19 replies to this topic

[2072]

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 - 10:52 PM.

[2072]

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

[huhn_m]

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 )

[huhn_m]

"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 - 06:02 AM.

[2072]

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?

[Marco]

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

[2072]

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.

[huhn_m]

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).

[burntfuse]

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.

[2072]

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 ...

[Forty-Two]

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.

[flyingfisch]

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.

[2072]

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

[Forty-Two]

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:



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.

[2072]

I've read that before I posted here.

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



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'.

[Forty-Two]

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."