I’ve tried using my incredible (british) brain using Google to see if these open source titans ever engaged in a battle of “friendly conversation” with one another.
I was always interested what Stallman thought of the angry but smart finnish man who gave us the robust penguin kernel that breathes life into older machines and powers supercomputers for the weather.
The same with Torvalds thoughts on Stallmans GNU involvement and him as a person.
This is because you sometimes had different organisations in the FOSS and OSS community that take on different meanings so I wanted a better idea if these chaps ever spoke in an interview together.
TLDR : Does finnish man like bearded GNU jesus man and the same vice versa
Stallman’s attempt to rename Linux to incorporate the GNU name not happening was frustrating on his end it seems. Everytime someone calls their system a Linux based OS and not GNU/Linux based OS downplays the work he put in. However, Linus’s kernel was more elaborate than GNU Hurd, so it was incorporated. It’s said Stallman is a visionary, while Linus is a programist. While there’s never been any display of tension in a back and forth between them online, it’s always seemed to me they appreciate and also despise various aspects of each another.
Quite the opposite.
GNU Hurd was a microkernel, using lots of cutting edge research, and necessitating a lot of additional complexity in userspace. This complexity also made it very difficult to get good performance.
Linux, on the other hand, was just a bog standard Unix monolithic kernel. Once they got a libc working on it, most existing Unix userspace, including the GNU userspace, was easy to port.
Linux won because it was simple, not elaborate.
Ok, interesting, thanks for the correction. Do you think rephrasing my statement and stating Linus’s kernel is more adaptive would be more accurate?
Maybe.
Linux won because it worked. Hurd was stuck in research and development hell. They never were able to catch up.
Should we call it X/GNU/Linux as to not downplay the work the people at Xorg put in? Also possibly Systemd/X/GNU/Linux, how about Plasma/Systemd/X/GNU/Linux, and since nowadays browsers do most of the tasks I think it’s only fair Firefox/Plasma/Systemd/X/GNU/Linux, or maybe Chromium/GNOME/Dinit/Wayland/Musl/Linux, you know what these two have in common? Just the Kernel, but you would say they’re both the same OS.
I’m not saying GNU is not great nor am I saying that they didn’t contributed or that they’re worthless. But GNU is not special, X, Systemd, and other such components are just as essentials to Linux as GNU, and no one claims they should be added to the name of the OS.
Absolutely, and the fact that people didn’t adopt it creates confusion, some people claim Android is also Linux, which you can argue, but it’s definitely NOT GNU/Linux, and it’s definitely NOT a free desktop OS as defined by freedesktop.org either. There’s a huge difference.
Especially since Android generally means Android with Google apps, and not AOSP. AOSP is open source, but Android with Google apps is not.
I actually believe that “GNU / Linux” creates the confusion, even the Android problem you cite.
If we all just said “Linux” to mean Linux distribution and the software ecosystem that implies, almost everybody would agree what that meant. All this “actually what you are calling Linux is actually” and “Linux is just the kernel” stuff confuses people. If Linux is just the kernel then Android and Ubuntu are equally Linux. Most people do not even know what a kernel is until you start “educating” people that “Linux” is not Linux.
An Operating System is defined by the applications that it runs natively. Alpine Linux and Ubuntu run the same software and services. Chimera Linux runs all the same stuff even though it comes without any GNU software by default ( BSD utils, Clang compiler, MUSL ). They are all “Linux”. None of them are Android or ChromeOS. They are not the embedded OS in my thermostat or body worn camera. Of course, all these things use the Linux kernel but they are not all “Linux” operating systems.
There are many examples of the kernel not defining the Operating System. iOS and macOS are not the same thing. Windows and Xbox are not the same thing. Yes, us geeks know the common infrastructure they share.
And if an operating system is defined by its applications, is “GNU” a good label? My distro of choice offers 80,000 packages of which maybe 200 are managed by the GNU Project. Go to gnu.org and look at the list of packages that are actually GNU for real. It may shock you how short the list is.
There are other single sources that contribute more software. In terms of code and base architecture, Red Hat is probably the largest contributor ( and no, I do not use Red Hat — RHEL has fewer than 3000 packages for one thing ). I do not want to call my distribution “Red Hat” Linux but frankly it makes more sense than GNU.
Some of the GNU / Linux folks say that the reason for the label is the C library ( Glibc ). But not all Linux distros use Glibc. For a mainstream Linux user, does it make sense to say that Alpine, Void, and Chimera are not the same kind of OS as Ubuntu or Fedora? A regular user could sit down at any of them and not only use them mostly the same but perhaps not even notice the difference. I could write a Linux app without knowing about Alpine and the it could be built for it easily. They all use the same apps and desktop environments. They all run Docker natively. Even fairly deep Linux knowledge applies equally to them all. As pointed out, freedesktop.org applies to them equally. They have the same driver and hardware support ( including the full graphics and audio stacks ). Most people would agree that all these “Linux” systems are pretty alike and quite different from macOS, Windows, and Android. They are all much more like each other than they are even to FreeBSD.
The GNU name pays homage to the historical contribution of the GNU Project that, while important, is pretty historical at this point. If the goal is to promote Free Software or even the GPL, the right branding would be the FSF. So, even that is confusing.
Clearly, in my view, GNU is a terrible brand to try to glob on to Linux. It is not explanatory. It is not even accurate. It is mostly political and frankly overstates the current contribution of the project. I talked code above. There is more code in Wayland or X11 and Mesa than in all of GNU probably. There are more lines of code licensed MIT than GPL in most distros. Most GPL software available is NOT provided by the GNU project.
Again, GNU is a hugely important project to free software and the history of Linux. That history should be celebrated and acknowledged. Distorting it and contorting it is not the way to do that. Enough with “GNU / Linux” already.
It is and they are. These are demonstrable facts.
I have no problem with referring to the family of Linux based operating systems collectively as Linux (with GNU/Linux being a subfamily of such), however, I firmly believe that the mythical concept of “real Linux” where some Linuxes aren’t really Linux is what creates the confusion. I would rather use other terms, like POSIX, Unix(like), and FreeDesktop to refer to so-called “real Linux” (with the caveat that they also include BSDs and the like - but I include these as part of the free desktop operating system spectrum, as most so-called Linux apps also run here. I don’t place special importance on the kernel because it is technically the furthest thing away from the user experience).
(Android being Linux isn’t a mere technicality - it means you can get a full terminal environment with a package manager and “Linux apps” and even run a full desktop environment if you really want)
Should have been called Lignux.
Thats the term Stallman came up with when the first distributions (esspecially Debian) started to build up. It wasnt really popular even back than so he setteled in GNU/Linux as alternative which to this day is in the name of quit a lot distributions.
It was never the plan/intend to rename the Linux kernel itsself to either of those terms.
Lig deez nux
🤭
hell they could have called it anything… seems like they couldnt get past their egos to see the value in a new designation
I thought Linus didn’t come up with the name Linux
He didn’t. He wanted freax or something dumb. Someone talked him into Linux.
They did not really “talk him into it”. They simply labelled it that when they uploaded it. Linus just went with the flow and it stuck.
His professor ig
There was never any “attempt to rename Linux.” Stallman simply wants to clarify which part of the operating system is “Linux” (the kernel) and which part(s) are not (many of which are his work, which Linux fans insist on also calling “Linux” even though the GNU project predates it by almost a decade).
Any “confusion” on this point is the result of Linux fans spreading mistruths (I assume only sometimes intentionally). Unfortunately at this point the myths are so firmly ingrained we have myths about the myths (like “Stallman wants to rename Linux”) and in my mind Stallman is definitely fighting a losing battle nowadays. Still, a falsehood being widely accepted does not make it true.