Linked by Eugenia Loli on Wed 12th Sep 2007 04:14 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source Here is an interview with Richard Stallman about a range of free software topics including GPLv3 and comment on the Microsoft patent issue. Stallman has a go at Linus Torvalds even suggesting that if people want to keep their freedom they better not follow Torvalds. From the interview: "The fact that Torvalds says "open source" instead of "free software" shows where he is coming from. I wrote the GNU GPL to defend freedom for all users of all versions of a program. I developed version 3 to do that job better and protect against new threats. Torvalds says he rejects this goal; that's probably why he doesn't appreciate GPL version 3. I respect his right to express his views, even though I think they are foolish. However, if you don't want to lose your freedom, you had better not follow him."
Thread beginning with comment 270477
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: I wonder...
by steampoweredlawn on Wed 12th Sep 2007 08:40 UTC in reply to "RE: I wonder..."
steampoweredlawn
Member since:
2006-09-27

You totally missed the point of my post. Either that or you're deliberately being stubborn.

Linux has become the de facto name for the sum of the parts that make up a GNU/Linux OS.

To answer your question, no. I do not call it GNU. I called it GNU/Linux for a period, but I grew tired of explaining GNU to people that in reality didn't care what I was saying anyway. Those that care enough already know what GNU is, and assume you're talking about GNU/Linux.

Peoples' brains don't function like computers. You don't typically have to explicitly say every single word to convey a meaning. To use a previous example, how often do you go to the store to buy, say, Safeway brand cotton-tipped sanitary swabs? Oh? You look for Q-tips, even if it's Safeway (or Albertsons or Winn-Dixie or Shurfine or Fred Meyer or Kroger or what have you) brand? Wouldn't you be irritated if someone corrected you every time you said Q-tips, when they obviously know exactly what you're talking about?

Linux is in a similar situation. Nearly everyone (except people like you), "know" that Linux, when used in general conversation, refers to the Kernel as well as the userland software piled atop it (or just an OS as an inclusive entity, if they don't have that deep an understanding of the topic). It's not correct, but it's simpler and (most) people know what you mean.

Had Hurd taken off, People would likely be calling the OS they run Hurd right now, not GNU/Hurd.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: I wonder...
by cyclops on Wed 12th Sep 2007 08:57 in reply to "RE[2]: I wonder..."
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

"Linux is in a similar situation. Nearly everyone (except people like you), "know" that Linux, when used in general conversation, refers to the Kernel as well as the userland software piled atop it"

I am tired of referring to an *outdated* notion that the OS should be named after the kernel that makes up about 2% of the OS, when Its the one part of what I'm not interested in. Linus is not interested in the Userland. I'm happy to swap out Linux for any of the other kernels. Linux just happens to be the best.

The second I read about Linus objection to GPL3 for embedded devices. I lost interest in the term Linux. Because its doesn't describe what *I* use. I use a mythical meta distribution that allows me the four freedoms. Linus's Linux doesn't allow me those freedoms.

...but as I've said I do not believe that GNU is the right term either because it doesn't give credit to all those companies; individuals; licenses that make up the OS that I use.

Reply Parent Score: 3