On 08/01/2008, Chris Croughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The GNU operating system predates Linux by 8 years. > > So? BSD predates both. I know, let's call it GNU/Linux/BSD/Unix!
Please read the FAQ on this issue in full - http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html It answers this exaggeration at http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#many and I am quoting that part in full here in case you have a specific objection to it. -- 8< -- Q: Many other projects contributed to the system as it is today; it includes TeX, X11, Apache, Perl, and many more programs. Don't your arguments imply we have to give them credit too? (But that would lead to a name so long it is absurd.) A: What we say is that you ought to give the system's principal developer a share of the credit. The principal developer is the GNU Project, and the system is basically GNU. If you feel even more strongly about giving credit where it is due, you might feel that some secondary contributors also deserve credit in the system's name. If so, far be it from us to argue against it. If you feel that X11 deserves credit in the system's name, and you want to call the system GNU/X11/Linux, please do. If you feel that Perl simply cries out for mention, and you want to write GNU/Linux/Perl, go ahead. Since a long name such as GNU/X11/Apache/Linux/TeX/Perl/Python/FreeCiv becomes absurd, at some point you will have to set a threshold and omit the names of the many other secondary contributions. There is no one obvious right place to set the threshold, so wherever you set it, we won't argue against it. Different threshold levels would lead to different choices of name for the system. But one name that cannot result from concerns of fairness and giving credit, not for any possible threshold level, is "Linux". It can't be fair to give all the credit to one secondary contribution (Linux) while omitting the principal contribution (GNU). -- 8< -- > Throw in SCO, Novell and IBM as well for fun, they all claim to have > written bits of it. Although many individuals and large companies have written parts of the GNU+Linux operating system, they did not start the project and are not the largest contributor. GNU did start the development of the system and remains the largest single contributor. Some numbers to back this up are at http://www.dwheeler.com/sloc/redhat71-v1/redhat71sloc.html (hello killer link) and this part is particularly relevant: "The data here can be used to justify calling the system either ``Linux'' or ``GNU/Linux.'' It's clear that the largest single component in the operating system is the Linux kernel, so it's at least understandable how so many people have chosen to name the entire system after its largest single component (``Linux''). It's also clear that there are many contributors, not just the GNU project itself, and some of those contributors do not agree with the GNU project's philosophy. On the other hand, many of the largest components of the system are essentially GNU projects: gcc, gdb, emacs, binutils (a set of commands for binary files), and glibc (the C library). Other GNU projects in the system include binutils, bash, gawk, make, textutils, sh-utils, gettext, readline, automake, tar, less, findutils, diffutils, and grep. This is not even counting GNOME, a GNU project. In short, the total of the GNU project's code is much larger than the Linux kernel's size. Thus, by comparing the total contributed effort, it's certainly justifiable to call the entire system ``GNU/Linux'' and not just ``Linux,'' and using the term GNU/Linux both credits its contributions and eliminates some ambiguity. Thus, I've decided to switch to the ``GNU/Linux'' terminology here." > As Linus' comment makes clear, although he was aware of the GNU project > his OS was not derived from it. You are confusing an operating system with a kernel. Please read http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#afterkernel :-) > Indeed, the GNU Hurd was started at > about the same time as the Linux kernel and didn't become operational > until long after there were several complete Linux distributions (I > don't know anyone who uses the Hurd, is it still even supported? The > last release seems to have been in 1999). The Hurd is generally irrelevant to this discussion. That there were distributions of the GNU OS combined with the Linux kernel before the Hurd ran is irrelevant. > "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" again. One of the well-known fallacies. One reason to credit the GNU project with the name of the OS is that it started the development of the system. Noah was proposing that reason, I think. This is not fallacious in the way you describe. > I haven't heard before that it's moderated. Who is in charge of that? +1 > > If you look closely, I am not arguing the point that GNU/Linux is the > > correct name, I am arguing the point that the FSF still needs to > > protect and campaign the name. A very differnt topic and a very > > important one. > > Well, I'm one of the people who gets annoyed with that "campaign" I'm sorry to hear that :-( > As far as I'm concerned it's just as much hijacking the name as it would be > to talk of "GNU/BSD", the BSD systems I know have just as much GNU/FSF > owned software as do Linux systems. Heck, I know Windows systems with > as much. Again, please read the FAQ in full. Specifically, http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#bsd answers this: -- 8< -- Q: Should we say "GNU/BSD" too? A: We don't call the BSD systems (FreeBSD, etc.) "GNU/BSD" systems, because that term does not fit the history of the BSD systems. The BSD system was developed by UC Berkeley as non-free software in the 80s, and became free in the early 90s. A free operating system that exists today is almost certainly either a variant of the GNU system, or a kind of BSD system. People sometimes ask whether BSD too is a variant of GNU, as GNU/Linux is. It is not. The BSD developers were inspired to make their code free software by the example of the GNU Project, and explicit appeals from GNU activists helped convince them to start, but the code had little overlap with GNU. BSD systems today use some GNU packages, just as the GNU system and its variants use some BSD programs; however, taken as wholes, they are two different systems that evolved separately. The BSD developers did not write a kernel and add it to the GNU system, so a name like GNU/BSD would not fit the situation. The connection between GNU/Linux and GNU is much closer, and that's why the name "GNU/Linux" is appropriate for it. There is a version of GNU which uses the kernel from NetBSD. Its developers call it "Debian GNU/NetBSD", but "GNU/kernelofNetBSD" would be more accurate, since NetBSD is an entire system, not just the kernel. This is not a BSD system, since most of the system is the same as the GNU/Linux system. -- 8< -- -- Regards, Dave _______________________________________________ Fsfe-uk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
