Linux: What`s yours called


hey, why is everyone so acted up?

sure, xp is the os, but that's easy. the creators got paid for their code and now the MS tag is in it - storry closed.

the people arguing over how to call that other os wrote it for fun or fame or whatnot. they were nice enough to hand over the code - let them have their fight over the fame.
oh, and if you think X is out of the story - gosh, just google up the whole Xfree86 vs. Xogr issue that happened back between 4.3.xxx and 4.4 of Xfree86. they were fighting over the requirement to print the major authors name on every product derived from the codebase. and you know what? i find this perfectly legit for people that were so nice as to donate this their lifes work to basically the public domain.
 
Exophase said:
"In the small embedded systems, Linux may be most of the system; perhaps “Linux systems” is the right name for them. "

So basically, if the userland software doesn't have GNU he doesn't care if you just call the whole thing Linux, cool ;)
I've had problems thinking about this. Where's the line between GNU/Linux and Linux systems? Consider system like this:
- kernel: Linux
- C library: uClibc
- userspace: busybox (+ editor: GNU nano)
- C compiler: GCC

Must it be called GNU/Linux just because it has GCC as its compiler (and nano as editor)? I call my one system that has this configuration to be uClibc/Linux, since i consider the two most important pieces of software on a system to be kernel and the C library, but that sounds weird... (uClibc/busybox/GNU/Linux anyone? :p)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
One minute we're talking about wifi-speeds, the next about the meaning of the term "OS". Oh well...

On unix- and unix-likes, like linux, bsd, aix, solaris etc., the term "OS" can't be given a proper meaning, as the platform is entirely modular. Most of the important parts in it have several implementations that can be easily swapped out, without anyone seeing much of a difference, or they can be replaced with something completely different. Other very visible parts could be put on a wide array of platforms. And all those things are packaged up by a number of people/vendors/distro's. And they can all be stripped down, or extended a lot.

For me, "OS" just means the basic set of stuff that defines what I'm running. As such, it also depends on who's asking. For most people, what's running below the GUI isn't very interesting.

So, if you say you're running kubuntu as your OS, you're actually saying you're running a linux-kernel, with glibc, gnu-tools, X.org, KDE, and some other junk, packaged up by the ubuntu-packagers.
But it's very similar to Gentoo with a FreeBSD-kernel, uClibc, busybox, another X-server, and KDE.
And most of KDE could be run on practically anything, including windows, mac, and the linux-fb, and you could be running a lot of GNOME-apps as well...
You could give your entire list of packages as your "OS" but that's a bit too much. All you care about is if your apps run...


Result: no matter what you say, you're either incomplete("linux", "ubuntu"), not specific enough ("KDE"), don't mention that there are dozens that are practically identical("ubuntu"), or are including stuff most people won't care about.
Just try not mentioning the "OS" at all. Just the things that matter for that particular moment. Far easier.
 
So, every server or even X11 desktop (this includes all Macs) would have to have the author's name somewhere on the case/tower/etc? Or does it just mean somewhere in the manual? I'd say putting it in the manual is fine, this should probably be done for most software already, but if it's on the "product" itself, like a desktop/laptop/server case, that's just complete silly nonsense. Also, I had heard that the Xfree86/Xorg thing was about someone wanting to charge for it or close the source or something.
 
urjaman said:
Exophase said:
"In the small embedded systems, Linux may be most of the system; perhaps “Linux systems” is the right name for them. "

So basically, if the userland software doesn't have GNU he doesn't care if you just call the whole thing Linux, cool ;)
I've had problems thinking about this. Where's the line between GNU/Linux and Linux systems? Consider system like this:
- kernel: Linux
- C library: uClibc
- userspace: busybox (+ editor: GNU nano)
- C compiler: GCC

Must it be called GNU/Linux just because it has GCC as its compiler (and nano as editor)? I call my one system that has this configuration to be uClibc/Linux, since i consider the two most important pieces of software on a system to be kernel and the C library, but that sounds weird... (uClibc/busybox/GNU/Linux anyone? :p )
Since hopefully a mod will split this discussion off, I might as well post here...

There are a couple of arguments in favor of the "GNU/Linux" idea. The first is ideological. The Linux kernel, the argument goes, would not be where it is today without the GNU project and the GPL. It would have remained known only to hobbyists and OS developers (like Minix is today, I guess). It wasn't until the Linux kernel was licensed under the GPL and became the official kernel of the GNU project that it started to really gain in popularity.

I think this is a fair argument, if not necessarily a perfect one, since now the Linux kernel is found in many places (e. g. Android) that are not in any way associated with the GNU project.

The other major argument that I mostly agree with is the one that's already been addressed here: that the GNU system is a fundamental part of the Linux software environment. Exophase argues that this isn't necessarily the case, because it's not a significant component of the end-user experience. This is generally true, but not necessarily relevant - it may be the case that a lot of the software he mentions uses GNU libraries internally (he notes that glibc CAN be replaced with uClibc or whatever, but this is only common on embedded systems, something Stallman explicitly excludes from his argument). Furthermore, the basic "generic" Linux enviroment consists of the kernel plus the GNU system - sure, you can (and usually do) add X, some desktop environment, or whatever on top, but underneath (and most Linux users do make heavy use of the console, because it's more powerful and less difficult than most Windows users generally claim) you still have and use the GNU tools. It's a more fundamental part of the system than X or Gnome or whatever, whether or not it actually represents a larger part of the system in terms of code size.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The PROBLEM with calling things "GNU/Linux" is that without a central authority enforcing naming conventions, the simplest name will prevail always.

Is anyone ever confused? No, of course not. ("Oh, You're running Linux? What operating system toolchain do you have installed?") the "GNU/" part isn't added to clarify, it's added to stoke RMS's ego. It was added because RMS felt that Linus was getting "unfair" attention.
 
VRAndy said:
Is anyone ever confused? No, of course not. ("Oh, You're running Linux? What operating system toolchain do you have installed?") the "GNU/" part isn't added to clarify, it's added to stoke RMS's ego. It was added because RMS felt that Linus was getting "unfair" attention.
Not really - remember, this is only one minor part of RMS's battle against unclear and misleading terminology. He has a whole host of other such examples, some of which are more likely to stick than others, but all part of a considered and rational (or at the very least, internally consistent ideological) campaign. He rejects the term "digital rights management" in favor of the more specific and more accurate (but so far unpopular) "digital restrictions management" or the less unwieldy "handcuffware." He rejects the term "intellectual property" because he feels that it draws an invalid comparison between ownership of a physical object and an idea. He believes the term "free software" should be used instead of e. g. "open source software" (since he feels the latter term shifts the focus away from the idea of freedom that was his reason for creating the GNU project in the first place).

It's true that use of a particular term can lead to inherent bias (for example, the continued use of the word "piracy" to capitalize on the image of the violent plunder of ships at sea), but I think that some of Stallman's replacements are unclear ("free software" doesn't really imply Stallman's definition of "free" to most people), and his proposed replacements can be unwieldy and are thus less suitable for use on a purely esthetic basis. However, it's unfair and inaccurate to say that Stallman is only doing this to boost his own ego.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Alerino said:
question: what OS do you use?

Person 1: Windows XP!
Person 2: err.. it's linux... err... no, it's a linux kernel, err, hmmm, but there's something called distribution, aka, distro, it's like a shell for the kernel, its name is Ubuntu, you know, it's an african word that stands for "humanity towards others". It's linux for human beings! But hey, don't ask me why they use animals as mascots, i don't know... Also, you can choose between Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Edubuntu, UbuntuStudio... and you have Gnome, KDE, XFCE, Matchbox, E17, and others to have as desktop environments, isn't that cool?? But it is linux, ok???
Interesting example, but person 2 would actually say "err... Ubuntu".

I've tested it over and over with non-technical people. ;)

Vitel said:
I use the Gentoo (for example) distribution of the GNU/Linux operating system - that's the correct answer.

Correct doesn't matter. To the end user, whatever it is once all packaged up neatly, is what the OS is.

So... Ubuntu. ;) Windows XP, Gentoo, OSX, Suse. (actually, often I hear just "XP" or "Vista" or "7" - "Windows" seems to be dropped, a lot)

It doesn't really matter that some of those are distros. They're all operating systems.

It doesn't matter that some programs can run on Ubuntu, Gentoo, and Suse, without recompilation. Some programs can run on Vista, XP, and Win2k, without recompilation.

Exophase said:
As far as I'm concerned, an operating system need only contain the minimal infrastructure to allow a user to launch non-embedded software programs, perhaps simultaneously. All that's necessary for this is a kernel and at most a shell.

That would be an OS.

And it'd also be an OS with X11 and Media Players and OpenOffice bundled in. But if you removed those, you'd be stripping out part of the OS, despite those parts not existing in a more minimal OS.

The OS is not what it contains per se - it's what it contains being packaged neatly together. ;) An OS is "complete" for whatever purpose it was intended for.

It's a little odd, but think about it. For PCs, most OS's intend to be customized by the end user, but few intend to be stripped down. For a server, OS's start more minimal, and again you customize or add things. For a router, you again start with a very minimal image and build upon it until it meets the intended purpose. I don't know what you call all the different building blocks being used, but an OS is what they all turn into when packaged in a neat bundle - regardless of how many or what building blocks are part of it.

Sphinxter said:
Deep meaningful open-penis waving discussions like these remind me why arguing on gp32x is like running in the Special Olympics.

:lol:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tom` said:
There are a couple of arguments in favor of the "GNU/Linux" idea. The first is ideological. The Linux kernel, the argument goes, would not be where it is today without the GNU project and the GPL. It would have remained known only to hobbyists and OS developers (like Minix is today, I guess). It wasn't until the Linux kernel was licensed under the GPL and became the official kernel of the GNU project that it started to really gain in popularity.

IMO almost everything RMS talks about is ideological (and by extension, everything he claims the collective that is the FSF believes in and represents). Which is fine, but I can't stand how much manipulative language and propaganda he uses. Although he does have some sense of tact, he still comes off as completely degrading any opponent he has. In other words, he really has no concept of allowing others to pursue ideology differing from his own, and applies very far impacting notions of "freedom" and "ethics" to issues that don't matter nearly as much to most people as they do to him. He also has this strange notion that it's better to do nothing at all than to not do things his way. IE, it's better to do no software than proprietary software. It's not merely that he's ideological, but he's willing to sacrifice many real things for some intangible goal. And that, to me, is just selfishness.

I think it's pointless to argue what things relied on what. We could talk about how if Linus's grandfather had the flu the day he first met his future wife then maybe none of this would have happened. But then other circumstances may have caused the same - or better - events to transpire. This is just a game of credit, but the thing that FSF doesn't understand is that having people acknowledge their contribution does not mean that their purpose is being acknowledged, nor furthered. All it means is that people recognize that some guys have done good work, not that free software is "right" and proprietary software is "wrong."

It's really rather striking to me that a movement like free software, that relies on the contribution from so many people that they'd may as well be anonymous, would have a strong fixation on receiving proper credit. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that a good percentage of the people who have contributed to GNU software don't even really care about anything FSF stands for, and just wanted to help others or themselves by improving software that matters to them.

Tom` said:
The other major argument that I mostly agree with is the one that's already been addressed here: that the GNU system is a fundamental part of the Linux software environment. Exophase argues that this isn't necessarily the case, because it's not a significant component of the end-user experience. This is generally true, but not necessarily relevant - it may be the case that a lot of the software he mentions uses GNU libraries internally (he notes that glibc CAN be replaced with uClibc or whatever, but this is only common on embedded systems, something Stallman explicitly excludes from his argument).

I listed glibc as an exception to everything I've said, and as far as I'm concerned it's the sole one.

When you think about it, what kind of a role does a standard C library really play? Much of it is a thin wrapper to the kernel itself, which probably provides more user space services beyond necessary kernel functions than even libc does. The most commonly used portions are not that big. You can actually get very far with only a few functions.

And this is regarding C programs. Programs in other languages rely on libc even less, taking more from their own standard libraries. I don't see us giving this kind of status to a much bigger language support library like Boost.

Tom` said:
Furthermore, the basic "generic" Linux enviroment consists of the kernel plus the GNU system - sure, you can (and usually do) add X, some desktop environment, or whatever on top, but underneath (and most Linux users do make heavy use of the console, because it's more powerful and less difficult than most Windows users generally claim) you still have and use the GNU tools. It's a more fundamental part of the system than X or Gnome or whatever, whether or not it actually represents a larger part of the system in terms of code size.

This, to me, is more of a historical issue than anything. I disagree that most Linux users make heavy use of the console, or at least, in its role as anything remotely mainstream they don't (I've installed Linux for family members who would never touch it). I think it's really only more core in a historical sense, which shouldn't matter.

All I know is that a lot of the things that RMS harps on about in the "why GNU/Linux" FAQ, such as emacs, GNUChess (come on Stallman), even gcc.. really aren't what's core to Linux being Linux. The shell and "Core utils" a bit more so, but it's just hard to take these things as so worthy, especially when they were mostly settled years ago and don't see the kind of revisions and improvement the kernel does.

In fact, when you stop and think about it, quite a lot of both libc and even more so GNU Core Utilities are really just thin wrappers for kernel calls. So how can anyone make the claim that the the kernel is a small piece of the puzzle (like RMS really has) but that Core Utils are system defining?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kramy said:
Interesting example, but person 2 would actually say "err... Ubuntu".
I've tried this strategy with non-linux users. Often I get replies like, "Oh! Ubuntu! That's the Linux that looks like Windows right, with icons you can click?", or "Oh! I've heard of that, It's kind of like Linux, except you don't have to use a dos prompt?".

That leads to a conversation that's far too much effort. I just say "Linux" and let people imagine whatever they like.


(I save my conversational energy for when I have to explain that "Virtual Reality" is not really like the holodeck or The Matrix.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't personally bother with it, but I don't think calling the operating system GNU/Linux is unreasonable if it relies on the GNU stack for POSIX compliance.
And then there's stuff like Debian GNU/kFreeBSD. It's a FreeBSD kernel with GNU userland, and that really is the best way to describe it. Calling it a "BSD distribution" would be misleading. Just as calling a Linux distro a... well, "Linux distribution" would be misleading if it didn't imply a lot more about the system than just the kernel.
 
Personally, I think Linux rolls off the tongue better than GNU/Linux. Despite that, I think its safe to say that Linux would probably not exist today if it were not for the GNU project. RMS is certainly ideological and uncompromising to the extreme. And even though I don't agree with him on everything, I'm thankful for the work he has done.
 
VRAndy said:
Kramy said:
Interesting example, but person 2 would actually say "err... Ubuntu".
I've tried this strategy with non-linux users. Often I get replies like, "Oh! Ubuntu! That's the Linux that looks like Windows right, with icons you can click?", or "Oh! I've heard of that, It's kind of like Linux, except you don't have to use a dos prompt?".

That leads to a conversation that's far too much effort. I just say "Linux" and let people imagine whatever they like.


(I save my conversational energy for when I have to explain that "Virtual Reality" is not really like the holodeck or The Matrix.)

Your quotes imply they know what Linux is - or at least an operating system. I said non-technical. :p

But I think we're on the same page that it won't be detailed, and may not be correct.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Exophase said:
What exactly are you suggesting these people are incompetent at?
Kernel itself cannot be an operating system. It cant's even load itself without a boot loader (like grub).

Exophase said:
just because GNU has all sorts of projects under its wings that are easy to get into distros doesn't mean that this is the software that can be considered "most useful."
Most useful? gcc is the most useful part of the GNU operating system IMHO.

Exophase said:
I would say that for the typical end user experience, not a lot of GNU software is really even coming into the picture. The Linux kernel will be at the core of operation, with a window server such as X11, and a window manager - this may be GNOME, but it may also very well not be (as on Pandora).
Kernel is just a program like all the others. It can also be replaced (see below). But that's not the point.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of the term 'GNU'. What is GNU in general? What does it consist of? There is a very simple definition. Every program released under GPL (GNU General Public License) or compatible license is a part of GNU. That's all. Linux is also a part of GNU. As well as GNOME (GNU Network Object Model Environment), GIMP (GNU Image Manipulation Program), Firefox, Thunderbird, etc.
So if your operating system is a free software - it's GNU. If it contains a proprietary software like flash plugin, then it's not pure GNU. That's my opinion.

Exophase said:
I would say that the only major exception that feels very necessarily central in the Linux experience is glibc, which is also far from exclusive on say, embedded platforms (there's ucLibc, newlib.. often deployed on embedded Linux).
ucLibc and newlib are also parts of GNU, because they are free software (released under GPL or compatible license).

Exophase said:
GNU's role today is most prominent in developing software, which is essential but disconnected from the end user experience.
End user and development are strongly connected in GNU. You use a program, you've found an issue. What should you do? You should file a bug. You may need to install a debugger, obtain a stack trace, apply patches provided by devs, recompile you application, etc. That's the way it is for lots of GNU users (not devs).

Exophase said:
"It is possible to make a system that uses Linux as the kernel but is not based on GNU. I'm told there are small systems, used for embedded development, that include Linux but not the GNU system."

Yeah, like this one small embedded Linux that doesn't include GNU, called Android.
Android contains a lot of GNU software. However, it's not a pure GNU distro.

urjaman said:
I've had problems thinking about this. Where's the line between GNU/Linux and Linux systems? Consider system like this:
- kernel: Linux
- C library: uClibc
- userspace: busybox (+ editor: GNU nano)
- C compiler: GCC

Must it be called GNU/Linux just because it has GCC as its compiler (and nano as editor)?
Not because it has gcc, but because all the other parts of the system are free. Once again: GNU is not just gcc and emacs, it's all free software ever released.

Multiplex said:
I don't personally bother with it, but I don't think calling the operating system GNU/Linux is unreasonable if it relies on the GNU stack for POSIX compliance.
And then there's stuff like Debian GNU/kFreeBSD. It's a FreeBSD kernel with GNU userland, and that really is the best way to describe it. Calling it a "BSD distribution" would be misleading. Just as calling a Linux distro a... well, "Linux distribution" would be misleading if it didn't imply a lot more about the system than just the kernel.
Exactly. And we have the same situation with Hurd, for example.

Laurencevde said:
Just try not mentioning the "OS" at all. Just the things that matter for that particular moment. Far easier.
Ignorance is bliss, right?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tom` said:
There are a couple of arguments in favor of the "GNU/Linux" idea. The first is ideological. The Linux kernel, the argument goes, would not be where it is today without the GNU project and the GPL. It would have remained known only to hobbyists and OS developers (like Minix is today, I guess). It wasn't until the Linux kernel was licensed under the GPL and became the official kernel of the GNU project that it started to really gain in popularity.
Ideological is the strongest (and IMHO the only) argument. But it's not about the Linux history. It's all about freedom.

Exophase said:
When you think about it, what kind of a role does a standard C library really play? Much of it is a thin wrapper to the kernel itself, which probably provides more user space services beyond necessary kernel functions than even libc does. The most commonly used portions are not that big. You can actually get very far with only a few functions.
This is ridiculous.

Exophase said:
In fact, when you stop and think about it, quite a lot of both libc and even more so GNU Core Utilities are really just thin wrappers for kernel calls. So how can anyone make the claim that the the kernel is a small piece of the puzzle (like RMS really has)
See examples above (Hurd/kFreeBSD/etc).

Exophase said:
but that Core Utils are system defining?
That's wrong. Freedom (i.e. licence) is the only definition.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
in my opinion OS is a vague term that describe the whole framework that let me run my application...
 
Vitel said:
I think you misunderstand the meaning of the term 'GNU'. What is GNU in general? What does it consist of? There is a very simple definition. Every program released under GPL (GNU General Public License) or compatible license is a part of GNU. That's all. Linux is also a part of GNU. As well as GNOME (GNU Network Object Model Environment), GIMP (GNU Image Manipulation Program), Firefox, Thunderbird, etc.
So if your operating system is a free software - it's GNU. If it contains a proprietary software like flash plugin, then it's not pure GNU. That's my opinion.
There is a very specific set of software that is considered GNU software.
It does not just mean anything under the GPL, that's just "free software".
Stallman has done some important things, but he does not get credit for every piece of free software ever just for writing a licence.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Vitel said:
Exophase said:
I would say that the only major exception that feels very necessarily central in the Linux experience is glibc, which is also far from exclusive on say, embedded platforms (there's ucLibc, newlib.. often deployed on embedded Linux).
ucLibc and newlib are also parts of GNU, because they are free software (released under GPL or compatible license).
You must be joking. So if I release a program under GPL it becomes a GNU project? GPL is just a license, ffs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Vitel said:
Most useful? gcc is the most useful part of the GNU operating system IMHO.

That depends on the use of the OS. For example in HPC gcc is a absolute bane. Two types of users I fear the most are the ones who refuse to even attempt to compile with a commercial compiler because they can't be bothered to try something different, or because it goes against their "beliefs".

Good coding aside, we have benchmarked an average of 30 % increase of performance, on a good deal of the popular apps by using another compiler. Now if we consider that we paid ~ 200kGBP for one of our new systems, and for a large job they could have access to half of it, that is a lot of resource they are wasting.

notaz said:
Vitel said:
Exophase said:
I would say that the only major exception that feels very necessarily central in the Linux experience is glibc, which is also far from exclusive on say, embedded platforms (there's ucLibc, newlib.. often deployed on embedded Linux).
ucLibc and newlib are also parts of GNU, because they are free software (released under GPL or compatible license).
You must be joking. So if I release a program under GPL it becomes a GNU project? GPL is just a license, ffs.

Brings back memories of when the GPL team were trying to convince Linus to go for GPLv3. I seem to recall their favourite phrase was "you don't understand". What a great method to get someone like Linus onboard :p

My thoughts of Linux distributions vs Windows distributions.

I think the key word is distribution.

For example if someone asks me what is the equivalent of Ubuntu, Red Hat or SuSE in Windows, then I would say something close to what Dell, Asus or HP produce. Not the hardware as such, but all the programs they bundle with the core OS.

In general I think I would summarise as:

Linux distros are hardware agnostic with focus on providing a very broad software solution. This can be seen by the attempt to include as much OOTB hardware support as possible.

Window distros are focused on providing a solution specific for a piece of hardware. Drivers specific for that piece of hardware, and less focus on providing application functionality such as Office (pay or download a FOSS version)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top