linux is not gnu/linux

BlackFenix · 2005-02-22 12:12:23

http://www.topology.org/linux/lingl.html

arooaroo · 2005-02-22 12:38:52

Hmmm... I think this guy's got a chip on his shoulder. He's obviously very anti-GNU.

His [rather poor] analogy made me laugh out loud:

If you live in the USA, you might like to think of it this way.
Calling linux GNU/linux is like referring to the USA as England/USA.
Do you really want to be called England/USA?
After all, the USA borrowed its language from England, and many of its customs, and many of its people.
Surely this should be acknowledged by referring to the USA from now on as England/USA!

Hmm... maybe he's anti-English too. lol

rose · 2005-02-22 16:03:58

Kernel-helper programs such as "kswapd" are arguably an integral part of the operating system although they are in user-space.

I always thought kswapd is not an user space program but a kernel thread.

Basic software utilities are needed by the linux operating system.
But the basic software utilities are not part of linux.

Nobody says gcc is part of Linux. It is a part of GNU/Linux, which IS an operating system.

His main point is that operating system ONLY consists of the kernel. It's obvious he is wrong. I won't make any comments on his other (dump by the way) statements.

I support Stallman. GCC (but not neccessarly GNU awk!) is really a part of the operating system - it is the main feature which enables portability between hardware platforms.

Why Stallman doesn't include a paragraph in new GPL 3.0 stating that the compiler cannot be used for compiling anything which has "Linux" in its name? That would end all these useless discussions.

neotuli · 2005-02-22 16:14:40

rose wrote:

Kernel-helper programs such as "kswapd" are arguably an integral part of the operating system although they are in user-space.
I always thought kswapd is not an user space program but a kernel thread.

Yea it's a kernel thread, this guy's an idiot.

idiot wrote:

linux distribution = linux + GNU + XFree86 + thousands of applications

XFree?!? Since when is that a requirement to be a distro? http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=links#floppy ..all of those certainly are distros, and certainly don't have XFree...

Also, this guy seems caught up in the difference between "gnu/linux" and "linux/gnu" ... is there really a difference...NO.

idiot wrote:

2004-6-5: The fact that so many people erroneously call linux gnu/linux shows that bullying works. The US American bully has forced the majority of people in the world to think that they invented a piece of software that was actually invented by a European. Once again the world bows to the US American bully. It is no coincidence that the GNU mascot looks like a bull.

uhhh.... and ya'll thought he was anti-English...how about anti-American too? Seeing as this has very little to do with anything in this case, and he still has to pull this into it....

I'm too disgusted to read the rest of this article.

PS: if the author of that article ever happens to read this, I suggest you seek some medical help as well as counseling immediatly.

rose · 2005-02-22 16:27:17

By the way, why everybody insists on naming the system either Linux or GNU/Linux? Linux is a kernel - not OS. Let's name it Linux kernel. GNU is not an operating system - it is a set of tools. Let's name it GNU tools.
Let's call OS-es "Slackware", "Arch", "CRUX", "Gentoo", "Joe's Own OS", etc.
GCC and Linux are common good (but copyrighted) and everybody can name their binaries whatever they want.

arooaroo · 2005-02-22 16:59:26

neotuli wrote:

uhhh.... and ya'll thought he was anti-English...how about anti-American too?

But I thought everyone was anti-American though!

Just kidding, honest!

neotuli · 2005-02-22 17:09:30

arooaroo wrote:

But I thought everyone was anti-American though!
Just kidding, honest!

I'm a dual citizen, and I just happen to live here.

Seeing it from my up close and personal perspective, I can see why the world is this way.

skoal · 2005-02-22 18:37:44

Hey, I like the "cut of this guy's jib". I haven't read the whole thing yet, but will later tonite. I already agree with his premise.

It was just the other day I was on some subdomain of gnu.org. Those guys were going out of their way to actually rename GTK -> GNU Tool Kit. Talk about revisionist history. If you don't believe me, or the premise of this guy's article, just check out their autotools documentation. You get more doctrine than real information.

phrakture · 2005-02-22 18:57:01

I didn't read the article (yet) but here's my take on the issue:
GNU/Hurd - that's fine.... the GNU people think linux took ideas from them, but it's from Minix, as history can recall...

Considering GNU is a set of tools, and programs, it's kinda like saying "I run Norton/Windows at home"...

For me, I run Linux and use GNU and non-GNU tools to do my day-to-day business...

miqorz · 2005-02-22 19:17:45

I use Arch GNU/Linux. I use the GNU utilities.

I don't use busybox, libc6, tinycc and vim.

I use coreutils, glibc, gcc and emacs.

I don't think that the KERNEL should be called GNU/Linux.
But I am using a GNU system. So It's GNU/Linux.

It's very simple really.

cactus · 2005-02-22 20:03:13

What an idiot that guy is. Super milk chan said it best: "You dumbass!"

If it wasn't for the gnu application stack, there would be no "operating system" that is usable. The GNU "foundation" developers had everything else needed for a usable system done, and were working on a kernel themselves (hurd). It just happened that they had problem after problem implementing a message passing microkernel. So, tired of waiting, Linus wrote a macrokernel (monolithic) so he could play around with something. Read his original posts on the matter, and he even says, "something until hurd comes out" or something to that effect.

So, people merrily married the kernel to the GNU app stack, and so crafted a usable system.

Operating system core does indeed dilineate the kernel and the immediate toolchain that makes the kernel run (device drivers, userspace kernel hooks, etc.). However, most people when they say "Windows" mean more than just the operating system core, they mean the "system". Everything that comes on the install cd.

Similarly, when people say Linux, they are also referring to not only the operating system core, but everything that makes up a usable system. An operating system is not a whole lot of use without apps running on top of it.

In short: I cannot believe I wasted my time reading that piffle trash. I want my 20 minutes back!

EDIT: The guy is even dumber that I though, or a shill out trolling. Another of his articles is about how the gpl is bad for programmers. Awful jackass.

miqorz · 2005-02-22 20:06:19

cactus wrote:

What an idiot that guy is. Super milk chan said it best: "You dumbass!"

Hah, I love you man.

BlackFenix · 2005-02-22 23:52:45

1) This is not my opinion.
2) I did not write this.
3) I only found interesting to place link here.

cactus · 2005-02-23 00:02:53

4) we all realize that
when referring to "him" I am sure everyome means the author of the site, and not you.
8)

Dusty · 2005-02-23 00:05:43

Perhaps the world would be a better place if somebody who doesn't care about names rewrote all the GNU tools.

Calling the thing something is really senseless, its using it that counts. You can call it Microsoft Windows (tm) for all I care, its the same programs underneath.

Dusty

cactus · 2005-02-23 00:29:33

the point has been somewhat lost with the passage of time. There was a time when the Unix wars ensued, where it was actually necessary to claim that it was not unix, ie a cleanroom implementation.
Thankfully, I didn't compute much back in the day, so I didn't have to deal with such nonsense.

sarah31 · 2005-02-23 02:58:37

my dog barks some

Arch Linux

#1 2005-02-22 12:12:23

linux is not gnu/linux

#2 2005-02-22 12:38:52

Re: linux is not gnu/linux

#3 2005-02-22 16:03:58

Re: linux is not gnu/linux

#4 2005-02-22 16:14:40

Re: linux is not gnu/linux

#5 2005-02-22 16:27:17

Re: linux is not gnu/linux

#6 2005-02-22 16:59:26

Re: linux is not gnu/linux

#7 2005-02-22 17:09:30

Re: linux is not gnu/linux

#8 2005-02-22 18:37:44

Re: linux is not gnu/linux

#9 2005-02-22 18:57:01

Re: linux is not gnu/linux

#10 2005-02-22 19:17:45

Re: linux is not gnu/linux

#11 2005-02-22 20:03:13

Re: linux is not gnu/linux

#12 2005-02-22 20:06:19

Re: linux is not gnu/linux

#13 2005-02-22 23:52:45

Re: linux is not gnu/linux

#14 2005-02-23 00:02:53

Re: linux is not gnu/linux

#15 2005-02-23 00:05:43

Re: linux is not gnu/linux

#16 2005-02-23 00:29:33

Re: linux is not gnu/linux

#17 2005-02-23 02:58:37

Re: linux is not gnu/linux

Board footer