25 years ago: the birth of Linux

[asandford]

https://opensource.com/resources/what-is-linux

For the purposes of this page, we use the term “Linux” to refer to the Linux kernel, but also the set of programs, tools, and services that are typically bundled together with the Linux kernel to provide all of the necessary components of a fully functional operating system. Some people, particularly members of the Free Software Foundation, refer to this collection as GNU/Linux, because many of the tools included are GNU components. However, not all Linux installations use GNU components as a part of their operating system. Android, for example, uses a Linux kernel but relies very little on GNU tools.

Just shows that some people are lazy and can't be bothered to give credit where it's due.

[Heater]

PeterO,

Is there a point to this diatribe ?

Ha. Well, there was when it started, it seems to have got lost somewhere.

I think we can all agree with DavidS:

I believe that the point is that Linux is a good Operating System that is 25 years old, and is the Operating System that helped to popularize the RPi.

By way of being topical, here is Linus speaking recently. Seems he agrees with my previous post: "Linus Torvalds says GPL was defining factor in Linux's success"

http://www.cio.com/article/3112582/linu ... ccess.html

[Heater]

asandford,

Just shows that some people are lazy and can't be bothered to give credit where it's due.

I don't think it's as simple as being lazy.

I have a PC running Windows 10. I often refer to it as my "Windows machine". that's clear enough, it pins down what it is well enough for most purposes.

I have a PC running the Debian distribution. How should I refer to it?

The fact that it is Debian is critical a lot of the time. If I'm fetching packages or pre-built binaries, if I'm reading installation instructions, build instructions, system configuration instructions I'd better know if they work for Debian not RedHat or whatever. Similarly if I'm writing such instructions or putting out software people need to know it was only ever tested on Debian.

So it's my "Debian machine".

Except it is not a lot of the time. When talking to lay people they won't have a clue what I mean.

So it's often my "Linux machine". Then people know what I'm talking about in some small way.

I will never refer to it as my "GNU/Linux" machine. That is just ugly. And again nobody will know what I mean.

Also, most of the software that is running on this box most of the time is nothing to do with GNU. There is a vast ocean of other stuff.

Also, is there such a thing as a pure "GNU/Linux system" ? Is it even usable? It's interesting to note that all the so called "GNU/Linux" distributions listed on the gnu.org site are described as "based on Fedora", "based on Debian" etc. Where is the "GNU/Linux"?.

I have been singing the praises of Richard Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, the GPL, etc for many years but I just can't go with "GNU/Linux".

[asandford]

asandford,

Just shows that some people are lazy and can't be bothered to give credit where it's due.

I don't think it's as simple as being lazy.

I have a PC running Windows 10. I often refer to it as my "Windows machine". that's clear enough, it pins down what it is well enough for most purposes.

I have a PC running the Debian distribution. How should I refer to it?

The fact that it is Debian is critical a lot of the time. If I'm fetching packages or pre-built binaries, if I'm reading installation instructions, build instructions, system configuration instructions I'd better know if they work for Debian not RedHat or whatever. Similarly if I'm writing such instructions or putting out software people need to know it was only ever tested on Debian.

So it's my "Debian machine".

Except it is not a lot of the time. When talking to lay people they won't have a clue what I mean.

So it's often my "Linux machine". Then people know what I'm talking about in some small way.

I will never refer to it as my "GNU/Linux" machine. That is just ugly. And again nobody will know what I mean.

Also, most of the software that is running on this box most of the time is nothing to do with GNU. There is a vast ocean of other stuff.

Also, is there such a thing as a pure "GNU/Linux system" ? Is it even usable? It's interesting to note that all the so called "GNU/Linux" distributions listed on the gnu.org site are described as "based on Fedora", "based on Debian" etc. Where is the "GNU/Linux"?.

I have been singing the praises of Richard Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, the GPL, etc for many years but I just can't go with "GNU/Linux".

Linux is just the kernal, the distribution varies the supporting packages that then becomes the operating environment. You can't compare it to windows as that is effectivly a single package (kernel + GUI + OE).

From here

Many users do not understand the difference between the kernel, which is Linux, and the whole system, which they also call “Linux”. The ambiguous use of the name doesn't help people understand. These users often think that Linus Torvalds developed the whole operating system in 1991, with a bit of help.

and

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.

[Heater]

"Linux is just the kernel". Exactly. You know that. I know that. Compiled enough of them. But "Linux" has for a long time been a generic term referring to all those Linux based operating system "distributions".

Perhaps we can blame people like RedHat that have been marketing "RedHat Linux", a kernel plus everything else you need, since forever. See picture. Note: "RedHat Linux 6.2 The Worlds Most Popular Open Source Operating System", no mention of all that messy GNU stuff there.

Or perhaps we can blame Patrick Volkerding since 1993. See the Slackware site: "Slackware Linux is a complete multitasking "UNIX-like" system ..." http://www.slackware.com/info/

51H33X8B6VL.jpg (35.44 KiB) Viewed 2894 times

[asandford]

Perhaps it's time to educate to what it should be called and not perpetuate the slackness (excuse the pun) of dropping GNU?

[flatmax]

Linux's Granddad : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman
Linux's Dad : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds

Thank you

[Heater]

I'm all for educating people as to what Linux actually is. And GNU.

However I am not about to start taking about "GNU/Linux". Not until I can download such a thing from gnu.org then I will call it that.

Besides it ugly and clumsy.

What I run here might more accurately be called "Linux/systemd/xorg/KDE/Chrome"

[Heater]

More like:

Linux's Granddad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_S._Tanenbaum

Yes, I know, they are very different architectures. But as far as I can tell Linus used Minix whilst developing Linux.

[flatmax]

Good point, however Linux mimicked Minix, but was breathing GCC.

Matt

[jamesh]

Perhaps it's time to educate to what it should be called and not perpetuate the slackness (excuse the pun) of dropping GNU?

No point, we live in a world of abbreviations and shortcuts. People even shorten You to U. Two characters saved.Wow.

Adding GNU to every reference to Linux is a fool's errand, and tbh, very few people care anyway, as long as it all works.

[DavidS]

What about all the NON-unix like OSes that are built ontop of the Linux kernel? None of them are called Linux.

Being a liker of Atari 32-bit systems I have been saying TOS+MiNT for a long time, as have most Atarians, we do not complain abouot saying the extra word.

[asandford]

Perhaps it's time to educate to what it should be called and not perpetuate the slackness (excuse the pun) of dropping GNU?

No point, we live in a world of abbreviations and shortcuts. People even shorten You to U. Two characters saved.Wow.

Adding GNU to every reference to Linux is a fool's errand, and tbh, very few people care anyway, as long as it all works.

Perhaps. But the OP is stating that 'GNU/Linux' started with Linus in '91, and that's clearly wrong as it ignores the efforts that were started many years before. The kernel is useless without all the supporting packages needed to provide a functional OE

And we should care to get history right, too many cases of people abbreviating, shortcutting, and then forgeting who created it; hence Arduino gave little credit to the original maker (and ironically getting very upset about someone stealing their stuff). If this trend continues, we'll have companies patenting things that were clearly thought of years ago (hello Apple)!

[asandford]

I'm all for educating people as to what Linux actually is. And GNU.

However I am not about to start taking about "GNU/Linux". Not until I can download such a thing from gnu.org then I will call it that.

Besides it ugly and clumsy.

What I run here might more accurately be called "Linux/systemd/xorg/KDE/Chrome"

GNU/Linux is a reference model, much like Android - and only a very few, select, devices can run pure Android. Instead, your device manufacturer and service provider add their stuff, and it's now a 'distro'. As an aside, why isn't Android called linux if it has a linux kernel? - 'cos it's only the kernel and the rest of the system isn't GNU.

It may be ugly and clumsy, but let's say you invented something with a couple of mates and they ditched any attribution to you for the same reason; would you be happy about it?

[Heater]

I might not be happy about it. But ...

If I were to create some wonderful piece of software functionality and release it under the GPL, say "libheater", then you take libheater and use it in some project that becomes incredibly widely used and famous and known as "asandfordOs" or some such, then I have no grounds to throw a tantrum and no right to be insisting you call your thing "heater/asandfordOs".

Why? Because I gave you, and anyone else, the right to do that when I released libheater under the GPL.

As Mark Twain is said to have said: “It takes a thousand men to invent a telegraph, or a steam engine, or a phonograph, or a photograph, or a telephone or any other important thing—and the last man gets the credit and we forget the others. He added his little mite — that is all he did. These object lessons should teach us that ninety-nine parts of all things that proceed from the intellect are plagiarisms, pure and simple; and the lesson ought to make us modest. But nothing can do that.”

See Stigler's Law of eponymy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler%2 ... of_eponymy

Also this is apt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obliterat ... orporation

Now, I have a lot of respect for Richard Stalman and GNU and the Free Software foundation. All power to them. But this little detail really grates.