Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 7 Mar 1996 17:44:26 -0500 | From | Robert L Krawitz <> | Subject | Re: Linux isn't an operating system |
| |
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 17:12:09 -0500 From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
I think most of us are well aware of the fact that the core user-mode software comes from GNU, even though we describe our systems as "Linux".
In this discussion, we've seen people who definitely do know this argue nonetheless that the "Linux users" should not be expected to put effort into cooperation with the "GNU users".
I'm sure there are some people feel that way. I would consider it shameful for someone in the Linux community to really not care about the GNU community (which has provided a lot of essential base software), and vice versa (Linux has provided the first production platform that natively hosts an all-GNU environment). However, different people are focused on different things, and the Linux project does have a different goal from the GNU project (the first aims to build a high quality kernel, and other people aim to produce other high quality system software for it; the second is interested in free software in its own right).
The naming issue is something else. It's simply easier to call the overall product Linux. Most people on the lists that I'm on refer to "Linux" whether they're using Slackware, Debian, Yggdrasil, or Red Hat. The name "Linux kernel based on GNU" or whatnot is simply unwieldly. It would be better to recognize that Linux probably wouldn't exist without the GNU project in documentation, or the appropriate press releases, or whatnot than to try to insist on a name that nobody will use.
What that shows is that it isn't just a matter of whether people know the historical facts. It's whether people think of themselves as part of one larger community, or two smaller ones.
Well, there are two communities with significant crossover (I count myself among the crossover people). However, at least some members of each group DO have interests distinct from the other: the Hurd people are primarily interested in their kernel, and there are various companies (Caldera, MetroX, etc.) that are interested in hosting commercial software on Linux. Is this bad? Well, if you're a heavy Linux hacker who wants to see GNU produce new releases of a lot of software, the Hurd looks like it's taking resources away from that. Likewise, if you're a GNU partisan you may not be thrilled to see people using Linux as yet another platform for commercial software. Of course, it's possible that the best ideas from the Hurd will be combined with those from Linux to produce a stronger OS, and the commercial software available for Linux will convince people that it's really a mainstream choice, thereby helping a free OS (and base utilities) compete against proprietary OS's, and both groups will win.
Perhaps we should all cool the rhetoric and figure out what we can do to materially help each other rather than focusing on perceived slights.
-- Robert Krawitz <rlk@tiac.net> http://www.tiac.net/users/rlk/
Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail lpf@uunet.uu.net Tall Clubs International -- tci-request@aptinc.com or 1-800-521-2512
| |