Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How much GNU is there in GNU/Linux?

pedrocr.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–139 of 139 posts

Re: How much GNU is there in GNU/Linux?

#131

Post by rwl »

pedrocr wrote: post #67
rwl wrote: post #32

"I picked Ubuntu natty (released in April) as a reference, ... and am considering only the “main” repository, supposedly the core of the distribution, actually packaged by Ubuntu and not repackaged from Debian." I'm not sure I understand Ubuntu's "main," or what's "packaged by Ubuntu and not repackaged from Debian." Does this mean the author is not counting code that appears in both Debian and Ubuntu? Because I would…

Pretty much everything that is in Ubuntu is also in Debian. What Ubuntu "main" means is those packages are actually built by Ubuntu with their own patches and quality control. Wheres "universe" has everything that is not in main and is repackaged from debian to Ubuntu by the community without official support. The assumption is that the "main" archive is a fairer representation of the important stuff in the distribut…

"What Ubuntu "main" means is those packages are actually built by Ubuntu with their own patches and quality control."

I guess this is where I was confused. My understanding is that the packages in main still originate as .debs from Debian (i.e., they are not directly packaged from upstream sources), even if Ubuntu applies their own patches and such, so it sounds strange to say that these are not "repackaged." (I can't find an Ubuntu page confirming this, but Wikipedia says, "Ubuntu packages are based on packages from Debian's unstable branch..." [1])

So, I think the mapping from your terminology to mine is:

"built by Ubuntu" => "repackaged by Canonical from Debian"

"repackaged from Debian" => "repackaged by Ubuntu community from Debian"

[1] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ubuntu_%28ope...

Re: How much GNU is there in GNU/Linux?

#132

Post by Sandman »

bxr wrote: post #108
Sandman wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they can modify it without worrying about legal repercussions, they're not afraid to modify it Oh, they can modify it. They just can't redistribute the modified code as proprietary software (or under a non-compatible license). But there's nothing stopping you from taking emacs code, for example, and modifying it any way you want. Actually, that's the point of Free software.

I never said they couldn't I said they couldn't without worrying about legal repercussions. Even in the cases when they're in the right, they have to carefully worry about the license. If I develop on an opensource stack, its prohibitively expensive to deal with the overhead of fixing the underlying components rather than put workarounds in my code. Even if the former would benefit everyone the most.

I read your comment a couple of times and I must admit that I just don't get what you're trying to say. As I said before, the developers don't have to worry about legal repercussions unless they intend to distribute the modified code under a license which would violate the terms and conditions of GPL. So if you're developing an open source stack for your own personal needs, modify the underlying components any way you want to. If you want to redistribute it, though, you have to give the users of your software the same rights that you were given when you used those components. It's as simple as that.

Re: How much GNU is there in GNU/Linux?

#133

Post by hasenj »

FooBarWidget wrote: post #85
prodigal_erik wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he still would have, because what he set out to create is a 100% copylefted system. It's in the manifesto: > Everyone will be permitted to modify and redistribute GNU, but no distributor will be allowed to restrict its further redistribution. That is to say, proprietary modifications will not be allowed. I want to make sure that all versions of GNU remain free.

The FSF actively embraces non-copyleft or weak-copyleft licenses. The GPL3 was explicitly designed to be compatible with the Apache license. The Apache license has a weaker copyleft than GPL2.

They want to work with other free software, they accept "liberal" licenses, but they don't encourage using them. They even encourage GPL over LGPL.

Re: How much GNU is there in GNU/Linux?

#134

Post by lamnk »

omouse wrote: post #79
lawfulfalafel wrote: post #60

Okay, how about this: build a Linux distribution using no GNU software. If you don't think it's critical, try to get by without it. RMS is a good guy, and I think that his effort to make foundational efforts remembered is equally laudable.

I wanted to say that Haiku OS has done it but then again...I'm sure they use some GNU code somewhere.

Haiku OS is not based on linux kernel

Re: How much GNU is there in GNU/Linux?

#135

Post by a3_nm »

pedrocr wrote: post #5
a3_nm wrote: post #2

Interesting. I would be quite interested what the chart looks like if it is restricted to the packages that are part of the default install.

That should be an easy change. Do you happen to know how where to look up the list of default packages? I'd assume the percentage of GNU would go down as gcc and gdb are probably not in the default install. The interpretation is a little more dubious though as gcc and gdb are definitely used to produce the software in the default install.

You could look at a http://ftp-stud.hs-esslingen.de/pub/Mirrors/releases.ubuntu.... or something of the kind.

Re: How much GNU is there in GNU/Linux?

#136

Post by halostatue »

dedward wrote: post #116
halostatue wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Different experiences. The first time I had someone ask me for some, I was confused: I didn't know what it was (I had just immigrated from the US). But I've had more than a few people refer to it as ASA in the thirteen years I've been here.

Re: How much GNU is there in GNU/Linux?

#138

Post by cookiecaper »

Confusion wrote: post #86
cookiecaper wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole argument around the "GNU/Linux" terminology is that the FSF deserved part of the glory because they contributed the userspace to Linux's system code. I think the persistence of those pushing this point of view is a projection of their disappointment over Hurd and demands for subsequent glory "because we deserve it!" This is a really childish stance from the start. A kernel is of course useless without users…

That she 'uses more software provided by KDE' is an unsubstantiated claim that people make way to fast. Is it possible to build KDE without GNU tools? If not, every use of KDE is an indirect use of GNU tools. While running, how many times are glibc and related foundational components called? The problem of GNU tools is their invisibility. But by that metric (what users see), your wife should call the system KDE, sinc…

I don't think much of KDE uses GNU tools under the covers. I know for instance that they've implemented their own copy functionality instead of just piping to cp or whatever. I don't know if they're dependent on any other GNU tools for runtime (they are probably dependent on GNU build tools), maybe we could ask a KDE developer. It'd be interesting to know.

Re: How much GNU is there in GNU/Linux?

#139

Post by pedrocr »

a3_nm wrote: post #135
pedrocr wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That should be an easy change. Do you happen to know how where to look up the list of default packages? I'd assume the percentage of GNU would go down as gcc and gdb are probably not in the default install. The interpretation is a little more dubious though as gcc and gdb are definitely used to produce the software in the default install.

You could look at a http://ftp-stud.hs-esslingen.de/pub/Mirrors/releases.ubuntu.... or something of the kind.

Yep, I asked on IRC and apparently the livecd manifest is a good list to use. Stay tuned
Post reply on HN