Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 26th Feb 2008 21:29 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source Richard Stallman, industry activist and founder of the Free Software Foundation has - once again - relinquished his role as maintainer of the phenomenally successful GNU Extensible, Customizable, Display Editor (Emacs). The news was slipped out on the Emacs developers' forum and Stallman explained his reasons in a later interview.
Thread beginning with comment 302499
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by tyrione
by WereCatf on Wed 27th Feb 2008 00:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by tyrione"
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

It's really a shame that GNU doesn't get more of the credit for the complete systems like Fedora and Ubuntu. Linux itself is a very large kernel - it comprises about 45MB of code according to kernel.org - but things like GCC, Glibc, Gnome etc etc comprise FAR more of those systems.

One can see it that way too but well...What would you do with a distro with only GNU software on it? F.ex. GNOME doesn't belong to GNU as far as I know, and I kinda think all the other software too which don't belong to GNU actually comprise a bigger part of the distro than the included GNU software. As such, should it be called GNOME/Linux, or KDE/Linux, or something similar? Sure, the whole userland wouldn't be possible without GNU software, but neither would any of the modern desktop environments without non-GNU software.

In the modern times a Linux distro without useable userland is more or less as useless to any average user as a Linux distro without useable and modern DE. In that sense they are both equally important. And don't forget all the other software..

As such I just find nitpicking about calling it Linux instead of GNU/Linux rather irritating.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by tyrione
by Moulinneuf on Wed 27th Feb 2008 03:46 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by tyrione"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

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

GNOME is Free Software and part of the GNU project.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by tyrione
by UltraZelda64 on Wed 27th Feb 2008 03:55 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by tyrione"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Still, you get the point. Change the distro (or DE edition... ie. Kubuntu or PCLOS or Fedora KDE Spin) and a couple of the technologies exclusive to it (KWin/KDE/etc.) and... you get the idea.

Thanks for the correction though... (I'm not a Gnome/Ubuntu user myself.)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by tyrione
by elsewhere on Wed 27th Feb 2008 05:20 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by tyrione"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

GNOME is Free Software and part of the GNU project.


Which nicely bookends the other article going on right now about the inclusion of mono in Gnome as a dependency for tomboy, and the inherent risk of Microsoft taint because of that. Which, by no small coincidence, RMS discouraged.

I bask in the irony.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by tyrione
by Soulbender on Wed 27th Feb 2008 04:07 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by tyrione"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

As such, should it be called GNOME/Linux, or KDE/Linux, or something similar?


Obviously MIT/BSD/GNU/{KDE|GNOME}/Linux.

Reply Parent Score: 2

v RE[4]: Comment by tyrione
by Moulinneuf on Wed 27th Feb 2008 04:19 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by tyrione"
RE[4]: Comment by tyrione
by Lunitik on Wed 27th Feb 2008 08:10 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by tyrione"
Lunitik Member since:
2005-08-07

In an ideal situation, it would simply be "Ubuntu" or "Fedora" etc etc... and people would be made aware of the underlying technology as they use it...

The community wishes to give the appearance of unification however, so they chose "Linux" as it was simpler, and kept the religious stuff that GNU represents out of the picture.

If the FOSS world tries to explain GNU philosophy to everyone, there would simply never have been the resources made available by the large companies involved today.

I simply took offense to the fact that the guy seemed offended that RMS was pushing the acknowledgment of GNU while he gave an interview. That is his prerogative.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by tyrione
by pinky on Wed 27th Feb 2008 11:40 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by tyrione"
pinky Member since:
2005-07-15

>F.ex. GNOME doesn't belong to GNU as far as I know

GNOME is a GNU Project (see: http://www.gnome.org/about/)

By the way Gtk+ is a GNU project too.
See http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/ for all programs which are part of the GNU project.

>As such, should it be called GNOME/Linux, or KDE/Linux, or something similar?

GNOME/Linux is not necessary because GNOME is already mentioned with GNU so you can stay by GNU/Linux. If you want to give KDE credits you could call it KDE/GNU or KDE/GNU/Linux or whatever you want.
(see: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#many)

At the end you can't use your computer with Linux and you can't use your computer with GNU (to some extend you can) but if you combine Linux and GNU you get an operating system which allows you to use your computer so GNU/Linux is a adequate name. It's a little bit like TCP/IP. You need both for a common network stack so it is neither TCP nor IP but TCP/IP.
If you wan't a shorter name you should pick the part which is larger and more important and this is GNU. Why is GNU more important? Give someone a GNU System and replace the Kernel Linux with another Kernel and most user won't discover any difference. On the other Hand take Linux out of GNU and put it e.g. into MacOS (to replace the BSD kernel) people will discover a huge difference. So while the kernel is an important part it doesn't make the difference. The difference come from the part of the OS which is necessary to run a computer and interacts with the user and not the part which interacts with the hardware.

Edited 2008-02-27 11:48 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by tyrione
by WereCatf on Wed 27th Feb 2008 12:24 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by tyrione"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

At the end you can't use your computer with Linux and you can't use your computer with GNU (to some extend you can) but if you combine Linux and GNU you get an operating system which allows you to use your computer so GNU/Linux is a adequate name.

Linux can also be combined with non-GNU software and still make a useable computer. As such, Linux != GNU/Linux. Sure enough, I don't know of any Linux distro which would provide a useable userland without GNU software, but still it is possible and as such Linux just isn't synonymous with GNU/Linux.

If you wan't a shorter name you should pick the part which is larger and more important and this is GNU. Why is GNU more important? Give someone a GNU System and replace the Kernel Linux with another Kernel and most user won't discover any difference. On the other Hand take Linux out of GNU and put it e.g. into MacOS (to replace the BSD kernel) people will discover a huge difference.

You are contradicting yourself. First you say changing kernel won't change anything for the end-user and then you say it will make a huge impact? Nah, I'd just say both GNU and Linux are more-or-less equally important. Neither of them would be what they are now without eachother. All the Linux-related development just wouldn't have been possible without GCC et al, but they wouldn't be so good as they are now without all the movement and interested developers that Linux has attracted.

So, in the end, I'll just stick to calling GNU GNU and Linux-distributions as Linux.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by tyrione
by JMcCarthy on Wed 27th Feb 2008 13:11 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by tyrione"
JMcCarthy Member since:
2005-08-12

While what you say is particularly true with something like KDE, let's not forget that before GNOME became just another name it was an acronym; GNU Network Object Model Environment

Reply Parent Score: 2