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?
Is Bash part of what you call Linux?
Is GCC part of what you call Linux?
Is Yum part of what you call Linux?
Is Apache HTTPD part of what you call Linux?
Is Sylpheed part of what you call Linux?
Is GNU Chess part of what you call Linux?
Is Kylix part of what you call Linux?

Björn Persson

--
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:
> 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?
> Is Bash part of what you call Linux?...

They're all part of what's released as an OS called something-or-other
Linux. Whether that be Fedora, Ubuntu, or dozens of others. Just the
same as a lot of software is called Windows software, despite never
being written by Microsoft. Over time, software *for* Linux, or
software *for* Windows just gets called Linux software or Windows
software.

--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.25.9-76.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 14, 2008, Tim <ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 02:48 +0200, Björn Persson wrote:
>> 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?
>> Is Bash part of what you call Linux?...

> They're all part of what's released as an OS called something-or-other
> Linux.

That's circular reasoning.

> Whether that be Fedora, Ubuntu, or dozens of others.

Neither Fedora nor Ubuntu have Linux in their names, so this doesn't
support your previous claim in any way.

> Just the same as a lot of software is called Windows software,
> despite never being written by Microsoft.

Windows is an Operating System written *by* Microsoft. Linux is a
kernel written to work *with* the GNU Operating System. What is the
parallel you were trying to make? I don't see any.

> Over time, software *for* Linux, or software *for* Windows just gets
> called Linux software or Windows software.

Except that what you call Linux software isn't actually for Linux.
Have you ever heard of Nexenta (GNU/kOpenSolaris), Debian
GNU/kFreeBSD, and even UnixWare?

If you take *GNU* libc, rebuild it to target a different kernel while
exporting the same ABI, and voila, you can drop Linux entirely from
what you call a Linux Operating System, and pretty much all
applications will still work just the same. Because they're not
applications for Linux. They're applications for GNU libc. They
couldn't care less that they're running on top of the kernel Linux.
For them, the kernel is irrelevant.

Next frequently raised fallacious objections?

--
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 Mon, 2008-07-14 at 23:25 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jul 14, 2008, Tim <ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

<snip for brevity>

> Except that what you call Linux software isn't actually for Linux.
> Have you ever heard of Nexenta (GNU/kOpenSolaris), Debian
> GNU/kFreeBSD, and even UnixWare?
>
> If you take *GNU* libc, rebuild it to target a different kernel while
> exporting the same ABI, and voila, you can drop Linux entirely from
> what you call a Linux Operating System, and pretty much all
> applications will still work just the same. Because they're not
> applications for Linux. They're applications for GNU libc. They
> couldn't care less that they're running on top of the kernel Linux.
> For them, the kernel is irrelevant.
>
> Next frequently raised fallacious objections?

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you "the sound of a shoe dropping".
[applause]

That was a fabulous exchange, very well stated, very well explained.

Alexandre, very impressed with your ability to avoid vitriolic and
abusive tone. Very impressed.

Andy

--
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:

> > 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?

I honestly tried to skip over this message but my "I'm feeling
antagonistic today" impulses overpowered my reason.

> Is Udev part of what you call Linux?
Yes.
> Is Bash part of what you call Linux?
Yes.
> Is GCC part of what you call Linux?
Yes.
> Is Yum part of what you call Linux?
Yes.
> Is Apache HTTPD part of what you call Linux?
Yes.
> Is Sylpheed part of what you call Linux?
Yes.
> Is GNU Chess part of what you call Linux?
Yes.
> Is Kylix part of what you call Linux?
And, well, yes.

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. It
is the de facto name for any OS that runs the Linux kernel regardless of
what the rest of the distro includes. That's the reality of it and
there's no changing it.

BTW, has the FSF been as vocal about GNU/FreeBSD? Not picking on *BSD,
just curious.

--
"Life is hard. After all, it kills you."
-- Katharine Hepburn

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

On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 23:25 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:

> If you take *GNU* libc, rebuild it to target a different kernel while
> exporting the same ABI, and voila, you can drop Linux entirely from
> what you call a Linux Operating System, and pretty much all
> applications will still work just the same. Because they're not
> applications for Linux. They're applications for GNU libc. They
> couldn't care less that they're running on top of the kernel Linux.
> For them, the kernel is irrelevant.

This sounds like you're making the argument that all beer
should be called Water/Beer because water isn't specific to beer and
can be used with/in any other beverage. Water couldn't care less that
it's mixing with hops or wheat. For water, the other ingredients are
irrelevant.

You seem to be making a good case that the GNU parts are
ubiquitous and therefor there's no reason to explicitly state their
inclusion.

> Next frequently raised fallacious objections?

Well, this has been fun. My need for mindless ranting...
Uh, I mean "debate" as been filled. Back to what's loosely known
as productivity.

--
The early bird gets the worm,
but the second mouse gets the cheese.

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

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Joe Klemmer <klemmerj@webtrek.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 23:25 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
>> If you take *GNU* libc, rebuild it to target a different kernel while
>> exporting the same ABI, and voila, you can drop Linux entirely from
>> what you call a Linux Operating System, and pretty much all
>> applications will still work just the same. Because they're not
>> applications for Linux. They're applications for GNU libc. They
>> couldn't care less that they're running on top of the kernel Linux.
>> For them, the kernel is irrelevant.
>
> This sounds like you're making the argument that all beer
> should be called Water/Beer because water isn't specific to beer and
> can be used with/in any other beverage. Water couldn't care less that
> it's mixing with hops or wheat. For water, the other ingredients are
> irrelevant.
>
> You seem to be making a good case that the GNU parts are
> ubiquitous and therefor there's no reason to explicitly state their
> inclusion.
>
>> Next frequently raised fallacious objections?
>
> Well, this has been fun. My need for mindless ranting...
> Uh, I mean "debate" as been filled. Back to what's loosely known
> as productivity.
>
> --
> The early bird gets the worm,
> but the second mouse gets the cheese.
>
> --
> fedora-list mailing list
> fedora-list@redhat.com
> To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
>

Its amazing to me that with all these brains nobody likes to discuss
strategies and solutions, just a bunch of endless nitpicking and
finger pointing. Its no wonder Microsoft dominates the desktop
computer market.

--
"Travelling through hyperspace ain't like dusting crops boy....."

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

Andrew Kelly wrote:


<snip for brevity>


Except that what you call Linux software isn't actually for Linux.
Have you ever heard of Nexenta (GNU/kOpenSolaris), Debian
GNU/kFreeBSD, and even UnixWare?

If you take *GNU* libc, rebuild it to target a different kernel while
exporting the same ABI, and voila, you can drop Linux entirely from
what you call a Linux Operating System, and pretty much all
applications will still work just the same. Because they're not
applications for Linux. They're applications for GNU libc. They
couldn't care less that they're running on top of the kernel Linux.
For them, the kernel is irrelevant.

Next frequently raised fallacious objections?


Ladies and gentlemen, I give you "the sound of a shoe dropping".
[applause]

That was a fabulous exchange, very well stated, very well explained.

Alexandre, very impressed with your ability to avoid vitriolic and
abusive tone. Very impressed.


Except that he didn't go quite far enough with that explanation. 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. From his description you
might think that it would make sense to say GNU/apache or GNU/sendmail
when in fact, like most such programs there is no such relationship and
they run just fine when built on *bsd or commercial unix C libraries -
as they were before glib existed.


It would make more sense to describe a lot of things as the "GNU
re-implementation of..." rather than to imply that they were created as
original designs or are the only versions that exist.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

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

Joe Klemmer 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. It
is the de facto name for any OS that runs the Linux kernel regardless of
what the rest of the distro includes. That's the reality of it and
there's no changing it.


So the system originally known as GNU became known to some as Linux, but
no other change can ever be expected? Only one change, ever?



BTW, has the FSF been as vocal about GNU/FreeBSD? Not picking on *BSD,
just curious.


They probably don't need to be, as GNU/FreeBSD is clear about its
implementation. It's a FreeBSD kernel in combination with the GNU
operating system.


People who refer to GNU/Linux as "Linux" are not being similarly clear,
and should be corrected.


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

Gordon Messmer 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. It
is the de facto name for any OS that runs the Linux kernel regardless of
what the rest of the distro includes. That's the reality of it and
there's no changing it.


So the system originally known as GNU became known to some as Linux, but
no other change can ever be expected? Only one change, ever?


What 'system' was ever originally known as GNU? Or are you thinking of
emacs as an operating system by itself?


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com


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