GNU-Linux on Wikipedia
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios
Wikipedia seems to under-credit GNU, and over-credit Linux.
"Linux is a Unix-like computer operating system..." (Linux page, Wikipedia)
"...no stable release of GNU yet exists as of May 2013. Non-GNU kernels, most famously the Linux kernel, can also be used with GNU." (GNU page, Wikipedia
And searches for GNU-Linux on Wikipedia redirect to Linux.
Why do people do this? The information for correcting this is in those very articles.
In a lot of articles, the term "Linux" is used to refer to the GNU operating system. Whenever it gets corrected, someone who monitors the GNU/Linux distro pages almost immediately undoes the correction.
Maybe if we all work together and do it in a reasoned way, with persistence, and without losing patience, we can help the hall monitor understand why he is wrong and get some of the articles changed.
It's particularly annoying that the Wikipedia page for Trisquel refers to Trisquel as a "Linux distribution."
Yes, this is quite annoying. I think this is because of the clueless Linux horde, people who never heard of GNU and don't like to read to educate themselves. You know, like your average Ubuntu user. And then there's the shills who're paid to dislike and marginalize GNU and love their proprietary crap. Then there's Linus Torvalds who these days likes to think Linux is an operating system.
I've been trying to correct this but gotten reverted and told that there's supposedly consensus against it. No link to such consensus naturally was provided. Apparently this is one of more popular debates on Wikipedia...
On 25/08/13 15:48, adel.afzal wrote:
> Wikipedia seems to under-credit GNU, and over-credit Linux.
>
> "Linux is a Unix-like computer operating system..." (Linux page,
> Wikipedia)
>
> "...no stable release of GNU yet exists as of May 2013. Non-GNU
> kernels, most famously the Linux kernel, can also be used with GNU."
> (GNU page, Wikipedia
>
>
> And searches for GNU-Linux on Wikipedia redirect to Linux.
>
> Why do people do this? The information for correcting this is in
> those very articles.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy
Isn't it ironic that Wikipedia says that no stable release of GNU
exists, and then insists Linux is an OS? It makes no sense.
I've read through the the Talk pages, and basically the Wikipedia
argument is that the terminology "Linux" is in wide use, therefore is
correct. On the Trisquel page, I've noticed editors change "Linux" to
GNU/Linux, only for other Wikipedians reverting it with "GNU troll" as
the comment... which is a rather hostile statement. A reference to
the "Linux" terminology consensus in the comment would more polite.
Of course, I'm not talking about all Wikipedians, perhaps only a few.
But the editors that advocate using "Linux" as terminology are the ones
that have a higher permission level, so there hardly seems to be a point
in arguing. Maybe we should just keep using our terminology and hope
that one day the situation changes.
Andrew.
"the Wikipedia argument is that the terminology "Linux" is in wide use, therefore is correct." -- andrew
Wikipedia would be a bad source for information, if it used popular misunderstanding as the standard for the articles.
Wikipedia doesn't usually use popular opinion as the standard for articles though. Their generally high standards makes this anomoly pretty strange.
I am a member!
Is there a defined way to deal with this issue? Can somebody make the change with a link to that defined way? It's hard to argue 'troll' when your linking to wikipedia's own rules and procedures for dealing with this. And what if we started a discussion page and all pitched in? It is obviously wrong that there is a general agreement on this issue. One of the leading distributions is called Debian GNU/Linux. One of the longest running leaders of the free software movement (RMS) and the free software foundation disagrees. In fact the only people who seem to really be in consensus (to some degree) are media outlets (but even there not all using Linux, as RMS only speaks to those who refer to it as GNU/Linux), non-technical users, and 'open source' proponents. While this may make up a greater group it is far from a resolved issue given Debian, Trisquel, Parabola, the FSF, RMS, and free software advocates, some stores (ThinkPenguin), user groups, some writers/papers at times amongst others use GNU/Linux.
On 26/08/13 07:08, Chris wrote:
> Is there a defined way to deal with this issue? Can somebody make the
> change with a link to that defined way? It's hard to argue 'troll'
> when your linking to wikipedia's own rules and procedures for dealing
> with this. And what if we started a discussion page and all pitched
> in?
Well there is already this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:GNU/Linux_naming_controversy
Discussions from the talk page have been archived ten times already, so
it's obviously a popular discussion topic.
Interestingly, distributions such as Trisquel aren't allowed to be
called "GNU/Linux" in their articles because of the "consensus" that
"Linux" is the correct term. Previously, the Trisquel page said
something like:
"Trisquel GNU/Linux is a computer operating system based on the Ubuntu
Linux distribution, with all of the nonfree components removed."
but then even that got changed to "Trisquel is a computer [OS] ..."
(even though "Trisquel GNU/Linux" is the correct title shown on the
Trisquel website).
Also, to anyone editing the Trisquel page, I should probably mention
there's no point in starting an edit war on the main Trisquel article,
or it will end up getting temporarily locked. Let's keep this on the
talk pages.
Andrew.
I think calling the system GNU (slash) or (plus) Linux sounds a bit odd. But calling the whole system Linux is another problem because it gives away all the credit to one person whose views I completely disagree with. Yes, Freedom is more important than practical convenience, and it so unfortunate when these GNU/Linux distros come bundled with proprietary softwares. But calling the entire system GNU might be unfair too, as "Linux" is a core part of the operating system. So to be fair on both sides we must call it "GNU/Linux" even though it might sound a bit odd. I wish people took time to educate themeselves with the philosophical views and the reasons why the GNU/Linux came to exist, then they might be willing to call it GNU/Linux more often than not.
I suppose you can't really fault Wikipedia for saying "Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux".
I also once saw a writing style that gave more authority than deserved to Linus Torvalds, when combined with the tendency for "Linux" to be used to refer to GNU/Linux: "Among those critical of the new version is Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux...". The statement is technically correct, but this was in an article about the whole controversy over GNOME 3,[0] which has nothing to do with the kernel of the system, which suggests that the only purpose of mentioning that he is the "creator of Linux" is to establish authority for his opinion by implying that he is responsible for the whole system.
What we really need is a "neutral" term, but this is problematic; you'd think that "GNU/Linux" would be neutral, right? When I saw "GNU/Linux" back when I thought that the whole system was Linux and created by Torvalds, seeing "GNU/Linux" just made me assume that "GNU" was another system similar to "Linux", and it never bothered me. Why the hell does it bother certain people so much, then? They say "Linux is popular", but "GNU/Linux" is a terminology choice which recognizes that.
Side note: I've thought about the naming thing quite a bit, and one possible term I kind of like is "Linux GNU". Everyone knows that "Linux" is some sort of software, not an organization (though many people wrongly think it's a whole OS), which is unfortunately not true about GNU (many people wrongly think that "gee-en-yew" is some sort of organization). With this, the only possible meanings for "Linux GNU" that I can think of are "Linux, which is a variant of GNU", or "the Linux variant of GNU". One of those is correct ("the Linux variant of GNU"); GNU/Linux is the GNU system with Linux as the kernel. Thought of another way, if someone produced an OS called "Linux BSD", it would be easy to understand that this is a variant of BSD using Linux instead of the BSD kernel. The only problem with "Linux GNU" is that other possible meaning; if too many people think that it means "Linux, which is a variant of GNU", they may drop the "GNU", thinking it's unimportant, but this would be avoided by a page explaining what it actually means.
I understand your point, but GNOME is one GNU project with focus in Linux. Today is hard to use with FreeBSD or GNU/Hurd. The best for all kernels is XFCE or KDE.
I think from version GNOME 3.6 or 3.8 depends systemd.
I suppose if the FSF stopped trying to be "gentlemanly" and insisted on calling the system just "GNU", people would stop rabidly opposing "GNU/Linux" and it would become the go-to neutral term, like "FOSS" is for free software and open source.
I am a member!
Unless my memory is faulty the FSF does insist on it. I know with certainty RMS does. He won't talk to reporters unless they use the term GNU/Linux.
I meant just "GNU" as opposed to "GNU/Linux". The FSF insists on "GNU/Linux", not just "GNU" by itself. I think if they did insist on just "GNU" by itself, "GNU/Linux" would morph into a compromise terminology.
Perhaps 'Open Source' advocates would say that Linux isn't getting any credit now, (if the FSF called the operating system solely 'GNU
') though that would be hypocritical.
I am a member!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:80.229.0.24
Go figure.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
iF4EAREIAAYFAlIeERYACgkQgijxUCZnvlsnggD7B/hk8RPZb2FafsZoHYsCmyR3
23aRfSZH1HiJmAiPUJ8A/j9V7BwoCMdhANA0DXxBSPLO59p5WhnNpjug2DtFySx8
=O82z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I kind of have to agree that Wikipedia is doing its job properly. It's not Wikipedia's fault that the misnomer "Linux" is more popular than the more correct name "GNU/Linux". The way to fix this is to make "GNU/Linux", or some other more correct term, more popular than "Linux".
No, I disagree.
An encyclopedia should not use the most popular term for something but the correct one.
Linux *isn't* an operating system and a good encyclopedia shouldn't support false claims, even if many people make them.
Well, language is a funny thing in that whatever is most popular is "correct"; if everyone is talking about apple juice when they say "water", "water" means apple juice, regardless of how silly it is.
It is not about language here.
If the meaning of the word "operating system" changes with time and now refers to kernels, then the statement "linux is an operating system" is correct.
It would also be possible, that the name of GNU changes to Linux by its founders. Then it's also correct to say "this operating system is called linux".
Nothing like this happened.
Example:
RMS builds a house. He calls the house "the GNU house". Linus Torvalds builds on top of the house a chimney (I know that the contribution of linux to the gnu system is much bigger, but it doesn't matter here) which is called the linux chimney.
the majority of people agrees with the definition of a house like we both know it, and the majority of people agrees with the definition of a chimney.
It is *wrong* to call the house "the linux house", since the word "house" refers clearly not to a chminey and since rms named its house "GNU".
As you can see, this is not a language problem, since the words "house" and "chimney" still mean the same.
What happens is that most people call the house "linux" by mistake and wikipedia says: "well, if just everyone thinks it's the linux house, then it's just right" which is very bad work for an encyclopedia.
The reason for this is a logical mistake.
Sorry for getting myself in the middle of the conversation, but I do agree with quantumgravity, specially considering the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to be an encyclopedia, thus meaning that it should provide the most correct information they receive to date.
Of course, errors must be accepted, because everyone makes mistakes, but by being an encyclopedia, and by being available worldwide through the Internet, Wikipedia must be flexible enough to evaluate the proposed changes, search about such subjects (again and again, even if they have already found the answer in the past), and discuss such changes with others.
I just wish the Wikipedia maintainers and evaluators would understand the meaning of an encyclopedia.
Sorry if I offended someone, I really didn't (and I still don't) want to do so.
Best regards, ADFENO.
Have a nice day.
I am a member!
Wikipedia is not a political platform, and it's hardly their place to take stands on some more or less silly naming disputes. Linux in common practice is the system name, and thus it makes sense for them to use it as such.
Misconceptions don't become truth just because they are common. When something is popular it does not magically become right. If an article on Wikipedia is wrong due to popular misconception, we should help its moderators understand why it's wrong so that it can be corrected.
Some people are slow to understand things. I count myself among them. It takes some persistence to get through to people like me. So, with the moderators on Wikipedia, we just need to be persistent and have patience. Eventually, they'll understand.
The GNU/Linux naming controversy is not just political. Calling the GNU operating system "Linux" is flat out erroneous.
The operating system has been GNU all along. GNU is not just a toolchain as "Linux" proponents argue. GNU is the name of the operating system as a whole. Calling it GNU/Linux is already a compromise. The acronym itself is testament to this.
The acronym GNU comes from an old tradition of naming a new program using an acronym that
1) is a real word itself,
2) is recursive, and
3) gives a nod to its predecessor (if it has one).
GNU is a real word, it is recursive, and it gives a nod to the predecessor which it replaces, Unix. It doesn't matter what kernel is used, the operating system is still GNU.
Imagine if plastered its emblem onto a Tesla because a couple of Honda engineers helped build a part used in the Tesla. Even if that car became popularly identified as a Honda, it would still be inaccurate to call it a Honda.
Better yet, imagine if Panasonic repalaced the Tesla emblem with the Panasonic logo because it makes the batteries used in Teslas. Let's say it became popular to refer to Teslas as Panasonics. The Tesla engineers protest, but alas most people already know the cars as Panasonics. So let's make a compromise. Let's call it a Tesla/Panasonic.
Popular doesn't mean right.
I agree entirely, but I don't think Wikipedia is the right place to address the problem. The problem needs to be addressed at the source. If "GNU/Linux" becomes more popular than "Linux", Wikipedia will follow. If by some freak accident "LiGNUx" becomes more popular, Wikipedia will follow. It's not Wikipedia's job to decide what is correct. It's good that it reports terminology based on popularity, because that's how language works. If the popular terminology is flawed, we need to fix that problem, and we need to do that without using Wikipedia to cheat.
I am a member!
Now that's a whole lot of text for not much point. You could have just linked to the FSF, or the wikipedia page for that matter, on this very topic and saved yourself a lot of typing. ...But seeing as I'm now gonna do the exact same thing, glass houses and all that...
The naming controversy is silly, and purely a political thing. The plain fact is that the terms Linux and Open Source have long since won out against GNU and Free. And Wikipedia, being a "neutral" encyclopedia should follow the standard, widely accepted naming conventions.
I'd venture part of the reason it has become this way is simply that Linux is short and sweet, and Open Source is unambigiously descriptive of the primary feature which makes this all so attractive.
GNU IS a toolchain, and a bunch of other utilities. That's just them plain annoying facts. When Linux got slipped into the metaphorical mix GNU wasn't yet an operating system at all, on account of missing the most important piece.
It was a collection of lots of great software, but if that's your argument, hell, might as well call it GNU/Linux/Abrowser, considering how most users probably spend more time in the browser than fiddling in bash or compiling with GCC or.. Hell, even knowing what the GNU C Library does..
Now, before someone jumps on my sorry ass for saying this, obviously I do think one should give a whole lot of credit to the GNU project for starting the whole thing and developing the aforementioned collection of tools, and I'm sure most historical texts on the subject would. As I'm sure would the wikipedia page.
But pragmatically speaking, whining about which names, and that's all it is people, NAMES, stick and which does not is just a goddamn waste of time that could be put to more productive use.
Well, actually, the human experience is entirely subjective, the truth is merely that which on the majority agrees. So popular does in fact mean right. And "misconceptions" does in fact become truth. That's just the world for you.
They may be words, but they're not *just* words. The words we use influence the way we think about things. If we want people to think about freedom, then we should use words that call to mind the idea of freedom. GNU and free software do this; Linux and open source do not.
I am a member!
Or so goes the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis at any rate. Which is still just a hypothesis, I might add. Call me when them researches actually gets a little consensus.
..And then leave a voicemail after the beep, 'cause seems these days consensus is just another word for lies and grossly manipulated, misleading statistics.. But it'd probably be unwise to get into an argument concerning global warming hysteria in here. =x
Well, that's your opinion. Personally I consider them just words. Simple words we use to describe a big collection of software that more or less works nicely together, and the concept of software licensed in a certain way with regards to use, modification and redistribution. Respectively.
"Free software" as a term is at best ambigious and at worst plain misleading. It calls to mind price, not freedom, so your logic is already faulty.
Admittedly this is much different in many other languages, for instance in Norwegian there's no ambiguity when saying "fri programvare" instead of "åpen kildekode".
I can only surmise that this is what English gets for linguistically equating freedom and no cost.
And come to think of it, in terms of the english-speaking countries here in the west, pretty sure the whole freedom thing is nothing more than a fading memory these days. And if you're already taking it up the ass from the government and the banks and everyone else, pffft, might as well take it up the ass from your computer too.
Hell, UEFI sees to that, regardless what software you slap on top.
..Right.. Think that's enough negativity for one day. My apologies.
dudeski, you're wrong, and here's why. The name GNU does not refer to the toolchain. The name GNU refers to the operating system as a whole. Appending the name of the kernel is already a compromise.
The GNU toolchain is a part of the operating system GNU.
I am a member!
GNU is not an operating system at all, as by itself it lacks a usable kernel and thusly is nothing more than a collection of software utilities. (Unless you wanna use the Hurd, in which case, good luck with that.)
That "collection of software utilities" you're talking about is an operating system. It's just how Unix is designed. The kernel is a part of that "collection of software utilities"; it's the program that manages communication between the other software and the hardware. If you just had that, I suppose it would technically "work", but it would be a very disappointing experience.
Pardon the local example, but claiming that the entire operating system other than the kernel is unimportant is like claiming that the entire Michigan highway system other than the Mackinac Bridge is unimportant for the task of driving to the upper peninsula, because all the rest of the highway system is "just a collection of roads".
I am a member!
A collection of utilities is just that. It's userspace stuff, and it's entirely useless without a kernel to sit on top of. Kernel space is kernel space, and user space is user space. Any modern system will distinguish clearly between the two.
Which if nothing else is nicely illustrated by putting a very clear dividing line between the two. GNU/Linux.
I'll happily pardon the local nature, but not the irrelevance. Partly since I never claimed the kernel was the only important thing (although I'd argue it is the most important thing), but mostly because the two things are so dissimilar. Equating software to roads and the internet to a series of tubes won't get you any useful conclusions.
GNU does have a usable kernel, it's called Linux.
GNU is the name of the operating system. When Linux is used as GNU's kernel, Linux is a part of the GNU operating system.
The name of the operating system was coined in the early 1980s, following the old tradition of naming that gives a playful nod to its predecessor. Here, Unix is the predecessor, hence the letter U in the the acronym. (GNU stands for Gnu's Not Unix.)
Unix is an operating system. GNU is a replacent for Unix. Therefore, GNU is an operating system.
The kernel Linux was added to GNU in the early 1990s.
If a soldier named Gilbert loses a limb and gets a prosthetic called Limbux added to his body, it would be incorrect to call him Limbux (unless he decided to change his name). He's still Gilbert. The new limb doesn't change his name.
"When Linux is used as GNU's kernel, Linux is a part of the GNU operating system."
No, that's simply not true. Even RMS never claimed this.
Linux replaces a missing component in the GNU Operating system.
Therefore, the operating system as a whole is called "Gnu+Linux".
You're misinformed.
> If a soldier named Gilbert loses a limb and gets a prosthetic called Limbux added to his body, it would be incorrect to call him Limbux (unless he decided to change his name). He's still Gilbert. The new limb doesn't change his name.
I read this quote on science or nature:
"Metaphors are like cheese. Very desirable, but sometimes full of holes!"
In this case, we can't compare a human and a technical thing.
We treat humans completely different. You call Gilbert still Gilbert because he has the same personality, the same soul, if you like to.
A technical thing like a car doesn't have a human personality.
If you buy a ferrari and replace 50% of the devices in it with ford components, is it still a ferrari?
Here's how rms explains it in his article "Linux and the GNU System" (https://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html):
'...the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called “Linux”, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
'There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel...'
In the article, the phrase "GNU system", from the first quoted paragraph, is linked to a page that explains what the GNU operating system is:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#TheGNUsystem
So the word "system" in the second quoted paragrah refers to the GNU operating system.
On the linked page, in reference to Linux being used as the kernel instead of Hurd, it says, "The result is still a variant of the GNU system."
---
From the article you quote:
'...metaphor has a legitimate place in science ... Perhaps the problems come when scientific metaphors seek points for artistry rather than aiming for the quiet satisfaction of a job well done.'
http://www.nature.com/news/beyond-compare-1.13609
Artistry was certainly not my goal. I won't claim that my analogy was great, but it did help me communicate the idea.
If Ferrari had a model called the Gnuzo that had parts made by Ford, it would still be called Gnuzo.
Panasonic makes the batteries for the Tesla Model S, but it would be strange to refer to the car as a Panasonic.
...
> Here's how rms explains it in his article "Linux and the GNU System" (https://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html):
'...the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called “Linux”, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
'There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel...'
The phrase "GNU system", from the first quoted paragraph, is linked to a page on the gnu.org web site that explains what the GNU operating system is:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#TheGNUsystem
So the word "system" in the second paragrah refers to the GNU operating system.
On the gnu.org page, in reference to Linux being used as the kernel instead of Hurd, it says, "The result is still a variant of the GNU system."
You try to prove that stallman himself calls a gnu+linux system simply "GNU system" by picking quotes and phrases from the gnu site; I think your effort is in vain, since stallman calls the system in almost every speech he gives "the gnu+linux operating system"; there are certainly over 30 such speeches available; you can watch the stallman episode of the "linux action show" if you like to, as one example.
So glueing together some pieces of the gnu website in order to deny what stallman states almost everyday in his speeches doesn't make much sense to me.
> I won't claim that my analogy was great, but it did help me communicate the idea.
No, a false analogy doesn't help anyone communicating any idea. It simply obfuscates the situation.
> Panasonic makes the batteries for Tesla. It would be strange to refer to the car as a Panasonic.
As you can see, even my car analogy has holes, since a car is commonly named after the company who puts together all kind of pieces of the car and you're right, it's not very important how many pieces come from ferrari.
By the way, I never claimed the system should be called "linux", like you try to imply with this analogy.
> From the article you quote:
I read a different article on nature and just saw the headline, which I liked.
So I didn't read this article and I won't read it just for this discussion.
But I don't really like the text you quoted.
We shouldn't mix up what we call a "model concept" with what we call a "metaphor".
A metaphor is used to illustrate a situation refering to a completely different thing.
A model concept is an image of a situation we don't know matching with everything we can observe and allowing us to make right predictions.
Electrons are a model concept; Something like "electrons are like the glue, keeping matter together" is a metaphor;
Of course we need model concepts in order to make good sience, but we should be very critical concerning metaphors.
Here's a recent interview with rms.
http://roaming-initiative.com/mediagoblin/u/tralfamadorianorator/m/gnu-an-operating-system/
Key quote:
"GNU is an operating system... millions of people are using the GNU system, but mostly they don't know it because they think it's Linux."
Of course this is correct and I never said something different.
GNU *is* an operating system, and many people are using the GNU operating system, no problem here.
But the GNU operating system is not complete; people don't use _only_ the GNU operating system because it doesn't work.
They're using the GNU operating system with the linux kernel, and so the whole operating system is called "gnu+linux". Your rms quote doesn't deny that.
When you're running trisquel, you're using the gnu system (this statement is correct so far) AND the linux kernel .
But we're running in circles somehow.
Important is: rms calls the system "gnu+linux" almost in every speech.
I think I'm starting to understand your perspective, but it still holds true that operating system as a whole, even with a different kernel, is the GNU operating system.
From the GNU/Linux FAQ page on gnu.org:
'Since Linux is a secondary contribution, would it be false to the facts to call the system simply “GNU”?
'It would not be false to the facts, but it is not the best thing to do.'
'There's nothing wrong in calling the system “GNU”; basically, that's what it is. It is nice to give Linus Torvalds a share of the credit as well... if you want to refer to the system simply as “GNU”, to avoid paying the fee for calling it “Linux”, we won't criticize you.'
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
El 01/09/13 11:55, name at domain escribió:
> Of course this is correct and I never said something different.
> GNU *is* an operating system, and many people are using the GNU
operating system, no problem here.
> But the GNU operating system is not complete; people don't use _only_
the GNU operating system because it doesn't work.
The GNU operating system works. Linux-libre is now a part of GNU.
- --
Saludos libres,
Quiliro Ordóñez
Presidente (en co-gobierno con los socios)
Asociación de Software Libre del Ecuador - ASLE
6008579
Recuerda que todas tus comunicaciones están siendo vigiladas. Lo que
puedes hacer para restar su eficacia es eliminar el software privativo
de tus computadores, evitar el software como servicio, almacenar tus
datos en tus propios equipos y encriptar todas tus comunicaciones.
Toda la información contenida en este mensaje es libre de uso y
distribución con o sin modificaciones y todo correo que reciba implica
que el remitente acepta que tendrá las mismas libertades sin importar
cualquier clausula de confidencialidad o restricción anterior o posterior.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)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=keSW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
It doesn't hurt to annoy the Wikipedia moderators about it every once in a while, especially since Wikipedia is helping to propagate the popular misconceptions. Those moderators are partly responsible.
I'm kind of surprised by this, but I want to quote someone from another forum:
> Calling it "Linux" is a misnomer, and like a lot of
> misnomers, we seem to be stuck with it. The thing about
> languages is that they change and warp all the time.
> Whether you call it Linux or GNU/Linux doesn't actually
> matter as far as language is concerned.
>
> The reason "Linux" is a misnomer is that Linux started
> out as something completely different, but was used to
> make a complete UNIX-like OS by supplying a missing piece
> of the GNU OS project.
>
> If you start making a free car design called GRacecar but
> you have difficulty making wheels for it, so you use
> Wheelix wheels. Wheelix doesn't make sense as a name for
> the car. If you add many parts from other projects to the
> car until the GRacecar parts are a much smaller
> percentage, it doesn't really mean that the name should
> be any different. For both the GNU project and the
> GRacecar project it doesn't matter if you they don't
> design any of the parts, assuming the parts you use are
> free and work well than the goal of the project is
> fulfilled.
>
> At this point however, it's called Linux simply because
> that's what people call it, this may change in the future
> however. The fact that many people are ignorant of the
> original purpose that produced a free (though many
> versions have "nonfree" parts) OS is not actually related
> to the name at all. If the name GNU/Linux would solve
> this problem then why do you think people stopped calling
> it that and started using "Linux".
I don't quite agree with the person who said this; I think something should be done about the misnomer, but it's pretty much my opinion about the current situation and why I don't think Wikipedia is in the wrong.
In the page "Usage share of operating systems" have the category "Linux kernel based" differentiating GNU/Linux and Android market.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems#Web_clients
short link: http://ur1.ca/fasv0
*
https://wiki.freebsd.org/GPLinBase
FreeBSD 10 will be their first release that has all the GNU components removed. One big one is the push for Clang and LLVM instead of GCC due to newer versions of GCC using GPLv3 and BSD sticking with the older GPLv2 licensed version because they don't like GPLv3.
If this happens to distributions like Debian that replace most of their GNU components, then what do you call it then? Can't use GNU/Linux.
If Debian were to replace the GNU system with something else, we would just have to call it "Debian". Not "Debian GNU/Linux", but not "Debian Linux" either; just Debian. Or maybe the replacement system already has a name, in which case that system's name would be appropriate (e.g. maybe it's BSD, in which case it would be "Debian BSD"). That wouldn't be a problem.
But you're talking about just a few programs, not the whole system (the amount of GNU programs in BSD today is extremely small). It's one thing to replace a few programs with others, and it's another to replace the whole operating system. Also, the Debian project, last time I checked, doesn't have a problem with version 3 of the GPL. Overall, the situation with BSD is completely different from the situation with Debian.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
El 01/09/13 17:46, name at domain escribió:
> FreeBSD 10 will be their first release that has all the GNU components removed. One big one is the
push for Clang and LLVM instead of GCC due to newer versions of GCC
using GPLv3 and BSD sticking with the older GPLv2 licensed version
because they don't like GPLv3.
>
> If this happens to distributions like Debian that replace most of
their GNU components, then what do you call it then? Can't use GNU/Linux.
>
It would be the time to fight back and replace all software that would
not become GPLv3. This would kill all biggots.
- --
Saludos libres,
Quiliro Ordóñez
Presidente (en co-gobierno con los socios)
Asociación de Software Libre del Ecuador - ASLE
6008579
Recuerda que todas tus comunicaciones están siendo vigiladas. Lo que
puedes hacer para restar su eficacia es eliminar el software privativo
de tus computadores, evitar el software como servicio, almacenar tus
datos en tus propios equipos y encriptar todas tus comunicaciones.
Toda la información contenida en este mensaje es libre de uso y
distribución con o sin modificaciones y todo correo que reciba implica
que el remitente acepta que tendrá las mismas libertades sin importar
cualquier clausula de confidencialidad o restricción anterior o posterior.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)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=7pVr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
What BSD is doing is nothing but waste of time/effort. Nobody sane drops GCC in favour of inferior compiler. Latest benchmarks[1] show that clang still sucks. Same goes for other BSD replacements for GNU software: GDB is by far best debugger out there and elftoolchain doesn't even have a (really) working ld.
[1] http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=llvm_clang33_3way&num=1
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios