Re: gnu and linux

[Sudhakar Chandrasekharan <thaths@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

[I hate to add to ILUG-C's traffic.  If people don't want me to continue
this thread here, please send me an email and I shall continue my
discussion of this topic via personal email.]

"Binand Raj S." proclaimed:
> GNU project is aimed at letting users have a choice 

<things snipped>

I am aware of all that background about the GNU project.  You are preaching
to the choir there.

> 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. 

What about other Operating systems that use a lot of GNU libraries and
tools in them?  Take. for example, a Solaris box that I have on my desk.  I
have the basic Solaris OS installed on it.  And I have the entire GNU
development environment gcc, gdb etc.) installed on it (Solaris does not
come with a compiler).  I have the readline GPL-ed library installed.  I
run gnome and enlightenment on it. Should I call this machine GNU/Solaris? 
Would RMS insist that I do so?

> 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.

Actually, hurd has been in Real Soon Now mode for quite a while now.  Even
Linus' first announcement about Linux says something like "this is just a
pet project at the moment.  We will all have HURD / GNU out soon to take
care of us."

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

Oh what leaps of reasoning you make.  A = B.  Ergo X = Y?

If you are that serious about the GNU project you should consider running a
machine without perl (Artistic License), X (MIT license), Apache (Apache
license) and several other software that is not distributed under the GPL.

Realistically, there is never going to be a fully GPL-ed operating system
in the next 5 years.  There are no efforts to create GPL-ed alternatives
for these software that I just mentioned.  And these are vital parts of a
modern operating system.

> 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". 

By your definition Netscape should not call its product Netscape
Communicator.  It should call it 'Netscape Communicator built with gcc'

> 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).

I am sorry.  I totally don't see your point.

> 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. 

Good.  And a few tools in the operating environment don't give you renaming
rights over the entire operating environment.  My point is that what is
sold as the linux operating system is actually the linux kernel shipped
with various other software and tools.  Some of these software are
distributed under GPL.  Some are distributed under the Artistic License. 
And others under other licenses.

> 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.

You are totally missing my point.  My point is not about *who* owns the
copyright.  You are underestimating my understanding of things by making
that statement.  My point is about *what* copyright the pieces in the
operating environement are shipped in.

> 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.

There are all contentions.  "what ifs".  They are not forks in the road
that never got taken.  I can contend that Linus would probably have been
abducted by space aliens if the GNU project had not existed.

Thaths
-- 
    "I have two questions for you: How much? and I'll take it."  
                     -- Homer J. Simpson
Sudhakar C13n http://people.netscape.com/thaths/ Lead Indentured Slave
---
Send e-mail to 'ilugc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx' with 'unsubscribe' 
in either the subject or the body to unsubscribe from this list.