license that "gives others insight and the chance to alter and distribute it".

Now customer B wants a copy of my software. Why would they buy it from me, when they can just get a copy from customer A?

Realistically I could only sell a single copy of my software. After that my customers would easily undercut me or give it away for free. All it takes is one customer to upload it to a web site to destroy my sales. This isn't a great way to make money.

Sure, you'll say I can make money on support. Aside from the fact I don't like doing support, its also a conflict of interest. If my software was so perfect and easy to use it didn't need much support I'd go broke. I'd probably go broke anyway - not many small companies are sucessfully following this business model.

As for the GNU/L.inux argument: L.inux is easy to say, <{GNULINUX}> is more annoying. It's also matter of convention. I say my PC runs Windows XP, even though I rely on several open source projects such as apache, ethereal and firefox. Nobody would say I have a 'Windows/Apache/Ethereal/Firefox' PC.

Why should GNU get special treatment? An X-server is essential to most users, yet there is no push for GNU/X/L.inux. GNU contributed GCC/Binutils (a great tool, but most home users should never have to see it), many command line tools, and some other stuff. They deserve credit, but so do many other people.

Bell labs designed unix, which is what GNU attempted to clone. Why not give them credit for the design? Bell-labs/X/Apache/Firefox/GNU/L.inux.

Hang on, isn't most of this stuff written in C? It's only fair to credit Kernighan and Ritchie. K&R/Bell-labs/X/Apache/Firefox/GNU/L.inux.

This could go on and on. Many deserving people have contributed, but only the GNU people are crying that people call it L.inux. To quote the Jargon File entry for <{GNULINUX}>:

"Some people object that the name ?L.inux? should be used to refer only to the kernel, not the entire operating system. This claim is a proxy for an underlying territorial dispute; people who insist on the term GNU/L.inux want the FSF to get most of the credit for <{GNULINUX}> because RMS and friends wrote many of its user-level tools. Neither this theory nor the term GNU/L.inux has gained more than minority acceptance."

Anyway, call it what you want, but the battle has been lost. It's just like how some people cling to the old meaning of the term 'hacker'. To the average people hacker means a computer criminal. To the average person it will always be 'L.inux'.

#8 2072

2072

    Casio over god

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewherebourg
  • Interests:Cinema, Programming, Music and a lot of thing...

  • Calculators:
    AFX2 ROM 1.02, CFX-9940GT+, FX-180P-Plus

Posted 16 November 2005 - 06:53 AM

Well if GNU did not exist, Linux would never have... Are you aware of that?

At the time Linus wrote Linux, only the kernel was missing in the GNU OS.

Linux is only the kernel, ALL OTHER necessary parts to make an OS are from GNU. Linux without GNU is nothing...


And no one forces you to use the GNU GPL... It's a philosophy, a choice.
Moreover, I don't think that <{GNULINUX}> would be the same if the GPL did not exist... Think about it.


Now you should read this faq that answers a lot of your questions about why we should say <{GNULINUX}> and not Linux

http://www.gnu.org/g...-linux-faq.html
http://www.gnu.org/g...-linux-faq.html

Especially the answer to that question:

Would Linux have achieved the same success if there had been no GNU?

#9 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 November 2005 - 08:24 AM

Well if GNU did not exist, L.inux would never have... Are you aware of that?

At the time Linus wrote L.inux, only the kernel was missing in the GNU OS.

L.inux is only the kernel, ALL OTHER necessary parts to make an OS are from GNU. L.inux without GNU is nothing...


And without the L.inux kernel... well, Hurd hasn't exactly been a great success. Quoth Wikipedia:

Development on the Hurd began in 1990. By the early 1990s, it was the only major part of the GNU OS that was incomplete. The remainder of the GNU OS is currently used with <{GNULINUX}>, instead of the Hurd.

Despite an optimistic announcement by Richard Stallman in 2002 <span class=1' />, there have been no production releases of Hurd. There have been no new releases of Hurd on GNU Mach since 2002. There was an abortive attempt to branch GNU Mach called OSKit Mach, but it was a failure. In 2004, development of the Hurd shifted significantly towards the L4 microkernel family.

In 2005, Hurd developer Neal Walfield finished the initial memory management framework for the L4/Hurd port, and Marcus Brinkmann ported essential parts of glibc; namely, getting the process startup code working, allowing programs to run, thus allowing the first user programs (trivial ones such as the hello world program in C) to run.


I never said that GNU did nothing. They did. But other contributions are required for a modern OS. An X server for instance, unless you like doing everything at the command line. Without a GUI, GNU would never have a chance of becoming popular.

These other contributions are vital for a GNU OS to succeed. Why doesn't the FSF give them credit, and call it X/GNU?

And no one forces you to use the GNU GPL... It's a philosophy, a choice.


That's fine. I have no problems with that. However GNU want to take away my choice. Thats where I strongly disagree with them.


Moreover, I don't think that GNU/L.inux would be the same if the GPL did not exist... Think about it.
Now you should read this faq that answers a lot of your questions about why we should say GNU/L.inux and not L.inux

http://www.gnu.org/g.../Linux-faq.html
http://www.gnu.org/g.../Linux-faq.html

Especially the answer to that question:

Would L.inux have achieved the same success if there had been no GNU?


I've already read that page. Remember that this is coming from GNU - not exactly an unbiased observer. I've already posted quotes from Linus and ESR that give differening opinions.

GNU was important but not vital. *BSD, anyone?

I'm not going to participate in this naming argument anymore. It doesn't matter what we say here, 95% of people call it L.inux. GNU lost the war, L.inux won.

#10 Marco

Marco

    Casio Freak

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Location:Dresden, Germany

  • Calculators:
    Casio CFX 9850G (broken),
    Casio CFX 9850GB,
    Casio Algebra FX 2.0 Plus

Posted 16 November 2005 - 09:44 AM

I know perfectly well what the difference is between libre and gratis. The problem is 'free as in speech' leads directly to 'free as in beer'.

Lol. So we should cut freedom of speech or something? ;)

Btw. it's your own decision whether you want to write free or commercial software; nobody forces you to make your software that you wrote by yourself available for free + open source. Of course, if you used some parts of an open source software for your code, you can't make it commercial then because this was unfair to the one who wrote the open source code included in your software, isn't it? As far as I know it's just this like: if your code is based upon a GPL product (e.g. source code, development tool, ...), your product must be GPL, too. So where's the problem? You should be glad that free software exists.

And note: there is also commercial software available for <{GNULINUX}> - platform. <{GNULINUX}> doesn't mean open source / freeware by default.

---Edit:---

@2072: please remove that silly filter. It makes L inux GNU/GNU/L inux (with 2x GNU). Being forced to say GNU/L inux instead of L inux is no freedom of speech by the way :(

#11 2072

2072

    Casio over god

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewherebourg
  • Interests:Cinema, Programming, Music and a lot of thing...

  • Calculators:
    AFX2 ROM 1.02, CFX-9940GT+, FX-180P-Plus

Posted 16 November 2005 - 05:41 PM

I will enhance that filter (it's not working properly), but saying Linux is still a mistake for me when talking about the whole system... I want to correct this mistake.

And without the L.inux kernel... well, Hurd hasn't exactly been a great success. Quoth Wikipedia:


So they diserve equal credits right ? This is just about justice... If GNU did not exist, there would have been no <{GNULINUX}> system at all (or maybe it would have been a licensed OS like Window$... and would have died like other M$ competitors)

The only reason <{GNULINUX}> has became such a success is because it is "free software" using the GNU GPL... Don't you think they diserve some credits after all?

Hurd seems to be able to do far much than displaying "Hello world":
(unless an hello world program takes 4 CDs...)

http://www.debian.or...ts/hurd/hurd-cd

I never said that GNU did nothing. They did. But other contributions are required for a modern OS. An X server for instance, unless you like doing everything at the command line. Without a GUI, GNU would never have a chance of becoming popular.

These other contributions are vital for a GNU OS to succeed. Why doesn't the FSF give them credit, and call it X/GNU?


Simply because your great X server would not work if the GNU softwares were not here...(just think about the libc? Who wrote all those printf() etc... C libraries? isn't it GNU???)

GNOME is part of the GNU project by the way (even if it's only 6 years old)

I don't say that Linus should not get credits for Linux but that both of them are egually important to make a working <{GNULINUX}> OS...

GNU was important but not vital. *BSD, anyone?

I could write: Linux (the kernel) was important but not vital. *BSD, anyone? A quote (that is certainly wrong since comming from GNU.ORG):

[...] The BSD developers were inspired to make their code free software by the example of the GNU Project, and explicit appeals from GNU activists helped convince them to start, [...]

see the complete paragraph.

#12 huhn_m

huhn_m

    Casio Maniac

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1956 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany / Dresden
  • Interests:Assembler(!!!)<br />Computers and Programming<br />Operating Systems<br />Programmable Calculators<br />Maths and everything arround it<br />

  • Calculators:
    FX-82SX / AFX 2.0+ (ROM 1.03) / FX 1.0+ (ROM 1.03)

Posted 16 November 2005 - 09:44 PM

The comparrision with windows is dumb:

Windows is the OS. You call it this way. You don't call the OS kernel32.dll or stuff like that. You call it windows. Now Windows is made of the explorer, the kernel, the GDI and some other stuff (some of which we don't know)

<{GNULINUX}> is made of: The Linux Kernel, the GNU Operating System that is made of GCC, GLIBC, and so on. These tools have been combined under the name GNU Operating System. So it actually needs to be called GNU. BUT since Linus did such great work and made the OS stand alone he was elected to get special creadit and hence the OS is should be called <{GNULINUX}>. You wouldn't call your windows XP kernel32.dll or Windows NT 5.1 (what it essentially is).

#13 burntfuse

burntfuse

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 12 posts

  • Calculators:
    TI-86
    TI-85
    TI-83+

Posted 16 November 2005 - 10:09 PM

Look, why doesn't everyone who wants to call the package of the Linux kernel with GNU and other software Linux call it Linux, and the people who want to call it <{GNULINUX}> call it <{GNULINUX}>? If GNU publicity is the issue, most people who don't know that coreutils and stuff like that are part of the GNU project are going to find out soon enough. What people (either Linux or <{GNULINUX}> - I'm not taking sides) choose to call a system shouldn't be such a big deal that it starts flamewars.

Anyways, these post should all be deleted, and we should get back on topic.

#14 2072

2072

    Casio over god

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewherebourg
  • Interests:Cinema, Programming, Music and a lot of thing...

  • Calculators:
    AFX2 ROM 1.02, CFX-9940GT+, FX-180P-Plus

Posted 16 November 2005 - 11:48 PM

OK, the filter is now much more clever (and powerful), if you write <{GNULINUX}> once in your post it won't replace further 'linux' words :)...

#15 Forty-Two

Forty-Two

    Casio Overlord

  • Deputy
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 515 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Well, The sign says "You are here"...

  • Calculators:
    Casio fx-CG10 Prizm
    Casio fx-9860GII
    TI-84+ SE

Posted 27 May 2012 - 08:42 PM

Necropost!

This whole replacement thing is really getting on my nerves. When I say linux, I do not mean <{GNULINUX}>. The whole thing is absurd in the first place; no one says "I just installed <{GNULINUX}>." or "I just gave my <{GNULINUX}> box a spanking new processor." They say "I just installed linux" or "I just gave my linux box a spanking new processor" Second of all, I don't mean <{GNULINUX}> either. I mean the kernel. Anything else that came with the system is the distro. I don't say <{GNULINUX}>/X11/Xfce/Whatever. I don't say Windows/Apache when I talk about a web server. As far as I'm concerned, the kernel is the OS.

#16 flyingfisch

flyingfisch

    Casio Maniac

  • Deputy
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1869 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:OH,USA
  • Interests:Casio Calculators, Python programming, Flash 8, PHP, Lua, plane-watching, aviation, skiing, running, umm... Calculators, Python -- wait a second, I already said that!

  • Calculators:
    fx-9860GII
    fx-CG10 PRIZM

Posted 29 May 2012 - 10:51 PM

Necropost!

This whole replacement thing is really getting on my nerves. When I say linux, I do not mean <{GNULINUX}>. The whole thing is absurd in the first place; no one says "I just installed <{GNULINUX}>." or "I just gave my <{GNULINUX}> box a spanking new processor." They say "I just installed linux" or "I just gave my linux box a spanking new processor" Second of all, I don't mean <{GNULINUX}> either. I mean the kernel. Anything else that came with the system is the distro. I don't say <{GNULINUX}>/X11/Xfce/Whatever. I don't say Windows/Apache when I talk about a web server. As far as I'm concerned, the kernel is the OS.



seconded.

#17 2072

2072

    Casio over god

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewherebourg
  • Interests:Cinema, Programming, Music and a lot of thing...

  • Calculators:
    AFX2 ROM 1.02, CFX-9940GT+, FX-180P-Plus

Posted 29 May 2012 - 11:33 PM

I strongly disagree, the kernel is not the OS, without GNU, Linux wouldn't have been possible in the first place... You remove GNU from <{GNULINUX}> and there is no OS, it's like a nervous system without a body.


Just read http://www.gnu.org/g...ux-faq.html#why

#18 Forty-Two

Forty-Two

    Casio Overlord

  • Deputy
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 515 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Well, The sign says "You are here"...

  • Calculators:
    Casio fx-CG10 Prizm
    Casio fx-9860GII
    TI-84+ SE

Posted 30 May 2012 - 01:06 AM

I strongly disagree, the kernel is not the OS, without GNU, Linux wouldn't have been possible in the first place... You remove GNU from <{GNULINUX}> and there is no OS, it's like a nervous system without a body.


Just read http://www.gnu.org/g...ux-faq.html#why


I've read that before I posted here.

I'd like to show you a picture of the families of windows:

Posted Image

As you can see, Windows XP, Vista, and several other versions use the NT kernel. However, we do not call these XP/NT or Vista/NT.

The root of this controversy is egoism, and the perceived lack of credit.

Some people object that the name "Linux" should be used to refer only to the kernel, not the entire operating system. This claim is a proxy for an underlying territorial dispute; people who insist on the term <{GNULINUX}> want the FSF to get most of the credit for Linux because [Stallman] and friends wrote many of its user-level tools. Neither this theory nor the term <{GNULINUX}> has gained more than minority acceptance.


(To read more about the reasons behind this, check out <http://www.catb.org/.../homesteading/>)

In your link, we see the quote

Since a long name such as GNU/X11/Apache/Linux/TeX/Perl/Python/FreeCiv becomes absurd, at some point you will have to set a threshold and omit the names of the many other secondary contributions. There is no one obvious right place to set the threshold, so wherever you set it, we won't argue against it


I think the threshold lies after "linux." I acknowledge that linux would have never existed without GNU, but GNU would only have survived as an unorthodox group of hackers flaunting an os minux the head, without linux. The contribution made to linux by GNU cannot be understated, however, the naming controversy is detrimental to the community.

Well, I think it's justified, but it's justified if you actually make a GNU distribution of Linux ... the same way that I think that "Red Hat Linux" is fine, or "SuSE Linux" or "Debian Linux", because if you actually make your own distribution of Linux, you get to name the thing, but calling Linux in general "GNU Linux" I think is just ridiculous.


Umm, this discussion has gone on quite long enough, thank you very much. It doesn't really matter what people call Linux, as long as credit is given where credit is due (on both sides). Personally, I'll very much continue to call it "Linux".


Linus has the right point of view on this subject spurred from egoism and territorial disputes: that it is detrimental to the community, is absurd, and needs to end.

#19 2072

2072

    Casio over god

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewherebourg
  • Interests:Cinema, Programming, Music and a lot of thing...

  • Calculators:
    AFX2 ROM 1.02, CFX-9940GT+, FX-180P-Plus

Posted 20 June 2012 - 08:24 AM

I've read that before I posted here.

I'd like to show you a picture of the families of windows:

Posted Image

As you can see, Windows XP, Vista, and several other versions use the NT kernel. However, we do not call these XP/NT or Vista/NT.


Except the Windows OS has always been done by one company. Moreover "Windows" describes the whole OS where the kernel is just a small part of it. So it doesn't make sense to call it "Windows Seven/NT".
If the GNU team had finished their kernel (Hurd) before Linux was created, the whole OS would have just been called GNU not GNU/Hurd (as a reminder GNU is an acronym for Gnu is Not Unix).

The root of this controversy is egoism, and the perceived lack of credit.


In my opinion it's just a fairness and justice issue. Linus Torvalds is the one getting all the credits for Linu× (I mean in the general population's head). So sometimes it's good to remind (if not teach) people what Linux actually is ("just" the kernel).
The goal of the GNU project always has been to build a free and open source version of Unix. Only the kernel was missing, Linus Torvalds stepped in at the right time and created the only missing piece...
Does that mean the GNU project deserves to be forgotten altogether?

A good way to explains the feelings behind this naming controversy is that the idea of the GNU GPL is to encourage Freeware and open source development by always respecting the original authors and mentioning them in the credits: your work can be modified and re-used at will given that your name stays and the derived project also uses the GNU GPL. The GNU GPL thus effectively prevents someone else from stealing your work, writing his name at the top of it and finally earning money/credits on your back...

So writing 'Linux' instead of '<{GNULINUX}>' somehow goes against this very spirit. GNU has been forgotten in the process and Linus Torvalds is surreptitiously getting all the credits for the OS... (this is an image of course but for non geeks, Linus Torvalds IS the only inventor and genius behind <{GNULINUX}>)

(To read more about the reasons behind this, check out <http://www.catb.org/.../homesteading/>)

I think the threshold lies after "linux." I acknowledge that linux would have never existed without GNU, but GNU would only have survived as an unorthodox group of hackers flaunting an os minux the head, without linux. The contribution made to linux by GNU cannot be understated, however, the naming controversy is detrimental to the community.


This is an educational issue: when I speak (not write) about Linux, I don't say "<{GNULINUX}>", I just say '"Linux". Simply because "<{GNULINUX}>" doesn't sound well and is not easy to pronounce. However "<{GNULINUX}>" is quite easy to read and put things back right where they belong.
This website touches young people, it's an opportunity to teach them what is Linux and what is fairness.

I'm quite sure that if the GNU project's very name had been more appealing than 'Linux' its name would have stayed... It's as stupid as that in the end.

On a side note, this emphasizes that whatever you create, take the time to choose a good name for it, a name that's easy to pronounce and sounds well, else your creation will not thrive and might just end up being forgotten after a short time.

Linus has the right point of view on this subject spurred from egoism and territorial disputes: that it is detrimental to the community, is absurd, and needs to end.


I don't see it as detrimental but really as educational. I'm very sensitive to injustice (it's not a good thing in this world) and I can't but protest and try to make things right when I stumble upon a case of injustice. In this case it was easy: I just had to add 4 letters and a link and *pouf* people learn the truth. In any case it's certainly not 'absurd'.

#20 Forty-Two

Forty-Two

    Casio Overlord

  • Deputy
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 515 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Well, The sign says "You are here"...

  • Calculators:
    Casio fx-CG10 Prizm
    Casio fx-9860GII
    TI-84+ SE

Posted 16 July 2012 - 08:57 PM

Stallman's Latest Proclamation

Richard M. Stallman doesn't want you to say "Windows" anymore. He is now
advocating that people call this OS by its real name:
Microsoft-Xerox-Apple-Windows. This proclamation comes on the heels of his
controversial stand that Linux should be called GNU/Linux. RMS explained in a
Usenet posting, "Calling Microsoft's OS 'Windows' is a grave inaccuracy. Xerox
and Apple both contributed significant ideas and innovations to this OS. Why
should Microsoft get all the credit?"

RMS also hinted that people shouldn't refer to Microsoft's web browser as IE.
"It should really be called Microsoft-Spyglass-Mosaic-Internet-Explorer. Again,
how much credit does Microsoft really deserve for this product? Much of the
base code was licensed from Spyglass."

Many industry pundits are less than thrilled about RMS' proclamation. The
editor of Windows Magazine exclaimed, "What?!?! Yeah, we'll rename our magazine
Microsoft-Xerox-Apple-Windows Magazine. That just rolls off the tongue!" A
Ziff-Davis columnist noted, "Think of all the wasted space this would cause. If
we spelled out everything like this, we'd have headlines like, 'Microsoft
Releases Service Pack 5 for Microsoft-Xerox-Apple-Windows Neutered Technology
4.0' Clearly this is unacceptable."






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users