Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX
Free Software vs OSS
Calum:
i know, but those that care will find out, and those that do not would not give a shit anyway. i sometimes refer to linux as gnu/linux when i remember, and i think that's fair...
voidmain:
quote:Originally posted by flap:
Same here. Unfortunately though, when people read "Linux" in a magazine or newspaper and don't really know what it's about, they're usually not seeing GNU mentioned anywhere.
--- End quote ---
Well, not entirely true. When you or I read the magazine and see Linux mentioned we know exactly what they are talking about. And rather than introducing too much confusion into the equation for those uninformed people reading about or are interested in getting into a GNU/Linux based system I think it is ok for them to shorten it to Linux.
If they can get their foot into the GNU/Linux door just by the use of the short easy term of "Linux", then they are much more likely to hear about GNU after the fact and to join in the enthusiasm of GNU, the GPL and "Free" software in general.
And I also will submit to you that the coming of the Linux kernel has done far more for the promotion of GNU software than there ever was, many times over. GNU should really be thanking Linus rather than dissing him (which RMS does).
[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
KernelPanic:
I call it GNU/Linux only when writing things like my Penguin Digital Solutions project. I don't know why I'm doing that because I would be damn suprised if the dozy AQA examiner even knew what linux was.
voidmain:
Update.. I don't want to turn this into an RMS bashing thread but I just happened to finally read the original link that flap was referring to. I have some problems with the way RMS goes about promoting GNU/FSF.
http://www.theregus.com/content/4/26311.html
quote:RMSI do not advocate open source, but I wrote a free software license, the GNU General Public License, that is described by some as "open source". I also launched, in 1984, the development of a free software operating system that is "Linux" by some. I hope this makes my response worth reading.
--- End quote ---
I believe is not completely accurate. Yes, they launched the development of a free software operating system, mostly a clone of UNIX. However, an operating system without a kernel is *not* an operating system. The GNU software by itself without the Linux kernel is *not* an operating system. Originally Linus wrote a kernel, and at the time the easiest thing to do was to put that kernel under the GPL and to add the rest of the GNU software/utilities so there would be a complete operating system and I see nothing wrong with calling that operating system "Linux" as I said.
Now people who program for FSF, GNU, etc all deserve a huge amount of credit and I for one am extremely thankful for the work they have done (including RMS), and I try and contribute wherever/whenever I can. But to me RMS means more to RMS than FSF means to RMS. I could have him all wrong but that's the way I read him.
[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
Calum:
i think you are right on all points there, void main, although i'm not so sure just how selfish RMS really is, i think he is just overzealous.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version