my 2 euro cents :

"Branko Collin" writes:

For those who do not know: the OS Linux was built by Linux Torvalds in 1991. He basically only built a kernel and used parts of the GNU project to pad it out to a complete OS. People started calling the whole OS Linux. At this the founder of GNU, Richard Stallman, balked, because he feels that the OS is as much his as Linus' and that he deserves credit for it. He would like to see that credit in the shape of the OS being called GNU/Linux rather than just Linux.

well, i don't agree at 100%: rms arguments've drawbacks. gnu softwares're NOT the majority of free softwares in a distro. eg, in mandrake, only looking at sources rpms, they're: - GPL: 851 (of which an estimated one third is from gnu) - LGPL: 91
- BSD: 87
- various free licences: 62
- Artistic: 47
- MIT: 35
- public domain : 29
- freeware: 12
- mpl: 13
- Apache: 11
- OpenSource: 4
- qpl:4
- opl: 2
- fdl: 2

so should we speak of gnu-bsd-mpl-qpl-artistic/linux ? or, as gpl softwares number is greater than gnu/fsf ones, should we speak of gpl/linux ?

let do not be semantic fanatics :-) important is to make free software, to make people use them, not to auto-flaming the communauty !

rms, the fsf and the gnu project've been a big step in the right direction and we should be thanks them forever for that; but they're not the source of ALL free softwares: somes cames from bsd-land, others're released under various free licences, ...
a free software can be released under the gpl without be part of the gnu project :-)
eg: linux sources're as big as gcc or glibc ones, but smaller than XFree86 ones which're bigger than the three first ones. the three first ones're gpled but the fourth is released under a MIT license. only gcc and glibc're part of the gnu project. despite not being released under gpl nor being part of the gnu project, XFree86 is still a free software.

afaic gnu/linux is as good as linux: they're both mis-named :-)

I grepped the current stable CVS (well, that of a few weeks ago) and found that a few files (mostly of the documentation type) mention Linux instead of GNU/Linux.

afaic, both're correct even if they're not 100% correct. the gnu/linux spelling has the advantage to highlight the free software ethic.
nothing more.

Il ven, 2002-04-05 alle 01:15, Thierry Vignaud ha scritto:

my 2 euro cents :

"Branko Collin" writes:

For those who do not know: the OS Linux was built by Linux Torvalds in 1991. He basically only built a kernel and used parts of the GNU project to pad it out to a complete OS. People started calling the whole OS Linux. At this the founder of GNU, Richard Stallman, balked, because he feels that the OS is as much his as Linus' and that he deserves credit for it. He would like to see that credit in the shape of the OS being called GNU/Linux rather than just Linux.

well, i don't agree at 100%: rms arguments've drawbacks. gnu softwares're NOT the majority of free softwares in a distro. eg, in mandrake, only looking at sources rpms, they're: - GPL: 851 (of which an estimated one third is from gnu) - LGPL: 91
- BSD: 87
- various free licences: 62
- Artistic: 47
- MIT: 35
- public domain : 29
- freeware: 12
- mpl: 13
- Apache: 11
- OpenSource: 4
- qpl:4
- opl: 2
- fdl: 2

so should we speak of gnu-bsd-mpl-qpl-artistic/linux ? or, as gpl softwares number is greater than gnu/fsf ones, should we speak of gpl/linux ?

gpl stands for GNU GPL and, while i don't think this discussion belongs to this list, let me say that, at least from a philosophical point of view, say that without GNU, Linux would not exists is quite true.

i agree on calling it gnu/linux, but i don't bother when i see a couple of linux alones.

eg: linux sources're as big as gcc or glibc ones, but smaller than XFree86 ones which're bigger than the three first ones. the three first ones're gpled but the fourth is released under a MIT license. only gcc and glibc're part of the gnu project. despite not being released under gpl nor being part of the gnu project, XFree86 is still a free software.

[snip]

afaic, both're correct even if they're not 100% correct. the gnu/linux spelling has the advantage to highlight the free software ethic.
nothing more.

exactly. so why not using it? ;)

On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 01:15:17AM +0200, Thierry Vignaud wrote:

my 2 euro cents :

"Branko Collin" writes:

For those who do not know: the OS Linux was built by Linux Torvalds in 1991. He basically only built a kernel and used parts of the GNU project to pad it out to a complete OS. People started calling the whole OS Linux. At this the founder of GNU, Richard Stallman, balked, because he feels that the OS is as much his as Linus' and that he deserves credit for it. He would like to see that credit in the shape of the OS being called GNU/Linux rather than just Linux.

well, i don't agree at 100%: rms arguments've drawbacks. gnu softwares're NOT the majority of free softwares in a distro. eg, in mandrake, only looking at sources rpms, they're:

[snip list]

so should we speak of gnu-bsd-mpl-qpl-artistic/linux ? or, as gpl softwares number is greater than gnu/fsf ones, should we speak of gpl/linux ?

A distribution is much more than an operation system. If you just look at the core components that make up the OS (I'm sure that there will be plenty of contention regarding what these are ;-) then you have a Linux kernel, and GNU tools. Most of the other programs are not essential--a bare bones system will be mostly GNU stuff.

When talking about the kernel, `Linux' is appropriate, but when talking about the /operating system/ as a whole `GNU/Linux' is more accurate, especially since you could replace the kernel with Hurd or BSD and from the POV of the user (or programmer) there would be little noticeable change but the GNU part would still be there. The GNU tools are the actual part the user (and programmer) will interact with, be it bash, grep, gcc or glibc.

Just my tuppence, Roger

Roger Leigh writes:

so should we speak of gnu-bsd-mpl-qpl-artistic/linux ? or, as gpl softwares number is greater than gnu/fsf ones, should we speak of gpl/linux ?

A distribution is much more than an operation system. If you just look at the core components that make up the OS (I'm sure that there will be plenty of contention regarding what these are ;-) then you have a Linux kernel, and GNU tools.

looking at what the mandrake basesystem package requires as minimal system :

util-linux (swapon, mount, ...), e2fsprogs, lilo, initscripts, console-tools, chkconfig, SysVinit, bdflush, kernel, losetup, net-tools, modutils, procps, psmisc, rpm, sysklogd, .... are all linux specific tools.

only fileutils, grep, findutils, glibc're a gnu project part. there's other small gnu packages requires (time, textutils, sh-utils...) but they're less important than previous ones.

Most of the other programs are not essential--a bare bones system will be mostly GNU stuff.

looking at the above, this is *very*, *very* mitigated

When talking about the kernel, `Linux' is appropriate, but when talking about the /operating system/ as a whole `GNU/Linux' is more accurate,

nope since gnu tools (yet an important part of the os) are'nt the essential part.
neither is the bsd tools part. neither're gpl linux specific tools, ...

this is why i think linux and gnu/linux are equivalent (that is they're equally mis-naming conventions) on a technical point.

on an ethic point, gnu/linux win since it hold a reference to the gnu project and the fsf work.

on an historic point, linux win since everybody knows or had heard about linux. but gnu/linux is rarer, despite rms advertising campaing.

don't misunderstand me: i respect a lot stallman's work; contrary to many (mis-educated?) people, i don't see him as a fanatic; i see him as the man who pushes the communauty in the right direction. but on the gnu/linux point, the situation isn't as clear as he claims it is.

why not forcing gnu/atheos, gnu/freebsd (for the ports part), ... this is NOT coherent with forcing gnu/linux.

especially since you could replace the kernel with Hurd or BSD and from the POV of the user (or programmer) there would be little noticeable change but the GNU part would still be there.

nope, you would get a lot of bsd stuff in the os core ...

The GNU tools are the actual part the user (and programmer) will interact with, be it bash, grep, gcc or glibc.

depending of the view point.

as a packager[1] and a developper, i massively use gnu tools : compilation chain (binutils, glibc, gcc), emacs (development, mail, newsgroups, diary, ...) but not only them : i also uses gnus and various others packages for emacs, rpm, the kernel, windowmaker, screen, ....

but for an end user, kde or gnome're far important blocks of the os... and're not part of the gnu project _despite_ they're gpl.

one cannot account {g,}ui as basic os componant.

then, yes glibc is a big part, but as important to bootstrap the systems as the sysv infrastructure (init, boot scripts, ...), packaging infrastructure (rpm/urpmi or dpkg/apt), system maintenance tools (reiserfsprogs, e2fsprogs, jfs-utils, util-linux, ...).

there'sn't just a majority: the gnu part is as important as other componants of the os :-)

[1] as gimp packager for mandrake, i'll have to package gimp-1.3.x for contribs in not so many time ... :-)

That depends a whole lot on what is in a bare bones system, does it not? I feel confident that I can build an entire bare bones system without having any programs in this system being from GNU packages.

The GNU percentage depends highly on what the distribution provider puts into it.

Since I deal mostly in 'bare bones' systems such as firewalls and tightened machines, the GNU percentage is very low. I would venture to say I have significantly more programs of other origin than GNU. Therefore, my definition of bare bones systems is opposite what yours is.

Linux is Linux, what's added on after that is a varying figure.

my two bytes on the subject, David

Roger Leigh wrote:

[...]

A distribution is much more than an operation system. If you just look at the core components that make up the OS (I'm sure that there will be plenty of contention regarding what these are ;-) then you have a Linux kernel, and GNU tools. Most of the other programs are not essential--a bare bones system will be mostly GNU stuff.

When talking about the kernel, `Linux' is appropriate, but when talking about the /operating system/ as a whole `GNU/Linux' is more accurate, especially since you could replace the kernel with Hurd or BSD and from the POV of the user (or programmer) there would be little noticeable change but the GNU part would still be there. The GNU tools are the actual part the user (and programmer) will interact with, be it bash, grep, gcc or glibc.

Just my tuppence, Roger

Actually, his name is Linus Torvalds =) He got the X because of the X at the end of Unix. First he was planning to call it FreaX or something, as in FreeX and Freaks =)

Just a bit of information, so that his name wouldn't be mistaken for his OS =)

Have a nice day
-Nas

On Fri, 2002-04-05 at 01:46, Branko Collin wrote:

What is our stand on using the name Linux or the name GNU/Linux.

For those who do not know: the OS Linux was built by Linux Torvalds in 1991.

when=Fri, 5 Apr 2002 00:46:24 +0200>

For those who do not know: the OS Linux was built by Linux Torvalds in 1991.

Don't mean to be rude but its Linus Torvalds, not Linux Torvalds. :-) In Ebonics I think that would be "the T man".

The "OS Linux" is just a kernel called Linux, not a complete OS.

I grepped the current stable CVS (well, that of a few weeks ago) and found that a few files (mostly of the documentation type) mention Linux instead of GNU/Linux.

Should we change these instances to GNU/Linux?

No matter how much of a GNUisance this might be, IMO the G in GIMP should be thought of whilst carefully replacing all the instances of Linux with GNU/Linux.

Seriously though my vote is for changing them :-)

Hi,

"Branko Collin" writes:

What is our stand on using the name Linux or the name GNU/Linux.

I don't have any strong feelings about this, but the FSF has supported us gently in the past, so we should probably use GNU/Linux.

Salut, Sven

The "G" in GIMP stood, once upon a time, for "General". It was changed to "GNU" at Richard Stallman's insistence (but with the consent of S&P, so it's not like it was completely hijacked). See the S&P interview at http://www.xach.com/gg/1997/1/profile/1/.

Yet another case where Stallman's zealous efforts to push his brand name on people was successful. How long before we have GNUburgers and GNUfries with our GNUlunch?

Kelly

----- Original Message ----- From: "Marlon Sandford"
To:
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 7:21 AM Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] GNU/Linux vs. Linux

when=Fri, 5 Apr 2002

00:46:24 +0200>

For those who do not know: the OS Linux was built by Linux Torvalds in 1991.

Don't mean to be rude but its Linus Torvalds, not Linux Torvalds. :-) In Ebonics I think that would be "the T man".

The "OS Linux" is just a kernel called Linux, not a complete OS.

I grepped the current stable CVS (well, that of a few weeks ago) and found that a few files (mostly of the documentation type) mention Linux instead of GNU/Linux.

Should we change these instances to GNU/Linux?

No matter how much of a GNUisance this might be, IMO the G in GIMP should be thought of whilst carefully replacing all the instances of Linux with GNU/Linux.

Seriously though my vote is for changing them :-)

-- +---------+-----------------------------------+-----------------------+ | ^ | Marlon Sandford | "Carpe Noctum" | | 'v' | marlon [at] xealon.com +-----------------------+ | / \ | PO Box 75585 Seattle WA 98125 | http://www.debian.org | | /{ }\ | Mobile: +44 07855 627468 (London) | http://www.gnu.org | | ^^-^^ | xealon.com/marlon/publickey.txt | http://www.kernel.org | +---------+-----------------------------------+-----------------------+

Hi,

"Kelly Martin" writes:

The "G" in GIMP stood, once upon a time, for "General". It was changed to "GNU" at Richard Stallman's insistence (but with the consent of S&P, so it's not like it was completely hijacked). See the S&P interview at http://www.xach.com/gg/1997/1/profile/1/.

Yet another case where Stallman's zealous efforts to push his brand name on people was successful. How long before we have GNUburgers and GNUfries with our GNUlunch?

and, would it hurt? As long as the FSF actually supports the ideals of Free Software and sometimes even pays for some GIMP hacker's burgers (or travel costs, whatever...), I don't care if there's a GNU brand name stamped on them.

Salut, Sven

when=Fri, 05 Apr 2002 03:20:34 +0200>

but for an end user, kde or gnome're far important blocks of the os... and're not part of the gnu project _despite_ they're gpl.

G == GNU
N == Network
O == Object
M == Model
E == Environment

GNOME _is_ part of the GNU project =;)

one cannot account {g,}ui as basic os componant.

Is Windows[tm] an OS? ummm... well... sort o..f.. yes! yes it is :-( Well sort of..

Could Windows be called an OS without its GUI? no probably not. It probably wouldn't function very well either, oh wait.

In the case of GNU/Linux however I agree the {g,}ui is not an essential part (philosophically speaking).

Branko Collin (collin@xs4all.nl) wrote:

I grepped the current stable CVS (well, that of a few weeks ago) and found that a few files (mostly of the documentation type) mention Linux instead of GNU/Linux.

Should we change these instances to GNU/Linux?

We should change it - to Unix.

I guess that at most places "Linux" is simply wrong, because there is not really anything Linux specific in the GIMP. So the whole discussion is kind of pointless.

Bye, Si"I prefer Linux over GNU/Linux"mon

On 06 April, 2002 - Simon Budig sent me these 0,7K bytes:

Branko Collin (collin@xs4all.nl) wrote:

Should we change these instances to GNU/Linux?

We should change it - to Unix.

I guess that at most places "Linux" is simply wrong, because there is not really anything Linux specific in the GIMP. So the whole discussion is kind of pointless.

.. and gimp runs on Windows too.. ;)

/Tomas

Simon Budig writes:

We should change it - to Unix.

registered trademark :-(

On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, Kelly Martin wrote:

The "G" in GIMP stood, once upon a time, for "General". It was changed to "GNU" at Richard Stallman's insistence (but with the consent of S&P, so it's not like it was completely hijacked). See the S&P interview at http://www.xach.com/gg/1997/1/profile/1/.

Yet another case where Stallman's zealous efforts to push his brand name on people was successful. How long before we have GNUburgers and GNUfries with our GNUlunch?

:-)

IMHO, we should say something in the first page of the manual and on the front page of the web site like:

When we talk about "Linux", we are talking about a combination of the Linux kernel and a large collection of tools contributed by a large number of individuals and some significant groups such as GNU, Xfree and BSD. Since we cannot credit everyone in every sentence, and for the sake of brevity, we call this system "Linux".

...that should be enough to keep it clear.

---- Steve Baker (817)619-2657 (Vox/Vox-Mail) L3Com/Link Simulation & Training (817)619-2466 (Fax) Work: sjbaker@link.com http://www.link.com Home: sjbaker1@airmail.net http://www.sjbaker.org

On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Tomas Ogren wrote:

On 06 April, 2002 - Simon Budig sent me these 0,7K bytes:

Branko Collin (collin@xs4all.nl) wrote:

Should we change these instances to GNU/Linux?

We should change it - to Unix.

I guess that at most places "Linux" is simply wrong, because there is not really anything Linux specific in the GIMP. So the whole discussion is kind of pointless.

.. and gimp runs on Windows too.. ;)

Sure - when you are not referring to Linux *specifically*, you should use whatever more-generic term is applicable. That's not the issue though. The question is when you *are* talking specifically about Linux, what do you say?

UNIX is a registered trademark though - you can't legally use it to refer to Linux. You can talk about UNIX-like operating systems - although that's rather a fuzzy term. Microsoft used to claim that WinNT was UNIX-like.

---- Steve Baker (817)619-2657 (Vox/Vox-Mail) L3Com/Link Simulation & Training (817)619-2466 (Fax) Work: sjbaker@link.com http://www.link.com Home: sjbaker1@airmail.net http://www.sjbaker.org