OSNews

Everybody calls it Linux because it is shorter, more fluent and convenient, not because they feel like pissing off RMS or thwarting free software.

Yep, that's why people call Linux Linux.

It's all about recognition and perceived control. Stallman likes to think that GNU's software is responsible for creating just about everything in the open source world, including Linux. However, he doesn't seem to realise that without Linux bringing open source, oh sorry, free, software to prominence in the 90s GNU software would be nowhere as widely used today and free software would not be getting talked about. He would be wise to remember that.

The clue in this control thing is that Linux is GPLed software, no ifs and no arguments, and yet Stallman and the GNU insist on having a GNU endorsed, and totally non-existant, kernel called Hurd.

... and yet Stallman and the GNU insist on having a GNU endorsed, and totally non-existant, kernel called Hurd.

Hmm, HURD exists, and it's in a working state, just not usable. My take is that the FSF want's it to be a little more consistent than Linux is. And there are significant diferences between both kernels.

What happened was that the Linux kernel just took off in popularity.

Hmm, HURD exists, and it's in a working state, just not usable.

After all this time, that's what I meant by not 'existing'.

Stallman likes to think that GNU's software is responsible for creating just about everything in the open source world

And he's right, ever hear of the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC)?

The compiler, the system tools, the shell, and the basic userland tools were all created and documented by the FSF. Had they not existed, Linux would have struggled to take off at the rate that it has, as Linus would have been forced to re-write most of the tools: hell, without the free compiler, most open-source software would have gone no-where (until the mid-ninties the _only_ free compiler was GNU).

Even the BSDs use GCC.

GNU/Linux is an awkward name, and I can understand why no-one uses it; however at the same time I can understand why RMS is so pissed. After 20 years of work preparing the foundations for something like Linux, hardly anyone pays any attention to what he has to say (which is nowhere nearly as off the wall as people make out), nor to the enormous contribution he and the FSF have made to the F/OSS movement.

And he's right, ever hear of the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC)?

Hmmm, I take it you didn't read it then? As important as GCC and other software is (and if it didn't exist someone would have wrote it), it would have been used by very, very few (and it certainly wouldn't had had the *cough* funding put into it that it has!) had Linux not pushed everything on in the 90s and became popular. Pure and simple.

I know this is difficult for some people to admit, but without Linux moving forwards GNU would have still been perceived as a somewhat crackpot group of individuals whose software was rarely used by anyone. Linux is the sole, root cause of why anyone talks about free software or open source software at all.

If the essential software that Linux needs to be a complete OS wasn't provided by the GNU then it would have been provided by someone else anyway. It's an open source and free software world out there after all.

Edited 2006-05-05 17:53

I wouldn't push GCC too hard as an example of why everyone must rely on FSF. It was originated by the FSF, but it's been mostly developed by other people.

As for "had they not existed", all Linux would have had to do was wait for the AT&T/UC-Berkeley consent decree, which freed up all of the tools in BSD, including a compiler. Linux would have required a few years more to get to where it is today, but that's about it.

GCC wasn't the only freely available C compiler into the 90s, although it was the most heavily developed, and feature rich.

People don't pay attention to RMS because they heard his message, and mostly, don't buy it. He does himself a disservice when he tries to make a big deal out of the FSF's contributions, which, when you get down to it, amount to the GPL and Emacs.

We have GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd, GNU/BSD.

Linux is the kernel AND the short form of the GNU/Linux.

GNU/Linux is used when people want to be accurate, just like saying "Windows" instead of "Microsoft Windows" or "Microsoft Windows 2003 Server with Service Pack 193475 and the newest bugfixes and security fixes".

"What exactly is meant by "this system"? I haven't seen something that can be described as "the GNU operating system"

That's easy. Let's go back to 1984, when there were no free operating systems:

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.html

Starting this Thanksgiving I am going to write a complete
Unix-compatible software system called GNU (for Gnu's Not Unix), and
give it away free(1) to everyone who can use it. Contributions of time,
money, programs and equipment are greatly needed.

To begin with, GNU will be a kernel plus all the utilities needed to
write and run C programs: editor, shell, C compiler, linker,
assembler, and a few other things. After this we will add a text
formatter, a YACC, an Empire game, a spreadsheet, and hundreds of
other things. We hope to supply, eventually, everything useful that
normally comes with a Unix system, and anything else useful, including
on-line and hardcopy documentation.

Unix was a modular system, so the idea is that GNU would replace each and every module, eventually making it a complete system. But RMS always had in mind that a GNU system would include non-GNU software (like a free X11 implementation). Of all the projects you mention the only one really built to make an operating system was the GNU project. It's silly add the name of an application to the operating system name, or of a single component.

It's technically more correct to refer to the system as GNU, but that's not the reason RMS calls for GNU/Linux until today. The reason is that when people think of GNU it's by definition associated with "the free operating system", and that doesn't happen with the name Linux. Linus himself has supported proprietary software in the past. Someone might say that "Linux needs DRM to be successful", and as far as many people are concerned that's completely true. But anyone can see how it's completely ridiculous to suggest that "GNU, the operating system built to replace non-free operating systems, needs non-free software to be successful".

But anyone can see how it's completely ridiculous to suggest that "GNU, the operating system built to replace non-free operating systems, needs non-free software to be successful".

So which free operating system was the FSF using to develop GNU before the AT&T/UCBerkeley deal made it possible to have a FreeBSD? (sorry for the name pun)

Which free compilers did RMS use to bootstrap GCC?

Realistically, 22 years after RMS' announcement, GNU is nothing more than a prototype. Meanwhile, using a few tools originated by the FSF but mostly developed by other people, the open source community has released a (pun warning:) herd of Linux and BSD distributions.

GNU tools as well as lots of other stuff

The nomenclature drives from traditional UNIX systems. Remember, the GNU project provides an almost complete UNIX-replacement OS. In a UNIX, "the OS" is kernel + C library + compiler + CLI tools + etc. A GNU/Linux system is the GNU OS on the Linux kernel, just as OS X is the BSD OS on the Mach kernel.

Im thinking since the Linux kernel is GNU sotware and licensed as such, to say you have a GNU/Linux OS would be like saying I have Mac OSX or a chocolate hot fudge sundae..its implied or a double statement statement.

Linux is NOT GNU software. GNU is an operating system with many modules, like GCC, glibc, bash, etc. Linux, however, is not one of these modules. There are several resources where you can learn what GNU is, I'd recommend a quick look at www.gnu.org.

With that said, calling GNU/Linux by Linux would be something like using XNU instead of Mac OS X. If you have no idea what these words mean please google it.

Maybe its me but I said that Kernel was GNU. It is.

"The kernel, at the heart of all Linux systems, is developed and released under the GNU General Public License and its source code is freely available to everyone. It is this kernel that forms the base around which a Linux operating system is developed."

http://www.linux.org/info/index.html

So if you install a bunch of GNU applications like GCC, bash, and glibc atop the Linux Kernel what is the differnce?

-nX

Linux is not GNU-software. It's GPL'ed yes, but that doesn't make it GNU. It basically becomes GNU if it is under the control of FSF, just like a product becomes a Microsoft product if it is under the control of Microsoft.

The license is irrelevant in this regard.

It is not a double statement. "GNU/Linux" refers to a linux kernel with a GNU userland. To have a minimal operating system you need at least a kernel and userland utilities. With only the kernel, you can't do much. Then you can use the kernel+userland to build applications on top of that.

It is for example possible to build a system, which consists of a *BSD kernel and a GNU userland (instead of the BSD userland). Examples of this are the Debian projects Debian GNU/NetBSD and Debian GNU/kFreeBSD. Another example is Nexenta OS, called GNU/Solaris, based on a GNU userland and a SunOS kernel (from OpenSolaris). And then of course, there is also GNU/HURD.

Of course, most of the time someone refers to "linux", they refer to at least the linux kernel with the GNU userland and often at a whole linux distro. I guess RMS is just so obsessed about it, because he wants to make people aware that the GNU tools are an essential part of a linux system. I guess he probably feels like having done a lot of work on the GNU tools and then in the 90s, some guy makes a kernel and becomes all popular and gets all the attention. It's like Linus Torvalds' work is a lot more appreciated and recognised than Stallman's work.

Oh well.. at least he can count me as a huge fan of his own OS... Emacs

The firewall distro Coyote Linux doesn't use the GNU runtime or the GNU utilities.

It does, however, use the Linux kernel.

It is "Linux".

I'm sure there are other exceptions.

And to those exceptions (I really know nothing about Coyote to argue) you call them "Linux".

I'm all for the parent when it says "Linux" will do the trick if you're in casual conversations.

Paperwork and all 'official' stuff should give the credit to GNU when it is appropriate.

Just hope my poor english made this post at least readable.

Coyote uses Busybox:

http://www.busybox.net/about.html

and uClibc:

http://uclibc.org/about.html

to replace the GNU utilities and glibc respectively.

Not really. There is Coke for example. Everyone says Coke when they mean Coca-Cola. but Coke is now the generic name for all colas.
Same as "doing the hoovering" is the generic name for vacuuming.

Maybe where you are from, but where I live, the generic word for cola is cola, not coke. or we call it "pop" I have never heard coke used as a generic term for cola. and "doing the hoovering" is NOT a generic term for vacuuming, in Canada we call it "vacuuming", and I believe most of the US does too.

like you said, it depends where you are from.
I am from the UK, and we call cola Coke, and we call vacuuming hoovering.

Ahhh, that makes sense, different region, different slang

"Coke" is actually a registered trademark of the Coca Cola corporation. Cola isn't. Here in Norway we use Cola. People think you're weird if you say "Coke" ;-)

I don't quite agree with this naming fight. There's a lot of reasons both of the sides are not right

The fight is only between people that don't understand the issue.
GNU/Linux makes perfect sense. One BIG reason why GNU/Linux makes sense should be obvious to everyone.
Only one kind of people (that I've never seen yet) can really say GNU/Linux is wrong : people that have never see anyone mix the kernel and the OS, or mix the OS and a distribution.

lots of important utilities are part of the GNU project (gcc, glibc), however the amount of non-GNU and non-Linux software is bigger, and grows each day. Software gets ported to other systems more and more often (see: KDE for windows)

That is true, but there is one very important thing you missed : without the base OS, which is almost entirely GNU, you can't make any of your tools work on a Linux kernel, because you don't have an OS anymore. Actually I'm wrong, you could install BusyBox (GPL product) and have an OS that is not GNU/Linux, but you'll still have a harder time installing other software, GNU or not, if you even can.

So duh, im my humble opinion a name is just a name, not a description

You're wrong then, a name is very important, especially in sciences like math, physics or (I will be flamed for that) computer science.
In lots of other areas too, but it seems in our age, people prefer to be confused by names that means 3 or more different things, instead of learning how to speak and use correct terms (too much word to remember). Yes, I find this sad, and means we can no longer understand what people say.

I don't name Debian "Debian Linux" or "Debian GNU/Linux" - the name is Debian, period

Debian is Debian of course. The problem is not there, the problem is in what it is : a Linux, a Linux OS, a GNU/Linux ?

If you want a description of what is in sure, it uses lots of GNU software, the linux kernel, and many other Debian free Software Guidelines-approved software (not all the GNU software is DFSG-approved, ej: things under the GNU FDL license). Everything else is poetry

You're wrong then. It's basically a Linux kernel and a GNU OS, everything else is poetry. These two things are the basics for you to have even a bash prompt.

There's people like Linus who says it should be called "Linux" because it what really makes it "different" from some POV

BS, he says that because he talks about the kernel, and can't be bothered with how you call the rest, though he will take a jab at RMS any time.

You can port glibc, gcc, gimp, gnome to other systems (freebsd, solaris, windows), but you can't port the linux kernel to a NT (except using emulation or virtualization). The kernel (linux) is what really makes the system "identifiable" from some people's POV

This is BS too. You'll have a hard time identifying your Linux kernel in a Tivo, a KISS, any embedded device, and what is on a PC.

Nobody is stealing GNU just by no naming it. Myself, when I say "Linux" I also want to mean "GNU" because for my mind, the Linux and GNU are brothers

You're right, but it's marketing, and very important marketing, as there is a "force" pushing to call everything Open Source, even when it's Free Software, which is very dangerous. I see more and more people that do not even understand why the difference is important, and the same people say afterwards, that politics in Free Software is not important. Again, these are the very same people against DRM, which is contradictory. I find this alarming.

GNU wouldn't exist without Linux, and Linux wouldn't exist without GNU

See ? That's the very kind of completely wrong and BS views that come from diluting what GNU is.
GNU existed and grew without Linux, and would have grown without Linux, perhaps slower.
Of course, Linux would not have existed without GNU.

I think that the GNU project should feel proud of hearding people pronouncing the world linux in their mouths around the world, and not the contrary

Which is contradictory to what you said before, as Linux is not part of the GNU project at all.
The danger I was talking about before : Open Source has no goal (no politics), while GNU has one.
Being proud of people using the word Linux is sth good for Open Source, but is no good at all for GNU.
GNU is not about hype, GNU is about bringing free tools to people.
Lots of company that use Linux in embedded Linux, like StreamCore, are not proud of anything Linux, they are there for profiting.
GNU is against that through the GPL, not thanks to popularity of Linux.

See ? That's the very kind of completely wrong and BS views that come from diluting what GNU is.
GNU existed and grew without Linux, and would have grown without Linux, perhaps slower.
Of course, Linux would not have existed without GNU.

How come? While the former is true, it's not like it's impossible to make an operating system with a new userland.

As for "perhaps slower", you must be joking. Just look at the number of free software developers before and after Linux, including those working on the Hurd. It's quite hard to deny that Linux's hype is one of the driving forces for the movement.

As for those who are claiming that Linux is "just a kernel" while the GNU userland is the actual OS, you are wrong. The kernel is the central part of any modern OS. While a kernel wouldn't be much useful without its userland, the userland alone wouldn't work at all without a kernel. The name "GNU/Linux" does make sense since these projects are forming a working OS together.

To me, the name is not a question of recognition, but rather of technicality. After all, a bare GNU/Linux system, without any program, wouldn't be much useful. If we were really getting on recognition, the name would be long like a licence with an advertising clause...

Of course, you can call GNU a proper OS when it's combined to their Hurd project. RMS might be an ass, but he does have a point. It's not like anybody outside their clique is using it, though.

So fallowing your analogy I could (but I won't ) call you "dickhead-pussface-slut" and be gone with it ... a name is not just a name - by saying GNU/Linux you acknowledge the work done by FSF people and put emphasize where it's due. Once people recognize who made contributions they will be more effectively directing their support where it is of most value - to factual contributors. You could say also it's about marketing (as someone here already did).

by saying GNU/Linux you acknowledge the work done by FSF people and put emphasize where it's due. Once people recognize who made contributions they will be more effectively directing their support where it is of most value - to factual contributors.

You may as well say Cygnus/Linux as say GNU/Linux if you're going to use the name to acknowledge the work done, as a good deal of GNU software is only in the state its in because massive amounts of work done by people outside of the FSF.

But THAT is the whole point. Stallman is not talking about "FSF Programmers" he is talking about "FSF Politicals". The Free Software Foundation is much more about the IDEALS than the software they wrote (which is great, by the way).

I am one who deeply disagree with Stallman in his FSFs Philosofies. I'm personally more attracted to open source than to FREE software; but the man HAS a point.

As many pointed out before me. Linux is a kernel and GNU is a 'base system suite'. Both would have existed without one another having a much more harder evolution, but would have existed.

Why call it only LINUX when it is the contribution of both sides that made it happen ?

Okay, I know GNU/Linux (pronounced GNU Plus Linux as Stallman does is even worse) is bad for casual conversations.

But people should know that Fedora Core is a GNU/Linux that Ubuntu is a GNU/Linux, same for gentoo, suse or <put-big-distro-here>.

That said... I don't like Stallman at all... went to a speech he gave like 2 or 3 weeks ago and the guy is nuts. But even nuts have the rights to be given credit when they deserve it.

Just my BRL$ 0,20 (too big of a comment to call it 0,02)

Indeed, although the fact that the authors says:

But the problem is that much of what people have come to associate with "Linux" is in reality rather "GNU" or third-party associations.

So maybe we should call it Mostly Guh-Noo Slash Linux.

Oh, and remember, it ain't "Lie-nux"

;-)

Actually, GNU is pronounced "new' so it would be 'new slash linux'.

Don't get my started on project names, apparently metacity is pronounced some other damn way, what next? yhjksadlfjaskdf is pronounced, "chicken chunder box"? geeze.

That's ok, in my house all Windows products are pronounced, "Aaaaargh!"

> ...we're going to have a spaghetti load of gobbly goop everytime Linux is mentioned - sorry,
> GNU/X11/BSD/MIT/Linux?
>
> Browser: Lynx/2.8.5rel.4 libwww-FM/2.14

Sorry, Lynx/2.8.5rel.4 libwww-FM/2.14?

Ironic.

My browser ID says "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.3) Gecko/20060426 Firefox/1.5.0.3", but most folks know what I'm talking about when I simply say "Firefox".

Sorry, Lynx/2.8.5rel.4 libwww-FM/2.14?

Ironic.

I was surfing the web from my FreeBSD box, doing a clean upgrade of my ports, so that was the first thing I restored so that I could post and surf whilst compiling :-)

When you use their lynx/wap stuff, it automatically pastes your browsers identification - I'd love for it to do it when posting normally - see how many Microsoft fan boys are actually running IE ;-)

Why put in BSD/MIT? It's not about licenses, you know.

And the parts in GNU/Linux which isn't GNU software are so small they shouldn't mentioned. If they should be mentioned then FreeBSD would have to be called GNU/FreeBSD, and GNU/NetBSD and GNU/OpenBSD because none of these systems would exists without GCC. And GCC is GNU software.

The original BSD was not using GCC, so there is no reason these forks couldn't exist.

There are few alternatives to GCC because there is no need to reinvent the wheel... After all, GCC does a great job. If GCC didn't existed or had a licencing issue, then the open-source advocates would have written one outside the GNU umbrella. It's that simple.

The FSF deserves more credit for their work, but the world would still go round without them.

If they should be mentioned then FreeBSD would have to be called GNU/FreeBSD, and GNU/NetBSD and GNU/OpenBSD because none of these systems would exists without GCC.

They would exist. If GCC hadn't been available, one of the other free C compilers would have been picked up and we'd be talking about it now.

Or the introduction of the *BSDs would have waited a few years until the AT&T/UC-Berkeley consent degree made the Berkeley C compiler available.

And the parts in GNU/Linux which isn't GNU software are so small they shouldn't mentioned. If they should be mentioned then FreeBSD would have to be called GNU/FreeBSD, and GNU/NetBSD and GNU/OpenBSD because none of these systems would exists without GCC. And GCC is GNU software.

So Xorg/X11 is a really minor piece of software? Linux as a desktop or terminal server could live without it?

As a desktop? Yes. Ever heard of DirectFB?

Besides that, X.org isn't the only X-server.
But the X-server isn't a part of any base system. And even if it was it should not be mentioned.

Do you call AmigaOS for AmigaOS/Intuition?
Or do you call Windows for NT/Windows/Explorer

X.org _may_ be important, but it's not exactly a part of a base system. tar is much more important.

I don't think that's the point. You can have a perfectly running operating system without X11.
Other comments also mention that some systems should have GNU in their name because GCC was used to build the system. I don't think that's the point either.

To have a useful operating system, an operating system that you can run applications on, you need a kind of "core system" which consists out of a kernel and a userland. RMS's claim is that most Linux systems have a core which is actually the Linux kernel and the GNU userland. I think his point is there almost every running linux kernel is accompanied by a GNU userland and I think he (as the FSF) wants some recognition for that.

BSD systems have their own userland. Consider for example the libc library, which is part of the userland, and you'll see that most BSD systems have their own libc library and do not use GNU libc (glibc).

Debian uses for example the name GNU/kFreeBSD to indicate that in this Debian port, they use a GNU userland, but built around a FreeBSD kernel.

Just clarifying the "intention" of this naming scheme.

It is not about "software released under the GNU license". It is about "software made by the GNU Project".

And not about "all the software that run on top of that kernel" but about SYSTEM Software, Base System.

I find some of the exact same GNU tools in there as well.

Without the GNU userspace, your average Linux distro wouldn't be an OS --- almost all use GNU LibC to allow the execution of C programs, for example. They use GNU LD to support dynamic linking. They use GNU CC to compile the system.

Your average Linux system doesn't just use "GNU tools", they use GNU components as fundemental parts of the userspace of the OS.

But why stop at GNU/Linux? Shouldn't we credit at least X.org too? And let's say that you run Gnome - then you have lots of Gnome project software also.

Now we'd have GNU/Linux/XORG/Gnome-system, how cool is that. In my opinion Linus was right. If you make a distro, you get to name it and choose if you want to mention Linux or GNU in it's name.

They are just names, don't take them too seriously.

Gnome is GNU software.

Whoops my mistake. The Xorg points still stands though.

Gnome is GNU software.

Wrong. Gnome is completely unaffiliated with GNU.

Gnome is GNU software.
It is KDE which is unaffiliated, due to historical reasons.

If you don't want to deal with the facts then that's your problem. But Gnome has nothing to do with GNU, except for some historical naming.

GNU software is software that has FSF/GNU copyright. It's that simple.

Let's deal with a couple facts here, shall we? http://www.gnome.org/about/

Quoted from the above URL:
GNOME is Free Software and part of the GNU project, dedicated to giving users and developers the ultimate level of control over their desktops, their software, and their data. Find out more about the GNU project and Free Software at gnu.org.

Despite what that page says, Gnome is not part of the GNU project. At one time, it might have been, but that is long since over. The Gnome foundation has nothing to do with GNU, but if you want to spread GNU FUD then that's your problem.

Please don't spread FUD. Here is the FSF url for GNOME: http://directory.fsf.org/gnome.html

The official GNOME website says GNOME is part of the GNU. Someone on the Internet says it is not. Who do I believe?

Uh...I'll go with the Gnome website's opinion of the matter, but if you feel the need to ignore reality, go ahead

Not so true in BSD land.

For the most part, the only GNU software (as in software produced by the fsf) used by the BSDs is gcc.

Other GNU tools are available via ports, but gcc is the only one that is necessary.

gcc is definately the fsf's biggest achievement. It has no rival and is used on almost every system/platform.

A lot of the GUI tools we use in Linux are just front ends to those same "non-essential" console tools, and a LOT of people prefer the commandline to the GUI. For a LOT of people, EMACS is essential, please, just because you don't use a tool, or don't "think" you are using a tool, don't misjudge it's impact. GUI software is not everything, and to admins, sometimes more annoying and less efficient than the command line tools

To BluenoseJake:
EMACS and many of console tools may be essential for a lot of users, but they are applications, not part of the actual OS.
If all file managers have to use ls to display the files in a directory, then ls is essential in this context, but not if this can be done through glibc instead.
Commands that are necessary when starting the OS, like mounting disks, are essential.
So what I'd like to know is basically what parts of GNU, in addition to glibc, are essential for getting most normal applications up and running. (I.e. not libraries like GTK+ that are required for _some_ applications.)

As i said earlier, a lot of the GUI tools are frontends to the console tools, so they are essential to most users, as well as Ghostscript, for postscript files, Bash, GnuCash, for bookkeeping/budgeting, The Gimp, Vi, and lots of others. Emacs is an application, not part of the OS. The GNU development toolchain is used by some Linux Distros quite often (Installing software on a Gentoo system using Portage, for example).

Linux, or GNU/Linux is more than just the the GUI, just because you think that the GUI is the end all of the OS, does not mean that it is so, and as I have already said, alot of those GUI apps call CL utilities to do thier work, even things such as k3b, a lot of the GUI archiving and backup tools, as well as user admin tools.

I personally think that Stallman is wrong, and he should count his blessings that Linux came a long to give him a kernel when GNU couldn't get the HURD running in a reasonable amount of time, but for GNU/Linux to function as a fully capable Unix-like OS, it needs those CL utilities to lay the foundations for, and to enhance and supplement the GUI tools built with them and around them.

For a LOT of people, EMACS is essential,

Then they should crawl out from under their rocks and learn the wonders of vi.

now that's an old war

Can anyone tell me what parts of the GNU software are actually essential parts when distributing an OS based on GNU, Linux and X11?

Only GCC. There is a Gentoo distro/port of linux with the BSD userland.

No, but everybody knows Windows belongs to Microsoft. But people don't know much about GNU or FSF.

That's probably why Stallman wants GNU/Linux systems to be called GNU/Linux.

I use the sentence whenever it's appropriate. Usually when I have to make it obvious that the kernel and whole system aren't the same.

You should say that to Stallman then. He seemed a bit angry when the subject came out in the last speech he gave at my university.

PS: I have to say I AGREE with Stallmans requests... yet it is probably the one thing I agree with him.

Well, I didn't hear the speech so I don't know whether it was in regard to Torvalds, or in regard to all the people naming the OS after the kernel instead of after the OS.

GNU/Linux is the only system I know where you name the OS after the kernel.

Basically the name should just be GNU. The Linux part should only be used to distinguish between the different GNU-systems. In which case Windows 9x/ME should be called Windows/DOS because they were Windows OS on top of DOS. Actually they should be called Windows/DOS/Command.com

They are a possible part of a distribution, but not necessarily a part of the OS, though such a view would be logical when comparing GNU/Linux with other systems.

But take a look at Linux From Scratch. It's a base system. No X.org, no Gnome, no KDE, just GNU tools and a linux kernel.

If it was really a big deal, the Linux team could just re-write all the GNU parts.

Just re-write all the GNU parts? Just? You make it sound so trivial.

I read a lot of people here and elsewhere dismissing RMS, but I for one don't think he gets near enough credit. I'm not so sure there would even be a free- or open-source software movement today were it not for his vision and stubbornness.

Its definitely related to GNU in some way, but this isn't even a peripheral issue.

Just to get this straight. GNOME is part of the GNU project.

GNOME is Free Software and part of the GNU project, dedicated to giving users and developers the ultimate level of control over their desktops, their software, and their data. Find out more about the GNU project and Free Software at gnu.org.

See
http://www.gnome.org/about/

I think what FSF also fail to realise is this; Linus could have chosen to either say:

1) I've learned alot from this little experiment, I'm off to contribute to *BSD
2) I've learned alot from this experiment, but I don't want to feel strung to the GNU fanbase, so I'll use the BSD userland.

FSF and Stallman should be thanking their lucky stars that Linux went with GNU, or otherwise the GPL, GNU and all the other things would never have been moved further into the mainstream

I think you should do some research into when and why GNU, the FSF, and Linux were born.

Do you actually understand the terms you use? Free software doesn't mean it's open source. Take Winamp for example. Open source doesn't have to be free. Take Linspire for example.

Dennis, stop acting like a dick head, you well and truely know what the Stallmanites mean when they refer to their software as "free" as in "freedom" or as in "free beer".

Opensource software can be sold, but the source must be provided; there is nothing stopping me from getting the source from Linspire, removing all the linspire branding, and re-releasing it as "Fried Tofu with Plum Sauce" if I so wished!

It is like Libertarianism, you have low taxes, because not only does it give you the freedom to give a toss about someone buy donating to chariety, but also not to give a toss about someone - its freedom baby, yeah!