that old GNU/Linux argument
Marko Vojinovic
vvmarko at panet.co.yu
Thu Jul 24 15:43:51 UTC 2008
Hi everyone, :-)
Please forgive me for jumping into the thread, I've been reading it only for
the last couple of days, although I can see that the discussion is going on
for some time now.
On Wednesday 23 July 2008 06:47, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> It makes little sense to deny the important of any of the two. GNU
> folks don't try to make it seem like Linux is irrelevant. The
> converse is unfortunately quite true. That's why you see GNU folks
> unhappy about this, and Linux folks who don't care because they were
> given the false impression that GNU was and is not relevant, as if all
> the merit had been with Linux, or they don't even know what GNU is,
> which is a very serious problem for the Free Software movement.
Reading the (last few days of the) thread, I saw many aspects and different
opinions on the subject of the name Linux vs GNU/Linux being raised. But all
that aside, as a half-ignorant naive and young user of Linux (I've been in
Linuxland starting with RH6.2 and onwards), I came to have an opinion on the
subject that is completely independent of history of development of both GNU
and Linux.
Short version: Linux (the kernel) deserves more credit than GNU (utilities) in
the name of the operating system, so I prefer Linux to GNU/Linux. Below I
elaborate why.
Long version. Let me describe a simplified analogy. Imagine an assembly line
of a new car. The company that assembles the car is called Fedora Automotive
Corp. The car is assembled of the following components. Under the hood there
is the Linux engine, GNU transmission gears, GNU clutch, GNU oil pump, GNU
steering mechanism and GNU wheels. In the cabin, there is the X instrument
board, the Gnome steering wheel and pedals, Amarok radio receiver and Compiz
air freshener. All this is held together by a modern slick blue chassis with
the gold-plated Infinity and Penguin symbols in front and the mark
"Fedora 9 Linux x86/64/PPC Turbo Injection" in chrome fancy letters on the
back. It's by definition the latest technology sports-car model that gets new
upgraded parts from the factory every few days. It accelerates from
standstill to 300 mph in less than 5 seconds. :-)
Now take a look at the car --- every piece of hardware installed there is
vital and necessary for proper operation of the whole (possibly with the
exception of the Compiz air freshener). But tell me, what is in principle
The Single Most Important element of the car? There is only one answer --- the
engine. That is why the Fedora factory included the name Linux in the full
name of the model. It is the Fedora car, no doubt, because it is assembled at
the Fedora factory. It's components are produced by various companies ---
Linux, GNU, X, Fedora, Compiz etc., but the engine has its special place,
because it is the most important piece of the car. That is why in general all
models from the Fedora family are collectively labeled "Fedora Linux" cars,
emphasizing the manufacturer of the chassis and the manufacturer of the
engine.
Btw, this is the usual and traditional way of naming in the automotive
industry --- just look at the Formula 1 teams: McLaren - Mercedes, Williams -
Toyota, Red Bull Racing - Ferrari, etc. What is emphasized is the name of the
team that assembles the car and the engine manufacturer.
Automotive industry is not the sole example for the analogy. This is general
in lots of aspects of human society --- the analogy can be pushed all the way
to religions: Christianity is a religion named after its founder, Jesus
Christ. Of course, the religion itself could not exist without the
dissemination done bu the 12 Apostoles, but it would be plain ridicolous to
request a name change to Apost/Christianity in order to pay tribute to those
12 men. Their role, albeit extremely relevant, is not as crucial as the role
of Christ himself. (I apologize for making analogies between Christ and Linux
kernel, it's highly inappropriate, but serves the purpose of making a point.)
So, to summarize, the operating system and all distributions built around it
are named to pay tribute to the most essential piece of software contained
--- the kernel. I fail to see the same for GNU. Quite contrary, FSF and GNU
people are precisely the ones who have *failed* to create this essential
component, although they have tried (Hurd), so it is appropriate that they
*do not* deserve to be credited with "GNU" in the name of the OS. Asking
people to change from Linux to GNU/Linux means asking for credit that is not
deserved, and can thus be considered impolite and arrogant (at least).
Of course, the GNU voices will disagree with my opinion, but I see no
arguments in their favor, except the statements "GNU is important, GNU is an
operating system that lacks a kernel" and the like.
HTH, :-)
Marko
More information about the fedora-list
mailing list