On Jul 15, 2008, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:

> Not only is Linux just one implementation of the more or less
> standard Unix/Posix system call interface that predates it, but so
> is GNU libc just another implementation of the pre-existing standard
> c library specification and sensibly written programs have no
> dependencies on any specific implementations of these standards.

You're talking API. I wrote ABI.

I'm talking of running the so-called Linux *binary* applications on
top of GNU libc on top of any other kernel GNU libc can target while
exporting the same ABI it exports when targeting the kernel Linux.

> From his description you might think that it would make sense to say
> GNU/apache or GNU/sendmail

You could call the binaries Apache/GNU and sendmail/GNU, indeed,
because they're built for (and actually carry pieces of) the GNU
operating system. But no pieces of Linux whatsoever.

But yes, that's an unrelated point. It doesn't matter what other
applications you install on an operating system, that doesn't change
what the operating system is. You can install OOo, Ff, Cygwin, etc on
MS-Windows, and even distribute them all together, but the operating
system underneath is still MS-Windows. Why should a different
criterium be applied to GNU+Linux?

--
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

Alexandre Oliva wrote:



Not only is Linux just one implementation of the more or less
standard Unix/Posix system call interface that predates it, but so
is GNU libc just another implementation of the pre-existing standard
c library specification and sensibly written programs have no
dependencies on any specific implementations of these standards.


You're talking API. I wrote ABI.


But that's just an artifact of where the program is compiled.


I'm talking of running the so-called Linux *binary* applications on
top of GNU libc on top of any other kernel GNU libc can target while
exporting the same ABI it exports when targeting the kernel Linux.


If they were compiled under cygwin/mingwin they could be windows
binaries. That doesn't justify changing their name.



From his description you might think that it would make sense to say
GNU/apache or GNU/sendmail


You could call the binaries Apache/GNU and sendmail/GNU, indeed,
because they're built for (and actually carry pieces of) the GNU
operating system. But no pieces of Linux whatsoever.


But that's like the water/beer argument mentioned earlier. You don't
name something after an ingredient that is generic and adds no character.



But yes, that's an unrelated point. It doesn't matter what other
applications you install on an operating system, that doesn't change
what the operating system is. You can install OOo, Ff, Cygwin, etc on
MS-Windows, and even distribute them all together, but the operating
system underneath is still MS-Windows. Why should a different
criterium be applied to GNU+Linux?


The 'operating system' is Linux. The other components are mostly not
operating system specific.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

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

Les Mikesell wrote:


If they were compiled under cygwin/mingwin they could be windows
binaries. That doesn't justify changing their name.


I think it's pretty clear that you're arguing to have the last word.
Your arguments have become nonsense. No one is suggesting that the
names of any applications to "GNU" just because they were built on GNU.


What we *are* advocating is that the GNU/Linux operating system be
referred to as GNU/Linux because GNU is the name of the project whose
goal is to provide a complete Free Software operating system. All of
the thousands of developers who have contributed their code to the GNU
project agree that the name of the operating system is "GNU". If you
think you're better qualified than they are too tell them what to call
their software, then you're much too far out of touch for any of us to
convince you otherwise.


And so I say Good Day, sir.

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

Gordon Messmer wrote:



If they were compiled under cygwin/mingwin they could be windows
binaries. That doesn't justify changing their name.


I think it's pretty clear that you're arguing to have the last word.


Which is only a problem when there is more than one participant.

Your arguments have become nonsense. No one is suggesting that the
names of any applications to "GNU" just because they were built on GNU.


What we *are* advocating is that the GNU/Linux operating system be
referred to as GNU/Linux because GNU is the name of the project whose
goal is to provide a complete Free Software operating system.


But that's a small minority of the code in the distribution.

All of
the thousands of developers who have contributed their code to the GNU
project agree that the name of the operating system is "GNU".


Great - if you had a distribution where that was the majority of the
content you might have a point. But that's not the case.


If you
think you're better qualified than they are too tell them what to call
their software, then you're much too far out of touch for any of us to
convince you otherwise.


I'm not the one trying to dictate the name used for other people's
software. I think it is wrong.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

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

On Jul 15, 2008, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:

> Gordon Messmer wrote:
>> Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> What was the working system before Linux?

>> It was GNU. GNU, as a system, pre-dates Linux.

> As a system of what?

An operating system, whose kernel was still under development. And,
like every other component of the GNU Operating System, still is.

>> GNU was not built on top of Linux. Linux was eventually able to run GNU.

> GNU what?

GNU Operating System. That stuff you could get from
prep.ai.mit.edu:/pub/gnu long before there were such things as ftp://
URIs.

> I was more interested in running apache and sendmail at the time and
> didn't care if it was bsd, linux, or unix underneath.

Apache?!? You're not going far back enough. Apache is younger that
Linux, IIRC. Certainly much younger than GNU.

sendmail, yeah, I'm pretty sure the GNU Project decided to not
implement its own MTA back in mid 1980's because sendmail was Free
Software, and so the other pieces were designed to just use it.

--
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 15, 2008, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:

> Gordon Messmer wrote:
>> What we *are* advocating is that the GNU/Linux operating system be
>> referred to as GNU/Linux because GNU is the name of the project
>> whose goal is to provide a complete Free Software operating system.

> But that's a small minority of the code in the distribution.

Apparently you're taking 3 different concepts as synonymous: kernel,
operating system and distribution.

A distribution is an operating system plus a bunch of applications
that run on it. Some examples of distributions are Fedora, Ubuntu,
the Debian GNU/Linux main repository, BLAG, gNewSense, UTUTO-XS,
FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD.

An operating system is a kernel plus a bunch of userland libraries and
programs that users and other applications generally rely on. Some
examples of operating systems are GNU, BSD, UNIX, MS-Windows, VMS,
DOS, OS/2, etc.

A kernel is the part of an operating system responsible for allocating
machine resources. Some examples of kernels are Linux, Hurd,
KERNEL32.DLL, and the AFAIK nameless kernels of other operating
systems and variants there of mentioned above.


Now, it wouldn't make sense to say that Fedora is a kernel, or that
GNU is a distribution, would it? Why would it make sense that say
that Linux is an operating system, when even its original author
announced it as no more than a kernel that requires the GNU Operating
System to do anything useful?

>> If you think you're better qualified than they are too tell them
>> what to call their software, then you're much too far out of touch
>> for any of us to convince you otherwise.

> I'm not the one trying to dictate the name used for other people's
> software. I think it is wrong.

I'm happy you agree it's wrong. This means you wouldn't side with the
people who did just that to the GNU operating system, when they
started calling it Linux, would you?

--
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 Wed, 2008-07-16 at 03:18 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jul 15, 2008, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> An operating system is a kernel plus a bunch of userland libraries and
> programs that users and other applications generally rely on. Some
> examples of operating systems are GNU, BSD, UNIX, MS-Windows, VMS,
> DOS, OS/2, etc.
>
> A kernel is the part of an operating system responsible for allocating
> machine resources. Some examples of kernels are Linux, Hurd,
> KERNEL32.DLL, and the AFAIK nameless kernels of other operating
> systems and variants there of mentioned above.
>
>
> Now, it wouldn't make sense to say that Fedora is a kernel, or that
> GNU is a distribution, would it? Why would it make sense that say
> that Linux is an operating system, when even its original author
> announced it as no more than a kernel that requires the GNU Operating
> System to do anything useful?

Although I really hesitate to get mixed up in this since I'm convinced
that it's a complete waste of time, I can't help but point out that your
definition of "operating system" does not include GNU, since GNU does
not have a kernel. It's a "bunch of userland libraries and programs that
users and other applications generally rely on".

poc

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

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Björn Persson wrote:

While it's a fact that the kernel is the only part of any distro
that's actually named Linux, The name has become attached to the entire
OS.


Based on your answers I draw the conclusion that you use "Linux" as a
collective name for all software that can run in a Unix-like
environment, regardless of who wrote it or whether it's free or not. You
probably think of Fedora, Gentoo, Ubuntu et cetera as different subsets
of Linux, as none of them contains Kylix for example. You also don't
seem to make any distinction between operating systems and applications,
but consider all software part of the operating system.


The truth is that I have given up on this whole debate. I've been
hearing both sides since forever. When I started using this OS/System
"$PICK_YOUR_FAVORITE_TERM" nearly 18 years ago it wasn't about
philosophical debates. It was about cool tech and finding a way to get
things done. Today the single biggest reason for its existence to Just
Work<tm>.


There is no belief system that is absolutely flawless. I freely
admit that the FSF and GPL are good and serve an important purpose. But
they have their drawbacks and, at times, failures. Sometimes the GPL is
counter productive and does more harm than good. While the majority of
time it is greatly beneficial, to deny the negatives completely in favor
of the positives is a disservice to the world.



---
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them."
-- Isaac Asimov--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Alexandre Oliva wrote:


I'm not the one trying to dictate the name used for other people's
software. I think it is wrong.


I'm happy you agree it's wrong. This means you wouldn't side with the
people who did just that to the GNU operating system, when they
started calling it Linux, would you?


I'd rather see it called the xwindow system if you are going to give any
particular chunk more credit than the rest in the name - or perhaps the
bourne-shell-comptible system for non-GUI distros, since those are the
things you interact with and the rest is best when strictly generic and
standards-compliant.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com


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

Alexandre Oliva wrote:


It was GNU. GNU, as a system, pre-dates Linux.



As a system of what?


An operating system, whose kernel was still under development. And,
like every other component of the GNU Operating System, still is.


With respect to the quality of the components that are more or less
completed, as a working system GNU might as well stand for "GNU's not
usable" - without someone else's kernel anyway.



GNU was not built on top of Linux. Linux was eventually able to run GNU.



GNU what?


GNU Operating System. That stuff you could get from
prep.ai.mit.edu:/pub/gnu long before there were such things as ftp://
URIs.


I don't think anyone ever objected to that being called GNU. The
objection is to the demand that the name be tacked on to other
distributions. As I recall, the GPL explicitly prohibits such demands
being attached to code and won't even permit covered code to be linked
with code formally containing such requirements so it seems in rather
poor taste to make them even informally.



I was more interested in running apache and sendmail at the time and
didn't care if it was bsd, linux, or unix underneath.


Apache?!? You're not going far back enough. Apache is younger that
Linux, IIRC. Certainly much younger than GNU.


Apache wasn't the original name. The code was developed as NSCA httpd
and I'd argue that the subsequent branches of that work and its
companion clients have had more to do with people wanting to run
computers - and any OS - than any other single thing. Before that,
computer science was a pretty boring field without much appeal to
ordinary people. And I'd also argue that if it, or the initial
underlying TCP implementation that it needed had been GNU/GPL with the
associated restrictions, much of the subsequent development that we
enjoy today would never have happened.



sendmail, yeah, I'm pretty sure the GNU Project decided to not
implement its own MTA back in mid 1980's because sendmail was Free
Software, and so the other pieces were designed to just use it.


Sendmail does go back even further, perhaps to the days when there were
dozens of computers on the internet - but without something more
interesting along with the ability to reuse the code it might have
stayed that way.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

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