Re: tlug: Last night's RMS discussion

[simon@example.com (Simon Cozens)]

Manuel M. T. Chakravarty (lists.tlug):
>Technically speaking, the OS that most of us use - according
>to rms - should be called GNU/Linux (or Linux/GNU if you
>prefer), because the GNU tools and the Linux kernel are the
>two most important components in this system.[1] Which one
>is more important is a philosophical issue and of no real
>relevance in this discussion, I think.  (Don't underestimate
>the importance of the GNU tools, I am not talking `cp'
>here...without `gcc', the Linux kernel would be a pile of
>worthless bits.)

You could make a case for GNU/FreeBSD on the same grounds, but
RMS does not. I wonder why not. Either it is a point of principle
for him, or it isn't. Is it just that Linux is more popular, so he'd
prefer to ride on the back of that instead?

>Now, people are lazy, and so, I think (rms maybe not) that
>it is fair enough to abbreviate for convenience to `Linux
>(system)' or `GNU (system)'.  I personally usually
>abbreviate to Linux, because while there is no
>Whatever/Linux, there is GNU/Hurd, so `Linux' on its own is
>less ambiguous.  Nevertheless, calling the overall system
>`GNU' is _as_good_ and fair as just calling it Linux.

If you accept those terms. If we accept `GNU' as being `one or two bits
of software provided by the FSF', would it not be fair to say that I am
running a system of packages agglomerated by RedHat, and so I'm running
either `RedHat Linux' or just `Linux'?

>(1) He actually had the plan to make a complete system very
>    long ago and the Linux kernel was only the last piece in
>    the puzzle.

But the most important. His idea was never to sit on top of Linux, but
to build a kernel and use that. Which makes me suspect even more highly
it's nothing but a marriage of convenience for him.

>(3) The GNU part of the compound system is much more user
>    visible.

Absolutely and utterly untrue. The target audience of the war of words
is the new breed of Linux users, not hackers who already know the
arguments, and we're talking the people who probably won't use gcc and
won't know what libc does. They've far more chance of knowing their
kernel version, though. 

>three points, the only one which is open for discussion is
>number (2), the other two are a matter of fact.

Not fact, no.

>PS: To Scott, maybe rms starts to call GNU/Linux just Linux, when
>    Linus writes his own C compiler?

Oh, you also forget there exist other free libc's. (newlib comes to mind
immediately, and I'm sure I heard of others.) I'm not sure about
compilers, though.

Humpty Dumpty be damned.

-- 
Writing software is more fun than working.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Next Technical Meeting: January 14 (Fri) 19:00
* Topic: "glibc - current status and future developments"
* Guest Speaker: Ulrich Drepper (Cygnus Solutions)
* Place: Oracle Japan HQ 12F Seminar Room (New Otani Garden Court)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
more info: http://www.tlug.gr.jp        Sponsor: Global Online Japan