alternative motd and logo?
Vineet Kumar
--LKTjZJSUETSlgu2t
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
* System Wizards (cu...@linfe.it) [020801 10:35]:
> Here is a possible alternative motd file and a debian/linux logo, to be
> used by 'less religiuos' debian users.=20
> My motd file avoids using GNU; i think that such attribution should not=
=20
> be mandatory.
Mandatory schmandatory. "Credit where credit is due" is enough of a
reason to insist that it be called by it's true name: "Debian
GNU/Linux". Debian is far more than just Linux. My hat's off to the GNU
project, and if you think you owe them nothing (or that avoiding giving
them credit is something desirable/admirable) you are deluding yourself
(and probably only yourself).
good times,
Vineet
--=20
http://www.doorstop.net/
--=20
http://www.debian.org/
--LKTjZJSUETSlgu2t
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE9SXCT7z3S33fUb9ERAlZjAKCTnRzvBK72HI713TLnpzgInDQPjQCg0Plm
SdTmSwY0OzFh0FysSsco9oY=
=lpaW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--LKTjZJSUETSlgu2t--
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Craig Dickson
--i0/AhcQY5QxfSsSZ
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Vineet Kumar wrote:
> Mandatory schmandatory. "Credit where credit is due" is enough of a
> reason to insist that it be called by it's true name: "Debian
> GNU/Linux". Debian is far more than just Linux. My hat's off to the GNU
> project, and if you think you owe them nothing (or that avoiding giving
> them credit is something desirable/admirable) you are deluding yourself
> (and probably only yourself).
I agree completely. Anyone who doesn't care for the term "GNU/Linux"
should try running a Linux system without any GNU components. The kernel
is a critical part of the system, but it's only one part, and not even a
very large part if you compare it (by binary size or lines of code) to
the GNU C library, plus the fileutils, the binutils, gcc, etc.
Craig
--i0/AhcQY5QxfSsSZ
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE9SXbCTv3a2fa7g4sRAmpLAKCo1PLvBjvGuSYM+Ep2PspJE2DobACfRhVP
LUQpktwmmgcXxaQ3RN/QEtw=
=kzrI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--i0/AhcQY5QxfSsSZ--
Thanasis Kinias
> Here is a possible alternative motd file and a debian/linux logo, to be
> used by 'less religiuos' debian users.
I don't see how _anything_ in a motd is mandatory. I wouldn't assume
many people keep the default /etc/motd file very long anyway . . .
--
Thanasis Kinias
Web Developer, Information Technology
Graduate Student, Department of History
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.
Ash nazg durbatul�k, ash nazg gimbatul,
Ash nazg thrakatul�k agh burzum-ishi krimpatul
Ron Johnson
> * System Wizards (cu...@linfe.it) [020801 10:35]:
> > Here is a possible alternative motd file and a debian/linux logo, to be
> > used by 'less religiuos' debian users.
>
> Mandatory schmandatory. "Credit where credit is due" is enough of a
> reason to insist that it be called by it's true name: "Debian
> GNU/Linux". Debian is far more than just Linux. My hat's off to the GNU
> project, and if you think you owe them nothing (or that avoiding giving
> them credit is something desirable/admirable) you are deluding yourself
> (and probably only yourself).
<Sigh> How much do we of XFree? Mozilla.org and AOL? OpenOffice.org
and Sun? AbiWord? Ximian? TrollTech? KDE.org?
It goes without saying that we all use tons of GNU s/w and s/w developed
on GNU tools. However, if most Windows based tools and applications
were written in Borland C, instead of VC, should "the other OS" be
called Borland/Windows? No...
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ron Johnson, Jr. Home: ron.l....@cox.net |
| Jefferson, LA USA |
| |
| "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment |
| by men of zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding." |
| Justice Louis Brandeis, dissenting, Olmstead v US (1928) |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
Colin Watson
> On Thu, 2002-08-01 at 12:32, Vineet Kumar wrote:
> > Mandatory schmandatory. "Credit where credit is due" is enough of a
> > reason to insist that it be called by it's true name: "Debian
> > GNU/Linux". Debian is far more than just Linux. My hat's off to the GNU
> > project, and if you think you owe them nothing (or that avoiding giving
> > them credit is something desirable/admirable) you are deluding yourself
> > (and probably only yourself).
>
> <Sigh> How much do we of XFree? Mozilla.org and AOL? OpenOffice.org
> and Sun? AbiWord? Ximian? TrollTech? KDE.org?
As much as I hate to get into this perennial war, all of those are
optional components: I only use software by two of them at all, and on
one of my systems I use none of them. If you take away either GNU or
Linux, it becomes a radically different system, so it's much more
reasonable to consider both as core.
(Of course, BSD has a fair claim to a good chunk of the core too.)
> It goes without saying that we all use tons of GNU s/w and s/w developed
> on GNU tools. However, if most Windows based tools and applications
> were written in Borland C, instead of VC, should "the other OS" be
> called Borland/Windows? No...
If Borland wrote the standard development tools, the standard C library,
the dynamic loader, and a large percentage of the standard core
userspace tools, then I'd say yes.
--
Colin Watson [cjwa...@flatline.org.uk]
Elizabeth Barham
M. Stallman's work thereof. I really admire the guy, and if I may
re-tell the story I'd like to (this is from memory so if I goof up
please let me know):
Stallman was working at MIT; he was probably a professor at that stage
and MIT decided to go with a proprietary platform in the student labs,
you know, copyrighted-stuff, pre-compiled binaries. Since Stallman
didn't have much of a recourse of action in regards to saying, "Hey!
The same stuff can be *free* and *open*" (the FSF was just a kernel
waiting to develop), he set out to *single-handedly* re-write the same
functionality of the proprietary system MIT bought and within 2 years
succeeded.
I personally consider this really, really cool because in the
corporate world we meet up with this type of thing on a regular basis
and for one person to, instead of complaining about it like most
people, sit down and hammer out a great deal of code in order to
*provide* the alternative shows a great deal of hutzpa and brass.
There is that old adage of Patton or some other general. They asked
him how he chose leaders and he said that he tells a platoon to dig a
trench. He then watches from afar; some say, "What are we doing this
for?" others say, "Why does he want us to do this?" Finally one says,
"Let's just do it and get it over with" - and gets to work and the
others shrug their shoulders and get to work as well. That, he said,
was the one he wanted to lead patrols.
Elizabeth
Vineet Kumar <debia...@virtual.doorstop.net> writes:
> * System Wizards (cu...@linfe.it) [020801 10:35]:
> > Here is a possible alternative motd file and a debian/linux logo, to be
> > used by 'less religiuos' debian users.=20
> > My motd file avoids using GNU; i think that such attribution should not=
> =20
> > be mandatory.
>
> Mandatory schmandatory. "Credit where credit is due" is enough of a
> reason to insist that it be called by it's true name: "Debian
> GNU/Linux". Debian is far more than just Linux. My hat's off to the GNU
> project, and if you think you owe them nothing (or that avoiding giving
> them credit is something desirable/admirable) you are deluding yourself
> (and probably only yourself).
>
> good times,
> Vineet
Lance Simmons
>
> Anyone who doesn't care for the term "GNU/Linux" should try running a
> Linux system without any GNU components. The kernel is a critical part
> of the system, but it's only one part, and not even a very large part
> if you compare it (by binary size or lines of code) to the GNU C
> library, plus the fileutils, the binutils, gcc, etc.
Why is it that the GNU project has made so little progress on the HURD
kernel? After all, a kernel isn't a very large part of an OS...
--
.~.
/V\ Lance Simmons
/( )\ la...@lsimmons.net
^^-^^
Craig Dickson
--s5/bjXLgkIwAv6Hi
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Ron Johnson wrote:
> <Sigh> How much do we of XFree? Mozilla.org and AOL? OpenOffice.org
> and Sun? AbiWord? Ximian? TrollTech? KDE.org?
Uhh... did you mean "owe" instead of "of" in the first sentence? Sorry,
I'm just finding it hard to parse that...
> It goes without saying that we all use tons of GNU s/w and s/w developed
> on GNU tools. However, if most Windows based tools and applications
> were written in Borland C, instead of VC, should "the other OS" be
> called Borland/Windows? No...
You miss the point. Without the GNU toolset, a Linux kernel is just a
kernel with no userland components -- useless. You could, in theory,
replace the GNU toolset with something else, but pretty much every Linux
distro uses the GNU programs, so that's purely a theoretical
consideration. In practice, any usable Linux system joins the Linux
kernel to the GNU toolset, and so is best described as a "GNU/Linux"
system. This is both technically accurate and, as Vineet put it, "credit
where credit is due". It is not simply a matter of which compiler is
used, but the entire environment (glibc, fileutils, binutils, etc.) that
makes it possible for the compiler to run in the first place. That the
kernel itself is compiled with GNU's compiler is merely icing on the
cake; it makes the argument a little stronger, but would not be much of
an argument all by itself.
Craig
--s5/bjXLgkIwAv6Hi
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE9SYMaTv3a2fa7g4sRAhtLAJ0b0s+RuAzZ+wRzv860uCTg1SBzhwCgjz7t
uFyW1+/iGmcMIbwon+x4DK0=
=2E8l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--s5/bjXLgkIwAv6Hi--
Thanasis Kinias
> Just out of curiosity: what other system(s) use the GNU toolset?
> Hurd and ????
I've built and used fairly-complete GNU userspace toolsets on Solaris,
IRIX, and (with much wailing and gnashing of teeth) AIX. The purpose is
to have consistently-functioning tools (from bash and ls on up) on all
the boxes I used. On Solaris and IRIX, even GTK and GVIM built
pretty-much automagically. That's part of the beauty of GNU -- you can
take as much or as little as you want.
--
Thanasis Kinias
Web Developer, Information Technology
Graduate Student, Department of History
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.
Ash nazg durbatul�k, ash nazg gimbatul,
Ash nazg thrakatul�k agh burzum-ishi krimpatul
Paul E Condon
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 10:58:26AM -0700, Craig Dickson wrote:
> >
> > Anyone who doesn't care for the term "GNU/Linux" should try running a
> > Linux system without any GNU components. The kernel is a critical part
> > of the system, but it's only one part, and not even a very large part
> > if you compare it (by binary size or lines of code) to the GNU C
> > library, plus the fileutils, the binutils, gcc, etc.
>
> Why is it that the GNU project has made so little progress on the HURD
> kernel? After all, a kernel isn't a very large part of an OS...
>
Linux is a version of UNIX
GNU is not UNIX
HURD is, also, not UNIX,
and is a lot less well defined as a project than Linux.
Linux really could not have happened without the GNU project. HURD was
going to be the OS of GNU, but it wasn't progressing fast enough for
the 'marketplace', so there was a 'window of opportunity' for Linux to
become a real, full featured OS, and it did.
There is plenty of credit for all involved to share.
--
Paul E Condon
peco...@quiknet.com
Craig Dickson
--HlL+5n6rz5pIUxbD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Thanasis Kinias wrote:
> I've built and used fairly-complete GNU userspace toolsets on Solaris,
> IRIX, and (with much wailing and gnashing of teeth) AIX. The purpose is
> to have consistently-functioning tools (from bash and ls on up) on all
> the boxes I used. On Solaris and IRIX, even GTK and GVIM built
> pretty-much automagically. That's part of the beauty of GNU -- you can
> take as much or as little as you want.
Yes, but the GNU tools aren't part of the standard distribution for any
of those commercial Unixes, so the situation is quite different from
Linux. I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't use GNU
tools, except perhaps the ultra-minimalist ones like LNX-BBC or
ttylinux, where the goal is to have a complete Linux system on a
business card CD or a few floppies.
Also, let me again point out that the single most important GNU
component used in Linux is glibc, which you probably didn't use on
Solaris or IRIX.
If I were to propose my own criteria for whether or not an OS
distribution should be called "GNU/(whatever)"... it's a little bit of a
sliding scale in a way. I personally would be comfortable saying
"GNU/(whatever)" if glibc were the standard C library for that distro,
even if no other GNU software was used, but I can understand if some
people felt that wasn't enough. The argument certainly gets stronger if
more GNU tools are standard components. In the case of nearly all Linux
distros, GNU glibc, fileutils, findutils, binutils, gcc, and bash are
all standard or required. Aside from the Hurd and perhaps some of the
newer free OSs like AtheOS (about which I know very little), I can't
think of any other OS that depends on the GNU project so heavily.
Craig
--HlL+5n6rz5pIUxbD
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE9SaBCTv3a2fa7g4sRAqoUAJ9K3W546vc3EDy4xdi/PnOrPaiZvQCaAide
S9DAaJtX8aIkQeyWY40zxEw=
=wDOw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--HlL+5n6rz5pIUxbD--
Kirk Strauser
At 2002-08-01T20:57:29Z, Paul E Condon <peco...@quiknet.com> writes:
> Linux is a version of UNIX
That's not correct. Linux was written to be similar to a Unix system, but
is *not* a Unix system. Source? The first sentence at
http://www.linux.org/ .
--
Kirk Strauser
The Strauser Group - http://www.strausergroup.com/
Paul M Foster
> * System Wizards (cu...@linfe.it) [020801 10:35]:
> > Here is a possible alternative motd file and a debian/linux logo, to be
> > used by 'less religiuos' debian users.
> > My motd file avoids using GNU; i think that such attribution should not
> > be mandatory.
>
> Mandatory schmandatory. "Credit where credit is due" is enough of a
> reason to insist that it be called by it's true name: "Debian
> GNU/Linux". Debian is far more than just Linux. My hat's off to the GNU
> project, and if you think you owe them nothing (or that avoiding giving
> them credit is something desirable/admirable) you are deluding yourself
> (and probably only yourself).
I agree that the GNU project deserves credit for much of the software we
use on Linux. However, the argument that we should then make GNU part of
the name is bogus. Shall we prepend the inventor's name of every
invention to the name of the invention? Or every piece of software?
Shall I be called Paul-son-of-Malcolm-and-Alice?
Linus named it Linux. A name is just a name. A name doesn't have to
describe what something does, where it came from, or anything else. GNU
gets puhlenty of credit when the license of 1/3 to 2/3 of the software
on a typical Linux distro is the GPL.
Paul
Craig Dickson
--17pEHd4RhPHOinZp
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Peter Hicks wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 06:45:14PM -0400, Paul M Foster wrote:
>
> >I agree that the GNU project deserves credit for much of the software we
> >use on Linux. However, the argument that we should then make GNU part of
> >the name is bogus. Shall we prepend the inventor's name of every
> >invention to the name of the invention? Or every piece of software?
> >Shall I be called Paul-son-of-Malcolm-and-Alice?
Of course, this is a common way of naming children, more or less.
Western names ending in "son" or "sen" (Dickson, for example) derive
from times and cultures in which a boy's last name was of the form
"Xson", with X replaced by his father's name.
> >Linus named it Linux. A name is just a name. A name doesn't have to
> >describe what something does, where it came from, or anything else. GNU
> >gets puhlenty of credit when the license of 1/3 to 2/3 of the software
> >on a typical Linux distro is the GPL.
>=20
> Linus named the KERNEL linux, but the operating system is more than
> just a kernel...
Yes, exactly. Linux is not an operating system, it's just a kernel. The
complete operating system, in the case of nearly all Linux distributions
(including Debian) requires GNU glibc, GNU fileutils, GNU findutils, GNU
binutils, GNU bash, GNU etc. etc. etc. to function at all.
Paul, you are actually demonstrating precisely the misunderstanding that
led RMS to start promoting the term "GNU/Linux". You write as if you
think Linux is a complete system that Linus Torvalds invented and named.
This is just plain wrong.
Craig
--17pEHd4RhPHOinZp
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE9ScWBTv3a2fa7g4sRAhRpAJ4q53D9Ife1Yp+SBTtDh9hikpTSxQCfbNCh
aUALrkX9HEoT7EZOWBCLQfg=
=W6RQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--17pEHd4RhPHOinZp--
Ron Johnson
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 06:45:14PM -0400, Paul M Foster wrote:
> >
> >> * System Wizards (cu...@linfe.it) [020801 10:35]:
> >Linus named it Linux. A name is just a name. A name doesn't have to
> >describe what something does, where it came from, or anything else. GNU
> >gets puhlenty of credit when the license of 1/3 to 2/3 of the software
> >on a typical Linux distro is the GPL.
> >
>
> just a kernel...
The sysadmin of the 1st ftp server that Linus put the source on
named it Linux.
libc5 vs. libc6 (aka glibc 2). Why is libc6 also know as glibc?
"apt-cache show" seems to indicate that libc5 was *not* GNU.
True?
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ron Johnson, Jr. Home: ron.l....@cox.net |
| Jefferson, LA USA |
| |
| "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment |
| by men of zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding." |
| Justice Louis Brandeis, dissenting, Olmstead v US (1928) |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
Lance Simmons
> GNU gets puhlenty of credit when the license of 1/3 to 2/3 of the
> software on a typical Linux distro is the GPL.
Linux is released under the GPL, but that doesn't mean GNU gets credit
for Linux.
When people say that the GNU/Linux operating system depends on GNU
software, they _don't_ mean that it depends on a lot of software
released under the GPL (that would include Linux). They mean that the
operating system depends crucially on software that was actually written
by the GNU project.
Other than software from the GNU project and the Linux kernel, what else
is required to have an operating system? GNU/Linux seems to pretty much
sum up what the operating system _is_: GNU software and the Linux
kernel. All the other software we love (some of it released under the
GPL, some of it not) runs on this base. A GNU/Linux base.
--
.~.
/V\ Lance Simmons
/( )\ la...@lsimmons.net
^^-^^
Colin Watson
> libc5 vs. libc6 (aka glibc 2). Why is libc6 also know as glibc?
> "apt-cache show" seems to indicate that libc5 was *not* GNU.
> True?
Partially correct. libc5 was a fork from GNU libc version 1; a large
part of the effort put into glibc2 was largely in order to merge the
two. libc5 still contained a great deal of GNU code.
Somewhere, a few months back, I saw a rough count of lines of code
attributed to each of a variety of prolific free software authors. I
think Roland McGrath, the author of much of glibc1, a good deal of the
Hurd, and a number of other projects, was top of that list.
--
Colin Watson [cjwa...@flatline.org.uk]
Oohara Yuuma
System Wizards <cu...@linfe.it> wrote:
> My logo recovers a previously used picture of a chick.
I heard the license of the old Debian logo is expired.
> -- /etc/motd:
> Linux / d e b i a n platform - unstable distribution
I suggest "Debian". It avoids the "Linux is just a kernel" flamewar.
Who cares what kernel you are running?
--
Oohara Yuuma <ooh...@libra.interq.or.jp>
Debian developer
PGP key (key ID F464A695) http://www.interq.or.jp/libra/oohara/pub-key.txt
Key fingerprint = 6142 8D07 9C5B 159B C170 1F4A 40D6 F42E F464 A695
her occasionally near suicidal sense of loyal self-sacrifice
--- Luke Seubert, about what Rei Ayanami and Debian developers have in common
Paul E Condon
>
> At 2002-08-01T20:57:29Z, Paul E Condon <peco...@quiknet.com> writes:
>
> > Linux is a version of UNIX
>
> That's not correct. Linux was written to be similar to a Unix system, but
> is *not* a Unix system. Source? The first sentence at
> http://www.linux.org/ .
> --
> Kirk Strauser
> The Strauser Group - http://www.strausergroup.com/
>
>
"Linux is a free Unix-type operating system originally created by Linus
Torvalds with the assistance of ..."
Of course the only *true* UNIX is one invented by Ritchie and Thompson
and reported by them, et al., in The Bell System Technical Journal,
v57 #6 , Jul-Aug 1978. All others are merely 'Unix-type', or, as I said
'version of UNIX'.
I my opinion, UNIX is a class object, there are a small, but
un-countable number of instantiations of this class. The number is
un-countable because of manifest difficulties in reaching a consensus
on what UNIX 'really is'. The first sentence of www.linux.org is a
waffle; it supports your view, *and mine*. Waffles are important to the
smooth functioning of society. I love them. But I don't use them as an
authority.
paul
--
Paul E Condon
peco...@quiknet.com
Kent West
>Waffles are important to the
>smooth functioning of society. I love them.
>
Mm-mm-mm, waffles . . . .
Bud Rogers
> I suggest "Debian". It avoids the "Linux is just a kernel" flamewar.
> Who cares what kernel you are running?
When I'm talking to civilians who don't know the difference, I refer to
my Linux box. When I'm talking to other Linuxers who understand, I
refer to my Debian box. I do not ever refer to my GNU box or my
GNU/Linux box. However, on the rare occasion when a civilian expresses
interest in Linux, I try to weave the terms GNU tools, Free Software,
and Open Source into the conversation.
--
Bud Rogers <bu...@sirinet.net> http://www.sirinet.net/~budr
All things in moderation. And not too much moderation either.
Craig Dickson
--Q68bSM7Ycu6FN28Q
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Paul E Condon wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 05:15:51PM -0500, Kirk Strauser wrote:
> >=20
> > At 2002-08-01T20:57:29Z, Paul E Condon <peco...@quiknet.com> writes:
> >=20
> > > Linux is a version of UNIX
> >=20
> > That's not correct. Linux was written to be similar to a Unix system, =
but
> > is *not* a Unix system. Source? The first sentence at
> > http://www.linux.org/ .
>
> What I see there is:
>=20
> "Linux is a free Unix-type operating system originally created by Linus
> Torvalds with the assistance of ..."
>=20
> Of course the only *true* UNIX is one invented by Ritchie and Thompson
> and reported by them, et al., in The Bell System Technical Journal,
> v57 #6 , Jul-Aug 1978. All others are merely 'Unix-type', or, as I said
> 'version of UNIX'.
>=20
> I my opinion, UNIX is a class object, there are a small, but
> un-countable number of instantiations of this class. The number is
> un-countable because of manifest difficulties in reaching a consensus
> on what UNIX 'really is'.
If UNIX is still a legally-protected trademark for computer operating
systems (is it?), then it would be best not to use the word for anything
that is not based directly on some version of official UNIX code. Thus,
SysV and UnixWare could all be considered "UNIX", and *BSD also (based
on the history that BSD was originally a fork of AT&T Unix that became
independent of that codebase over time), but implementations sharing no
code with them (Hurd, Linux, ...) should not. I don't know the history
of GNU to a sufficient level of detail to know if this was specifically
RMS's intent in saying that "GNU's Not Unix", but it wouldn't surprise
me.
Ultimately, nomenclatural issues like this all depend on what aspect of
the truth you are most interested in at the moment. It is true, on the
one hand, that Linux is so much like UNIX that for many practical
purposes there is no need to distinguish between them. It is also true
that Linux shares no code with UNIX (TM), is not owned by the same
organization, and is not covered by the same trademarks and copyrights.
So Linux is and is not UNIX, depending on how you look at it. Does that
make things clearer?
Craig
--Q68bSM7Ycu6FN28Q
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE9SfKXTv3a2fa7g4sRAs0FAKCmxmwLj36lJQzoo53Xgt6jJWTAdwCeLHuX
SsY3z9Hu4HahAA4Y7JmQUcE=
=kf2K
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Q68bSM7Ycu6FN28Q--
Paul E Condon
>
>
> > Linux is a version of UNIX
>
> That's not correct. Linux was written to be similar to a Unix system, but
> is *not* a Unix system. Source? The first sentence at
> http://www.linux.org/ .
A follow up, more thoughtful ( 75 s vs. 7.5 s ) view of this
authority. First sentence is:
"Linux is a free Unix-type operating system originally created by Linus Torvalds with the assistance of..."
But, really, Linux is a *kernel*, not an *operating system*. Had I not
expressed an opinion, and had that opinion not been challenged with
this quatation as authoritative evidence, I would surely not have
objected to the sloppiness of these words. I would have *known* what
they would have said had they been better trained in high school and
I would have left it at that.
So where does this leave the GNU, Linux, GNU/Linux issue?
paul
--
Paul E Condon
peco...@quiknet.com
Paul E Condon
> If UNIX is still a legally-protected trademark for computer operating
> systems (is it?), then it would be best not to use the word for
> anything
Yes, IF. I think anyone pretending to hold a trademark or service mark
on the for letter sequence UNIX would have a hard time claiming that
it is 'common knowledge' that that sequence of letters refers to their
product *in the minds of the people who count in a court of law*. Such
a claim is rediculous on its face. I am something of a hold-out for
tradition by using UNIX, in the future it will be unix. And LINUX will
be used in dictionaries as an example of a variety of UuNnIiXx.
But I sound like a flaming madman. That is not my point. Unix, Linux,
GNU, whatever. A lot of people contributed and deserve credit. Some
who deserve credit are *difficult* people. But they still deserve that
their pet magic phrase be preserved. Think Columbus and
America. History will record this differently from my, or your,
perception.
Is their really an important difference of opinion here?
Extremism in the pursuit of moderation is a maybe kind of thing !!!!
> that is not based directly on some version of official UNIX code. Thus,
> SysV and UnixWare could all be considered "UNIX", and *BSD also (based
> on the history that BSD was originally a fork of AT&T Unix that became
> independent of that codebase over time), but implementations sharing no
> code with them (Hurd, Linux, ...) should not. I don't know the history
> of GNU to a sufficient level of detail to know if this was specifically
> RMS's intent in saying that "GNU's Not Unix", but it wouldn't surprise
> me.
>
> Ultimately, nomenclatural issues like this all depend on what aspect of
> the truth you are most interested in at the moment. It is true, on the
> one hand, that Linux is so much like UNIX that for many practical
> purposes there is no need to distinguish between them. It is also true
> that Linux shares no code with UNIX (TM), is not owned by the same
> organization, and is not covered by the same trademarks and copyrights.
> So Linux is and is not UNIX, depending on how you look at it. Does that
> make things clearer?
I guess my position is that trademark ownership of 'UNIX' is a dead
issue. It is a word in the English language, and, probably, in all
other natural languages that have written form. Nobody 'owns' it. This
was not always so, and the fact that it has been a trademark, needs to
be considered by historians of our time, but not by us.
>
> Craig
--
Paul E Condon
peco...@quiknet.com
Rudy Gevaert
On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 08:20:45PM -0500, Bud Rogers wrote:
> When I'm talking to civilians who don't know the difference, I refer to
> my Linux box. When I'm talking to other Linuxers who understand, I
> refer to my Debian box. I do not ever refer to my GNU box or my
> GNU/Linux box. However, on the rare occasion when a civilian expresses
> interest in Linux, I try to weave the terms GNU tools, Free Software,
> and Open Source into the conversation.
You should be consistent. Always use GNU/Linux. People who don't
know are easier to teach. People who know should also say GNU/Linux.
Rudy
--
Rudy Gevaert - ru...@zeus.rug.ac.be - http://www.zeus.rug.ac.be
keyserverID=24DC49C6 - http://www.webworm.org
I'm a GNU/Linux advocate. Every action against my beliefs is useless
Friends may come and go, but enemies accumulate. - Thomas Jones
Bob Proulx
--24zk1gE8NUlDmwG9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Paul E Condon <peco...@quiknet.com> [2002-08-01 17:37:16 -0700]:
> Of course the only *true* UNIX is one invented by Ritchie and Thompson
> and reported by them, et al., in The Bell System Technical Journal,
> v57 #6 , Jul-Aug 1978. All others are merely 'Unix-type', or, as I said
> 'version of UNIX'.
>=20
> I my opinion, UNIX is a class object, there are a small, but
> un-countable number of instantiations of this class. The number is
> un-countable because of manifest difficulties in reaching a consensus
> on what UNIX 'really is'. The first sentence of www.linux.org is a
> waffle; it supports your view, *and mine*. Waffles are important to the
> smooth functioning of society. I love them. But I don't use them as an
> authority.=20
Also, IIRC Novel bought USL from AT&T and the rights to UNIX. This
made its way to XOPEN which now owns the UNIX trademark. I believe
there is a conformance test for UNIX from XOPEN. IIRC GNU/Linux has
passed that conformance test some years ago and earned the right to
call itself UNIX based upon that test.
I agree with your statement that Thompson and others were the original
authors and unless the code is the same code base it is not UNIX.
(And of course GNU is Not UNIX too.) But the legal footing says that
the owner of the intellectual property has moved through the years and
now it is owned by a group that is allowing others to call themself
UNIX if they meet certain standards which make them equivalent.
Bob
--24zk1gE8NUlDmwG9
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE9SrMQ0pRcO8E2ULYRAnxTAJ4g7446+FEFpbH2rB3JdqwLPFn/kQCfa25z
5MFTQSNaI6G02b7f99WH8KI=
=s9bB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--24zk1gE8NUlDmwG9--
Davide Inglima - limaCAT
>> Mandatory schmandatory. "Credit where credit is due" is enough of a
>> reason to insist that it be called by it's true name: "Debian
>> GNU/Linux". Debian is far more than just Linux. My hat's off to the GNU
>> project, and if you think you owe them nothing (or that avoiding giving
>> them credit is something desirable/admirable) you are deluding yourself
>> (and probably only yourself).
> I agree completely. Anyone who doesn't care for the term "GNU/Linux"
> should try running a Linux system without any GNU components.
I Think they should also be made to administer a Solaris system without
any GNU component as well :)
--
Davide Inglima - limaCAT
"Mana is rapidly disappearing from the World, even the"
"Mana Tree has begun to wither" - Seiken Densetsu 3
http://digilander.iol.it/nekochan/
Craig Dickson
--61jdw2sOBCFtR2d/
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Davide Inglima - limaCAT wrote:
> On Thursday 01 August 2002 19:58, Craig Dickson wrote:
>=20
> >> Mandatory schmandatory. "Credit where credit is due" is enough of a
> >> reason to insist that it be called by it's true name: "Debian
> >> GNU/Linux". Debian is far more than just Linux. My hat's off to the GNU
> >> project, and if you think you owe them nothing (or that avoiding giving
> >> them credit is something desirable/admirable) you are deluding yourself
> >> (and probably only yourself).
>=20
> > I agree completely. Anyone who doesn't care for the term "GNU/Linux"
> > should try running a Linux system without any GNU components.=20
>=20
> I Think they should also be made to administer a Solaris system without
> any GNU component as well :)
It might not be pleasant, but it's possible. I believe Sun have their
own C library, compiler, and shells, none of which are GNU or GPL
software. In comparison, you can't run any Linux distro I know of
without GNU's C library. The GNU environment is integral to Linux
distros in a way that just isn't true of Solaris or the *BSD Unixes.
Craig
--61jdw2sOBCFtR2d/
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE9SuFnTv3a2fa7g4sRAjr8AKCz45RX7YZTJaFdpWVvfHeZAAjvgQCfaeYF
8KniBDblVGy73EoqWHKdliI=
=fi/t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--61jdw2sOBCFtR2d/--
Paul E Condon
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 08:20:45PM -0500, Bud Rogers wrote:
> > When I'm talking to civilians who don't know the difference, I refer to
> > my Linux box. When I'm talking to other Linuxers who understand, I
> > refer to my Debian box. I do not ever refer to my GNU box or my
> > GNU/Linux box. However, on the rare occasion when a civilian expresses
> > interest in Linux, I try to weave the terms GNU tools, Free Software,
> > and Open Source into the conversation.
>
> You should be consistent. Always use GNU/Linux. People who don't
> know are easier to teach. People who know should also say GNU/Linux.
>
In spoken conversation with people who don't know, those people will think
the opposite of GNU/Linux is 'old Linux', and GNUer is better.
;-)
--
Paul E Condon
peco...@quiknet.com
Bob Proulx
--G4iJoqBmSsgzjUCe
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Paul E Condon <peco...@quiknet.com> [2002-08-02 12:47:06 -0700]:
> In spoken conversation with people who don't know, those people will think
> the opposite of GNU/Linux is 'old Linux', and GNUer is better.
>=20
> ;-)
GNU'bies! :-)
Bob
--G4iJoqBmSsgzjUCe
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE9Sw5k0pRcO8E2ULYRAn/pAJwM/487nozXnQtCp2IzOm0LxJ+ULQCeJ5x/
QvGQtSARGdelJ4O4J9VQ7Ao=
=0k0R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--G4iJoqBmSsgzjUCe--
csj
Lance Simmons <la...@lsimmons.net> wrote:
> Other than software from the GNU project and the Linux kernel, what
> else is required to have an operating system? GNU/Linux seems to
> pretty much sum up what the operating system _is_: GNU software and
> the Linux kernel. All the other software we love (some of it released
> under the GPL, some of it not) runs on this base. A GNU/Linux base.
Some people, migrating from the Windows or Mac world, probably can't use
Linux without X/Gnome (or KDE). I know I couldn't when I first started
with Mandrake. Should we then call a typical desktop distribution a
GNU/Linux/X/Gnome operating system? I define an operating system as all
that stuff that just sits there quietly in its little corner until it
starts throwing a tantrum or blue screen of death.
Jason Stechschulte
> Some people, migrating from the Windows or Mac world, probably can't use
> Linux without X/Gnome (or KDE). I know I couldn't when I first started
> with Mandrake. Should we then call a typical desktop distribution a
> GNU/Linux/X/Gnome operating system? I define an operating system as all
> that stuff that just sits there quietly in its little corner until it
> starts throwing a tantrum or blue screen of death.
Actually I do say which window or desktop manager I'm using. Right now
I'm running KDE3, so when I talk about my system, I say it is Debian
GNU/Linux with KDE3. I'm not saying everyone should do this, but I do
include it because it is a completely different interface than if I were
using just Enlightenment as I occasionally do.
--
Jason Stechschulte
st...@ypisco.com
http://www.ypisco.com
--
Ignorance is never out of style. It was in fashion yesterday, it is the
rage today, and it will set the pace tomorrow.
-- Franklin K. Dane
Davide Inglima - limaCAT
> Davide Inglima - limaCAT wrote:
>> On Thursday 01 August 2002 19:58, Craig Dickson wrote:
>>>> Mandatory schmandatory. "Credit where credit is due" is enough of a
>>>> reason to insist that it be called by it's true name: "Debian
>>>> GNU/Linux". Debian is far more than just Linux. My hat's off to the
>>>> GNU project, and if you think you owe them nothing (or that avoiding
>>>> giving them credit is something desirable/admirable) you are deluding
>>>> yourself (and probably only yourself).
>>> I agree completely. Anyone who doesn't care for the term "GNU/Linux"
>>> should try running a Linux system without any GNU components.
>> I Think they should also be made to administer a Solaris system without
>> any GNU component as well :)
> It might not be pleasant, but it's possible. I believe Sun have their
> own C library, compiler, and shells, none of which are GNU or GPL
> software.
Yes, I know, I know :)
My joke was more pointing at usability of the system. It's true that Sun
has got is own C library, compiler and shell, I've used in the past on
university machine. But I also admit that my experience with solaris Boxes,
while was interesting (shell scripting, using pine and procmail for e-mails,
and being able to joke all those other students using Windows NT, with account
closed on a "prevention basis" [1] because they received Outlook virusses),
was a bit painful.
I know I'll be flamed to death by seasoned UNIX admins, but in my short-lived
Unix||GNU/Linux career i've found the following facts.
The Solaris environment in itself is painful, and if you are used to GNU
extensions, rewritings and remappings of Unix (which usually are shortcuts or
clarifications), is even a bit more painful.
Man pages are way too much technical, the hierarchy is nothing rational (have
to check if Solaris has the Hier manpage as BSD and Debian) compared to
Linux, and even OpenBSD 2.9's installer, (as I tried to install Solaris on my
box), is cleaner. Sun supplied documentation (The one you found in pdfs on
Sunsolve) is a bunk consisting of several easy to follow steps and no quick
introduction or a large overview.
Oh, and Sun's decision to still use the System V's package with release 9,
the one with MEANINGFUL names like SSYSVET.pkg, rather than upgrading the
system to rpm or deb [2] while it is admirable for the compatibility with
running production systems, (which I admit is an important factor), will
simply mean that Sun will continue to sell Solaris on marketing skills,
rather than technical skills. [3]
Ok, now I get to my point :)
The thing that I want to say is this: the GNU system, the Free (Speech)
Software philosophy, in this 10 years has simply revolutionized the way we
approach to a Unix system.
Bash is far more complete and easier to program than CSH.
The LSB Filesystem Hierarchy Standard is clean and rational.
The GCC is complete and a very interesting project (I've done some
deep working on recompiling version 2.95 and was amazed in the
stuff that it let you to do).
You can find vast amounts of documentation everywhere for free, written for
all targets of readers.
The whole DPKG/Debconf/Apt structure is way too much superior to any other
Unix Packaging system (I'm still learning more every day I use them).
KDE is waaaaay faaaaar more complete [4] than any other desktop environment
on this planet, and there are also other desktop project who have a license
inspired by the GPL or a userbase captured by the GNU/Linux system (Mozilla,
Gnome, OpenOffice, XFree) that are almost as good as any commercial
counterpart.
Yes, in the end you will do the same commands as you did 25 years ago, maybe
changing rsh with ssh, and play nethack, but all the other bugfixes, patches
and tips and tricks contributed by the users of the OSS-user community that
are making your job easier, are going to stay for you, for me and for
everyone else coming in.
And that only because GCC made possible for a boy in a bedroom in Finland to
create his terminal emulator with filesystem management attached :). That's
why I think that is right to call the system GNU/Linus, and that's why I made
the Solaris joke in the first place :)
By the way: are there any SCO users in the audience? :D
> In comparison, you can't run any Linux distro I know of
> without GNU's C library. The GNU environment is integral to Linux
> distros in a way that just isn't true of Solaris or the *BSD Unixes.
Wasn't Mastodon Linux focused on using a.out files with the bsd c library?
(Yes, I know that Mastodon was focused on an entirely different world than
current GNU/Linux distros)
[1] It was just matter of asking a technician to clean their area, but
sometimes those virii were rather introduced by the students themselves.
[2] Sun could have used the dpkg/deb/apt structure in a straightfoward manner.
Their packages all behave accordingly to a pattern, to an ABI which is
fixed, and some applications anyway require some packages,
functionalities or patches (see OpenOffice for Solaris/Intel notes).
I hope someone at sun gets struck with the same lightning that struck
Apple when they decided to do MacOS X and base it on Unix, but I simply
fear that Solaris will be the next unix to go the Sco way.
[3] When (let's say) UnitedLinux will buy a good marketing department, only
technical merits will be left out, and technicians will probably come out
and say that a Gnu System can be administered better, faster and safer
than a Solaris system for personal experience. Of course, Sun can give
"appreciation gifts" to technicians who choosed Solaris on Linux, but
Sun can't bribe them all. Also based on the bang-banging of the press
during these years, that painted linux as the miracle system coming from
Finland, I predict it soon will substitute IBM and Microsoft in the famous
sentence: "no one has been fired because he bought BRAND X for his IT
department".
[4]
--
Davide Inglima - limaCAT
"Mana is rapidly disappearing from the World, even the"
"Mana Tree has begun to wither" - Seiken Densetsu 3
http://digilander.iol.it/nekochan/