Talk:GNU/Linux naming controversy/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Clarification?

In the "Opinions supporting "GNU/Linux" section the sentence These organisations have even been accused of deliberately exploiting this confusion. is (perhaps ironically) confusing to me. Is it refering to SCO and others, or is it referring to the commentators? Is there any way the sentence could be cleared up for readability purposes? - SudoGhost (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up - fixed. - Ahunt (talk) 12:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thank you. - SudoGhost (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem - collaboration works! - Ahunt (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

OR tagged

As well as nominating the article for WP:AFD I see that it has been tagged as containing original research. As per the tag text the user adding the tag really needs to describe here what the specific problem is so that it can be addressed. Which sentences are OR? - Ahunt (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It has now been over a week and there is no indication why this tag was added, so I will remove it. - Ahunt (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

http protocol.

I don't contribute often but I'd like to point out for this article: the title of the article: "GNU/Linux" has inadvertently led to something I've never seen on Wikipedia before. The "/" is a http protocol "namespace" separator. With this article, I don't know how it's handled internally, there is now a "GNU" namespace with "Linux naming controversy" page within that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Headkase (talk • contribs) 01:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this is a function of MediaWiki which creates a heirarchical filesystem for articles, but true nonetheless. It doesn't really hurt anything, and it is a necessary evil in order to provide the correct article name. Did you have a specific concern about it? Elizium23 (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope, didn't have a concern! Just pointed it out because I've just never remembered seeing that "kind" of name for an article before! Thanks for the prompt reply! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Headkase (talk • contribs) 01:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the only real side effect of seems to be that on the top of the talk page, there is a link directing you "back" to the "parent page" of Talk:GNU. - SudoGhost 01:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

There would be no Linux without GNU

There is one point overlooked in this discussion. GNU tools were already in widespread use by the time Linus Torvalds wrote his kernel (I remember my first encounter with GNU tools and other free software like TeX is from the late 1980s, though by that time, I didn't know anything about the concept of free software) and from the start, Linux was compiled using the GNU C compiler History of Linux#_note-1. This compiler was freely available and high quality and without such a compiler much less people would have been able to contribute to the Linux kernel development. Thus, quite probably, there would be no Linux without GNU and I think, that should be credited. --BerlinSight (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out the converse, too, that because GNU didn't have an functioning kernel (it still doesn't), that without Linux the GNU tools didn't add up to anything operational. I think both of these points are currently clear in the history section, however. - Ahunt (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think both arguments are beside the point of the article. As far as nomenclature is concerned, the thing that we should focus on is license. As long as the software was released under a license that gives them no say what other people can do with it (including fork or rename it), they have relinquished the right to decide what it shall be called when combined with other people's code, modifications, and/or software. Even if the change is limited to the name of the program. To try to assert otherwise strikes me as pretty hypocritical. In this case, Linus has created a kernel, and called it Linux. Distributions can choose what to call it without regard to what Linus, Stallman, or anyone else says. Case in point, Android, which uses neither name on its public face, nor do I see any legitimate grounds for anyone to object to that based on the licenses the software was released under. cargocontainer (talk) 08:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Objection to page move

This article was renamed today with the rationale WP:SLASH. However, WP:SLASH states, in part, An unspaced slash may be used ... where a slash occurs in a phrase widely used outside Wikipedia, and a different construction would be inaccurate, unfamiliar, or ambiguous. It seems to me that 'GNU/Linux' is indeed a phrase widely used outside Wikipedia, while 'GNU and Linux' is inaccurate and unfamiliar. The sources provided in the article invariably use the term GNU/Linux, so I believe that is what the article should use as well. Elizium23 (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this is an obvious exception to the policy. An argument could be made for adding quotes, as in "GNU/Linux" naming controversy, but not for removing the slash. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article should remain at its current title GNU/Linux naming controversy. WP:SLASH does not apply here, since the specific controversy involves the term "GNU/Linux". This should have been discussed in advance of any attempt to move the article as it was fairly obvious it would be controversial. - Ahunt (talk) 12:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Android Kernel

There is also the opinion that we need a name to avoid ambiguity. If we call the system that some call “Gnu/Linux”, by the name “Linux”, then what do we call the Android Kernel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.51 (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

According to Android (operating system) it is a modified Linux kernel. - Ahunt (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Why just "Linux"?

The article discusses the history of the term "GNU/Linux", but it doesn't provide any explaination for why "Linux" became the more common term in the first place. I've always wondered. 138.38.24.106 (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It is a good question, but I have never seen a real reference that explains that. I suspect the general media just adopted the term as it was a unique term, easy to remember and easy to pronounce. - Ahunt (talk) 12:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Because no one at the beginning called it GNU/Linux. Linus never did. FSF/GNU only started pushing the term later, when Hurd failed to deliver (iirc). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

"Linux" is Linus Torvalds's title for his own kernel. It caught on because it was the official title of the software. Elizium23 (talk) 01:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If by software you mean the operative system, please provide source that there is an "official" title. I would not even know how has an authoritative claim on making things "official" in regards Linux the operative system. Belorn (talk) 08:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I was curious as to why Linux became the conventional name for the operating system as a whole. (The observation that the kernel is named Linux because Linus chose that name is a no-brainer.) The article provides a number of arguments for and against the name, but it doesn't provide any history of how the synecdoche arose. To put it another way, I'm looking for how it happened, not a value judgement on whether it should've happened. 138.38.24.106 (talk) 08:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it just slipped into common use, in the same way "kleenex" slipped into common use as a term for "paper tissue". That is why there are no refs on how it happened, it was never documented, just happened. - Ahunt (talk) 10:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

After discussing this with friends, one should also really look into how magazines distributed around 1990-1997 wrote about this. Softlanding Linux System in 1992 which looks to be the earliest use of linux as the name of the operative system, but its hard to find a definitive date of when it was used first. Debian initially called it linux, but later changed it to gnu/linux around 1994. 1994, we can find this quote heated debate about what to call it, but there was no single point or event that caused it.Belorn (talk) 11:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I started using (GNU/)Linux in 1994, first Slackware and later Debian, and I remember it was simply called Linux. I still have some of my first 1994 InfoMagic "Linux Developer's Resource" CDs around with a "Debian 0.91 beta" on it, as well as e.g. an original Debian "potato" GNU/Linux 2.2 CD set from 2000. In the first days no one cared about how to call it. GNU was known as a set of utilities usable on a variety of systems (and I actually did use them myself apart from Linux), the distinctive part was the Linux kernel which made it usable standalone. It was natural to call it Linux. Everyone using Linux more or less had some knowledge about GNU, but you were more concerned with getting the software running than with naming or licensing issues. After all the system was new and, though more stable than any other PC operating system of its time, somewhat experimental. I remember the naming debate starting later on Debian mailing lists, when Linux became more popular and it turned out the role of the GNU project was underrepresented in the public reception of the system.--BerlinSight (talk) 08:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

PS: I just checked the original Debian README, dated 1994-04-15 from the June 1994 InfoMagic CD, it starts: "The current version of Debian Linux is 0.91 BETA."--BerlinSight (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The first announced version talked about in the debian-announce mailing list is called gnu/linux, and that's from from 1995. But what would really be good is to find the actually post that made the decision to change the name. Belorn (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I found a copy of the debian-announce mailing list on the CD. It contains a message dated 1994-05-01_06:36PDT from Ian Murdock with the original announcement of the name change. The subject was "A minor change..." ;-)--BerlinSight (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Shortening the ego section?

Read the "pro Gnu/Linux" section. EVERY pro claim is either Stallmann or his foundation (FSF).

The others are not even pro Gnu/Linux (e.g. kernel alone is not all. many parts are important.)

If noone refuses, I'll trim this to something like "The FSF and his president Richard Stallmann argue for this naming, because of their perceived importance of their software products" --RicardAnufriev (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all, please do not make big edits whose diffs cannot be understood quickly.

Actually some of the paragraphs in both sections are not arguments for particular naming. I think some of the paragraphs need to be put near each other, as they are talking about the same thing (like whether naming matters, or someone's accusation of RMS and his response to it).

--AVRS (talk) 11:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

In the "pro Linux" section, every pro claim is "it's a lost cause, most people call it Linux and the controversy will get us nowhere". What will be left of this article if we replace the section with something like that? --AVRS (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not really Wikipedia's place to judge whether the arguments made are good or bad ones, merely to summarize the facts and the commentary by notable sources. Although you can find many instances of people arguing for "GNU/Linux" online, the most prominent reputable source (and probably the clearest descriptions of the "pro" arguments) for us to cite is the FSF web pages. Nor is it equitable to summarize an argument on one side without mentioning specific counter-arguments from the other side (if they can be reputably sourced to a prominent commentator).

Regarding organization, a long time ago I seem to recall that this article was organized more in a "point-counterpoint" fashion where one listed a comment on one side and then the answer by RMS etcetera, but this ended up being problematic as an organizing strategy. For one thing, it made it seem like a transcript of a debate, when in fact the comments were made at very different points of time rather than in a direct conversation. For another thing, it was hard to be neutral about which voice was given the last word on each argument. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

POSIX?

I seem to remember a quote by Stallman arguing that the GNU/Linux term should be used because the POSIX standard defines an operating system to be a certain set of software (shell, coreutils, kernel, etc) and Linux by itself does not meet that requirement. 50.131.193.185 (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

If you have a reference, it can be considered for inclusion. See WP:V. - Ahunt (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Stallman has a discussion about it, but also lacks a definitive source. Looking for a source, I can't find it mentioned in either stallman.org or fsf.org. Belorn (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It is possible it was from an e-mail or something or possibly apocryphal, like many things attributed to Stallman. - Ahunt (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Pragmatic Reasons

I see no mention of pragmatic reasons for supporting Linux.

"Linux" is just so much easier and cleaner than writing it as "GNU/Linux" and pronouncing as "GNU slash Linux", regardless of who is the primary contributor. Perhaps if FSF had come up with a different name (perhaps combining GNU and Linux into a single word), it may have gained more acceptance. This is something that came to my mind personally and obviously I can't put this in the article. But I'm sure I'm not the only one who has thought of this. Is there any reference or article out there which mentions something similar? This is the first thing that comes to my mind when hearing about this controversy and I'm sure this is quite relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldKanga (talk • contribs) 06:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

If you can find a reference that says this, then it can be added. - Ahunt (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.en.html#long --AVRS (talk) 13:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

There was this attempt at calling it liGNUx, but it never took off. The article already talks about this. --isacdaavid 21:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Revolution OS is misquoted

If you listen to Torvalds when he gives the argument against the use of seemingly "GNU/Linux" in the Revolution OS documentary you can hear the interviewer never pronounces the "slash" or the "plus" between "GNU" and "Linux" in his question. It is "GNU Linux", not "GNU/Linux"; so what Linus is actually refuting is the term as applied to a Linux kernel maintained or promoted by GNU. We have a section dealing with pronunciation. Shouldn't we change the article so it says Linus Torvalds was asked whether the name "GNU Linux" was justified? (note the lack of slash). --isacdaavid 22:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! Actually, the question preceding Torval's reply isn't quoted in the article, so it should probably follow the "official" written form. I'd say it's all about silencing the slash or not in spoken form, while slash is always there in written form; on the other hand, I've heard Stallman saying "GNU-slash-Linux" numerous times. Well, the whole thing with this naming controversy is just ridiculous, if you agree. :) — Dsimic (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, I made a mistake. I actually checked Revolution OS and the interviewer does pronounce the slash. --isacdaavid 23:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Origins of the GNU/Linux terminology and the split definition of kernel and operating system

An interesting read on where the GNU/Linux term started being used, as far as uname is concerned. Also talks about the first real uses of operating system to mean something other than "kernel."

EDIT: Link would help, huh? http://lists.ethernal.org/oldarchives/cantlug-0407/msg00259.html

63.153.253.49 (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself defines an operating system in such a way that conflicts with this page's definition.

GNU = applications; it's not part of the operating system.

Please don't blatantly lie like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.203.7.110 (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It all depends on which applications we're talking about; Emacs for sure isn't a true part of an operating system by definition, but GNU ld (as part of GNU Binutils) is a true part. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)