Talk:GNU/Linux naming controversy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Article is bogus

The article is bogus and the idea that there's a big "controversy" or especially that "the vast majority" believe the OS should be called Linux is silly. The "vast majority" is non-partisan on the issue, though most say "Linux" because it's what they're used to hearing and they're not aware of the distinction, or just because it's easier (shorter) or find "GNU/Linux" to be a bit pedantic. There are "GNU/Linux" proponents but they have an uphill battle because their term is clumsy. I don't think there are that many "Linux" proponents in the sense of people who would try to convince someone else that "GNU/Linux" is somehow incorrect (as opposed to just using "Linux" themselves and not being concerned much about what terms other people use.

So I think the article should be corrected, I'd even call it non-NPOV in the current incarnation. Phr 04:36, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)phr

I moved your text to the bottom. It is customary to add new comments to the bottom of talk pages.

If there's some text in the article that bothers you, please quote it. I can't find any that implies "the vast majority" believe the OS should be called Linux. Also, I think the issue does qualify as a controversy, even though there isn't any controversy except when Stallman and friends are stirring it up. After all, he says, "call it this!" and people say "um, no" and we have (as the dictionary defines controversy) an expression of opposing views. --Yath 04:49, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I disagree that there is no controversy. Although it is true that the vast majority of people use "Linux" (and personally, I don't expect "GNU/Linux" to ever catch on), the FSF as well as the Debian project officially advocate "GNU/Linux". These organizations are major forces in the free software movement; their viewpoint can't be dismissed. Moreover, this debate is interesting because it's really a proxy for the debate between pure Free Software vs. pragmatic Open Source factions.--Shibboleth 06:23, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Interesting picture

Anybody else notice that Tux appears to be the sidekick to the GNU in the FSF made picture? crazyeddie 09:59, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Which I assume is the FSF's point ;-) That's why it's labeled an FSF production - David Gerard 13:38, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Something interesting

There appears to be something called Debian GNU/KFreeBSD, which is a special version of FreeBSD but with GNU tools rather than BSD ones. While its not Linux based, it shows that the argument dosen't just apply to it. Also see GNU/HURD, the kernel that was originally intended to be the GNU kernel. Many people think that RMS targeted Linux because of the failure of his own kernel. 195.188.152.16 09:44, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'll add a mention - David Gerard 13:38, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean by "failure of his own kernel?" HURD hasn't failed; it isn't even completely finished, and is still being actively worked on. Until the project is abandoned, I would not be so quick to call it a failure! Shawn K. Quinn 12:13, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

Perhaps he was just trying to make a preliminary argument before actually checking what he said? You have to be fair; HURD is not exactly comparable to Linux in terms of technical quality, yet. But some day, (because of the intrinsic design), I believe HURD will surpass Linux.

Featured controversies

I do not think any controversy should qualify for a feature on the main page since controversies are usually only secondary articles. Plus, this particular example is certainly completely irrelevant in the eyes of most people. Get-back-world-respect 13:21, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:Raul654 appears to be picking Main Page articles at present. I suspect he's running low on suitable candidates. We need more excellent articles on WP:FAC, really - David Gerard 13:38, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Open Source

Hi, Shibboleth.

I removed the following paragraph:

The naming controversy reflects a split between two factions of developers working on the system. The idealistic Free software movement, led by the FSF, emphasizes the "free" (as in freedom) aspect of the system, and describes the free use and modifiability of software as an important right akin to freedom of speech. On the other hand, the dominant, pragmatic Open Source movement believes that freely available source code is valuable mainly because it results in higher-quality software. Emphasizing the role of the GNU project through the "GNU/Linux" name is a way for the FSF's ideas to gain more exposure.

Excellent though it is, it's not actually pertinent to the intro, or, given the history of the use and advocacy of "GNU/Linux", the article as a whole. The GNU/Linux naming controversy predates the Open Source movement by several years, and the "Linux" and "GNU/Linux" camps are as likely to base their decision on unrelated factors such as what name they already use, or the name adopted by their favourite distribution, as they are on which side of the philosophical/pragmatic fence they sit on.

To suggest that "GNU/Linux" advocacy is a response to the Open Source movement in some way is, I think, to do it something of an accidental disservice. The essay in which RMS addresses this topic directly makes no such case for "GNU/Linux". It does, however, make the case for "free software" over "open source software", but that's not the topic of this article.

The free software article makes the point you make above and would seem a more appropriate context for the paragraph.

chocolateboy 13:06, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I might add that since RMS started advocating "GNU/Linux" years before the Open Source movement began, the former simply cannot be a response to the latter. Eric119 17:59, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

The reason I added the paragraph is because I saw it was a featured article, and reading through it it seemed to be about a technicality that honestly not even most Linux programmers care about. I wanted to add some context of wider interest for visitors.

You are right that the naming difficulties appeared prior to the open source movement, but I would say it was not a "controversy" in those years: it was just that the naming conventions had not yet been decided. It became a "controversy", that people actually have strong feelings about, when the open source movement appeared and the free software people wanted to prevent people from forgetting them. Why do you think RMS continues to insist on this name so much? Whenever he is asked "is it just your ego?" he makes it clear that it's not that he wants to get personal credit for Linux, but that he wants the free software movement to get credit for Linux --- to help perpetuate the free software philosophy. We would not be writing this article on Wikipedia today if it wasn't for the Free software/OSS split. No one would care.

Look at the arguments by free software advocates over this: particularly "What's in a name?" by RMS, and "Why I don't use 'Linux'" by someone else, linked at the bottom of the article. Admittedly, these articles never attack "open source" by name --- I think probably because they don't want to be negative against a group which is after all basically their allies --- but it is clear to me that the central thrust of the articles is the idealistic/pragmatic distinction. Look at this sentence from "What's in a name?":

The GNU Project is idealistic, and anyone encouraging idealism today faces a great obstacle: the prevailing ideology encourages people to dismiss idealism as "impractical."

This is a argument against the "prevaling ideology", namely OSS.

So I think mentioning this split is actually very relevant, because it's the whole reason why the controversy is continuing today. Otherwise, everybody would've settled on one name a long time ago. That said, you made some good objections, so I'm modifying the paragraph to take them into account and re-adding it. Take a look. I think adding this extra context to the beginning of the article suddenly makes it a lot more interesting. --Shibboleth 18:03, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Replying to myself: come to think of it, you have a point, though, that the "pragmatic" attitude is not restricted to the Open Source movement, and indeed existed before it appeared. I am perhaps mischaracterizing the debate by describing it entirely as as FSF vs. OSI thing. To address this, I just modified the article to say the pragmatic attitude more prevalent today, exemplified by the Open Source movement, which more accurately places the OSI as only a representative of the wider pragmatic forces. That would also be a good reason why RMS doesn't attack OSS directly --- he is more interested in the ideas. --Shibboleth 18:14, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I put it back to OSI to keep the paragraph as tight as possible. It still feels bloated. Also, the list of GNU software is redundant with GNU, which is also the place it obviously belongs - if the list there is wrong or incomplete, please fix it there - David Gerard 23:31, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

These days, the portion of the software the GNU collective created that is used in the OS is rapidly decreasing. And I don't think you can really call it a controversy since almost noone cares. If I wanted I could distribute all the GNU and Linux packages myself and call it MyOwnOS and not feel bad because the GNU GPL explicity gives me the right to do that. Eric B. and Rakim 01:29, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

These days, the portion of the software the GNU collective created that is used in the OS is rapidly decreasing.

I disagree. The OS is GNU+Linux. Those two parts are needed for a functional system. Everything else is just additional programs.

Components of the GNU system

This section needs to be merged with GNU. We should never have two completely redundant lists like this. That said, I understand the relevance of it for the argument, but surely it can be summed up in a brief paragraph like "The GNU project built a great deal of software, such as X, Y, and Z. See GNU for a more complete list." --Shibboleth 14:34, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"The Main Argument"

This article desperately needs to be re-written. There has been so much cutting and pasting that an outsider would be thoroughly confused by what is written. It does not explain clearly what the controversy *is*. It fully evidences each side of the argument, but doesn't really explain why or how the controversy developed in the first place. I am not qualified to write on this topic, but some advice for someone who is:

• 1. Rewrite the first paragraph: "The GNU/Linux Naming Controversy is a disagreement within Community X about Y..."
• 2. Complete a brief history of when, where, why and how the two schools of thought diverged.
• 3. Restate the position of the 'pro' side, and elucidate on their arguments.
• 4. Restate the position of the 'con' side, and elucidate on their arguments.
• 5. Explain the balance of mainstream thought at present day.

Thanks!

Random comment

From anon IP User:203.173.168.159, that was pasted in into the article -

As an example...The custom Linux implementation which is on my system I'm calling Petrusmods/LFS GNU/Linux. The first half is short for Petrus's modifications (my own work) of a base install consisting of the Linux From Scratch implementation of the Linux operating system with GNU utilities. My own position is that, although I understand brevity is sometimes needed, most of the critical work done on the Linux operating system is unpaid, and that recognition is likely the only reward contributors will ever get. Although Linux has made it possible for me to feel like I actually own my computer (which Microsoft never did) the result has also been that I feel that in using Linux I am a part of something much greater than myself. Rather than simply taking from those who have gone before me, I feel that a better position is to use it for my own needs, but also to attempt to contribute to it in whatever way my own talents allow, and then to pass the system with my own modifications onto others so that they can then do the same...to me it's like the childhood game of pass the parcel, except with each person an extra layer is added to the parcel, rather than one being taken away. For this reason, my own position is that if I do not (as the most prominent example) want to give Richard Stallman *any* credit, then I should not use software produced by him or his organisation. He does not deserve *sole* credit for the allied system that we call Linux...no single person does...but I believe that each and every individual who contributes to GNU/Linux deserves recognition for their work. After all, don't you generally want credit for yours?

Something that needs to be added

Some at least ( the well known magazine Linux Format by futurenet ) use Linux when they mean GNU/Linux, then claim that they abbrivate GNU/Linux to Linux throughout for brewety, i think this point needs to be made in the article as well, some people who wholly agree with the GNU/Linux name still use Linux simply because it takes a shorter time to say Lee-nuks than guh-NOO slash Lee-nuks. I've been looking to put that in myself but didnt find the right place to do it nor the right wording. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:37, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)

The right place to put it, I think, would be under "Arguments for Linux", since they are still arguing for the "Linux" moniker, but are interpreting it differently. This section already mentions the common point that "Linux" is shorter and easier to say, however. If there is a more detailed argument to be made (e.g. saying that the "GNU/" is "understood"), however, it is best done by quoting a properly cited source. I tried searching Linux Format for the policy that you mention, but couldn't find anything; please post a quotation if you have one. If you're not sure how to word it, try pasting it here first. —Steven G. Johnson 19:16, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

How about working it into the intro:

For historical and other reasons, most people simply use the term "Linux" for the whole system, one notable exception being Debian GNU/Linux, Others use it for brewety though they agree with the GNU/Linux argument...

I will quote the source sometime next week when i get to my Linux Format, it is in small print somewhere, near the back if i recall correctly. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:12, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)

That's already covered by "other reasons". It should go as an example of "it is easier to say" in "Arguments for 'Linux'" - David Gerard 21:51, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's more than just that, a major magazine which most people think would agree with the "Linux" argument is actually just abbrivating it. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:53, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)

I dunno, it sounds like them trying to be clever about it. This is an English magazine we're talking about - David Gerard 23:00, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Elaborate, why do you think that they're trying to be clever and how is it relevant that they're english? --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 12:45, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)

It seems fairly obvious to me that they just want to say "Linux Format" (to fit in with the "xxx Format" line of magazines) and the small note tucked away somewhere in small print somewhere near the back is only there for the purpose of assuaging the advocates of "GNU/Linux". (And it strikes me as fitting English humour.) Was the note there from the first issue? - David Gerard 13:55, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Repeated removal of material

User:Stevenj has repeatedly removed a good paragraph under the false pretense that it must be attributed to be valid. While the attribution could make it more powerful, the lack of it does not invalidate the point being made. Removing a good paragraph is simply innapropriate especially re-removing it without comment on the talk page. In order to avoid an edit war, I will not re-add it unless there is no consensus objection here to doing so. If there is not roughly consensus objection after a few days I will re-add the material. Here is the removed paragraph:

Many users and vendors who prefer the name "Linux" point to the inclusion of non-GNU, non-kernel tools such as the Apache HTTP Server, the X Window System or the K Desktop Environment in end-user operating systems based on the Linux kernel. No single name can comprehensively acknowledge the thousands of developers and projects that have contributed to a complete distribution — GNU is only one of those, albeit a pivotal one. Linux thus serves as a convenient synecdoche for a complete OS distribution.

Thanks, Taxman 23:37, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

Whether it's valid or not is not the issue - the issue is that Wikipedia is not Slashdot, but a secondary source not composed of original research or random opinionation. This article has in its history suffered considerable quantities of random crap being put in because someone wanted to make a point themselves, rather than survey referable points by others; referability helps protect against future waves of random crap.

Put it this way: if it's so very valid a point, you will surely be able to find a good reference or two for it. If you can't, it probably isn't so very valid a point - David Gerard 01:00, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

One of the comments in the history is that the disputed paragraph is simply "explanation", i.e. a statement of fact. It's not, because the undisputed fact that "Linux" systems have many authors is not, by itself, an argument per se for whether the system should be called "Linux" or "GNU" or what have you, so positing as an argument is POV. It may still be true, of course, that some people consider this to somehow be an argument for "Linux", but if so you should be able to find these people (assuming they are encyclopedic). If you feel it essential to include the undisputed factual information, let me suggest that it should go under the background somewhere, perhaps in the "History" section. How about:

Today, the "Linux" name refers to operating systems and even to whole Linux distributions that combine hundreds or thousands of software components by many thousands of authors. In addition to the kernel and the GNU components, there are the graphical X Window System and K Desktop environment, server programs such as Apache, and scripting languages such as Perl. A short name is needed for common use, but no single name can fully credit all of these contributions — the debate over whether to call it "Linux" or "GNU" or "GNU/Linux" is, in some sense, over the question of which developers should be given primary mention.

—Steven G. Johnson 17:00, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

Even on that I'd like something noting this precise point had been made before, which the FSF reference does. I'll look and maybe shuffle it - David Gerard 18:00, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I think we should add a sentance or two to the intro saying something on pronuncation, such as,

Stallman considers the correct proununcation to be "GNU slash Linux"; however many people instead say "GNU Linux".

--ErikStewart 13:26, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I added this, but as a postscriptum, not to the introduction. It seems a minor matter, compared to the larger controversy that is the article's focus. —Steven G. Johnson 03:51, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Removal of material without explanation

It seems User:Stevenj is more concerned with "winning" some argument about whether "Linux" is mainstream/common/majority use, rather than developing the neutral point of view. I tried a minor edit to the intro of Linux (since improved by User:Ryanaxp) after someone used it to fan a flamewar.

I ask everyone to avoid using the words "mainstream" or "majority" for your favourite view, unless you can support it with numbers. There's precious little evidence presented so far, just a lot of "google says ..." and "wikipedia must conform to mass media use" hand-waving.

The word "common" probably can't be used until there's real agreement in the wider world and flamewars about this stop happening. Clearly, "Linux" is not a name for the OS that's common to everyone, else this page wouldn't even exist.

If you make material on a controversial topic *less* neutral, please explain in the edit comments. "Reverting to ..." isn't good style. - 81.86.163.141

I think someone would have to be a drooling idiot not to notice the common usage, such as in the mass media, of "Linux" to refer to the whole operating systems. See the commented-out link to The Economist in the source of Linux - David Gerard 04:18, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ding ding ding. You are correct, sir. →Raul654 04:53, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, it's much easier than that, David Gerard. Simply look to the difference in the popular press between the uses of Linux and GNU/Linux. The "mainstream" usage is quite obvious (about an 8:600 ratio at last count), and I won't even spoil the result by telling you which one that is. -Harmil 20:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, to be fair, you should eliminate the GNU/Linux answers from the Linux search. When you do this, the results are still massively skewed in favor of one of the results by a couple of orders of magnitude (log 10). That says nothing about correctness, just common, mainstream usage. -Harmil 20:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The claim that GNU was a complete, but kernel-less system

One of the core claims has always been that GNU was a complete system for which the HURD was the final piece, and Linux (the kernel) used the GNU framework to rush to completion.

While I agree that GNU deserved massive kudos for their compiler toolchain (GCC, GAS, binutils, GLibc, gdb, flex, bison, autoconf, make) and for the development of one of the two most commonly used editors (EMACS), I do not understand this assertion that GNU was in any way a complete system. I contributed to GNU in small ways in the early 90s. I spoke with Stallman on a number of occasions, and GNU was in no way a complete system pre-Linux. It lacked a boot loader, system initialization framework (e.g. UNIX "init"), and many other tools which the GNU/HURD project intended on using BSD components for in the first revision. It also lacked any high-level user-interface software (X11 had been developed by MIT in the 1980s, and so they planned to use that).

To be encyclopedic and to represent a neutral point of view, I think it is important to note that GNU/Hurd was not a complete system awaiting a kernel, but rather a build framework capable of supporting kernel development, which is just what Linus used it for. The fact that it then became the heart of a build framework for the rest of the operating system commonly called "Linux" today is actually entirely beside the point. -Harmil 20:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)