The problem of "GNU/Linux" "duplicity"

Primoz · 2009-05-26 19:40:10

No this is not about the naming scheme. It's about is the "bundling" of GNU and Linux in one OS a good or a bad thing.
As you know Linux is just an kernel and GNU is the underlying system that makes most of "stuff" work.
But history tells us that GNU and Linux weren't meant to be part of same OS.
Linux was a hobby kernel developed by Torvalds "for fun".
And GNU was a part of OS called GNU HURD developed by Stallman.
But the HURD development wasn't going anywhere so Linux was choosen by Stallman to be an "interim" kernel to test GNU.

So the question is do you believe this is a good or a bad thing?
The way I see it can be both. Good and bad.
So first the good points about this:
-It's "modular" if we could decide to change any part of it by something else if we wanted...
-It has more opportunities for openness and development. If you're not satisfied by something you can develop it by your self. It might be harder when things are closely linked in one "whole" OS.

Bad things:
-Again the "modularity" as said before GNU and Linux were not developed so that they would work together. But the comment here could be that that "was" ancient" history and now they truly are a whole system.

So what's your opinion on this (hope this isn't an "re-occurring discussion) matter?
Is GNU/Linux any better or worse than other OS in which all components were developed with it in mind?
Is BSD, Solaris any different in this sense or do they use GNU to some extent to?
Or what about OS X, AFAIK it's all diferent "unixes" thrown together ...
And Windows isn't a shining example of tightly developed OS either...
If someone isn't sure I'm not trying to troll; I just want a healthy discussion.

Primoz · 2009-05-26 20:12:25

I see that this is viewed but not commented on; I wonder why
Anyway. To get the ball rolling, I think that GNU/Linux is fun and good system and that the GNU/Linux is now a normally working OS just as any other.
But the modularity gives opportunities.
Gentoo and Debian decided to swap Linux (not sure for GNU part) for kFreeBSD as one of their option.
And as has been said before an Arch with any kernel other then Linux would be awesome community project.

PS.: If mods feel this was discussed to death before and that I wrapped it up good myself; they can move / lock this topic. I won't mind.

Peasantoid · 2009-05-26 20:46:53

The GNU tools are very mature and interoperate well with the Linux kernel. Finding a drop-in replacement for them would be difficult — they've been part of the system for so long — but not impossible.

As for Mac OS X: as far as I can tell, the underlying system is BSD-based. The kernel is XNU (X is Not Unix — GNU ripoff, anyone?), which I believe is Mach-based. So yeah, it's more or less Unix... but you can't really tell because of all the stuff Apple threw in.

mang · 2009-05-26 21:38:11

I don't know much about kernels and i didn't acctually know there were other free kernels but linux. I thought the reason they didn't finish the Hurd was it would be to much work instead of use linux.
So what is the difference to kFree/kNetBSD? And would it be worth all the work to write a new one when we could make changes in linux to what we liked it to be?
Interesting though. i never thought of it

PJ · 2009-05-26 22:26:07

Actually, I think it would be more interesting to see a Linux kernel with something else than GNU for the userland. Embedded Linux doesn't really count in this case. I have never seen the Linux kernel with the BSD userland or any thing equivalent.

The other way around isn't that hard to find:
Nexenta - OpenSolaris kernel with Ubuntu userland.
Debian GNU/NetBSD - Debian with the kernel from NetBSD.
Debian GNU/HURD - Debian running on top of HURD
Debian GNU/kFreeBSD - Debian with the kernel from FreeBSD.
Preventa- Debian with the Minix kernel.

I wouldn't be to surprised if glibc and other GNU tools were used in Haiku, Syllable and AROS.

Last edited by PJ (2009-05-26 22:29:27)

bernarcher · 2009-05-26 22:34:34

I had an intense look at Hurd about two years ago. Its modular concept is still promising, if only somewhat "ancient". In my opinion it lacks depth, refinement and not the least considerable manpower to get it done in forseable future.
It is not to be compared to Linux, just another way to implement a Unix-like OS, as e.g. Minix is as well.

Still it is a pity that the project grows in such a snail's tempo.

Last edited by bernarcher (2009-05-26 22:35:07)

Peanut · 2009-05-26 22:52:40

mang wrote:

So what is the difference to kFree/kNetBSD?

Berkley Software Distribution is an ancient operating system based on the original UNIX. FreeBSD and NetBSD are two examples of modern operating systems that are derived from this BSD system, Both GNU/Linux and *BSD are inspired by the original UNIX, and they all adhere (more or less) to a standard called "POSIX", making it easy to port software between the different systems.

GNU/kFreeBSD uses the kernel of the FreeBSD operating system, but replaces the software around it (the "base system") with software from GNU.

b9anders · 2009-06-01 10:14:43

Peasantoid wrote:

The GNU tools are very mature and interoperate well with the Linux kernel. Finding a drop-in replacement for them would be difficult — they've been part of the system for so long — but not impossible.
As for Mac OS X: as far as I can tell, the underlying system is BSD-based. The kernel is XNU (X is Not Unix — GNU ripoff, anyone?), which I believe is Mach-based. So yeah, it's more or less Unix... but you can't really tell because of all the stuff Apple threw in.

OS X is certified Unix actually.

sylvarant · 2009-06-01 10:28:11

They screwed up Hurd with some bad technical decisions at the beginning of the development.
I doubt there ever going to finish it

Peasantoid · 2009-06-01 11:17:35

b9anders wrote:

Peasantoid wrote:
The GNU tools are very mature and interoperate well with the Linux kernel. Finding a drop-in replacement for them would be difficult — they've been part of the system for so long — but not impossible.
As for Mac OS X: as far as I can tell, the underlying system is BSD-based. The kernel is XNU (X is Not Unix — GNU ripoff, anyone?), which I believe is Mach-based. So yeah, it's more or less Unix... but you can't really tell because of all the stuff Apple threw in.
OS X is certified Unix actually.

And...?

oli · 2009-06-01 16:27:44

Peanut wrote:

mang wrote:
So what is the difference to kFree/kNetBSD?
Berkley Software Distribution is an ancient operating system based on the original UNIX. FreeBSD and NetBSD are two examples of modern operating systems that are derived from this BSD system, Both GNU/Linux and *BSD are inspired by the original UNIX, and they all adhere (more or less) to a standard called "POSIX", making it easy to port software between the different systems.
GNU/kFreeBSD uses the kernel of the FreeBSD operating system, but replaces the software around it (the "base system") with software from GNU.

>*BSD are inspired by the original UNIX

*BSD defined original UNIX the way people look at it today. First it was a patchset, then a fork and ancestor for a range of BSD-UNIX operating systems, like SunOS, HP/UX, IBM AIX and so on. So modern *BSD aren't inspired by UNIX, they are free UNIX derivatives with a long and shiny history. Many of the original developers are still with FreeBSD for example, like Dr Marshall Kirk McKusick.

http://www.oreilly.de/catalog/opensourc … rkmck.html
http://sunsite.uakom.sk/sunworldonline/ … 1-bsd.html
http://www.lemis.com/bsdpaper.html#realunix
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2000/03 … tml?page=1

But don't confuse todays UNIX trademark with original UNIX or 'history of UNIX'.

Peanut · 2009-06-01 19:02:20

oli wrote:

First it was a patchset, then a fork and ancestor for a range of BSD-UNIX operating systems, like SunOS, HP/UX, IBM AIX and so on. So modern *BSD aren't inspired by UNIX, they are free UNIX derivatives with a long and shiny history.

I don't know much about SunOS, IBM AIX and HP/UX. I just looked it up, and it seems you're right for these systems.

With *BSD I was mainly addressing those I do know something of - FreeBSD, NetBSD and their derivatives. These systems were based on 4.4BSD-Lite, which explicitly did not contain anything that originated in AT&T UNIX, which was the system I was referring to by the title "the original UNIX".

[EDIT]
I see your point, though:

One of the links above wrote:

Initial BSD releases consisted mainly of user programs, but that changed dramatically when the CSRG landed a contract with the Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency (DARPA) to upgrade the communications protocols on their network, ARPANET. The new protocols were known as the Internet Protocols, later TCP/IP after the most important protocols. The first widely distributed implementation was part of 4.2BSD, in 1982.
(...)
When AT&T themselves were allowed to sell UNIX commercially, they started with a somewhat bare-bones implementation called System III, to be quickly followed by System V. The System V code base did not include networking, so all implementions included additional software from the BSD, including the TCP/IP software, but also utilities such as the csh shell and the vi editor. Collectively, these enhancements were known as the Berkeley Extensions.

Last edited by Peanut (2009-06-01 19:14:17)

Arien · 2009-06-25 21:24:02

Just two points I noticed in the initial post that seemed eroneous to me:

1. The name of the OS the GNU Project strives to create is simply 'GNU'. Though you are correct so far that the Debian Project uses 'Debian GNU/Hurd' in order to prevent confusion with Debian GNU/Linux. (And GNU is still an FSF Project and with Debian not adhering to FSF Free Software guidelines I guess the FSF would object anyways)
Hurd or 'the Hurd' is just the name for the kernel of GNU. It does not even point to a specific kernel project. For example at first Hurd was based on 'CMU Mach'. When Carnegie Mellon University declared their project fubar in the early ninties, this pretty much left the derived version 'GNU Mach'(then 'the Hurd') dead in its tracks for the next dozen years. Then in about 2004 there has been a tentative revival of work on the 'Hurd' this time being based on an experimental L4 kernel. And more recently (2006-now) basing it on the kernel of Coyotos.

3. Stallman did not choose 'Linux' as a replacement kernel for GNU when GNU Mach failed. And surprisingly neither did Linus Torvalds choose GNU as a replacement for the Minix Userland. The real founding Fathers of our modern GNU/Linux Distributions are people like Adam Richter, H.J. Lu, Ian Murdock, Patrick Volkerding etc... etc... (And besides it is a neat way of obsoleting the old 'who created Linux?' debates :)

Ranguvar · 2009-06-27 01:44:03

Arien wrote:

Stallman did not choose 'Linux' as a replacement kernel for GNU when GNU Mach failed. And surprisingly neither did Linus Torvalds choose GNU as a replacement for the Minix Userland. The real founding Fathers of our modern GNU/Linux Distributions are people like Adam Richter, H.J. Lu, Ian Murdock, Patrick Volkerding etc... etc... (And besides it is a neat way of obsoleting the old 'who created Linux?' debates

Well, kind of. You're right, mostly, except that Linus did choose GNU. He didn't make some mailing list announcement that he recommended GNU tools or anything, of course But he did himself use the GNU userland, and from the earliest point in his public announcements about Linux he has talked about how much it was compatible or incompatible with GNU tools like GCC and bash (http://www.linux.org/people/linus_post.html). So, he did specifically work to make Linux compatible with GNU tools. This isn't quite "choosing" GNU, but he did ensure that Linux and GNU could work together. Again, NOT because he liked GNU special or had some ulterior motive He just used GNU himself.

Do note that Linux can be paired with other userlands (I think you can do Linux with the BSD userland, it's at least possible), and the GNU userland can be paired with BSD kernels and the Hurd, etc.

Anyways, on the merits of building a project as a whole (BSD) vs the piecemeal growth of GNU/Linux, I like the latter. One, I just like the "feel" of it more. As I've mentioned before, the *BSD distros always feel like businesses to me. I _know_ they're not (and there's nothing truly wrong with that anyways), but they do -- all of GNU/Linux, especially distros like Arch, feel like community hack projects to me, and I _love_ that. Not in the way that the OS is inferior, it just feels like an organic development, like there were less decisions made on the integration and instead things were left to develop naturally, choices made based on which projects were furthest along and doing the best. Two, while the project-as-a-whole approach has technical merits based around the fact that all parts are developed together for the purpose of the whole, it has major flaws as well. It's Mac vs. PC, in a way. The Mac is developed with the OS intended for specific hardware. Apple touts this as an advantage in their ads, and it means a lot of good things for Apple indeed, like not having to deal with the myriad of hardware configurations Microsoft is forced to support, but it has disadvantages. In the Apple case, it's a monopoly in the making. Seriously, one company for hardware *and* OS, *and* a great deal of add-on software, *and* other add-on hardware (iPod, iPhone...?)? Warning bells should be ringing. In the case of BSD, the problem they face is that they are creating a monolithic beast. To be sure, pieces of BSD may split off and new ones may be chosen, but for all the weaknesses _early on_ of GNU/Linux's hundreds of distros, it has become a living organism. It is much more flexible than BSD, IMHO.

tkdfighter · 2009-06-27 11:44:50

Of course both methods have their benefits and deficits. I use (GNU-)Linux because in many ways it is more advanced than BSD, in terms of open source and proprietary software support (Matlab, Maple, Skype, Flash, ...). Most open source projects seem to be developed for Linux and then ported to other OSes. BSD does have a totally different feeling to it than Linux does. Just more, well, the whole piece, integrated feeling. Their documentation, the man pages and online handbook are way superior than anything I have seen on Linux so far. I have to admit that I am a bit spoiled by Arch, though

Arch Linux

#1 2009-05-26 19:40:10

The problem of "GNU/Linux" "duplicity"

#2 2009-05-26 20:12:25

Re: The problem of "GNU/Linux" "duplicity"

#3 2009-05-26 20:46:53

Re: The problem of "GNU/Linux" "duplicity"

#4 2009-05-26 21:38:11

Re: The problem of "GNU/Linux" "duplicity"

#5 2009-05-26 22:26:07

Re: The problem of "GNU/Linux" "duplicity"

#6 2009-05-26 22:34:34

Re: The problem of "GNU/Linux" "duplicity"

#7 2009-05-26 22:52:40

Re: The problem of "GNU/Linux" "duplicity"

#8 2009-06-01 10:14:43

Re: The problem of "GNU/Linux" "duplicity"

#9 2009-06-01 10:28:11

Re: The problem of "GNU/Linux" "duplicity"

#10 2009-06-01 11:17:35

Re: The problem of "GNU/Linux" "duplicity"

#11 2009-06-01 16:27:44

Re: The problem of "GNU/Linux" "duplicity"

#12 2009-06-01 19:02:20

Re: The problem of "GNU/Linux" "duplicity"

#13 2009-06-25 21:24:02

Re: The problem of "GNU/Linux" "duplicity"

#14 2009-06-27 01:44:03

Re: The problem of "GNU/Linux" "duplicity"

#15 2009-06-27 11:44:50

Re: The problem of "GNU/Linux" "duplicity"

Board footer