Re: Re: [LIH] Linux or GNU/Linux? a philosophical problem

[Sachin Garg <sachin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Arun Sharma wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:56:08AM +0530, Sachin Garg wrote:
> 
> > I agree with parts of the GNU project's statements.
> 
> I meant - GNU project's philosophy. Not just a specific statement
> about the part of Linux contributed by the GNU project.

If u listen to Stallman, as I did during Bang!inux, u do get impressed.
But, yes, I do agree that portions of what he says are pretty far
fetched. But, honestly, how much does the politics matter? I am really
afraid about that. An answer in point could be Atul's statement about
formalizing LUG membership. I personally don't read sinister designs in
it. After all, every group has to organise it somehow in order to be
recognised.


> > I also agree with Stallman is that a major part of the Linux "Operating
> > System", i.e. what I would perceive to be a part of the OS, i.e the
> > shell, command utilities, development tools etc. are largely due to the
> > FSF and the GNU project and hence it is only fair to give them credit.
> 
> No one is denying them credit. Given the number of GPL fan^H^H^H^H^Hs
> here, they are being listened to (but not analyzed enough, IMO),
> people are aware of their "highly visible" software.

No, I feel that Linux *does* get most of the publicity. Honestly, how
many times has the trade/general press and e-media name dthe FSF/GNU
project and pointed out its contribution to any Linux distribution?

How many distros carry the name of FSF/GNU on their boxes saying that
they are carrying these pieces of software in the box?

Especially, when the GNU utilities (I use them, hence I know them.
Honestly, I would like to try out the BSD's once) are what make Linux
what it is today. 

> It's just that they're not happy with the amount of exposure. And given
> their /strong/ and pro active survival instincts, it's only natural for
> them to go for "GNU/Linux".

GNU/Linux is after the fact! After all, the HURD project is not a
success and I guess GNU guys want to forget that, and embrace Linux on
their terms. 
> 
> > But, at the same time, there is lots of BSD and other stuff on a typical
> > box which runs the Linux kernel. Hence, it is painful to credit all
> > those concerned without hurting anyone's feelings.
> >
> > I suggest we call the "Operating System perceived to be Linux" as "The
> > operating System formerly called Linux, but now called
> > GNU/FreeBSD/MIT/RH/SuSE/Linux" or something like that.
> 
> Exactly what Alan Cox said in Linux journal. Why not just stick with
> "Linux" and leave the rest to the Linux distro to acknowledge the people
> who contributed to their distro ?
> 
> BTW, I think the main indespensible part of the GNU contribution is their
> compiler tool set. There was an equally good (better in the opinion of
> some people [1]) set of UNIX libraries and commands in the BSD system.
> If GNU project hadn't written them, Linux would've just used the BSD stuff.
> 
> 
> [1] GNU utilities often get criticized for these reasons
> 
>         - Feature creep. cp -a is an example. find + tar + cp would be
>           functionally equivalent and in keeping with the UNIX philosophy.
>         - Long command line options --foo etc. Some people think they are
>           a waste of time and effort and contribute to bloat. If someone
>           can't remember -f, it's likely that they won't remember --foo.
>         - Lack of man pages. At one point, GNU had texinfo, but no man. Even
>           today, the average foobar-0.9.tar.gz doesn't come with foobar.1.

Honestly, info *is* a pain. Simply b'cos their ain't no decent info
reader.

>           Compare that to the BSD world.

How, what, where?

BTW, could someone please enlighten me as to the "technical" difference
(i.e. at kernel level) between:

1) Solaris
2) Aix
3) HP-UX
4) Compaq Tru-64
5) Linux
6) FreeBSD
7) UnixWare?

After all, all are Unices!

Thanx,

sachin