GNU-Linux vs Linux naming [was RE: LAM/MPI Parallel processing]

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@example.com>]

>>>>> "Jonathan" == Jonathan Shore <jshore@example.com> writes:

    Jonathan> I assume the following is flame-bait?  There is no
    Jonathan> useful content in the enclosed message other than the
    Jonathan> GNU naming versus Linux naming (mine included).

Of course it's flame-bait.  Just because it is true and correct
doesn't need to make it uncontroversial.  :-)

LUGs are about people helping people with Linux.  That's a lot easier
if we talk a common language, and that language has to be technical in
nature.  Ie, accurate.

As any of the old-timers on the list will be able to tell you, I often
walk the extra mile in a newbie's shoes to figure out WTF they are
talking about.  But people talking about clusters and parallel
computing don't fall into that category, and they are held to a higher
standard.  They should accept correction gracefully, not with excuses
about following the traditions of the misinformed barbarians.  Or at
least counter with amusing flames or a plausible counterargument.

I'm just making that higher standard public.  :--)

    Jonathan> As for GNU-linux versus linux.  The fact is Linus put in

It's not "GNU-linux", that parses as "the GNU version of the Linux
kernel," which is non-existent.  It's "GNU/Linux", which means "the
GNU system running over the Linux kernel," which is inaccurate in many
details (starting from the word "go", /sbin/init is not a GNU package,
although `ln -s /usr/bin/bash /sbin/init' is a plausible, if very
MSDOG-like, fix ;), but at least a plausible approximation from the
sysadmin's or the developer's point of view.

    Jonathan> an incredible amount of work to make the kernel happen -
    Jonathan> something some of us could have done in theory but
    Jonathan> didn't do.

You don't get it, do you?  Nobody is denying that Linus did a great
thing in creating the Linux kernel, not even rms.  Certainly not me:
I suspect that besides getting the software product right,Linus is
probably a management genius on the order of Bill Gates, as well.
(The bazaar is not happenstance, although it "just happened.")

What rms is pissed about is that 20 years of GNU service (formally,
the GNU Project is only about 15 years old, but the core efforts go
back earlier) to the community only gets mentioned by the majority of
Linux users because rms has made himself a royal PITA about the whole
thing.  The Linux kernel is _useless_[1] without the GNU tools, while
the GNU tools now make it possible to turn Windows 95 into an
approximation of a real OS, not to mention being a fairly complete
substitute for the tool suites provided by many *nix vendors (and
often an improvement).

There is no question that common usage has made just plain "Linux" is
a better name for the common aspects of the software system
distributed by the likes of Debian, SuSE, Turbolinux, and Red Hat, and
targeted by the hardware of VA Linux.  That's because some name for
this system was necessary, and overloading an existing related name is
a hallowed tradition.  (This is quite different from the situation
with "Beowulf" and "cluster", since the latter term is at least as
well-established as the former.  So there is no need to overload
"Beowulf" to mean (generic) cluster.)

But rms's complaint, that GNU does not get enough recognition, is
valid.  Let's put it this way:  consider the following domains:

    redhat.com
    gnu.org

Suppose you could delete one of those domains, all the data hosted on
its machines (especially the mailing lists, newgroups, and their
archives), and require each of its activists to independently find
another group to work for.  (In particular, the CEO is not allowed to
found a new organization.)  Now tell me, which one would you delete to
cause the Linux developer community the most disruption?

Even with the acquisition of Cygnus, the deletion of redhat.com would
hardly be noticed.  Drepper, Cox, and Miller would just go work
somewhere else, and nobody would notice beyond fixing up their bbdb
entries.  But deleting GNU.org would cause an organizational crisis
that would take months or years to recover from.

    Jonathan> And If you want to get picky then you should make the
    Jonathan> name Minix-GNU-Linux, as linux grew out of minix and
    Jonathan> various GNU tools ported to minix.

Yes, and human beings and earthworms have common ancestors, too.
Shame you neglected that part of the content of my post.

Minix ancestry is irrelevant to _running_ a GNU system or a Linux
system now.  OTOH, AFAIK there is no desktop-capable Linux distro that
can run without the GNU tools, let alone rebuild itself.  The Linux
development organization continues to be founded on diff and patch,
and non-GNU tools like CVS built on top of tools like RCS.  For
copyright reasons, there is NO Minix code in the Linux kernel (at
least not in 0.9x kernels ;-), and none in the rest of the system
AFAIK.


Footnotes: 
[1]  Not true any more, with the relatively recent development of
embedded Linuces at least.

-- 
University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
_________________  _________________  _________________  _________________
What are those straight lines for?  "XEmacs rules."