> So you just use Linux and GNU then?
No, I use lots of different software.
> An OS is more that
No it isn't. The specification of the OS is laid down in the POSIX specs.
Applications are not part of that OS.
> they are all essential fruits.
Perhaps - but they are not all OS fruits.
> Well I could have listed iptables or selinux.
...Both of which are part of Linux.
> But that infers GNU is more important
No it doesn't. Nor does it imply anything. One word must come before the
other if both are to be used, since we mere humans cannot say more than
one word at a time. It makes some sense to pick GNU to go first, since
that was the portion of code available first, but if you wanted to call
the mixture "Linux/GNU", no-one will mind.
> where as all the software that
> runs on the kernel is important so you can't use just add one name
> without omitting the others
The software that makes up the OS is GNU and Linux[1]; it makes sense to
call it that, for the same reason that it makes sense to call another OS
"Microsoft Windows", despite the fact that it has Adobe Illustrator
running on it. There is a separation between the OS and the apps that run
on it.
> hence why people use Linux the OS and applications.
No - that is completely incorrect. And that is something that *I* find
disrespectful. An application writer may choose to target a number of
environments; declaring his work to be "part of Linux" would be offensive
if he had not chosen to write some part of the kernel.
The GNU developers have been very clear that they are writing GNU code,
not Linux code. They are not part of the Linux project, they are part of
the GNU project. They are happy for users of the Linux kernel to use that
code in accordance with the licence - i.e. in exactly the same way as
every other user of their software. To ship their software without
crediting them for it is offensive to them. Most of us do not worry too
much about that sort of thing - but their perspective is the correct one,
even if it's not all that important to the bulk of us.
One of the most well-known FOSS projects is Debian. Take a look at the
home page -
http://www.debian.org/ . The project is - rightly - described
as "Debian GNU/Linux".
>>> Look at Hurd, no one uses that
>>
>> I don't see the relevance of that.
>
> The relevance is creating a Kernel and drivers is very difficult to do.
I'm not claiming that a kernel is not difficult to write - I just don't
see how one particular kernel not being very popular makes one jot of
difference to the argument. Hurd exists. People use it. It's not very
popular because it was late, not because it didn't work. And an OS built
upon Hurd (or, more accurately, Mach) might very well be called GNU/Hurd
(as is the case for the Debian GNU/Hurd project).
> Hurd proved that. Linux is a huge achievement and hence its huge success.
No-one is saying that Linux is anything but a success. It's wonderful.
However, Linux is a kernel, not an OS. Claiming the GNU software as being
"Linux" is just plain wrong.
>> Absolutely not. It is the correct term, since it describes the OS
>> created
>> by joining the GNU userland to the Linux kernel.
>
> I disagree. It incorrectly states GNU has some higher role in the OS.
It does no such thing. You're making up an inference that has never been
implied. If you really want to call it "Linux/GNU", go right ahead. People
will probably look at you funny.
> The GNU OS relies on the non-GNU Linux kernel and drivers
When using the Linux kernel, that is certainly true. That's why no-one
could properly call such a mix of code "the GNU OS"; they would call it
"GNU/Linux". The OS needs a kernel, but is more than a kernel.
> therefore GNU doesn't have an OS.
Well, they do - but it isn't much used, so we'll ignore that for now. The
OS most widely used that incorporates GNU code is GNU + Linux - which is
properly called "GNU/Linux".
No-one is trying to claim that Linux is not an important part of that OS -
hence the inclusion of "Linux" in the name - but the OS is way more than
just the kernel, and it is thus entirely incorrect to ignore the
contribution of the non-kernel part of the OS to the whole.
> It needs to tag on to others.
Now you're just making stuff up.
> The fact they came up
> with the GNU/Linux name suggests they know Linux is more important and
> influential in the world, and this was a poor attempt to cling on to the
> idea they have a GNU OS and have some influence over Linux.
No, that is nor even slightly right.
You are trying to apply some sort of hierarchy where there is none. GNU
has written a load of code. The Linux project has written a load of code.
Put it all together, and you can make an operating system. The strength of
what we all use is in the coexistence of the necessary elements, not in
attempting to start a fight between bits that are not attempting to lay
claim to each others' work.
The GNU/Linux debate is long settled. The proper term is "GNU/Linux". Few
people but Stallman really care if you just call it "Linux". But getting
upset because someone used the correct terminology is decidedly bizarre...
Vic.
[1] At one stage, the entire userland was GNU. I'm not sure if that is
still the case, and I'm not sufficiently bothered to find out.
