6 ms·

I made a few vague observations based on comments scattered around the web and this rant just made me want to write them down. * GNU leadership seemed very stu

by pestaa 14y ago

I made a few vague observations based on comments scattered around the web and this rant just made me want to write them down. * GNU leadership seemed very stubborn from the beginning. * GNU software is really great. * Gnome is the new GNU. I wish they wouldn't lose more momentum or the wide variety of software they write and maintain will suffer, too.

dfc 14y ago
"Gnome is the new GNU" I have heard this before but never really understood what it was supposed to convey? Is this statement purely from a technical viewpoint? Has Gnome done a lot of work with licensing and activism that I have not heard about?
- geofft 14y ago
  GNU is about developing a free distribution. The FSF is about licensing and activism. They're basically the same organization, but "GNOME is the new GNU" is a very different claim from "GNOME is the new FSF". And yes, you can basically get a complete distribution from GNOME these days, although you're better off going through one of the real distros. And they are contributing the bulk of technical work for the distribution, such that GNOME is actually a more meaningful term for it than Linux (which "GNU" never was).
  - dfc 14y ago
    "And yes, you can basically get a complete distribution from GNOME these days, although you're better off going through one of the real distros. And they are contributing the bulk of technical work for the distribution, such that GNOME is actually a more meaningful term for it than Linux (which "GNU" never was)." Either a "complete distribution" means something different to you or you can't be serious? I know very little about this "gnome distribution" or the bulk of the technical efforts that went into it. What version of the kernel is used? Do they include any distro maintained patches for the kernel or is it pristine linux-stable? What package management system is gnome using for their distribution? Is the default compiler in the Gnome distribution llvm or gcc? How do they handle the installation of ruby gems or python eggs? Upstart, systemd, or plain old init?
    - geofft 14y ago
      http://www.gnome.org/getting-gnome/ http://www.gnome.org/getting-gnome/ You can download a thing called GNOME-3.6.0.iso. Package management is presumably using jhbuild. I don't actually know what the rest of the technical details are, but it is branded as just GNOME.
  - keypusher 14y ago
    This only holds true if your idea of a "complete distribution" is the desktop environment. Gnome team doesn't do work on kernel, core tools, package managers, init system, drivers, etc. While gnome contributes important work to the average desktop user, most servers run distros with no gnome packages, and even no desktop. Linux is a lot more than a window manager and associated applications.
- dietrichepp 14y ago
  I didn't make the comment, but I interpret it this way. In the past, if you were on a Unix-like system and wanted a nicer interface, you could install GNU tools. You got nifty things like ls and grep that color their output, a tar that works correctly, etc. Today, if you are on a Unix-like system and want a nicer interface, you install the Gnome shell. Never mind that it's not what everyone wants (bah Gnome 2 is better than 3, or Xmonad rulez, or Fluxbox is good enough for everyone), that's not the point. Gnome gives you a free, complete desktop roughly comparable with Apple/Microsoft/etc. offerings. You can configure your wireless adapter or plug in a USB drive without the need for root access. Perhaps Gnome is the face of what you get when you want a nice free Unix. (Don't mix up GNU and FSF, even though they're both projects started by Richard Stallman, and still intimately connected. Licensing and activism are FSF goals, GNU goals are to make software.)
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Gnome might get you something roughly comparable to Apple/Microsoft/etc, but without the GNU tools there is really no technical reason to prefer Gnome to Apple/Microsoft/etc. Sure you could use NetBSD's userland instead of GNU, or BusyBox, or any other number of alternative userlands, but who actually does that? BusyBox is very popular, but only in all of the places that Gnome definitely is not.
    - dietrichepp 14y ago
      GNU might get you something roughly comparable to BSD/Solaris/etc, but without the Linux kernel there is really no technical reason to prefer GNU to BSD/Solaris/etc. Sure you could use Hurd instead of Linux, or Mach, or any other number of alternative kernels, but who actually does that? Mach is very popular, but only in all of the places that GNU definitely is not. (Clarification: I was explaining how Gnome may be filling the same, er, cultural role that GNU filled in years past. They're both software projects that try to give us the Unix experience we want. Part of what has changed is which part of the OS we pay attention to -- GNU is not as relevant because it achieved so many of its goals, not like Gnome.)
      - 14y ago

by pestaa 14y ago

dfc 14y ago

"Gnome is the new GNU" I have heard this before but never really understood what it was supposed to convey? Is this statement purely from a technical viewpoint? Has Gnome done a lot of work with licensing and activism that I have not heard about?

geofft 14y ago
GNU is about developing a free distribution. The FSF is about licensing and activism. They're basically the same organization, but "GNOME is the new GNU" is a very different claim from "GNOME is the new FSF". And yes, you can basically get a complete distribution from GNOME these days, although you're better off going through one of the real distros. And they are contributing the bulk of technical work for the distribution, such that GNOME is actually a more meaningful term for it than Linux (which "GNU" never was).
- dfc 14y ago
  "And yes, you can basically get a complete distribution from GNOME these days, although you're better off going through one of the real distros. And they are contributing the bulk of technical work for the distribution, such that GNOME is actually a more meaningful term for it than Linux (which "GNU" never was)." Either a "complete distribution" means something different to you or you can't be serious? I know very little about this "gnome distribution" or the bulk of the technical efforts that went into it. What version of the kernel is used? Do they include any distro maintained patches for the kernel or is it pristine linux-stable? What package management system is gnome using for their distribution? Is the default compiler in the Gnome distribution llvm or gcc? How do they handle the installation of ruby gems or python eggs? Upstart, systemd, or plain old init?
  - geofft 14y ago
    http://www.gnome.org/getting-gnome/ http://www.gnome.org/getting-gnome/ You can download a thing called GNOME-3.6.0.iso. Package management is presumably using jhbuild. I don't actually know what the rest of the technical details are, but it is branded as just GNOME.
- keypusher 14y ago
  This only holds true if your idea of a "complete distribution" is the desktop environment. Gnome team doesn't do work on kernel, core tools, package managers, init system, drivers, etc. While gnome contributes important work to the average desktop user, most servers run distros with no gnome packages, and even no desktop. Linux is a lot more than a window manager and associated applications.
dietrichepp 14y ago
I didn't make the comment, but I interpret it this way. In the past, if you were on a Unix-like system and wanted a nicer interface, you could install GNU tools. You got nifty things like ls and grep that color their output, a tar that works correctly, etc. Today, if you are on a Unix-like system and want a nicer interface, you install the Gnome shell. Never mind that it's not what everyone wants (bah Gnome 2 is better than 3, or Xmonad rulez, or Fluxbox is good enough for everyone), that's not the point. Gnome gives you a free, complete desktop roughly comparable with Apple/Microsoft/etc. offerings. You can configure your wireless adapter or plug in a USB drive without the need for root access. Perhaps Gnome is the face of what you get when you want a nice free Unix. (Don't mix up GNU and FSF, even though they're both projects started by Richard Stallman, and still intimately connected. Licensing and activism are FSF goals, GNU goals are to make software.)
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Gnome might get you something roughly comparable to Apple/Microsoft/etc, but without the GNU tools there is really no technical reason to prefer Gnome to Apple/Microsoft/etc. Sure you could use NetBSD's userland instead of GNU, or BusyBox, or any other number of alternative userlands, but who actually does that? BusyBox is very popular, but only in all of the places that Gnome definitely is not.
  - dietrichepp 14y ago
    GNU might get you something roughly comparable to BSD/Solaris/etc, but without the Linux kernel there is really no technical reason to prefer GNU to BSD/Solaris/etc. Sure you could use Hurd instead of Linux, or Mach, or any other number of alternative kernels, but who actually does that? Mach is very popular, but only in all of the places that GNU definitely is not. (Clarification: I was explaining how Gnome may be filling the same, er, cultural role that GNU filled in years past. They're both software projects that try to give us the Unix experience we want. Part of what has changed is which part of the OS we pay attention to -- GNU is not as relevant because it achieved so many of its goals, not like Gnome.)
    - 14y ago