Re: gnu and linux

["Binand Raj S." <binand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sudhakar Chandrasekharan forced the electrons to say:
> many references to GNU do you see in the popular press.  RMS's efforts to
> get people to call it GNU/Linux is an atttempt to get more coverage of GNU
> in the popular press.

GNU project is aimed at letting users have a choice - if I buy a new
piece of hardware, I will have a variety of software drivers to pick
from, with the power to modify any of them to suit /my/ needs; the only
condition being that I tell others how to adapt the software to suit the
hardware. I am not tied to software that will not run on the system I
have, but the software lets me /freely/ choose my system. To this end,
GNU is in the process of building a complete operating environment,
with a kernel, drivers, user level programs, applications, compilers,
and other utilities.

Now, GNU chooses programs only from people who are willing to license
their stuff under the GPL. But, if there are two programs that do the same
thing, and are both released under the GPL, then GNU will include both in
their environment, and it is upto the user to decide which of the two to
use. That is, the user is /free/ to choose the software he wants.

Now, for this operating environment, one needs a kernel - and the only
kernel (OK, the only one I know) to day released under GPL is the kernel
that goes under the name Linux. GNU project has one other kernel in the
offing, called Hurd, but it will take a few years for that one to be even
reasonably functional, and to offer the kind of reliability that the Linux
kernel can offer. So, till then, even in GNU, we are restricted to Linux.

So, the conclusion is that the Linux kernel is just a part of something
that is bigger and better - the GNU operating environment.

Why should we call it GNU/Linux? Even if you only use Word in your
computer, you will not call it "my MS Word machine" - you will call it
"my Windows machine, running Word". Same is the case here - it is the
kernel that is the most important part of an operating environment,
and the environment is known after the name of the kernel. So I call it
"my Linux machine, running GNU gcc 2.7.2.3". Or, to include the fact that
even the kernel is a result of the GNU project,  I call it "my GNU/Linux
machine, running GNU gcc 2.7.2.3". Or maybe, a full sentence like:
"I developed this program on my GNU Linux 2.0.34, edited with GNU emacs
20.2.1, compiled with GNU gcc 2.7.2.3 and debugged using GNU gdb 4.17;
of course my shell was GNU bash 1.14.7 and I used GNU make 3.76.1"
(Version numbers taken from a system running RHL 5.1).

You will understand RMS's insistence that we call it GNU/Linux when
you consider the fact that just the kernel does not make an operating
environment, it needs other programs as well. Linus Torwalds holds
copyright only for the kernel code; the rest of what makes up a successful
operating environment is held by the individual authors.

> > Many people tend to forget that linux in the present form exists only 
> > because of GNU. 
> 
> Highly debatable.  I can make an equally convincing argument that if GNU
> had not existed Linus would have built a kernel and distributed it under
> some other license.

Let us face the fact that these two share a symbiotic relationship. If
there weren't a GNU C compiler, linux wouldn't probably have been
there. If gdb were proprietary, then probably it would have been beyond
the budget of a student in Finland to buy it just to debug a whim of his.

OTOH, if he (Linus) were to have developed an expensive modern proprietary
Unix system, many of today's programmers wouldn't have been able to
deliver the high quality software they have developed.

Binand

PS: Views expressed above are mine and mine alone.
---
Send e-mail to 'ilugc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx' with 'unsubscribe' 
in either the subject or the body to unsubscribe from this list.