> Bjorn, Linus really put the spin on this whole affair. So,
> I'm quoting
> him below. From my own perspective, there has been a bunch
> of history
> here, when RedHat released it's CD's labeled
> "Red Hat Linux" and the
> same with Caldera and their CD's with "Caldera
> Linux" written on the CD,
> etc. The wav file of Linus saying "I pronounce it
> LeeNuks" spread around
> the planet. Yet, I've never heard of Linus saying
> "you must" or "you
> should" or anything like that in that vein. To me,
> that is freedom,
> where your freedom ends at the tip of my nose.
>
> I personally prefer using the term "Linux" to
> describe the OS, the
> community, the mindset, the all encompassing rally to the
> sharing of all
> things computerese as opposed to "Windows" and
> that community, that OS,
> that mindset. Both come in many flavors. BSD comes in many
> flavors, and
> they also are a community, a mindset, as well as an OS.
>
> So, personally it comes down to who is my ideal, my guru,
> the person I'd
> rather be like and present as that to others. Linus, hands
> down. Again,
> it's personal and it's history. I first installed
> using the 9 floppy
> disk install set labeled "Slackware Linux". Then
> the first RedHat CD,
> labeled "RedHat Linux", which I mounted in my
> $500 CD player. Now we
> have FSF telling us to duck-march, rectify history, and
> give Stallman
> the power to "remind" us what to do and think?
> We've been morally WRONG
> all this time? Bullpucky. Here's Linus's take on
> it...
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio wrote:
> >
> > If the "free software community" has the
> clout to twist vendor's arms to
> > get them release driver source, then I'm all for
> it.
>
> I don't care what you're for, or what your
> imaginary "free software
> community" is for.
>
> We're "open source", and we're not a
> religion. We don't "twist peoples
> arms". We show people what we think is a better way,
> and we let them
> participate. We don't force it, we don't twist it,
> and it's ok not to
> believe in the GPL or our ideals. In fact, "our
> ideals" aren't even one
> unified thing to begin with.
>
> We also don't try to pervert copyright into a "you
> have to _use_ things
> in a certain way". We don't think "fair
> use" is a bad thing. We encourage
> it, and that means that we have to abide by it ourselves.
> It means, most
> particularly, that even people we disagree with have that
> right of "fair
> use".
>
> That, btw, is what "freedom" and
> "rights" are all about. It's only
> meaningful when you grant those rights to people you
> don't agree with.
>
> Also, since you haven't apparently gotten the memo yet,
> let me point it
> out to you: the end results don't justify the means,
> and never did. So
> arm-twisting doesn't become good just because you think
> the end result
> might be worth it. It's still bad.
>
> And btw, that "information freedom" thing you
> talked about is just so much
> blather and idiotic hogwash. "Information"
> doesn't want to be free, nor is
> it something you should fight for or necessarily even
> encourage.
>
> It doesn't hold a candle to _peoples_ freedom, the
> foremost of which is to
> just disagree with you. Once you allow people to talk and
> do what they
> want, that "information freedom" will follow.
>
> It's not a religion, and it's not about suppressing
> other people and other
> viewpoints.
>
> Linus
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> That is a man that I can follow. So, I'll redouble my
> personal efforts
> to use the name "Linux" as "GNU/Linux"
> ain't as free and asks, if not
> demands, a price ...according to my perceptions.
>
> Can I get an Amen? Ric
>
Amen, Amen, and a Hallelujah!!!

http://www.danggoodjokes.com/amen/
> --
Both Linux and GNU are important much like man is to woman, one without the other would cease to exist, but the general public has exerted its name Linux, Debian uses Debian/GNU Linux, and some others as well. Maybe Presidential Candidate Obama can help some that want the change, after all his motto is change?

Regards,

Antonio




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

Antonio Olivares wrote:

Both Linux and GNU are important much like man is to woman, one without the other would cease to exist,


Hardly... except for gcc which would take some scrambling to replace,
the gnu utilities in linux distros could easily be replaced with
counterparts from the *bsd's, opensolaris, or any commercial unix
version. And the Linux kernel could be swapped with a bsd, opensolaris,
or commercial unix in a distro running GNU utilities. There might be a
bit of work duplicating each other's exact bugs, but things could have
as easily been developed that way in the first place.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

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

> > Both Linux and GNU are important much like man is to
> woman, one without the other would cease to exist,
That was from the beginning, Adam by himself (compared to GNU)
and Eve (Linus torvalds and his kernel)
making a comparision to the bible. Nowadays, anything is possible but does not make it right like the craziness that exists today between same sex marriages
A man needs a woman and a woman needs a man iff children as a product of the two together to inhabit the earth and populate it.
The other possible combinations do not make sense!!!, and are illegal in God's view.
Here GNU had one part of the equation, and Linus had the other part, they got together and the software played nice and the product Linux was born, GNU also wanted/wants credit and asks to add the GNU/Linux part. This happens in music when the lead singer of a group does not have his name in the group wants it added as well, but the owner of the group does not want to, what does he do, he gets another singer and moves on?
Will this happen here?
>
> Hardly... except for gcc which would take some scrambling
> to replace,
> the gnu utilities in linux distros could easily be replaced
> with
> counterparts from the *bsd's, opensolaris, or any
> commercial unix
> version. And the Linux kernel could be swapped with a bsd,
> opensolaris,
> or commercial unix in a distro running GNU utilities.
> There might be a
> bit of work duplicating each other's exact bugs, but
> things could have
> as easily been developed that way in the first place.
>
> --
> Les Mikesell
> lesmikesell@gmail.com

There exists such projects one that comes to mind is the Nexenta, already mentioned by you in this thread

http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=nexenta

quote
Nexenta OS is a free and open source operating system combining the OpenSolaris kernel with GNU application userland. Nexenta OS runs on Intel/AMD 32-/64-bit hardware and is distributed as a single installable CD. Upgrades and binary packages not included on the CD can be installed from Nexenta OS repository using Advanced Packaging Tool. In addition, source based software components can be downloaded from network repositories available at Debian/GNU Linux and Ubuntu Linux.
/quote

This one used a FreeBSD kernel before, and now they moved to OpenSolaris. Other projects like Belenix exist and are released under OpenSolaris's CDDL license.

Regards,

Antonio




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

> >> So, anyone who insists in naming Linux all of the
> GNU operating system
> >> used with the kernel Linux is contradicting the
> primary developer of
> >> GNU and the primary developer of Linus.
> >
> > And going along with how various distributions
> describe themselves.
>
> This made me curious how various distributions do describe
> themselves
> so I poked the websites of the top 8 listed on Distrowatch
> checking
> just the front page and the about link if there was such.
> Here is what
> I found::
>
> 1. Ubuntu - "Linux-based operating system"
> 2. openSUSE - "Linux distribution"
> 3. Fedora - "Linux-based operating system"
> 4. Mint - "GNU/Linux desktop distribution"
> 5. PCLinuxOS - "Linux-based operating system"
> 6. Mandriva - "Linux operating system"
> 7. Debian - "GNU/Linux"
> 8. Dreamlinux - "modular GNU/Linux system"
>
> I tried to spot a reference to how each distribution
> described the
> operating system directly where possible - otherwise I went
> with the
> description of the distribution as a whole.
>
> The distributions seem at least as divided as the people
> discussing this here.
>
> John
>
> --

Taking this subset of Distributions, 3 out of 8
3/8 or 0.375 , 37.5% use GNU/Linux the rest call it Linux
62.5%, 5/8, 0.625 say it is plainly Linux.

Going back to Distrowatch, taking all the Distros listed, the active one, the nonactive ones, and the ones that one to come in, make the same experiment, it would be amazing to find out (maye be the top 100%) how many name their distros GNU/Linux.

Only there has to be several catches here,
The distros that are based on Debian will be GNU/Linux despite another name, why because Debian uses it.

The page on Distrowatch describes the major distributions, although it has not been updated to reflect the changes

http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=major

I guess this is extra work that will not do any good

Regards,

Antonio




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

On Jul 22, 2008, Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> wrote:

> Here's the real history, according to this webpage:
> http://www.simple-talk.com/opinion/geek-of-the-week/linus-torvalds%2c-geek-of-the-week/

> he bought a copy of Andrew Tanenbaum’s MINIX operating system

Which was never just a kernel, and that to the best of my knowledge
didn't use GNU software.

> end of October he was able to announce, ‘It has finally reached
> the stage where it's even usable’

with the GNU operating system.

> and released Linux under the
> GPL (GNU General Public License).

Factually incorrect, provably.
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/Historic/old-versions/RELNOTES-0.01

> It soon became the focus of
> the largest collaborative ‘open source’ project ever undertaken,

Causal loop detected. The term Open Source is 7 years younger than
Linux.

> So, he took Minux, an operating system, (presumably with it's GNU
> packages), inserted his kernel (which took only 10 months to have it
> working enough to distribute)

Whereas an army of developers had spent 7 years writing the code he
combined with it to make it useful.

> named and released a package named "Linux"

Yep. A kernel.

> under the GPL.

False.

> He referred to it as "an operating system".

In the plan. Later on, when it became clear that writing a complete
operating system was such a major undertaking, he started using the
term 'kernel' to refer to his work.

And later on, when it became clear that the combination was "big and
professional like gnu" (heck, it *was* gnu), labeling the whole thing
as Linux became too tempting to resist.

> Can FSF CHANGE the name of a GPL'd package??

Sure. Anyone can change the name of a GPLed package. Or even a huge
collection of GPLed and non-GPLed packages. It is legal.

But is it morally right?

Do the ends (promoting oneself in detriment of the software freedom
ideology) justify the means (using all the GNU software and applying
his kernel name to it)?

> Is Minix now GNU/Minix as well?

It is now under the GPL, but AFAIK it didn't use much if any GNU
software, and it was never part of the GNU project (unlike all this
software that makes up the userland of the operating system GNU that
some people call Linux)

> Re-writing history also happens during the eventual purges.

Like the article you cited?

> Linus called "Linux" an -operating system-. And GPL'd it. Now what?

Let the records show that history was rewritten by whoever wrote the
article, and correct this mistake as well as the other mistake that
you justify using the article.

> He used GNU packages in his project,

*with*, not *in*. His project was and still is named linux, and it's
no more than a kernel. Go check what he releases as
linux-2.6.26.tar.bz2

> can someone else demand I change the
> name to GNU/NuOAR, cause I use some GNU bits?

Nobody can demand any such thing. But if you add 200LOC to a 5000LOC
GNU project, it would be just reasonable to not give people the
impression that you wrote it all, and to give credit to the work you
based yours on.

--
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

On Jul 22, 2008, Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Linux is a trademark, please use it properly in combination with other
>> marks.

> ... and an GPL'd registered project under the name of "Linux",

Good. Now go check what was registered under that name.

] Oh, my God, a kernel! I thought it was an operating system!

:-)

--
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

On Jul 22, 2008, Tim <ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> I've little sympathy for users being harassed into calling Linux
> something else,

Me too. Likewise GNU. It works both ways.

Linux = kernel (says Linus)

GNU = operating system (says RMS)

--
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

On Jul 22, 2008, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:

> the gnu utilities in linux distros could easily be replaced with
> counterparts from the *bsd's, opensolaris, or any commercial unix
> version. And the Linux kernel could be swapped with a bsd,
> opensolaris, or commercial unix in a distro running GNU utilities.

That all this could be done and yield something else doesn't change
what the combination GNU+Linux is. Removing the GNU bits until it is
no longer the largest single part of the whole operating system would
just give legitimacy to naming the whole after some other part.

--
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

> > He used GNU packages in his project,
>
> *with*, not *in*. His project was and still is named
> linux, and it's
> no more than a kernel. Go check what he releases as
> linux-2.6.26.tar.bz2
He does not do all the work by himself, are you forgetting all the other developers that send patches and help out in some way or another?

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/linuxkerneldevelopment.php

He was the original creator and yes he supervises the work, but he is not the sole developer! Other people here deserve some credit as well.

>
> > can someone else demand I change the
> > name to GNU/NuOAR, cause I use some GNU bits?
>
> Nobody can demand any such thing. But if you add 200LOC to
> a 5000LOC
> GNU project, it would be just reasonable to not give people
> the
> impression that you wrote it all, and to give credit to the
> work you
> based yours on.
>
> --
In the meantime, while following this thread and finding sites, I found one that asks

Where Do You Stand in the GNU World Order?

The topic is GNU/Linx?
http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2002.1.6.154423.1887.html

If found this page regarding Stallman
http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2001.12.29.95736.251.html

and a page for Linux from awk to sed
http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2001.9.27.16143.1935.html

They are a bit old, but I hope that users here can read them if you have a chance. Interesting reads.

Regards,

Antonio




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

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Antonio Olivares
<olivares14031@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 1. Ubuntu - "Linux-based operating system"
>> 2. openSUSE - "Linux distribution"
>> 3. Fedora - "Linux-based operating system"
>> 4. Mint - "GNU/Linux desktop distribution"
>> 5. PCLinuxOS - "Linux-based operating system"
>> 6. Mandriva - "Linux operating system"
>> 7. Debian - "GNU/Linux"
>> 8. Dreamlinux - "modular GNU/Linux system"
>>
>> I tried to spot a reference to how each distribution
>> described the
>> operating system directly where possible - otherwise I went
>> with the
>> description of the distribution as a whole.
>>
>> The distributions seem at least as divided as the people
>> discussing this here.
>>
>> John
>>
>> --
>
> Taking this subset of Distributions, 3 out of 8
> 3/8 or 0.375 , 37.5% use GNU/Linux the rest call it Linux
> 62.5%, 5/8, 0.625 say it is plainly Linux.

One could also observe that only 1 of the 8 directly calls the
operating system Linux (although I suspect openSUSE would as well even
though I didn't see it). Three of the five you group together refer to
it as a "Linux-based operating system" which is I think meaningfully
different than "plainly" Linux.

> Going back to Distrowatch, taking all the Distros listed, the active one, the nonactive ones, and the ones that one to come in, make the same experiment, it would be amazing to find out (maye be the top 100%) how many name their distros GNU/Linux.

This would be interesting but I'm not going to volunteer to do it.

> Only there has to be several catches here,
> The distros that are based on Debian will be GNU/Linux despite another name, why because Debian uses it.

Ubuntu is a counterexample that jumps out on this point.

John

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