7 ms·

Lines of code is a poor way to measure contribution.

cookiecaper 15y ago
The whole argument around the "GNU/Linux" terminology is that the FSF deserved part of the glory because they contributed the userspace to Linux's system code. I think the persistence of those pushing this point of view is a projection of their disappointment over Hurd and demands for subsequent glory "because we deserve it!" This is a really childish stance from the start. A kernel is of course useless without userspace. However, almost since its inception the percentage and importance of the GNU contribution has been steadily dwindling; in the course of a normal day, my wife, who is a KDE user, uses much more software provided by KDE e.V. than software provided by GNU/FSF. Should we call all of her Linux installs KDE/Linux?
- ryanpetrich 15y ago
  I make no statement on the "GNU/Linux" terminology, only the methodology of the article.
- Confusion 15y ago
  That she 'uses more software provided by KDE' is an unsubstantiated claim that people make way to fast. Is it possible to build KDE without GNU tools? If not, every use of KDE is an indirect use of GNU tools. While running, how many times are glibc and related foundational components called? The problem of GNU tools is their invisibility. But by that metric (what users see), your wife should call the system KDE, since the kernel is entirely invisible to her. Surely no one here suggest dropping Linux as the appropriate name for the system? But if so, doesn't GNU deserve to be mentioned as well, for making Linux actually usable by things such as KDE? The foundation is Linux + GNU tools. Neither can do without the other, but nothing can do anything without the two of them. That's as foundational as you can get in a GNU/Linux system, which is why people call it that.
  - maethorechannen 15y ago
    Isn't the "you couldn't build it without GNU tools" argument somewhat silly, as no other OS out there includes the toolchain as part of the name? I doubt the folks over at Microsoft would seriously consider renaming Windows "Visual Studio/Windows" or "TFS/Windows", yet they would be hard pressed to build Windows without it. I'm also fairly sure Linux isn't the only OS out there that can be built with GNU tools (I thought Solaris was using it, at least during the brief period of time that they were open), yet it does seem to be the main target of the "GNU's contribution should be specially recognized" crowd - it's hard to see this as anything but sour grapes over Linux pretty much taking over the GPL licensed Unix-like kernel market away from Hurd. "Surely no one here suggest dropping Linux as the appropriate name for the system?" Linux based Android doesn't use Linux. Arguably the distro name is now the "primary" name (though this would still leave the FSF people feeling unloved). Thinking about it, I mostly say I use Ubuntu on the Desktop and Android on the phone and tablet and barely ever mention I run Linux nowadays.
  - cookiecaper 15y ago
    I don't think much of KDE uses GNU tools under the covers. I know for instance that they've implemented their own copy functionality instead of just piping to cp or whatever. I don't know if they're dependent on any other GNU tools for runtime (they are probably dependent on GNU build tools), maybe we could ask a KDE developer. It'd be interesting to know.
tedunangst 15y ago
Why? It is a reasonable proxy for how long it would take to replace something, and it's the effort to replace something that is core to the "you wouldn't be where you are without us" argument. How would you measure contribution?
- rwl 15y ago
  I'm not the OP, but one way would be to look at the dependency graph for packages. My guess is that a whole heck of a lot of them depend either directly or transitively on GNU code -- for example, GLibC.
- aniket_ray 15y ago
  It doesn't really measure how time it would take to replace. Compared to KDE or Firefox code, GNU code is much more succinct and optimally written. I really doubt that that code could be replaced easily in a single pass.
  - djmdjm 15y ago
    citation needed
    - simias 15y ago
      Here you go: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2010-August/019310.html http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2010-Augu...
      - tedunangst 15y ago
        So wrong. GNU grep may be fast, but it's also the most bloated grep with the most lines of code. I think that's the opposite of what you're trying to prove.
        3am 15y ago
        Optimizations are the hardest part. So those additional LOC are actually the most valuable and difficult to replace. Your utility of those optimizations might be vary from other peoples'... personally, I would hesitate before calling Gnu grep bloated.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
mahrain 15y ago
Exactly, and there's a nice story on this from the early days of the Macintosh: http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Negative_2000_Lines_Of_Code.txt http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Negative_2000_Lin... Bill Atkinson improved on code and made it 2000 lines shorter, so he entered his contribution as being "-2000" lines.

The whole argument around the "GNU/Linux" terminology is that the FSF deserved part of the glory because they contributed the userspace to Linux's system code. I think the persistence of those pushing this point of view is a projection of their disappointment over Hurd and demands for subsequent glory "because we deserve it!" This is a really childish stance from the start. A kernel is of course useless without userspace. However, almost since its inception the percentage and importance of the GNU contribution has been steadily dwindling; in the course of a normal day, my wife, who is a KDE user, uses much more software provided by KDE e.V. than software provided by GNU/FSF. Should we call all of her Linux installs KDE/Linux?

ryanpetrich 15y ago
I make no statement on the "GNU/Linux" terminology, only the methodology of the article.
Confusion 15y ago
That she 'uses more software provided by KDE' is an unsubstantiated claim that people make way to fast. Is it possible to build KDE without GNU tools? If not, every use of KDE is an indirect use of GNU tools. While running, how many times are glibc and related foundational components called? The problem of GNU tools is their invisibility. But by that metric (what users see), your wife should call the system KDE, since the kernel is entirely invisible to her. Surely no one here suggest dropping Linux as the appropriate name for the system? But if so, doesn't GNU deserve to be mentioned as well, for making Linux actually usable by things such as KDE? The foundation is Linux + GNU tools. Neither can do without the other, but nothing can do anything without the two of them. That's as foundational as you can get in a GNU/Linux system, which is why people call it that.
- maethorechannen 15y ago
  Isn't the "you couldn't build it without GNU tools" argument somewhat silly, as no other OS out there includes the toolchain as part of the name? I doubt the folks over at Microsoft would seriously consider renaming Windows "Visual Studio/Windows" or "TFS/Windows", yet they would be hard pressed to build Windows without it. I'm also fairly sure Linux isn't the only OS out there that can be built with GNU tools (I thought Solaris was using it, at least during the brief period of time that they were open), yet it does seem to be the main target of the "GNU's contribution should be specially recognized" crowd - it's hard to see this as anything but sour grapes over Linux pretty much taking over the GPL licensed Unix-like kernel market away from Hurd. "Surely no one here suggest dropping Linux as the appropriate name for the system?" Linux based Android doesn't use Linux. Arguably the distro name is now the "primary" name (though this would still leave the FSF people feeling unloved). Thinking about it, I mostly say I use Ubuntu on the Desktop and Android on the phone and tablet and barely ever mention I run Linux nowadays.
- cookiecaper 15y ago
  I don't think much of KDE uses GNU tools under the covers. I know for instance that they've implemented their own copy functionality instead of just piping to cp or whatever. I don't know if they're dependent on any other GNU tools for runtime (they are probably dependent on GNU build tools), maybe we could ask a KDE developer. It'd be interesting to know.

tedunangst 15y ago

Why? It is a reasonable proxy for how long it would take to replace something, and it's the effort to replace something that is core to the "you wouldn't be where you are without us" argument. How would you measure contribution?

rwl 15y ago
I'm not the OP, but one way would be to look at the dependency graph for packages. My guess is that a whole heck of a lot of them depend either directly or transitively on GNU code -- for example, GLibC.
aniket_ray 15y ago
It doesn't really measure how time it would take to replace. Compared to KDE or Firefox code, GNU code is much more succinct and optimally written. I really doubt that that code could be replaced easily in a single pass.
- djmdjm 15y ago
  citation needed
  - simias 15y ago
    Here you go: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2010-August/019310.html http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2010-Augu...
    - tedunangst 15y ago
      So wrong. GNU grep may be fast, but it's also the most bloated grep with the most lines of code. I think that's the opposite of what you're trying to prove.
      - 3am 15y ago
        Optimizations are the hardest part. So those additional LOC are actually the most valuable and difficult to replace. Your utility of those optimizations might be vary from other peoples'... personally, I would hesitate before calling Gnu grep bloated.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

mahrain 15y ago

Exactly, and there's a nice story on this from the early days of the Macintosh: http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Negative_2000_Lines_Of_Code.txt http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Negative_2000_Lin... Bill Atkinson improved on code and made it 2000 lines shorter, so he entered his contribution as being "-2000" lines.