Subject: Re: [ILUG] linux in schools
From: Rick Moen <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:31:21 -0700

Quoting John Allen ([email-masked]):

> The use of GNU/Linux is misleading; as the majority of the software I
> use everyday on my Linux system *IS NOT* GNU. Many many projects which
> started out as NotGNU eventually were accepted under the GNU umbrella
> for funding; that is all that GNU means (funded by the FSF).

I have, as the saying goes, no dog in this fight -- but here's how I
analysed it when a friend badgered me repeatedly on the matter until I
finally addressed it for him:

Ross wrote:

> What's your opinion of "GNU/Linux"?

So, OK, you deserve a serious answer -- even though I was semi-serious,
in that you sometimes just enjoy ranting and trying to get a rise out of
people, and heavens knows it's a harmless hobby and sometimes almost an
art form.  (Nor am I in the least offended by people merely holding
strong views, especially if they express themselves in an interesting
and engaging manner.  Example:  Google for the phrase "considered
harmful".  Lots of good reading, there.)

What you posted encompasses several related questions.  Here's the
entire omnibus discussion, FAQed and suitable for framing:

Q:  Are you bugged by people saying "GNU/Linux"?

A:  No.

Q:  Are you bugged by people not saying "GNU/Linux"?

A:  No.

Q:  Are you bugged by people insisting that others {say|not say} "GNU/Linux"?

A:  A little, but not enough to make an issue of.

Q:  Do you feel that Stallman's claim that people should say "GNU/Linux"
on grounds of granting credit to the GNU Project has merit?

A:  {sigh}  Yes, somewhat:  The effort to build a complex OS from
scratch using non-encumbered code, of necessity, has to start with the
less-flashy but utterly crucial developer tools and libraries first,
which unfortunately becomes something of an iceberg proposition, where
fame and public credit is concerned (nine tenths underwater and
invisible).  E.g., the GNU Project painstakingly created and debugged
the following utterly crucial codebases: glibc, gcc/g++, gdb, cpp,
bison, autoconf, make, automake, emacs, cvs, and the binutils.  The
crucial importance of those can be seen from how many of them have been
instrumental in the development of {Free|Net|Open}BSD and even (in many
cases) the proprietary 'nixes, as well.

Q:  But aren't the lines of code from the GNU Project utterly dwarfed by
the lines of code from other sources?

A:  The question makes the foolish assumption that all lines of code are
of equal importance, and therefore cannot be usefully answered as posed.

Q:  But if the GNU Project deserves credit, don't others equally, such
that you're really asking us to say "GNU/BSD/Perl/Apache/MIT/Python/Linux"?

A:  First, I'm not asking you to say anything.  The question you asked,
and are in effect now re-asking with elaborations, was whether
Stallman's request strikes me as having merit.  Second, you're ignoring
the point about which code has been most crucial during development
(which includes maintenence and enhancement, not just initial creation)
of everything you've alluded to.  Besides, some of those items aren't
even essential to running a 'nix system in the first place, such as the
X Window System and the Apache Foundation pieces.

Q:  But how can you say that their claim of credit has merit when
they're not even competent to create a usable kernel within the current
geological era?

A:  Because that question rests on a non-sequitur assumption, in part.
Yes, they screwed up in being led down the garden path of microkernels
that was in vogue among OS theorists of the day.  (Their design may yet
be vindicated, but I wouldn't hold my breath.)  But the state of the
HURD kernel is not relevant to the point I've made.

Additionally, the GNU Project people acknowledge that HURD still sucks,
which is why they run Linux instead, and is part of why their request is
that people say "GNU/Linux" instead of just GNU.

Q:  But isn't it possible to edit and debug code without emacs, maintain
code repositories without cvs, use other implementations of make, use
other compilers besides gcc, use other lexical analysers other than
bison, use other C libraries other than glibc, and so on?

A:  Yes, but that's ignoring the point.  The point is that, during the
development history of practically all the software comprising a modern
Linux distribution, those key GNU development tools have functioned as
keystone pieces that made everything else possible.  The reasons why
those were used, and whether alternatives have been available at various
points, are entirely beside the point.  The point is that those pieces
have been and remain of crucial importances as developer tools in
crafting just about everything else.  That's a fact.  I'm simply
pointing out the fact.

Q:  But given that you can use a Linux system all day long, and never
use any of those pieces other than glibc, how can you say they're that
crucial?

A:  Because they are.  The fact that you don't happen to use them
directly and personally is irrelevant to the point.  The important fact
is that those have been and are key tools relied upon by those who
produced the software that you do use on a Linux distribution, by and
large.

Q:  But isn't it more logical to call the system "Linux", since Linux is
what starts the system and runs everything?

A:  No, one might argue with no more or less sense that the system
should be called "Phoenix" or "Award" because the BIOS ROMs start it.
Besides, it's /sbin/init that fork-and-execs to launch processes, not
the kernel.

Q:  But isn't the kernel more fundamental to the system?

A:  No.  You're not a developer, are you?  What Stallman would have us
call the GNU system can run just fine on kernels descended from 4.4BSD
Lite, the Minix kernel, or any number of others, and those kernels
perform services that are essential but not as key a resource to
(overwhelmingly userspace) development efforts as the other pieces.
(Besides, again, Stallman _wants_ people to credit the kernel effort.)

Q:  So, do you say "GNU/Linux", yourself?

A:  Most of the time, no.

Q:  But isn't that inconsistent with your answer?

A:  It's an imperfect world:  I'm lazy, "GNU/Linux" is awkward both to
say and to write, and one gets tired of being buttonholed by people
wanting to argue about it.

-- 
Cheers,              First they came for the verbs, and I said nothing, for
Rick Moen            verbing weirds language.  Then, they arrival for the nouns
[email-masked]  and I speech nothing, for I no verbs. - Peter Ellis