4 ms·

A Linux distro is much more than GNU software. A lot of things I use everyday are BSD licensed. There are distros where the only gnu code is the kernel. Stallm

A Linux distro is much more than GNU software. A lot of things I use everyday are BSD licensed. There are distros where the only gnu code is the kernel. Stallman cannot really make any such demands. Edit: sorry for the confusion, I meant the Linux kernel, which is not gnu.

rootietootie 7y ago
Not true. GNU coreutils comes standard on most distros. >There are distros where the only gnu code is the kernel. What? GNU never finished Hurd kernel and that is why it is now GNU/Linux because Linux was the missing piece since they could not get Hurd working. In other words, there is no GNU kernel. Please don't just make things up.
- panpanna 7y ago
  Nobody is talking about Hurd. Alpine Linux for example replaces libc with musl and gnu binaries with BusyBox.
- aidenn0 7y ago
  That does raise the question, can I safely not call a busybox based distribution GNU/Linux in front of RMS, particularly if it uses uClibc?
  - lixtra 7y ago
    Don’t you need gcc to compile the Linux kernel? At least it was like this for a very long time.
    - aidenn0 7y ago
      Nobody in GNU is suggesting that all software compiled with gcc must be called GNU.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> There are distros where the only gnu code is the kernel. What, like Hurd with a non-GNU userland? Where? I know there is Debian with Hurd, but that still uses GNU userland.
aidenn0 7y ago
The Linux kernel is not GNU code.
shmerl 7y ago
Arguably, most of the components end users care about (like desktop environment) have nothing to do with the GNU project.
- the_why_of_y 7y ago
  The G in GNOME originally stood for GNU, actually. Gnome is still listed as a GNU package here: https://www.gnu.org/software/software.html https://www.gnu.org/software/software.html Today, however, Gnome is a rather independent project, with its own GNOME Foundation. (There was also GNUStep but it was never popular)
  - shmerl 7y ago
    Gnome may be (historically), but other DEs like KDE were never associated with it.
Digital-Citizen 7y ago
> A lot of things I use everyday are BSD licensed. > Stallman cannot really make any such demands. That those programs are licensed under one of the BSD licenses doesn't have anything to do with Stallman's use of the term "GNU/Linux" and recommendation that others join him in using the term "GNU/Linux". This is not a "demand" as you claim. Stallman explains his position in brief in https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Linux https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Linux , at length in https://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html https://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html and there's a FAQ as well. In fact the specific point you raise has been raised before and is addressed quite well across multiple questions in the FSF's FAQ on the term GNU/Linux: https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#others https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#others -- Many other projects contributed to the system as it is today, but they don't insist on calling it XYZ/Linux. Why should we treat GNU specially? https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#distronames0 https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#distronames0 -- My distro's developers call it “Foobar Linux”, but that doesn't say anything about what the system consists of. Why shouldn't they call it whatever they like? https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#bsd https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#bsd -- Should we say “GNU/BSD” too? For a while Debian has distributed multiple systems where GNU was the predominant OS atop other kernels--GNU/Linux, GNU/kFreeBSD, and GNU/Hurd. It helps people understand the major components involved by naming things according to what they are. Such naming is also fair to those who ask for a share of the credit for their major contribution to the overall work, as the GNU Project asks people to give them a share of the credit for their major contribution.

rootietootie 7y ago

Not true. GNU coreutils comes standard on most distros. >There are distros where the only gnu code is the kernel. What? GNU never finished Hurd kernel and that is why it is now GNU/Linux because Linux was the missing piece since they could not get Hurd working. In other words, there is no GNU kernel. Please don't just make things up.

panpanna 7y ago
Nobody is talking about Hurd. Alpine Linux for example replaces libc with musl and gnu binaries with BusyBox.
aidenn0 7y ago
That does raise the question, can I safely not call a busybox based distribution GNU/Linux in front of RMS, particularly if it uses uClibc?
- lixtra 7y ago
  Don’t you need gcc to compile the Linux kernel? At least it was like this for a very long time.
  - aidenn0 7y ago
    Nobody in GNU is suggesting that all software compiled with gcc must be called GNU.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> There are distros where the only gnu code is the kernel. What, like Hurd with a non-GNU userland? Where? I know there is Debian with Hurd, but that still uses GNU userland.

aidenn0 7y ago

The Linux kernel is not GNU code.

shmerl 7y ago

Arguably, most of the components end users care about (like desktop environment) have nothing to do with the GNU project.

the_why_of_y 7y ago
The G in GNOME originally stood for GNU, actually. Gnome is still listed as a GNU package here: https://www.gnu.org/software/software.html https://www.gnu.org/software/software.html Today, however, Gnome is a rather independent project, with its own GNOME Foundation. (There was also GNUStep but it was never popular)
- shmerl 7y ago
  Gnome may be (historically), but other DEs like KDE were never associated with it.

Digital-Citizen 7y ago

> A lot of things I use everyday are BSD licensed. > Stallman cannot really make any such demands. That those programs are licensed under one of the BSD licenses doesn't have anything to do with Stallman's use of the term "GNU/Linux" and recommendation that others join him in using the term "GNU/Linux". This is not a "demand" as you claim. Stallman explains his position in brief in https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Linux https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Linux , at length in https://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html https://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html and there's a FAQ as well. In fact the specific point you raise has been raised before and is addressed quite well across multiple questions in the FSF's FAQ on the term GNU/Linux: https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#others https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#others -- Many other projects contributed to the system as it is today, but they don't insist on calling it XYZ/Linux. Why should we treat GNU specially? https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#distronames0 https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#distronames0 -- My distro's developers call it “Foobar Linux”, but that doesn't say anything about what the system consists of. Why shouldn't they call it whatever they like? https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#bsd https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#bsd -- Should we say “GNU/BSD” too? For a while Debian has distributed multiple systems where GNU was the predominant OS atop other kernels--GNU/Linux, GNU/kFreeBSD, and GNU/Hurd. It helps people understand the major components involved by naming things according to what they are. Such naming is also fair to those who ask for a share of the credit for their major contribution to the overall work, as the GNU Project asks people to give them a share of the credit for their major contribution.