11 ms·

FSF's insistence on "GNU/Linux" has always been childish, but now it's just silly really. For years the proportion of GNU software that actually gets run has be

FSF's insistence on "GNU/Linux" has always been childish, but now it's just silly really. For years the proportion of GNU software that actually gets run has been dwarfed by the code from Mozilla, KDE and/or GNOME, and other major desktop software vendors. The GNU/Linux argument has never been persuasive and I'd say it's high time they let it go.

smackfu 15y ago
Just makes sure you don't use the command line.
- rryan 15y ago
  And you make sure not to use a desktop environment, or a web browser, or an office suite, or a mail application, or a music player, or a ..
- cookiecaper 15y ago
  I use the command line a lot, but really, how big of a contribution is cat, ls, find, etc.? It's not like these are extremely complex or difficult programs; the GNU version is still the dominant one mainly because it works fine and it had momentum. I acknowledge that these have grown to be relatively advanced and it may not be an overnight job to rig up a replacement, and I appreciate the effort that has been put in to them by GNU developers, but it certainly wouldn't leave us desolate if we all had to stop using GNU code for some reason. There are non-GNU implementations of these programs already. Other than that, how much of my normal CLI usage is attributable to GNU? I'll give screen. What about OpenSSH, Python, htop, pacman, etc.? I use these a lot and they are not from GNU. If I am primarily running Python programs on my Linux box, should I call it Python/Linux since the Python Foundation is the most significant contributor to my userspace experience?
  - adharmad 15y ago
    What about gcc?
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - cookiecaper 15y ago
      What about clang? The point isn't that GNU programs aren't useful -- it's just that the claim that GNU is so important it should be included as a mandatory prefix any time anyone mentions "Linux" in a context that is not kernel exclusive is grating and silly.
      - ajross 15y ago
        What about clang? It isn't part of the OS. It can't even build the OS yet. It's a nice project, and it might be a solid competitor to gcc in the near future, but the fact that it exists hardly refutes the point that gcc is a large, crucially important component of a modern Linux distribution. (I should point out that I too find the whole GNU/Linux tiff silly, but equally silly are the folks who try to write the FSF out of the picture out of spite.)
        cookiecaper 15y ago
        clang builds Linux as of October. See http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-dev/2010-October/011711.html http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-dev/2010-October/0117... . gcc isn't really "part of the OS" either. Many distributions don't even include it in the default install. Ubuntu is a prominent such distribution. I'm not trying to write FSF out of the picture. I appreciate their contributions and surely things like gcc, gdb, and emacs are hefty achievements. I am grateful to the FSF and the GNU Project for its legacy and its direct benefit to myself in terms of code provided. However, I don't feel that these contributions entitle GNU to a special prefix on the OS name any more than it entitles KDE, Mozilla, Xorg, or anyone else to a special prefix. I use code from all of those parties and quite appreciate that code, too.
        mkr-hn 15y ago
        No one wants to write them out of the picture. It's just not realistic to credit all the vital contributors in the name. Why is GNU not content with the CREDITS file?
  - moe 15y ago
    It's not like these are extremely complex or difficult programs Have you looked at cat.c? You'll be surprised how complex and optimized even the supposedly simple ones are. Multiple decades of optimization and cross-platform polish are nothing to sneeze at. Try working against the Darwin or Solaris userland sometime if you want to experience what the alternatives look like. Not pretty at all.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
foob 15y ago
Just so you know, GNOME stands for GNU Object Model Environment. Not that that negates your point, but I still disagree with you for other reasons. Firefox is in no way part of the operating system itself. I would argue that Bash and the core-utils on the other hand are. Also keep in mind that the GNU Project created the whole idea of a Free alternative to Unix and created the culture and licenses that made it possible. For example, Linux is even licensed under the GNU General Public License v2. They provided every part of the operating system except for the kernel (again the core-utils and bash but gcc, emacs, and screen are probably also worth mentioning). Linux as we know it would absolutely not exist if it weren't for the GNU Project. I see people disrespecting the FSF constantly and I just really don't understand why you would when you know how much they've done for Free software.
- mkr-hn 15y ago
  GNU and the free software movement aren't going to die just because most people think GNU/Linux is a ridiculous thing to call an operating system. The core of GNU's argument is that they need GNU/Linux so people will recognize the importance of the movement, but the manner of people participating in this naming campaign is completely counterproductive.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- bxr 15y ago
  >the whole idea of a Free alternative to Unix I don't mean to marginalize the gnu project, but there were already free -nixes out there. Starting over from scratch isn't much of an accomplishment other than the license... >and created the culture and licenses that made it possible The GPL has ultimately done more harm than good for open source. The only time proprietary software vendors are forced to release anything is when they accidentally mess up because they didn't understand what they were getting into. This happens rarely and when businesses get burnt, they're more apprehensive to do anything with opensource in the future. I know because I still see this happening today. When people aren't scared of the codebase, they can start using it. If they can modify it without worrying about legal repercussions, they're not afraid to modify it. Sure they don't have to give back, but if you force them to they're not even going to make the modifications in the first place. If someone wants to build something closed source, they're going to build something closed source even if it means re-inventing the wheel to avoid the GPL. I'd rather have the wheel be a BSD wheel, so even if product X will never be opensource, at least it will be built with good wheels. I'm a realist that knows closed software isn't going anywhere and at the end of the day I'd like all software to be as good as it can be.
zohebv 15y ago
I looked at the article and it seems to strengthen the argument for calling it a GNU/Linux distribution. The top contributors as per the chart. 1. kernel 9% 2. gnu 8% 3. kde 8% 4,5 java, mozilla 6% 6. gnome 3% If you combine gnu with gnome, we have 1. gnu 13% 2. kernel 9% Also considering that java/mozilla are platform agnostic, the candidate names we have are linux-gnu-kde OR gnu-linux(-kde) If you are not running KDE, then gnu-linux seems like a very strong candidate for the name. The argument for calling it linux would revolve around the availability of GNU software on other non-linux distributions in some form or the other, thus making GNU a not very distinctive moniker. But MacOS/BSD doesn't really carry as much GNU as Linux distros do. But the kernel is running all the time when booted up. A better argument would be that only a fraction of GNU software is active at any moment, so by percentage of GNU v/s kernel code executed in any given time interval, the kernel should win handily. This pie chart, as it stands, actually makes a case for calling it GNU\Linux.
- caf 15y ago
  Warning: angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin argument ahead. It's true that the kernel is loaded all the time (though not usually running more than a small fraction of the time), but so is glibc. It's far from obvious that more cycles are spent in the kernel than are spent in glibc (though of course in both cases the goal is to run as little as possible, allowing more application code to run). It's also worth considering that only a fraction of the kernel's LOC are even compiled in the average distribution's kernel (are the LOC dedicated to Itanium, Alpha and PA-RISC support really useful to Ubuntu?).
  - nitrogen 15y ago
    It's also worth considering that only a fraction of the kernel's LOC are even compiled in the average distribution's kernel (are the LOC dedicated to Itanium, Alpha and PA-RISC support really useful to Ubuntu?). Does the kernel spend more lines of code on platform support or on drivers? I was under the impression that drivers made up the vast majority of the kernel, most of which are enabled in distribution kernels. Sloccount seems to confirm this on kernel 2.6.35: 4796735 drivers ansic=4791978,yacc=1688,asm=1428,perl=792,lex=779, sh=57,awk=13 1677610 arch ansic=1449312,asm=226905,sh=674,awk=470,pascal=116, perl=58,python=45,sed=30
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

smackfu 15y ago

Just makes sure you don't use the command line.

rryan 15y ago
And you make sure not to use a desktop environment, or a web browser, or an office suite, or a mail application, or a music player, or a ..
cookiecaper 15y ago
I use the command line a lot, but really, how big of a contribution is cat, ls, find, etc.? It's not like these are extremely complex or difficult programs; the GNU version is still the dominant one mainly because it works fine and it had momentum. I acknowledge that these have grown to be relatively advanced and it may not be an overnight job to rig up a replacement, and I appreciate the effort that has been put in to them by GNU developers, but it certainly wouldn't leave us desolate if we all had to stop using GNU code for some reason. There are non-GNU implementations of these programs already. Other than that, how much of my normal CLI usage is attributable to GNU? I'll give screen. What about OpenSSH, Python, htop, pacman, etc.? I use these a lot and they are not from GNU. If I am primarily running Python programs on my Linux box, should I call it Python/Linux since the Python Foundation is the most significant contributor to my userspace experience?
- adharmad 15y ago
  What about gcc?
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - cookiecaper 15y ago
    What about clang? The point isn't that GNU programs aren't useful -- it's just that the claim that GNU is so important it should be included as a mandatory prefix any time anyone mentions "Linux" in a context that is not kernel exclusive is grating and silly.
    - ajross 15y ago
      What about clang? It isn't part of the OS. It can't even build the OS yet. It's a nice project, and it might be a solid competitor to gcc in the near future, but the fact that it exists hardly refutes the point that gcc is a large, crucially important component of a modern Linux distribution. (I should point out that I too find the whole GNU/Linux tiff silly, but equally silly are the folks who try to write the FSF out of the picture out of spite.)
      - cookiecaper 15y ago
        clang builds Linux as of October. See http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-dev/2010-October/011711.html http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-dev/2010-October/0117... . gcc isn't really "part of the OS" either. Many distributions don't even include it in the default install. Ubuntu is a prominent such distribution. I'm not trying to write FSF out of the picture. I appreciate their contributions and surely things like gcc, gdb, and emacs are hefty achievements. I am grateful to the FSF and the GNU Project for its legacy and its direct benefit to myself in terms of code provided. However, I don't feel that these contributions entitle GNU to a special prefix on the OS name any more than it entitles KDE, Mozilla, Xorg, or anyone else to a special prefix. I use code from all of those parties and quite appreciate that code, too.
      - mkr-hn 15y ago
        No one wants to write them out of the picture. It's just not realistic to credit all the vital contributors in the name. Why is GNU not content with the CREDITS file?
- moe 15y ago
  It's not like these are extremely complex or difficult programs Have you looked at cat.c? You'll be surprised how complex and optimized even the supposedly simple ones are. Multiple decades of optimization and cross-platform polish are nothing to sneeze at. Try working against the Darwin or Solaris userland sometime if you want to experience what the alternatives look like. Not pretty at all.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

foob 15y ago

Just so you know, GNOME stands for GNU Object Model Environment. Not that that negates your point, but I still disagree with you for other reasons. Firefox is in no way part of the operating system itself. I would argue that Bash and the core-utils on the other hand are. Also keep in mind that the GNU Project created the whole idea of a Free alternative to Unix and created the culture and licenses that made it possible. For example, Linux is even licensed under the GNU General Public License v2. They provided every part of the operating system except for the kernel (again the core-utils and bash but gcc, emacs, and screen are probably also worth mentioning). Linux as we know it would absolutely not exist if it weren't for the GNU Project. I see people disrespecting the FSF constantly and I just really don't understand why you would when you know how much they've done for Free software.

mkr-hn 15y ago
GNU and the free software movement aren't going to die just because most people think GNU/Linux is a ridiculous thing to call an operating system. The core of GNU's argument is that they need GNU/Linux so people will recognize the importance of the movement, but the manner of people participating in this naming campaign is completely counterproductive.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
bxr 15y ago
>the whole idea of a Free alternative to Unix I don't mean to marginalize the gnu project, but there were already free -nixes out there. Starting over from scratch isn't much of an accomplishment other than the license... >and created the culture and licenses that made it possible The GPL has ultimately done more harm than good for open source. The only time proprietary software vendors are forced to release anything is when they accidentally mess up because they didn't understand what they were getting into. This happens rarely and when businesses get burnt, they're more apprehensive to do anything with opensource in the future. I know because I still see this happening today. When people aren't scared of the codebase, they can start using it. If they can modify it without worrying about legal repercussions, they're not afraid to modify it. Sure they don't have to give back, but if you force them to they're not even going to make the modifications in the first place. If someone wants to build something closed source, they're going to build something closed source even if it means re-inventing the wheel to avoid the GPL. I'd rather have the wheel be a BSD wheel, so even if product X will never be opensource, at least it will be built with good wheels. I'm a realist that knows closed software isn't going anywhere and at the end of the day I'd like all software to be as good as it can be.

zohebv 15y ago

I looked at the article and it seems to strengthen the argument for calling it a GNU/Linux distribution. The top contributors as per the chart. 1. kernel 9% 2. gnu 8% 3. kde 8% 4,5 java, mozilla 6% 6. gnome 3% If you combine gnu with gnome, we have 1. gnu 13% 2. kernel 9% Also considering that java/mozilla are platform agnostic, the candidate names we have are linux-gnu-kde OR gnu-linux(-kde) If you are not running KDE, then gnu-linux seems like a very strong candidate for the name. The argument for calling it linux would revolve around the availability of GNU software on other non-linux distributions in some form or the other, thus making GNU a not very distinctive moniker. But MacOS/BSD doesn't really carry as much GNU as Linux distros do. But the kernel is running all the time when booted up. A better argument would be that only a fraction of GNU software is active at any moment, so by percentage of GNU v/s kernel code executed in any given time interval, the kernel should win handily. This pie chart, as it stands, actually makes a case for calling it GNU\Linux.

caf 15y ago
Warning: angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin argument ahead. It's true that the kernel is loaded all the time (though not usually running more than a small fraction of the time), but so is glibc. It's far from obvious that more cycles are spent in the kernel than are spent in glibc (though of course in both cases the goal is to run as little as possible, allowing more application code to run). It's also worth considering that only a fraction of the kernel's LOC are even compiled in the average distribution's kernel (are the LOC dedicated to Itanium, Alpha and PA-RISC support really useful to Ubuntu?).
- nitrogen 15y ago
  It's also worth considering that only a fraction of the kernel's LOC are even compiled in the average distribution's kernel (are the LOC dedicated to Itanium, Alpha and PA-RISC support really useful to Ubuntu?). Does the kernel spend more lines of code on platform support or on drivers? I was under the impression that drivers made up the vast majority of the kernel, most of which are enabled in distribution kernels. Sloccount seems to confirm this on kernel 2.6.35: 4796735 drivers ansic=4791978,yacc=1688,asm=1428,perl=792,lex=779, sh=57,awk=13 1677610 arch ansic=1449312,asm=226905,sh=674,awk=470,pascal=116, perl=58,python=45,sed=30

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]