What exactly are the GNU parts in a typical distro?

[greggh]

I've been thinking more about the naming controversy of Linux vs. GNU/Linux. Can someone tell me what essential GNU parts are in your standard distro? I'm talking about a very base server like install without X. I've read that Linus thinks calling all distros GNU/Linux is silly, and one should only call a distro released by the GNU project GNU Linux. I'm trying to figure out who is telling more of the truth, Stallman or Linus.

[Tsuroerusu]

I've been thinking more about the naming controversy of Linux vs. GNU/Linux. Can someone tell me what essential GNU parts are in your standard distro? I'm talking about a very base server like install without X.

All of the MANY basic commands like ls, cd, pwd, cat, etc. here's a complete list of the GNU coreutils package:

Code: Select all

[troelsmj@earth ~]$ rpm -ql coreutils
/bin/basename
/bin/cat
/bin/chgrp
/bin/chmod
/bin/chown
/bin/cp
/bin/cut
/bin/date
/bin/dd
/bin/df
/bin/echo
/bin/env
/bin/false
/bin/link
/bin/ln
/bin/ls
/bin/mkdir
/bin/mknod
/bin/mv
/bin/nice
/bin/pwd
/bin/rm
/bin/rmdir
/bin/sleep
/bin/sort
/bin/stty
/bin/su
/bin/sync
/bin/touch
/bin/true
/bin/uname
/bin/unlink
/sbin/runuser
/usr/bin/[
/usr/bin/base64
/usr/bin/chcon
/usr/bin/cksum
/usr/bin/comm
/usr/bin/csplit
/usr/bin/cut
/usr/bin/dir
/usr/bin/dircolors
/usr/bin/dirname
/usr/bin/du
/usr/bin/env
/usr/bin/expand
/usr/bin/expr
/usr/bin/factor
/usr/bin/fmt
/usr/bin/fold
/usr/bin/groups
/usr/bin/head
/usr/bin/hostid
/usr/bin/id
/usr/bin/install
/usr/bin/join
/usr/bin/logname
/usr/bin/md5sum
/usr/bin/mkfifo
/usr/bin/nl
/usr/bin/nohup
/usr/bin/od
/usr/bin/paste
/usr/bin/pathchk
/usr/bin/pinky
/usr/bin/pr
/usr/bin/printenv
/usr/bin/printf
/usr/bin/ptx
/usr/bin/readlink
/usr/bin/runcon
/usr/bin/seq
/usr/bin/sha1sum
/usr/bin/sha224sum
/usr/bin/sha256sum
/usr/bin/sha384sum
/usr/bin/sha512sum
/usr/bin/shred
/usr/bin/shuf
/usr/bin/split
/usr/bin/stat
/usr/bin/sum
/usr/bin/tac
/usr/bin/tail
/usr/bin/tee
/usr/bin/test
/usr/bin/tr
/usr/bin/tsort
/usr/bin/tty
/usr/bin/unexpand
/usr/bin/uniq
/usr/bin/users
/usr/bin/vdir
/usr/bin/wc
/usr/bin/who
/usr/bin/whoami
/usr/bin/yes
/usr/sbin/chroot

Also, an amazingly critical and central GNU system component would be glibc, which is the C library, something that every single system that tries to be UNIX-like has. Writing a program without using glibc is really difficult as far as I have heard, not being a programmer I can't tell myself. Also, stuff like tar, bash, cpio, awk, screen, wget, sed, grep, fileutils, etc. are also GNU packages. GRUB, the bootloader is also from the GNU project.

The Single UNIX Specification, which a system must comply with to be "a UNIX system", has a list of commands and utilities that a system must have. Since GNU strives to just be UNIX-like, then it does not have to comply, but it still strives to be very much like UNIX, so most of what I just mentioned you could consider operating system parts, exceptions being stuff like screen and wget, I don't know about sed and grep, although both Solaris and all the *BSDs each have their own versions of those.

In addition to all that, you have got non-OS parts like GCC (Which is a huge-ass suite of tools), bison, automake, autoconf, diffutils, GnuPG, Emacs etc. etc.. Linus himself has stated that GCC was essential to his original development of the Linux kernel (Source: Revolution OS, the documentary). Another thing the GNU project has been doing, because of Sun's past (Let me stress, past!) unwillingness to free up Java, they have the GNU Classpath project to do a free Java platform. Also lately, they're doing GNU PDF which aims to fully implement the ISO standardized version of PDF etc.

I might add that GNOME is also part of the GNU project, I know you said just non-X parts, but it's just a "small" detail I thought you might get a kick out of.

I've read that Linus thinks calling all distros GNU/Linux is silly, and one should only call a distro released by the GNU project GNU Linux.

Let me stress that Mr. Stallman does not want it to be "GNU Linux" but "GNU/Linux" or "GNU+Linux", the slash or plus indicates that the system is a combination of the GNU system and the Linux kernel. Omitting the slash or plus, makes the name mean that it's "GNU's version of Linux", like with GNU Emacs, but that's just non-sense because there are no clones of the Linux kernel.

I'm trying to figure out who is telling more of the truth, Stallman or Linus.

I personally side with Richard Stallman on this one, but I personally don't really care all that much what people call it, however when talking about multiple systems in the same discussion (Eg. *BSD, Solaris etc.) I think the term GNU/Linux is very very useful to distinguish between the kernel and the entire system, because all the *BSDs and Solaris are "whole" operating systems, whereas GNU is an incomplete OS and Linux is just a kernel. This makes the conversation much more meaningful and easier to understand clearly in my opinion, there's nothing like a good, clear and meaningful conversation!

Also, another important aspect to keep in mind, is that the main reason why Richard wants the system called GNU/Linux is not just because that name gives credit to the GNU project, which did a large part of the job, but it also makes a connection the GNU project which is all about giving freedom to computer users, which is the most important part.

[greggh]

Thanks for the info.

I've read that Linus thinks calling all distros GNU/Linux is silly, and one should only call a distro released by the GNU project GNU Linux.

Let me stress that Mr. Stallman does not want it to be "GNU Linux" but "GNU/Linux" or "GNU+Linux", the slash or plus indicates that the system is a combination of the GNU system and the Linux kernel. Omitting the slash or plus, makes the name mean that it's "GNU's version of Linux", like with GNU Emacs, but that's just non-sense because there are no clones of the Linux kernel.

Yup, I've heard Stallman make the careful distinction of having the / or + in the name several times in speeches. But when Linus was asked about the naming controversy in the documentary Revolution OS this was his response...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_ ... ontroversy

Linus Torvalds has said in the documentary Revolution OS, when asked if the name GNU/Linux was justified:

Well, I think it's justified, but it's justified if you actually make a GNU distribution of Linux ... the same way that I think that "Red Hat Linux" is fine, or "SuSE Linux" or "Debian Linux", because if you actually make your own distribution of Linux, you get to name the thing, but calling Linux in general "GNU Linux" I think is just ridiculous.[22]

[greggh]

I might add that GNOME is also part of the GNU project, I know you said just non-X parts, but it's just a "small" detail I thought you might get a kick out of.

Ahhh... that explains why Linus hates GNOME so much, and is such a big KDE promoter. I think I read that Linus once commented on a mailing list "friends don't let other friends use GNOME".

[Tsuroerusu]

Thanks for the info.

No problem. It sounds like you think a lot about things in general, so feel free to tell me what you think of this whole saga of free software history once you've thought about it for a while.

I've read that Linus thinks calling all distros GNU/Linux is silly, and one should only call a distro released by the GNU project GNU Linux.

Let me stress that Mr. Stallman does not want it to be "GNU Linux" but "GNU/Linux" or "GNU+Linux", the slash or plus indicates that the system is a combination of the GNU system and the Linux kernel. Omitting the slash or plus, makes the name mean that it's "GNU's version of Linux", like with GNU Emacs, but that's just non-sense because there are no clones of the Linux kernel.

Yup, I've heard Stallman make the careful distinction of having the / or + in the name several times in speeches. But when Linus was asked about the naming controversy in the documentary Revolution OS this was his response...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_ ... ontroversy

Linus Torvalds has said in the documentary Revolution OS, when asked if the name GNU/Linux was justified:

Well, I think it's justified, but it's justified if you actually make a GNU distribution of Linux ... the same way that I think that "Red Hat Linux" is fine, or "SuSE Linux" or "Debian Linux", because if you actually make your own distribution of Linux, you get to name the thing, but calling Linux in general "GNU Linux" I think is just ridiculous.[22]

Well, like Richard have said before, Linus is entitled to his views, but I disagree. To me it sometimes sounds like Linus is intentionally trying to take credit for the whole operating system, which I think is *ridiculous*, because writing an entire, full-scale (Even a small, embedded-style OS is a huge amount of work) UNIX-like operating system is just such a ginourmous task that it would be infeasible for one person to do alone. Although, to our luck, in 1983 a man vowed to do so for the sake of the freedom of others.

I might add that GNOME is also part of the GNU project, I know you said just non-X parts, but it's just a "small" detail I thought you might get a kick out of.

Ahhh... that explains why Linus hates GNOME so much, and is such a big KDE promoter. I think I read that Linus once commented on a mailing list "friends don't let other friends use GNOME".

If that was really the case, him being "pragmatic" would be a giant farce.

[greggh]

Thanks for the info.

No problem. It sounds like you think a lot about things in general, so feel free to tell me what you think of this whole saga of free software history once you've thought about it for a while.

Yeah. I'm still trying to learn a lot more about the free software movement's history. I've been going through Google Video looking for all kinds of speeches by Stallman, Torvalds, Moglen, Perens, Raymond... and having lots of fun and learning a lot watching hours of this stuff... way too much time on my hands. But so far the impression I get is that Stallman has the better case for why stressing the freedom part of "Free Software" is fundamental and more important than basically starting what is no more than a marketing campaign of using the term "Open Source", because to use the term "Free Software" would just be too frightening to corporations.

[Tsuroerusu]

Thanks for the info.

No problem. It sounds like you think a lot about things in general, so feel free to tell me what you think of this whole saga of free software history once you've thought about it for a while.

Yeah. I'm still trying to learn a lot more about the free software movement's history. I've been going through Google Video looking for all kinds of speeches by Stallman, Torvalds, Moglen, Perens, Raymond... and having lots of fun and learning a lot watching hours of this stuff... way too much time on my hands.

Richard's speeches are really amusing at times, for example, during a speech about free software that he gave in Taiwan, he was telling the audience about the incident where he couldn't get the source code for some printer control software:

"I heard that there was somebody who had a copy of that source code at another university. So I went there, and I went to his office and said "Hi I'm from MIT, could I have a copy of the printer software source code?", and he said "No, I promised not to give you a copy". I was so stunned that I couldn't think of how to respond. I felt angry, but I couldn't think of a good way to express it that would do justice to the wrong that he had comitted. He had betrayed us, his colleges at MIT. He should have cooperated with us, but he had made a deal with someone else to refuse to cooperate with us. So he had betrayed us, but he didn't just betray us, he betrayed just about everybody in the world... so Tao Tao only spoke about betraying the whole world, but that guy actually did it!"

.

But so far the impression I get is that Stallman has the better case for why stressing the freedom part of "Free Software" is fundamental and more important than basically starting what is no more than a marketing campaign of using the term "Open Source", because to use the term "Free Software" would just be too frightening to corporations.

So true. (In my opinion).

Also, a solid point that Richard makes, is that if people only care about the quality and features of software, the only thing people like Microsoft and and Apple have to do is to make better software and the users won't think twice about using their software. Now if one doesn't care about free software, this point is probably illogical (And to hardcore capitalists, it probably sounds like communism, because to those people, everything sounds like communism! ), but to people who do care about free software (Like myself) it most likely make a lot of sense.

[Wally Balljacker]

Saying, "GNU plus Linux" or "GNU slash Linux" is still retarded, I don't care what Troels says.

[Tsuroerusu]

Saying, "GNU plus Linux" or "GNU slash Linux" is still retarded, I don't care what Troels says.

Well, I know for a fact that you hate freedom, so we don't need to hear your input! /sarcasm

[snarkout]

Yet another case of what is possibly correct being too confusing for the lay person. Unless you want your life to be a Stallmanesque crusade, you will save yourself hours of useful time by *not* telling everyone you talk to that "it's "GNU/Linux on the servers, not just Linux." For that matter, even saying "GNU slash linux" is probably going to confuse several people who actually *do* use linux - I can hear it now "Oh, is that like ubuntu?" The reality of the situation is that regardless of what RMS would like you to say, the general public have spoken, and it's all just "linux" - you can't put the genie back in the bottle, as they say. Even worse is "correcting" people who just say linux - it's fine to be that way at a LUG meeting, but please leave regular people alone, especially regular people who outrank you at work. Anything else is just way too Comic Book Guy for anyone but the most ardent adherents of either being annoying or Freedom Fighting.