Alexandre Oliva wrote:

On Jul 21, 2008, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:


Björn Persson wrote:

I don't think I'll get everyone to agree on a definition. I don't
even think all the anti-GNU/Linux folks will agree on a definition.



I'm not sure there is an anti-GNU/Linux factor - just a pro "the other
85%" of the distro unwilling to give unfair naming rights.


Naming it after 2% is fair, while naming it after 15% isn't. Care to
explain the rationale behind this conclusion?


The 2% has a very specific function and needs to be differentiated from
the similar functionality provided, but rarely used, in the GNU project.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

> > So far I haven't seen a pro-GNU/Linux person
> describe what GNU/Linux is and
> > what it isn't. It would be interesting to see
> whether they include the
> > kitchen sink in GNU/Linux.
>
> Correction: Alexandre Oliva has said that "an
> operating system is a kernel
> plus a bunch of userland libraries and programs that users
> and other
> applications generally rely on" and that GNU is an
> example of an operating
> system. I can't believe I forgot that.
>
> It's a bit vague, but clearly a whole lot less than all
> of Fedora or Debian.
> It could be taken to mean just a kernel and the GNU command
> line tools, or it
> could include X and Gnome too.
>
> Björn Persson
>
> --

Using google with the search phrase "why is it called GNU/Linux?", we get many hits, most notably

http://www.gnu.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html

Now it becomes a matter of opinion as to why FSF prefers GNU/Linux and others prefer simply Linux. There are many projects out there that are not from GNU only and the kernel is the core part(the glue that holds everything together as many people say). It would be nice to have a percentage of which programs/sub projects make up an entire Linux distribution and see by numbers which projects make up a higher percentage. In the page

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html

it explains why it is appropriate to call it GNU/Linux
<quote>
If we tried to measure the GNU Project's contribution in this way, what would we conclude? 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%. (The proportions in 2008 are similar: in the “main� repository of gNewSense, Linux is 1.5% and GNU packages are 15%.) 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�.
</quote>

I personally do not mind what they call it. As long as it works for me in the ways that it does, lets me be in control, and runs smoothy I have no objections as to its name.

Regards,

Antonio




--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

On Sun, 2008-07-20 at 22:32 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 04:47 +0200, Björn Persson wrote:
> > Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > > Having said that, my *usage* of the term "Linux" encompasses any
> > > accumulation of software that has a useful purpose and is constructed
> > > around a Linux kernel. This includes GNU+Linux, X+Linux,
> > > Fedora/Debian/Ubuntu/Slackware/etc. and the system that runs my wife's
> > > RAZR-2 cellphone.
> >
> > OK, that's a fairly clear explanation. Apparently you're in the "everything
> > and the kitchen sink" camp too.
>
> Everything? There is a world outside Linux. It contains Windows, MacOS,
> VMS, VM/370 etc.
>
> > > 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful
> > > tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor
> > > less.'
> >
> > Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. When combined with the assumption that
> > everyone else automatically knows what Humpty Dumpty wants the words to mean
> > it ensures endless misunderstandings.
>
> It appears the misunderstandings are happening anyway.

That quote isn't complete without the bit about having the power. Ric

--
----------------------------------------------------
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
Linux user# 44256 Sign up at: http://counter.li.org/
http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/oar
https://oar.dev.java.net/
Verizon Cell # 336-254-1339
-----------------------------------------------------

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:


Having said that, my *usage* of the term "Linux" encompasses any
accumulation of software that has a useful purpose and is constructed
around a Linux kernel. This includes GNU+Linux, X+Linux,
Fedora/Debian/Ubuntu/Slackware/etc. and the system that runs my wife's
RAZR-2 cellphone.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful
tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor
less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean

so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master -

that's all.'

Through The Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll


That's a beautiful example of the literal truth of that chapter.

Humpty Dumpty spoke complete nonsense, from which no one could possibly
understand his meaning, because he decided that words meant what he
wanted them to mean. Thus it is for people who say "Linux" when they
mean an operating system that is Unix-like (which is GNU) or a
distribution composed of Free Software (which may be Fedora or something
else).


Language doesn't work that way. If you speak, and your listener doesn't
understand you, then *you* are the one at fault. There's no point in
speaking to others except for them to understand your meaning. That is
why it is essential for us all to use words whose meanings are
consistent and specific. Therefore, it is detrimental to refer to the
Linux kernel as "Linux", and the GNU+Linux operating sytem as "Linux",
and distributions of Free Software which run the GNU operating system as
"Linux". How will anyone understand what you mean?


--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

* Björn Persson <listor3.rombobeorn@tdcpost.se> [20080721 04:47]:
> söndagen den 20 juli 2008 skrev Anders Karlsson:
[snip]
> > Is it really so hard to grasp that the term "Linux" can (and does)
> > mean different things depending on context, who you are talking to,
> > and the counterparts technical savvy?
>
> It's not difficult at all to understand that people have different ideas of
> what Linux is, but that's not enough to understand what any particular person
> means when he says "Linux". And why are we even communicating if we aren't
> going to try to understand each other?

Soooo, it's easy to grasp that people have different ideas about what
"Linux" is, depending on context, technical savvy and who you converse
with - and yet forcing the point of trying to obtain a final
specification of what Linux is prevails. Hmmmm..

Understanding each other implies some sort of diplomatic process to
get the two differing opinions to move nearer to each other. I'm not
seeing much diplomacy, but I am seeing lots of "drift the argument
sideways to avoid something uncomfortable" or circular
reasonings. It's all a bit pants really.

> > I also would like to know why you have the absolute fascination and
> > the palpable need to obtain a totally absolute definition of "Linux".
>
> I don't think I'll get everyone to agree on a definition. I don't even think
> all the anti-GNU/Linux folks will agree on a definition.

Considering the pro GNU/Linux mafia can't agree either, that's hardly
surprising or relevant.

> When Mark Haney "vented his spleen" I made an attempt to damp the argument
> that would inevitably follow. I tried to get Mark to say something about what
> it was that should or shouldn't be called Linux or GNU/Linux, so that maybe
> people would at least argue about the same thing. That mostly failed.

Yeah, putting out a bonfire by pouring diesel on it has about the same
effect.

> I kept asking in the hope that at least some people would start thinking about
> whether their opponents even understood what meaning they put in the words. I
> expected that some of the anti-GNU/Linux folks would say that Linux is the
> operating system and that the operating system is the kernel plus the
> programs that are necessary to boot the system, log in, run commands and edit
> text files, or something like that. I thought that others would include stuff
> like Cron, RPM, X and maybe the core parts of a desktop environment.

Keeping on asking just because no-one has given you the answer you
want is frequently a Sisyphos task, not to mention that it annoys the
sh*t out of others. It's not a way to obtain cooperation shall we
say.

> Instead, those who have answered so far or otherwise made their position clear
> in the argument either say that Linux is a kernel or that pretty much
> everything and the kitchen sink is Linux. I didn't expect that. I'm
> particularly surprised that some even include unfree programs that have never
> been distributed bundled with Linus' kernel.

Context, technical savvy and who you're talking to....

> So far I haven't seen a pro-GNU/Linux person describe what GNU/Linux is and
> what it isn't. It would be interesting to see whether they include the
> kitchen sink in GNU/Linux.

They'll throw in Emacs in the mix, so of course the kitchen sink is
in.

(For the record, Emacs is my favourite editor, before anyone else has
a stroke and starts bleating Heresy!!)

/Anders

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

* Gordon Messmer <yinyang@eburg.com> [20080721 08:29]:
[snip]
> Language doesn't work that way. If you speak, and your listener doesn't
> understand you, then *you* are the one at fault.
[snip]

It's not ones fault when there is a misunderstanding, same as it's not
ones fault there is an argument.

Don't lose sight of the bigger picture. By your argument, we should
not speak unless we spoke fluent legaleese, or we all became Ent's.

Sorry dude, not happening.

/Anders

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

This is more or less a yes or no type of question. And I picked Ric's
position in the thread since, I feel, he is least likely to take offense.


Is this the semi-annual Fedora diarrhea thread where folks pretend to be
lawyers, intellectuals, philosophers, and the like and then talk at each
other while hurling thinly disguised insults at those who disagree with
their "truth" and nothing gets done and nobody is swayed to "see the light"?


Just wondering. I think it is...but I was hoping someone could confirm it
so I wouldn't be tempted to read the whole thread. BTW, how many pages is
"War and Peace"? :-)


--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

* Ed Greshko <Ed.Greshko@greshko.com> [20080721 09:25]:
> This is more or less a yes or no type of question. And I picked Ric's
> position in the thread since, I feel, he is least likely to take offense.
>
> Is this the semi-annual Fedora diarrhea thread where folks pretend to be
> lawyers, intellectuals, philosophers, and the like and then talk at each
> other while hurling thinly disguised insults at those who disagree with
> their "truth" and nothing gets done and nobody is swayed to "see the
> light"?
>
> Just wondering. I think it is...but I was hoping someone could confirm
> it so I wouldn't be tempted to read the whole thread. BTW, how many
> pages is "War and Peace"? :-)

You are correct young man (and I have no idea of your age, so don't
take offense) - this is indeed the intellectual diahorrea thread,
where people vomit (not so thinly) veiled insults at each other,
no-one prepared to give an inch and we are all just eagerly awaiting
the Inquisition to appear, with their fanatical devotion to the Pope,
red cloaks, fear and element of surprise.

Also, there is no chance of anyone seeing the light, as all the
flammable goods have already been hurled at the bonfire. And the
lightbulb at the end of the tunnel was a cheap one, so that popped
about five seconds after the thread started.

I'd not waste my time if I were you.

Cheers!

/Anders

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

On Sun, 2008-07-20 at 23:28 -0700, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> Language doesn't work that way. If you speak, and your listener doesn't
> understand you, then *you* are the one at fault. There's no point in
> speaking to others except for them to understand your meaning. That is
> why it is essential for us all to use words whose meanings are
> consistent and specific. Therefore, it is detrimental to refer to the
> Linux kernel as "Linux", and the GNU+Linux operating sytem as "Linux",
> and distributions of Free Software which run the GNU operating system as
> "Linux". How will anyone understand what you mean?

If you want to talk about understanding a term, you're arguing at
crossed purposes.

The majority will understand "Linux" as being an OS, the whole thing,
one of the many OS distros that are similar to each other (*), but not
understand it as referring to just the kernel. If you said Linux
kernel, you might get them to understand you're referring to that small
part of the system. It'll be a minority that understand what GNU/Linux
means (and even they can't agree with each other).

* Fedora, Ubuntu, Debian, CentOS, Red Hat, etc., which either
incorporate the word Linux into their name, or into the description of
themselves (whether that be as a "Linux-based" thing, or simply calling
themselves a Linux OS).

Just try Googling Ubuntu Linux, or other distros, and you'll get pages
back from their own sites that describe themselves that way. Or even
just Google "Linux", the first site listed (linux.org) describes it as
an OS, not a kernel. Heck, even the kernel in Fedora isn't called
"linux" but "linuz" (ls /boot) or "kernel" (the RPM it comes from).

The distributions have been described as "Linux" for many years, it's
how the general public know of it. There's no lack of understanding
when one person says to another that they use Linux. They mean they use
an OS which has Linux at it's heart. They only question they'll have is
"Which one?"

Programmers, on the other hand, have a different set of circumstances,
where terms mean specific things. What programmers call things, and the
general public call the same thing, are often very different. And,
quite frankly, if they're talking about something which is specific to a
specific kernel, then they're going to name it explicitly, right down to
version numbers. Likewise, if it's specific to a release, they're going
to name that unambiguously, too.

The whole GNU/* thing smacks of sour grapes, though. They're pissed
that someone else beat them to the punch in getting a working whole
system out and branding recognised before they did.

FSF, Stallman, et all, remind me of Greenpeace: Appalling tactics for a
worthy cause.

If you want to make people call "Ubuntu," "Ubuntu GNU/Linux" instead of
"Ubuntu Linux," likewise for the rest of them, they need to go harass
the distributors, not the users. Yes, various distributions do refer to
themselves as <something> Linux as well as just <something>. One or two
people need to open their eyes.

--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.25.10-86.fc9.i686

Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I
read messages from the public lists.



--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

On Jul 21, 2008, Anders Karlsson <anders@trudheim.co.uk> wrote:

> (For the record, Emacs is my favourite editor, before anyone else has
> a stroke and starts bleating Heresy!!)

Heresy! Emacs is not (just) an editor! :-)

--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list