EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

05.13.18

Debunking the Usual Omission of GNU

Posted in GNU/Linux at 12:56 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Pack of gnu in the wild

Summary: Debunking the Usual Omission of GNU — a reader’s debunking of a new article from Linux Journal

THIS guest post from “figosdev” is case insensitive — a choice of style. But it’s the arguments that count.


I know, it’s never going to change.
And it doesn’t really have to.
A tired rebuttal to a tired old farce.
Because why not?
If this gets more time, might as well respond…

Debunking yet another tired “let’s just call it Linux” article that makes a lot out of agreeing with itself

 

Some may remember that the Linux naming convention was a controversy that raged from the late 1990s until about the end of the first decade of the 21st century. Back then, if you called it “Linux”, the GNU/Linux crowd was sure to start a flame war with accusations that the GNU Project wasn’t being given due credit for its contribution to the OS. And if you called it “GNU/Linux”, accusations were made about political correctness, although operating systems are pretty much apolitical by nature as far as I can tell.

a controversy that raged from the late 1990s until about the end of the first decade of the 21st century.

the controversy was probably mostly people saying “you should call it gnu/linux, because we have called it gnu for years and you added a kernel and called the whole thing ‘linux’”

the GNU/Linux crowd was sure to start a flame war with accusations that the GNU Project wasn’t being given due credit

if it was a company with a monopoly, they probably just would have filed a lawsuit. but instead they had an ongoing debate. lets make this debate sound as unreasonable as possible, because then we win by ad hom.

The brouhaha got started in the mid-1990s when Richard Stallman, among other things the founder of the Free Software Movement who penned the General Public License, began insisting on using the term “GNU/Linux” in recognition of the importance of the GNU Project to the OS. GNU was started by Stallman as an effort to build a free-in-every-way operating system based on the still-not-ready-for-prime-time Hurd microkernel.

GNU was started by Stallman as an effort to build a free-in-every-way operating system based on the still-not-ready-for-prime-time Hurd microkernel.

 

the emphasis on the hurd kernel is entirely on the part of the linux crowd. the purpose of the gnu project is and was to make users free. linux doesnt care about that, but its a very good kernel, so stallman suggested sharing credit. and he kept suggesting it– for years, as linux grew and continued to accept all the credit.

According to this take, Linux was merely the kernel, and GNU software was the sauce that made Linux work.

to the gnu project, hurd is just a kernel. and linux is just a kernel. it makes no sense to gnu developers to use the entire project and name it after the kernel–

the cpu is a very core part of the computer, but if you took a laptop designed to make the user free and changed the intel processor to an amd one, you wouldnt call the laptop “an amd” would you? that would be silly. if you said you got an amd people would say “what did you put it in?” “oh, its a dell.” because an amd just does nothing without the rest of the laptop.

Noting that the issue seems to have died down in recent years, and mindful of Shakespeare’s observation on roses, names and smells, I wondered if anyone really cares anymore what Linux is called. So, I put the issue to a number of movers and shakers in Linux and open-source circles by asking the simple question, “Is it GNU/Linux or just plain Linux?”

oh come on, you did not… this article is a rehash of so many like that open source fanboys do from year to year to year. you didnt really wonder at all.

So, I put the issue to a number of movers and shakers in Linux and open-source circles

 

ha! you asked “linux circles” if you call it linux? we already know what “open-source” calls it. your bias is built right into your sources. this is a farce.

“This has been one of the more ridiculous debates in the FOSS realm, far outdistancing the Emacs-vi rift”, said Larry Cafiero, a longtime Linux advocate and FOSS writer who pulls publicity duties at the Southern California Linux Expo. “It’s akin to the Chevrolet-Chevy moniker. Technically the car produced by GM is a Chevrolet, but rarely does anyone trot out all three syllables. It’s a Chevy. Same with the shorthand for GNU/Linux being Linux. The shorthand version—the Chevy version—is Linux. If you insist in calling it a Chevrolet, it’s GNU/Linux.”

This has been one of the more ridiculous debates in the FOSS realm

 

yes, its ridiculous because not only does open source insist on eclipsing free software, it wants to do it in every possible way– from co-opting a social movement to changing the name of everything, to denying credit for anything accomplished over the past 15 years (“well that was then, but…”) even to pretending that the debate is over “and we won!” (but thats how the article leaves it. we arent there yet.)

Next up was Steven J. Vaughan Nichols, who’s “been covering Unix since before Linux was a grad student”. He didn’t mince any words.

yes, hes a complete shill for zdnet.

“Enough already”, he said. “RMS tried, and failed, to create an operating system: Hurd. He and the Free Software Foundation’s endless attempts to plaster his GNU name to the work of Linus Torvalds and the other Linux kernel developers is disingenuous and an insult to their work. RMS gets credit for EMACS, GPL, and GCC. Linux? No.”

Enough already”, he said. “RMS tried, and failed, to create an operating system:

 

wow. i used to think he was sort of in-the-middle as shills went.

steve: take windows– an entire “operating system,” and replace ntkernel, and call it yours. let me know what you still own when theyre done.

 

RMS gets credit for EMACS, GPL, and GCC. Linux? No.”

steve, what the heck does this even mean???

youre the ones suggesting it be called linux/linux. youre talking like stallman wants to call it gnu/gnu.

 

He and the Free Software Foundation’s endless attempts to plaster his GNU name to the work of Linus Torvalds and the other Linux kernel

uh, no? torvalds plastered the linux name onto the gnu operating system. heres how you know– the gnu operating system already existed.

and from what you said, youd think that the gnu team took linux and added it to the gnu os and called the linux kernel “gnu.” but again, they call what other people took and added linux to– and call it gnu/linux.

someone is plastering a name onto everything, but the name theyre plastering is onto it is linux.

if we can call everything linux, theres no reason that calling it “gnu/linux” is specious.

To be fair, the use of GNU-related monikers didn’t start with Stallman. An early distribution, Yggdrasil, used the term “Linux/GNU/X” in 1992, and shortly thereafter the terms “GNU/Linux” and “GNU+Linux” began showing up in Usenet and mailing-list discussions. Debian, which early on was sponsored by the Free Software Foundation, starting using the term “GNU/Linux” in 1994, which it continues to use to this day. Stallman began publicly advocating its use in 1996.

yes, to be fair.

id like gnu/steve (his argument was we are trying to plaster gnu onto everything, so this isnt any different) or as steve is known in the linux world: “linux” (the l-man, steve the kernel, linsteve 2.0) to go tell debian developers “plastering the GNU name to the work of Linus Torvalds and the other Linux kernel developers is disingenuous and an insult to their work!” and find out how that goes. go ahead, l-man, do it…

But Stallman’s advocacy always put a bad taste in some people’s mouths.

yes, but to be fair, there are people who react negatively to just about any idea.

“For me it’s always, always, always, always Linux,” said Alan Zeichick, an analyst at Camden Associates who frequently speaks, consults and writes about open-source projects for the enterprise. “One hundred percent. Never GNU/Linux. I follow industry norms.”

Well, somebody has to defend orthodoxy.

For me it’s always, always, always, always Linux,” said Alan Zeichick, an analyst at Camden Associates

 

ive heard about gnu and linux about a million times in over a decade. as of today ive heard of alan zeichick once, and camden associates (what do they even do?) once. im just going to call them linux, its the more popular term.

 

“I follow industry norms.”

so you use windows and apple mostly– ok.

Gaël Duval, founder of the once uber-popular Mandrake/Mandriva distro who’s now developing eelo, a privacy-respecting Android clone, pointed out that insisting on GNU/Linux might open the door wider than originally intended. “I understand people who support the idea to call it GNU/Linux”, he said. “On the other hand, I do not see why in this case we wouldn’t use “GNU/X11/KDE/Gnome/Whatever/Linux” for desktop systems, because graphical environments and apps are very significant in such systems.

insisting on GNU/Linux might open the door wider than originally intended. “I understand people who support the idea to call it GNU/Linux”, he said.

 

– yes, to keep the original project from being eclipsed. technically gnu eclipses unix, but a. it cant legally be called unix and b. thats what the u cleverly stands for: “gnus not unix.”

i would be perfectly happy with the name linug instead of gnu/linux, and it could stand for “linug is never undermining gnu.” i truly believe stallman would accept this.

“Personally, I’m comfortable with both Linux and GNU/Linux”, he added, “but I use simply Linux, because adding complexity in communication and marketing is generally not efficient.”

adding complexity in communication and marketing is generally not efficient.”

the message that you really want to convey after all, is that linus torvalds wrote an entire operating system.

Richi Jennings, an independent industry analyst who pens a weekly security column on TechBeacon, expressed a similar sentiment. “Look, it’s totally fair to give the GNU project its due”, he said. “On the other hand, if that fairness needs to be expressed in a naming convention, why stop at GNU? Why not also recognize BSD, XINU, PBM, OpenSSL, Samba and countless other FLOSS projects that need to be included to form a workable distro?

Why not also recognize BSD, XINU, PBM, OpenSSL, Samba and countless other FLOSS projects that need to be included to form a workable distro?

because this is a completely specious argument by their own percentage standards. even with the bsd part… though that was the best example.

note the percentage argument is entirely a thing that the linux crowd made up, and it misses the point a bit like everything else theyve said to justify co-opting free software.

“The bottom line is that ‘Linux’ is what the vast majority of people call it. So that’s what it should be called, because that’s how language works.”

The bottom line is that ‘Linux’ is what the vast majority of people call it. So that’s what it should be called,

 

by this ridiculous argument, internet explorer should be called “windows” and firefox should be called “facebook.”

Self-professed “ace Linux guru” and Linux writer Carla Schroder said, “I’ve never called it GNU/Linux. GNU coreutils, tar, make, gcc, wget, bash and so on are still fundamental tools for a lot of Linux users. Certain people can’t let any Linux discussion pass without insisting that ‘Linux’ is only the kernel. Linux distros include a majority of non-GNU software, and I’m fine with ‘Linux’ as an umbrella term for the whole works. It’s simple and it’s widely recognized.”

“Certain people can’t let any Linux discussion pass without insisting that ‘Linux’ is only the kernel.”

guess why? because linux is the kernel.

“I’m fine with ‘Linux’ as an umbrella term for the whole works. “

and the whole rewriting history part is fine too.

Tallying the votes, it looks as if the “ayes” have it, and you can call Linux what you want. If anybody gives you any grief, tell them what Schroder told me: “Arguing is fun, but I suggest that contributing financially or in other ways to GNU/Linux/FOSS projects is more helpful.”

Tallying the votes

if polling people and counting the ones who agree with your stance is what you call voting, theres got to be a place near central america you can run for office.

Arguing is fun, but I suggest that contributing financially or in other ways to GNU/Linux/FOSS projects is more helpful.”

i would say that when youre not doing that, a few arguments against rewriting history are possibly worth your time.

also, i think it helps if people call it gnu/linux.

Or, we could argue about whether it’s FOSS or FLOSS.

Or, we could argue about whether it’s FOSS or FLOSS.

its both. have a cookie.

 

there are a few stupid things about this article worth mentioning:

gnu/linux is about precedence, not percentage. that whole percentage red herring is bunk city.

creating an operating system to make users free is a loftier goal than writing a kernel to avoid a hike through the snow, and suggesting “gnu/linux” as a compromise is both generous and smart– since linux insists on taking all the credit.

gnu and also the free software movement were co-opted by linux and open source. even open source initiative co-founder bruce perens admits this, though it wasnt intentional on his part. gnu/linux was proposed as a way to give back some of the credit, after too much was taken away. it was a gracious move, and no matter how many times this “lets just agree on linux” argument is made (year after year after year) the fact is– the gnu/linux name serves a purpose regardless.

if people call it “linux” they are letting you know that they are willing to co-opt a very important work and possibly rewrite history.

if people call it “gnu/linux” they are letting you know that marketing isnt more important to them than due credit– and that they care about your freedom and what the gnu name stands for.

you dont have to care what the gnu name stands for, but it does stand for a bit more than the name “linux” does. the gnu name (while it really is just a name) indicates things to users that “linux” barely implies at times (or in practice.)

whats funny is that by poking at the name “linux,” the project to make users free continues to promote a worthier goal than just a practical piece of software– so what if it does it the way ricky gervais in extras tries to inch his way into the scene. the somewhat disingenuously-eclipsed project to make people free doesnt have to seem like its cool, it only has to do whats right.

while the industry doesnt have to do whats right, it only has to seem like its cool.

and if this kind of bs is what passes for “cool” these days, maybe these people need to get out more.

the one thing i meant to add is, ‘no matter how many times these arguments are trotted out, using the gnu name is still a reliable way to convey that you care about freedom– while calling it linux is an increasingly UNreliable way to do do that.

you have the choice, and it says where your priorities are. theres something about ‘gnu/linux’ thats hard to co-opt– those who would misuse it, would probably never use it. perhaps this is stallmans unintended genius, but i wish id thought of it.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

What Else is New


  1. The Federal Circuit Bar Association (FCBA) Will Spread the Berkheimer Lie While Legal Certainty Associated With Patents Remains Low and Few Lawsuits Filed

    New figures regarding patent litigation in the United States (number of lawsuits) show a decrease by about a tenth in just one year; there's still no sign of software patents making any kind of return/rebound in the United States, contrary to lies told by the litigation 'industry' (those who profit from frivolous lawsuits/threats)



  2. Links 12/11/2018: Linux 4.20 RC2, Denuvo DRM Defeated Again

    Links for the day



  3. Automation of Searches Will Not Solve the Legitimacy Problem Caused by Patents Lust

    The false belief that better searches and so-called 'AI' can miraculously assess patents will simply drive/motivate bad decisions and already steers bad management towards patent maximalism (presumption of examination/validation where none actually exists)



  4. The Federal Circuit and PTAB Are Not Slowing Down; Patent Maximalists Claim It's 'Harassment' to Question a Patent's Validity

    There’s no sign of stopping when it comes to harassment of judges and courts; those who make a living from patent threats and litigation do anything conceivable to stop the ‘bloodbath’ of US patents which were never supposed to have been granted in the first place



  5. Patent Maximalists Will Latch Onto Return Mail v US Postal Service in an Effort to Weaken or Limit Post-Grant Reviews of US Patents

    An upcoming case, dealing with what governments can and cannot do with/to patents (specifically the US government and US patents), interests the litigation 'industry' because it loathes reviews of low-quality and/or controversial patents (these reviews discourage litigation or stop lawsuits early on in the cycle)



  6. Guest Post: EPO Spins Censorship of Staff Representation

    Another concrete example of Campinos' cynical story-telling



  7. Andrei Iancu and Laura Peter Are Two Proponents of Patent Trolls at the Top of the USPTO

    Patent offices do not seem to care about the law, about the courts, about judges and so on; all they care about is money (and litigation costs) and that’s a very major problem



  8. The Patent 'Industry' Wants Incitations and Feuds, Not Innovation and Collaboration

    The litigation giants and their drones keep insisting that they're interested in helping scientists; but sooner or later the real (productive) industry learns to kick them to the curb and work together instead of suing



  9. EPO 'Outsourcing' Rumours

    The EPO advertises jobs in Prague and Lisbon; this leads to speculations less than a year after António Campinos sent EU-IPO jobs to India (for cost reduction)



  10. Links 11/11/2018: Bison 3.2.1 and FreeBSD 12.0 Beta 4

    Links for the day



  11. Pro-Litigation Front Groups Like CIPA and Team UPC Control the EPO, Which Shamelessly Grants Software Patents

    With buzzwords and hype like "insurtech", "fintech", "blockchains" and "AI" the EPO (and to some degree the USPTO as well) looks to allow a very wide range of software patents; the sole goal is to grant millions of low-quality patents, creating unnecessary litigation in Europe



  12. Latest Loophole: To Get Software Patents From the EPO One Can Just Claim That They're 'on a Car'

    The EPO has a new 'study' (accompanied by an extensive media/PR campaign) that paints software as "SDV" if it runs on a car, celebrating growth of such software patents



  13. The Huge Cost of Wrongly-Granted European Patents, Recklessly Granted by the European Patent Office (EPO)

    It took 4 years for many thousands of people to have just one patent of Monsanto/Bayer revoked; what does that say about the impact of erroneous patent awards?



  14. Links 10/11/2018: Mesa 18.3 RC2, ‘Linux on DeX’ Beta and Windows Breaking Itself Again

    Links for the day



  15. Unified Patents Takes Aim at Velos Media SEPs, Passed From Patent Aggressor Qualcomm

    The latest endeavour from Unified Patents takes aim at notorious standard-essential patents (SEPs), which are not compatible with Free/Open Source software and are typically invalid as per 35 U.S.C. § 101 as well



  16. Stacked Panels of Front Groups Against PTAB and in Favour of Patents on Life/Nature

    So-called 'panels' where the opposition is occluded or excluded try to sell the impression that greatness comes from patent maximalism (overpatenting) rather than restriction based on merit and rational scope



  17. With Patent Trolls Like Finjan and Blackbird Tech out There, Microsoft in OIN Does Not Mean Safety

    With many patent trolls out there (Microsoft’s Intellectual Ventures alone has thousands of them) it’s not at all clear how Microsoft can honestly claim to have reached a “truce”; OIN deals with issues which last manifested/publicly revealed themselves a decade ago (Microsoft suing directly, not by proxy)



  18. Links 9/11/2018: Qt 5.12.0 Beta 4, Ubuntu On Samsung Galaxy Devices, Rust 1.30.1

    Links for the day



  19. Microsoft is Supporting Patent Trolls, Still. New Leadership at USPTO Gives Room for Concern.

    New statements from Microsoft's management (Andersen) serve to show that Microsoft hasn't really changed; it's just trying to sell "Azure IP Advantage", hoping that enough patent trolls with their dubious software patents will blackmail GNU/Linux users into adopting Azure for 'protection'



  20. EPO Stacking up Buzzwords (4IR, AI, Now SDV) to Compel Examiners to Grant Patents on Algorithms

    Instead of looking for ways to better obey the law and comply with the EPC, President Campinos is creating new loopholes, further lowering patent quality in order to fake 'growth'



  21. EPO Needs to Publicly Apologise for Granting Bogus/Fake Patents to Aggressive Companies Like Monsanto (Now Bayer)

    Admission of patents being granted in error and/or against public interest may be a step towards acceptance that there is a problem; EPO management, however, keeps quiet about it



  22. The Death of the UPC is Only a “Tragedy” for Patent Trolls and Their Facilitators

    The Unified Patent Court (UPC) will likely never exist (ever); it's not hard to see who stands to lose from this demise of the UPC (before it even started)



  23. The António Campinos Private/Secret Meeting With ILO Officials a Slap Across the Face to Employees of the European Patent Office

    European Patent Office injustice prevails; the new President, António Campinos, is merely trying to cover up the abuses of the person who lobbied to put him in charge



  24. Links 7/11/2018: Unreal Engine 4.21 Released, Cinnamon 4.0 Preview, Rcpp 1.0.0

    Links for the day



  25. Techrights Turns 12, Upcoming Server Migration

    As we approach our 25,000th blog post we also prepare for migration to a new dedicated server



  26. US Litigation Office: Former Judge From the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Leaves the Office as Another Litigator Enters as New Deputy Director

    Nathan Kelley is leaving and Laura Peter is joining the USPTO; That means one patent judge less and a new Deputy Director who used to work for what some call a "patent troll"



  27. European Software Patents: From AI to Blockchains and Now... Self-Driving Vehicles

    The leadership which comes after Battistelli is even worse when it comes to patent scope and patent quality; it seems to mimic China's low standards, which include patents on algorithms



  28. Guy Ryder (ILO) Should Meet Staff Representatives, Not Corrupt Team Battistelli

    The perception of ILO complicity is being reinforced in light of new revelations about private meetings that exclude actual staff representatives (such as SUEPO, whose officials are themselves the subject of ILO appeals)



  29. Links 7/11/2018: Fifteen Years of Fedora, ReactOS 0.4.10

    Links for the day



  30. Low Patent Quality and Patent Maximalism in General Are Bankrupting Real Businesses for the Sake/Gain of Litigation Firms and Trolls (Their Clients)

    Coming to grips with the fact that productive industries are being crushed for the sake of lawyers, whose firms often act as a front for exploitative patent trolls and monopolies


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts