Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   SuperDicq (superdicq@minidisc.tokyo)'s status on Friday, 26-Apr-2024 22:50:13 JST SuperDicq

   • Johnny Peligro

   @mischievoustomato@rebased.taihou.website I bet their gf left because you should be saying GNU/Linux instead of just "Linux".

   • 翠星石, narcolepsy and alcoholism :flag: and Sick Sun like this.
   • Embed this notice
     Eric Zhang 2: Episode 1 (eric@pl.starnix.network)'s status on Friday, 26-Apr-2024 23:08:34 JST Eric Zhang 2: Episode 1

     in reply to

     • Johnny Peligro
     @SuperDicq @mischievoustomato Oh shit
     
     
     No, Richard, it's 'Linux', not 'GNU/Linux'. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation.
     
     Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ.
     
     One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS -- more on this later). He named it 'Linux' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff -- including the software I wrote using GCC -- and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don't want to be known as a nag, do you?
     
     (An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies wherever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title 'GNU/Linux' (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.
     
     Next, even if we limit the GNU/Linux title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn't the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you've heard this one before. Get used to it. You'll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it.
     
     You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LOC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LOC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never excuted that bloatware, it certainly isn't more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn't perfect either, but LOC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument.
     
     Last, I'd like to point out that we Linux and GNU users shouldn't be fighting among ourselves over naming other people's software. But what the heck, I'm in a bad mood now. I think I'm feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because Linux was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn't you and everyone refer to GCC as 'the Linux compiler'? Or at least, 'Linux GCC'? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Linux? Languishing with the HURD?
     
     If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this:
     
     Be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux' huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don't be a nag.
     
     Thanks for listening.
     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     SuperDicq (superdicq@minidisc.tokyo)'s status on Friday, 26-Apr-2024 23:08:34 JST SuperDicq

     in reply to

     • Eric Zhang 2: Episode 1
     • Johnny Peligro

     @eric@pl.starnix.network @mischievoustomato@rebased.taihou.website This pasta is bad and is nothing compared to the original "Interjection".
     
     It makes a lot of stupid assumptions:
     * It talks about lines of code, nobody makes this argument ever.
     * Only talks about what GNU serves to contribute to Linux, not the wider picture.
     * It assumes it is about which one is more important and what metrics to use.
     * It assumes it's about fame and credit.
     
     In reality the situation is actually very simple:
     
     Linux is a kernel, everyone who works on the project calls it a kernel, not an operating system. It's literally the name of their homepage (kernel.org).
     
     GNU is an operating system. The project was started to create an operating system. Everyone that works on GNU agrees that GNU is an operating system.

     翠星石 and Sick Sun like this.
   • Embed this notice
     SuperDicq (superdicq@minidisc.tokyo)'s status on Friday, 26-Apr-2024 23:39:25 JST SuperDicq

     in reply to

     • Haijo7
     • Johnny Peligro

     @Haijo7@snac.haijo.eu @mischievoustomato@rebased.taihou.website I don't see how stripping out the GNU and replacing it with other stuff suddenly makes Linux an operating system, it doesn't.

     Alexandre Oliva likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Haijo7 (haijo7@snac.haijo.eu)'s status on Friday, 26-Apr-2024 23:39:27 JST Haijo7

     in reply to

     • Johnny Peligro
     But what if the distro was using musl libc and a busybox or BSD userland?
     
     CC: @mischievoustomato@rebased.taihou.website
     
   • Embed this notice
     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: (lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me)'s status on Friday, 26-Apr-2024 23:56:13 JST Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:

     in reply to

     • Eric Zhang 2: Episode 1
     • Johnny Peligro
     @SuperDicq @eric @mischievoustomato Linux is quite more than just a kernel though, it also comes with linux-specific utilities, like a quick grep of kernel.org in my installed packages:
     - https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/util-linux/
     - https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/users/Documentation/iw
     - https://www.kernel.org/pub/software/network/ethtool/
     - https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dhowells/keyutils.git
     - https://git.kernel.org/?p=utils/kernel/kmod/kmod.git
     - https://hwmon.wiki.kernel.org/
     - https://git.kernel.org/?p=utils/pciutils/pciutils.git
     - https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/usbutils.git/
     
     And given that you can have linux binaries without any involvement of GNU… Like say your average Go program targets x86_64-linux, the syscalls are the API/ABI, GNU doesn't defines those at all.
     By the way, you can entirely have multiple libc in the same system, see how most people use dietlibc for example.
     
     > GNU is an operating system.
     
     Which one, Hurd? That's barely a base system. Guix? That's a distro.
     The GNU Project as a whole? That's very much cat herding given the lack of cohesiveness of it all, like how Guix ends up using a bunch of GNU alternatives (tcc and musl, among others) to be able to bootstrap itself.
   • Embed this notice
     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: (lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me)'s status on Saturday, 27-Apr-2024 00:08:27 JST Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:

     in reply to

     • Eric Zhang 2: Episode 1
     • Johnny Peligro
     @eric @SuperDicq @mischievoustomato There's quite a difference between *will* be an operating system, and *is* an operating system.
     Specially when we all know that GNU is used as a collection of software, somewhat (dis)organised together where Hurd is irrelevant for the most part.
     I'd rather call GNU something like a software projects collective.
   • Embed this notice
     Eric Zhang 2: Episode 1 (eric@pl.starnix.network)'s status on Saturday, 27-Apr-2024 00:08:28 JST Eric Zhang 2: Episode 1

     in reply to

     • Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
     • Johnny Peligro
     @lanodan @SuperDicq @mischievoustomato Well said, but GNU is an operating system. Yes I know it doesn't have a kernel but we have to act like GNU is a full operating system because one day Hurd will reach 1.0 and by then GNU will be an operating system. It will happen one day and I am willing to bet real money on it.
   • Embed this notice
     SuperDicq (superdicq@minidisc.tokyo)'s status on Saturday, 27-Apr-2024 00:11:43 JST SuperDicq

     in reply to

     • Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
     • Eric Zhang 2: Episode 1
     • Johnny Peligro

     @lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me @eric@pl.starnix.network @mischievoustomato@rebased.taihou.website GNU self identifies as an operating system. Why can't you respect that?

   • Embed this notice
     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: (lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me)'s status on Saturday, 27-Apr-2024 00:18:19 JST Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:

     in reply to

     • Eric Zhang 2: Episode 1
     • Johnny Peligro
     @SuperDicq @eric @mischievoustomato Because it's just not, what kind of definition of an OS would even be appropriate for what GNU is?
     
     And at the same time gnu folks can't help but desperately disrespect the Linux project identity by forcing the GNU brand on it, it's not made by GNU and by far not the only system using (or formerly using) GNU a lot.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Saturday, 27-Apr-2024 16:27:13 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
     @lanodan An operating system is system of software that allows you to operate a computer.
     
     >Linux is quite more than just a kernel though, it also comes with linux-specific utilities
     Yes, the Linux project also provides a set of utilities, but those a special-purpose rather than general-purpose and I don't believe some of those can even be compiled without GNU libraries, making Linux not much more than a kernel.
     
     The greatest demonstration of why Linux is not an OS is in the Linux source itself; https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/init/main.c#n1494
     
     Additionally, no matter what you download from git.kernel.org, you won't end up with an operating computer at the end.
     
     >given that you can have linux binaries without any involvement of GNU >you can entirely have multiple libc in the same system, see how most people use dietlibc for example
     I don't get how something using a SYSCALL interface or using different libc's would make something an OS or not.
     
     >>GNU is an operating system
     Indeed, as you can navigate to https://www.gnu.org/software/ and get all the software you could need to operate a computer, including multiple kernels, the best shell, multiple editors, graphical toolkits (GUI's and a TUI), a compiler collection, communication software, multiple dictionaries (including a dictionary server), graphics editors, a voice synthesizer, multiple browsers, compiling tools, a BIOS, networking utilities (including a BGP implementation (decommissioned, but still works)) mathematics utilities, a coreutils, a TLS implementation, encryption and decryption utilities, a few games, a bootloader and even two complete system distributions (Guix and the Emacs OS) and much, much more.
     
     There's all this operating system software that comprises a complete, fully free OS that people refuse to even see.
     
     >Which one
     You're spoilt for choice - there's many different versions of the GNU OS to choose from;
     GNU/Linux-libre
     GNU/Linux
     GNU Emacs
     GNU Grub (it has a shell and other utilities, although most prefer to use it to boot a different GNU OS)
     GNU/Hurd
     
     >Hurd? That's barely a base system.
     It boots straight into GNU Emacs - what else would you need?
     
     >That's very much cat herding given the lack of cohesiveness of it all
     This is a very strange claim to make given how GNU package maintainers work together to make a cohesive system of software that all works together.
     
     >how Guix ends up using a bunch of GNU alternatives (tcc and musl, among others) to be able to bootstrap itself.
     I would argue that tcc and musl aren't alternatives, rather just lesser imitators of gcc and glibc.
     
     Guix doesn't strictly need them to boostrap - those were just chosen only because it made it easier to write an automated full-source bootstrap, with gcc and glibc being compiled later in the bootstrap process.
     
     You can bootstrap Guix with gcc and glibc etc binary if you really want.
     
     
     It's amazing how few people can see freedom despite how it's built up on a huge floating island of GNU/freedom before their very eyes.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Saturday, 27-Apr-2024 16:37:43 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Eric Zhang 2: Episode 1
     @eric >I know it doesn't have a kernel
     Care to explain the multiple kernels right here then?;
     https://www.gnu.org/software/linux-libre/
     https://www.gnu.org/software/grub/ (contains a kernel)
     https://www.gnu.org/software/gnumach/
     There's even more kernels too, but I can't remember the package names now.
     
     >because one day Hurd will reach 1.0 and by then GNU will be an operating system
     I don't get the fixation on how GNU is somehow not an OS merely because there is one GNU package that is an experimental kernel.
     
     What even confounds me more is how a version number not being 1 somehow makes something not an OS.
     
     On Hurd today, you can enjoy doing your computation with GNU Emacs and the rest of GNU's software.
     
     >It will happen one day and I am willing to bet real money on it.
     Obviously it's an easy bet to bet on something happening that has already happened - you can't lose.