How much GNU is there in GNU/Linux?[...]
[...]I picked Ubuntu natty as a reference[...]
Ridiculous. If you want to give a minimum of credibility to the article, analyze other distros too!
How much GNU is there in GNU/Linux?
111–120 of 139 posts
Re: How much GNU is there in GNU/Linux?
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do we call it aspirin instead of acetylsalicylic acid? It's familiar, easy to spell, and easy to remember. It's an accident of history. What would be accomplished by renaming it?
Most people in the world don't call it Aspirin, as that's a registered trademark of Bayer AG. The trademark was voided in the U.S. during WWI and never re-granted. Here in Canada, we call it ASA.
That's interesting to know, but the point still stands. ASA is familiar, easy to spell, and easy to remember.
Re: How much GNU is there in GNU/Linux?
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
>the whole idea of a Free alternative to Unix I don't mean to marginalize the gnu project, but there were already free -nixes out there. Starting over from scratch isn't much of an accomplishment other than the license... >and created the culture and licenses that made it possible The GPL has ultimately done more harm than good for open source. The only time proprietary software vendors are forced to release anything…
> The GPL has ultimately done more harm than good for open source. This claim seems to defy the simplest explanation given the historical success of linux, so I think you need to be a bit more rigorous in substantiating your argument. I'll agree that strictly enforcing 'giving back' is an unnecessary imposition and cost for adopters when a) there are many similar substitutable goods b) open source has momentum: evide…
It gets credit. In CREDITS and most articles that describe Linux.
Just look at the Wikipedia entry (an open and free project) for Linux: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux
From paragraph 2: "The development of Linux is one of the most prominent examples of free and open source software collaboration; typically all the underlying source code can be used, freely modified, and redistributed, both commercially and non-commercially, by anyone under licenses such as the GNU General Public License."
The italicized portion links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open_source_software. GNU gets its mention there.
Also paragraph 2: "In 1983, Richard Stallman, longtime member of the hacker community at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, announced the GNU project, saying that he had become frustrated with the effects of the change in culture of the computer industry and its users.[8] Software development for the GNU operating system began in January 1984, and the Free Software Foundation (FSF) was founded in October 1985. An article outlining the project and its goals was published in March 1985 titled the GNU Manifesto. The manifesto also focused heavily on the philosophy of free software. He developed The Free Software Definition and the concept of "copyleft", designed to ensure software freedom for all."
These kinds of attribution are infinitely better than a "GNU/" tacked thoughtlessly on to a generic term.
Re: How much GNU is there in GNU/Linux?
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just makes sure you don't use the command line.
I use the command line a lot, but really, how big of a contribution is cat, ls, find, etc.? It's not like these are extremely complex or difficult programs; the GNU version is still the dominant one mainly because it works fine and it had momentum. I acknowledge that these have grown to be relatively advanced and it may not be an overnight job to rig up a replacement, and I appreciate the effort that has been put in…
It's not like these are extremely complex or difficult programs
Have you looked at cat.c?
You'll be surprised how complex and optimized even the supposedly simple ones are.
Multiple decades of optimization and cross-platform polish are nothing to sneeze at. Try working against the Darwin or Solaris userland sometime if you want to experience what the alternatives look like. Not pretty at all.
Re: How much GNU is there in GNU/Linux?
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just makes sure you don't use the command line.
I use the command line a lot, but really, how big of a contribution is cat, ls, find, etc.? It's not like these are extremely complex or difficult programs; the GNU version is still the dominant one mainly because it works fine and it had momentum. I acknowledge that these have grown to be relatively advanced and it may not be an overnight job to rig up a replacement, and I appreciate the effort that has been put in…
[deleted]
Re: How much GNU is there in GNU/Linux?
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do we call it aspirin instead of acetylsalicylic acid? It's familiar, easy to spell, and easy to remember. It's an accident of history. What would be accomplished by renaming it?
Most people in the world don't call it Aspirin, as that's a registered trademark of Bayer AG. The trademark was voided in the U.S. during WWI and never re-granted. Here in Canada, we call it ASA.
Umm.. what?
Bayer holds the trademark for Aspirin (Capital A) in Canada (and others). The trademark is void in the US (and others)
When Canadians that I know (incluidng me) say "aspirin" we mean very deliberately "Any kind of ASA - and if it's not the generic stuff you're some kind of weirdo who likes to waste money" - but we still call it aspirin. Brand names don't, of course - they list ASA as an ingredient... but I've never in my life heard someone ask if I had any ASA.
Re: How much GNU is there in GNU/Linux?
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
>the whole idea of a Free alternative to Unix I don't mean to marginalize the gnu project, but there were already free -nixes out there. Starting over from scratch isn't much of an accomplishment other than the license... >and created the culture and licenses that made it possible The GPL has ultimately done more harm than good for open source. The only time proprietary software vendors are forced to release anything…
The GPL has ultimately done more harm than good for open source That's the point. The GPL is for free software. Scared of what codebase? I'm more scared of proprietary software than anything because who knows wtf it's doing.
Proprietary doesn't mean secret. There are codebases that are made available to customers for inspection, under NDAs and with all copyrights "reserved" by the owner. Looking at code is not the primary benefit of open or free software.
Re: How much GNU is there in GNU/Linux?
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just so you know, GNOME stands for GNU Object Model Environment. Not that that negates your point, but I still disagree with you for other reasons. Firefox is in no way part of the operating system itself. I would argue that Bash and the core-utils on the other hand are. Also keep in mind that the GNU Project created the whole idea of a Free alternative to Unix and created the culture and licenses that made it possib…
>the whole idea of a Free alternative to Unix I don't mean to marginalize the gnu project, but there were already free -nixes out there. Starting over from scratch isn't much of an accomplishment other than the license... >and created the culture and licenses that made it possible The GPL has ultimately done more harm than good for open source. The only time proprietary software vendors are forced to release anything…
> but there were already free -nixes out there.
What the GNU folks brought to the table is the GPL. It negates the incentive to make proprietary forks. The thriving ecosystem in which Canonical, Red Hat, IBM, among others thrive would not be possible without it.
> The GPL has ultimately done more harm than good for open source
citation needed
> Sure they don't have to give back
And that's probably why *BSD is such a rich ecosystem when compared to Linux distros.
> if product X will never be opensource, at least it will be built with good wheels.
I would prefer not creating such incentive to proprietary software. As a user, I value my rights more than I, as a programmer, value my power to restrict my users' rights.
Re: How much GNU is there in GNU/Linux?
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
The GPL has ultimately done more harm than good for open source That's the point. The GPL is for free software. Scared of what codebase? I'm more scared of proprietary software than anything because who knows wtf it's doing.
Proprietary doesn't mean secret. There are codebases that are made available to customers for inspection, under NDAs and with all copyrights "reserved" by the owner. Looking at code is not the primary benefit of open or free software.
I always urge developers to stay clear from those NDAs and codebases - they may taint your work forever.
Mind you, usually, the folks who offer to show you the code under NDAs are not nice guys.