Why It's Wrong To Call The Gnu Operating System "linux"

[loramchugh 0]

It's very popular to refer to the GNU operating system by the name of the kernel Linux, but to paraphrase Penn Jillette, popular doesn't mean right! Calling the GNU operating system "Linux" is wrong. Here's why.The project to create the GNU operating system began in 1984, and there's significance to the name GNU. There used to be a tradition of naming new programs after the programs that it was based on (if it was based on another existing program). For example, there was a text editor based on emacs that was called EINE, which stood for "EINE Is Not Emacs." Then someone made another version of emacs based on EINE, which that person called ZWEI. ZWEI stood for "ZWEI Was Eine Initially." Following this tradition, the operating system most people call "Linux" was dubbed GNU, which stood for "GNU is Not Unix."The clever programmers (a.k.a. hackers) who worked on GNU were bright students at the Artifical Intelligence Lab at MIT. After these hackers hacked on GNU for about 8 years, the operating system was nearly complete. The only missing piece was the kernel -- the part of the operating system that handles memory management, process management, and devices. They were working on a kernel they called Hurd, based on theoretical work from Carnegie Mellon, but progress was very slow. Then, in 1991, along came Linus Torvalds.Torvalds plugged in the kernel he was working on in college and made GNU into a fully functional operating system. When he shared this work over the Internet. This kernel was named "Linux" after Linus Torvalds. When Torvalds shared his GNU+Linux combo over the Internet, people got so excited, that they mistakenly began referring to the operating system by the name of the new kernel, Linux. And that's when all the confusion began.Now, when people say "Linux," you sometimes can't tell if they're talking about the kernel or the whole operating system. That's why a resonable compromise is to call the operating system GNU/Linux.Now that that's cleared up, we need to corect the misuse of the term "hacker." That will come in another post.

[iGuest 3]

You could try telling people what is correct and what is not but too many people will use the term incorrectly and it will be hard to fix this.Even calling GNU an operating system may or may not be correct. An operating system really does need to have a kernel to work with otherwise it could not operate without one. GNU could be referred to as free software programs that help operate a computer. So it still needs a kernel, or instruction set that would allow it to run before it could even be called an operating system.I really don't like going down the path of correcting people unless it's necessary, as long as we know what they are talking about it should not matter if they use terms incorrectly. A few common terms that are used incorrectly came about from marketing people with advertising, so even a few computer terms are now used incorrectly.I like the fact that free software can replace the majority of most proprietary software, including the proprietary bios firmware. Now all we really need is the ability to create free and open designed hardware and we could start a complete revolution.Cheers,MC

[yordan 10]

Now that that's cleared up, we need to corect the misuse of the term "hacker." That will come in another post.

Let's see how you feel this. I know that a hacker is very skilled in kernel knowledge, but a lot of so-called hackers seem to simply love cracking codes.

[iGuest 3]

I like how people try to explain hacker and can't wait to hear it. It's should be more ensightful than watching the numerous people editting the wiki over at wikipedia. It really does hit some nerves for these people.Cheers,MC

[iGuest 3]

This follows so closely on the heels of mastercomputers' tutorial about setting up a web server on a Red Hat-based GNU/Linux system because he used the term "Linux" to refer to the operating system as a whole, which raises my ire. I'm shaking my figurative fist at you, mastercomputers!
My version of the tutorial will show how to set up a web server on a Debian-based GNU/Linux system.

I used Linux as a keyword for search results, even if it was used incorrectly but it's more widely used than GNU. I hope your starting paragraph was also to help increase your search ranking too.

What Richard Stallman really wanted was people to call it GNU OS, but then he wouldn't give credit to Linus for his work on Linux. He first thought calling it Lignux which didn't go too well and then GNU/Linux. He then later said Linux and the GNU System as Linux comes before GNU in the loading process. Either way, what is he trying to do? Make up for his mistakes in not forking Linux and creating a complete system called GNU OS? Or is it that his ideals on freedom and showing how working together can make it better?

If he had forked it, he would have shot himself in the foot. It's now possible to fork Linux and GNU and call the OS whatever you like and all they get is credit in source but who wants to take on that when others are happy to help Linux continue it's success. It's not hard to replace GNU to work with Linux, so would that mean I still need to call it GNU/Linux? Either way I'm not sure what is trying to be implied here, is their any of these implications associated with the license? I don't think so.

You also mentioned Debian based GNU/Linux. So what has Debian done that people have based their OS on it? Usually it's just how sources are packaged with the tools that Debian created to make deb packages and how they structured their files because they aren't usually basing it on their policy which is why these forks usually take place. That's why I didn't say Red Hat based but RPM-based because although they get their roots from it. What is exactly their product and what is that of the free software they use. If we are going to name everything, then it might be Linux/GNU/RPM/GNOME... and whatever other ridiculous things we may have to add in between etc before we get the complete idea of what it should really be named.

Cheers,

MC

[loramchugh 0]

The reason for calling the operating system GNU/Linux is partly a matter of giving credit where credit is due, but that's only secondary. A more important reason to use the name GNU is to remind users of where their operating came from -- it came from a desire to bring freedom to users.

 

The name Linux hearkens to the creator of the kernel, Linus Torvalds, who has been very clear about his "I don't give a ****" stance on freedoms. Torvalds is more concerned about his convenience. If everyone used the name of the kernel to refer to the operating system as a whole, the project's founding principles of freedom to the user will be forgotten. (Using the name GNU also saves us the confusion of wondering whether someone is talking about the kernel or the operating system as a whole.)

 

I probably wouldn't have such a problem with calling the operating system "Linux" if Torvalds' philosophy was more aligned with the movement to bring users freedom rather than convenience. A lot of "Linux" users see Torvalds as a leader and many have adopted his philosophy of convenience over freedom. Freedom is more important than convenience.

 

So, if a laptop has a WiFi device that works only with proprietary drivers, a GNU/Linux user in the market for a new laptop will be compelled to find a different one -- a vote with the wallet! That won't happen with Torvalds allowing hardware manufacturers to insert proprietary binary blobs into the kernel, which makes the kernel nonfree.

 

Fortunately, there is a team of folks in the South American branch of the FSF dedicated to meticulously stripping out the nasty, nonfree bits out of Linux. Their version of the Linux is known as linux-libre.

Edited February 28, 2013 by loramchugh (see edit history)

[iGuest 3]

Why would you call proprietary software nasty? Linux-libre wasn't the first to strip the non-free bits out, this all started with Utoto-e.I recall running linux-libre, when I trialled BLAG out (debian users may want to look at gNewSense), although I haven't kept up to date with this GNU OS in a while and probably should consider trialling it again. As I do feel that freedom is better than convenience.The problem you can encounter, with removal of some of the non-free items is that a lot of things wouldn't work out of the box so I am not sure if it has improved. Even being compelled to find alternatives, usually alternatives do not exist and unless you're good with driver development, it could also be a while till it does. This will tarnish the user experience and would put everything backwards. I think we still need to balance everything until we reach the time where we aren't reliant on these proprietary software. This means that a lot of companies really need to work with everyone so that we can reach this ideal place.Cheers,MC