Lignux?
Jesse D Zbikowski
In case you haven't upgraded to Emacs 19.31 yet, there is an
interesting file in the etc directory called LINUX-GNU, written by RMS
himself. It contains a good summary of the "Linux system"
vs. "Linux-based GNU system" nomenclature issue. I understand that
Linus supports the name "GNU/Linux", and I have been following that
terminology. I am not sure what to think of the term "Lignux" which
RMS proposes in this article, though. The NEWS file reports that they
have actually changed to value of the `system-type' variable to
`lignux' as opposed to `linux' when compiled on a GNU/Linux system.
Has Linus made any comment about this name? He doesn't seem like the
type who would get his feathers ruffled over it, but I would be
curious to hear how he feels about that `g' in the middle of his
name.
Just how are you supposed to say `Lignux', anyway? "Lih-gnux" sounds
a breakfast cereal or something. Maybe it just has to grow on you.
--
Jesse Zbikowski Ascom Nexion
j...@nexen.com System Software
Group
[EOF]
James Lloyd Hill
Jesse D Zbikowski <j...@nexen.com> writes of the "Lignux" issue:
>Just how are you supposed to say `Lignux', anyway? "Lih-gnux" sounds
>a breakfast cereal or something. Maybe it just has to grow on you.
Like a basal skin cell carcinoma it grows.
I can understand the irritation on the part of all the FSF diehards who see
Linux spreading like wildfire, since a superficial glance at Linux docs
can give one the impression that the only connection Linux has to GNU is
that the Linux source is GPL'd. I sometimes wonder exactly how many people
running Linux have stopped to consider what a mammoth proportion of any
Linux system is GNU software.
But...and it's a biggie...
The increasingly shrill calls for Linux users to acknowledge this debt,
nay, to shout it from the highest rooftops are more than a little silly.
Bastardizing the name "Linux" just because it the "nu" can be converted
to "gnu" to prove a point is ridiculous. It's also the kind of juvenile
pun that has made Piers Anthony rich, but that's not the point.
Leading the pack of complainers is RMS himself, stamping his foot and
demanding that GNU get all the credit it's due. The cost (heh) of free
software is that the authors don't get a whole lot of say about what's
done with it. As long as the standard GNU disclaimers are included with
the software, that's pretty much it.
If recognition is that important...put it under restrictive copyright and
charge people for it.
Jim
--
j-h...@coewl.cen.uiuc.edu http://www.cen.uiuc.edu/~j-hill5/
"Iced tea keeps me in a summertime frame of mind." -- Meldrick Lewis
Steve Dunham
Jesse D Zbikowski <j...@nexen.com> writes:
> In case you haven't upgraded to Emacs 19.31 yet, there is an
> interesting file in the etc directory called LINUX-GNU, written by RMS
> himself. It contains a good summary of the "Linux system"
> vs. "Linux-based GNU system" nomenclature issue. I understand that
> Linus supports the name "GNU/Linux", and I have been following that
> terminology. I am not sure what to think of the term "Lignux" which
> RMS proposes in this article, though. The NEWS file reports that they
> have actually changed to value of the `system-type' variable to
> `lignux' as opposed to `linux' when compiled on a GNU/Linux system.
Just mail a typo bug-report to the emacs people...(And no I haven't
downgraded to Emacs 19.31 - I use XEmacs)
Steve
dun...@gdl.msu.edu
Richard Crew
On 29 May 1996 13:37:06 -0400, Jesse D Zbikowski <j...@nexen.com> wrote:
: Just how are you supposed to say `Lignux', anyway? "Lih-gnux" sounds
: a breakfast cereal or something. Maybe it just has to grow on you.
Sounds like 'lug-nuts' to me. Oh well. Why doesn't the FSF just call the
configuration i?86-gnu-linux or i?86-fsf-linux?
--Rich
cr...@math.ufl.edu
--
One shudders at the notion that the Internet could become the least
common denominator -- where "decent" is defined by the Americans,
and "politically correct" by the Chinese.
--Jacques Gaillot, Bishop of Partenia
Marcus Daniels
>>>>> "JLH" == James Lloyd Hill <j-h...@meibm24.cen.uiuc.edu> writes:
In article <4oi4hb$4...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> j-h...@meibm24.cen.uiuc.edu (James Lloyd Hill) writes:
JLH> If recognition is that important...put it under restrictive
JLH> copyright and charge people for it.
GNU developers target GNU/Linux systems. Useful Linux-based systems
rely on GNU software, so `lignux' is a direct way to make sure
people who use GNU software see it, and are more likely to hear the
message. For GNU developers who choose to make this change, the GPL
already ensures that it won't be undone without notice:
RMS isn't asking that the Linux kernel be renamed Lignux.
If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we
want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so
that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original
authors' reputations.
Bruce Perens of the Debian project has already advocated to Debian
packagers deletion of the term Lignux. I hope such changes will
be clearly documented, if they are made at all.
What a person calls something in the package(s) they maintain is not
controlled by conventional wisdom of the `Linux community'.
Marcus Daniels
>>>>> "RC" == Richard Crew <ri...@archytas.duckpond> writes:
In article <4oi9lq$4...@nostromo.clas.ufl.edu> ri...@archytas.duckpond (Richard Crew) writes:
RC> Why doesn't the FSF just call the configuration i?86-gnu-linux or
RC> i?86-fsf-linux?
Will the various GNU/Linux vendors agree to remove their name from the
vendor spot, and all use "gnu"?
Michael Bain
>>>>> "Jesse" == Jesse D Zbikowski <j...@nexen.com> writes:
In article <7ln32rv...@hendrix.nexen.com> Jesse D Zbikowski <j...@nexen.com> writes:
Jesse> Just how are you supposed to say `Lignux', anyway? "Lih-gnux" sounds
Jesse> a breakfast cereal or something. Maybe it just has to grow on you.
The g is silent, of course!
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bain WebMaster
Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Cabin Systems
wk: meb...@webevt01.ca.boeing.com hm: mb...@wolfenet.com
Richard Crew
On 29 May 1996 13:26:15 -0700, Marcus Daniels <mar...@sysc.pdx.edu> wrote:
Probably not, but it's even less likely that they will write a _complete_
set of utilities to replace everything that came from the FSF. If a vendor
did, it would be logical to put their own name in the config info.
Patrick J. LoPresti
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "j-hill5" == James Lloyd Hill <j-h...@meibm24.cen.uiuc.edu> writes:
j-hill5> Leading the pack of complainers is RMS himself, stamping his
j-hill5> foot and demanding that GNU get all the credit it's due.
Wrong. Stallman did not raise this issue to see that "GNU get all the
credit it's due". In fact, credit has absolutely nothing to do with
it.
Why don't you find out what Stallman *said*, instead of assuming you
know his motives? Read `etc/LINUX-GNU' in the Emacs 19.31 sources,
and then maybe we can have an INFORMED discussion.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQCVAwUBMazW63r7ES8bepftAQF40QP/XI6dm4uUscBG0O8UT3uGmvoh5Xsm5TS7
x3OCGeEQ+a9AlqUEbdg3mzfcB9Q9MFUh2qMfKhvy1kCuRkErAnk37pNAMUmIPP4Z
Z1AmMlM934m5WBYBiO/TfL7ZrTGxqDD/0xo57P9xRzF0CfkC0L8NJoN48rTZJs9J
yg4NF6/gWQ4=
=1hXq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Marcus G. Daniels
>>>>> "RC" == Richard Crew <ri...@archytas.duckpond> writes:
me> Will the various GNU/Linux vendors agree to remove their name from the
me> vendor spot, and all use "gnu"?
RC> Probably not, but it's even less likely that they will write a
RC> _complete_ set of utilities to replace everything that came from
RC> the FSF. If a vendor did, it would be logical to put their own
RC> name in the config info.
Yes, the vendor spot should be reserved for the possibility of
`arch-vendor-linux' as well as the existing `arch-nonfsf-lignux' systems.
Russ Allbery
In gnu.misc.discuss, Marcus Daniels <mar...@sysc.pdx.edu> writes:
> GNU developers target GNU/Linux systems. Useful Linux-based systems
> rely on GNU software, so `lignux' is a direct way to make sure people
> who use GNU software see it, and are more likely to hear the message.
Surely I can't be the only one who considers this attitude to be
incredibly childish.
The computing world owes a huge dept to GNU software. I use GNU software.
I actively seek out GNU software. I write GPLed software. But asking
everyone to rename their software packages to acknowledge that they are
based on GNU, or playing games with configuration scripts to call systems
by manufactured names to prove a point is really rather ridiculous.
Somehow I thought the entire point of the GPL and the GNU Manifesto was
that we were supposed to be able to take each other's software and build
on it. Well, people have taken GNU's software and built a Unix out of
it. As a supporter of the FSF and the GNU project, I think that's a very
good thing.
Can we please keep our focus on the big picture and not start these
meaningless quibbles over names?
--
Russ Allbery (r...@cs.stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Russ Allbery
In gnu.misc.discuss, Patrick J LoPresti <pa...@lcs.mit.edu> writes:
> Why don't you find out what Stallman *said*, instead of assuming you
> know his motives? Read `etc/LINUX-GNU' in the Emacs 19.31 sources,
> and then maybe we can have an INFORMED discussion.
Okay, let's do that. What's your opinion on the following paragraph:
| But people who think of themselves as "Linux users" are more likely to
| release a forked "Linux-only" version of the GNU program, and consider
| the job done. We want each and every GNU program to work "out of the
| box" on Linux-based systems; but if the users do not help, that goal
| becomes much harder to achieve.
which appears to refer to the fact there are Linux-specific versions of
several integral parts of the GNU project, including GNU libc? It's my
understanding, from messages I've heard elsewhere, that the maintainer of
those modified packages has attempted to get his changes incorporated into
the main GNU packages without success.
Have I heard correctly?
Brian Wheeler
In article <rfi91eb...@sayre.sysc.pdx.edu>,
mar...@sysc.pdx.edu (Marcus Daniels) writes:
>>>>>> "JLH" == James Lloyd Hill <j-h...@meibm24.cen.uiuc.edu> writes:
>In article <4oi4hb$4...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> j-h...@meibm24.cen.uiuc.edu (James Lloyd Hill) writes:
>
>JLH> If recognition is that important...put it under restrictive
>JLH> copyright and charge people for it.
>
>rely on GNU software, so `lignux' is a direct way to make sure
>people who use GNU software see it,
GNU Emacs 19.30 (....)
Copyright (C) 1994 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
was for. 90% of the people who use emacs don't compile it, so the audience is
pretty small.
and are more likely to hear the
>message.
Hear what message? That GNU people can't spell? How many typo bug
reports for emacs have been filed? I know its not a typo, but everyone
doesn't.
> For GNU developers who choose to make this change, the GPL
>already ensures that it won't be undone without notice:
And it makes for a prime place for the people who take it out to leave
snide comments toward FSF. Why provoke people?
>RMS isn't asking that the Linux kernel be renamed Lignux.
>
> If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we
> want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so
> that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original
> authors' reputations.
>
>Bruce Perens of the Debian project has already advocated to Debian
>packagers deletion of the term Lignux. I hope such changes will
>be clearly documented, if they are made at all.
>
>What a person calls something in the package(s) they maintain is not
>controlled by conventional wisdom of the `Linux community'.
>
No, its not, but if the maintainers what to keep on friendly terms with
the users of their target audience, you don't butcher the name of the OS of
the target audience.
Its very similar if I had a configuration script that printed
"Slowlaris" instead of Solaris. The users wouldn't be happy, and probably
would not use the product.
Brian Wheeler
Just my point of view.
Brian Wheeler
In article <rfi7mtv...@sayre.sysc.pdx.edu>,
mar...@sysc.pdx.edu (Marcus Daniels) writes:
>>>>>> "RC" == Richard Crew <ri...@archytas.duckpond> writes:
>
>RC> Why doesn't the FSF just call the configuration i?86-gnu-linux or
>RC> i?86-fsf-linux?
>
Sounds more plausable than changing the OS name in the config to
lignux.
Brian Wheeler
Steve Dunham
pa...@lcs.mit.edu (Patrick J. LoPresti) writes:
> >>>>> "j-hill5" == James Lloyd Hill <j-h...@meibm24.cen.uiuc.edu> writes:
>
> j-hill5> Leading the pack of complainers is RMS himself, stamping his
> j-hill5> foot and demanding that GNU get all the credit it's due.
> Wrong. Stallman did not raise this issue to see that "GNU get all the
> credit it's due". In fact, credit has absolutely nothing to do with
> it.
> Why don't you find out what Stallman *said*, instead of assuming you
> know his motives? Read `etc/LINUX-GNU' in the Emacs 19.31 sources,
> and then maybe we can have an INFORMED discussion.
post it and we'll read it. I'm not downloading Emacs 19.31 - it's big
and I don't want it. XEmacs suits me better.
Steve
dun...@gdl.msu.edu
Thomas Koenig
In gnu.misc.discuss, pa...@lcs.mit.edu (Patrick J. LoPresti) wrote:
>Why don't you find out what Stallman *said*, instead of assuming you
>know his motives? Read `etc/LINUX-GNU' in the Emacs 19.31 sources,
>and then maybe we can have an INFORMED discussion.
Sorry, but I found "X Windows" in that particular text file, and I sort
of skipped the rest.
BTW, lots of Linux code is BSD-derived.
Thomas Koenig
In gnu.misc.discuss, meb...@webevt01.ca.boeing.com (Michael Bain) wrote:
>Jesse> Just how are you supposed to say `Lignux', anyway? "Lih-gnux" sounds
>Jesse> a breakfast cereal or something. Maybe it just has to grow on you.
>The g is silent, of course!
Not by German pronounciation rules.
brian wheeler
In article <s5gohn7...@eiffel.lcs.mit.edu>, pa...@lcs.mit.edu says...
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>>>>>> "j-hill5" == James Lloyd Hill <j-h...@meibm24.cen.uiuc.edu> writes:
>
> j-hill5> Leading the pack of complainers is RMS himself, stamping his
> j-hill5> foot and demanding that GNU get all the credit it's due.
>
>Wrong. Stallman did not raise this issue to see that "GNU get all the
>credit it's due". In fact, credit has absolutely nothing to do with
>it.
>
>know his motives? Read `etc/LINUX-GNU' in the Emacs 19.31 sources,
>and then maybe we can have an INFORMED discussion.
>
>Version: 2.6.2
>Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
>
>iQCVAwUBMazW63r7ES8bepftAQF40QP/XI6dm4uUscBG0O8UT3uGmvoh5Xsm5TS7
>x3OCGeEQ+a9AlqUEbdg3mzfcB9Q9MFUh2qMfKhvy1kCuRkErAnk37pNAMUmIPP4Z
>Z1AmMlM934m5WBYBiO/TfL7ZrTGxqDD/0xo57P9xRzF0CfkC0L8NJoN48rTZJs9J
>yg4NF6/gWQ4=
>=1hXq
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
__EXCERPT__
But ironically, the practice of calling it a "Linux system" undermines
our method of communicating the GNU idea. At first impression, a
"Linux system" sounds like something completely distinct from the "GNU
system." And that is what most users think it is.
Most introductions to the "Linux system" acknowledge the role played
by the GNU software components. But they don't say that the system as
a whole is more or less the same GNU system that the GNU project has
been compiling for a decade. They don't say that the idea of a free
Unix-like system originates from the GNU project. So most users don't
know these things.
__END_EXERPT__
This sounds very much like "The importance of the GNU tools to Linux
isn't stressed as much as it should be".
Maybe I missed the point. But if I did, why is Linux the only one
targetted for configuration rename? Why not solaris? DEC Unix? (oh wait,
DEC already renamed their system :) I know there are literally thousands of
Solaris-based GNU systems. From the viewpoint of a casual observer, it looks
like the FSF has realized that Linux is doing very well and they want part of
the recognition. Maybe that's not the case. I hope it isn't. I really do
hope its just a configuration simplification. It doesn't look that way,
though. If it was, would a document be required that discusses software
freedom be necessary? I don't think so.
Brian Wheeler
Igor Abramov
Jesse D Zbikowski wrote:
>
> In case you haven't upgraded to Emacs 19.31 yet, there is an
> interesting file in the etc directory called LINUX-GNU, written by RMS
> himself.
I think that name "lignus" is tasteless.
If FSF will insist on this name, it can cause much disagreement
in free software world.
May be discussing how to make GNU software better will be better than
doing such counterproductive name changes ?
I feel that we have much more important problems now, for example
how to improve performance of gcc output code ? It goes more and more
behind commercial compilers, at least on Penium/PentiumPro and
DEC Alpha platforms.
Igor
Richard Kettlewell
>>Why don't you find out what Stallman *said*, instead of assuming you
>>know his motives? Read `etc/LINUX-GNU' in the Emacs 19.31 sources,
>>and then maybe we can have an INFORMED discussion.
>
>post it and we'll read it. I'm not downloading Emacs 19.31 - it's big
>and I don't want it. XEmacs suits me better.
You can get it from ftp://sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk/gnu/etc/LINUX-GNU, and
doubtless loads of other places, without downloading the rest of
Emacs.
It seems, on first reading, to contain an astonishing piece of double
standards. It defines (in Para 2) a `GNU system' as the combination
of GNU Software (gcc, bash, ...) and other pieces of free software: X,
TeX and Berkeley network utilities for instance.
But: if you take GNU software, X, TeX, the relevant bits of BSD and
all the other software usually found in UNIXish systems, and then
combine it all, apparently you have to call it a `GNU/Linux system'.
I find this inconsistent. Sure, GNU software is vital to a GNU/Linux
system; but so are bits of BSD, so is X, so is TeX. And, more to the
point, those are also vital to a GNU system. It's easy to ask why a
GNU system isn't more correctly called a GNU/X/BSD/etc system.
I suggest that the LINUX-GNU document be modified to justify this
apparent inconsistency, as otherwise people will come away from
reading it thinking `what a hypocrite'.
All things being equal I'd be fairly happy to call Linux distributions
`GNU/Linux, though I more usually refer to them just by name (so
`Debian' or `Red Hat' rather than any longer title) - life is just too
short.
However, I feel that RMS has gone about presenting his opinions in the
most disastrous way possible. There's the infamous linux-kernel
posting; I could have told you what effect that would have, and so
could lots of other people. RMS apparently didn't realize this, and
the result was an enormous flamewar which quite possibly killed any
chance of the name `GNU/Linux' - or any variant such as Lignux - ever
becoming widely accepted.
The change of `linux' to `lignux' in the Emacs source tree is barely
worth mentioning, other than to say that it seems to me to be petty in
the extreme.
- Richard (speaking on his own behalf only)
--
http://www.elmail.co.uk/staff/richard/
GCS d- s+:- a-- C++ ULVS+++$ P+++ L++ E++ W(++,--) N(++,+) o? K w---
O? M- V? PS(+,+++) PE Y+ PGP+ t- 5++ X+@ R tv--- b++>++++ DI+ D+ G e++
h r% y++
Marcus G. Daniels
>>>>> "SD" == Steve Dunham <dun...@notung.msu.edu> writes:
In article <m2ras2d...@notung.msu.edu> Steve Dunham <dun...@notung.msu.edu> writes:
SD> post it and we'll read it. I'm not downloading Emacs 19.31 - it's
SD> big and I don't want it. XEmacs suits me better.
prep.ai.mit.edu:/pub/gnu/GNUinfo/LINUX-GNU
Michael Talbot-Wilson
Jesse D Zbikowski <j...@nexen.com> writes:
>Just how are you supposed to say `Lignux', anyway? "Lih-gnux" sounds
>a breakfast cereal or something. Maybe it just has to grow on you.
Presumably "Lign" as in "Sign" and "ux" as in "sucks". Might not make
a lot of difference. :-)
Patrick J. LoPresti
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "dunham" == Steve Dunham <dun...@notung.msu.edu> writes:
>> Why don't you find out what Stallman *said*, instead of assuming
>> you know his motives? Read `etc/LINUX-GNU' in the Emacs 19.31
>> sources, and then maybe we can have an INFORMED discussion.
dunham> post it and we'll read it. I'm not downloading Emacs 19.31 -
dunham> it's big and I don't want it. XEmacs suits me better.
In other words, one of the most vocal Stallman-bashers (i.e., you)
hasn't even bothered to read his explanation?
Is that reasonable... or intelligent... at all?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQCVAwUBMa22m3r7ES8bepftAQFhOQP/aHyv4PbsWXQOiiQbdENlgiUXJIzFDjwZ
h8XWhwYjqorewghK1OPE+0JH9hKYB62ZuVeX/nGLN3rS9QmY2z5DA3iCzMV8ttJJ
MKWm8H+fUBdFzKUfdAykgkfO4wLiK3TKu++aK9H09eu2H2ljAbnAGg1c+s34U4vN
HoBPtFqdrZY=
=UQHs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Patrick J. LoPresti
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "bdwheele" == brian wheeler <bdwh...@indiana.edu> writes:
bdwheele> Well, then maybe *I* misunderstand
Obviously. You also conveniently ended your "__EXCERPT__" just before
the two crucial paragraphs:
======================================================================
This leads many of those users to identify themselves as a separate
community of "Linux users", distinct from the GNU user community.
They use all of the GNU software; in fact, they use almost all of the
GNU system; but they don't think of themselves as GNU users, and they
may not think about the GNU idea.
It leads to other problems as well--even hampering cooperation on
software maintenance. Normally when users change a GNU program to
make it work better on a particular system, they send the change to
the maintainer of that program; then they work with the maintainer,
explaining the change, arguing for it and sometimes rewriting it, to
get it installed.
======================================================================
Notice that "who gets credit for what" is not the issue. The issue
(according to Stallman) is that people who use GNU software on the
Linux kernel do not generally think of themselves as "GNU users".
This is in contrast to people who use GNU software on every other
system.
This leads to two "problems" (according to Stallman). First, Linux
users may not appreciate the free software concept. (Remember that
"free software", to Stallman, does not refer to price.) Second, Linux
users (unlike users of other operating systems) tend to patch GNU
tools and release a Linux-specific version, instead of working with
the GNU maintainer to see that the fixes or enhancements get applied
for everyone using the tool.
We can argue about whether this is true, whether a name change will
help fix it, whether the name change looks goofy, and so on. But we
should not accuse Stallman of a motive so petty as credit-mongering.
Cheers!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQCVAwUBMa26EHr7ES8bepftAQFmPQP9FoTiz1k+vnngY7y8LvXCclIt+gTdL7Ll
drhGR9Con47zmaxtU/zliydJkyhKpuonpyCmQWivWd5TgODrZcDo2VIw3CK32ti9
KvKJyNU299zee2kjhMglte1hyJo7G5Rxig6hRzvNW/woojLdEI7/jJdiVo2GPnGU
EmhgwqiWswM=
=mohc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Steve Dunham
ig...@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Thomas Koenig) writes:
Also, not by GNU pronounciation rules, which state that the G in GNU
is not silent.
Steve
dun...@gdl.msu.edu
Steve Dunham
ro...@fms.indiana.edu (Brian Wheeler) writes:
>
> In article <rfi91eb...@sayre.sysc.pdx.edu>,
> mar...@sysc.pdx.edu (Marcus Daniels) writes:
> >>>>>> "JLH" == James Lloyd Hill <j-h...@meibm24.cen.uiuc.edu> writes:
> >In article <4oi4hb$4...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> j-h...@meibm24.cen.uiuc.edu (James Lloyd Hill) writes:
> >
> >JLH> If recognition is that important...put it under restrictive
> >JLH> copyright and charge people for it.
> >GNU developers target GNU/Linux systems. Useful Linux-based systems
> >rely on GNU software, so `lignux' is a direct way to make sure
> >people who use GNU software see it,
> Oh, I thought that's what the message
> GNU Emacs 19.30 (....)
> Copyright (C) 1994 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> was for. 90% of the people who use emacs don't compile it, so the
> audience is pretty small.
Actually, end users will see the 'lignux' - it fact the configure
script will install parts of Emacs in a directory with that name.
> and are more likely to hear the
> >message.
> Hear what message? That GNU people can't spell? How many typo bug
> reports for emacs have been filed? I know its not a typo, but everyone
> doesn't.
Many developers (debian) intentionally file typo bug reports.
> No, its not, but if the maintainers what to keep on friendly terms with
> the users of their target audience, you don't butcher the name of the OS of
> the target audience.
> Its very similar if I had a configuration script that printed
> "Slowlaris" instead of Solaris. The users wouldn't be happy, and probably
> would not use the product.
Sun would probably be ticked too. This is the exact same thing
though.
Steve
dun...@gdl.msu.edu
Patrick J. LoPresti
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "rra" == Russ Allbery <r...@cs.stanford.edu> writes:
rra> In gnu.misc.discuss, Patrick J LoPresti <pa...@lcs.mit.edu>
rra> writes:
> Why don't you find out what Stallman *said*, instead of assuming
>> you know his motives? Read `etc/LINUX-GNU' in the Emacs 19.31
>> sources, and then maybe we can have an INFORMED discussion.
Note that the entire purpose of my post was to respond to the ignorant
allegations of "credit-mongering" by Stallman. My point is that we
can question his conclusions or his methods, but that his motives are
noble. I assume you agree with this point?
rra> Okay, let's do that. What's your opinion on the following
rra> paragraph:
[snip]
rra> which appears to refer to the fact there are Linux-specific
rra> versions of several integral parts of the GNU project, including
rra> GNU libc? It's my understanding, from messages I've heard
rra> elsewhere, that the maintainer of those modified packages has
rra> attempted to get his changes incorporated into the main GNU
rra> packages without success.
I think Stallman is right that Linux users are too quick to patch
together something that works (for them) and upload it to sunsite. I
also think that the GNU folks should give higher priority than they do
to bug fixes from Linux users, since Linux users have no
vendor-supplied tools to fall back on.
The C library is a special case. For a long time, the FSF was barely
maintaining it at all, so H.J. Lu stepped in and did a fantastic job
of providing Linux users with a working version of this critical
system component. Now, however, the FSF *is* taking GNU libc
development seriously, and is making a sincere effort to meet the
needs of Linux users and to unify the development groups. I am hoping
this unification effort succeeds.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQCVAwUBMa3CSXr7ES8bepftAQEmnAQAshw9mEVbgGhUups20qF+8Xtxjdm24rHW
FFXoqn99H3S68el0ZC2Iw/jc41dUNk7LT+JGtHZge1XJI+5MdK2eJTZ3X1WUaEDP
Y2qpxzR/thCXCqwfc3erh/74vvfEgnp/Ewo0We6Sl0xydHc+X5Y8xwNxeJS2LLt0
ZtRJJEIgbWA=
=1lRz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Kevin Dalley
In the Debian project, the GNU packages which I have taken over
contain phrases like:
#ifndef __linux
#endif
The goal should be to get rid of those Linux dependencies and allow
any GNU product to build off the shelf for Linux and for other
platforms. Sometimes the Linux maintainers and distributors report
compilation bugs to the correct GNU mailing list, but not always.
Of course, this requires that the FSF incorporate relevant fixes into
the next GNU release. It also requires regular releases. Some GNU
projects do not have frequent release schedules.
I would like to have the Debian and Linux community work closely with
the FSF to improve the jointly used code.
Kevin Dalley
ke...@aimnet.com
>>>>> "Russ" == Russ Allbery <r...@cs.stanford.edu> writes:
> Okay, let's do that. What's your opinion on the following paragraph:
> | But people who think of themselves as "Linux users" are more likely to
> | release a forked "Linux-only" version of the GNU program, and consider
> | the job done. We want each and every GNU program to work "out of the
> | box" on Linux-based systems; but if the users do not help, that goal
> | becomes much harder to achieve.
> which appears to refer to the fact there are Linux-specific versions of
> several integral parts of the GNU project, including GNU libc? It's my
> understanding, from messages I've heard elsewhere, that the maintainer of
> those modified packages has attempted to get his changes incorporated into
> the main GNU packages without success.
--
kevin
ke...@aimnet.com
Richard Brown
Very few things piss me off (professionally) than changing names for
political reasons. (Professional politicism in general really pisses
me off.) The way I see it is call it what it is, or if that is cumbersome,
call it what it is called. For example, in the USA trucks are called
"trucks" rather than "freight transportation vehicles." Automobiles are
called "cars," not for political reasons, but (now) as a matter of custom.
As far as Linux is concerned, if a computer runs Linux binaries natively,
it is a Linux box. If the system that controls such a computer is
Linux, then it is a Linux system.
Richard
--
If scientific reasoning were limited to the logical processes of
arithmetic, we should not get very far in our understanding of the
physical world. One might as well attempt to grasp the game of poker
entirely by the use of the mathematics of probability.
-- Vannevar Bush
Brian Wheeler
In article <s5gwx1u...@catfish.lcs.mit.edu>,
>
>>>>>> "bdwheele" == brian wheeler <bdwh...@indiana.edu> writes:
>
> bdwheele> Well, then maybe *I* misunderstand
>
>Obviously. You also conveniently ended your "__EXCERPT__" just before
>the two crucial paragraphs:
looking at it a second time, I took them out. Why? Because the first
paragraph is talking about "users not thinking of themselves as GNU users"
and because the 2nd paragraph talks about maintenance problems. Neither of
these talks about the original topic to which I was responding, which was the
way the article looks like its credit mongering. Possible the first one
should have stayed.
>======================================================================
>This leads many of those users to identify themselves as a separate
>community of "Linux users", distinct from the GNU user community.
>They use all of the GNU software; in fact, they use almost all of the
>GNU system; but they don't think of themselves as GNU users, and they
>may not think about the GNU idea.
>
>It leads to other problems as well--even hampering cooperation on
>software maintenance. Normally when users change a GNU program to
>make it work better on a particular system, they send the change to
>the maintainer of that program; then they work with the maintainer,
>explaining the change, arguing for it and sometimes rewriting it, to
>get it installed.
>======================================================================
>
>Notice that "who gets credit for what" is not the issue.
paragraphs I quoted? I didn't take them out of context. The first paragraph
you quoted would also go very well with my point.
> The issue
>(according to Stallman) is that people who use GNU software on the
>Linux kernel do not generally think of themselves as "GNU users".
>This is in contrast to people who use GNU software on every other
>system.
Really? When I first started using unix here at IU, I had no idea
about where emacs or gcc came from. I was an Ultrix user, and that's all I
knew. Only after using linux, did I appriciate where the utilities came from.
I think in reality the view of "Linux users think only Linux" is completly
backwards. People using DECs and Suns and others (not the sys admins, but the
*users*) don't have any idea that the software they're using isn't produced by
the OEM.
Its *still* a credit issue. Having people think of themselves as
GNU users, makes them think of who made the product.
>
>This leads to two "problems" (according to Stallman). First, Linux
>users may not appreciate the free software concept. (Remember that
>"free software", to Stallman, does not refer to price.) Second, Linux
>users (unlike users of other operating systems) tend to patch GNU
>tools and release a Linux-specific version, instead of working with
>the GNU maintainer to see that the fixes or enhancements get applied
>for everyone using the tool.
I'm still confused why you don't think that "users may not appreciate
the free software concept" isn't a credit issue. It seems like from Stallman's
article and some of the responses I've gotten, every time I fire up my Linux
system I'm supposed to think of how great the free software concept is, and
how great GNU is for spearheading it, and I'm also supposed to put aside the
work of all of the people who created the distribution, the X server, the
kernel, perl, my window manager, and my news reader. That is why I
think that it is a credit issue.
I won't disagree that there is a "problem" with maintenance. That's
just one of the prices that you pay for using freely distributable software.
I can't believe that there are no other users of any other operating systems
that don't patch first and contact gnu later. I've seen some hacked up
versions of some GNU utils that ran under NT. They were obviously
non-standard.
>We can argue about whether this is true, whether a name change will
>help fix it, whether the name change looks goofy, and so on. But we
>should not accuse Stallman of a motive so petty as credit-mongering.
Then why is everyone assuming that he's credit mongering? I picked
out a few paragraphs out of his article that stood out the most to me. I
wasn't the only one.
If this is only a technical matter (software maintenace), why does the
article look like a soap box speech? And why aren't other OS's getting the
name change? Why is the concept of "user's don't see themselves as GNU users"
so stressed?
These are the same basic questions I've been asking for several posts
now. I've not heard any reasonable answers to them. Credit mongering or not,
I really don't care. I would like to know why only linux was targetted for the
name change, and why such a hideous name was chosen (other than it has the
word "GNU" in it). It seems like other systems would be more of a target, as
it would be harder to tell which compiler, etc., they're using...linux is
pretty easy as the most common compiler is gcc. And what is the middle field
in configure for anyway? Isn't it for vendor? Everything I've seen has
'unknown' in that field.
Brian
PS. netscape-v2.0.i486-unknown-lignux.tar.gz = yuk! just a thought.
Richard Brown
Few things disturb me (professionally) more than changing names for
political reasons. (Professional politicism in general really bothers
me.) The way I see it is call it what it is, or if that is cumbersome,
Evan Leibovitch
In article <qum3f4i...@cyclone.stanford.edu>,
Russ Allbery <r...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> GNU developers target GNU/Linux systems. Useful Linux-based systems
>> rely on GNU software, so `lignux' is a direct way to make sure people
>> who use GNU software see it, and are more likely to hear the message.
>Surely I can't be the only one who considers this attitude to be
>incredibly childish.
No you're not.
>The computing world owes a huge dept to GNU software. I use GNU software.
>I actively seek out GNU software. I write GPLed software. But asking
>everyone to rename their software packages to acknowledge that they are
>based on GNU, or playing games with configuration scripts to call systems
>by manufactured names to prove a point is really rather ridiculous.
Indeed. What seems really strange is the timing of the complaint.
Had the FSF pressed for some better recognition in the very early days
it might have been easier to acommodate. Coming so long after the fact,
now that Linux is gaining momentum and popularity, seems both childish
and futile.
What is most telling, IMO, is the above reference about making sure
users are "likely to hear the message". IMO there is a growing rift
in philosophy between the FSF and non-FSF folks who write freeware.
RMS clearly wants to make a political statement with GNU and the
copyleft etc.; hell, they even have a manifesto. But the current crop
of freeware authors and users don't care about any political messages,
they want quality software at low price based on community involvement.
For some it is enough to use, write, and support freeware. To others
there is also a message to be heard, and there is Evil afoot if the
message is not adequately conveyed. I think some of current friction
between the FSF and the Linux community (it wasn't that long ago that
the FSF severed its ties with Debian) is due to that, coupled with
latent frustration that the Linux project has eclipsed Hurd.
>Somehow I thought the entire point of the GPL and the GNU Manifesto was
>that we were supposed to be able to take each other's software and build
>on it.
Of course, the result of this is that the author can lose control over
what's done with/to his work, which is totally possible while keeping to
the spirit of the GPL.
Perhaps it's the FSF's unanticipated loss of control (over both the
code *and* the political agenda), rather than recognition, that is
at the real heart of its complaints.
>Well, people have taken GNU's software and built a Unix out of
>it. As a supporter of the FSF and the GNU project, I think that's a very
>good thing.
Absolutely agreed.
--
Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
Caldera Business Partner / SCO Authorized VAR / ev...@telly.org / (905) 452-0504
Economists have successfully predicted 14 of the last 2 recessions
Mark Stone
If you want to read the full text of RMS's commentary, The Linux Bibliography
has it available on the web at http://www.kudonet.com/~markst/linux.
It can also be ftp'd from the MIT AI ftp site; that's prep.ai.mit.edu, the
file is in the directory pub/gnu/GNUinfo, and the filename is LINUX-GNU.
Mark Stone
LOREmaster
http://www.kudonet.com/~markst
Steve Dunham
pa...@lcs.mit.edu (Patrick J. LoPresti) writes:
In response to another post of yours, I have now read Stallman's file
(because it was made available seperately). I did want to see it, but
I got nothing new from it - the reasons presented therein were exactly
what I expected to be there. The has been a little bit of friction
with the FSF for a while, and most of the points are listed in that
paper. I attach it below, which my commentary:
: Linux and the GNU system
: The GNU project started 12 years ago with the goal of developing a
: complete free Unix-like operating system. "Free" refers to freedom,
: not price; it means you are free to run, copy, distribute, study,
: change, and improve the software.
: A Unix-like system consists of many different programs. We found some
: components already available as free software--for example, X Windows
: and TeX. We obtained other components by helping to convince their
: developers to make them free--for example, the Berkeley network
: utilities. Other components we wrote specifically for GNU--for
: example, GNU Emacs, the GNU C compiler, the GNU C library, Bash, and
: Ghostscript. The components in this last category are "GNU software".
: The GNU system consists of all three categories together.
Here he is claiming that the berkeley networking utilities constitute
a part of the GNU system (I'll grant him that - conditionally), but
further implies, through this action in whole, that the use of these
Berkeley utilities by Linux in part makes it a GNU System. I deny
that.
: The GNU project is not just about developing and distributing free
: software. The heart of the GNU project is an idea: that software
: should be free, and that the users' freedom is worth defending. For
: if people have freedom but do not value it, they will not keep it for
: long. In order to make freedom last, we have to teach people to value
: it.
I concur. I also feel that the Linux community has the freedom to give
their system any name that they choose, i.e. 'Linux'; as I stated
before, I feel that to mutilate this string insults the hard work the
has gone into Linux in addition to the parts borrowed from the GNU
project.
: The GNU project's method is that free software and the idea of users'
: freedom support each other. We develop GNU software, and as people
: encounter GNU programs or the GNU system and start to use them, they
: also think about the GNU idea. The software shows that the idea can
: work in practice. People who come to agree with the idea are likely
: to write additional free software. Thus, the software embodies the
: idea, spreads the idea, and grows from the idea.
But must all free software then be named GNU?
: This method was working well--until someone combined the Linux kernel
: with the GNU system (which still lacked a kernel), and called the
: combination a "Linux system."
This 'someone' also contributed a lot of additional work. The GNU
system lacked much more than a kernel. The Linux community finished
off this 'kernel+GNU tools' combination to make a viable OS.
: The Linux kernel is a free Unix-compatible kernel written by Linus
: Torvalds. It was not written specifically for the GNU project, but
: the Linux kernel and the GNU system work together well. In fact,
: adding Linux to the GNU system brought the system to completion: it
: made a free Unix-compatible operating system available for use.
: But ironically, the practice of calling it a "Linux system" undermines
: our method of communicating the GNU idea. At first impression, a
: "Linux system" sounds like something completely distinct from the "GNU
: system." And that is what most users think it is.
: Most introductions to the "Linux system" acknowledge the role played
: by the GNU software components. But they don't say that the system as
: a whole is more or less the same GNU system that the GNU project has
: been compiling for a decade. They don't say that the idea of a free
: Unix-like system originates from the GNU project. So most users don't
: know these things.
: This leads many of those users to identify themselves as a separate
: community of "Linux users", distinct from the GNU user community.
: They use all of the GNU software; in fact, they use almost all of the
: GNU system; but they don't think of themselves as GNU users, and they
: may not think about the GNU idea.
I feel that the Linux system is distinct. That it is not the GNU
System. The Linux system is based on a partially completed GNU
System, but it also entails a lot of separate work - and was developed
with different goals than the GNU System. I still hold that the only
true GNU System with be the one released by the FSF when the HURD is
completed. Actually, until RMS started with this GNU/Linux stuff, I
felt that it would be a gross injustice to the FSF to call Linux GNU -
it would be stealing the name from the OS that they are going to
release. It wasn't too long ago that the policy was that stuff not
directly available from the FSF wouldn't be called GNU. (Whence the
utilities are GNU, the system is not.)
: It leads to other problems as well--even hampering cooperation on
: software maintenance. Normally when users change a GNU program to
: make it work better on a particular system, they send the change to
: the maintainer of that program; then they work with the maintainer,
: explaining the change, arguing for it and sometimes rewriting it, to
: get it installed.
: But people who think of themselves as "Linux users" are more likely to
: release a forked "Linux-only" version of the GNU program, and consider
: the job done. We want each and every GNU program to work "out of the
: box" on Linux-based systems; but if the users do not help, that goal
: becomes much harder to achieve.
Here I must say, with all do respect, that RMS is wrong. I'm sure
many Linux _users_ do not think of themselves as GNU users, _but_ the
developers do think of themselves as GNU users.
Linux users released forked versions, because we need the changes now.
Particularly in the cases of libc, gcc, and binutils - if we wait for
the FSF we could be waiting as long as a year. Linux libc has advanced
very much in the last year. Linux is developing too fast for the
FSF's model. The developers do make an effort to get the patches back
to the FSF. H.J.Lu hopes to merge back in with glibc when version 6
comes out. Mr. Lu propagates the patches back to the FSF - but they
are slow to respond, probably because they are under-staffed.
(Also, above he says he wants all patches approved by the FSF, and
below he says we have the freedom to change and share this software? -
it seems that he wants freedom, but is not willing to pay the price.)
: So how should the GNU project respond? What should we do now to
: spread the idea that freedom for computer users is important?
The GNU project should encourage the name GNU/Linux, not Lignux. If
it wishes, the GNU project can create an icon to represent the GNU
project, and ask that it be placed on CD's and web sites. In fact,
the GNU project NEEDS a logo, if it wants it's ideas to spread. The
Linux community will use the logo, probably put it on bumper stickers
and T-shirts. Then the GNU idea will spread.
: We should continue to talk about the freedom to share and change
: software--and to teach other users to value these freedoms. If we
: enjoy having a free operating system, it makes sense for us to think
: about preserving those freedoms for the long term. If we enjoy having
: a variety of free software, it makes sense for to think about
: encouraging others to write additional free software, instead of
: additional proprietary software.
: We should not accept the splitting of the community in two. Instead
: we should spread the word that "Linux systems" are variant GNU
: systems--that users of these systems are GNU users, and that they
: ought to consider the GNU philosophy which brought these systems into
: existence.
: This article is one way of doing that. Another way is to use the
: terms "Linux-based GNU system" (or "GNU/Linux system" or "Lignux" for
: short) to refer to the combination of the Linux kernel and the GNU
: system.
I feel that "Linux-based GNU system" is inaccurate for reasons stated
above (namely, calling it a GNU system does the HURD disservice),
"GNU/Linux" is fine by me.
But the term "lignux" is demonstrably divisive and works against
Mr. Stallman's stated goal of NOT splitting the community in two, and
I appeal to Mr. Stallman to not use this term - it will alienate much
of the Linux community, and create ill feelings towards the FSF.
: Copyright 1996 Richard Stallman
: Verbatim copying and redistribution is permitted
: without royalty as long as this notice is preserved.
Steve
dun...@gdl.msu.edu
PS. Sorry about the header on my previous posts - the new version of
GNUS changed some of it's configuration variables...
Louis-Dominique Dubeau
Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
> This leads to two "problems" (according to Stallman). First, Linux
> users may not appreciate the free software concept. (Remember that
> "free software", to Stallman, does not refer to price.) Second, Linux
> users (unlike users of other operating systems) tend to patch GNU
> tools and release a Linux-specific version, instead of working with
> the GNU maintainer to see that the fixes or enhancements get applied
> for everyone using the tool.
You seem to think that every good idea developped outside the FSF will
be nicely and seamlessly integrated into their releases. It is not so.
If you happen to have an idea that does not fit their vision, you are
better to forget it. This is why there are parallel distributions of
GNU stuff and why you see things like XEmacs (which I prefer over FSF
Emacs btw). I can't and won't blame the developpers that have worked on
new features for GNU programs to release their own packages.
Regards,
ldd
-- Louis-Dominique Dubeau == Home page: http://step.polymtl.ca/~ldd/ --
Steve Dunham
Louis-Dominique Dubeau <l...@step.polymtl.ca> writes:
Further, you have to sign over the copyright on your changes to the
FSF.
Steve
dun...@gdl.msu.edu
Michael I. Bushnell, p/BSG
Here he is claiming that the berkeley networking utilities constitute
a part of the GNU system (I'll grant him that - conditionally), but
further implies, through this action in whole, that the use of these
Berkeley utilities by Linux in part makes it a GNU System. I deny
that.
No, you have misunderstood. The use of nearly exactly all the pieces
of the GNU system, except the kernel, makes it a GNU system. It's not
any particular piece in specific, but the assemblage together. (Which
of your atoms makes you you?)
I concur. I also feel that the Linux community has the freedom to give
their system any name that they choose, i.e. 'Linux'; as I stated
before, I feel that to mutilate this string insults the hard work the
has gone into Linux in addition to the parts borrowed from the GNU
project.
The "Linux community" is hardly a single entity. Linus Torvalds has
supported the name GNU/Linux. Does he have no voice in the "Linux
community"? There are plenty of people in the "Linux community" who
disagree with you.
The GNU project should encourage the name GNU/Linux, not Lignux.
We do, but people objected, using exactly the same language as you
have been using in this thread. Go figure. But you could help. Call
up Slackware, Red Hat, etc., and say "I think you should say
GNU/Linux on your CD-ROM". That would help.
I feel that "Linux-based GNU system" is inaccurate for reasons stated
above (namely, calling it a GNU system does the HURD disservice),
"GNU/Linux" is fine by me.
Trust me, I don't mind.
Michael
Russ Allbery
In gnu.misc.discuss, Patrick J LoPresti <pa...@lcs.mit.edu> writes:
> Note that the entire purpose of my post was to respond to the ignorant
> allegations of "credit-mongering" by Stallman. My point is that we can
> question his conclusions or his methods, but that his motives are noble.
> I assume you agree with this point?
It's *really* marginal. Basically, I can see his concern, but I rank the
priority of it several orders of magnitude below where RMS apparently
does, and I also think that the problems caused by what he's doing are
rather significant. The last thing we need is more arguments and splits
in the free software community, and I think he's causing that.
> The C library is a special case. For a long time, the FSF was barely
> maintaining it at all, so H.J. Lu stepped in and did a fantastic job of
> providing Linux users with a working version of this critical system
> component. Now, however, the FSF *is* taking GNU libc development
> seriously, and is making a sincere effort to meet the needs of Linux
> users and to unify the development groups. I am hoping this unification
> effort succeeds.
I'm extremely happy to hear that. Perhaps that will set the groundwork
for several other long-needed unifications:
Linux binutils and FSF binutils
Linux libg++ and FSF libg++
Pentium-optimized gcc and FSF gcc
FSF fileutils and the color-ls patches
and, of course, the biggie that those of us who are actively maintaining
large emacs installations dream about:
emacs and xemacs
--
Russ Allbery (r...@cs.stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Marcus G. Daniels
>>>>> "RA" == Russ Allbery <r...@cs.stanford.edu> writes:
In article <qum3f4i...@cyclone.Stanford.EDU> Russ Allbery <r...@cs.stanford.edu> writes:
me> GNU developers target GNU/Linux systems. Useful Linux-based
me> systems rely on GNU software, so `lignux' is a direct way to make
me> sure people who use GNU software see it, and are more likely to
me> hear the message.
RA> Surely I can't be the only one who considers this attitude to be
RA> incredibly childish.
Simple question:
Why should every GNU developer respect the use of the term "Linux system"?
[I want to know the reason why I am IN ERROR if I use the term Lignux.
I don't want to hear a bunch of nonsense about the X Window system
or other projects that Linux developers had zero to do with. I don't
want to hear about who I'm going to anger -- that is a different,
perhaps important, issue but not the most crucial one. Tell me I'm
wrong and why. When we are done with that issue, then I'll be
happy to address tactical issues or your insults.]
POSIX is a presentation. Other kernels layer POSIX on top of other
kernels using various techniques. Outside of the body of work of
which the kernel consists, it is absolutely arbitrary to name the
system after the kernel or the binary format that a particular kernel
happens to support. Historically, this name-the-system-after-the-kernel
thing is the convention that has existed, but it really means nothing.
With Hurd, more kernel functionality will be in programs and shared
libraries, so this will be all the more true. According this
silly convention, we ought to be calling GNU, Mach even if Mach
is just a tiny part.
Considering that GNU developers have contributed more to the popular
`Linux' *systems* than Linux developers have, it is not the authority
of `Linux' users or developers to object to the decision of RMS or
perhaps other GNU developers using the term Lignux. As far as I'm
concerned they should say "Thanks, it's an honor" if these developers
choose to use this name for their own packages. The FSF, RMS, or any
of its advocates aren't trying to force anyone to use this name, but
it would be nice if we didn't get screamed at just for using a title
that is perfectly accurate.
This is not to deny that non-GNU Linux systems could in principle
exist. There is no intention to reject these non-Lignux-titled
systems from GNU autoconfiguration, or to cause problems for `Linux'
users and developers by rejecting traditional usage.
RA> The computing world owes a huge dept to GNU software. I use GNU
RA> software. I actively seek out GNU software. I write GPLed
RA> software. But asking everyone to rename their software packages
RA> to acknowledge that they are based on GNU, or playing games with
RA> configuration scripts to call systems by manufactured names to
RA> prove a point is really rather ridiculous.
RMS *advocated* the use of the name Lignux, he didn't write it into
the optional coding standards or make this as a direct request at all.
Yes, I very much hope to see arch-lignux accepted as an alias for
arch-gnu-linux in autoconf. This won't break anything, and `Linux'
developers who disagree with the name don't have to use it.
RA> Somehow I thought the entire point of the GPL and the GNU
RA> Manifesto was that we were supposed to be able to take each
RA> other's software and build on it. Well, people have taken GNU's
RA> software and built a Unix out of it. As a supporter of the FSF
RA> and the GNU project, I think that's a very good thing.
How does the name that Emacs uses for GNU/Linux prevent this? Most of
the people in this discussion completely miss the point about what is
the priority here is. The priority here is getting the GNU message
out. We would like to use the Linux kernel to further this goal. If
a person doesn't want to do this, they don't have to. Everyone is
welcome to use GNU software.
RA> Can we please keep our focus on the big picture and not start
RA> these meaningless quibbles over names?
Exactly. What is the big picture?
Marcus G. Daniels
RA> Linux binutils and FSF binutils
binutils is a non-problem, someone just thinks it is.
RA> Linux libg++ and FSF libg++
rectified with the GNU C library
RA> FSF fileutils and the color-ls patches
Funny.
Daniel Barlow
In article <s5gohn7...@eiffel.lcs.mit.edu>,
Patrick J. LoPresti <pa...@lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
>Why don't you find out what Stallman *said*, instead of assuming you
>know his motives? Read `etc/LINUX-GNU' in the Emacs 19.31 sources,
>and then maybe we can have an INFORMED discussion.
I have. In fact, it was pretty much the last thing I did before deleting
emacs 19.31 and ftping xemacs to replace it.
It should be obvious from the discussion here and in other groups (I
haven't read cold.apps recently, but this same thing was being talked about
in there the other day) that the change has had the opposite effect from the
intended one.
If RMS really wants to encourage co-operation and a common sense of purpose
between Linux users and the FSF, he could do worse than take a leaf out of
Ulrich Drepper's book. Witness the constructive debate on 'libc 6==GNU?'
that we've had recently on linux.dev.gcc. Contrast it with the big hoohaa
earlier this year. No contest, frankly.
Daniel
--
http://ftp.linux.org.uk/~barlow/, d...@detached.demon.co.uk, PGP key ID 5F263625
[Me] don't swear, the CDA makes it illegal
[Eliza] Don't tell me what to do. I am the psychiatrist here!
--- M-x doctor, XEmacs 19.13
Russ Allbery
In gnu.misc.discuss, Marcus G Daniels <mar...@sysc.pdx.edu> writes:
>>>>>> "RA" == Russ Allbery <r...@cs.stanford.edu> writes:
RA> Linux binutils and FSF binutils
> binutils is a non-problem, someone just thinks it is.
That's good to hear. Perhaps you can also explain why it isn't a problem?
RA> Linux libg++ and FSF libg++
> rectified with the GNU C library
Good.
RA> FSF fileutils and the color-ls patches
> Funny.
Why is this funny? They dramatically increase the visual feedback you get
from an ls, it's an additional flag so you don't need to use it if you
don't want to, and it's been around for quite a while now. I'm getting
tired of having to maintain two versions of fileutils just to have a
colorized ls on hand.
Or is it funny because this is already underway? If so, that's great
news.
(And, in case you're wondering, I use colorized ls on eight platforms, not
just Linux.)
Nelson Minar
meb...@webevt01.ca.boeing.com (Michael Bain) writes:
>>Just how are you supposed to say `Lignux', anyway?
For a silent letter, it's sure making a lot of noise.
--
__
nel...@santafe.edu \/ http://www.santafe.edu/~nelson/
PGP key 9D719FAD Fingerprint 3B 9B 8E 58 1C 90 57 3E B7 99 ED 13 65 2E 0B 24
Russ Allbery
In gnu.misc.discuss, Marcus G Daniels <mar...@sysc.pdx.edu> writes:
> Why should every GNU developer respect the use of the term "Linux
> system"?
Because it's the name of the system. You don't *have* to use the term
"Linux system," obviously. You can call it "Marcus Daniels's Operating
System." I'd call that extremely rude, but you have a right to call
things whatever you want in the programs you right.
I think you *should* respect the name of the system the developers have
given it for several reasons. First of all, it's just basic politeness.
We don't call Solaris "slowaris" in configure scripts, or rename Digital
Unix "Digital Gnuix." Linux is the product of a lot of people's labor,
and they chose to call the system Linux. Yes, it uses GNU software. I
thought that was the whole *point* of GNU software -- people can use it.
The second reason why I think you should respect the developer's name is
because not doing so is an insult. You are intentionally modifying what
they chose to call the system to make a political point, and to put the
GNU project up on a pedestal, and I don't think that's any way for the
free software community to function. That's the kind of idiotic stunt
that the commercial software industry pulls all the time. We need more
cooperation, not less. We need more community, not less. And I am going
to take issue with people who do things that destroy that sense of
community.
> With Hurd, more kernel functionality will be in programs and shared
> libraries, so this will be all the more true. According this silly
> convention, we ought to be calling GNU, Mach even if Mach is just a tiny
> part.
This has nothing to do with conventions. This has to do with what the
developers of Linux chose to name their system. It doesn't matter why the
name was chosen; the system is called Linux. Not GNU Linux. Not Linux
GNU. And not Lignux. How would you feel if the Linux developers started
calling GNU software "GNUX software"?
The only thing that has consistantly turned me off about the FSF is that
as soon as things get going well and people are working together and
building software together, they pull one of these ill-conceived political
stunts. Perhaps it's not the whole FSF; perhaps it's just RMS. The last
episode that reminded me of this was his diatribe against TCL.
> Considering that GNU developers have contributed more to the popular
> `Linux' *systems* than Linux developers have,
Is that what this is about? Mine, mine, we did more, look at us, see how
important we are? You think putting together a working system from
disparate parts is a trivial contribution?
> it is not the authority of `Linux' users or developers to object to the
> decision of RMS or perhaps other GNU developers using the term Lignux.
> As far as I'm concerned they should say "Thanks, it's an honor" if these
> developers choose to use this name for their own packages.
Right. They rename the system to some manufactured name created by them
for political reasons, and you expect the Linux developers to consider it
an honor. This is absolutely absurd.
> The FSF, RMS, or any of its advocates aren't trying to force anyone to
> use this name, but it would be nice if we didn't get screamed at just
> for using a title that is perfectly accurate.
No, it's not "perfectly accurate." It's Newspeak, invented to be
politically correct according to RMS. The Linux developers wrote the
kernel, something GNU hasn't finished yet. They wrote a wide variety of
utilities that hadn't been available freely before. They ported a lot
more, mostly BSD, some GNU. They wrote the documentation (excellent
documentation, better documentation than most of what's out there), and
that's not a trivial contribution to a working operating system. And they
took all of this and put it together into a fully-functional working
system, which is again something that the GNU Project has not yet done. I
think that's more than sufficient contribution to give them the right to
name their package what they wish, and I think honoring the name given by
the developers is simple honest politeness.
I thought this was the *point* of the GPL and the GNU Project; to write
code that other people can take, modify, and build upon. Well, they did
that, and they did it *well*. Linux has done more to publicize the GNU
Project and GPLed code than anything that had happened before, as far as
I'm concerned. This is a pretty sorry way of repaying them for that.
RA> Somehow I thought the entire point of the GPL and the GNU Manifesto
RA> was that we were supposed to be able to take each other's software and
RA> build on it. Well, people have taken GNU's software and built a Unix
RA> out of it. As a supporter of the FSF and the GNU project, I think
RA> that's a very good thing.
> How does the name that Emacs uses for GNU/Linux prevent this?
It doesn't *prevent* anything. It wastes time and energy on utterly
pointless political posturing, energy that could be spend writing more
free software, and it demonstrates a basic disrespect for the Linux
developers and their contribution to free software.
From time to time, I get the impression that the GNU Project doesn't want
any other free software developers out there. It seems like everything
must fall under the GNU umbrella or it's somehow defective, not really
"free," or misnamed.
> The priority here is getting the GNU message out.
And you think you're going to accomplish this by creating strife within
the free software community and showing disrespect for other developers of
free software?
Let me tell you something: If that's the message you're trying to get
out, I'm not interested. My opinion of the FSF and the GNU Project is
falling rather dramatically.
Michael Koehne
Jesse D Zbikowski (j...@nexen.com) wrote:
: Has Linus made any comment about this name? He doesn't seem like the
: type who would get his feathers ruffled over it, but I would be
: curious to hear how he feels about that `g' in the middle of his
: name.
imho this (lignux) sounds ugly.
just another thing I thougth about but never asked :
Why is Linux called i486-unknown-linux. I think i486-gnu-linux
would fit better, for a Linux based GNU system.
GNU is the copyright holder of all stuff tested in ./configure.
GNU is also the security that the GPL (under which the kernel
is) is more than warm air.
By Michael
--
" ceterum censeo MSDOS esse delendam - trust me, I know what I'm deleting "
Privat 27721 Werschenrege 52 +49 4292 674 kra...@bakunin.north.de
Firma Missing Link - Bremen +49 421 504348 kra...@missing-link.de
bUrD uPh daAr n0rtH
In article <4oi4hb$4...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, j-h...@meibm24.cen.uiuc.edu (James Lloyd Hill) writes:
> Jesse D Zbikowski <j...@nexen.com> writes of the "Lignux" issue:
>
> The increasingly shrill calls for Linux users to acknowledge this debt,
> nay, to shout it from the highest rooftops are more than a little silly.
> Bastardizing the name "Linux" just because it the "nu" can be converted
> to "gnu" to prove a point is ridiculous. It's also the kind of juvenile
> pun that has made Piers Anthony rich, but that's not the point.
>
> Leading the pack of complainers is RMS himself, stamping his foot and
> demanding that GNU get all the credit it's due. The cost (heh) of free
> software is that the authors don't get a whole lot of say about what's
> done with it. As long as the standard GNU disclaimers are included with
> the software, that's pretty much it.
...Could all this have anything to do with the fact that HURD was
started well before the linux project and still isn't in a world-
releaseable state? (correct me if I'm wrong -- really, I stopped
following HURD development in 1991 when linux became available.) It
almost seems like the world has passed HURD by, which is possibly why
gnu die-hards are looking for more recognition?
> If recognition is that important...put it under restrictive copyright and
> charge people for it.
I agree. It seems like the current implementation (tar --help
currently reports "this is GNU tar", as do the man pages, and most gnu
apps are distributed this way) should be enough. One big factor is that
utilization of gnu utilities and applications skyrocketed _after_ linux
became a viable alternative -- not before.
And "lignux" is difficult to type. It'd have a silent g when I
pronounced or wrote it anyway.
Joe
--
/ Joe Waters | "My center is giving way, my right is pushed back \
| fa...@scf.nmsu.edu | Situation Excellent, I am attacking." - Foch |
\ Carpe Jugulus | Sieze the Throat -- http://scf.nmsu.edu/~falc /
Michael Bryan
Richard Kettlewell <ric...@elmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>However, I feel that RMS has gone about presenting his opinions in the
>most disastrous way possible.
And to anybody who has had any dealings with him in the past, this
should not be surprising. He has got to be one of the most arrogant,
pig-headed people I've ever had the displeasure of conversing with.
He may be brilliant, a great visionary, and even a wonderful motivator
to his followers, and there is no arguing that the GNU tools have
drastically changed the computing landscape. -However-, RMS generally
has (or at least exhibits) minimal people skills when it comes to
confrontations of any kind. My reaction (and the reaction of several
others I know) is to generally ignore him when he goes out on something
like this. He's not going to change, and that's that, so take what
good he does, and work around the bad as best as we can. And never
expect logical reasoning to have any effect once he's made his mind up.
(It might occasionally work, but very, very rarely, far less often than
with most people.)
--
Michael Bryan
mic...@sj-coop.net
Quicken Web Page: http://quicken.sj-coop.net/Quicken.html
Russell Nelson
> The GNU project should encourage the name GNU/Linux, not Lignux.
>
> We do, but people objected, using exactly the same language as you
> have been using in this thread. Go figure. But you could help. Call
> up Slackware, Red Hat, etc., and say "I think you should say
> GNU/Linux on your CD-ROM". That would help.
Why not just call it GNU? Why give Linux any credit at all? The Herd
is going nowhere fast. Maybe one or two FSF staffers are running it.
Face it: Linux is the only usable GNU, so you should call it "GNU".
--
-russ <nel...@crynwr.com> http://www.crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr Software | Crynwr Software sells packet driver support | PGP ok
11 Grant St. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | It's no mistake to err on
Potsdam, NY 13676 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | the side of freedom.
Kevin P. Neal
In article <7ln32rv...@hendrix.nexen.com>, Jesse D Zbikowski <j...@nexen.com> wrote:
>In case you haven't upgraded to Emacs 19.31 yet, there is an
>interesting file in the etc directory called LINUX-GNU, written by RMS
>himself. It contains a good summary of the "Linux system"
>vs. "Linux-based GNU system" nomenclature issue. I understand that
>Linus supports the name "GNU/Linux", and I have been following that
>terminology. I am not sure what to think of the term "Lignux" which
>RMS proposes in this article, though. The NEWS file reports that they
>have actually changed to value of the `system-type' variable to
>`lignux' as opposed to `linux' when compiled on a GNU/Linux system.
>
Shit.
>Has Linus made any comment about this name? He doesn't seem like the
>type who would get his feathers ruffled over it, but I would be
>curious to hear how he feels about that `g' in the middle of his
>name.
>
Linus is cool. I'm a BSD fan, but I still say Linus is cool.
>Just how are you supposed to say `Lignux', anyway? "Lih-gnux" sounds
>a breakfast cereal or something. Maybe it just has to grow on you.
>
People, this is silly. Yes, the FSF wrote ALOT of code which they gave
away. Without them, the Internet would be alot leaner. I don't think
any Free Unix would exist, or at least it would be sharply curtailed.
The FSF is very very important for all of the work done by them.
Having said this, isn't it enough to be repected? Isn't it enough to
have done the work, be doing the work, because you want to and it
needs to be done? I mean, when I write something to give away, I
don't need to broadcast my name.
If you are good, people find out who you are. They respect you for what
you did, and what you do. Not because you name is plastered all over
the place.
Heck, when they came out with SunOS, they didn't insist on having BSD
in the title. When they came out with Ultrix, they didn't have to
name it DecBSD or some hogwash.
C'mon, isn't it enough to be named in the "New Hacker's Dictionary" or
whatever that book is called (the printed "Jargon File" book)?
Chill with the Lignux crap. It's not necessary. I thought the point was
to write code, not broadcast your name.
--
XCOMM Kevin P. Neal, Sophomore, Comp. Sci. \ kpn...@interpath.com
XCOMM The Mirrorball Wizard of Smerp \ kpn...@eos.ncsu.edu
XCOMM Visit the House of RetroComputing at / Perm. Email:
XCOMM http://www4.ncsu.edu/~kpneal/www/ / kevi...@bix.com
John Raithel
In article <MIB.96Ma...@gnu.ai.mit.edu>,
Michael I. Bushnell, p/BSG <m...@gnu.ai.mit.edu> wrote:
>In article <m2ybm93...@notung.msu.edu> Steve Dunham <dun...@gdl.msu.edu> writes:
>
> a part of the GNU system (I'll grant him that - conditionally), but
> further implies, through this action in whole, that the use of these
> Berkeley utilities by Linux in part makes it a GNU System. I deny
> that.
>
>of the GNU system, except the kernel, makes it a GNU system. It's not
>any particular piece in specific, but the assemblage together. (Which
>of your atoms makes you you?)
Nonsense. (Excuse me for butting in but I can't count to 10 any
longer.) It's a patchwork. An excellently crafted patchwork
of various parts, maybe most significant of which are GNU, X, and
Linux.
The very idea that a major contributor is requesting higher billing on
the marquee is...
- John
--
=-+=-+=-+=-+ =-+=-+=-+=-+ =-+=-+=-+=-+ =-+=-+=-+=-+
John Raithel Colophon Technologies:
rai...@rahul.net "The last word :
http://www.rahul.net/raithel/ in documentation" :
Evan Leibovitch
In article <s5gwx1u...@catfish.lcs.mit.edu>,
Patrick J. LoPresti <pa...@lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
> bdwheele> Well, then maybe *I* misunderstand
>Obviously. You also conveniently ended your "__EXCERPT__" just before
>the two crucial paragraphs:
>======================================================================
>This leads many of those users to identify themselves as a separate
>community of "Linux users", distinct from the GNU user community.
>They use all of the GNU software; in fact, they use almost all of the
>GNU system; but they don't think of themselves as GNU users, and they
>may not think about the GNU idea.
>It leads to other problems as well--even hampering cooperation on
>software maintenance. Normally when users change a GNU program to
>make it work better on a particular system, they send the change to
>the maintainer of that program; then they work with the maintainer,
>explaining the change, arguing for it and sometimes rewriting it, to
>get it installed.
>======================================================================
>Notice that "who gets credit for what" is not the issue. The issue
>(according to Stallman) is that people who use GNU software on the
>Linux kernel do not generally think of themselves as "GNU users".
>This is in contrast to people who use GNU software on every other
>system.
Sorry, but nobody I know identifies themselves by the name of the
project that formed the roots for the development of many (but far from
all) of their system utilities and development tools. To me, that's as
silly as those at auto races who are more concerned about whether the
winner was a Ford or Chevy than the name of the winning driver.
If RMS is complaining that people don't identify themselves as "GNU
users", then "who gets credit" *is* a central issue. If credit wasn't an
issue, then the author(s) would simply be happy that the software was
put to good use. But this complaint goes far beyond that wish, and it
probably goes beyond mere credit as well.
>GNU system; but they don't think of themselves as GNU users, and they
>may not think about the GNU idea.
>This leads to two "problems" (according to Stallman). First, Linux
>users may not appreciate the free software concept.
Bull. They appreciate it merely by the act of using it. Many go further
by helping others, contributing code, writing docs, or bringing free
software into realms in which it was never known before.
What IMO is at issue is that to the FSF, "the free software concept"
is more than the creation and use of software; it's a political agenda.
That's the gist of the complaint against Linux users who "may not think
about the GNU idea". One can appreciate the concept of community-based
software without having to buy into the whole FSF neo-Marxist philosophy.
>Second, Linux
>users (unlike users of other operating systems) tend to patch GNU
>tools and release a Linux-specific version, instead of working with
>the GNU maintainer to see that the fixes or enhancements get applied
>for everyone using the tool.
This is more a matter of control than credit.
An example has already been raised where someone has modified some GNU
software, offered the modifications back to the "GNU maintainer", but
this maintainer refuses to incorporate these fixes into the "official"
release. This leads to one of three scenarios:
1) The maintainer adds his/her own modifications, to satisfy the needs
of the users who need these mods;
2) The maintainer doesn't apply the mods, for whatever reason, and users
needing the mods do without, in order to stay "official";
3) The maintainer doesn't apply the mods, but the users who need them
apply them anyway, and start their own "official" (to them) release.
All three scenarios are fully within the limits of the GPL. An
"official" code maintainer is useful only as long as the code produced
is useful to all. When a subset has a need that isn't deemed necessary
by the "official" release, the subset is added and used by those who
need it, whether the maintainer likes it or not.
Seeing as the provision of source code is required according to the
GPL, the maintainer *can't* prevent diversionary branches if some
users don't feel the 'official' release is keeping up with their needs.
Since such diversions are also subject to the GPL, their source is
available to the maintainer if he wants it. If there's a good reason
why the diversions are a bad idea, or there's a better way to do them,
the community will certainly listen. But if 'official' channels are
unresponsive, users will exploit the freedom offered by the GPL to
diverge as they wish.
>We can argue about whether this is true, whether a name change will
>help fix it, whether the name change looks goofy, and so on. But we
>should not accuse Stallman of a motive so petty as credit-mongering.
Control-mongering may be more like it. The loss of power and influence of
the FSF and its appointed 'maintainers', and the burying of the FSF
political agenda, is what's really at stake here. Granted, this isn't
as petty as credit-mongering, but it's no more valid a complaint.
The GNU project has been bitten by the same freedom that it created.
Ironies galore, eh?
Evan Leibovitch
In article <s5gvihe...@catfish.lcs.mit.edu>,
Patrick J. LoPresti <pa...@lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
>The C library is a special case. For a long time, the FSF was barely
>maintaining it at all, so H.J. Lu stepped in and did a fantastic job
>of providing Linux users with a working version of this critical
>system component. Now, however, the FSF *is* taking GNU libc
>development seriously, and is making a sincere effort to meet the
>needs of Linux users and to unify the development groups.
The FSF's resources are limited, why should it get back into libc if
someone is already doing a "fantastic" job of it?
Mr. Lu is *already* meeting the needs of Linux users, and by your own
admission doing a damn good job of it. So why the does the FSF feel the
need to get involved in a specific project where it's not needed, that
has been doing just fine in its absense?
Why doesn't the FSF just endorse what Mr. Lu is doing and move on to
something else?
This is a power play, pure and simple. The FSF wants influence over
the development, and wants to take back the control that it lost
when Mr. Lu filled the void left when FSF "was barely maintaining"
its libc. Listen to daddy, the FSF knows what's good for you.
>I am hoping this unification effort succeeds.
Apparently in the GNU dictionary, "unification" is defined as
"under FSF control".
We shall always be grateful to the FSF for planting the seeds of the
concept of free software. It is sad to see the champions of freedom
complain about the exercise of that freedom by others.
Bill Bogstad
In article <4okkee$3...@sol.towson.edu>,
Richard Brown <br...@midget.towson.edu> wrote:
>...
>As far as Linux is concerned, if a computer runs Linux binaries natively,
>it is a Linux box.
Be careful how you define things. I believe there is active work in
the FreeBSD community to allow Linux binaries to run with a FreeBSD kernel.
Not clear, what 'natively' means. It certainly isn't the definition used
when people talk about Macintosh Native (PPC) vs. emulated (M68K) binaries
on the new PowerMacs. What would you call the system if you took a CD-ROM
distribution of Linux, installed it, and then booted your machine with a
FreeBSD kernel with all of the 'Linux' binaries? I don't think can do this
yet, but I can see it being technically possible. It would certainly have a
certain appealing 'hack' value...
> If the system that controls such a computer is
>Linux, then it is a Linux system.
See above. What kind of system is a FreeBSD kernel + Linux applications?
or vise versa. (I believe there is some very alpha attempts at BSD a.out
support in the iBSC2 distribution).
Bill Bogstad
bog...@cs.jhu.edu
Patrick J. LoPresti
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "evan" == Evan Leibovitch <ev...@telly.telly.org> writes:
evan> In article <s5gvihe...@catfish.lcs.mit.edu>, Patrick
evan> J. LoPresti <pa...@lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
>> The C library is a special case. For a long time, the FSF was
>> barely maintaining it at all, so H.J. Lu stepped in and did a
>> fantastic job of providing Linux users with a working version of
>> this critical system component. Now, however, the FSF *is* taking
>> GNU libc development seriously, and is making a sincere effort to
>> meet the needs of Linux users and to unify the development groups.
evan> The FSF's resources are limited, why should it get back into
evan> libc if someone is already doing a "fantastic" job of it?
evan> Mr. Lu is *already* meeting the needs of Linux users, and by
evan> your own admission doing a damn good job of it. So why the does
evan> the FSF feel the need to get involved in a specific project
evan> where it's not needed, that has been doing just fine in its
evan> absense?
Because Linux is not the only kernel on which the GNU C library might
be useful. (Note that I am not a member of the FSF, so this answer is
just my guess. I suspect it is a good guess, however.)
I find your post particularly interesting because it embodies exactly
the narrow-mindedness that Stallman is attempting to address. You see
that things work for "Linux users" and consider the job finished; you
completely ignore the wider community of people who use GNU tools on
many different operating systems.
evan> Why doesn't the FSF just endorse what Mr. Lu is doing and move
evan> on to something else?
Because the job is not done just because it is done for Linux.
evan> This is a power play, pure and simple.
No, it is an attempt to foster cooperation among free software users
and developers, no matter which kernel they happen to use.
evan> The FSF wants influence over the development, and wants to take
evan> back the control that it lost when Mr. Lu filled the void left
evan> when FSF "was barely maintaining" its libc.
GNU libc is designed to work with a wide variety of systems. Linux
libc is a derivative of GNU libc which is designed to work only with
Linux. The FSF did not "lose control" of anything when that
derivative was created.
Now that work has resumed on GNU libc, Linux support is a high
priority. With any luck, the improvements made by H.J. Lu will be
folded in for the benefit of all GNU users, not just GNU/Linux users.
Whether this happens or not, the goal is one of altruism, not some
petty "power play".
evan> Listen to daddy, the FSF knows what's good for you.
Sarcasm backed by blind ignorance rarely makes for good rhetoric.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQCVAwUBMa6hZnr7ES8bepftAQGbswP8C9ZHubqKYZEh7SMZS7FJT1YQJdNWTKTS
BCAtNJGQrwS0P+8sI7ikKUp89sIgpU3OSpbzaSgb4US+sD/Gl/oiythpPyHG2rEe
w64uRygAQHDnEQaOrE1Em/wAEztuJk43izA2/Qo8xXQhyTHe+TiUE4klkPbFS3ca
o53uCv9s0Vo=
=7sZ/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Marcus G. Daniels
>>>>> "JR" == John Raithel <rai...@rahul.net> writes:
In article <4olp26$o...@samba.rahul.net> John Raithel <rai...@rahul.net> writes:
JR> The very idea that a major contributor is requesting higher
JR> billing on the marquee is...
a fiction.
Tim Smith
>This leads many of those users to identify themselves as a separate
>community of "Linux users", distinct from the GNU user community.
The fallacy here is the assumption that users must identify themselves
as being a member of a community. I don't run Linux to get a warm fuzzy
feeling of computing togetherness. I run it because it does certain things
well that I want to do. Similarly, my home computer spends mich of its
time in Windows 95, not because I wish to become one with Bill Gates, but
rather because it does certain things I want to do better than OS/2 and
Linux (games, Quicken, and dealing with internet).
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
>together something that works (for them) and upload it to sunsite. I
>also think that the GNU folks should give higher priority than they do
>to bug fixes from Linux users, since Linux users have no
>vendor-supplied tools to fall back on.
Hmmm...FSF says that one of the reasons "free" software is good is that
it allows the user to fix bugs, rather than having to rely on some vendor.
Now that Linux users have actually taken advantage of this, to produce
a non-vaporware GNU system, they are told that they should wait for
some vendor (FSF), rather than doing it themselves!?
--Tim Smith
Doug DeJulio
In article <87hgsxt...@tdb.tdb.com>,
Marcus G. Daniels <mar...@ee.pdx.edu> wrote:
>[I want to know the reason why I am IN ERROR if I use the term Lignux.
>I don't want to hear a bunch of nonsense about the X Window system
>or other projects that Linux developers had zero to do with. I don't
>want to hear about who I'm going to anger -- that is a different,
>perhaps important, issue but not the most crucial one. Tell me I'm
>wrong and why. When we are done with that issue, then I'll be
>happy to address tactical issues or your insults.]
Ah, okay, you'er going to insist on being an insane stubborn twit.
That makes this easier.
I note that by your reasoning, it's just as correct to name the system
"maple-glazed-rack-of-spam" as it is to name it "Lignux". I mean,
your argument basically seems to be "I can call it whatever I want,
nyah nyah nyah".
I feel I should ask why you're not also advocating the use of "GNetBSD"...
The reason it's not correct to call the system "Lignux" is because the
people who put the distributions together don't call it that, the
developers don't call it that, the users don't call it that -- the
only people who call it that are a small set of folks with a political
agenda. That makes it just as wrong as calling me "Ragnar the
Destroyer" instead of "Doug" (assuming calling me that wasn't done for
reasons of fraud).
Now, I happen to *agree* with the FSF agenda, and I'm usually a vocal
supporter of the FSF, but as long as this absurdity remains in place
I'm embarassed to discuss the FSF and the GNU ideals with people. If
I'm not the only one, that right there is a reason for the FSF to
reverse on this issue.
--
Doug DeJulio | http://www.aisb.org/~ddj/
Systems Analyst | mailto:dd...@pitt.edu
University of Pittsburgh | MIME welcome; PGP key available via homepage
Peter Seebach
In article <4om0tv$9...@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>,
Bill Bogstad <bog...@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> wrote:
> Be careful how you define things. I believe there is active work in
>the FreeBSD community to allow Linux binaries to run with a FreeBSD kernel.
I assume they have it already; as a general rule, NetBSD lags slightly
behind FreeBSD for 80x86 features, and NetBSD runs Linux binaries.
>Not clear, what 'natively' means. It certainly isn't the definition used
>when people talk about Macintosh Native (PPC) vs. emulated (M68K) binaries
>on the new PowerMacs. What would you call the system if you took a CD-ROM
>distribution of Linux, installed it, and then booted your machine with a
>FreeBSD kernel with all of the 'Linux' binaries? I don't think can do this
>yet, but I can see it being technically possible. It would certainly have a
>certain appealing 'hack' value...
I know people who have chosen to run a very large number of SunOS binaries
on a NetBSD system. It's still a NetBSD system; not a NetGNUBSDXSun system.
(NetBSD 68k, of course.)
-s
--
Peter Seebach - se...@solon.com - Copyright 1996 - http://www.solon.com/~seebs
Unix/C Wizard - send mail for help, or send money for consulting!
The *other* C FAQ, the hacker FAQ, et al. See web page above.
Unsolicited email (junk mail and ads) is unwelcome, and will be billed for.
Marcus Daniels
>>>>> "SD" == Steve Dunham <dun...@gdl.msu.edu> writes:
In article <m2ras13...@notung.msu.edu> Steve Dunham <dun...@gdl.msu.edu> writes:
SD> Further, you have to sign over the copyright on your changes to
SD> the FSF.
Which the FSF will contractually defend until hell freezes over. Thanks FSF!
Bradley M. Kuhn
In article <Ds87D...@telly.telly.org>,
Evan Leibovitch <ev...@telly.telly.org> wrote:
>Of course, the result of this is that the author can lose control over
>what's done with/to his work, which is totally possible while keeping to
>the spirit of the GPL.
This point made me realize something. Although the majority posting to this
group think that Lignux is an immature attempt at recognition, we must remember
that RMS has EVERY RIGHT to put that into GNU emacs, as he is the maintainer
of that software package. Under the GPL, people can take it, change it, and
redistribute it, but we can't stop him from doing it.
I realize that I am stating the obvious here, but when all is said and done,
GNU Emacs belongs to RMS, and we must let him rant if he wants to rant.
It's strange, since when I first learned of the FSF (back in 1990), I read
the Manifesto and was impressed to no end. Ever since the anti-"{perl,tcl}"
incident that lead to the proposal (and now implementation) of Guile, I feel
that the FSF has slowly become more and more elitist and has started to believe
that THEY control free software. In philosophy, I support the FSF (esp. the
manifesto) wholeheartedly. In practice, I am sad to see the mistakes that have
been made over the past few years.
--
-- Bradley M. Kuhn Contractor to Lucent Technologies - Bell Labs Innovations
bk...@acm.org oe...@nse.att.com http://www.smart.net/~bkuhn
Marcus G. Daniels
>>>>> "TS" == Tim Smith <t...@coho.halcyon.com> writes:
In article <4omd1h$f...@news1.halcyon.com> t...@coho.halcyon.com (Tim Smith) writes:
RMS> This leads many of those users to identify themselves as a separate
RMS> community of "Linux users", distinct from the GNU user community.
TS> The fallacy here is the assumption that users must identify
TS> themselves as being a member of a community. I don't run Linux to
TS> get a warm fuzzy feeling of computing togetherness. I run it
TS> because it does certain things well that I want to do. Similarly,
TS> my home computer spends mich of its time in Windows 95, not
TS> because I wish to become one with Bill Gates, but rather because
TS> it does certain things I want to do better than OS/2 and Linux
TS> (games, Quicken, and dealing with internet).
There is no such fallacy. If the GNU or the Linux kernel helps you,
that's great. If you don't care about all this stuff, don't pay
attention; the issue here is not what the unengaged think. Both GNU
and the Linux kernel exist because of coordinated action and
cooperation.
Christopher Davis
RA> == Russ Allbery <r...@cs.stanford.edu>
RA> I think you *should* respect the name of the system the developers have
RA> given it for several reasons. First of all, it's just basic politeness.
It's rather funny to see RMS hypocritically moving to call Linux "Lignux"
(and this is not "accepting lignux as an alias in configure"; configure is
accepting "linux" as an alias to "lignux") after his diatribes about not
using the names "FSFmacs" or "RMSmacs" to distinguish the FSF's releases
of Emacs from {Lucid ,X}Emacs.
Eyvind Bernhardsen
In article <87hgsxt...@tdb.tdb.com> mar...@sysc.pdx.edu (Marcus G. Daniels) writes:
[...]
> Simple question:
>
> Why should every GNU developer respect the use of the term "Linux system"?
>
> [I want to know the reason why I am IN ERROR if I use the term Lignux.
> I don't want to hear a bunch of nonsense about the X Window system
> or other projects that Linux developers had zero to do with. I don't
> want to hear about who I'm going to anger -- that is a different,
> perhaps important, issue but not the most crucial one. Tell me I'm
> wrong and why. When we are done with that issue, then I'll be
> happy to address tactical issues or your insults.]
Because that's what it's called. You might as well refer to the
"Wibble system", if you're not going to stick with "Linux system". In
fact, I think "GNU" is a silly name, so from now on I'll refer to it
as "Moose". That answer your question?
--
Eyvind Bernhardsen
Richard Crew
So now that we've had this big fuss, has anyone tried to get the opinion
of Lignus himself on the matter?
-----BEGIN YOW-----
Version .00441992282867432
myuncLEmuRRayconQuEREDEgyPtin53b.c.anDicanPRoVEittoo!!uh-oh!
!iPuton``gREathEaD-ontRaincoLLisionsoFthE50's''bymistaKE!!!i
'DLiKEsomEJunKFooD...anDthEniWanttobEaLonE--PaRDonmE,amisPEa
KingEngLish?
-----END YOW-----
One shudders at the notion that the Internet could become the least
common denominator -- where "decent" is defined by the Americans,
and "politically correct" by the Chinese.
--Jacques Gaillot, Bishop of Partenia
Martin Granell
In article <4om0tv$9...@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> you wrote:
: In article <4okkee$3...@sol.towson.edu>,
: Richard Brown <br...@midget.towson.edu> wrote:
:
: > If the system that controls such a computer is
:
: See above. What kind of system is a FreeBSD kernel + Linux applications?
: or vise versa. (I believe there is some very alpha attempts at BSD a.out
: support in the iBSC2 distribution).
What ever you want to call it, and I think that's the important
thing. At the moment the system being used by people which contains a kernel
written by Linus, using the GNU utilities, libraries etc., the BSD components,
X components, freeware utilities written by other people, commercial packages
written by companies and the whole shibang put together, is called Linux. It
means that _system_ specific issues can put the tag Linux on it. The name is
simply a name, and putting a different name on it causes confusion and
splits. What would a new user think about the split? What is lignux, how is
it different to Linux, is GNU/Linux different to RedHat, debian,
slackware..... there's enough confusion about already. We should be trying
to encourage people to be part of the (Linux/GNU/whatever you want to call
it) community. The way we can do that is by showing a united, unified
concept. We don't have a manager running the show, telling us what to do. So
the semi-anarchistic system we have means that we need to use intelligence,
sympathy and plain good manners to try and work together. When some concepts
seem to have coalesced and stabilized, we should try and work on the others
to try and do the same, not start to changing it. The name Linux is now
fairly much a standard, whether for good or for bad, and I think to change
it at this point in time would definitely be for bad.
Just my point of view, as a user of the GNU tools, and grateful to
all the people that helped put Linux together.
Yours,
Martin Granell
Steve Dunham
se...@solutions.solon.com (Peter Seebach) writes:
> In article <4om0tv$9...@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>,
> Bill Bogstad <bog...@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> wrote:
> > Be careful how you define things. I believe there is active work in
> >the FreeBSD community to allow Linux binaries to run with a FreeBSD kernel.
>
> I assume they have it already; as a general rule, NetBSD lags slightly
> behind FreeBSD for 80x86 features, and NetBSD runs Linux binaries.
>
> >Not clear, what 'natively' means. It certainly isn't the definition used
> >when people talk about Macintosh Native (PPC) vs. emulated (M68K) binaries
> >on the new PowerMacs. What would you call the system if you took a CD-ROM
> >distribution of Linux, installed it, and then booted your machine with a
> >FreeBSD kernel with all of the 'Linux' binaries? I don't think can do this
> >yet, but I can see it being technically possible. It would certainly have a
> >certain appealing 'hack' value...
>
> I know people who have chosen to run a very large number of SunOS binaries
> on a NetBSD system. It's still a NetBSD system; not a NetGNUBSDXSun system.
> (NetBSD 68k, of course.)
No, by Stallman's definition it is The GNU System:
: A Unix-like system consists of many different programs. We found some
: components already available as free software--for example, X Windows
: and TeX. We obtained other components by helping to convince their
: developers to make them free--for example, the Berkeley network
: utilities. Other components we wrote specifically for GNU--for
: example, GNU Emacs, the GNU C compiler, the GNU C library, Bash, and
: Ghostscript. The components in this last category are "GNU software".
: The GNU system consists of all three categories together.
You're running X Windows and TeX.
You're running the Berkeley network utilities.
You're running GNU Emacs, the GNU C compiler, Ghostscript, and
other "GNU Software" (i.e software that they've either written or
aquired the copyrights of)
So you're running the GNU system.
So also is FreeBSD the GNU system, and my Amiga.
Also, by RMS's definition, the HURD snapshot, which doesn't run X and
doesn't come with TeX, is not the GNU system. Go figure.
Steve
dun...@gdl.msu.edu
Byron Faber
:
: imho this (lignux) sounds ugly.
:
: just another thing I thougth about but never asked :
:
: Why is Linux called i486-unknown-linux. I think i486-gnu-linux
: would fit better, for a Linux based GNU system.
:
: GNU is the copyright holder of all stuff tested in ./configure.
:
: GNU is also the security that the GPL (under which the kernel
: is) is more than warm air.
I second this. i486-gnu-linux sounds much better.
Byron
--
Mathematicians often resort to something called Hilbert space, which is
described as being n-dimensional. Like modern sex, any number can play
-- Dr. Thor Wald, in "Beep/The Quincunx of Time"
http://morticia.physics.colostate.edu/~byron/
Peter Seebach
In article <m2ohn45...@notung.msu.edu>,
Steve Dunham <dun...@notung.msu.edu> wrote:
>> on a NetBSD system. It's still a NetBSD system; not a NetGNUBSDXSun system.
>> (NetBSD 68k, of course.)
>No, by Stallman's definition it is The GNU System:
>: A Unix-like system consists of many different programs. We found some
>: components already available as free software--for example, X Windows
>: and TeX. We obtained other components by helping to convince their
>: developers to make them free--for example, the Berkeley network
>: utilities. Other components we wrote specifically for GNU--for
>: example, GNU Emacs, the GNU C compiler, the GNU C library, Bash, and
>: Ghostscript. The components in this last category are "GNU software".
>: The GNU system consists of all three categories together.
>You're running X Windows and TeX.
Actually, I'm not; although I have had X installed briefly, I have no color
display on my home computer, so I don't run it much, if at all. I accumulate
more CPU time in screen than in X. I do have TeX, but haven't used it
in ages.
>You're running GNU Emacs, the GNU C compiler, Ghostscript, and
>other "GNU Software" (i.e software that they've either written or
>aquired the copyrights of)
Nope. Just the compiler and some other GNU software. I *will not* run Emacs,
and I have never gotten Ghostscript to work. I installed emacs, discovered
that it took something near 5 seconds to make any display at all, and
uninstalled it.
>So also is FreeBSD the GNU system, and my Amiga.
My Amiga, I'd nearly buy; it runs a sizeable chunk of GNU software.
>Also, by RMS's definition, the HURD snapshot, which doesn't run X and
>doesn't come with TeX, is not the GNU system. Go figure.
Hmm.
Evan Leibovitch
>Simple question:
>Why should every GNU developer respect the use of the term "Linux system"?
Simple answer:
Because that name is immediately recognizable, and has become a
convention of those referring to it.
It is not very polite to refer to anything with a known name by something
else without the consent of those who use the name. If a few people started
calling you by a nickname that you didn't like, would it bother you? Would
it indicate respect on the part of those using the nickname?
Sometimes names are bestowed, sometimes they evolve. In either case,
if a name is used enough by enough people, it sticks even if it is
not a perfect representation of what it describes.
>[I want to know the reason why I am IN ERROR if I use the term Lignux.
Because until it is in popular use, your language will be inefficient.
Some of your audience will not know what you are talking about.
One user has already discovered 'typos' in the new distribution of
Emacs and has posted a series of diffs to fix it. What do you accomplish
if your deliberate choice of terminology is seen by some as a benign
mistake? They miss your intended point while undoing it at the same time.
The goal of language is to be understood. If you change your language
as to be less widely understood, merely to make a political point, I
would suggest that your use of language is awkward and inefficient.
Not necessary in error, just wildly sub-optimal.
>I don't want to hear a bunch of nonsense about the X Window system
>or other projects that Linux developers had zero to do with.
Fair enough. The answer comes from linguistics as much (if not more)
as any computer-based issue.
>I don't
>want to hear about who I'm going to anger -- that is a different,
>perhaps important, issue but not the most crucial one. Tell me I'm
>wrong and why. When we are done with that issue, then I'll be
>happy to address tactical issues or your insults.]
Anger and insult have nothing to do with it, though it is possible
that those who coined the original name and helped it spread might be
offended by your attempt to change it without consent.
>POSIX is a presentation. Other kernels layer POSIX on top of other
>kernels using various techniques. Outside of the body of work of
>which the kernel consists, it is absolutely arbitrary to name the
>system after the kernel or the binary format that a particular kernel
>happens to support. Historically, this name-the-system-after-the-kernel
>thing is the convention that has existed, but it really means nothing.
It may mean nothing, but if the convention works, it works; and that is
enough at a societal level. You must present a pressing argument of why
the existing name must be replaced. If not, your replacement is seen as
an aberration and silently ignored (or patched :-) when encountered. All
the effort you put into the new name will be countered by effort to change
it back; wasted energy at both ends.
>With Hurd, more kernel functionality will be
Heh. Yeah, Hurd. The free-software world's answer to vapourware.
No wonder its development is so slow in happening, its mentors
apear more concerned with what software is named than what it does.
>Considering that GNU developers have contributed more to the popular
>`Linux' *systems* than Linux developers have,
What's a GNU developer? How big is the FSF payroll? Have all the people
involved in contributing code and bugfixes to GNU software been polled
on this name game?
>it is not the authority
>of `Linux' users or developers to object to the decision of RMS or
>perhaps other GNU developers using the term Lignux.
Ah, 'authority'....
As always, in this issue, we come back to the matter of control. The
apostles of freedom are whining, now that such freedom is used in a
manner they don't like.
All users of free software have 'authority' to do, or name, whatever
they damn well please to the free software they obtain. As a group,
they agree on conventions that work and are clearly identifiable.
To break such conventions without consensus of the those using the
conventions, is to be seen as a disruptive influence that will be
ignored and/or fixed and/or laughed at.
>As far as I'm concerned they should say "Thanks, it's an honor"
Obviously, honour is in the eyes of the beholder.
>This is not to deny that non-GNU Linux systems could in principle
>exist.
How kind of you.
>There is no intention to reject these non-Lignux-titled
>systems from GNU autoconfiguration, or to cause problems for `Linux'
>users and developers by rejecting traditional usage.
But that is the effect that will happen.
>RMS *advocated* the use of the name Lignux, he didn't write it into
>the optional coding standards or make this as a direct request at all.
He already wrote it into EMACS, prompting the posting of the typo-fix
patche. The speed with which RMS's political statement was undone
was quite amazing.
Of course, the diffs which change all references of 'lignux' to 'linux',
under the GPL, will be made available to the author. :-)
>Yes, I very much hope to see arch-lignux accepted as an alias for
>arch-gnu-linux in autoconf. This won't break anything, and `Linux'
>developers who disagree with the name don't have to use it.
Then who does it serve except those who need to mangle the language
for political purpose? Does the FSF have so many resources to spare that
it considers this name-change an efficient use of its energies? No
wonder Hurd is so slow in developing, its authors are too busy changing
the names of things. Sigh.
>How does the name that Emacs uses for GNU/Linux prevent this? Most of
>the people in this discussion completely miss the point about what is
>the priority here is. The priority here is getting the GNU message
>out.
And that pretty well sums it all up. The Linux community, it seems,
is more concerned with making software than with messages.
>We would like to use the Linux kernel to further this goal.
Is exploiting Linux for political gain any better than expliting
it for commercial gain?
>Everyone is welcome to use GNU software.
And everyone is also welcome to ridicule the FSF's petty stab
at inflicting politically-correct speech on the free-softweare
community.
Bruce Stephens
>>>>> "Steve" == Steve Dunham <dun...@notung.msu.edu> writes:
> You're running X Windows and TeX.
> You're running the Berkeley network utilities.
> You're running GNU Emacs, the GNU C compiler, Ghostscript, and other
> "GNU Software" (i.e software that they've either written or aquired
> the copyrights of)
Minor correction. Much of the "GNU system" isn't owned by FSF in any
sense: it's just free software that they feel is useful. TeX and X
Windows in particular are certainly not owned by FSF, and neither are
the Berkeley network utilities, as far as I know.
--
Bruce Stephens | email: B.Ste...@math.ruu.nl
Utrecht University | telephone: +31 30 2534630
Department of Mathematics | telefax: +31 30 2518394
P.O. Box 80010, 3508 TA Utrecht |
The Netherlands |
david d `zoo' zuhn
I second this. i486-gnu-linux sounds much better.
Except this breaks the model by which the configuration names were
derived. The second field is for the name of the machine vendor, if
needed, not for some additional part of the OS.
Why would this be needed? Say that Linux had support for
multiprocessor systems, and this support were different between two
different vendors (Compaq and NCR, for example). The configure string
for these two systems might be i486-compaq-linux and i486-ncr-linux.
Most software wouldn't care, and wildcards the middle string as
i486-*-linux (aka i486-linux).
--
david d `zoo' zuhn | Armadillo Zoo Enterprises, St. Paul, MN
z...@armadillo.com | http://www.armadillo.com/ for more info
Felix Gallo
mar...@sysc.pdx.edu (Marcus G. Daniels) writes:
>a fiction.
This is getting stupid. If the FSF is going to deny reality, then
I, for one, am going to stop supporting them right now. Henceforth,
no code I write will carry the GPL, and where I actively encouraged
use of the GPL and LGPL, I will now discourage that practice and
encourage the BSD-style copyright. I'll also encourage people to
download code off the net rather than send money to the FSF for
a distribution tape, and I'll loan out to my friends any manuals
which the FSF might get royalties on rather than suggesting that
they buy them.
I expect a number of conscientious free software developers will
do the same. Hope you're happy, rms.
Felix
--
Remain subjective.
Wayne
Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>
> In article <87hgsxt...@tdb.tdb.com>,
> Marcus G. Daniels <mar...@ee.pdx.edu> wrote:
>
> >[I want to know the reason why I am IN ERROR if I use the term Lignux.
>
> >thing is the convention that has existed, but it really means nothing.
>
> >of its advocates aren't trying to force anyone to use this name, but
> >it would be nice if we didn't get screamed at just for using a title
> >that is perfectly accurate.
>
> >Exactly. What is the big picture?
>
> Your points here are valid. I think that there was no real reason to suggest
> the GNU/Linux system name, because it is true. Call it what you will, it is
> a Linux kernel with GNU tools, utilities, etc.
>
> I think that the real problem is that Lignux is a clobbering of a name. My
> last name is Kuhn, and I hate when people spell it Koon. It's my name, I like
> my name, and I don't want it clobbered. Yes, the spelling is just a semantic
> thing and doesn't really matter, but it's still important to me.
>
> The same is true with the Linux community. They like the name, and don't want
> to see it clobbered. GNU/Linux doesn't seem to be a problem, but clobbering
> the inside of the name is painful.
I agree. But at least they didn't try to change it to GNUnux! :)
Me
Marcus G. Daniels
>>>>> "RA" == Russ Allbery <r...@cs.stanford.edu> writes:
In article <qumk9xt...@cyclone.Stanford.EDU> Russ Allbery <r...@cs.stanford.edu> writes:
RA> This has nothing to do with conventions. This has to do with what
RA> the developers of Linux chose to name their system. It doesn't
RA> matter why the name was chosen; the system is called Linux. Not
RA> GNU Linux. Not Linux GNU. And not Lignux. How would you feel if
RA> the Linux developers started calling GNU software "GNUX software"?
That name wouldn't give enough credit to Linux developers, but
otherwise it is fine.
The term `Linux' systems is an accurate name for GNU/Linux systems.
The term `Lignux' is *also* an accurate name for GNU/Linux systems.
Because both names can co-exist, as can `Debian', `Slackware', or
`RedHat', etc. and it makes some GNU developers feel good, and
ultimately because `Lignux' is a *more* accurate name (in terms of
comparative investment), I think that the term `Lignux' should be
accepted, or if nothing else, simply tolerated.
me> Considering that GNU developers have contributed more to the
me> popular `Linux' *systems* than Linux developers have,
RA> Is that what this is about? Mine, mine, we did more, look at us,
RA> see how important we are?
GNU and Linux share a common goal: building a powerful non-proprietary
operating system that everyone can benefit from. We both use the GPL.
We both believe in cooperation as a workable alternative to
competition. Because we share such a common mindset, I think that we
should go out of our way to find a sense of continuity in the work we
do. GNU has a long history and a lot of experience dealing with
free software development. We should strive to think of our projects
as working toward one overriding goal. What this goal is called is
a relatively silly issue, of course, but credit should be given where
due so that the GNU people who volunteer many hours to the Linux
community don't feel taken for granted.
Developers who first and foremost feel as though the work they do
extends from the Linux kernel should call systems that use the Linux
kernel `Linux'. Developers who first and foremost are involved in
developing portable Unix programs, libraries, and servers for GNU, but
prefer to use Linux should have the option of feeling like their
contribution to GNU and Linux is directly acknowledged.
Understand why we want to use the `Lignux'. It isn't about credit
mongering. It isn't about control mongering. It is about the desire
to be heard and get our message out. We'd like to use Linux for this
message, because we think Linux developers basically believe in it
too.
RA> You think putting together a working
RA> system from disparate parts is a trivial contribution?
Obviously, both software development and software integration are
important activities.
me> it is not the authority of `Linux' users or developers to object to
me> the decision of RMS or perhaps other GNU developers using the term
me> Lignux. As far as I'm concerned they should say "Thanks, it's an
me> honor" if these developers choose to use this name for their own
me> packages.
RA> Right. They rename the system to some manufactured name created
RA> by them for political reasons, and you expect the Linux developers
RA> to consider it an honor. This is absolutely absurd.
Using the term `Lignux' communicates four things:
1) Pride in the GPL and Free software.
2) Pride in advancing Linux.
3) Pride in advancing GNU
4) A desire to keep (2) and (3) coordinated.
(3) implies that GNU programs, like Emacs, will tend to be have a
higher level of integration with other GNU resources on a `Lignux'
systems. Eventually, it will mean that the GNU C library is used.
`Lignux' is a concept that identifies a class of systems, and a
system of thought. It does not deny that there may be other perfectly
legitimate, more popular, or more accepted systems of thought.
me> The FSF, RMS, or any of its advocates aren't trying to force anyone
me> to use this name, but it would be nice if we didn't get screamed at
me> just for using a title that is perfectly accurate.
RA> The Linux developers wrote
RA> the kernel, something GNU hasn't finished yet. They wrote a wide
RA> variety of utilities that hadn't been available freely before.
RA> They ported a lot more, mostly BSD, some GNU. They wrote the
RA> documentation (excellent documentation, better documentation than
RA> most of what's out there), and that's not a trivial contribution
RA> to a working operating system. And they took all of this and put
RA> it together into a fully-functional working system, which is again
RA> something that the GNU Project has not yet done. I think that's
RA> more than sufficient contribution to give them the right to name
RA> their package what they wish, and I think honoring the name given
RA> by the developers is simple honest politeness.
I'm feel bad about what I said. I made a real ugly mistake using the
word "respect" instead of "use". What I should have said was: "Why
should all GNU developers deny themselves the name `Lignux',
*provided* that they simultaneously respect the fact that there is a
non-kernel Linux community that does have its own established
identity". At the same time, I would like to advocate that these two
groups come together as much as possible. Yes, for political reasons.
I don't think that packaging and integration argument you use about is
`Linux' is valid. Debian and Redhat are the ones who have done the
most systematic job -- so giving credit to generic Linux developers for
integration work is not really correct.
RA> I thought this was the *point* of the GPL and the GNU Project; to
RA> write code that other people can take, modify, and build upon.
RA> Well, they did that, and they did it *well*. Linux has done more
RA> to publicize the GNU Project and GPLed code than anything that had
RA> happened before, as far as I'm concerned. This is a pretty sorry
RA> way of repaying them for that.
I see no need to react that way. `Lignux' is just an alternative
name. It is a name that lets those of us who identify closely with
the GNU idea have a name for the primarily GNU-based systems that we
may distribute.
Again, the Linux kernel is a heroic piece of work, but it is a more of
component than strictly a foundation. The GNU idea is partly about
de-mystifying software, and enabling users to solve their own
problems. Programs can be mixed and matched, even kernels. I think
this is a point worth emphasizing.
me> How does the name that Emacs uses for GNU/Linux prevent this?
RA> It doesn't *prevent* anything. It wastes time and energy on
RA> utterly pointless political posturing, energy that could be spend
RA> writing more free software, and it demonstrates a basic disrespect
RA> for the Linux developers and their contribution to free software.
Well there we are. I think denying GNU users and developers the
*alternate* term `Lignux' is disrepectful, especially since its use
doesn't hide the name `Linux'.
Russell Senior
>>>>> "Evan" == Evan Leibovitch <ev...@telly.telly.org> writes:
In article <Ds91K...@telly.telly.org> ev...@telly.telly.org (Evan Leibovitch) writes:
PJ> Now, however, the FSF *is* taking GNU libc development seriously,
PJ> and is making a sincere effort to meet the needs of Linux users
PJ> and to unify the development groups.
Evan> Mr. Lu is *already* meeting the needs of Linux users, and by
Evan> your own admission doing a damn good job of it. So why the does
Evan> the FSF feel the need to get involved in a specific project
Evan> where it's not needed, that has been doing just fine in its
Evan> absense?
Leaving aside the issue of the quality of Mr. Lu's work, I am curious
where documentation of a remotely similar quality to that of the GNU C
Library can be found. The well-organized and easily-accessible info
pages for the GNU C Library are a pleasure to use.
--
Russell Senior sen...@teleport.com
Mark Stone
> If you don't care about all this stuff, don't pay
>attention; the issue here is not what the unengaged think.
Actually, I rather thought the issue here precisely is what the unengaged
think. RMS seems to be saying that people are using Linux without engaging in
thought about the relationship between Linux and GNU, and his motivation seems
to be to provoke the unengaged to think about the issue.
I may not agree entirely with his point of view, but I'd have to say that this
thread clearly demonstrates that he has succeeded in provoking dialogue on an
issue he thinks is important.
Russ Allbery
In gnu.misc.discuss, Bradley M Kuhn <oe...@addams.nse.att.com> writes:
> It's strange, since when I first learned of the FSF (back in 1990), I
> read the Manifesto and was impressed to no end. Ever since the
> anti-"{perl,tcl}" incident that lead to the proposal (and now
> implementation) of Guile, I feel that the FSF has slowly become more and
> more elitist and has started to believe that THEY control free software.
> In philosophy, I support the FSF (esp. the manifesto) wholeheartedly.
> In practice, I am sad to see the mistakes that have been made over the
> past few years.
This is *precisely* the way I feel about it.
Yes, RMS has a perfect right to rant and call things whatever he wishes in
the software packages he produces. The net result will simply be that he
will continue to lose more and more respect from me, and when I describe
free software to people I will be more and more reluctant to mention the
FSF or support them.
I think those who agree with the FSF and are supporting this move need to
open their eyes. There's a very real danger here, but it isn't what you
think it is. If you continue to go forward with these sorts of actions,
you're going to be *badly* hurting your ability to get continued support
from the free software community.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@cs.stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Russ Allbery
In gnu.misc.discuss, Felix Gallo <f...@coriolan.amicus.com> writes:
> This is getting stupid. If the FSF is going to deny reality, then I,
> for one, am going to stop supporting them right now. Henceforth, no
> code I write will carry the GPL, and where I actively encouraged use of
> the GPL and LGPL, I will now discourage that practice and encourage the
> BSD-style copyright.
I would just like to point out that the GPL, if you agree with its purpose
and ideals, is not in any way less useful just because RMS is making
another political rant. Abandoning the GPL because of RMS doing stupid
things with emacs configure scripts is like refusing to use emacs because
you don't like RMS's politics.
I'll continue to write GPLed code because I like the license and what it
does better than the BSD license. That's the real issue in that decision.
Donnie Barnes
>No, you have misunderstood. The use of nearly exactly all the pieces
>of the GNU system, except the kernel, makes it a GNU system. It's not
>any particular piece in specific, but the assemblage together. (Which
>of your atoms makes you you?)
Well, we Red Hat guys certainly aren't going to make an official
position on this available right now (maybe ever :-), but I would like
clarification on the "GNU system" and what it is comprised of. Not
generally, but specifically. Also, I would like a history lesson of
when this system was defined. I am certainly *NOT* being adversarial
or trying to make ANY points or innuendos with this, I truly don't know.
But, I've heard Michael use this "GNU system" several times now, and
RMS said that Linus basically added a kernel to the FSF's "system".
I'm not sure I understand how this system could exist then, and I'm
really unsure if we have one now or not.
I can say that we have in the past done some fairly quick estimations
of sheer source code in Red Hat Linux (not a name add on for "Linux",
just the name of our product). GNU software comprised close to
one third of the source code. The X Window System was about one third.
The rest was kernel and miscellani.
If there are already documents I've overlooked that explain the
above, a pointer is appreciated. If not, I really think something
along those lines should be documented if the FSF really wants to
have folks take this name change seriously.
--Donnie
--
* Donnie Barnes * http://www.redhat.com/~djb * d...@redhat.com *
* See my web page for my personal list of items for sale in Cary, NC *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From _Things You'd NEVER Expect A Southerner To Say_ by Vic Henley:
*** Careful, that may be a fire hazard.
Alan Cox
In article <N5i*TZ...@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk> Richard Kettlewell <ric...@elmail.co.uk> writes:
>I find this inconsistent. Sure, GNU software is vital to a GNU/Linux
>system; but so are bits of BSD, so is X, so is TeX. And, more to the
>point, those are also vital to a GNU system. It's easy to ask why a
>GNU system isn't more correctly called a GNU/X/BSD/etc system.
No its a BSD/MIT/GNU/Linux system, and the amount of gnu code is visibly
going down with time. A great deal of that fragmentation is being caused
by ranting and raving on the GNU side.
>could lots of other people. RMS apparently didn't realize this, and
>the result was an enormous flamewar which quite possibly killed any
>chance of the name `GNU/Linux' - or any variant such as Lignux - ever
>becoming widely accepted.
It has none at all. Nor does GNU/Linux. That is history. Had the FSF adopted
UZI as their unix base years ago when it was suggested they could have
shipped a system a long time before Linux appeared. Their problem.
>The change of `linux' to `lignux' in the Emacs source tree is barely
>worth mentioning, other than to say that it seems to me to be petty in
>the extreme.
It simply means more people will pull FSF derived software from Linux
vendors so it compiles out of the box because its patched. I already use
Linux vendor derived FSF stuff because the patches are more useful (not as
clean as the FSF like at some times granted).
Alan
--
----------------------------------------------////
Yow! 233 microsecond remote host TCP latency ---- beat that
--------------------------------------------////__________ o
Alan Cox, Alan...@linux.org /_____________/ / /\/ /_/ ><
Alan Cox
In article <31AD67...@mscosf.enet.dec.com> Igor Abramov <abr...@mscosf.enet.dec.com> writes:
>I feel that we have much more important problems now, for example
>how to improve performance of gcc output code ? It goes more and more
>behind commercial compilers, at least on Penium/PentiumPro and
>DEC Alpha platforms.
There is a project working on a pentium gcc and although it occasionally
generates "inventive" code, its overall performance on stuff like gzip is
much improved. I've not used its FPU stuff however.
Alan Cox
In article <7ln32rv...@hendrix.nexen.com> Jesse D Zbikowski <j...@nexen.com> writes:
>terminology. I am not sure what to think of the term "Lignux" which
>RMS proposes in this article, though. The NEWS file reports that they
>have actually changed to value of the `system-type' variable to
>`lignux' as opposed to `linux' when compiled on a GNU/Linux system.
Of course there isnt a GNU/Linux system because Debian and the FSF split.
All they have done is made themselves look stupid.
Alan Cox
---- "Gnu's not Linux" ----
Daniel Barlow
In article <4okkio$l...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
Brian Wheeler <bdwh...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>PS. netscape-v2.0.i486-unknown-lignux.tar.gz = yuk! just a thought.
^^^^^^^^
My reaction to seeing that is `Yuk!' before I even _reach_ the bit that
says `lignux'. I mean, come on! it's bigger than emacs anyway ....
:-)
Daniel
--
http://ftp.linux.org.uk/~barlow/, d...@detached.demon.co.uk, PGP key ID 5F263625
[Me] don't swear, the CDA makes it illegal
[Eliza] Don't tell me what to do. I am the psychiatrist here!
--- M-x doctor, XEmacs 19.13
William Setzer
: [I want to know the reason why I am IN ERROR if I use the term
: Lignux. [...] I don't want to hear about who I'm going to anger --
: that is a different, perhaps important, issue but not the most
Actually, it *is* a crucial one. Because if you piss off enough
people with this desire to insert GNU somewhere into the Linux name,
some of them are going to write alternates to all the GNU stuff just
to spite you. Wouldn't that be the greater tragedy?
William
"you" as used above is second person plural
Michael I. Bushnell, p/BSG
In article <m2ras13...@notung.msu.edu> Steve Dunham <dun...@gdl.msu.edu> writes:
Further, you have to sign over the copyright on your changes to the
FSF.
This is not true. People who do not want to assign the copyright can
sign a license to allow the FSF to use the software.
Michael
Evan Leibovitch
In article <4omr1s$4...@nntpa.cb.att.com>,
Bradley M. Kuhn <oe...@addams.nse.att.com> wrote:
>Although the majority posting to this
>group think that Lignux is an immature attempt at recognition, we must remember
>that RMS has EVERY RIGHT to put that into GNU emacs, as he is the maintainer
>of that software package.
I don't think that right was ever under question. Any author can choose
to put whatever they want in their GPLd distriibution. And anyone else is
free to modify it, and undo any silliness they see done in the original
package.
>Under the GPL, people can take it, change it, and
>redistribute it, but we can't stop him from doing it.
Fair enough. Let's see which distributions are more popular; the
original, or derivatives that dispense with the politics.
Yeechang Lee
> wholeheartedly. In practice, I am sad to see the mistakes that have
> been made over the past few years.
Or, [FSF|RMS] != GPL, thank goodness.
--
http://www.columbia.edu/~ylee/ _. icbm://40.83.-73.91/
__./ |
/___. |___
PERTH------>\*./
Yeechang Lee
Marcus G. Daniels <mar...@sysc.pdx.edu> wrote:
> I think denying GNU users and developers the *alternate* term
> `Lignux' is disrepectful, especially since its use doesn't hide the
> name `Linux'.
I'd say a term like 'Lignux' is *worse* than a name that hides
'Linux', because it insidiously implies a primary role for GNU and the
FSF in Linux's origins and development that just doesn't exist.
Jeff Randall
dd...@pitt.edu (Doug DeJulio) writes:
>Now, I happen to *agree* with the FSF agenda, and I'm usually a vocal
>supporter of the FSF, but as long as this absurdity remains in place
>I'm embarassed to discuss the FSF and the GNU ideals with people. If
>I'm not the only one, that right there is a reason for the FSF to
>reverse on this issue.
I've not only lost all respect for the FSF (and RMS directly) because of
this stunt, but the freeware I write will no longer be under the GPL.
I want no more to do with the FSF and am considering starting to replace
the portions of my Linux system with non-GNU software SIMPLY to make
this issue disappear. And I'm not alone from talking with other Linux
users on IRC.
Maybe *THAT* will convince the FSF and RMS to drop this idea like a
hot potato. This whole stunt is beyond pointless - it is actively
DETREMENTAL to the GNU cause.
--
ran...@truth.uph.com | George Orwell was an optimist:
I speak for myself... | "The Constitution is a radical document...it is the
until they destroy the | job of the Government to rein in people's rights."
1st Amendment as well. | -President Bill Clinton
Steve Dunham
Russ Allbery <r...@cs.stanford.edu> writes:
> In gnu.misc.discuss, Bradley M Kuhn <oe...@addams.nse.att.com> writes:
>
> > It's strange, since when I first learned of the FSF (back in 1990), I
> > read the Manifesto and was impressed to no end. Ever since the
> > anti-"{perl,tcl}" incident that lead to the proposal (and now
> > implementation) of Guile, I feel that the FSF has slowly become more and
> > more elitist and has started to believe that THEY control free software.
> > In philosophy, I support the FSF (esp. the manifesto) wholeheartedly.
> > In practice, I am sad to see the mistakes that have been made over the
> > past few years.
> This is *precisely* the way I feel about it.
> Yes, RMS has a perfect right to rant and call things whatever he wishes in
> the software packages he produces. The net result will simply be that he
> will continue to lose more and more respect from me, and when I describe
> free software to people I will be more and more reluctant to mention the
> FSF or support them.
> I think those who agree with the FSF and are supporting this move need to
> open their eyes. There's a very real danger here, but it isn't what you
> think it is. If you continue to go forward with these sorts of actions,
> you're going to be *badly* hurting your ability to get continued support
> from the free software community.
My suggestion to the Linux community: drop the argument.
I originally took up the argument in hopes of convincing the FSF that
the Linux community is a seperate but collaborating entity. It seems
to be impossible. So if the FSF wants to alienate a large segment of
their user population, let them.
The Linux community has more important things to do:
* Improving the documentation
* Improving visibility
* Improving the system software
and
* Creating more applications.
Also, for the information of those who don't read the kernel mailing
list, Linus has chosen an official mascot for Linux, you can see it on
the page:
http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/logo/
Linus' statement appears on the page:
http://www.linux.ncm.com/~lnxlists/archives/1996/05_May/week_4/linux-...@vger.rutgers.edu/1210.html
Steve
dun...@gdl.msu.edu
Dave Pearson
Evan Leibovitch <ev...@telly.telly.org> wrote:
> It is not very polite to refer to anything with a known name by something
> else without the consent of those who use the name.
Does this mean the end of people refering to MSDOG and WinDoze? :-)
--
Take a look in Hagbard's World: | w3ng - The WWW Norton Guide reader.
http://www.acemake.com/hagbard | ng2html - The NG to HTML converter.
For pgp public key send mail to | eg - Norton Guide reader for OS/2.
p...@hagbard.demon.co.uk | DBF.java - DBF reader class for Java.
Marcus G. Daniels
>>>>> "MS" == Mark Stone <mst...@mkp.com> writes:
In article <mstone.75...@mkp.com> mst...@mkp.com (Mark Stone) writes:
me> If you don't care about all this stuff, don't pay attention; the
me> issue here is not what the unengaged think.
MS> Actually, I rather thought the issue here precisely is what the
MS> unengaged think. RMS seems to be saying that people are using
MS> Linux without engaging in thought about the relationship between
MS> Linux and GNU, and his motivation seems to be to provoke the
MS> unengaged to think about the issue.
I think that is an excellent point.
Marcus G. Daniels
>>>>> "RA" == Russ Allbery <r...@cs.stanford.edu> writes:
In article <qumloi9...@cyclone.Stanford.EDU> Russ Allbery <r...@cs.stanford.edu> writes:
me> binutils is a non-problem, someone just thinks it is.
RA> That's good to hear. Perhaps you can also explain why it isn't a
RA> problem?
To say that binutils is forked would be like saying that Debian has
forked all GNU packages because they added some build conventions.
There is no "Linux binutils", there is a tiny body of code that
isn't in portable form for merge with GNU binutils.
RA> FSF fileutils and the color-ls patches
me> Funny.
RA> I'm getting tired of having to maintain two versions of fileutils
RA> just to have a colorized ls on hand.
I'd suggest volunteering to maintain a stripped-down color ls. Solve
the problem once and for all. This why there are common-code
libraries in the GNU utility packages.
Peter Seebach
In article <87ybm8c...@tdb.tdb.com>,
True enough.
>The term `Lignux' is *also* an accurate name for GNU/Linux systems.
How so? Generally, when something is named, it gets one name. Maybe
two. But generally, the new name doesn't just pop up in a configuration
script for a piece of software produced by another entity.
I don't see any source for this name. Linux is an existing name. I
don't see where Lignux comes from. Generally, a nickname would be
something that would show up in some comment, and gradually be repeated.
Forced nicknames are like forced cheerfulness.
>Because both names can co-exist, as can `Debian', `Slackware', or
>`RedHat', etc. and it makes some GNU developers feel good, and
>ultimately because `Lignux' is a *more* accurate name (in terms of
>comparative investment), I think that the term `Lignux' should be
>accepted, or if nothing else, simply tolerated.
I don't see any "more accurate" here. I see "putting more politics
and heredity in" here. I suppose this is one of those Darpanet
things; you have 20,000,000+ people, and some of them find more
accuracy in a name.
Obviously, it should be called the Darpanet, to better reflect
comparative investment.
>Understand why we want to use the `Lignux'. It isn't about credit
>mongering. It isn't about control mongering. It is about the desire
>to be heard and get our message out. We'd like to use Linux for this
>message, because we think Linux developers basically believe in it
>too.
Trying to use a thing to get a message out looks a lot like control to me.
If it were the "creator naming daemon", I could see it. But it's the
whole system, and its primary purpose is *to run software*. Not to
advertise who invented it.
>Using the term `Lignux' communicates four things:
> 1) Pride in the GPL and Free software.
> 2) Pride in advancing Linux.
> 3) Pride in advancing GNU
> 4) A desire to keep (2) and (3) coordinated.
>(3) implies that GNU programs, like Emacs, will tend to be have a
>higher level of integration with other GNU resources on a `Lignux'
>systems. Eventually, it will mean that the GNU C library is used.
>`Lignux' is a concept that identifies a class of systems, and a
>system of thought. It does not deny that there may be other perfectly
>legitimate, more popular, or more accepted systems of thought.
I am unable to parse this well enough to formulate a reply.
I think the term communicates one thing:
1) Awareness of a bandwagon.
>I'm feel bad about what I said. I made a real ugly mistake using the
>word "respect" instead of "use". What I should have said was: "Why
>should all GNU developers deny themselves the name `Lignux',
>*provided* that they simultaneously respect the fact that there is a
>non-kernel Linux community that does have its own established
>identity". At the same time, I would like to advocate that these two
>groups come together as much as possible. Yes, for political reasons.
I can't parse this one either.
Maybe I'm just too tired for this.
>I see no need to react that way. `Lignux' is just an alternative
>name. It is a name that lets those of us who identify closely with
>the GNU idea have a name for the primarily GNU-based systems that we
>may distribute.
But you already had one - "Linux". Sure, it doesn't say GNU all over it,
but SunOS isn't called SunBSD, nor Solaris SVR4is. (It's been called
SVR4-itis, but that's hardly relevant.)
>Well there we are. I think denying GNU users and developers the
>*alternate* term `Lignux' is disrepectful, especially since its use
>doesn't hide the name `Linux'.
When anyone outside the FSF shows an interest in the name, I'll be less
skeptical.
You can call margarine "vegetable butter", but it'll be less communicative
than any of the other likely names.
In the end, standardization is a good thing for its own sake; since there was
a well established name before this came up, there's no good reason to try
to change it now.
-s
--
Peter Seebach - se...@solon.com - Copyright 1996 - http://www.solon.com/~seebs
Unix/C Wizard - send mail for help, or send money for consulting!
The *other* C FAQ, the hacker FAQ, et al. See web page above.
Unsolicited email (junk mail and ads) is unwelcome, and will be billed for.
Peter Seebach
In article <slrn4qvo9f...@hagbard.demon.co.uk>,
Dave Pearson <da...@hagbard.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Evan Leibovitch <ev...@telly.telly.org> wrote:
>> It is not very polite to refer to anything with a known name by something
>> else without the consent of those who use the name.
>Does this mean the end of people refering to MSDOG and WinDoze? :-)
No, just the end of people doing so and claiming it's an honor, or
that it's not rude.
I loathe the MS `operating systems' and will generally refer to them
by the most derisive names I can get away with in the company I'm in
at the time. I do not claim this is an honor.
Peter Seebach
In article <qum3f4g...@cyclone.Stanford.EDU>,
Russ Allbery <r...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>I would just like to point out that the GPL, if you agree with its purpose
>and ideals, is not in any way less useful just because RMS is making
>another political rant. Abandoning the GPL because of RMS doing stupid
>things with emacs configure scripts is like refusing to use emacs because
>you don't like RMS's politics.
Although I agree about the GPL, I refuse to use emacs because of RMS's
politics. He believes that it can be appropriate for an application to
disregard user settings. I do not. I refer to the infamous delete/backspace.
If I say 'stty erase ^H', I damn well expect every program to respect and
use that setting.
This is trivial to work around, but I choose to minimize the time I spend
working around broken software. vi has gotten it right for as long as
I can remember.
>I'll continue to write GPLed code because I like the license and what it
>does better than the BSD license. That's the real issue in that decision.
I have tended towards offering people a choice of license. If people really
want to be jerks about work they do based on my code, that's their option.
Marcus G. Daniels
>>>>> "DDJ" == Doug DeJulio <ddj> writes:
In article <4omnvq$5...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> dd...@pitt.edu (Doug DeJulio) writes:
me> [I want to know the reason why I am IN ERROR if I use the term
me> Lignux. I don't want to hear a bunch of nonsense about the X
me> Window system or other projects that Linux developers had zero to
me> do with. I don't want to hear about who I'm going to anger -- that
me> is a different, perhaps important, issue but not the most crucial
me> one. Tell me I'm wrong and why. When we are done with that issue,
me> then I'll be happy to address tactical issues or your insults.]
DDJ> The reason it's not correct to call the system "Lignux" is because the
DDJ> people who put the distributions together don't call it that, the
DDJ> developers don't call it that, the users don't call it that
`Linux' developers, of which GNU developers are of high significance,
call systems that use the Linux kernel many things. Examples are
Debian, Redhat, and Slackware. Debian, at least, claims to be a
foundation for other distributions, so it is entrirely consistent to
say that a class of distributions could be called `Debian' just as a
class of differing distributions could be called `Lignux'.
DDJ> I note that by your reasoning, it's just as correct to name the
DDJ> system "maple-glazed-rack-of-spam" as it is to name it "Lignux".
DDJ> I mean, your argument basically seems to be "I can call it
DDJ> whatever I want, nyah nyah nyah".
"maple-glazed-rack-of-spam" doesn't (that is _does not_ for those of
you who have trouble with the contractions, hint hint) include the
reference to the GNU project or the Linux kernel, so it wouldn't
address the concerns RMS raises. Also, "maple-glazed-rack-of-spam" is
too long to use as an `opsys'.
Marcus G. Daniels
>>>>> "EL" == Evan Leibovitch <ev...@telly.telly.org> writes:
In article <Ds9u7...@telly.telly.org> ev...@telly.telly.org (Evan Leibovitch) writes:
EL> It is not very polite to refer to anything with a known name by
EL> something else without the consent of those who use the name. If a
EL> few people started calling you by a nickname that you didn't like,
EL> would it bother you? Would it indicate respect on the part of
EL> those using the nickname?
Like people do with the phrase "FSF Emacs".