Re: History of GNU uname's -o option, and GNU/Linux
Hear, hear. Thank you Carl. You can't fight the adoption of a name (dare I say brand) by the public at large. Once it's embedded in the collective conscious, it's there to stay. Witness Aspirin. Did you know that the name Alison was once a boy's name (son-of-Al)? To most of the world it's just Linux. We have a clear and strong brand. Let's not muddy it. Let's capitalize on it. If you want to worry about something, worry about patent law, and how M$ is about to use it on us. BTW, which 3rd meaning of free did you mean? Free to move? Free of rants? Uninhibited? Available for the next punter? Douglas. Carl Cerecke wrote: [snip] I think the whole GNU/Linux thing is a bit silly, really. I can see where RMS is coming from, but, like other words in the English language (free, for example), Linux is popularly used with two meanings: the kernel and the OS. Languages change, for better or worse. Look at the word hacker, or gay. Who would insist on saying (and, furthermore, trying to make everybody else say) gay/homosexual while trying to reserving gay as a synonym for happy and carefree? Nobody. It's ridiculous. The language has changed. Move on. Get over it. RMS is just to prideful to back down, I think. Now, we have Linux the OS, and Linux the kernel. If there is a need to differentiate, we can say Linux distribution, and Linux kernel. Frankly, I've got bigger things to worry about than GNU being in the name of the OS. Today's history lesson, with FREE rant. (the 3rd meaning of free, BTW) Carl. === This email, including any attachments, is only for the intended addressee. It is subject to copyright, is confidential and may be the subject of legal or other privilege, none of which is waived or lost by reason of this transmission. If the receiver is not the intended addressee, please accept our apologies, notify us by return, delete all copies and perform no other act on the email. Unfortunately, we cannot warrant that the email has not been altered or corrupted during transmission. ===
free, free, free, and FREE! (was Re: History of GNU uname's -o option, and GNU/Linux)
Douglas Royds wrote: BTW, which 3rd meaning of free did you mean? Free to move? Free of rants? Uninhibited? Available for the next punter? It was an allusion to the Buy 1 and get another one FREE! type of statement. This meaning of free is not free-as-in-freedom, and not really free-as-in-cost (You have to buy another one after all). It is almost always seen in all-caps and with an exclamation mark. A Pet Peeve of mine :-) After posting, I mused on a 4th definition of free: free-as-in-without, usually used as a suffix. Hence we have fat free and content free, which have markedly different meanings than free content and free fat. Although, to be fair, the 4th definition should really be the third, and the third should be considered a munted version of free-as-in-cost, forced on us by people with marketing degrees. Ahh, the bizarre-ity of the English language :-) Cheers, Carl.
History of GNU uname's -o option, and GNU/Linux
uname has been around a long time (GNU and others), but the -o option is relatively recent. Back in Nov 1994, the sh-utils tarball included uname (download it: http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/sh-utils/). This was well after Linux started, in fact, the kernel was heading towards 1.2 at that stage. I'm not sure how uname was distributed before then. I have a linux CD from about May 1994 which I should have a look at. In any case, the options uname had in 1994 are (from the source code): /* Option Example -s, --sysnameSunOS -n, --nodename rocky8 -r, --release4.0 -v, --version -m, --machinesun -a, --allSunOS rocky8 4.0 sun The default behavior is equivalent to `-s'. David MacKenzie [EMAIL PROTECTED] */ The source code changed very little through to the final release of sh-utils (version 2.0) in August 1999, by which time it had gained only two more options, a --help and a --processor No kernel/OS split there... Note that RMS's rumblings on this issue started about 1997 (see the copyright notice in http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html) The sh-utils tarball was merged with 2 others to create the coreutils tarball which we know and love today. The first release of coreutils was April 2003 (version 5.0), and by then, the source code of uname had changed quite a bit more, and we have the options that are present today. Looking in the changelog we see... 2001-09-03 Paul Eggert [EMAIL PROTECTED] * coreutils.texi: New 'uname' options -i or --hardware-platform, and -o or --operating-system. 'uname -a' now outputs -i and -o information at the end. New uname option --kernel-version is an alias for -v. Uname option --release has been renamed to --kernel-release, and --sysname has been renamed to --kernel-name; the old options will work for a while, but are no longer documented. So the kernel/os split in uname is less than 3yrs old, and occurred about 4yrs after RMS starting complaining about GNU not being in the Linux name. (I vaguely remember a proposal about that time to rename the GNU + Linux system to Lignux, which is both clever and yucky at the same time. Lignux? Gno! someone was heard to exclaim.) I can't even remember the point of why I'm doing this now... I think the whole GNU/Linux thing is a bit silly, really. I can see where RMS is coming from, but, like other words in the English language (free, for example), Linux is popularly used with two meanings: the kernel and the OS. Languages change, for better or worse. Look at the word hacker, or gay. Who would insist on saying (and, furthermore, trying to make everybody else say) gay/homosexual while trying to reserving gay as a synonym for happy and carefree? Nobody. It's ridiculous. The language has changed. Move on. Get over it. RMS is just to prideful to back down, I think. Now, we have Linux the OS, and Linux the kernel. If there is a need to differentiate, we can say Linux distribution, and Linux kernel. Frankly, I've got bigger things to worry about than GNU being in the name of the OS. Today's history lesson, with FREE rant. (the 3rd meaning of free, BTW) Carl.
Re: History of GNU uname's -o option, and GNU/Linux
Actually, there is a lot more to this.. Mainly it's about the M$/SCO thing, our collective response. Call it OT, or call it future-proofing - the commercial/private sector is affected by the outcome. Or are our discussions limited to the interests of 5% of world PC users only? Very helpful post, thanks Carl. Carl Cerecke wrote: uname has been around a long time (GNU and others), but the -o option is relatively recent. Back in Nov 1994, the sh-utils tarball included uname (download it: http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/sh-utils/). This was well after Linux started, in fact, the kernel was heading towards 1.2 at that stage. I'm not sure how uname was distributed before then. I have a linux CD from about May 1994 which I should have a look at. In any case, the options uname had in 1994 are (from the source code): /* Option Example -s, --sysnameSunOS -n, --nodename rocky8 -r, --release4.0 -v, --version -m, --machinesun -a, --allSunOS rocky8 4.0 sun The default behavior is equivalent to `-s'. David MacKenzie [EMAIL PROTECTED] */ The source code changed very little through to the final release of sh-utils (version 2.0) in August 1999, by which time it had gained only two more options, a --help and a --processor No kernel/OS split there... Note that RMS's rumblings on this issue started about 1997 (see the copyright notice in http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html) The sh-utils tarball was merged with 2 others to create the coreutils tarball which we know and love today. The first release of coreutils was April 2003 (version 5.0), and by then, the source code of uname had changed quite a bit more, and we have the options that are present today. Looking in the changelog we see... 2001-09-03 Paul Eggert [EMAIL PROTECTED] * coreutils.texi: New 'uname' options -i or --hardware-platform, and -o or --operating-system. 'uname -a' now outputs -i and -o information at the end. New uname option --kernel-version is an alias for -v. Uname option --release has been renamed to --kernel-release, and --sysname has been renamed to --kernel-name; the old options will work for a while, but are no longer documented. So the kernel/os split in uname is less than 3yrs old, and occurred about 4yrs after RMS starting complaining about GNU not being in the Linux name. (I vaguely remember a proposal about that time to rename the GNU + Linux system to Lignux, which is both clever and yucky at the same time. Lignux? Gno! someone was heard to exclaim.) I can't even remember the point of why I'm doing this now... I think the whole GNU/Linux thing is a bit silly, really. I can see where RMS is coming from, but, like other words in the English language (free, for example), Linux is popularly used with two meanings: the kernel and the OS. Languages change, for better or worse. Look at the word hacker, or gay. Who would insist on saying (and, furthermore, trying to make everybody else say) gay/homosexual while trying to reserving gay as a synonym for happy and carefree? Nobody. It's ridiculous. The language has changed. Move on. Get over it. RMS is just to prideful to back down, I think. Yes, Get over it was what I meant to say last night. There is room for both usages here - why can't you accept RMS's as simply an option? Please mark this program/essay: You are free to deploy Linux and GNU/Linux as you see fit - that is the open source credo. Now, we have Linux the OS, and Linux the kernel. If there is a need to differentiate, we can say Linux distribution, and Linux kernel. And in the former case - that of commercial distribution - Linux - GNU/Linux (.. Don't make the libs, use the old gnuliblibc.a Torvalds http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=enlr=ie=UTF-8q=author:torvalds%40klaava.Helsinki.FI+ 1991-07-03http://groups.google.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]). Now I am new here, sorry for my blundering. I don't know Linus, but if I can try to understand his thinking, it goes like this: Linux is proposed - why that's a silly-name, but it does no harm. Just like Tux. Folksy kind. We all like it. Let's go.. It becomes the Linux that we know cherish. But LINux-UniX was always a misnomer, indefensible in the face of SCO (_we_ know their case is a crock, but we are in the hands of lawyer$ there..). The brand itself may require a patch. If so, one has been thoughtfully provided by a very experienced programmer - Richard Stallman. Solving the problem utilises userbase strengths (varied, including numbers, intellect commerce). Martin Bahr's formulation is correct: 'GNU/Linux' = Gnu is Not Unix / Linux Is Not UniX But this makes no sense to the 'General Public' (L), until GNU is explained - that's the job GNU/Linux Users I have taken on. All I am saying is *use* the symlink (Linux - GNU/Linux) - it's actually our main strength. *This is not a rename*
Re: History of GNU uname's -o option, and GNU/Linux
edit, to have read: InfoHelp wrote: Carl Cerecke wrote: Now, we have Linux the OS, and Linux the kernel. If there is a need to differentiate, we can say Linux distribution, and Linux kernel. And in the former case - that of commercial distribution - Linux - GNU/Linux (.. Don't make the libs, use the old gnuliblibc.a Torvalds http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=enlr=ie=UTF-8q=author:torvalds%40klaava.Helsinki.FI+ 1991-07-03). [clip] But LINus-UniX was always a misnomer .. [clip] Rik -- InfoHelp Serviceshttp://www.infohelp.co.nz/linux.html GNU/Linux Users - charting a course Fedora/SuSE/Mandrake-Slackware/Gentoo/LFS-Debian/BSD-GNU/Hurd
