OSNews

Linux is definately not a GNU project. The Linux kernel is the Linux project.

As far as modern Linux systems go... GNU is as important, or a more important, component then the Linux kernel is. GNU provides for all your basic utilities, basic userland environment, development tools, management tools, etc etc.

The idea behind the GNU/Linux label is to remind people that Linux would be nothing without GNU and GNU would be nothing without Linux.

The difference between saying 'Oh Apache is important and so is X! Why don't we say' Apache/GNU/X.org/Linux? Well the difference is that you can't run Apache or X on Linux without GNU, but you can run GNU without Apache or X. GNU is the basic fundamental dependency and is what provides the personality for a modern Linux desktop, even if people are unaware of it.

Of course as the software matures there are more and more Linux systems that do not directly depend on GNU.

For example embedded systems often use things like uClibc and busybox. Both of those provide a much more lightweight environment that is often more suitable for embedded devices. Of course the trade off is that your sacrificing a huge amount of features and performance items as well as compatibility. But Busybox/Linux is definitely not GNU.

Another example is Android. Android uses a very stripped down Unix userland, but the majority of the action goes on it's Java-like environment.

But both Busybox and Android based environments have totally different personalities then GNU/Linux.

BUT....

There are projects to run GNU on other kernels also.

There is Debian's GNU/kFreeBSD, which takes the Kernel from FreeBSD and combines it GNU userland for source code compatibility with the Debian system.

Then there is GNU/Solaris called Nexenta, which takes the Solaris kernel and a few bits and adds the GNU environment for compatibility with Debian/Ubuntu system.


Now if you were to use GNU/kFreeBSD or Nexenta then that would be indistinguishable from a modern Linux system from a end user's perspective. It would look the same, act the same, and on a source code level be _extremely_ compatible with any open source "linux" application.


------------------------------------

So if you say Ubuntu is "Linux" then taking GNU and combining it with other kernels like FreeBSD and Solaris then you get a much more Linux-like environment then if you combine the Linux kernel with non-GNU environments like busybox or Android!

So while saying GNU/Linux is rather stupid saying "It's Linux, not GNU/Linux" is actually much more inaccurate when talking about the entire OS.

However when you talk about the Linux kernel... then that is most DEFINITELY NOT a GNU project.

The GNU Kernel project is HURD... which is a series of 'kernel' services designed to run on a modern Microkernel like L4.

And since all Microkernels are shit, from a practical standpoint, then so is HURD.

Android for example is a mixture out of Linux kernel, libc from NetBSD/OpenBSD, GNU/BSD-userland. The latter is by the way true for many well-known Linux distros. So maybe you should call these distros GNU/BSD/Linux ;-) It's in my opinion a silly approach, but maybe it's some fun for Stallman and other zealots.

I do count the distros we know and love as GNU/Linux, but not because I am an ideological shill for the FSF in any way.
I was trying to make 2 points. First, Xorg is not a uniquely Linux application so criticism of it, while completely valid, don't belong in responses to a kernel article. Second, we are starting to see a new world of Linux operating systems that use new stacks on top of the kernel. These new operating systems will offer limited or no compatibility with the traditional Linux distributions. That is the reason why I think it will be important to use the term GNU/Linux, not because of some ideologue that lives on a mountain and forgot to buy a pair of scissors.

Edited 2009-08-20 16:42 UTC