Hi,
Just my 2 cents about this issue.
I think that Linux has no special responsibility in The Hurd having few help on its developing; If it wasn't Linux, it would have been FreeBSD, or NetBSD, or MyUnixClone.
The fact is that people wanted: . Reliable systems . Free systems
And Linux and the others gave it to them, "quickly" (faster than The Hurd could, probably).
But I don't think this is a Bad Thing for The Hurd; It is having much more time for a much better development, and if, finally, it's design proves superior, I have no doubt that it will clear the world of Linuxes and alikes.
But "meantime", I think we have some excelent, free unix derivatives. 8)
Regards.
On Mon, Mar 11, 2002 at 12:04:37PM +0100, Eneko Lacunza wrote:
I think that Linux has no special responsibility in The Hurd having few help on its developing; If it wasn't Linux, it would have been FreeBSD, or NetBSD, or MyUnixClone.
There is a big difference between FreeBSD, NetBSD, etc. and GNU/Linux if you compare it with GNU/Hurd. Linux uses the whole GNU system, NetBSD and FreeBSD have its own userland. People who want to use the GNU system would use GNU/Hurd if GNU/Linux would not be available.
The fact is that people wanted: . Reliable systems . Free systems
GNU/Hurd is a free system and in theory it can be much more reliable than a system with a monolithic kenrel. (Mail microkernels vs monolithic kernels just to me and not the list, please. We are already offtopic enough)
And Linux and the others gave it to them, "quickly" (faster than The Hurd could, probably).
A reimplementation is always simpler and Linux was indeed faster because it was much easier to do.
But I don't think this is a Bad Thing for The Hurd; It is having much more time for a much better development,
No, we don't have more time. We have less time, because we have less developers.
and if, finally, it's design proves superior, I have no doubt that it will clear the world of Linuxes and alikes.
Well, I would rather first clear the world of proprietary systems. :-)
But "meantime", I think we have some excelent, free unix derivatives.
IMHO Unix is really too old and the last development on its design was back in the 80s. Sure, the current free unix clones are nice, but that doesn't mean we can't improve the situation.
Jeroen Dekkers
Hi Jeroen,
El sáb, 16-03-2002 a las 13:56, Jeroen Dekkers escribió:
I think that Linux has no special responsibility in The Hurd having few help on its developing; If it wasn't Linux, it would have been FreeBSD, or NetBSD, or MyUnixClone.
There is a big difference between FreeBSD, NetBSD, etc. and GNU/Linux if you compare it with GNU/Hurd. Linux uses the whole GNU system, NetBSD and FreeBSD have its own userland. People who want to use the GNU system would use GNU/Hurd if GNU/Linux would not be available.
Thanks for explaining this 'small' difference to me.
Anyway, I think there would have been another Linux 8), but it is of course arguable.
The fact is that people wanted: . Reliable systems . Free systems
GNU/Hurd is a free system and in theory it can be much more reliable than a system with a monolithic kenrel. (Mail microkernels vs monolithic kernels just to me and not the list, please. We are already offtopic enough)
True. The problem is that even their creators don't recommend it for production purposes 8)
And Linux and the others gave it to them, "quickly" (faster than The Hurd could, probably).
A reimplementation is always simpler and Linux was indeed faster because it was much easier to do.
This is not the point in this discussion. It's not Linux's fault that the Hurd a redesign and not a reimplementation.
But I don't think this is a Bad Thing for The Hurd; It is having much more time for a much better development,
No, we don't have more time. We have less time, because we have less developers.
Maybe you wouldn't have neither as much as you now have: anyway this again is very arguable.
and if, finally, it's design proves superior, I have no doubt that it will clear the world of Linuxes and alikes.
Well, I would rather first clear the world of proprietary systems. :-)
Definitely, this would be very keen of you ;)
But "meantime", I think we have some excelent, free unix derivatives.
IMHO Unix is really too old and the last development on its design was back in the 80s. Sure, the current free unix clones are nice, but that doesn't mean we can't improve the situation.
Of course we can and we must develop new design and see if they are superior to the current ones. 8)
Regards.
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 06:09:08PM +0100, Eneko Lacunza wrote:
Hi Jeroen,
El s?b, 16-03-2002 a las 13:56, Jeroen Dekkers escribi?: Anyway, I think there would have been another Linux 8), but it is of course arguable.
I don't think so. Linus wanted to write an operating system. Almost everything was already there written by GNU. He only had to write a kernel and a few other things. He misnamed this to "Linux" and didn't credit GNU.
Now if he only had looked further, he had found that there were already people making an OS. He could have helped developping the GNU system. The problem is that there wasn't really much info about the Hurd nor was its development open. For this fact you can blame the FSF, but at that time all development was closed. The internet was just very small.
We will never known if there would have been somebody else developping a kernel for the GNU system if Linus didn't do it. I think a lot of the people were waiting for GNU to develop the last piece of the GNU system. Today still a lot of people are waiting or it, I hope it doesn't take that long anymore. :)
This was the history lesson for today.
The fact is that people wanted: . Reliable systems . Free systems
GNU/Hurd is a free system and in theory it can be much more reliable than a system with a monolithic kenrel. (Mail microkernels vs monolithic kernels just to me and not the list, please. We are already offtopic enough)
True. The problem is that even their creators don't recommend it for production purposes 8)
Yes, if we did a lot of people would have been disappointed and would say the Hurd sucks. I still recommend developping things for it. When the theories are becoming practice I will start recommending it for active use. :)
And Linux and the others gave it to them, "quickly" (faster than The Hurd could, probably).
A reimplementation is always simpler and Linux was indeed faster because it was much easier to do.
This is not the point in this discussion. It's not Linux's fault that the Hurd a redesign and not a reimplementation.
No, but it made it easier for Linux to get developers and users in a short time. The developers the Hurd needs for about 10 years. The Hurd finally gets them.
But I don't think this is a Bad Thing for The Hurd; It is having much more time for a much better development,
No, we don't have more time. We have less time, because we have less developers.
Maybe you wouldn't have neither as much as you now have: anyway this again is very arguable.
I think it makes sense. The Hurd could have been much better than Linux is at the moment because of the OO design. When you've more than hunderd developers (I don't know the number due to the fractation of Linux), OO helps a bit. Structure in the development also helps. Linux lacks this both. And to refer back to the original discussion, bitkeeper doesn't provide this.
But "meantime", I think we have some excelent, free unix derivatives.
IMHO Unix is really too old and the last development on its design was back in the 80s. Sure, the current free unix clones are nice, but that doesn't mean we can't improve the situation.
Of course we can and we must develop new design and see if they are superior to the current ones. 8)
Are *you* going to help? :-)
Jeroen Dekkers
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 06:44:49PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 06:09:08PM +0100, Eneko Lacunza wrote:
Hi Jeroen,
El s?b, 16-03-2002 a las 13:56, Jeroen Dekkers escribi?: Anyway, I think there would have been another Linux 8), but it is of course arguable.
I don't think so. Linus wanted to write an operating system. Almost everything was already there written by GNU. He only had to write a kernel and a few other things. He misnamed this to "Linux" and didn't credit GNU.
Now if he only had looked further, he had found that there were already people making an OS. He could have helped developping the GNU system. The problem is that there wasn't really much info about the Hurd nor was its development open. For this fact you can blame the FSF, but at that time all development was closed. The internet was just very small.
We will never known if there would have been somebody else developping a kernel for the GNU system if Linus didn't do it. I think a lot of the people were waiting for GNU to develop the last piece of the GNU system. Today still a lot of people are waiting or it, I hope it doesn't take that long anymore. :)
This was the history lesson for today.
This "lesson" is not true. 386/BSD was started almost at the same time as Linux. Even if Linux wasn't created, we still could use BSD (with GNU userland, if you want).
Jeroen Dekkers jeroen@dekkers.cx wrote:
I don't think so. Linus wanted to write an operating system. Almost everything was already there written by GNU. He only had to write a kernel and a few other things. He misnamed this to "Linux" and didn't credit GNU.
Eheh, will you stop saying that? Linus didn't even name his kernel "Linux" originally, at least not in anything I've read. This is not the right place to revise history, nor is this the hurd-advocacy list. Please, just post a URL to your mailing lists &c and leave this discussion there.
Coming soon: UK AFFS Activity Report and a short review of aegis.
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 05:56:46PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
Jeroen Dekkers jeroen@dekkers.cx wrote:
I don't think so. Linus wanted to write an operating system. Almost everything was already there written by GNU. He only had to write a kernel and a few other things. He misnamed this to "Linux" and didn't credit GNU.
Eheh, will you stop saying that? Linus didn't even name his kernel "Linux" originally, at least not in anything I've read. This is not the right place to revise history, nor is this the hurd-advocacy list. Please, just post a URL to your mailing lists &c and leave this discussion there.
Sorry, I didn't know this. Who called it Linux then? I don't try to revise history, I only thought that this was the history.
Jeroen Dekkers
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 07:04:01PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 05:56:46PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
Jeroen Dekkers jeroen@dekkers.cx wrote:
I don't think so. Linus wanted to write an operating system. Almost everything was already there written by GNU. He only had to write a kernel and a few other things. He misnamed this to "Linux" and didn't credit GNU.
Eheh, will you stop saying that? Linus didn't even name his kernel "Linux" originally, at least not in anything I've read. This is not the right place to revise history, nor is this the hurd-advocacy list. Please, just post a URL to your mailing lists &c and leave this discussion there.
Sorry, I didn't know this. Who called it Linux then? I don't try to revise history, I only thought that this was the history.
Admin of ftp site Linus used to distribute his kernel from called it "Linux".
Tomasz Wegrzanowski taw@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
Admin of ftp site Linus used to distribute his kernel from called it "Linux".
I've just been looking for a source for this statement and I've failed. This fact seems to have fallen out of the collective consciousness of the web into some sort of subconsciousness. Can anyone find it?
MJ Ray wrote:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski taw@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
Admin of ftp site Linus used to distribute his kernel from called it "Linux".
I've just been looking for a source for this statement and I've failed. This fact seems to have fallen out of the collective consciousness of the web into some sort of subconsciousness. Can anyone find it?
I haven't got a link to the place where I first found this info, and I can't remember where it was - a book possibly? I ought to check when I get home on Friday. Anyway a search turned up this:
"The name Linux was not coined by Linus himself, strange though that may seem to people familiar with his self-esteem. It was coined by Ari Lemmke, the administrator at ftp.funet.fi who first made Linux available for FTP. Ari had to coin a name since Linus had failed to give a proper one, so Ari invented one and it stuck."
http://liw.iki.fi/liw/texts/linux-anecdotes.html
- Richard
MJ Ray markj@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk writes:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski taw@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
Admin of ftp site Linus used to distribute his kernel from called it "Linux".
I've just been looking for a source for this statement and I've failed. This fact seems to have fallen out of the collective consciousness of the web into some sort of subconsciousness. Can anyone find it?
Honest I didn't want to ever release it under the name Linux because it was too egotistical. What was the name I reserved for any eventual release? Freax. (Get it? Freaks with the requisite X.) In fact, some of the early make files --the files that describe how to compile the sources-- included the word "Freax" for about half a year. But it really didn't matter. At that point I didn't need a name for it because I wasn't releasing it to anybody.
And Ari Lemke, who insured that it made its way to the ftp site, hated the name Freax. He preferred the other working name I admit that I didn't put up much of a fight. But it was his doing. So I can honestly say I wasn't egotistical, or half-honestly say I wasn't egotistical. But I thought okay, that's a good name, and I can always blame somebody else for it, which I'm doing now.
-- Linus Torvalds p84 and p88 "Just for fun"
Hi Jeroen,
El lun, 18-03-2002 a las 18:44, Jeroen Dekkers escribió:
Anyway, I think there would have been another Linux 8), but it is of course arguable.
I don't think so. Linus wanted to write an operating system. Almost everything was already there written by GNU. He only had to write a kernel and a few other things. He misnamed this to "Linux" and didn't credit GNU.
[...]
This was the history lesson for today.
I knew all those things. The thing is that I only see that you somewhat "hate" Linus/Linux for some reason. I don't agree in any ways with you in that point.
Don't you see that the GNU system has been greatly helped by Linux? Linux helped it with more testing, more popularity, more developers...
Maybe, even if Linus noticed the Hurd, he would have started Linux anyway. It would have been legitimate, so please stop with this issue.
The fact is that people wanted: . Reliable systems . Free systems
GNU/Hurd is a free system and in theory it can be much more reliable than a system with a monolithic kenrel. (Mail microkernels vs monolithic kernels just to me and not the list, please. We are already offtopic enough)
True. The problem is that even their creators don't recommend it for production purposes 8)
Yes, if we did a lot of people would have been disappointed and would say the Hurd sucks. I still recommend developping things for it. When the theories are becoming practice I will start recommending it for active use. :)
I hope so. Don't you see why is now Linux so popular? And it even now disappoints lots of people... can you imagine in his beginingS?
The fact is, that promises of a superior design are not enough. Things must be proved, then people, MAYBE would change.
And Linux and the others gave it to them, "quickly" (faster than The Hurd could, probably).
A reimplementation is always simpler and Linux was indeed faster because it was much easier to do.
This is not the point in this discussion. It's not Linux's fault that the Hurd a redesign and not a reimplementation.
No, but it made it easier for Linux to get developers and users in a short time. The developers the Hurd needs for about 10 years. The Hurd finally gets them.
And what? This is (maybe) a sad thing, but I think that Linux has done an excelent work.
I think it makes sense. The Hurd could have been much better than Linux is at the moment because of the OO design. When you've more than hunderd developers (I don't know the number due to the fractation of Linux), OO helps a bit. Structure in the development also helps. Linux lacks this both. And to refer back to the original discussion, bitkeeper doesn't provide this.
Well, I don't think this is a good place to talk about programing paradigms. Anyway, I think that modularization is almost as good as OO, sometimes even better, and I think Linux has lot's of modularization. Maybe the problem is the monolitic design, but I don't see it creating such a problem... I think it even requires that de kernel is well coordinated.
But "meantime", I think we have some excelent, free unix derivatives.
IMHO Unix is really too old and the last development on its design was back in the 80s. Sure, the current free unix clones are nice, but that doesn't mean we can't improve the situation.
Of course we can and we must develop new design and see if they are superior to the current ones. 8)
Are *you* going to help? :-)
That's a very good question 8)
I would want to do lots of things, but unfortunately a day only has 24 hours. Currently I'm more interested in promoting and defending Free Software, that developing new innovative system designs. I think this also can help the Hurd and other innovations. 8)
Regards.
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 07:38:57PM +0100, Eneko Lacunza wrote:
Hi Jeroen,
El lun, 18-03-2002 a las 18:44, Jeroen Dekkers escribi?:
Anyway, I think there would have been another Linux 8), but it is of course arguable.
I don't think so. Linus wanted to write an operating system. Almost everything was already there written by GNU. He only had to write a kernel and a few other things. He misnamed this to "Linux" and didn't credit GNU.
[...]
This was the history lesson for today.
I knew all those things. The thing is that I only see that you somewhat "hate" Linus/Linux for some reason. I don't agree in any ways with you in that point.
I don't hate Linux, but I don't like it either. I just say my opinion, most of the time based on facts and things I see. If something is wrong you're welcome to correct me. This is still different from the things at least some Linux developers do, attacking us on things which aren't true.
Sometimes the Hurd is blamed for a lot of things it can't really do much about. For example that it hasn't many developers. Explainging why everybody is developing Linux instead of the Hurd isn't easy, most of it is just historicial. That doesn't make me hating Linux.
Don't you see that the GNU system has been greatly helped by Linux? Linux helped it with more testing, more popularity, more developers...
I'm not sure that wouldn't have happened without Linux.
Maybe, even if Linus noticed the Hurd, he would have started Linux anyway. It would have been legitimate, so please stop with this issue.
I'm not sure. He could have worked more closely with GNU if he had noticed that they were already developping an operating system.
GNU/Hurd is a free system and in theory it can be much more reliable than a system with a monolithic kenrel. (Mail microkernels vs monolithic kernels just to me and not the list, please. We are already offtopic enough)
True. The problem is that even their creators don't recommend it for production purposes 8)
Yes, if we did a lot of people would have been disappointed and would say the Hurd sucks. I still recommend developping things for it. When the theories are becoming practice I will start recommending it for active use. :)
I hope so. Don't you see why is now Linux so popular? And it even now disappoints lots of people... can you imagine in his beginingS?
Yes, I have already seen that.
The fact is, that promises of a superior design are not enough. Things must be proved, then people, MAYBE would change.
Yes, but it's not easy to prove. However, we are on the way.
This is not the point in this discussion. It's not Linux's fault that the Hurd a redesign and not a reimplementation.
No, but it made it easier for Linux to get developers and users in a short time. The developers the Hurd needs for about 10 years. The Hurd finally gets them.
And what? This is (maybe) a sad thing, but I think that Linux has done an excelent work.
Not really. And then I'm just talking about the code, i.e. design and implementation. Not about what it made possible or other social things or so.
I think it makes sense. The Hurd could have been much better than Linux is at the moment because of the OO design. When you've more than hunderd developers (I don't know the number due to the fractation of Linux), OO helps a bit. Structure in the development also helps. Linux lacks this both. And to refer back to the original discussion, bitkeeper doesn't provide this.
Well, I don't think this is a good place to talk about programing paradigms. Anyway, I think that modularization is almost as good as OO, sometimes even better, and I think Linux has lot's of modularization. Maybe the problem is the monolitic design, but I don't see it creating such a problem... I think it even requires that de kernel is well coordinated.
A monolithic kernel doesn't have well-defined and stable interfaces. Then the modules have to change everything. Of course you can add it to this, but in the end you'll end up with a multi-server system running in kernel space. :)
Of course we can and we must develop new design and see if they are superior to the current ones. 8)
Are *you* going to help? :-)
That's a very good question 8)
I would want to do lots of things, but unfortunately a day only has 24 hours. Currently I'm more interested in promoting and defending Free Software, that developing new innovative system designs. I think this also can help the Hurd and other innovations. 8)
I've got the same problems. Only the Hurd has a very high priority for me. :-)
Jeroen Dekkers
Hi Jeroen,
I knew all those things. The thing is that I only see that you somewhat "hate" Linus/Linux for some reason. I don't agree in any ways with you in that point.
I don't hate Linux, but I don't like it either. I just say my opinion, most of the time based on facts and things I see. If something is wrong you're welcome to correct me. This is still different from the things at least some Linux developers do, attacking us on things which aren't true. Sometimes the Hurd is blamed for a lot of things it can't really do much about. For example that it hasn't many developers. Explainging why everybody is developing Linux instead of the Hurd isn't easy, most of it is just historicial. That doesn't make me hating Linux.
Good, I understand why you're so defensive in this thread. I don't use the Hurd, but neither do I attack it. I like linux, but I don't think it's time to (dis)like the Hurd.
Don't you see that the GNU system has been greatly helped by Linux? Linux helped it with more testing, more popularity, more developers...
I'm not sure that wouldn't have happened without Linux.
Once again, we can't know it. We know what happened, anyways.
Maybe, even if Linus noticed the Hurd, he would have started Linux anyway. It would have been legitimate, so please stop with this issue.
I'm not sure. He could have worked more closely with GNU if he had noticed that they were already developping an operating system.
Of course: he could. It's just a possibility. Please let's stop wondering 8)
The fact is, that promises of a superior design are not enough. Things must be proved, then people, MAYBE would change.
Yes, but it's not easy to prove. However, we are on the way.
Yes, and I understand. Linux is still needing to prove. Don't you see that both have the same problem? The difference is that Linux "arrived" sooner 8)
This is not the point in this discussion. It's not Linux's fault that the Hurd a redesign and not a reimplementation.
No, but it made it easier for Linux to get developers and users in a short time. The developers the Hurd needs for about 10 years. The Hurd finally gets them.
And what? This is (maybe) a sad thing, but I think that Linux has done an excelent work.
Not really. And then I'm just talking about the code, i.e. design and implementation. Not about what it made possible or other social things or so.
Good. I think there's no possible discussion on the design part: it is a true clone, and it is what was intended, no more.
I think there has been done a good work in it's implementation. All things can be done better, but the constraints must be seen.
A monolithic kernel doesn't have well-defined and stable interfaces. Then the modules have to change everything. Of course you
Well, it depends on the quality of the code / modularization. But, generally, yes.
can add it to this, but in the end you'll end up with a multi-server system running in kernel space. :)
Yes, isn't it funny? 8)
Regards,
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 07:38:57PM +0100, Eneko Lacunza wrote:
Don't you see that the GNU system has been greatly helped by Linux? Linux helped it with more testing, more popularity, more developers...
This remains to be seen. The FSF almost was diminished to irrelevance by the growth rate of "Linux" (actually GNU/Linux), and althoughmany people started to use the system (and some contributed back to it), people did not talk about freedom anymore. Which is really most important, because our freedom is threatened and constantly under heavy attack, to the point that it is in some and might become in all parts of the world illegal to write certain free software (that violates software patents).
And what? This is (maybe) a sad thing, but I think that Linux has done an excelent work.
I think he could have done a much better job. Don't get me wrong, this is not to diminish the job Linux developers have done. But maybe this gives you some ideas: Linux has poor code reusage. Heck, they can't even reuse their own code from one kernel version to the next (even between minor versions). This would be all dandy if it would only be their problem, but it effects other projects just as well, like the C library, and all kernel specific software that relies on the exposed interfaces. This is actually a two-fold problem. On the one hand, external interfaces change in an incompatible way, and on the other hand, internal interfaces change dramatically. And this without proper documentation of the changes, of the internals, and the lack of revision control (now bitkeeper has appeared, which is not free software, and I don't even know if it allows me to track changes in the kernel). This is particularly bad because Linux is _the_ free software repository for hardware drivers, there are drivers for every exotic device. But there is an utter lack of a clean driver framework, particularly for non-(IDE, SCSI, NIC) drivers. The interfaces improve from version to version, so there is hope, but it remains to be seen.
This actually hurts projects like OSKit, or the old gnumach, which try to encapsulate and reuse Linux drivers. It is hard enough to do for a specific version, but updating the drivers is almost impossible without also updating a lot of the driver framework (which had to be added to encapsulate the drivers in the first place).
The other issue is more at the root of the overall design as a UNIX clone: It can discourage development of code. Just look at the KGI/GGI saga. I have not participated in GGI, but from the outside look at it it seems that the fact that Linus ruled out inclusion of graphic drivers into the kernel has hurt them a lot. The fact that the kernel interfaces changes makes it almost impossible to seperate extensions to it externally from the mainstream kernel. The little experiences I have with building and adding kernel modules to Linux have been "interesting".
Also, Linus could have done a better job of encouraging only free software, for example by disallowing non-free binary drivers. Instead concurrenting with projects like GGI, he could have tried to encourage them, were it not for the problematic monolithical design of the kernel itself. My gut feeling is that for the Linux kernel, squeezing out the last bit of performance might be considered more important by its developers than adding compatibility or abstraction layers (this is my gut feeling, I have not personally tried to get a compatibility or isolation fix in the kernel. Joerg reported yesterday about a rejected backward copatible patch.)
Things like free software, user freedom, cooperation, code reuse, and compatibility are very important for the Hurd system. And I think we are doing quite well in this regard. These paradigms might come at a cost, which might be the (lack of) immediate availability of a feature, or a temporary performance penalty. If we succeed with the other goals, I think we can comfortably look into the future anyway.
I would want to do lots of things, but unfortunately a day only has 24 hours. Currently I'm more interested in promoting and defending Free Software, that developing new innovative system designs. I think this also can help the Hurd and other innovations. 8)
Of course. I hope I didn't bore you, and maybe I was able to show how these two goals sometimes can come together. I certainly hope that although probably off topic, it was at least an interesting read to some people here.
Thanks, Marcus
Hi Marcus,
El mar, 19-03-2002 a las 00:54, Marcus Brinkmann escribió:
Don't you see that the GNU system has been greatly helped by Linux? Linux helped it with more testing, more popularity, more developers...
This remains to be seen. The FSF almost was diminished to irrelevance by the growth rate of "Linux" (actually GNU/Linux), and althoughmany people started to use the system (and some contributed back to it), people did not talk about freedom anymore. Which is really most important, because our freedom is threatened and constantly under heavy attack, to the point that it is in some and might become in all parts of the world illegal to write certain free software (that violates software patents).
Marcus, I really think that you undertake the importance that Linux has had in the spread of Free Software ideas. I can see it with myself: I first looked at Linux because it was free and it was unix. Then I realized about the Importance of Free Software. Even here, in Spain, the group that most is doing to support Free Software is a Linux users association (Hispalinux, with more than 1,500 associates), while FSFs local chapter does almost nothing but publish some texts to internet.
And please, I hope you're not trying to say that the attacks that is receiving Free Software, are due to Linux.
And what? This is (maybe) a sad thing, but I think that Linux has done an excelent work.
I think he could have done a much better job. Don't get me wrong, this is not to diminish the job Linux developers have done. But maybe this gives
[...]
Also, Linus could have done a better job of encouraging only free software, for example by disallowing non-free binary drivers. Instead concurrenting
[...]
Things like free software, user freedom, cooperation, code reuse, and compatibility are very important for the Hurd system. And I think we are doing quite well in this regard. These paradigms might come at a cost, which might be the (lack of) immediate availability of a feature, or a temporary performance penalty. If we succeed with the other goals, I think we can comfortably look into the future anyway.
Of course all things can be done better, the same way that Hurd could have done better in its beginings. Anyway, I think you should try to see that some of the trade-off done in Linux has helped greatly to it's popularity, and consequently, to get more developers and users.
It's difficult to see whether these trade-offs will alienate the Free Software concept or not; time to see what happens.
I would want to do lots of things, but unfortunately a day only has 24 hours. Currently I'm more interested in promoting and defending Free Software, that developing new innovative system designs. I think this also can help the Hurd and other innovations. 8)
Of course. I hope I didn't bore you, and maybe I was able to show how these two goals sometimes can come together. I certainly hope that although probably off topic, it was at least an interesting read to some people here.
Of course, you didn't bother me, don't worry. I think it is good we can have such discussions here, because we can learn a lot from each other's experiences. I think it is important that some hard-GNU people can understand much people is now in the Free Software side thanks to some pragmatic and not-so-pure things, like Linux.
Regards
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 11:33:47AM +0100, Eneko Lacunza wrote:
Hi Marcus,
El mar, 19-03-2002 a las 00:54, Marcus Brinkmann escribi?:
Don't you see that the GNU system has been greatly helped by Linux? Linux helped it with more testing, more popularity, more developers...
This remains to be seen. The FSF almost was diminished to irrelevance by the growth rate of "Linux" (actually GNU/Linux), and althoughmany people started to use the system (and some contributed back to it), people did not talk about freedom anymore. Which is really most important, because our freedom is threatened and constantly under heavy attack, to the point that it is in some and might become in all parts of the world illegal to write certain free software (that violates software patents).
Marcus, I really think that you undertake the importance that Linux has had in the spread of Free Software ideas.
AFAIK Linux only spread open source ideas.
I can see it with myself: I first looked at Linux because it was free and it was unix. Then I realized about the Importance of Free Software.
And that's the exact problem. If you would have looked at GNU, you would have realized it directly. I don't see what the importance of Linux is.
Even here, in Spain, the group that most is doing to support Free Software is a Linux users association (Hispalinux, with more than 1,500 associates),
'Linux' users?
while FSFs local chapter does almost nothing but publish some texts to internet.
Why? Maybe all people are in HispaLinux because GNU/Linux never used to refer to GNU and thereby the FSFs.
And please, I hope you're not trying to say that the attacks that is receiving Free Software, are due to Linux.
Microsoft is saying that Linux isn't innovative and they are right. The Hurd is however. ;-)
And what? This is (maybe) a sad thing, but I think that Linux has done an excelent work.
I think he could have done a much better job. Don't get me wrong, this is not to diminish the job Linux developers have done. But maybe this gives
[...]
Also, Linus could have done a better job of encouraging only free software, for example by disallowing non-free binary drivers. Instead concurrenting
[...]
Things like free software, user freedom, cooperation, code reuse, and compatibility are very important for the Hurd system. And I think we are doing quite well in this regard. These paradigms might come at a cost, which might be the (lack of) immediate availability of a feature, or a temporary performance penalty. If we succeed with the other goals, I think we can comfortably look into the future anyway.
Of course all things can be done better, the same way that Hurd could have done better in its beginings. Anyway, I think you should try to see that some of the trade-off done in Linux has helped greatly to it's popularity, and consequently, to get more developers and users.
I don't see how it helped by not talking about freedom and by not talking about GNU. Linux was only popularized and the Hurd not, that's the only thing. BSD and GNU could have got as much or maybe even more users as Linux did. Linux only came at the right moment, but did do most of the other things wrong.
It's difficult to see whether these trade-offs will alienate the Free Software concept or not; time to see what happens.
Do you want my personal view? Linux will be gone in about 5 years. But that's just my view on the world.
I would want to do lots of things, but unfortunately a day only has 24 hours. Currently I'm more interested in promoting and defending Free Software, that developing new innovative system designs. I think this also can help the Hurd and other innovations. 8)
Of course. I hope I didn't bore you, and maybe I was able to show how these two goals sometimes can come together. I certainly hope that although probably off topic, it was at least an interesting read to some people here.
Of course, you didn't bother me, don't worry. I think it is good we can have such discussions here, because we can learn a lot from each other's experiences. I think it is important that some hard-GNU people can understand much people is now in the Free Software side thanks to some pragmatic and not-so-pure things, like Linux.
And how much is NOT in free software, thanks to Linux.
Jeroen Dekkers
Since you're not going to stop this discussion, let's put some fuel on the fire: Here's an interview with rms, where he claims that the GNU-System may be finished by the end of the year: http://www.idg.net/ic_829012_4394_1-3921.html
found the lin here: http://www.lwn.net/ further down the main page
Have fun J
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 02:55:06PM +0100, Joack@gmx.net wrote:
Since you're not going to stop this discussion, let's put some fuel on the fire: Here's an interview with rms, where he claims that the GNU-System may be finished by the end of the year: http://www.idg.net/ic_829012_4394_1-3921.html
found the lin here: http://www.lwn.net/ further down the main page
I already know that. I replied to LWN writing about the errors they made.
Jeroen Dekkers
Stop that, will you?
My opinion isn't worth much, I wasn't around when Linux or the Hurd or GNU started, but here is what I think of this matter:
There is no reason to call a Linux sytem GNU.
Why not? Well, when Linux was started it wasn't even an operating system, and as some one has pointed out (sorry, I can't find that email), the development was somewhat closed.
So he continued developing his terminal and, with the help of a global community it ended as a kernel.
Now why should it be named, by itself, GNU/Linux (or GNU/Something)? Just because it was developed with GNU tools? Of course not, that would be absurd. And I even think the FSF/GNU people wouldn't like that, that someone else, independent of them, released a program with their name on it.
So now for the system, not the kernel itself.
Well, the first system I used as Slackware, a long time ago. And it used BSD libc, BSD netutils, BSD_a_lot, and of course some GNU utils also, and X11, etc. Of these, which were the most important? Well, libc was surely of the utmost importance, and to me and a lot of people the netutils was the second most importante piece (after all, it was called an OS for hackers...).
So then, should it be called BSD/Linux instead? Well, after a few years the BSD parts diminished, and the GNU parts increased. Then we would had had to rename all systems to GNU/Linux instead of BSD/Linux. But now, today, the GNU part as diminished in relevance in comparision with the rest of the system: the configuration tools, the X Window System, KDE, Mozilla, and lot of others. I mean, a user would use Linux or GNU/Linux for hours without seeing any GNU component...
So I see no reason to call Linux GNU/Linux. I believe X, KDE and third party tools have brought more people to Linux than the GNU tools, after all, looks does matter...
Anyway, I do think you and everybody else are entitled to call it GNU/Linux system if you like, but I don't think you are entitled to make me call it GNU/Linux reasoning that I'm insulting GNU by doing so.
Best regards, Luciano Rocha
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 02:57:55PM +0000, Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha wrote:
Stop that, will you?
In principle I agree with you that I'd like to see more posts with a clear argumentative language and considering background knowledge and already known arguments. It will make this list more enjoyable for us all.
Back to your post about why to use GNU/Linux for the operating system. You first considered reason to call the kernel GNU. Note that the GNU project did not produce the kernel "Linux". They also do not claim this.
So now for the system, not the kernel itself.
But now, today, the GNU part as diminished in relevance in comparision with the rest of the system: the configuration tools, the X Window System, KDE, Mozilla, and lot of others. I mean, a user would use Linux or GNU/Linux for hours without seeing any GNU component...
The FSF has an explanation page at: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html
It contains the most important argument which you did not address so far. | The GNU Project was not, is not, a project to develop specific | software packages. It was not a project to develop a C compiler, | although we did. It was not a project to develop a text editor, | although we developed one. The GNU Project's aim was to develop a | complete free Unix-like system: GNU.
I quote some more to clear up other confusions which are common:
| Many people have made major contributions to the free software in | the system, and they all deserve credit. But the reason it is a | system--and not just a collection of useful programs--is because the | GNU Project set out to make it one. We made a list of the programs | needed to make a complete free system, and we systematically found, | wrote, or found people to write everything on the list. We wrote | essential but unexciting major components, such as the assembler and | linker, because you can't have a system without them.
Anyway, I do think you and everybody else are entitled to call it GNU/Linux system if you like, but I don't think you are entitled to make me call it GNU/Linux reasoning that I'm insulting GNU by doing so.
It is the opinion of the FSFE that there would not be the current wealth of complete Free Software operating systems without the GNU project. Thus giving credit to it is something we think is of importance.
Another thing which the page clearly mentions: | The GNU Project supports GNU/Linux systems as well as the GNU system Again: we like the kernel done by Linus. We also like the Hurd. None of these kernels is the ultimative end of development.
The GNU project also gives credit to the systems based on BSD code: | Aside from GNU, one other project has independently produced a free | Unix-like operating system. This system is known as BSD, and it was | developed at UC Berkeley.
Bernhard Reiter wrote:
| Many people have made major contributions to the free software in | the system, and they all deserve credit. But the reason it is a | system--and not just a collection of useful programs--is because the | GNU Project set out to make it one. We made a list of the programs | needed to make a complete free system, and we systematically found, | wrote, or found people to write everything on the list. We wrote | essential but unexciting major components, such as the assembler and | linker, because you can't have a system without them.
I guess the same can be said about Red Hat, SuSE etc. They probably also once made a list of programs needed, and wrote (or hired people to write) some missing parts (some people might consider install and admin programs major components, and AFAIK today major parts of the devlopment of GCC and glibc are done by Red Hat/Cygnus).
Sure, they built on the existing work of the GNU system, but so did GNU on BSD (which is also a complete system, not just a random collection of programs). TeTeX (not sure if this or another TeX distribution is part of the GNU system, but it is of most GNU/Linux distributions), e.g., is also a "system", consisting of many individual packages, selected and put together in the intention of making it a system.
I don't see the real difference. It may be a difference in numbers, but not in principle (SuSE doesn't include the full GNU system, and it includes things not part of the GNU system). Sorry, but the more I read and think about this, the less I'm convinced that I should call any system GNU/Linux unless the makers of the system (distribution) call it so (i.e. Debian).
If the FSF wants them to call their distributions so, it could either enforce it by license (probably near to impossible to do now in retrospect, and likely involving some negative side effects), or as Markus suggested start a branding prorgam for GNU (compatible) systems (and maybe enforce this with some kind of compilation copyright on the whole system -- though IANAL and I don't really know if/how compilation copyrights work at all).
Frank
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 10:06:05PM +0100, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
Bernhard Reiter wrote:
| Many people have made major contributions to the free software in | the system, and they all deserve credit. But the reason it is a | system--and not just a collection of useful programs--is because the | GNU Project set out to make it one.
I guess the same can be said about Red Hat, SuSE etc.
Last time I've checked Suse did not produce a Free Software operating system distribution.
RedHat helps packaging operating systems based on the GNU system.
Sure, they built on the existing work of the GNU system, but so did GNU on BSD (which is also a complete system, not just a random collection of programs).
A system is more than just a collection of components. The overall goal to complete give all users freedom regarding there computational software needs was first formulated by RMS. He consequently made a plan and started the GNU project. No effort with such a goal and long lasting results ever existed. Many doubt that it would have been possible without the immunisating effect of the GNU GPL. The FSF also was the first to expressed the larger connections between access to information, right to learn and read with computer software and advantages of Free Software.
It is true that people around BSD tried to reach some similiar goals. The FSF's vision was broader, better expressed and build more momentum.
This is why RMS got a couple of rewards for his groundbreaking work with the GNU project and the FSF. Scientists try to give credit to the biggest archievement in the area. Regarding the availability of Free Software operating systems the GNU project and all its contributor for sure made most significant impact.
This is what the FSFE rightfully (and politely) asks for: Please give credit to this. Using "GNU/Linux" can be a suitable way to do so.
Bernhard
Bernhard Reiter wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 10:06:05PM +0100, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
Bernhard Reiter wrote:
| Many people have made major contributions to the free software in | the system, and they all deserve credit. But the reason it is a | system--and not just a collection of useful programs--is because the | GNU Project set out to make it one.
I guess the same can be said about Red Hat, SuSE etc.
Last time I've checked Suse did not produce a Free Software operating system distribution.
Last time I've checked I didn't claim this.
Isn't this exactly a reason why they should *not* call their system "SuSE GNU/Linux"?
Sure, they built on the existing work of the GNU system, but so did GNU on BSD (which is also a complete system, not just a random collection of programs).
A system is more than just a collection of components.
Which is exactly what I claimed.
The overall goal to complete give all users freedom regarding there computational software needs was first formulated by RMS. He consequently made a plan and started the GNU project. No effort with such a goal and long lasting results ever existed. Many doubt that it would have been possible without the immunisating effect of the GNU GPL. The FSF also was the first to expressed the larger connections between access to information, right to learn and read with computer software and advantages of Free Software.
It is true that people around BSD tried to reach some similiar goals. The FSF's vision was broader, better expressed and build more momentum.
I knew all this, and I don't deny this. But thanks for pointing it out again for anyone who didn't know it yet.
This is why RMS got a couple of rewards for his groundbreaking work with the GNU project and the FSF. Scientists try to give credit to the biggest archievement in the area. Regarding the availability of Free Software operating systems the GNU project and all its contributor for sure made most significant impact.
This is what the FSFE rightfully (and politely) asks for:
My original reply was to someone whose asking was a little less than polite (not an official FSF(E) spokesman though -- at least I hope).
Please give credit to this. Using "GNU/Linux" can be a suitable way to do so.
IMHO the rewads are a much better way to give credit than the naming. In fact, if the global Linux -> GNU/Linux renaming that some seem to want would really happen, I think the word GNU would lose much of tis special meaning and only be perceived as something related to/part of Linux by many people. I wouldn't like this.
Frank
Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
I can see it with myself: I first looked at Linux because it was free and it was unix. Then I realized about the Importance of Free Software.
(Same for me.)
And that's the exact problem. If you would have looked at GNU, you would have realized it directly. I don't see what the importance of Linux is.
As you said it: *If*. The problem is that many people (including myself) probably would not have looked at GNU if not via Linux -- or at least would have done so some years later (when the Hurd became equally usable -- if there was no Linux, this might have happened sooner than it will happen now, but still later than it did happen for Linux), and in the meantime, they might have become even more locked in by proprietary software to make it even harder for them to try free software. Or they would have chosen an alternative like BSD and not looked at GNU so much.
Even here, in Spain, the group that most is doing to support Free Software is a Linux users association (Hispalinux, with more than 1,500 associates),
'Linux' users?
Yes. I'm a Linux user. I'm a GNU user. I'm a GNU/Linux user. I'm a TeX user. I'm an X11 user. Etc. Shouldn't one be allowed to state one thing without stating everything?
Even if we all agree that the system should properly be called GNU/Linux, this doesn't mean one has to write "GNU/Linux" wherever "Linux" was written. This simple "search&replace" approach is just silly. If you want to spread the term "GNU/Linux", do it with some common sense, and don't jump on every occasion where someone says "Linux".
I don't see how it helped by not talking about freedom and by not talking about GNU. Linux was only popularized and the Hurd not, that's the only thing. BSD and GNU could have got as much or maybe even more users as Linux did. Linux only came at the right moment, but did do most of the other things wrong.
Do "most of the other things" include the choice of license, for example? ;-)
Of course, you didn't bother me, don't worry. I think it is good we can have such discussions here, because we can learn a lot from each other's experiences. I think it is important that some hard-GNU people can understand much people is now in the Free Software side thanks to some pragmatic and not-so-pure things, like Linux.
And how much is NOT in free software, thanks to Linux.
How so? I'd agree with you that some (maybe many) are now using Linux who would be using the Hurd otherwise (and using GNU in both cases -- don't get upset ;-). But why should anyone who would have been using the Hurd now use proprietary software because Linux exists?
Or do you mean free software as opposed to open source? I don't agree, either: I strongly prefer FS (the term and the philosophy), yet I see no problem in using Linux myself. Linux certainly is free software, according to its license, even though its creator prefers the term OS. But where would we end if we only used software written by people who share our views exactly?
Frank
Hi,
El mié, 20-03-2002 a las 14:31, Jeroen Dekkers escribió:
Marcus, I really think that you undertake the importance that Linux has had in the spread of Free Software ideas.
AFAIK Linux only spread open source ideas.
I don't think so. Most Linux users talk about and understand what Free Software is and means.
I can see it with myself: I first looked at Linux because it was free and it was unix. Then I realized about the Importance of Free Software.
And that's the exact problem. If you would have looked at GNU, you would have realized it directly. I don't see what the importance of Linux is.
Yes: Linux led me to GNU. That's a good thing!
I had used DJGPP (GCC and other tools port to DOS) previously, but I didn't get as concerned as with Linux. Linux also did help me to go away of propietary software, along with other tons of Free Software. A now makes me much happier than I was 8)
Even here, in Spain, the group that most is doing to support Free Software is a Linux users association (Hispalinux, with more than 1,500 associates),
'Linux' users?
XFree/GNOME/KDE/GNU/etc/Linux. Yes 8)
while FSFs local chapter does almost nothing but publish some texts to internet.
Why? Maybe all people are in HispaLinux because GNU/Linux never used to refer to GNU and thereby the FSFs.
Marcus, I don't know. I was very surprised when I noticed it. But actually, I happened to end joining Hispalinux as well. I think that there's some personal and "radicalism" problem in GNU Spain (just why thought, I haven't researched about it).
And please, I hope you're not trying to say that the attacks that is receiving Free Software, are due to Linux.
Microsoft is saying that Linux isn't innovative and they are right. The Hurd is however. ;-)
We'll I think that Linux is innovative in the way it's development goes on. Surely, there are others that do the same. But it's an improvement over Windows. Windows hasn't been innovative anyway, but Microsoft doesn't tell anyone ;)
Of course all things can be done better, the same way that Hurd could have done better in its beginings. Anyway, I think you should try to see that some of the trade-off done in Linux has helped greatly to it's popularity, and consequently, to get more developers and users.
I don't see how it helped by not talking about freedom and by not talking about GNU. Linux was only popularized and the Hurd not, that's the only thing. BSD and GNU could have got as much or maybe even more users as Linux did. Linux only came at the right moment, but did do most of the other things wrong.
The fact is that Linux focused more on usability than on Free Software advocacy. If it helped it, I think it was/is a good thing.
It's difficult to see whether these trade-offs will alienate the Free Software concept or not; time to see what happens.
Do you want my personal view? Linux will be gone in about 5 years. But that's just my view on the world.
It's very possible. I think that the Hurd can have a mayor role here. We'll see. 8)
Of course, you didn't bother me, don't worry. I think it is good we can have such discussions here, because we can learn a lot from each other's experiences. I think it is important that some hard-GNU people can understand much people is now in the Free Software side thanks to some pragmatic and not-so-pure things, like Linux.
And how much is NOT in free software, thanks to Linux.
Much of software not free, wouldn't be either free in the Hurd, actually (probably except propietary drivers). Again, this is because Linux focused more in usability than in advocacy.
Regards.
On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 02:11:05PM +0100, Eneko Lacunza wrote:
I don't think so. Most Linux users talk about and understand what Free Software is and means.
Maybe they do (although I doubt it), most of them don't share the vision. Most use it because "it works" and "is gratis", not because it is "free software".
Why? Maybe all people are in HispaLinux because GNU/Linux never used to refer to GNU and thereby the FSFs.
Marcus, I don't know.
My main reason to reply to this mail: You are not replying to me, but to Jeroen! ;)
Thanks, Marcus
On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 09:00:31AM -0500, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 02:11:05PM +0100, Eneko Lacunza wrote:
I don't think so. Most Linux users talk about and understand what Free Software is and means.
Maybe they do (although I doubt it), most of them don't share the vision. Most use it because "it works" and "is gratis", not because it is "free software".
Third reason - "availability of sources" is very important issue for majority of programmers who use GNU/Linux.
I see that they usually strongly prefer gratis proprietary software with sources to gratis proprietary software without sources.
On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 04:30:44PM +0100, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
Third reason - "availability of sources" is very important issue for majority of programmers who use GNU/Linux.
Yes, but Real Programmers are really a minority of the users in general.
Thanks, Marcus
Marcus Brinkmann writes:
On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 04:30:44PM +0100, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
Third reason - "availability of sources" is very important issue for majority of programmers who use GNU/Linux.
Yes, but Real Programmers are really a minority of the users in general.
Hi all,
I think 'being a real programmer' is not the only issue, why someone would want to have sources available. Let's take the usual case of proprietary software: A company uses product X for a number of years, perhaps on an (in the meantime) obsolete hardware platform. Due to changes in legal procedures (say: tax), the software needs to be updated now and then. After a copule of years the producers of the software decide, it's not worth the trouble and stop supporting the specific features and platform used by company X. As usual that is done with say some months notice, but (due to changes in tax law) the software will have to be updated within 1 or 2 years -- they can't just continue working with the old version. Now X has to migrate (forced, hurriedly) to some other system with the same features. This costs (money, and often data, which is lost during migration).
With sources available and legally allowed to use them, X would have been able to have a choice: migrating or start maintaining themselves (hiring a programmer). If the license had been GPL, they could even have formed a cooperation with other companies using the same system thus sharing the cost of maintenance and further development.
Every time someone / some company is starting to use some software they are investing time, money, and work to produce knowhow (how to use that program, where to press the keys, how to fit it in their backup system and so on). This is rather expensive and after you got your people trained to the program, you do not want to get that investment suddenly taken away. At least you want to decide yourself between investing in maintenance yourself or the cost of retraining your workers. Free source is guaranteeing that choice (that's a managment issue, not only something for programmers). So if I have to decide for some software solution I have to take that into account: Proprietary Software might cost a lot in the long run.
Regards -- Markus (with 'k' :-)
I think 'being a real programmer' is not the only issue, why someone would want to have sources available. Let's take the usual case of proprietary software: A company uses product X for a number of years, [...]
Yes, that's a very important point. Thanks for raising it.
The idea that sources are only useful to programmers is very widespread, but it's absolutely wrong. Anyone can use the source by hiring a programmer, but they don't realize it.
/alessandro
Hi! 8)
El vie, 22-03-2002 a las 15:00, Marcus Brinkmann escribió:
On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 02:11:05PM +0100, Eneko Lacunza wrote:
I don't think so. Most Linux users talk about and understand what Free Software is and means.
Maybe they do (although I doubt it), most of them don't share the vision. Most use it because "it works" and "is gratis", not because it is "free software".
Currently? Yes. But I think they (we) do see that although currently the main reason is that is is free/gratis (this is each day less true), in the future it will be better (more capabilities/stability) and for everyone (not owned by a company). And it won't be lost if the company ceases operation ;)
Why? Maybe all people are in HispaLinux because GNU/Linux never used to refer to GNU and thereby the FSFs.
Marcus, I don't know.
My main reason to reply to this mail: You are not replying to me, but to Jeroen! ;)
You're right, I'm sorry! 8)
This is quite funny, isn't it? I should spend less time in front of my monitor so that my head runs better ;)
Regards.
On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 10:08:33PM +0100, Eneko Lacunza wrote:
Currently? Yes. But I think they (we) do see that although currently the main reason is that is is free/gratis (this is each day less true), in the future it will be better (more capabilities/stability) and for everyone (not owned by a company).
But the reason to use free software should not be that it is better, because then people will stop using free software if it fails to be better. This is especially important because some laws prevent us from doing software that is better (patent law for example). Sometimes free software is better, and sometimes it isn't. In both cases you should use free software because it is free.
Thanks, Marcus
Hi,
El vie, 22-03-2002 a las 22:12, Marcus Brinkmann escribió:
Currently? Yes. But I think they (we) do see that although currently the main reason is that is is free/gratis (this is each day less true), in the future it will be better (more capabilities/stability) and for everyone (not owned by a company).
But the reason to use free software should not be that it is better, because then people will stop using free software if it fails to be better. This is especially important because some laws prevent us from doing software that is better (patent law for example). Sometimes free software is better, and sometimes it isn't. In both cases you should use free software because it is free.
True. But the fact is that free software *is* better because is libre. The problems is that if it has less features/stability than propietary software, final users need a pragmatic approach to a good libreness/featurefulness balance. A crapy free program shouldn't be encouraged to be used instead of a propietary working one, if the user can't do with it what he/she wants. Otherwise all free software could be damaged.
Regards.
Hi,
another opionion ...
On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 02:11:05PM +0100, Eneko Lacunza wrote:
El mié, 20-03-2002 a las 14:31, Jeroen Dekkers escribió:
Marcus, I really think that you undertake the importance that Linux has had in the spread of Free Software ideas.
AFAIK Linux only spread open source ideas.
I don't think so. Most Linux users talk about and understand what Free Software is and means.
I do not believe that. There is a growing number of Linux users who do not know gnu, fsf, lugs or anything like that. Of course, they are more ore less invisible to the community, as they have no contact to us. I know some people who do not know the difference between Linux and a certain Linux distribution. For example, last week my uncle told me that there was only a little Linux booth on the Cebit. After some questions I knew he was referring only to SuSE. I told him there is more than distribution on the world serveral times before. And I am sure there are alread many, too many linux users. Perhaps the FSF Europe should not only try to spread the principles of free software, but also try to encourage the distributors to emphasize (or at least mention) the principles and tell their users about the community.
And please, I hope you're not trying to say that the attacks that is receiving Free Software, are due to Linux.
Microsoft is saying that Linux isn't innovative and they are right. The Hurd is however. ;-)
We'll I think that Linux is innovative in the way it's development goes on. Surely, there are others that do the same. But it's an improvement over Windows. Windows hasn't been innovative anyway, but Microsoft doesn't tell anyone ;)
IMHO the way Linux and free software generally is developed is innovative: working together automatically leads to better results than fighting each other.
Hi,
El mar, 26-03-2002 a las 00:48, Benedikt Wildenhain escribió:
Marcus, I really think that you undertake the importance that Linux has had in the spread of Free Software ideas.
AFAIK Linux only spread open source ideas.
I don't think so. Most Linux users talk about and understand what Free Software is and means.
I do not believe that. There is a growing number of Linux users who do not know gnu, fsf, lugs or anything like that. Of course, they are more ore less invisible to the community, as they have no contact to us. I know some people who do not know the difference between Linux and a certain Linux distribution. For example, last week my uncle told me that there was only a little Linux booth on the Cebit. After some questions I knew he was referring only to SuSE. I told him there is more than distribution on the world serveral times before. And I am sure there are alread many, too many linux users. Perhaps the FSF Europe should not only try to spread the principles of free software, but also try to encourage the distributors to emphasize (or at least mention) the principles and tell their users about the community.
I think this is interesting, as it means that Linux is reaching "normal" user level. I haven't seen this myself.
I think that Distributors could make a better job as you suggest, but I think some are afraid of publicly promoting free software (the usual free software/open source marketing problem). I think these fears haven't good reasons, but...
They also try to emphasize the product's technical characteristics, and forget license/formal ones.
Regards.
On Monday 18 March 2002 11:54 pm, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 07:38:57PM +0100, Eneko Lacunza wrote:
Don't you see that the GNU system has been greatly helped by Linux? Linux helped it with more testing, more popularity, more developers...
This remains to be seen. The FSF almost was diminished to irrelevance by the growth rate of "Linux" (actually GNU/Linux), and although many people started to use the system
Indeed; therefore more users for GNU software. Thanks almost entirely to the popularity of GNU/Linux distributions, the GNU GPL is now the mnost-copied dopcument in the world -- more copies of it exist than the Bible and Koran put together.
(and some contributed back to it),
The number of people contributing to free software has greatly increased in the last 5 years, due to the popularity of Linux, and the ease of collaborating over the net.
And what? This is (maybe) a sad thing, but I think that Linux has done an excelent work.
I think he could have done a much better job.
You are welcome to write a better kernel yourself :-)
Don't get me wrong, this is not to diminish the job Linux developers have done. But maybe this gives you some ideas: Linux has poor code reusage.
Yes, Linux isn't perfect. What large piece of software in production use, and hacked on by many people, is?
Linux is "good enough".
Heck, they can't even reuse their own code from one kernel version to the next (even between minor versions). This would be all dandy if it would only be their problem, but it effects other projects just as well, like the C library, and all kernel specific software that relies on the exposed interfaces. This is actually a two-fold problem. On the one hand, external interfaces change in an incompatible way, and on the other hand, internal interfaces change dramatically. And this without proper documentation of the changes, of the internals, and the lack of revision control (now bitkeeper has appeared, which is not free software, and I don't even know if it allows me to track changes in the kernel). This is particularly bad because Linux is _the_ free software repository for hardware drivers, there are drivers for every exotic device. But there is an utter lack of a clean driver framework, particularly for non-(IDE, SCSI, NIC) drivers. The interfaces improve from version to version, so there is hope, but it remains to be seen.
You obviously know more about it than I do; have you made suggestions to the kernel developers about how it could be improved?
The other issue is more at the root of the overall design as a UNIX clone: It can discourage development of code. Just look at the KGI/GGI saga. I have not participated in GGI, but from the outside look at it it seems that the fact that Linus ruled out inclusion of graphic drivers into the kernel has hurt them a lot.
Why would you want a graphics driver in the kernel? Doesn't it traditionally (in the Unix world) go outside?
Also, Linus could have done a better job of encouraging only free software, for example by disallowing non-free binary drivers.
I think they are iffy too. Linus however takes what he would probably describe as a pragmatic approach to free software.
Instead concurrenting with projects like GGI, he could have tried to encourage them, were it not for the problematic monolithical design of the kernel itself. My gut feeling is that for the Linux kernel, squeezing out the last bit of performance might be considered more important by its developers than adding compatibility or abstraction layers
I get that impression too. That's why Linus isn't a fan of microkernels.
Things like free software, user freedom, cooperation, code reuse, and compatibility are very important for the Hurd system.
Then I hope Hurd is successful. If Hurd and Linux are both successful, there will hopefully be some friendly competition between them.
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 01:35:56PM +0000, phil hunt wrote:
Indeed; therefore more users for GNU software. Thanks almost entirely to the popularity of GNU/Linux distributions, the GNU GPL is now the mnost-copied dopcument in the world -- more copies of it exist than the Bible and Koran put together.
As with the Bible and with the Koran: It doesn't matter how many copies exists, if nobody reads them.
And what? This is (maybe) a sad thing, but I think that Linux has done an excelent work.
I think he could have done a much better job.
You are welcome to write a better kernel yourself :-)
No need to joke. I am working on it. You can listen to one of my talks in summer (planned is UKUUG in Bristol and LSM in Bordeaux) on how we are doing it.
And, the past has showed that we are achieving our goals. For example, nobody uses libc5 anymore, but glibc. GLibC was initially written as part of the GNU system, by one of the Hurd's lead developers. That it was easy to add support for GNU/Linux is also an achievement of the design criteria I mentioned earlier here.
Yes, Linux isn't perfect. What large piece of software in production use, and hacked on by many people, is?
It doesn't need to be perfect. Quality is not a black-or-white issue. There are criteria you can set, and which you can meet or fail.
Linux is "good enough".
That's true from a certain point of view. I tried to show you why it isn't quite so from where I am standing.
Heck, they can't even reuse their own code from one kernel version to the next (even
[...]
You obviously know more about it than I do; have you made suggestions to the kernel developers about how it could be improved?
No, as I am not a driver developer. I don't develop driver frameworks either. There are people who do develop driver frameworks, but I don't know if they communicate with the Linux kernel developers. Maybe the L4Env project will give the Linux developers some ideas on how to do a driver framework if they are interested in it. But looking at > 5 years of Linux development, there doesn't seem to be too much interest, as even the most obvious small things are not cleaned up.
I would certainly be very happy if Linux and other groups could settle on a common driver framework that is shared among multiple projects. It would be an amazing win for everyone involved. But that requires that everyone shares the vision and accepts that the benefit of sharing and cooperating outweighs the additional cost of another level of indirection and abstraction.
The other issue is more at the root of the overall design as a UNIX clone: It can discourage development of code. Just look at the KGI/GGI saga. I have not participated in GGI, but from the outside look at it it seems that the fact that Linus ruled out inclusion of graphic drivers into the kernel has hurt them a lot.
Why would you want a graphics driver in the kernel? Doesn't it traditionally (in the Unix world) go outside?
I don't want a graphics driver in the kernel. I don't want any driver in the kernel, to be honest ;) But having said that, I don't want a webserver in the kernel either. But see, there is a webserver in Linux. Does that make you wonder? It should.
Also, Linus could have done a better job of encouraging only free software, for example by disallowing non-free binary drivers.
I think they are iffy too. Linus however takes what he would probably describe as a pragmatic approach to free software.
That is what I am criticizing.
Instead concurrenting with projects like GGI, he could have tried to encourage them, were it not for the problematic monolithical design of the kernel itself. My gut feeling is that for the Linux kernel, squeezing out the last bit of performance might be considered more important by its developers than adding compatibility or abstraction layers
I get that impression too. That's why Linus isn't a fan of microkernels.
OTOH, by splitting some parts out of the Linux kernel and putting them into user space, the sawmill project could actually make those parts run faster. There is a lot that can be said about microkernel and monolithical kernel design, this is not the place to discuss it. But I would suggest to keep an eye open for such alternative designs, it has happened in the past that something that looked unfeasible in one decade achieved am ajor breakthrough in the other.
Things like free software, user freedom, cooperation, code reuse, and compatibility are very important for the Hurd system.
Then I hope Hurd is successful. If Hurd and Linux are both successful, there will hopefully be some friendly competition between them.
Well, that will surely happen. However, what I would prefer is cooperation, rather than competition.
Thanks, Marcus
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
And, the past has showed that we are achieving our goals. For example, nobody uses libc5 anymore,
Apparently you missed Alessandro's mail recently ...
Mind you, when you make such statements, don't be surprised when others claim that nobody needs the Hurd. Both statements are true ... for certain values of nobody ...
I don't want a graphics driver in the kernel. I don't want any driver in the kernel, to be honest ;) But having said that, I don't want a webserver in the kernel either. But see, there is a webserver in Linux. Does that make you wonder? It should.
Actually, it did make me wonder when I read about it. The only reason seems to be performance, and from the benchmarks it seems to be much faster than any user-space webserver under certain conditions. Though I generally prefer elegance of design over performance when possible, and many "requirements" of performance are bogus on second sight, there are apparently some who need to serve large amounts of static web sites. What would you suggest to them? Buy more hardware? Write a user-space program that side-steps the OS and talks directly to the hardware (welcome back to Dos ;-)? Build a bare bones solution that runs without any OS (but what if some page require CGIs etc. -- serve them from another machine with an OS running)?
Then I hope Hurd is successful. If Hurd and Linux are both successful, there will hopefully be some friendly competition between them.
Well, that will surely happen. However, what I would prefer is cooperation, rather than competition.
Actually there can be both. Cooperation between the developers (hopefully), but competition on the user's machines (since most users will probably run only one OS regularly).
Frank "Another Nobody" Heckenbach
On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 05:47:23AM +0100, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
And, the past has showed that we are achieving our goals. For example, nobody uses libc5 anymore,
Apparently you missed Alessandro's mail recently ...
I don't evenknow who Alessandro is. A quick web search shows that you might mean that etlinux is still using libc5, but will swotch to multi libc5 in version 2. And it will bring multi-platform support to it. Sure, libc5 might stil have some isolated uses (prprietary binary only programs that are not updated anymore, anyone?), I mean, that's why I updated the libc5 package for Debian potato before we released and libc5 development finally died. Every software has a time where it is used even after it is dead, this time has long appeared for libc5.
Mind you, when you make such statements, don't be surprised when others claim that nobody needs the Hurd. Both statements are true ... for certain values of nobody ...
Well, feel free to tell me more about libc5. But please be a bit more elaborate. As far as I can see, the market for libc5 is pretty tight with glibc on the one side and dietlibc et al on the other.
I don't want a graphics driver in the kernel. I don't want any driver in the kernel, to be honest ;) But having said that, I don't want a webserver in the kernel either. But see, there is a webserver in Linux. Does that make you wonder? It should.
Actually, it did make me wonder when I read about it. The only reason seems to be performance, and from the benchmarks it seems to be much faster than any user-space webserver under certain conditions.
Indeed. The same logic makes you add an SQL server to the kernel. And graphic rendering software. And just about anything because people want everything to be as fast as possible if you ask them.
In short, you can go back to DOS programming, if performance is your goal.
there are apparently some who need to serve large amounts of static web sites. What would you suggest to them? Buy more hardware? Write a user-space program that side-steps the OS and talks directly to the hardware (welcome back to Dos ;-)?
Your analogy is flawed. DOS doesn't have a user-space, so what is equivalent to DOS programming is putting it into the Linux kernel.
If you need fast hardware access within a general purpose operating system, I would suggest an exokernel concept. Please read up about it for example here: http://www.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/exo.html
Thanks, Marcus
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 05:47:23AM +0100, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
And, the past has showed that we are achieving our goals. For example, nobody uses libc5 anymore,
Apparently you missed Alessandro's mail recently ...
I don't evenknow who Alessandro is. A quick web search shows that you might mean that etlinux is still using libc5, but will swotch to multi libc5 in version 2. And it will bring multi-platform support to it. Sure, libc5 might stil have some isolated uses (prprietary binary only programs that are not updated anymore, anyone?), I mean, that's why I updated the libc5 package for Debian potato before we released and libc5 development finally died. Every software has a time where it is used even after it is dead, this time has long appeared for libc5.
Mind you, when you make such statements, don't be surprised when others claim that nobody needs the Hurd. Both statements are true ... for certain values of nobody ...
Well, feel free to tell me more about libc5. But please be a bit more elaborate. As far as I can see, the market for libc5 is pretty tight with glibc on the one side and dietlibc et al on the other.
Well, if you like to talk about "nobody" and "dead" and "markets" for software, that's your choice. I don't like to see such terms in connection with free software. But to say it in your words, there's no market for the Hurd because nobody uses it. Maybe I'll try it when it will be born.
I don't want a graphics driver in the kernel. I don't want any driver in the kernel, to be honest ;) But having said that, I don't want a webserver in the kernel either. But see, there is a webserver in Linux. Does that make you wonder? It should.
Actually, it did make me wonder when I read about it. The only reason seems to be performance, and from the benchmarks it seems to be much faster than any user-space webserver under certain conditions.
Indeed. The same logic makes you add an SQL server to the kernel. And graphic rendering software. And just about anything because people want everything to be as fast as possible if you ask them.
As I said, many such requests are bogus because the performance gains are marginal. But in this case (from what I've read -- I haven't tried it myself because I have no need for it), the main overhead in this case is shuffling the data from and to the ethernet card (or whatever) through the network stack (provided most pages are cached in memory so disk I/O isn't the main issue). This isn't the case for an SQL server (where the disk I/O is often the bottleneck which is limited by hardware speed), leave alone graphic rendering (which is mostly CPU work with little I/O at all).
In short, you can go back to DOS programming, if performance is your goal.
Except you don't call Dos because it's slow and 16 bit, i.e. you do it bare bones ...
there are apparently some who need to serve large amounts of static web sites. What would you suggest to them? Buy more hardware? Write a user-space program that side-steps the OS and talks directly to the hardware (welcome back to Dos ;-)?
Your analogy is flawed. DOS doesn't have a user-space, so what is equivalent to DOS programming is putting it into the Linux kernel.
Sure, the analogy wasn't perfect. Dos has a kernel and user space, but only formally, i.e. it's not enforced by any protection, whereas under Linux (don't know about the Hurd) one has the protection, but can sidestep it as root using iopl(). Assuming that someone who sets up a major web server has or can get root privileges, this difference is not essential in this context.
Frank
On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 03:16:20AM +0100, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 05:47:23AM +0100, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
And, the past has showed that we are achieving our goals. For example, nobody uses libc5 anymore,
Apparently you missed Alessandro's mail recently ...
I don't evenknow who Alessandro is. A quick web search shows that you might mean that etlinux is still using libc5, but will swotch to multi libc5 in version 2. And it will bring multi-platform support to it. Sure, libc5 might stil have some isolated uses (prprietary binary only programs that are not updated anymore, anyone?), I mean, that's why I updated the libc5 package for Debian potato before we released and libc5 development finally died. Every software has a time where it is used even after it is dead, this time has long appeared for libc5.
Mind you, when you make such statements, don't be surprised when others claim that nobody needs the Hurd. Both statements are true ... for certain values of nobody ...
Well, feel free to tell me more about libc5. But please be a bit more elaborate. As far as I can see, the market for libc5 is pretty tight with glibc on the one side and dietlibc et al on the other.
Well, if you like to talk about "nobody" and "dead" and "markets" for software, that's your choice. I don't like to see such terms in connection with free software. But to say it in your words, there's no market for the Hurd because nobody uses it. Maybe I'll try it when it will be born.
I use the Hurd and some people I know also use the Hurd. It's still under development.
I don't want a graphics driver in the kernel. I don't want any driver in the kernel, to be honest ;) But having said that, I don't want a webserver in the kernel either. But see, there is a webserver in Linux. Does that make you wonder? It should.
Actually, it did make me wonder when I read about it. The only reason seems to be performance, and from the benchmarks it seems to be much faster than any user-space webserver under certain conditions.
Indeed. The same logic makes you add an SQL server to the kernel. And graphic rendering software. And just about anything because people want everything to be as fast as possible if you ask them.
As I said, many such requests are bogus because the performance gains are marginal. But in this case (from what I've read -- I haven't tried it myself because I have no need for it), the main overhead in this case is shuffling the data from and to the ethernet card (or whatever) through the network stack (provided most pages are cached in memory so disk I/O isn't the main issue). This isn't the case for an SQL server (where the disk I/O is often the bottleneck which is limited by hardware speed), leave alone graphic rendering (which is mostly CPU work with little I/O at all).
Doing everything in user-space with very fast IPC should give you about the same performance, I think it could be even faster. Read the papers on the tu dresden, L4KA and sawmill websites for more info.
Jeroen Dekkers
Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 03:16:20AM +0100, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 05:47:23AM +0100, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
And, the past has showed that we are achieving our goals. For example, nobody uses libc5 anymore,
Apparently you missed Alessandro's mail recently ...
I don't evenknow who Alessandro is. A quick web search shows that you might mean that etlinux is still using libc5, but will swotch to multi libc5 in version 2. And it will bring multi-platform support to it. Sure, libc5 might stil have some isolated uses (prprietary binary only programs that are not updated anymore, anyone?), I mean, that's why I updated the libc5 package for Debian potato before we released and libc5 development finally died. Every software has a time where it is used even after it is dead, this time has long appeared for libc5.
Mind you, when you make such statements, don't be surprised when others claim that nobody needs the Hurd. Both statements are true ... for certain values of nobody ...
Well, feel free to tell me more about libc5. But please be a bit more elaborate. As far as I can see, the market for libc5 is pretty tight with glibc on the one side and dietlibc et al on the other.
Well, if you like to talk about "nobody" and "dead" and "markets" for software, that's your choice. I don't like to see such terms in connection with free software. But to say it in your words, there's no market for the Hurd because nobody uses it. Maybe I'll try it when it will be born.
I use the Hurd and some people I know also use the Hurd. It's still under development.
Which is exactly my point. I know that some people (but not so many yet) use the Hurd. In Marcus' words that's "nobody".
I also know that the Hurd is still under development. Extending Marcus' usage of "dead", this means it's not born yet.
As I said, many such requests are bogus because the performance gains are marginal. But in this case (from what I've read -- I haven't tried it myself because I have no need for it), the main overhead in this case is shuffling the data from and to the ethernet card (or whatever) through the network stack (provided most pages are cached in memory so disk I/O isn't the main issue). This isn't the case for an SQL server (where the disk I/O is often the bottleneck which is limited by hardware speed), leave alone graphic rendering (which is mostly CPU work with little I/O at all).
Doing everything in user-space with very fast IPC should give you about the same performance, I think it could be even faster. Read the papers on the tu dresden, L4KA and sawmill websites for more info.
I'm no expert on this matter, but from what I've read I'm quite sure that IPC is not the issue. It's about context switching etc., AFAIUI.
Frank
On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 05:12:56AM +0100, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 03:16:20AM +0100, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 05:47:23AM +0100, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
And, the past has showed that we are achieving our goals. For example, nobody uses libc5 anymore,
Apparently you missed Alessandro's mail recently ...
I don't evenknow who Alessandro is. A quick web search shows that you might mean that etlinux is still using libc5, but will swotch to multi libc5 in version 2. And it will bring multi-platform support to it. Sure, libc5 might stil have some isolated uses (prprietary binary only programs that are not updated anymore, anyone?), I mean, that's why I updated the libc5 package for Debian potato before we released and libc5 development finally died. Every software has a time where it is used even after it is dead, this time has long appeared for libc5.
Mind you, when you make such statements, don't be surprised when others claim that nobody needs the Hurd. Both statements are true ... for certain values of nobody ...
Well, feel free to tell me more about libc5. But please be a bit more elaborate. As far as I can see, the market for libc5 is pretty tight with glibc on the one side and dietlibc et al on the other.
Well, if you like to talk about "nobody" and "dead" and "markets" for software, that's your choice. I don't like to see such terms in connection with free software. But to say it in your words, there's no market for the Hurd because nobody uses it. Maybe I'll try it when it will be born.
I use the Hurd and some people I know also use the Hurd. It's still under development.
Which is exactly my point. I know that some people (but not so many yet) use the Hurd. In Marcus' words that's "nobody".
I also know that the Hurd is still under development. Extending Marcus' usage of "dead", this means it's not born yet.
The Hurd has an increasing number of users. Does libc5 has that?
AFAIK libc5 isn't under development anymore. If I'm right all main authors stopped with the development of it. I think you can consider it pretty dead then. All of the major distribution don't use libc5 anymore, there is one major distribution which has the Hurd.
As I said, many such requests are bogus because the performance gains are marginal. But in this case (from what I've read -- I haven't tried it myself because I have no need for it), the main overhead in this case is shuffling the data from and to the ethernet card (or whatever) through the network stack (provided most pages are cached in memory so disk I/O isn't the main issue). This isn't the case for an SQL server (where the disk I/O is often the bottleneck which is limited by hardware speed), leave alone graphic rendering (which is mostly CPU work with little I/O at all).
Doing everything in user-space with very fast IPC should give you about the same performance, I think it could be even faster. Read the papers on the tu dresden, L4KA and sawmill websites for more info.
I'm no expert on this matter, but from what I've read I'm quite sure that IPC is not the issue. It's about context switching etc., AFAIUI.
That can be pretty fast. On the i386 a context switch costs pretty much, but on other processors it's even less if I'm right. Because 10 years ago microkernels were slow everybody thinks they are slow today. But they are fast today!
Jeroen Dekkers
Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
I also know that the Hurd is still under development. Extending Marcus' usage of "dead", this means it's not born yet.
The Hurd has an increasing number of users. Does libc5 has that?
You still don't get my point. I don't claim that libc5 is better than the Hurd (what a comparison ;-) or something like that. I just don't like seeing free software advocates putting down other free software with the same unobjective choice of words we're used to hear from proprietary advocates (this applies to all sides in this thread).
I'm no expert on this matter, but from what I've read I'm quite sure that IPC is not the issue. It's about context switching etc., AFAIUI.
That can be pretty fast. On the i386 a context switch costs pretty much, but on other processors it's even less if I'm right. Because 10 years ago microkernels were slow everybody thinks they are slow today. But they are fast today!
I'm sure when the Hurd will have been born, we'll soon see some benchmarks, and if it's really as fast or faster than Tux, everybody will switch, and there will be no market for Tux anymore, so it will die quickly.
Frank
On Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 12:01:26AM +0100, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
I'm sure when the Hurd will have been born, we'll soon see some benchmarks, and if it's really as fast or faster than Tux, everybody will switch, and there will be no market for Tux anymore, so it will die quickly.
I am absolutely sure that this will not happen. Linux will be noticably faster for the next couple of years, and people who just eye at benchmarks will stick with it, while people with other priorities will either stick with it, switch to the GNU/Hurd, or use both.
Thanks, Marcus
On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 05:12:56AM +0100, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
I'm no expert on this matter, but from what I've read I'm quite sure that IPC is not the issue. It's about context switching etc., AFAIUI.
One version of L4 for Intel does a synchronous RPC including context switch in 400 cycles. Which is pretty damn fast.
Or, to steal one of the phrases Linus likes to say himself (but about other concepts): "If context switches are the problem, the solution is not to get rid of them, but to make them fast."
Thanks, Marcus
On Thursday 28 March 2002 1:53 am, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 01:35:56PM +0000, phil hunt wrote:
Indeed; therefore more users for GNU software. Thanks almost entirely to the popularity of GNU/Linux distributions, the GNU GPL is now the mnost-copied dopcument in the world -- more copies of it exist than the Bible and Koran put together.
As with the Bible and with the Koran: It doesn't matter how many copies exists, if nobody reads them.
True. I for one have read the GPL.
And what? This is (maybe) a sad thing, but I think that Linux has done an excelent work.
I think he could have done a much better job.
You are welcome to write a better kernel yourself :-)
No need to joke. I am working on it.
That's good -- I hope you are successful.
You can listen to one of my talks in summer (planned is UKUUG in Bristol and LSM in Bordeaux) on how we are doing it.
I may well do so.
Yes, Linux isn't perfect. What large piece of software in production use, and hacked on by many people, is?
It doesn't need to be perfect. Quality is not a black-or-white issue.
Indeed so.
Why would you want a graphics driver in the kernel? Doesn't it traditionally (in the Unix world) go outside?
I don't want a graphics driver in the kernel. I don't want any driver in the kernel, to be honest ;) But having said that, I don't want a webserver in the kernel either. But see, there is a webserver in Linux. Does that make you wonder? It should.
The khttpd webserver was added because of claims that Linux was too slow in serving static web pages.
Things like free software, user freedom, cooperation, code reuse, and compatibility are very important for the Hurd system.
Then I hope Hurd is successful. If Hurd and Linux are both successful, there will hopefully be some friendly competition between them.
Well, that will surely happen. However, what I would prefer is cooperation, rather than competition.
IMO a bit of both is good.
Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
I don't think so. Linus wanted to write an operating system.
According to his book, he didn't initially. He wanted to write a kind of terminal emulator. When adding more and more features, it occurred to him that he was actually writing an OS kernel. Note this was some time after he started.
Almost everything was already there written by GNU.
"Almost everything" is not really true. Even today, the GNU system uses a substantial number of components from BSD, X, TeX, etc. You can call the whole thing the "GNU system" if you like (until the other contributors complain that they are not credited ;-), but you can't claim it was all written by GNU.
He only had to write a kernel and a few other things. He misnamed this to "Linux" and didn't credit GNU.
As others have pointed out, he didn't name it. And even if he did, it would have been no misnomer because what he wrote is really only the kernel. If anyone, you can blame some of the distributors who actually put together systems consisting of Linux, GNU and other things.
FWIW, I'm working on a GNU project myself, so I'm certainly not hostile towards GNU. I can see why the FSF thinks it's getting too little credit, and I also think so often. But the way you try to "advocate" it, based on wrong assumptions and wrong conclusions, is not helping it. Quite the contrary actually, since it "proves" to opponents just how absurd it is. As an example: If the Linux developers really called it "GNU/Linux", someone like Alessandro Rubini would have to speak of "GNU/Linux", even though his system uses only the kernel Linux and no GNU parts. So please, get reasonable and don't try to misname the kernel yourself.
Now if he only had looked further, he had found that there were already people making an OS.
As was quoted here, he knew that.
He could have helped developping the GNU system.
But given his dislike of microkernels and his initial intention (see above), he probably wouldn't.
This was the history lesson for today.
I hope the next one will be better researched.
Frank
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 00:37:29 +0100, Frank Heckenbach said:
"Almost everything" is not really true. Even today, the GNU system uses a substantial number of components from BSD, X, TeX, etc. You
And that was the plan nearly from the start of the GNU project. The GNU project never said that all software has to be written from scratch for it; it just turned out that a lot of stuff needed to be written due to a lack of existing free implementations.
Afaik, BSD moved to a free license after the launch of the GNU project.
hostile towards GNU. I can see why the FSF thinks it's getting too little credit, and I also think so often. But the way you try to
The main reason for using the term GNU/Linux is to stress the importance of Freedom because this is for what GNU stands.
The FSF never demanded credit for her work on the GNU system. However, thousands of developers worked on the GNU project for many years (and different motivations) - they deserve at least some credit.
developers really called it "GNU/Linux", someone like Alessandro Rubini would have to speak of "GNU/Linux", even though his system uses only the kernel Linux and no GNU parts. So please, get
I don't understand this. If you are using just the bare bone Linux kernel, the name Linux is what should be used. I usually add "kernel" to make clear what I am talking about; much like I would say "the sdcc compiler".
I hope the next one will be better researched.
The Hurd is based on a lot of research.
Frank Heckenbach, frank@g-n-u.de http://fjf.gnu.de/
So much GNU, so less GNU/Linux ;-)
Werner
Werner Koch wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 00:37:29 +0100, Frank Heckenbach said:
"Almost everything" is not really true. Even today, the GNU system uses a substantial number of components from BSD, X, TeX, etc. You
And that was the plan nearly from the start of the GNU project. The GNU project never said that all software has to be written from scratch for it; it just turned out that a lot of stuff needed to be written due to a lack of existing free implementations.
Note that I don't deny it. I was just refusing Jeroen' claim that "Almost everything was already there *written* by GNU." [emphasis by me] which is clearly not true. "Collected" or "compiled" would have been alright ...
developers really called it "GNU/Linux", someone like Alessandro Rubini would have to speak of "GNU/Linux", even though his system uses only the kernel Linux and no GNU parts. So please, get
I don't understand this. If you are using just the bare bone Linux kernel, the name Linux is what should be used.
Exactly. That's why Jeroen's statement '[Linus] only had to write a kernel and a few other things. He misnamed this to "Linux" and didn't credit GNU.' is also unreasonable. He is talking only about the kernel (and perhaps some some utilities close to the kernel, written by Linus etc.), so it's no misnaming to call this "Linux".
I hope the next one will be better researched.
The Hurd is based on a lot of research.
Please don't quote me out of context. My statement clearly referred to Jeroen's "history lesson", not to GNU, Linux or the Hurd.
Frank Heckenbach, frank@g-n-u.de http://fjf.gnu.de/
So much GNU, so less GNU/Linux ;-)
Yes. I support GNU, I use GNU/Linux on my machines (and sometimes work on GNU/Solaris and GNU/IRIX machines ;-). But I think attacking Linux (the kernel) for not being called GNU/Linux, like Jeroen did, does not help, but hurt the reputation of GNU.
Frank
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:51:15 +0100, Frank Heckenbach said:
Note that I don't deny it. I was just refusing Jeroen' claim that "Almost everything was already there *written* by GNU." [emphasis by
Okay.
me] which is clearly not true. "Collected" or "compiled" would have been alright ...
or "used by"
Exactly. That's why Jeroen's statement '[Linus] only had to write a kernel and a few other things. He misnamed this to "Linux" and didn't credit GNU.' is also unreasonable. He is talking only about
I heard him speak about the *Linux OS* several times on conferences.
BTW, I also recall that once he proudly presented Linux running MS-Powerpoint using an early WINE version.
The Hurd is based on a lot of research.
Please don't quote me out of context. My statement clearly referred to Jeroen's "history lesson", not to GNU, Linux or the Hurd.
Right, however I can't see what's wrong with Jeroen's history of GNU and OS kernels except for leaving out that a lot of other kernels used to be in the works around 1990.
Yes. I support GNU, I use GNU/Linux on my machines (and sometimes work on GNU/Solaris and GNU/IRIX machines ;-). But I think attacking
You will never see a GNU/proprietaryKernel - this is a contradiction to the goals of the GNU project. Using GNU/Linux is explicitly giving Linux credit for helping out with a very usable free kernel and getting around the bootstrapping problem on how to develop a free OS using only Free Software.
Linux (the kernel) for not being called GNU/Linux, like Jeroen did, does not help, but hurt the reputation of GNU.
Well, attacking is certainly not a good behaviour in the community. We recently made a lot of experience with this ;-). Suggesting to use the proper term is what I do.
Werner
Werner Koch wrote:
Exactly. That's why Jeroen's statement '[Linus] only had to write a kernel and a few other things. He misnamed this to "Linux" and didn't credit GNU.' is also unreasonable. He is talking only about
I heard him speak about the *Linux OS* several times on conferences.
I've heard others (including university lecturers) use a narrower definition of OS, more along the lines of the kernel, so does it seem possible that Linus was using such a definition and not talking about a complete GNU/Linux system at all?
BTW, I also recall that once he proudly presented Linux running MS-Powerpoint using an early WINE version.
I won't defend that (though it's certainly still better than some (would-be) free software advocates giving presentations using MS-Windows which I've also seen).
The Hurd is based on a lot of research.
Please don't quote me out of context. My statement clearly referred to Jeroen's "history lesson", not to GNU, Linux or the Hurd.
Right, however I can't see what's wrong with Jeroen's history of GNU and OS kernels except for leaving out that a lot of other kernels used to be in the works around 1990.
: I don't think so. Linus wanted to write an operating system. Almost : everything was already there written by GNU. He only had to write a : kernel and a few other things. He misnamed this to "Linux" and didn't : credit GNU. : : Now if he only had looked further, he had found that there were : already people making an OS.
As I pointed out, that's 4 mistakes in 6 lines (besides the "leaving out" you mention which doesn't really have to be counted as a mistake I think):
- Linus' original intention - "almost everything" (see above) - Linus naming it Linux - Linus not knowing about the Hurd
Yes. I support GNU, I use GNU/Linux on my machines (and sometimes work on GNU/Solaris and GNU/IRIX machines ;-). But I think attacking
You will never see a GNU/proprietaryKernel - this is a contradiction to the goals of the GNU project.
So if I use a Linux kernel with GNU tools I should give credit to GNU by using the term GNU/Linux. But if I use a Solaris kernel with GNU tools, I *must not* do so?
Using GNU/Linux is explicitly giving Linux credit for helping out with a very usable free kernel and getting around the bootstrapping problem on how to develop a free OS using only Free Software.
Oh, now it's GNU giving credit to Linux? I thought it was about "Linux" distributors giving credit to GNU?
This begs the question who is entitled to chose the name? If Red Hat or SuSE makes a distribution, how is the FSF in a position to choose its name and be able to "credit Linux"? Can't they only ask or convince the distributors who chose to give credit to Linux to do the same to GNU? (They could have required it in the license, but they chose not to.)
Frank
Dear unlucky friends,
Frank Heckenbach writes:
You will never see a GNU/proprietaryKernel - this is a contradiction to the goals of the GNU project.
So if I use a Linux kernel with GNU tools I should give credit to GNU by using the term GNU/Linux. But if I use a Solaris kernel with GNU tools, I *must not* do so?
Perhaps it would help to distinguish between the 'Operating Environment' and the Operating System. OE would be defined as all Operations that can be invoked via some API after establishing the environemnt. The GNU shell environment would be i.e. established upon login into a linux box (or after calling 'set-gnu-environment' on an IRIX box) and have GNU make as make, gnu sed as sed and so on.
The concept 'OS' is less well defined, since it has userspace parts like administrative programs or the shell.
Giving credits to someone should not be the issue here (as some seem to think), but functionality (does 'make' do what 'gnu make' does). Should I call a Linux system GNU Linux then? I see 3 threads of argument here:
1) Linux incorporates many GNU Tools. -- I think, this doesn't apply, since it also incorporates X11, BSD-Tools and so on. I'd have to call it Qt/GNU/X11/BSD/Linux.
2) The system provides a GNU-ish Operating Environment, that is, on , whose structure follows a philosphy -- I can't comment on that, since I haven't read enough GNU papers. Perhaps someon could point me on a paper, which states, what the GNU system structure will be? The GNU coding standards are certainly violated often enough in Linux, so it shouldn't be ALLOWED to be branded GNU :-).
3) Credits. Since someones tool T, helped someone else to make X, someone else should call X T/X, to give credits. -- Hm, yes I think, credits should be given, no problem, but not in the name. I once used a Borland compiler to write a boot loader. Should I have called it Borland/MyLoader? Hardly: Trademark rights would have got me soon enough.
Im really puzzled, but please don't flame now. The only valid claim IMHO would come from 2), which also would imply some minimal Gnu libc/shell/whatever API standard to which a Gnu system must conform. Can anyone point me to something like that (at least a rough draft).
I really think Gnu should/must be some kind of branding like POSIX or Unix98 and so on, if it should have any value at all. Having Redhat print GNU/Linux at their boxes (or SuSe) and then shipping anything they like (as they do: look at the patched kernels, differnt admin tools, different build systems, non portable RPMs) will not help me.
Don't sell the 'Gnu' word too cheap!
Regards -- Markus
PS: I think this debate is really dead and over. Please don't answer, if you *only* have an opinion, instead of an argument about (a) the validity of the arguments 1-3 (my logic might be deficient here) or (b) new empirical data (like a written Gnu definition). I'm only contributing this mail since I'm really intrested, wether there is actually a definition for a Gnu OS or Gnu OE.
Hi,
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, M E Leypold @ labnet kindly wrote:
--snip--
- Linux incorporates many GNU Tools. -- I think, this doesn't apply, since it also incorporates X11, BSD-Tools and so on. I'd have to call it Qt/GNU/X11/BSD/Linux.
This statement is rather old. I do not think it is to the point, anyway: The Linux Kernel was and is compiled with gcc. So GNU is the hen, the egg (=Linux) dropped from. The Linux Kernel and GNU/Linux could exist without Qt/X11/BSD/ albeit they might be less popular.
But without GNU, there wouldn't be any Linux. And maybe there wouldn't exist other things too...
So, at least IMHO, GNU deserves more credit then the other mentioned contributors. Has anybody tried to compile Linux with cc?
Georg Jakob wrote:
This statement is rather old. I do not think it is to the point, anyway: The Linux Kernel was and is compiled with gcc.
That's exactly M E Leypold's point #3, and I agree with him that this would be silly. I haven't seen any case where a program was named after the tools used to create it. What if I write a completely protable C program, should I call it GNU/Sun/Borland/Microsoft/<insert other C compiler makers>/HelloWorld? ;-)
Actually, I'd consider this a *very* bad thing because then everyone would be allowed (or required) to call their programs GNU/Something if they compile them with GCC, even if they have no other relation to the GNU project or the GNU system.
And according to this argumentation, Linux must now be called BitKeeper/GNU/Linux. ;-)
Frank
Hi,
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Frank Heckenbach kindly wrote:
--snip--
This statement is rather old. I do not think it is to the point, anyway: The Linux Kernel was and is compiled with gcc.
That's exactly M E Leypold's point #3, and I agree with him that this would be silly. I haven't seen any case where a program was named after the tools used to create it. What if I write a completely protable C program, should I call it GNU/Sun/Borland/Microsoft/<insert other C compiler makers>/HelloWorld? ;-)
Linus created Linux because he couldn't afford a propritary Unix. That aside:
It is not just about tools. It is about feedom. It is not about having a compiler. It is about having a free (beer & speech) compiler.
It is about running a free shell (bash) on top of the kernel you created with that compiler. An editor. A start, from which you can continue (at least theoretically) without Minix.
It is about the GPL - to make the kernel as free as the tools you created it with.
Oh wait - I am wrong - those are all tools. And the many things provided by GNU the Linux kernel comes with today to create an operating system. Logically, you can reduce them as being "just tools".
And even the awareness that has been created by GNU and the HURD Project, the awareness that it would be good to have a free OS that made developers join Linus. Just another tool.
But you should *know* that's not the whole truth.
Georg Jakob wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Frank Heckenbach kindly wrote:
--snip--
This statement is rather old. I do not think it is to the point, anyway: The Linux Kernel was and is compiled with gcc.
That's exactly M E Leypold's point #3, and I agree with him that this would be silly. I haven't seen any case where a program was named after the tools used to create it. What if I write a completely protable C program, should I call it GNU/Sun/Borland/Microsoft/<insert other C compiler makers>/HelloWorld? ;-)
Linus created Linux because he couldn't afford a propritary Unix. That aside:
It is not just about tools. It is about feedom. It is not about having a compiler. It is about having a free (beer & speech) compiler.
It is about running a free shell (bash) on top of the kernel you created with that compiler. An editor. A start, from which you can continue (at least theoretically) without Minix.
It is about the GPL - to make the kernel as free as the tools you created it with.
Oh wait - I am wrong - those are all tools. And the many things provided by GNU the Linux kernel comes with today to create an operating system. Logically, you can reduce them as being "just tools".
In this context they are "tools" indeed. I.e., Linux is no derived work of them, but they are *used* to create Linux.
Of course, in another context, when dividing programs in (usually small) "tools" and (large) "applications" and whatever else, most of the programs mentioned would not fall in the category "tools". I didn't mean the word "tools" this way.
(Jargon file, entry "tools", meaning 1 vs. 2. ;-)
The mentioning of the GPL above seems unrelated -- I think it's clear that not every GPL'd program is a GNU program.
And even the awareness that has been created by GNU and the HURD Project, the awareness that it would be good to have a free OS that made developers join Linus. Just another tool.
That's probably a valid point, but it also applies the other way around. E.g., I'm a GNU developer now, and I got acquainted to GNU mostly via Linux (leaving aside some small exposure to GNU programs on Solaris at university and on DJGPP at home before I started with Linux). It's hard to tell what would have happened if Linux wouldn't have been there when I was desparately looking for a working OS for my PC -- maybe I'd have switched to the Hurd some years later, but maybe (more likely it seems to me) I'd be using BSD or some proprietary system and not use or develop GNU programs much at all.
You might say I started, coming from proprietary systems, as an open source guy (though this term didn't exist then, and I don't like it today), and turned to free software later. I guess I'm not the only one who first valued the practical advantages and later the freedom. (Maybe for a very simple reason: To make use of the most important freedoms, to modify things, you first need a good development environment and get familiar with it. Providing this environment is one of the practical advantages, as propagated by the open source people. Of course, a stable OS kernel is a very important part of the environment, since rebooting isn't very productive, -- maybe even the most important part initially, whereas I later discovered the advantages of the GNU programs like portability and lack of many restrictions present in the proprietary programs I knew.)
Seen from this point of view, Linux enabled some people (including myself) to make use of the freedoms practically (not legally -- that's, of course, the merit of the FSF) and therefore to get involved with GNU. Still I haven't heard anyone requesting GNU to be called Linux/GNU for this reason.
But you should *know* that's not the whole truth.
Of course, I do. But I was replying to one specific argument (i.e., that the fact that "The Linux Kernel was and is compiled with gcc" should have any influence on whether or not to call it GNU/Linux), so I was only mentioning points related to that argument. I didn't mean to go though all the other potential reasons for or against calling it so in my last mail (but since you've brought up some of them, I'm replying to them now ...).
Frank
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 02:51:15PM +0100, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
Werner Koch wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 00:37:29 +0100, Frank Heckenbach said:
"Almost everything" is not really true. Even today, the GNU system uses a substantial number of components from BSD, X, TeX, etc. You
And that was the plan nearly from the start of the GNU project. The GNU project never said that all software has to be written from scratch for it; it just turned out that a lot of stuff needed to be written due to a lack of existing free implementations.
Note that I don't deny it. I was just refusing Jeroen' claim that "Almost everything was already there *written* by GNU." [emphasis by me] which is clearly not true. "Collected" or "compiled" would have been alright ...
Do you know what the word 'almost' means?
developers really called it "GNU/Linux", someone like Alessandro Rubini would have to speak of "GNU/Linux", even though his system uses only the kernel Linux and no GNU parts. So please, get
I don't understand this. If you are using just the bare bone Linux kernel, the name Linux is what should be used.
Exactly. That's why Jeroen's statement '[Linus] only had to write a kernel and a few other things. He misnamed this to "Linux" and didn't credit GNU.' is also unreasonable. He is talking only about the kernel (and perhaps some some utilities close to the kernel, written by Linus etc.), so it's no misnaming to call this "Linux".
Now let's quote the whole: 'Linus wanted to write an operating system. Almost everything was already there written by GNU. He only had to write a kernel and a few other things. He misnamed this to "Linux" and didn't credit GNU.'
I meant: Misnamed this -> misnamed the OS. I was a bit unclear, but I think most other people already guessed what I meant.
Frank Heckenbach, frank@g-n-u.de http://fjf.gnu.de/
So much GNU, so less GNU/Linux ;-)
Yes. I support GNU, I use GNU/Linux on my machines (and sometimes work on GNU/Solaris and GNU/IRIX machines ;-). But I think attacking Linux (the kernel) for not being called GNU/Linux, like Jeroen did, does not help, but hurt the reputation of GNU.
I wanted to say that OS should have been called GNU/Linux and was misnamed to "Linux".
Jeroen Dekkers
Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 02:51:15PM +0100, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
Werner Koch wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 00:37:29 +0100, Frank Heckenbach said:
"Almost everything" is not really true. Even today, the GNU system uses a substantial number of components from BSD, X, TeX, etc. You
And that was the plan nearly from the start of the GNU project. The GNU project never said that all software has to be written from scratch for it; it just turned out that a lot of stuff needed to be written due to a lack of existing free implementations.
Note that I don't deny it. I was just refusing Jeroen' claim that "Almost everything was already there *written* by GNU." [emphasis by me] which is clearly not true. "Collected" or "compiled" would have been alright ...
Do you know what the word 'almost' means?
I think I do. "Almost everything" means everything but a tiny part. If you consider X, KDE, TeX, those BSD programs still used on these sytems and many 3rd party contributions etc. a tiny part, that's just as absurd as considering cdrecord one of the most important programs.
developers really called it "GNU/Linux", someone like Alessandro Rubini would have to speak of "GNU/Linux", even though his system uses only the kernel Linux and no GNU parts. So please, get
I don't understand this. If you are using just the bare bone Linux kernel, the name Linux is what should be used.
Exactly. That's why Jeroen's statement '[Linus] only had to write a kernel and a few other things. He misnamed this to "Linux" and didn't credit GNU.' is also unreasonable. He is talking only about the kernel (and perhaps some some utilities close to the kernel, written by Linus etc.), so it's no misnaming to call this "Linux".
Now let's quote the whole: 'Linus wanted to write an operating system. Almost everything was already there written by GNU. He only had to write a kernel and a few other things. He misnamed this to "Linux" and didn't credit GNU.'
I meant: Misnamed this -> misnamed the OS. I was a bit unclear, but I think most other people already guessed what I meant.
This makes no sense. One can only name things one has created/discovered himself (or been given explicit permission by the creator), so what Linus could have named is only the kernel and the "few other things", not the complete system.
Yes. I support GNU, I use GNU/Linux on my machines (and sometimes work on GNU/Solaris and GNU/IRIX machines ;-). But I think attacking Linux (the kernel) for not being called GNU/Linux, like Jeroen did, does not help, but hurt the reputation of GNU.
I wanted to say that OS should have been called GNU/Linux and was misnamed to "Linux".
Then don't blame Linus, but the distributors (except Debian) who don't call it this way.
And perhaps you can answer the following question: Why can the GNU system be called just "GNU" without crediting the other components used in it (or at least the major ones, see above)? The standard argument I'm aware of is that the FSF's goal is to create a free system, called the GNU system, writing many components themselves, but taking existing software where available, free and suitable. So TeX, XFree etc. are part of the GNU system, even if they are no GNU projects themselves. If this is true, then please, why can't others create their own system, call it a Linux system (or a Red Hat or SuSE system or whatever) and take available free software such as the kernel Linux, many GNU programs and other programs that are not GNU, but part of the GNU system?
Note again, I'd like to see "GNU/Linux" written on Red Hat and SuSE boxes (maybe even more than you would since you probably don't even look at them ;-). I just think your way of argumenting is not very helpful to this goal.
Frank