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

[Arun Sharma <adsharma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 11:08:00AM +0530, Sachin Garg wrote:
> 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?

The politics doesn't matter, if it doesn't affect the software 
development process. Right now, it does.

> 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.

My community/movement bashing was basically rhetorical. I'm not trying
to oppose Atul's attempt to get people together and formalize membership.
I'm all for it. It's just the GNU-speak and the "get the world to use
linux, come what may or you've failed in your duty to promote free software"
attitude that bothers me. It bother me more, because I had the same mindset
3-4 years ago.

Technically - I see gcc specific code being encouraged everywhere just to
kill other compilers being used, advocacy of inferior GPL based stuff 
against more advanced non-GPL stuff, general isolationism - all detrimental
to the average free software user.  

> 
> > > 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?

That's because the trade press is mostly clueless. However, Linus Torvalds
or Kirk McKusick don't write a 3 page manifesto, expressing their view
of the world. They just write code. In that sense, among the technically
literate, the GNU school of thought has had sufficient exposure - mainly
because it's the only one which tries to.

And really all this political manoevering is about getting developer
mindshare - not the end user mindshare. That's where the code comes
from and the success or failure of projects gets decided.

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

I know a couple - Debian and Stampede. Remember, commercial distros
may give credit to GNU, but they don't want their message to be
diluted. They want people to remember "Redhat" or "SuSE" and not "GNU".

Given their lack of other means to make money (GPL = no closed source
+ accusations of leaving the community), they are forced to rely 
heavily on their "brand".

> > 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. 

I'd be surprised if that's true. Stallman is a pretty stubborn guy. So
are many people I know from the GNU project. I'm sure they'll push
HURD in the years to come.

> >           Compare that to the BSD world.
> 
> How, what, where?

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi

linux $ ls /usr/man/man9/

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=(9)&sektion=&apropos=1&manpath=FreeBSD+4.0-RELEASE&title=Section%20

> 
> 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!

Solaris + UnixWare -> close siblings in the UNIX tree. Both come from 
the same SVR4 tree. Have the same APIs. Both support SMP very well -
though Solaris is known to be the best.

HP-UX - scores pretty low. Mostly goes on the strength of HP hardware
and the company clout. Was SVR3 based. Didn't have buffer cache + VM
integration til recently. Single address space based.

Tru-64 - Mach derived. Work done at OSF. 

Aix - Same boat as HP-UX. Lots of work going on for IA-64. Renamed
      Monterey now.

FreeBSD - http://www.lemis.com/bsdpaper.html

A good technical comparision of some of the above is in 
Uresh Vahalia's book.

	-Arun