On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 23:38 +0200, Björn Persson wrote:
> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 23:33 +0200, Björn Persson wrote:
> > > Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > > > I can't help but point out that your
> > > > definition of "operating system" does not include GNU, since GNU does
> > > > not have a kernel.
> > >
> > > Ever heard of the Hurd?
> >
> > Ever since it was first mooted. Has anyone ever seen one? Are there any
> > in production use anywhere in the world?
>
> That's irrelevant. Production use wasn't part of Alexandre's definition
> of "operating system". GNU does have a kernel. Its name is the Hurd. You can
> install the Hurd on a computer together with libraries and programs from the
> GNU project to form a basic operating system. You can boot it, log in and run
> programs. Therefore, contrary to what you wrote, GNU does fit Alexandre's
> definition of "operating system".

Better tell him that, because he's not using the term in the way you
describe. This isn't a question of right or wrong, it's one of
consistency. If you check back on this thread you'll see that Alexandre
repeatedly refers to GNU/Linux as (paraphrasing here) "the GNU Operating
System plus the Linux kernel", which IIRC is in line with what the FSF
says when promoting GNU/Linux as a name. If "the GNU Operating System"
is complete, i.e. already has a kernel, then where does Linux fit in
this scheme? By this token, you should be referring to the Operating
System as GNU/Hurd, not as GNU.

> > However that's not my point. You can't claim that GNU={libraries+apps}
> > and also GNU={libraries+apps+kernel}. In this discussion even the
> > pro-GNU people are using the first definition, not the second.
>
> So what *is* your point? Are you claiming that the Hurd isn't part of the GNU
> project? Or are you arguing that instead of "GNU/Linux" people should
> say "GNU-except-the-Hurd/Linux"?

Neither. I have no prescription for what people "should" say.

OTOH (and this is something I haven't raised before), what people in the
great majority *do* say is Linux, not GNU/Linux. You have every right to
object to that on principle, but forgive my scepticism that it will
actually change anything. Once a term becomes sufficiently rooted in the
public perception it's almost impossible to change, which is why we have
things words like "hacker" (for cracker), DRM, "piracy", "intellectual
property" etc., all of which are objectionable on better-founded grounds
than GNU/Linux (better-founded because these terms sneakily try to
exploit a cultural tradition of what the original words mean, rather
than being simply arbitrary names).

I'm reminded of something similar in a completely different context: a
great many Latin Americans wince whenever citizens of the US call their
country America and themselves "American". "But America is a continent,
and we're American too" they say, and of course they're right.

But it's not going to change.

poc

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

On Jul 17, 2008, "Patrick O'Callaghan" <pocallaghan@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 23:38 +0200, Björn Persson wrote:
>> programs. Therefore, contrary to what you wrote, GNU does fit Alexandre's
>> definition of "operating system".

> Better tell him that, because he's not using the term in the way you
> describe. This isn't a question of right or wrong, it's one of
> consistency. If you check back on this thread you'll see that Alexandre
> repeatedly refers to GNU/Linux as (paraphrasing here) "the GNU Operating
> System plus the Linux kernel", which IIRC is in line with what the FSF
> says when promoting GNU/Linux as a name. If "the GNU Operating System"
> is complete, i.e. already has a kernel, then where does Linux fit in
> this scheme? By this token, you should be referring to the Operating
> System as GNU/Hurd, not as GNU.

If this was arithmetics or formal logic, you'd be absolutely correct,
and to be pedantically right we'd have to say GNU-Hurd+Linux.

However common sense kicks in: if you replace or remove any single
component of the large collection of programs that together amount to
an operating system, this won't make enough of a different to make it
a different operating system. So, GNU-Hurd is still the GNU operating
system. And if you add Linux or the OpenSolaris kernel or the FreeBSD
kernel, it's still the GNU operating system, running on top of a
different kernel.

Now compare this with the so common situation in which people take the
name of the kernel for the name of the operating system. You replace
a single program, the kernel, that amounts to a small fraction of the
whole; adjust another component, say libc, and leave everything else
alone. Would you say the name of the operating system should change
in this case?

> OTOH (and this is something I haven't raised before), what people in the
> great majority *do* say is Linux, not GNU/Linux.

Ad populum? The great majority thinks Windows is part of the
computer, but that so many people make this mistake doesn't make it
right. Oh, and they've never heard of GNU or Linux.

> You have every right to object to that on principle, but forgive my
> scepticism that it will actually change anything.

If it weren't for the very man who actually started asking people to
give credit to the project he started to give people freedom while
using computers to start this project, nothing would have changed
either, and we might very well find out we wouldn't have any Free
operating system to use. Be skeptic as much as you want, but he has
already succeeded once at something that many thought impossible.

> But it's not going to change.

Everything eventually changes.

--
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

When this argument plays out, I'm always amazed by how many people
claim self-righteously that "GNU/Linux" is a biased term.

It is biased, of course -- but, then, so is "Linux."

The issue is not biased language over neutral language, but which bias
you support.
--
Bruce Byfield 604-421-7177
Burnaby, BC, Canada
web: http://members.axion.net/~bbyfield
blog: http://brucebyfield.wordpress.com/


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

hurm .. hurm ... i'm pretty sure i learn in Uni that:

Operating System => the software that do the memory management,
process management, queing, I/O, hware access ,

software that provide environment for human to interact with the OS =>
userland utilities.

and from what i see in GNU/Linux, Linux is the Operating System .. and
GNU is the Userland Utilities .. so, thats quite a clear distinction
there to me .. Windows, to me its looks more like a distribution
rather than an OS - as its a bundle of the kernel, and a bunch of
userland utils, a bunch of spying apps, the update manager , and lots
of other craps..

anyway, I still sometimes refer distros as GNU/Linux (in text) ..
simply because the text looks geekier .. verbally, i use Linux , its
easier to pronounce than gnooh-slash-linux..

p/s: I wonder if the time will come when the Wine people will start
fighting to call ReactOS as Wine/ReactOS ...

--
Mohd Izhar Firdaus Bin Ismail
Amano Hikaru
天野晃 「��� ��る�
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MohdIzharFirdaus
http://blog.kagesenshi.org
92C2 B295 B40B B3DC 6866 5011 5BD2 584A 8A5D 7331

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

On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 20:32 -0700, Bruce Byfield wrote:
> When this argument plays out, I'm always amazed by how many people
> claim self-righteously that "GNU/Linux" is a biased term.
>
> It is biased, of course -- but, then, so is "Linux."
>
> The issue is not biased language over neutral language, but which bias
> you support.

What has that got to do with anything I said?

I think we're done here.

poc

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

> From: Izhar Firdaus
> Operating System => the software that do the memory management,
> process management, queing, I/O, hware access ,
>
> software that provide environment for human to interact with the OS =>
> userland utilities.
>
> and from what i see in GNU/Linux, Linux is the Operating System .. and
> GNU is the Userland Utilities .. so, thats quite a clear distinction
> there to me .. Windows, to me its looks more like a distribution
> rather than an OS - as its a bundle of the kernel, and a bunch of
> userland utils, a bunch of spying apps, the update manager , and lots
> of other craps..

Ah, very good. Unfortunately, the facts are never what come into play
in these silly OS wars. I could not believe that I actually read an
apology on here this morning. Maybe there is a little hope. Good show,
Joe.

For the most part, I enjoy the postings on this list and poke around my
system when something interesting comes along on here. Keep up the good
work guys, this little newb does appreciate your efforts.



The information contained in this message and any attachment may be
proprietary, confidential, and privileged or subject to the work
product doctrine and thus protected from disclosure. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or
agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify me
immediately by replying to this message and deleting it and all
copies and backups thereof. Thank you.



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

On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:

On Jul 17, 2008, "Patrick O'Callaghan" <pocallaghan@gmail.com> wrote:



> On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 23:38 +0200, Björn Persson wrote:

>> programs. Therefore, contrary to what you wrote, GNU does fit Alexandre's

>> definition of "operating system".



> Better tell him that, because he's not using the term in the way you

> describe. This isn't a question of right or wrong, it's one of

> consistency. If you check back on this thread you'll see that Alexandre

> repeatedly refers to GNU/Linux as (paraphrasing here) "the GNU Operating

> System plus the Linux kernel", which IIRC is in line with what the FSF

> says when promoting GNU/Linux as a name. If "the GNU Operating System"

> is complete, i.e. already has a kernel, then where does Linux fit in

> this scheme? By this token, you should be referring to the Operating

> System as GNU/Hurd, not as GNU.



If this was arithmetics or formal logic, you'd be absolutely correct,

and to be pedantically right we'd have to say GNU-Hurd+Linux.



However common sense kicks in: if you replace or remove any single

component of the large collection of programs that together amount to

an operating system, this won't make enough of a different to make it

a different operating system. *So, GNU-Hurd is still the GNU operating

system.
So Operating System - kernel = Operating System? I think we're talking past each other here. Clearly natural language is not the same as formal logic, but that's no reason not to look for clarity. We're talking about definitions here. In everyday usage we can be more relaxed (in fact I would characterize the anti-GNU/Linux position being exactly that: people use the terminology they find convenient and aren't too worried about exactness).

*
And if you add Linux or the OpenSolaris kernel or the FreeBSD

kernel, it's still the GNU operating system, running on top of a

different kernel.



Now compare this with the so common situation in which people take the

name of the kernel for the name of the operating system. *You replace

a single program, the kernel, that amounts to a small fraction of the

whole; adjust another component, say libc, and leave everything else

alone. *Would you say the name of the operating system should change

in this case?

Replacing the kernel is not remotely on the same level as replacing some random program, and counting lines of code is no way to assign importance. For the that matter, replacing (or just removing) X, Gnome and/or KDE woul reduce the code count by a huge amount, but there's no doubt in my mind that we'd still call the result Linux (or GNU/Linux according to preference).

*

> OTOH (and this is something I haven't raised before), what people in the

> great majority *do* say is Linux, not GNU/Linux.



Ad populum? *The great majority thinks Windows is part of the

computer, but that so many people make this mistake doesn't make it

right. *Oh, and they've never heard of GNU or Linux.

On that basis the majority of the world's population have never made a phone call, let alone know what an OS is, or even what a computer is, so naturally that's not the population I refer to. "The majority" means "the majority of people who *do* know what these things are".

*

> You have every right to object to that on principle, but forgive my

> scepticism that it will actually change anything.



If it weren't for the very man who actually started asking people to

give credit to the project he started to give people freedom while

using computers to start this project, nothing would have changed

either, and we might very well find out we wouldn't have any Free

operating system to use.
I think you're confusing two things. RMS defined Free Software (he didn't invent it but he did formalize the idea) and deserves every credit for that. The success of the idea is in part due to people signing up to the principle because it appeals to them, and in part because it has clear economic advantages. OTOH pushing a *name* for something a) appeals to far fewer people, especially those who have become used to a different name, and b) has no economic impact whatsoever. Add to that the fact that the proposed name is more awkward to say and write than the preferred name, and I'd say it's an uphill struggle.

*
Be skeptic as much as you want, but he has

already succeeded once at something that many thought impossible.



> But it's not going to change.



Everything eventually changes.


Time will tell.

poc


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

On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 02:48 +0200, Björn Persson wrote:
> Mark Haney wrote:
> > Personally, I think the demand by Stallman, and others to call Linux
> > 'GNU/Linux' is just stupid and childish.
>
> What exactly is it that you don't want to call "GNU/Linux"? What pieces of
> software does it contain?
>
> Is Udev part of what you call Linux?

udev is not a GNU project.

> Is Yum part of what you call Linux?

Yum is not a GNU project.

> Is Apache HTTPD part of what you call Linux?

Apache is not a GNU project.

> Is Sylpheed part of what you call Linux?

Sylpheed is not a GNU project.

The reality is that a modern Linux distribution contains code from the
*BSD projects, from the Apache project, from ISC, and from a ton of
other projects and groups. Should we call it "GNU/Apache/BSD/Kitchen
Sink/Linux?" That's just silly.

The core of the distribution is the kernel, called Linux. It is
perfectly fair and reasonable to call it plain old "Linux." I don't
really get riled up at the folks who write it as GNU/Linux, but I think
they are being silly, and not attributing all the other fine projects
which have contributed code.

Thomas

--
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:
>
> > 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.

Has HURD actually become a working kernel?? 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

Ric Moore wrote:
> Has HURD actually become a working kernel?? Ric

Apparently yes:

http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/hurd-install

Björn Persson

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