Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX
Free Software vs OSS
voidmain:
It is true that "Linux" is not an operating system, but just the kernel (which is a huge requirement for the operating system to even function). And it is true that Linus wrote the kernel used on all "Linux based" operating systems. It is also true that GNU is significant and good. However, I get a little peaved by GNU making it sound like they are the "biggest" part of a system comprised of only the Linux kernel and the rest being "GNU". The "Linux based" distros of today include much more than the Linux kernel and the GNU utilities/software. Most apps fall under the GPL (even the Linux kernel falls under thet GPL) but being licensed under GPL does not mean they were initiated or born by GNU.
For instance, XFree86 is not GPL or born from GNU and to most "Linux Based" OS users this piece of software is as significant as the Linux kernel. It is an open source version of X Window System and licensed under something similar to the X11 license. KDE, a system that many "Linux based" OS users do most of their "user" functions with includes a powerful Window manager and desktop system with many applications, is licensed under the GPL but certainly isn't GNU software. In fact I would suggest that in most Linux distros GNU born software comprises a small fraction of the bulk of the code written for the distro. It is probably true that they would be the single biggest contributor but still be a small fraction of the overall.
Now, I have nothing against GNU other than they whine too much. It is not Linus' fault that people call an entire distro "Linux". In fact I do it myself because it is easy to say and most people I talk to know that I am referring to the entire OS even though Linux is just the kernel. GPL is good and in most cases I prefer it. But other licenses are better for other people, and maybe one day they will move entirely to GPL, that certainly seems to be the trend. However, I hesitate to bash other licenses and whining so much certainly won't help the cause. Enlighten people about the GPL and the philosophy but don't whine about who's more responsible and significant, something I hope RMS and friends do more of in the future.
[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
Calum:
i do agree re: whining, but they are doing it with their hearts in the right place, and X is a good example of essential non FSF software indeed. As far as i know they do not make software unless there is a legal way to bring out software that does the job of something that is not released under the gpl already.
why they do not build a WineX clone now is beyond me...
maybe it should be called GPL/Linux instead...
voidmain:
I think just "Linux" is fine. GNU software is used on far more systems than just "Linux based" systems so to me "Linux" better captures the whole with a short word. Enlighted people know that Linux is GPL and that there is a lot of GNU software included. Now it would certainly be improper to call a GNU/Hurd system "Linux". And people who install all of the GNU utilities on the Solaris or OSX machines do not then refer to their systems as "GNU/Solaris" or "GNU/OSX".
Regarding Wine/WineX. I have mixed feelings about this project. As far as I am concerned I would be happy if it just shriveled up and went away. It would be far more advantageous to get app vendors to produce their applications to run natively. They have no incentive to port if their app runs well under Wine, which would never run as well as a native application. However, it comes down to that little dog chasing his tail problem, which is why I have mixed feelings about it. I personally don't have a use for it. I don't use Windows apps. I use "Free and open source" apps.
flap:
quote:However, I get a little peaved by GNU making it sound like they are the "biggest" part of a system
--- End quote ---
Quote from http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html:
quote:One CD-ROM vendor found that in their ``Linux distribution'', GNU software was the largest single contingent, around 28% of the total source code, and this included some of the essential major components without which there could be no system. Linux itself was about 3%. So if you were going to pick a name for the system based on who wrote the programs in the system, the most appropriate single choice would be ``GNU''.
--- End quote ---
quote:Enlighten people about the GPL and the philosophy but don't whine about who's more responsible and significant, something I hope RMS and friends do more of in the future.
--- End quote ---
This is the problem; that people assume RMS + friends are "whining" or complaining about not getting their share of the credit, when the *whole reason* why they want GNU included in the OS name is so that people *will* become enlightened about the GPL + philosophy.
voidmain:
That percentage falls in line with what I said. They have the single biggest percentage of code yet not the majority. And I believe it is better to use the term "Linux" over GNU because it refers to the systems that run the Linux kernel.
GNU software runs on many many more systems than just "Linux based" systems and you don't qualify those systems as "GNU" systems, nor should you on systems based on the Linux kernel. Now when they start shipping distros with the HURD kernel then of course they should call the system "GNU".
And I don't "assume" they are whining. I "know" they are whining.
[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version