8 ms·

GNU/kWindows

57 points by mikegerwitz 11y ago

suzeanne 11y ago
A key excerpt from the article: ‘This combination is referred to as GNU/kWindows (GNU with the Windows kernel added). Microsoft and Canonical have apparently been working together to write a subsystem that translates Linux system calls into something Windows will understand—a compatibility layer. So, software compiled to run on a system with the kernel Linux will work on Windows through system call translation. Many articles are calling this system “Ubuntu on Windows”, or “Linux on Windows”. This is a fallacy: the kernel Linux is not at all involved! What we are witnessing is the GNU operating system running with a Windows kernel instead of Linux.’
- ryao 11y ago
  Microsoft wrote the kernel parts. Canonical provided the Ubuntu userland image. I heard it straight from Canonical in an in-person chat last week on the day it was announced.
stcredzero 11y ago
I recently read an article that referred to GNU Bash as “Linux’s Bash”; this is simply a slap in the face to the GNU Project and all the hackers that have for the past 26 years (since 1989) been writing what is one of today’s most widely used shells on Unix-like systems, including on Apple’s proprietary Mac OSX. I think this speaks worlds -- about exactly how bad and anti-productive the FSF's PR has been at times in the past 26 years. I remember sending liason email to an FSF secretary in the early 2000's. Smalltalkers had always liked the idea of seeing the source to everything. In fact, you can't really hide the source very well, because de-compilation is trivial for Smalltalk. The person at the FSF was far more concerned with politics and correcting my terminology than actually talking to me. It made me not want to talk with him or deal with him at all. (Ironically, many Smalltalkers did the same sort of thing to outsiders of their community as well.) Takeaway: Just because you're philosophically correct and far-sighted, that doesn't mean you can get away with alienating potential allies and bad PR. Above, I cite two examples.
- zxcvcxz 11y ago
  They don't consider it "philosophically correct", but customary. When you go to Japan does people following differing customs (like bowing) feel alienating? That's how I see this. This is part of a culture with certain customs. What you're saying probably makes people of this culture feel alienated and many of them already are.
  - mwfunk 11y ago
    The FSF isn't a different culture though, not in the sense that you're talking about. They live in the exact same culture as the people around them. It's alienating because asking people reasonable questions and getting lectured about not phrasing the questions using their approved terminology* instead of getting a reasonable answer to those reasonable questions is rather alienating. * And their terminology is based on what always seemed like an intentional strategy of attaching very specific and nonintuitive definitions to commonly used words with dozens of dictionary definitions already. So if anyone has given up their privilege to lecture people about misusing terminology, it's them, because they created the confusion in the first place by overloading common terms instead of creating new terms to represent their (very unique and complicated) ideals.
    - zxcvcxz 11y ago
      Ah, see now you're being really disrespectful by denying that their culture even exists. Is America all one culture too? No, sub-cultures exist and I think that's fine.
  - stcredzero 11y ago
    Is the main point to be alienated or is the point to further your cause through effective outreach? I suspect they thought the former was the main point, but group pathologies made it the latter. (Again, this applies to both groups I mention in my comment above.)
- tcdent 11y ago
  > how bad and anti-productive the FSF's PR has been at times in the past 26 years I'd apply that same sentiment to this article as well. They haven't received the recognition they deserve, and because they're always at the ready to remind you of it, they remain alienated. Nobody wants to have to apologize for circumstances that are everyone's fault... or no-one's. Don't get me wrong, I love most everything GNU stands for, but their message has never been well received because of it's confused agenda. They absolutely deserve the truth to be known, and we should be listening to their opinions, but when an authoritative statement serves essentially as a complaint about the state of their authority, it's no wonder we tune out. This was a great opportunity to elegantly explain the distinction, sans snark, sans agenda, but they failed so miserably even comments in this HN discussion are still using the wrong terminology.
zxcvcxz 11y ago
>But what if you’re using GNU/Linux today? In that case, it is a major downgrade to switch to a GNU/kWindows system; by doing so, you are surrendering your freedom to Microsoft. It does not matter how many shiny features Microsoft might introduce into its freedom-denying surveillance system; an operating system that respects your freedoms will always be a superior choice. We would do our best to dissuade users from switching to a GNU/kWindows system for the technical benefits that GNU provides. I would never downgrade from Linux or mac to GNU/kWindows or as I prefer to call it "NSA/Windows". Not even because of privacy issues, but because Linux out performs Windows 10 on my shitty laptop that came with windows 10 from dell. I'm sure it out performs OS X too on this hardware, and yeah I could get a mac book or a surface but I think I'll just get something nice that runs Linux because it's just as easy and probably cheaper. I don't even give my parents Windows because if I did they'd find a way to muck up the system and it's a constant headache, Linux is rock solid for the elderly. No, it doesn't just randomly break when I ssh in and update it. Even I, a power user and programmer, can't seem to get Windows to have a fast start up time on a regular HDD, sure it gets to the desktop reasonably fast but then it constantly chokes as soon as I try to do something like open the start menu. I have to give windows a five minute "warm up" period for it to be usable in some cases. When I plug in an external monitor while using Windows the whole OS can slow to a crawl and when I unplug it my windows are lost forever, forget saving your work! Windows is a proprietary billion dollar OS and yet it only really works well across a short range of hardware, contrary to popular belief.
fleitz 11y ago
I love it, such great satire!
stantona 11y ago
This confusion is both astonishing, given the length of time GNU has been around. Yet it is also understandable, for many there's a missing distinction between GNU vs Linux project vs FreeBSD etc etc. The GNU operating system website explains the distinction pretty clearly on its home page. https://www.gnu.org/home.en.html#More-GNU https://www.gnu.org/home.en.html#More-GNU I often wonder why Microsoft doesn't just bite the bullet and adopt Linux as the kernel for Windows.
- zxcvcxz 11y ago
  >I often wonder why Microsoft doesn't just bite the bullet and adopt Linux as the kernel for Windows. Linux doesn't have the massive data collection apparatus that Windows 10 does. If they released an OS with the Linux kernel + NSA, there would be no reason to use it over some other Linux distro. Microsoft makes a lot of money from selling and analyzing your data. The main purpose of Windows at this point is the data collection tools.
  - lucb1e 11y ago
    This got downvoted, but aside from the snarky remark, it is a good point that Windows' main profit these days is probably data collection - or at least it's heading that way.
    - Analemma_ 11y ago
      It got downvoted because it's blatantly untrue, as is your comment. Windows' profit comes from licenses, same as it always did - the W10 upgrade was free for personal copies, but business users still pay, as do people who buy a new computer. The idea that Microsoft is making a big chunk of its money through data selling is baloney.
      - lucb1e 11y ago
        So you're saying they gather all that personal data for... no reason whatsoever? There have been so many threads on HN about Windows 10's privacy invasive settings, and here I'm being told they do no such thing?
atemerev 11y ago
Technically, the article is correct. Indeed, GNU/kWindows is a better name for the resulting OS, and Windows is still very non-free and spies at its users, etc etc. But: we already know all that. I am a heavy Linux user, and I am quite excited to see it available on Windows. Because Windows is nice and shiny and well-polished and works with hardware and works better for my needs than fully free OS with limited hardware support (especially on the GPU side). I want to work, not endlessly configure my Emacs, I am pro-capitalism (though very anti-surveillance) and I don't even have a beard. So, thank you, GNU guys, your software is excellent and free. Even if you make it more difficult to use with some software with other licenses, it is still possible, and I am quite happy to add it in the mix. But I don't want to live in your idealized non-commercial world, and your proselytizing became quite boring for the last 25 years. When I do open source, I use MIT/BSD license, because it helps people unconditionally and doesn't introduce restrictions as those in less free licenses like GPL.
- zxcvcxz 11y ago
  Why is Linux coming to Windows exciting to you? There are already all sorts of problems and I'm sure they'll get better, but you go on to say: > I want to work, not endlessly configure my Emacs Which implies you want a system that stays out of your way. How will this new compatibility layer stay out of your way when you constantly have to find new work arounds whenever you develop anything? For example I've seen a lot of user complaining about setting up a full android development environment. I'm sure this will get support, then other dev environments one by one, but on Linux they'll just work 99% of the time (at least in my experience), on GNU/kWindows you will be debugging things for days, I can see it now. Windows has been coming out with a lot of new stuff lately but nothing has really caught on. I don't see this huge mess taking off or replacing Linux any time soon. Has typescript replaced javascript?
  - recursive 11y ago
    I don't have much experience with Linux which is probably why, but I've found it a lot easier to set up a working Windows environment than Linux. > Has typescript replaced javascript? It has on the project I'm working on, but there's really no way you can tell after it's compiled. Angular2 is written in it too.
dikaiosune 11y ago
But it's not just GNU running on top of the Windows kernel. It's GNU executables which think they're communicating with a Linux kernel. I understand being frustrated about the already-forming naming conventions (although they've been chanting GNU/Linux forever and it still isn't used in common parlance), but GNU/kWindows doesn't capture the nature of the system either.
- anonymfus 11y ago
  GNU/WSL
- ecma 11y ago
  Accurate. Technically the Microsoft compatibility later could have been entirely done at the library level by replicating POSIX and adding an ELF linker/loader. There would have been some edge cases around Linux specific source but the GNU core would have been well served by something like that. The reason the language is all centered around Linux is because what they chose to do was do a Linux syscall compatibility layer. Really it could be called GNU/sLinux/kWindows but nobody is ever going to bother with that mouthful. Edit: I should add that this doesn't mean I agree with the use of Linux here - I just understand why that's the case. I would much prefer if those involved went to the trouble of explaining what GNU is to those consumers who are interested. Pretty unlikely Microsoft would be leading that given GNU's position on Windows.
  - ryao 11y ago
    Cygwin does that. forking does not perform very well.
chungy 11y ago
It is sad that the article positions itself to once again attack "open source" as if it is an abandonment of the free software values. Yes, part of open source was making it an "easier sell", but another part was to remove the linguistic ambiguities that arise from "free software". The proponents of open source in the beginning, and still to day, actively reject non-free software just as much. GNU on Microsoft Windows can be just as revolting to open source advocates ("can be" -- people are different from other people, not everyone holds the same standards, and this is true in the free software camps too). Beyond that trifle, I applaud the article for trying to dispell the confusion surrounding everything. Given that Microsoft is adding a subsystem that is binary-compatible with Linux system calls, so that ELF Linux binaries may run as-is, calling it a "Linux subsystem" is not that big of a stretch, but continuing to call the user space "Linux" is. One final point: If anyone reimplements this on ReactOS, the issues about freedom disappear. You don't have to like the operating system, but it is free software in every sense of the word. :-)
- Sanddancer 11y ago
  The FSF has rather bitter words about ReactOS that would keep them from admitting such, "ReactOS is meant as a free binary compatible replacement for Windows. Allowing people to continue using the proprietary software and drivers meant for Windows is one of the stated goals of the project."[1] Also note on the same page their disdain of more permissive licenses, like BSD and Apache, calling them "pushover". [1] http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.en.html http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.en.html
  - 8note 11y ago
    based on those examples, I'm confused as to why they support GNU, considering it can be used with non free software such as a windows kernel. It looks like GNU is abhorrent to the FSF.
- mikegerwitz 11y ago
  > It is sad that the article positions itself to once again attack "open source" as if it is an abandonment of the free software values. Yes, part of open source was making it an "easier sell", but another part was to remove the linguistic ambiguities that arise from "free software". "Open source" was created explicitly to avoid talking about the core philosophy behind free software---users' freedoms. Instead, it positioned itself as a development methodology. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.h... If the open source community talked about freedom, then they would be talking about free software.
0x0 11y ago
But it's still running binaries compiled for GNU/Linux? The Debian GNU/kFreeBSD port compiles for FreeBSD kernel system calls, not their linux emulation, as far as I know. So a "GNU/kWindows" system could compile against NT system calls, or perhaps something like Cygwin which could reasonably be called "GNU/(k)win32". Also, it remains to be seen whether this can even be considered a full GNU operating system. I doubt you'll be able to run a pure "Linux Subsystem for Windows" GNU setup without the rest of wininit.exe, lsass.exe etc etc etc.
- Shorel 11y ago
  You mean, despite the fact that there's no full GNU operating system anywhere?
dragonwriter 11y ago
You know, if the GNU project wants to insist that their branding is plastered all over derivatives, they should choose a different license. Beyond that, I'm tired of GNU cultists insisting on the right to demand other people's projects get called by different names than the people releasing the projects choose.
- drdaeman 11y ago
  Hey, hey, don't mix weirdos and actual GNU Project together. Had GNU Project had ever really insisted on plastering "GNU" branding on some derivatives? I really doubt that. What they had always asked is to call their OS by it's name and give the proper attribution when you base something on it. Just like everyone else (BSD) does. The OS without kernel is called "GNU", and with kernel it's "GNU/Linux". Oh, and the editor's "GNU Emacs" (because there are other Emacses). That's all that GNU Project had ever asked. If you see some weirdo telling that, say, Debian must be called "GNU Debian" or something, tell that they're nuts because Debian is not a part of GNU Project. But if someone expands and explains what Debian is ("Debian distribution of GNU OS with Linux kernel"), then surely, it's only right to give GNU some well-deserved attribution about the OS they wrote. That's all they ask. Oh, and I really don't get why author says it's not "Ubuntu" but "GNU". Ubuntu it is, with Ubuntu being a GNU distribution.
  - fmoralesc 11y ago
    > The OS without kernel is called "GNU" But that's the thing, nobody other that the GNU people called that an OS worth of a name. I suspect what people call an OS is an standalone set of conventions and packaging that can actually be used to interface between the hardware and the user [0]; so I think Debian is more worth of being called an OS on its own than "GNU userspace - kernel". Same with any other Linux distribution, *BSD variant, Windows and OSX. It was the linux project that made those OSes viable as standalone things (to be fair, the GNU userspace made them viable as usable working platforms for early adopters - but nowadays the role of GNU software in the OS is less central), and people place more weight to that. [0]: I pretty much agree with Ted Nelson about the distinction between "technology" and "packaging". (https://youtu.be/KdnGPQaICjk?t=1m47s https://youtu.be/KdnGPQaICjk?t=1m47s)
Sanddancer 11y ago
No, it's not. It is Canonical's packaging of various components, some of which are GNU, some of which are from a disparate group of people, and those components may be used much much more than the gnu components. Given the intended use cases, such as server development, it would be a lot more accurate, but no less ridiculous, to call it Python/ImageMagick/GNU/Canonical/Nginx/kWindows. Canonical and Microsoft did the heavy lifting, the GNU project is just responsible for the bitching and moaning afterward.
- drdaeman 11y ago
  > GNU project is just responsible for the bitching and moaning It really sounds like you want to say GNU Project hadn't wrote the whole OS core (sans kernel), but Microsoft and Canonical did. What they're shipping is actually Ubuntu OS (which is a GNU derivative, with GNU being actually the essential core part here - the OS, with the other essential part being apt/dpkg system) for Windows kernel, not nginx or ImageMagick or anything. Even though those can be installed (and when those are what it's about, then we call it "python stack" or "LAMP" or whatever). So the names "Ubuntu" (I'm not sure why author's against this one, it's Ubuntu after all; we call "Debian GNU/Linux" just "Debian" as well) and "GNU" (which Ubuntu essentially is distribution of) are perfectly applicable.
- mikegerwitz 11y ago
  GNU is a fully free/libre replacement for the Unix operating system, not just a collection of GNU programs: https://gnu.org/gnu/gnu.html https://gnu.org/gnu/gnu.html
ake1 11y ago
I've never really understood the FSF's incessant need to claim GNU as the operating system which happen to be running on x kernel. There are operating systems running the linux kernel without any GNU software. The operating system is whatever is between the hardware and my application. The lines are somewhat blurred in my opinion, is /bin/ls part of the operating system? (both rhetorical and not...) Granted, free software would not be where it is today had it not been for GNU and the FSF and they do deserve a lot of credit for their hard work from which i am benefiting every day.
- drdaeman 11y ago
  Well, GNU Project had written a whole userspace stack (glibc, bash, gcc, ...). Most of this was before Linux, they started in '84, while Linux was only born in '91. However, GNU Project had no kernel for their OS, so they took Linux (which wasn't/isn't a part of GNU Project) while they had worked on their kernel (HURD, started in '90). But sadly - some may argue - HURD had never really happened. So, isn't it fair to give GNU Project some attribution for the OS that they made, that no one dares to call by its name but calls it by the kernel's name instead? It's somewhat like as everyone would've called "Dropbox" as "Amazon" because they've used EC2 and S3 as an important parts of their infrastructure (I know, I know, they've moved, doesn't really matter).
  - mwfunk 11y ago
    Names aren't attributions though. Names are somewhat arbitrarily-chosen words people use to refer to specific things. Some names contain indicators about the history of the thing they refer to, but when that happens it's due to historical and/or sociological accident, and is usually not a conscious attempt to give attribution to one entity or take it away from another. On top of that, their obsession with names and attribution (for non-legal reasons) is almost comically immature and obsessive. The GNU/Linux kerfluffle in the '90s (continuing to this day!) might as well be a giant billboard advertising to the world that they are people obsessed with trees but blind to forests. When people get that emotionally invested in what is truly just distracting minutiae, it's hard not have fundamental questions about their basic rationality.
koolba 11y ago
I wonder if MSFT will include readline.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
iso-8859-1 11y ago
Isn't the Microsoft project just emulating Linux system calls? If that is so, how does it have _anything_ with GNU to do? Just be cause many people use the GNU userland and glibc doesn't mean it isn't possible to run other stuff. Calling the project GNU/kWindows is wrong since GNU is not necessarily included.
- tagrun 11y ago
  They're emulating Linux system calls in order to run GNU userland on it. Yes, they can theoretically run non-GNU userland (such as Android userland programs), but that's not what they're trying to do.
- mikegerwitz 11y ago
  The discussion largely focuses on the ability to run Bash and other GNU command-line software on Windows. https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/commandline/2016/04/06/bash-on-ubuntu-on-windows-download-now-3/ https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/commandline/2016/04/06/bash... Actually, I'm pleasantly surprised to see that this Microsoft post refers to GNU/Linux.
Jasper_ 11y ago
Windows is implementing the Linux system call interface. So it's valid to include Linux in the overall name, since it's running binaries designed and targeted at Linux's own APIs. GNU/kWindows might also refer to Cygwin or gnuwin32, which are ports of GNU software to other operating systems. And people might run zsh and busybox on top of the Linux subsystem, and eliminate GNU entirely. But overall, I'm just tired and sick of the GNU project attempting to correct people on technical matters like this. I remember having a very technical conversation talking about the Linux kernel and its APIs, when rms came in and "corrected" us to tell us that the proper name of the OS is GNU/Linux. It's just rude and unwarranted at this point.
- loeg 11y ago
  > And people might run zsh and busybox on top of the Linux subsystem, and eliminate GNU entirely. Nevermind that many userspace components Linux-users interact with are not GNU projects. GNU was essential to the rise of Linux as the 3rd party operating system, and is still essential to the system today, but it is not the biggest piece. If people want to identify the system as Linux regardless of the other software in the system, it's fine by me.
  - ryao 11y ago
    It is less essential these days than it used to be. There are replacements for just about everything from other projects. Many are under even more permissive licensing. A userland is not enough to form an OS either. It is enough to be an organ donor for other operating systems. Each Linux distribution could be considered its own OS. Also, much of the development behind GNU components were meant for other operating systems than the GNU operating system. There would be many more working on the GNU kernel if that were not the case.
- kaushiks 11y ago
  GNU/kWindows doesn't make any sense to begin with. Modern Windows OS is the NT kernel with the Windows user land. A more appropriate name would be GNU/NT.
pc2g4d 11y ago
The trouble is, GNU is only _part_ of the GNU/Linux operating system. What people actually experience as "the operating system" day to day includes the kernel, and a bunch of GNU userspace, and a bunch of BSD userspace, and a bunch of completely unrelated software. Is systemd a GNU project? Is yum/apt/dnf/whatever? Is KDE or XFCE or X.org? They're totally right that the GNU components are an indispensable part of a Linux system. But if they wanted to guarantee they got continuous credit for their components over the decades then maybe GNU shouldn't have given their software away to the world to do with largely as it pleases.
- Osiris 11y ago
  I came here to say the same thing. GNU provides user-land applications and libraries. I have a hard time seeing their jump to "GNU operating system". There's a LOT of code that makes up a *nix distribution and GNU, I'm sure, is a fairly small part of the overall code even though it's a pretty important one.
- mikegerwitz 11y ago
  > The trouble is, GNU is only _part_ of the GNU/Linux operating system. GNU is a fully free/libre replacement for the Unix operating system, not just a collection of GNU programs: https://gnu.org/gnu/gnu.html https://gnu.org/gnu/gnu.html GNU never has been all GNU software---GNU wrote tools that were needed, and used free software when it was available.
justin_vanw 11y ago
The FSF doesn't seem to understand much about how to win. Winning means that everyone uses your software and you can apply massive influence, in this case to push for freedom. Winning isn't being a damn curmudgion that everyone hates because you constantly correct how they refer to your product. What is the proper way to refer to the Apple computer system? Is it Mac? OS/X? OSX? OSX/Mach FreeBSD +Commercial UI layer based on NeXT? Literally NOBODY cares. Why doesn't Apple come out every week with a press release explaining the proper grammar for referring to their stuff? Because that would be ludicrous and stupid and counter productive. Learn something from that FSF!
- trentnelson 11y ago
  The fights are most vicious when there's so little at stake.
- rekado 11y ago
  The GNU project is primarily a social project with technical components. If the project's philosophy is not mentioned because the project isn't even understood to exist this is a problem. GNU is not primarily a product; if it were you would be right that its name wouldn't matter much and world domination would be the primary target.
doener 11y ago
"Secondly, when you see someone using a GNU/kWindows system, politely ask them why. Tell them that there is a better operating system out there—the GNU/Linux operating system—that not only provides those technical features, but also provides the feature of freedom! Tell them what free software is, and try to relate it to them so that they understand why it is important, and even practical." Am I the only one thinking of crusading Mormons here? ;)
GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
"For example, GNU can be run with its own kernel, The GNU Hurd" My understanding is that this statement is a little optimistic.
- mikegerwitz 11y ago
  Some pretty good progress has been made, if you're curious: https://gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd/status.html https://gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd/status.html
rjeli 11y ago
Why does he keep claiming that MacOS uses GNU code? Isn't the MacOS userspace almost entirely FreeBSD?
- mikegerwitz 11y ago
  My only claim was that OSX uses GNU Bash. I don't use OSX, so I'm not sure what else it includes.
legulere 11y ago
They should write GPLv4 that requires your software to have GNU in it's name.
mikegerwitz 11y ago
Thank you to whomever posted this link again; I'm glad others can read about GNU's perspective. If any quotes from others here are out of date: I rearranged and modified the article slightly to reflect some suggestions from rms, and to clarify a few things.

57 points by mikegerwitz 11y ago

A key excerpt from the article: ‘This combination is referred to as GNU/kWindows (GNU with the Windows kernel added). Microsoft and Canonical have apparently been working together to write a subsystem that translates Linux system calls into something Windows will understand—a compatibility layer. So, software compiled to run on a system with the kernel Linux will work on Windows through system call translation. Many articles are calling this system “Ubuntu on Windows”, or “Linux on Windows”. This is a fallacy: the kernel Linux is not at all involved! What we are witnessing is the GNU operating system running with a Windows kernel instead of Linux.’

ryao 11y ago
Microsoft wrote the kernel parts. Canonical provided the Ubuntu userland image. I heard it straight from Canonical in an in-person chat last week on the day it was announced.

stcredzero 11y ago

I recently read an article that referred to GNU Bash as “Linux’s Bash”; this is simply a slap in the face to the GNU Project and all the hackers that have for the past 26 years (since 1989) been writing what is one of today’s most widely used shells on Unix-like systems, including on Apple’s proprietary Mac OSX. I think this speaks worlds -- about exactly how bad and anti-productive the FSF's PR has been at times in the past 26 years. I remember sending liason email to an FSF secretary in the early 2000's. Smalltalkers had always liked the idea of seeing the source to everything. In fact, you can't really hide the source very well, because de-compilation is trivial for Smalltalk. The person at the FSF was far more concerned with politics and correcting my terminology than actually talking to me. It made me not want to talk with him or deal with him at all. (Ironically, many Smalltalkers did the same sort of thing to outsiders of their community as well.) Takeaway: Just because you're philosophically correct and far-sighted, that doesn't mean you can get away with alienating potential allies and bad PR. Above, I cite two examples.

zxcvcxz 11y ago
They don't consider it "philosophically correct", but customary. When you go to Japan does people following differing customs (like bowing) feel alienating? That's how I see this. This is part of a culture with certain customs. What you're saying probably makes people of this culture feel alienated and many of them already are.
- mwfunk 11y ago
  The FSF isn't a different culture though, not in the sense that you're talking about. They live in the exact same culture as the people around them. It's alienating because asking people reasonable questions and getting lectured about not phrasing the questions using their approved terminology* instead of getting a reasonable answer to those reasonable questions is rather alienating. * And their terminology is based on what always seemed like an intentional strategy of attaching very specific and nonintuitive definitions to commonly used words with dozens of dictionary definitions already. So if anyone has given up their privilege to lecture people about misusing terminology, it's them, because they created the confusion in the first place by overloading common terms instead of creating new terms to represent their (very unique and complicated) ideals.
  - zxcvcxz 11y ago
    Ah, see now you're being really disrespectful by denying that their culture even exists. Is America all one culture too? No, sub-cultures exist and I think that's fine.
- stcredzero 11y ago
  Is the main point to be alienated or is the point to further your cause through effective outreach? I suspect they thought the former was the main point, but group pathologies made it the latter. (Again, this applies to both groups I mention in my comment above.)
tcdent 11y ago
> how bad and anti-productive the FSF's PR has been at times in the past 26 years I'd apply that same sentiment to this article as well. They haven't received the recognition they deserve, and because they're always at the ready to remind you of it, they remain alienated. Nobody wants to have to apologize for circumstances that are everyone's fault... or no-one's. Don't get me wrong, I love most everything GNU stands for, but their message has never been well received because of it's confused agenda. They absolutely deserve the truth to be known, and we should be listening to their opinions, but when an authoritative statement serves essentially as a complaint about the state of their authority, it's no wonder we tune out. This was a great opportunity to elegantly explain the distinction, sans snark, sans agenda, but they failed so miserably even comments in this HN discussion are still using the wrong terminology.

zxcvcxz 11y ago

>But what if you’re using GNU/Linux today? In that case, it is a major downgrade to switch to a GNU/kWindows system; by doing so, you are surrendering your freedom to Microsoft. It does not matter how many shiny features Microsoft might introduce into its freedom-denying surveillance system; an operating system that respects your freedoms will always be a superior choice. We would do our best to dissuade users from switching to a GNU/kWindows system for the technical benefits that GNU provides. I would never downgrade from Linux or mac to GNU/kWindows or as I prefer to call it "NSA/Windows". Not even because of privacy issues, but because Linux out performs Windows 10 on my shitty laptop that came with windows 10 from dell. I'm sure it out performs OS X too on this hardware, and yeah I could get a mac book or a surface but I think I'll just get something nice that runs Linux because it's just as easy and probably cheaper. I don't even give my parents Windows because if I did they'd find a way to muck up the system and it's a constant headache, Linux is rock solid for the elderly. No, it doesn't just randomly break when I ssh in and update it. Even I, a power user and programmer, can't seem to get Windows to have a fast start up time on a regular HDD, sure it gets to the desktop reasonably fast but then it constantly chokes as soon as I try to do something like open the start menu. I have to give windows a five minute "warm up" period for it to be usable in some cases. When I plug in an external monitor while using Windows the whole OS can slow to a crawl and when I unplug it my windows are lost forever, forget saving your work! Windows is a proprietary billion dollar OS and yet it only really works well across a short range of hardware, contrary to popular belief.

fleitz 11y ago

I love it, such great satire!

stantona 11y ago

This confusion is both astonishing, given the length of time GNU has been around. Yet it is also understandable, for many there's a missing distinction between GNU vs Linux project vs FreeBSD etc etc. The GNU operating system website explains the distinction pretty clearly on its home page. https://www.gnu.org/home.en.html#More-GNU https://www.gnu.org/home.en.html#More-GNU I often wonder why Microsoft doesn't just bite the bullet and adopt Linux as the kernel for Windows.

zxcvcxz 11y ago
>I often wonder why Microsoft doesn't just bite the bullet and adopt Linux as the kernel for Windows. Linux doesn't have the massive data collection apparatus that Windows 10 does. If they released an OS with the Linux kernel + NSA, there would be no reason to use it over some other Linux distro. Microsoft makes a lot of money from selling and analyzing your data. The main purpose of Windows at this point is the data collection tools.
- lucb1e 11y ago
  This got downvoted, but aside from the snarky remark, it is a good point that Windows' main profit these days is probably data collection - or at least it's heading that way.
  - Analemma_ 11y ago
    It got downvoted because it's blatantly untrue, as is your comment. Windows' profit comes from licenses, same as it always did - the W10 upgrade was free for personal copies, but business users still pay, as do people who buy a new computer. The idea that Microsoft is making a big chunk of its money through data selling is baloney.
    - lucb1e 11y ago
      So you're saying they gather all that personal data for... no reason whatsoever? There have been so many threads on HN about Windows 10's privacy invasive settings, and here I'm being told they do no such thing?

atemerev 11y ago

Technically, the article is correct. Indeed, GNU/kWindows is a better name for the resulting OS, and Windows is still very non-free and spies at its users, etc etc. But: we already know all that. I am a heavy Linux user, and I am quite excited to see it available on Windows. Because Windows is nice and shiny and well-polished and works with hardware and works better for my needs than fully free OS with limited hardware support (especially on the GPU side). I want to work, not endlessly configure my Emacs, I am pro-capitalism (though very anti-surveillance) and I don't even have a beard. So, thank you, GNU guys, your software is excellent and free. Even if you make it more difficult to use with some software with other licenses, it is still possible, and I am quite happy to add it in the mix. But I don't want to live in your idealized non-commercial world, and your proselytizing became quite boring for the last 25 years. When I do open source, I use MIT/BSD license, because it helps people unconditionally and doesn't introduce restrictions as those in less free licenses like GPL.

zxcvcxz 11y ago
Why is Linux coming to Windows exciting to you? There are already all sorts of problems and I'm sure they'll get better, but you go on to say: > I want to work, not endlessly configure my Emacs Which implies you want a system that stays out of your way. How will this new compatibility layer stay out of your way when you constantly have to find new work arounds whenever you develop anything? For example I've seen a lot of user complaining about setting up a full android development environment. I'm sure this will get support, then other dev environments one by one, but on Linux they'll just work 99% of the time (at least in my experience), on GNU/kWindows you will be debugging things for days, I can see it now. Windows has been coming out with a lot of new stuff lately but nothing has really caught on. I don't see this huge mess taking off or replacing Linux any time soon. Has typescript replaced javascript?
- recursive 11y ago
  I don't have much experience with Linux which is probably why, but I've found it a lot easier to set up a working Windows environment than Linux. > Has typescript replaced javascript? It has on the project I'm working on, but there's really no way you can tell after it's compiled. Angular2 is written in it too.

dikaiosune 11y ago

But it's not just GNU running on top of the Windows kernel. It's GNU executables which think they're communicating with a Linux kernel. I understand being frustrated about the already-forming naming conventions (although they've been chanting GNU/Linux forever and it still isn't used in common parlance), but GNU/kWindows doesn't capture the nature of the system either.

anonymfus 11y ago
GNU/WSL
ecma 11y ago
Accurate. Technically the Microsoft compatibility later could have been entirely done at the library level by replicating POSIX and adding an ELF linker/loader. There would have been some edge cases around Linux specific source but the GNU core would have been well served by something like that. The reason the language is all centered around Linux is because what they chose to do was do a Linux syscall compatibility layer. Really it could be called GNU/sLinux/kWindows but nobody is ever going to bother with that mouthful. Edit: I should add that this doesn't mean I agree with the use of Linux here - I just understand why that's the case. I would much prefer if those involved went to the trouble of explaining what GNU is to those consumers who are interested. Pretty unlikely Microsoft would be leading that given GNU's position on Windows.
- ryao 11y ago
  Cygwin does that. forking does not perform very well.

chungy 11y ago

It is sad that the article positions itself to once again attack "open source" as if it is an abandonment of the free software values. Yes, part of open source was making it an "easier sell", but another part was to remove the linguistic ambiguities that arise from "free software". The proponents of open source in the beginning, and still to day, actively reject non-free software just as much. GNU on Microsoft Windows can be just as revolting to open source advocates ("can be" -- people are different from other people, not everyone holds the same standards, and this is true in the free software camps too). Beyond that trifle, I applaud the article for trying to dispell the confusion surrounding everything. Given that Microsoft is adding a subsystem that is binary-compatible with Linux system calls, so that ELF Linux binaries may run as-is, calling it a "Linux subsystem" is not that big of a stretch, but continuing to call the user space "Linux" is. One final point: If anyone reimplements this on ReactOS, the issues about freedom disappear. You don't have to like the operating system, but it is free software in every sense of the word. :-)

Sanddancer 11y ago
The FSF has rather bitter words about ReactOS that would keep them from admitting such, "ReactOS is meant as a free binary compatible replacement for Windows. Allowing people to continue using the proprietary software and drivers meant for Windows is one of the stated goals of the project."[1] Also note on the same page their disdain of more permissive licenses, like BSD and Apache, calling them "pushover". [1] http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.en.html http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.en.html
- 8note 11y ago
  based on those examples, I'm confused as to why they support GNU, considering it can be used with non free software such as a windows kernel. It looks like GNU is abhorrent to the FSF.
mikegerwitz 11y ago
> It is sad that the article positions itself to once again attack "open source" as if it is an abandonment of the free software values. Yes, part of open source was making it an "easier sell", but another part was to remove the linguistic ambiguities that arise from "free software". "Open source" was created explicitly to avoid talking about the core philosophy behind free software---users' freedoms. Instead, it positioned itself as a development methodology. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.h... If the open source community talked about freedom, then they would be talking about free software.

0x0 11y ago

But it's still running binaries compiled for GNU/Linux? The Debian GNU/kFreeBSD port compiles for FreeBSD kernel system calls, not their linux emulation, as far as I know. So a "GNU/kWindows" system could compile against NT system calls, or perhaps something like Cygwin which could reasonably be called "GNU/(k)win32". Also, it remains to be seen whether this can even be considered a full GNU operating system. I doubt you'll be able to run a pure "Linux Subsystem for Windows" GNU setup without the rest of wininit.exe, lsass.exe etc etc etc.

Shorel 11y ago
You mean, despite the fact that there's no full GNU operating system anywhere?

dragonwriter 11y ago

You know, if the GNU project wants to insist that their branding is plastered all over derivatives, they should choose a different license. Beyond that, I'm tired of GNU cultists insisting on the right to demand other people's projects get called by different names than the people releasing the projects choose.

drdaeman 11y ago
Hey, hey, don't mix weirdos and actual GNU Project together. Had GNU Project had ever really insisted on plastering "GNU" branding on some derivatives? I really doubt that. What they had always asked is to call their OS by it's name and give the proper attribution when you base something on it. Just like everyone else (BSD) does. The OS without kernel is called "GNU", and with kernel it's "GNU/Linux". Oh, and the editor's "GNU Emacs" (because there are other Emacses). That's all that GNU Project had ever asked. If you see some weirdo telling that, say, Debian must be called "GNU Debian" or something, tell that they're nuts because Debian is not a part of GNU Project. But if someone expands and explains what Debian is ("Debian distribution of GNU OS with Linux kernel"), then surely, it's only right to give GNU some well-deserved attribution about the OS they wrote. That's all they ask. Oh, and I really don't get why author says it's not "Ubuntu" but "GNU". Ubuntu it is, with Ubuntu being a GNU distribution.
- fmoralesc 11y ago
  > The OS without kernel is called "GNU" But that's the thing, nobody other that the GNU people called that an OS worth of a name. I suspect what people call an OS is an standalone set of conventions and packaging that can actually be used to interface between the hardware and the user [0]; so I think Debian is more worth of being called an OS on its own than "GNU userspace - kernel". Same with any other Linux distribution, *BSD variant, Windows and OSX. It was the linux project that made those OSes viable as standalone things (to be fair, the GNU userspace made them viable as usable working platforms for early adopters - but nowadays the role of GNU software in the OS is less central), and people place more weight to that. [0]: I pretty much agree with Ted Nelson about the distinction between "technology" and "packaging". (https://youtu.be/KdnGPQaICjk?t=1m47s https://youtu.be/KdnGPQaICjk?t=1m47s)

Sanddancer 11y ago

No, it's not. It is Canonical's packaging of various components, some of which are GNU, some of which are from a disparate group of people, and those components may be used much much more than the gnu components. Given the intended use cases, such as server development, it would be a lot more accurate, but no less ridiculous, to call it Python/ImageMagick/GNU/Canonical/Nginx/kWindows. Canonical and Microsoft did the heavy lifting, the GNU project is just responsible for the bitching and moaning afterward.

drdaeman 11y ago
> GNU project is just responsible for the bitching and moaning It really sounds like you want to say GNU Project hadn't wrote the whole OS core (sans kernel), but Microsoft and Canonical did. What they're shipping is actually Ubuntu OS (which is a GNU derivative, with GNU being actually the essential core part here - the OS, with the other essential part being apt/dpkg system) for Windows kernel, not nginx or ImageMagick or anything. Even though those can be installed (and when those are what it's about, then we call it "python stack" or "LAMP" or whatever). So the names "Ubuntu" (I'm not sure why author's against this one, it's Ubuntu after all; we call "Debian GNU/Linux" just "Debian" as well) and "GNU" (which Ubuntu essentially is distribution of) are perfectly applicable.
mikegerwitz 11y ago
GNU is a fully free/libre replacement for the Unix operating system, not just a collection of GNU programs: https://gnu.org/gnu/gnu.html https://gnu.org/gnu/gnu.html

ake1 11y ago

I've never really understood the FSF's incessant need to claim GNU as the operating system which happen to be running on x kernel. There are operating systems running the linux kernel without any GNU software. The operating system is whatever is between the hardware and my application. The lines are somewhat blurred in my opinion, is /bin/ls part of the operating system? (both rhetorical and not...) Granted, free software would not be where it is today had it not been for GNU and the FSF and they do deserve a lot of credit for their hard work from which i am benefiting every day.

drdaeman 11y ago
Well, GNU Project had written a whole userspace stack (glibc, bash, gcc, ...). Most of this was before Linux, they started in '84, while Linux was only born in '91. However, GNU Project had no kernel for their OS, so they took Linux (which wasn't/isn't a part of GNU Project) while they had worked on their kernel (HURD, started in '90). But sadly - some may argue - HURD had never really happened. So, isn't it fair to give GNU Project some attribution for the OS that they made, that no one dares to call by its name but calls it by the kernel's name instead? It's somewhat like as everyone would've called "Dropbox" as "Amazon" because they've used EC2 and S3 as an important parts of their infrastructure (I know, I know, they've moved, doesn't really matter).
- mwfunk 11y ago
  Names aren't attributions though. Names are somewhat arbitrarily-chosen words people use to refer to specific things. Some names contain indicators about the history of the thing they refer to, but when that happens it's due to historical and/or sociological accident, and is usually not a conscious attempt to give attribution to one entity or take it away from another. On top of that, their obsession with names and attribution (for non-legal reasons) is almost comically immature and obsessive. The GNU/Linux kerfluffle in the '90s (continuing to this day!) might as well be a giant billboard advertising to the world that they are people obsessed with trees but blind to forests. When people get that emotionally invested in what is truly just distracting minutiae, it's hard not have fundamental questions about their basic rationality.

koolba 11y ago

I wonder if MSFT will include readline.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

iso-8859-1 11y ago

Isn't the Microsoft project just emulating Linux system calls? If that is so, how does it have _anything_ with GNU to do? Just be cause many people use the GNU userland and glibc doesn't mean it isn't possible to run other stuff. Calling the project GNU/kWindows is wrong since GNU is not necessarily included.

tagrun 11y ago
They're emulating Linux system calls in order to run GNU userland on it. Yes, they can theoretically run non-GNU userland (such as Android userland programs), but that's not what they're trying to do.
mikegerwitz 11y ago
The discussion largely focuses on the ability to run Bash and other GNU command-line software on Windows. https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/commandline/2016/04/06/bash-on-ubuntu-on-windows-download-now-3/ https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/commandline/2016/04/06/bash... Actually, I'm pleasantly surprised to see that this Microsoft post refers to GNU/Linux.

Jasper_ 11y ago

Windows is implementing the Linux system call interface. So it's valid to include Linux in the overall name, since it's running binaries designed and targeted at Linux's own APIs. GNU/kWindows might also refer to Cygwin or gnuwin32, which are ports of GNU software to other operating systems. And people might run zsh and busybox on top of the Linux subsystem, and eliminate GNU entirely. But overall, I'm just tired and sick of the GNU project attempting to correct people on technical matters like this. I remember having a very technical conversation talking about the Linux kernel and its APIs, when rms came in and "corrected" us to tell us that the proper name of the OS is GNU/Linux. It's just rude and unwarranted at this point.

loeg 11y ago
> And people might run zsh and busybox on top of the Linux subsystem, and eliminate GNU entirely. Nevermind that many userspace components Linux-users interact with are not GNU projects. GNU was essential to the rise of Linux as the 3rd party operating system, and is still essential to the system today, but it is not the biggest piece. If people want to identify the system as Linux regardless of the other software in the system, it's fine by me.
- ryao 11y ago
  It is less essential these days than it used to be. There are replacements for just about everything from other projects. Many are under even more permissive licensing. A userland is not enough to form an OS either. It is enough to be an organ donor for other operating systems. Each Linux distribution could be considered its own OS. Also, much of the development behind GNU components were meant for other operating systems than the GNU operating system. There would be many more working on the GNU kernel if that were not the case.
kaushiks 11y ago
GNU/kWindows doesn't make any sense to begin with. Modern Windows OS is the NT kernel with the Windows user land. A more appropriate name would be GNU/NT.

pc2g4d 11y ago

The trouble is, GNU is only _part_ of the GNU/Linux operating system. What people actually experience as "the operating system" day to day includes the kernel, and a bunch of GNU userspace, and a bunch of BSD userspace, and a bunch of completely unrelated software. Is systemd a GNU project? Is yum/apt/dnf/whatever? Is KDE or XFCE or X.org? They're totally right that the GNU components are an indispensable part of a Linux system. But if they wanted to guarantee they got continuous credit for their components over the decades then maybe GNU shouldn't have given their software away to the world to do with largely as it pleases.

Osiris 11y ago
I came here to say the same thing. GNU provides user-land applications and libraries. I have a hard time seeing their jump to "GNU operating system". There's a LOT of code that makes up a *nix distribution and GNU, I'm sure, is a fairly small part of the overall code even though it's a pretty important one.
mikegerwitz 11y ago
> The trouble is, GNU is only _part_ of the GNU/Linux operating system. GNU is a fully free/libre replacement for the Unix operating system, not just a collection of GNU programs: https://gnu.org/gnu/gnu.html https://gnu.org/gnu/gnu.html GNU never has been all GNU software---GNU wrote tools that were needed, and used free software when it was available.

justin_vanw 11y ago

The FSF doesn't seem to understand much about how to win. Winning means that everyone uses your software and you can apply massive influence, in this case to push for freedom. Winning isn't being a damn curmudgion that everyone hates because you constantly correct how they refer to your product. What is the proper way to refer to the Apple computer system? Is it Mac? OS/X? OSX? OSX/Mach FreeBSD +Commercial UI layer based on NeXT? Literally NOBODY cares. Why doesn't Apple come out every week with a press release explaining the proper grammar for referring to their stuff? Because that would be ludicrous and stupid and counter productive. Learn something from that FSF!

trentnelson 11y ago
The fights are most vicious when there's so little at stake.
rekado 11y ago
The GNU project is primarily a social project with technical components. If the project's philosophy is not mentioned because the project isn't even understood to exist this is a problem. GNU is not primarily a product; if it were you would be right that its name wouldn't matter much and world domination would be the primary target.

doener 11y ago

"Secondly, when you see someone using a GNU/kWindows system, politely ask them why. Tell them that there is a better operating system out there—the GNU/Linux operating system—that not only provides those technical features, but also provides the feature of freedom! Tell them what free software is, and try to relate it to them so that they understand why it is important, and even practical." Am I the only one thinking of crusading Mormons here? ;)

GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago

"For example, GNU can be run with its own kernel, The GNU Hurd" My understanding is that this statement is a little optimistic.

mikegerwitz 11y ago
Some pretty good progress has been made, if you're curious: https://gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd/status.html https://gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd/status.html

rjeli 11y ago

Why does he keep claiming that MacOS uses GNU code? Isn't the MacOS userspace almost entirely FreeBSD?

mikegerwitz 11y ago
My only claim was that OSX uses GNU Bash. I don't use OSX, so I'm not sure what else it includes.

legulere 11y ago

They should write GPLv4 that requires your software to have GNU in it's name.

mikegerwitz 11y ago

Thank you to whomever posted this link again; I'm glad others can read about GNU's perspective. If any quotes from others here are out of date: I rearranged and modified the article slightly to reflect some suggestions from rms, and to clarify a few things.