[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 17:19, Terence McCarthy wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:34:33 +0000 Rob Beard <rob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: I understood Linux to be the kernel and GNU to be a set ofopen source tools? Or am I completely wrong on that? Either way, I'm confused why it makes so much difference calling the LUG a GLUG or LUG and why its so important?Rob, This is basically right, Linus' kernel powers the GNU tools and applications (until HURD is released according to the faithful, when everything will become GNU). My objection to the name GLUG is not that I object to RMS's stance on Gnu/Linux, but that it is confusing to the non- Linux user who will probably know absolutely nothing the reasons behind it. Linux they may know- Gnu/Linux they won't. It's a pragmatic stance, not a philosophical one. This month's Linux Format (or is it User?) has a comparative review of some dozen distributions- if I was curious about Linux this would turn me off completely. It's just so confusing to someone new to FOSS. Are all these Linux? If so, what is Linux? How do I get the right one?
This shows exactly why it is confusing. It stems from people reporting on things using incorrect language. (a bit like hackers Vs crackers). At the end of the day, it comes down to the language used in the press. If they call it Linux then Linux it will be - the fact that without other software Linux does SFA seems to have passed them by. Linux is the Kernel, end of story, it is not an operating system.
Throwing in Gnu/Linux to the mix just makes it worse. What's the difference between Linux and Gnu/Linux? Is it like Red Hat or Mandrake? Who cares- I'll stick with Windows!
I think it's important to note that without either component part we wouldn't have our great systems, but I also feel it's important that what "Linux" is, as an OS, is as open, clear and obvious to those unfamiliar with it. Call it Linux, and it's clarity is on a par with Apple and M$. Call it Linux in some places and Gnu/Linux in others will only lead to more confusion than exists already.
But Linux isn't an OS, it's a Kernel. 'RedHat Linux' is an OS distribution - note the addition of RedHAt. No one as far as I'm aware puts together a distribution called Linux - the thing just doesn't exist as an OS.
Others, and I am one of them, would like to see Linux much more mainstream, because it is a broad church and need exclude no-one. From the occasional and casual web browser to the geekiest geek of all the geeks, Linux has the power to be what each of us wants it to be.
Not without the other gnu software it doesn't. I'm happy to see Linux BASED systems mainstream. But that's what they are - Linux BASED.
We should be endevouring to make Linux open and accessable to all, and anything that leads to confusion, uncertainty or doubt will hinder that.
Linux is open and accessable, but on it's own it does nowt. In a way you can think of it like a car. A car comprises (normally) of a lot of interacting bits. Most normal people don't just refer to the engine. If you just have an engine, you don't have a car. Linux is the engine of the OS, but it isn't the OS on it's own. Jon -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG Mail majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe list" in the message body to unsubscribe.