thelinuxlink.net

I was recently browsing the GNU homepage, and I noticed something peculiar-- they are now referring to GNU as a complete operating system. Is it just me, or is that pretty dishonest and misleading? We all know GNU is just part of a complete OS, and without Linux, it's useless. Hell, the GNU project doesn't even produce an official, downloable distribution of GNU/Linux. All they provide is a directory of "free software packages", and links to third-party GNU/Linux distributions that they deem "Free". My respect for the GNU project has just dropped.

I realize that this is just semantics, but the GNU people have always, ahem, been vocal in how politically correct we all must be when talking about Linux. At least kernel.org doesn't say, "Linux Operating System".

For shame.

Wally Balljacker wrote:I realize that this is just semantics, but the GNU people have always, ahem, been vocal in how politically correct we all must be when talking about Linux. At least kernel.org doesn't say, "Linux Operating System".

Well, actually http://www.kernel.org does pretty much repeatedly say that...

What is Linux?

Linux is a clone of the operating system Unix

New to Linux?

If you're new to Linux, you don't want to download the kernel, which is just a component in a working Linux system. Instead, you want what is called a distribution of Linux, which is a complete Linux system.

The Linux Installation HOWTO has more information how to set up your first Linux system.

At least on Gnu.org they specifically also say GNU/Linux and point out the Linux kernel's impotant role in the system. In contrast, on Kernel.org, there is barely a mention of Gnu, other than a passing reference to the Gnu C compiler.

greggh wrote:Well, actually http://www.kernel.org does pretty much repeatedly say that...

I don't see a "Linux Operating System" banner on top of kernel.org.

At least they make it clear that it is the "Linux Kernel Archives", and that "This is the primary site for the Linux kernel source". The GNU site immediately leads one to believe that GNU is a complete, downloadable OS. Kernel.org makes it clear that it's all about kernels and nothing more.

You have a point. And maybe Gnu is not right in making this change on their homepage. But, I just don't find it that big of a deal. But I can understand if others are more annoyed.

Edit: Maybe Stallman is just trying piss off Linus.

greggh wrote:You have a point. And maybe Gnu is not right in making this change on their homepage. But, I just don't find it that big of a deal. But I can understand if others are more annoyed.

It primarily bothers me because GNU has always tried to be "politically correct", by berating people into using the GNU/Linux term, and this banner is a blatant attempt at advertising GNU as being more than it really is, especially with the "Download GNU" button on their website. If they want to label GNU as an OS, simply take the HURD kernel, and develop a downloadable, installable system that contains 100% GNU software. It's that simple. Until then, GNU isn't an OS. Linux technically isn't an OS either, but Linus has never claimed it to be more than a kernel.

Maybe HURD is around the corner with creative soundcard drivers included

I love my Firefox+Linux+GNU+OpenOffice+Thunderbird+KDE+java+Gnome computer.
Some people need to get over themselves. Seriously, RMS & FSF need to get over people calling GNU/Linux Linux and just move on to better things to bitch about. Linux (while only the kernel) is what the system is commonly known as.

Imagine how much it pisses off the developers of Office when people call that Windows. Lots of people just call it the computer so there are varying levels of detail in describing what people use. GNU did provide most of the tools I use from the command line so I feel fine using GNU/Linux or as I've recently heard, GNU + Linux.

Calling it either of those opens up a discussion about free software as opposed to Open Source or free-as-in-beer software. Linus denies the freeness being that important but just think how many projects have been improved behind closed doors using licenses like BSD. Having that happen is just as awesome as proprietary development from the community's POV.

When they call it the GNU Operating System, it might be that people have moved on from OS to distro when describing the thing they download and install. So maybe the OS is just part of a distro. If Ubuntu can get by without calling itself Ubuntu GNU/Linux + OO + FF etc, then GNU can feel free to call their thing an OS even if it requires the Linux kernel to work.

What was Stallman's goal when he started the GNU project in 1983? To create a free OS, the GNU Operating System!

I think there is nothing wrong that they promote their work in creating GNU/Linux. The only reason they do this is to promote Free Software. Come on, it's not like they're out promoting some commercial agenda, or puffing up their egos. They are trying to promote the discussion and idea of Free Software around the world for the betterment of human kind. We owe them a debt of gratitude and support.

Bugz

jturning wrote:I think there is nothing wrong that they promote their work in creating GNU/Linux. The only reason they do this is to promote Free Software. Come on, it's not like they're out promoting some commercial agenda, or puffing up their egos. They are trying to promote the discussion and idea of Free Software around the world for the betterment of human kind. We owe them a debt of gratitude and support.

Bugz

That reminds me... Richard Stallman has actually said tons of times, that the reason he thinks it should be called GNU/Linux is because GNU has a connection to the freedom aspects of things, giving credit and such is certainly nice, but it's merely a a matter of ego, as he put it. It's not something he can simply "get over", because this has to do with the goal he set out for himself in the early 1980'.

wiscados wrote:What was Stallman's goal when he started the GNU project in 1983? To create a free OS, the GNU Operating System!

What is the current version of the GNU operating system? Where can I download it?

Obviously these are pointless questions, because we all know the answers. GNU will never be an OS until they finish HURD and produce something official that anyone can download and install. Until then, Ubuntu is the OS, Debian is the OS, Fedora is the OS, and so on. I really think the whole GNU/Linux argument is moot. You can't install GNU/Linux, you can only install a distribution of GNU/Linux. And even then, a distribution contains much, much more than simply GNU and the Linux kernel.

google must think they is value in continuing with hurd as it part of this years summer of code.
http://code.google.com/soc/2008/hurd/about.html

I think its more of an exercise and experimentation for mere fun than any such hope that we see hurd on a real usable pc any time soon.
World war 3 will happen before hurd comes out.

Wally Balljacker wrote:I was recently browsing the GNU homepage, and I noticed something peculiar-- they are now referring to GNU as a complete operating system. Is it just me, or is that pretty dishonest and misleading?

I think their reasoning is that since you can build the GNU system around several kernels (Linux, HURD and BSD) it's a complete OS. There's not one kernel, there are several. They don't promote one because the only one they wrote is the HURD and it doesn't work real well. I find it dishonest, but it sort of makes sense.

Can we really say it's not an OS because they don't produce a distribution? Is Gentoo really a distro? Maybe a bit more than GNU is, but not really. It's still an OS (to me, at least). The same with Linux from Scratch. It's an OS, but you have to download the source and assemble it.

Wally Balljacker wrote:I realize that this is just semantics, but the GNU people have always, ahem, been vocal in how politically correct we all must be when talking about Linux. At least kernel.org doesn't say, "Linux Operating System".

You're right that it's semantics, but a project like GNU shouldn't have to hide behind semantics. They wouldn't have to if they were willing to admit the truth and give up on producing a complete OS. Hell, Linux is open source...they could fork it and call it GNU/kernel.

I was reading a kernel FAQ the other day, and I believe they use Linux to refer to the OS and linux to refer to the kernel, so the use of "Linux Operating System" on kernel.org is not a lie although it might be misleading.