Today, I wrote a post about why I call Linux “Linux” and not “GNU/Linux.” That post attracted quite a number of views, and a good number of comments as well.
What is amazing about this subject is that so many people can be brought to action over it. From the comments, some agreed with my post, saying that Linux was easier to explain than GNU/Linux, while others disagreed with saying GNU/Linux is called such since Linux is just a kernel, and GNU is the system.
I still stick by my opinion that I will call Linux “Linux.”
I have made this decision since I refer to the entire system as “Linux,” the kernel as the “Linux kernel,” and I do not see a reason large enough to consider calling Linux “GNU/Linux.” What is evident from just the comments is that it is a personal thing.
I call it Linux, and others call it GNU/Linux. Potato, tater. Same thing.
I do not really mind what people call it, because it’s not a big deal. From my point of view, there isn’t a “GNU” system, or at least not the traditional sense by which most people would think. The GNU system, as the FSF calls it, is really no more than applications that have been built free software supporters who used the GPL, and not direct members of the FSF (but is approved by the FSF), and thus is not a system on it’s own, or with the Linux system. The tools have been built for Linux, but that still does not constitute a GNU surname.
What does remain true is that the Free Software Foundation has done much good for software. Software freedom, as I have learned over the past 3 years that I have used Linux, is certainly a good thing. The GNU GPL is one of the best software licenses, in my opinion, and I would use it if I were to write a program. What I do not like, however, is the activist attitude that the Free Software Foundation takes in working against software patents and digital rights management.
Here’s a story to go along with my argument about activism:
The “Bad Vista” campaign (which I thought would be used to promote Linux, or some other system) which I had joined, turned into an activist campaign to bash Vista. What happened on release day? Bad Vista supporters (3 of the supporters, at least) dressed up in hazmat suits, and gave CDs with free software on them to people about to enter the Vista party. They eventually got roped off, just like your average protesters. Those who participated had a good fight on their hands and were, in my opinion, fighting for a good cause. Good intentions aside, I was a little embarrassed. It was a rather unprofessional attempt to change people’s attitudes toward a competing software, and only served to make free software and Linux advocates look like radicals with nothing to do but protest big business. They did try to do something good, yet what they did might have turn off many potential users walking around on the streets.
It’s reasons like the one I gave above as to why I do not call Linux “GNU/Linux.” It’s a personal choice, and if you as a reader want to call it “GNU/Linux,” that’s fine. Some distributions, even Kubuntu, call themselves GNU/Linux, and I will refer to them as such. However, when talking about Ubuntu, or just Linux in general, I will use “Linux.”
A trend that I am noticing is that programmers or long-time (since 90’s or early 2000) hard-core users call Linux “GNU/Linux.” The newer users that are beginning to use Linux call it “Linux.” It’s not wrong, or the new users being uneducated. It’s users taking a simpler view of a once complex system. It’s becoming more attractive to more and more users every day, and as any other product, it becomes ever more simple to use and understand. No longer is it a geek-only system, and when new users refer to Linux, they refer to the full system. The Linux vs. GNU/Linux debate is not going to go away, especially with the new generation of Linux users entering the scene, who are average users, different in thinking from the older, Free Software Foundation driven individuals. This new generation will undoubtedly call Linux, just “Linux,” or maybe even not that much, and just refer to their distribution as the Linux they use, as we are seeing today with Ubuntu.
Update: In case you are itching to go back, click here for Part I.
Update 2: Here is my final review of the topic here.
Filed under: Linux, Open Source
[...] Update: See my follow-up post here. [...]
Someone wanted specifically to call something GNU/Linux
You disagree for your own valid reasons.
That’s perfectly okay.
But when you start blogging about it and insists that is should be called Linux, you are behaving EXACTLY like the someone you disagree with.
A fine example of the pot calling the kettle black.
The above type of blogging will only have negative contributions, like:
- promote infighting amongst opensource users.
- make other users dislike whatever distro that you brag about
Write something useful like why you like GPL2 or GPL3 or BSD or Apache licence and cut all this crap.
You, are obviously confused. THAT is perfectly okay.
I’m not insisting that everyone should call Linux “Linux,” but it is my explanation as to why I call Linux “Linux.” The reason I wrote the original post is because I got tired of having people try to “correct” me for not using “GNU/Linux.”
As I mentioned, if someone wants to call it GNU/Linux, that’s fine. I call Linux just “Linux” mainly because I am in that “new” generation of Linux users, and do not have such a high attraction to the more radical and fundamentalist FSF. Besides, asking everyone to call Linux “GNU/Linux” is just kind of self-serving. Almost like they want to stay relevant in a new era…
You said: “The GNU system, as the FSF calls it, is really no more than applications that have been built free software supporters who used the GPL, and not direct members of the FSF (but is approved by the FSF), and thus is not a system on it’s own, or with the Linux system. The tools have been built for Linux, but that still does not constitute a GNU surname.”
This is completely wrong. Please do some research. People have been trying to tell you that you are confused but you don’t seem to have listened.
GNU was written by members of the FSF. Richard Stallman was one of the main contributers to the GNU toolset. He founded the FSF as well. He created the GPL as the license for his tools. It was not the other way around.
The GNU project’s aim was to make a free _operating_system_. They almost completed their task and only needed the kernel to complete it. They were working on one called HURD. But Linux was ready first and was compatible so they used it instead. The name they chose for the complete OS was GNU/Linux in order to credit their toolset and the kernel that was written by Torvalds and others.
They did not write GNU to go with Linux. They created GNU and then chose Linux.
Please do more research before spreading misinformation.
And you should read these and not biased wikipedia where GNU people gets edited all articles back to promote GNU.
http://tinyurl.com/532kb8
http://tinyurl.com/mum9x
http://tinyurl.com/qhuhg
http://tinyurl.com/3uaq48
Please read the wikipedia pages for:
Free Software Foundation
GNU Operating System
GNU Project
GNU General Public License
(GNU/)Linux Operating System
Linux Kernel
That should clear a few things up for you Jon.
(this comment will be posted on both of my post’s comments section)
It’s just my opinion, and why I titled my post “For Me, It’s Linux, Not GNU/Linux.” I am finding that my original post is causing many people to get irritated over the fact that I do not want to call Linux “GNU/Linux,” and the debate has become broken down to the exact definitions of what I originally meant. What I referred to was the full system, kernel, apps, and all in all of my posts.
Thanks everyone for the posts. Read this page on Wikipedia for more on this topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy
I am going to let anyone have the last word, as I am done. I’ve got better things to do, like writing a final review for Ubuntu Hardy Heron.
This debate has come to repetitive points (or agreements) that are beginning to get old — fast. My point of view is clear: It’s Linux, and that’s MY opinion, and I am not suggesting that everyone must call it Linux. Everyone is free to their own opinion, but at this point, no one has shown me enough reason to change my thinking, even with all the links and information.
I’m tired of the constant fighting, and I suggest that it ends. This kind of fighting is not good for Linux, and divides the community. I would never have written my post if I had known that everyone was going react as such over my personal opinion. It is also clear that we are not going to reach a consensus in this debate.
Now, let’s get back to the fun that Linux (or if you prefer, GNU/Linux) provides for all of us, for free.
Thanks,
Jon
>>> “I still stick by my opinion that I will call Linux “Linux.””
Phew !!! I am glad to hear it an I will sleep better tonight knowing that this is finally resolved in your mind.
>>> “What is amazing about this subject is that so many people can be brought to action over it.”
Whis is even more amazing it that people feel compelled to write about. I eagerly await your post about which is better KDE or Gnome.
It really annoys me when people write this kind of stuff. If you want to say something, just say it. I think that I can summarize what you really wanted to say in your two posts as follows: I will not call “Linux” “GNU/Linux” because I really have a problem with RMS and the FSF. They are a bunch of radical crazy people. Just come out and say it and don’t send countless electrons to die in vain.
I call it Linux too. Anyone who wants to call it anything else is crazy. If you haven’t noticed Operating systems are based mostly around there UNIQUE kernels. Hence, Mac, Win32, WinNT, Linux, BSD, Solaris, etc. You can run GNU on all of them.
The GNU OS has yet to be finished… as the HURD which has been needed for 23 years (easy to remember since gnu started the year I was born) hasn’t been finished.
I’d also like to note that for most of the GNU tools I can get bsd or other replacements and probably compile (soon with a bsd compiler) them to run on linux. I love GNU. But GNU is in the wrong here. They are trying to force there Trademark, this is wrong… it’s about Free and Open Source Software not name recognition.
@Jon “A trend that I am noticing is that programmers or long-time (since 90’s or early 2000) hard-core users call Linux “GNU/Linux.””
I disagree with this point. I have no statistics to back it up though. I think you’ll find it’s the people who have been here just long enough to know the difference that do. I didn’t know the difference for the first few months… then I learned the difference, and started using GNU/Linux, then I realized that was wrong and moved back to using Linux.
I’ve been using Linux since ‘03/’04
The older-generation users is more of a generalization… I don’t have any numbers either, but it was just an observation. I don’t think are are any numbers, actually.
[...] If you are just now reading this, read the first two posts, here for Part I, and here for Part II. Possibly related posts:For Me, It’s Linux, Not GNU/LinuxLinux vs. GNU/Linux: The AftermathHello [...]
If you can make Linux great even after ripping all GNU stuff it’s OK calling it just *Linux*
Many just falls to RMS propaganda of GNU/Linux. There is nothing more than simple technical reason why Linux kernel is the same as operating system and thats why it is Linux.
There is no sense at all to “call GNU/Linux as Linux because it is easier”.
The simple technical, computer science fact is, that Linux kernel, is same as Linux operating system. GNU has nothing to do with the operating system itself.
http://tinyurl.com/532kb8
http://tinyurl.com/mum9x
http://tinyurl.com/qhuhg
http://tinyurl.com/3uaq48