LinuxQuestions.org
Register a domain and help support LQ
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices



Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 01-03-2008, 08:08 AM   #31
kahlil88
Member
 
Registered: May 2005
Location: Mendocino, CA
Distribution: Arch Linux
Posts: 170

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30

Quote:
Originally Posted by proc View Post
Linux on the other hand, tries to follow standards, they don't force any Windows apps not to work. Linux also has a GUI and CLI, but unlike Windows the CLI is more powerful then the GUI and can be used on more systems.
The GUI and CLI are not Linux. Linux is the kernel, and the GUI is a separate (optional) piece of the system. Desktop environments like GNOME and KDE also run on BSD systems (which don't use the Linux kernel) and can even run on Mac OS X or Darwin. The CLI you speak of is part of the GNU system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by proc View Post
The reason why Torvalds did not sell his kernel is because at the time Unix was expensive and so was Minux, so he wrote his own variant of Minux.
MINIX was actually fairly cheap for a Unix-like operating system ($70 back then). Microsoft has little use for the Linux kernel because they already have a kernel, and backwards-compatibility is very important for their monopoly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by proc View Post
I suspect that without GNU Linux would still exist, but it's development would be radically different, I don't think it would be so fast pase as it has been.
Torvalds started Linux as a hobby, and it wasn't originally free software. He decided to license it under GPL after Richard Stallman came to speak at the University of Helsinki. Without RMS, there would be no free software to make Linux work, and Linux would either not exist or be the kernel for a non-free OS (what a scary thought).

Last edited by kahlil88; 01-03-2008 at 08:11 AM.
 
Old 01-03-2008, 08:30 AM   #32
proc
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2007
Location: /dev/urandom
Posts: 70

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlliagre View Post
Gnu isn't just a set of CLI tools. Every process running on top of the linux kernel is using the C standard library which is (almost) always the Gnu one (glibc).

I agree the O/S should be called Gnu/Linux to give credit to the huge work started in the many years that predates Linux by the FSF community without which Linux wouldn't have emerged in my opinion.

I do not vote to rename this very site www.gnulinuxquestions.org though
Thats not entirely true, ASM demos don't use it, anything else that is pure ASM wouldn't need to do it either.


kahlil88, a response to your sig, Linux is not a GNU kernel, it uses it's license but is not a product of the GNU project, the Linux kernel is a kernel using GNU based tools and libs. That's like saying the BSD kernel is a GNU kernel, it is clearly not.

Last edited by proc; 01-03-2008 at 08:40 AM.
 
Old 01-03-2008, 08:46 AM   #33
proc
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2007
Location: /dev/urandom
Posts: 70

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by kahlil88 View Post
The GUI and CLI are not Linux. Linux is the kernel, and the GUI is a separate (optional) piece of the system. Desktop environments like GNOME and KDE also run on BSD systems (which don't use the Linux kernel) and can even run on Mac OS X or Darwin. The CLI you speak of is part of the GNU system.
So what's stopping me from making my own CLI that is under a BSD license? Or MIT?
Just because I use GNU tools doesn't make the system GNU, without Linux or BSD the tools and libs today wouldn't even exist, so it is the other way around, Linux can survive without GNU but the GNU wouldn't have survived without Linux.

Quote:
Torvalds started Linux as a hobby, and it wasn't originally free software. He decided to license it under GPL after Richard Stallman came to speak at the University of Helsinki. Without RMS, there would be no free software to make Linux work, and Linux would either not exist or be the kernel for a non-free OS (what a scary thought).
Actually before RMS came to him, he had released it under his own license.

"This is where I started out. My initial reason for my original license
(which was also "you must make changes available under the same
license") was not crusading, but simple reciprocity. I give out source
code - you can use it if you reciprocate."

http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/2/2/283

the actual release was Dec 19, 1991 – Version 0.11, Linus only started using the GPL after in version 0.12.

And I disagree, I am sure he could have gotten help to write up some basic libs and tools, it would have been much slower, but I think Linux would still be around today even without the GNU

Last edited by proc; 01-03-2008 at 08:57 AM.
 
Old 01-03-2008, 08:48 AM   #34
V!NCENT
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2005
Location: The Netherlands
Distribution: Kubuntu 8.10 KDE4
Posts: 208

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceofSpades19 View Post
Linux is not necessarily a desktop OS, and most servers don't have a gui.
You're right, but then again Linux is not necessarily a server OS either. My point I try to make here is that Linux is not useless without GNU.

Quote:
So, a modern os does not need a gui.
It depends on what you what to do with your computer. A GUI adds a lot of functionality to a desktop IMO: just look at what is possible with OpenOffice.org alone.

Quote:
It is easy to make a linux with a shell that is not bash, but what about GCC, make , tar, grep, ftp, telnet, rsh, rlogin, tftp etc.
Oops I forgot about GCC . make: apt-get, tar: zip, for grep: write a simple QT app that can read input via the standard C++ lib no big deal, ftp:Konqueror, telnet: it's a protocol and not a app (I am sure this is somewhere else implemented in a DE or GUI app), rsh: use X (for example remote desktop in ubuntu), rlogin: again X, tftp: this is a protocol not an app just use Konqueror.

Ofcourse removing GNU apps is a little stupid (Windows like OS) but GNU is not necessarily required.
 
Old 01-03-2008, 09:01 AM   #35
jlliagre
Moderator
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: Outside Paris
Distribution: Solaris10, Solaris 11, Mint, OL
Posts: 9,523

Rep: Reputation: 365Reputation: 365Reputation: 365Reputation: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by proc View Post
Thats not entirely true, ASM demos don't use it, anything else that is pure ASM wouldn't need to do it either.
You are technically correct but I'm afraid a pure ASM only distribution would be quite boring
Linux wouldn't have survived without a C library.
 
Old 01-03-2008, 09:11 AM   #36
proc
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2007
Location: /dev/urandom
Posts: 70

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlliagre View Post
You are technically correct but I'm afraid a pure ASM only distribution would be quite boring
Linux wouldn't have survived without a C library.
I totally agree, first it wouldn't be portable at all (I never said it would be, I said it can be done). And it probably would be buggy, since different x86 processors use different instructions (ie: SSE4 and SSE4e)

But I don't believe that it would have died without the help of GNU, Linus was giving it away under his own license and that license stated you could use it if you give back, or help in some way, so I think a C library would have been made with or without the GNU.

Last edited by proc; 01-03-2008 at 09:12 AM.
 
Old 01-03-2008, 09:16 AM   #37
pixellany
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Annapolis, MD
Distribution: Arch/XFCE
Posts: 17,802

Rep: Reputation: 729Reputation: 729Reputation: 729Reputation: 729Reputation: 729Reputation: 729Reputation: 729
Quote:
MINIX was actually fairly cheap for a Unix-like operating system ($70 back then). Microsoft has little use for the Linux kernel because they already have a kernel, and backwards-compatibility is very important for their monopoly.
How do you explain Apple transitioning to a Unix-based OS? They too have a little mini-monopoly in certain market segments.

How much would you bet that MS is not actively researching how to capture the GNU/Linux/Opensource technology for their own products? For them to issue a "Unix-like" OS in the next ten years would be totally plausible.

Pray for a new US administration (in only 383 days) which will move vigorously against corporate greed, monopolies, and other uniquely American paradigms. The world really is flat---it sometimes seems that Americans are the only ones who don't know it.

<<end rant, stow soapbox>>
 
Old 01-03-2008, 09:28 AM   #38
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 7,139
Blog Entries: 52

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Just to clear up any misunderstandings: my previous post was meant to be sarcastic. Maybe I should have included smilies.
I'll restate my views once again, that I believe it's right to acknowledge the contribution GNU has made by using the name "GNU/Linux" instead of just "Linux". I don't want to make it compulsory. If you don't want to type 3 extra letters and a forward slash - OK.
 
Old 01-03-2008, 09:35 AM   #39
V!NCENT
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2005
Location: The Netherlands
Distribution: Kubuntu 8.10 KDE4
Posts: 208

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianL View Post
I don't want to make it compulsory. If you don't want to type 3 extra letters and a forward slash - OK.
Isn't it a bit overdone to get angry about a name? :/
 
Old 01-03-2008, 09:40 AM   #40
kahlil88
Member
 
Registered: May 2005
Location: Mendocino, CA
Distribution: Arch Linux
Posts: 170

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixellany View Post
How do you explain Apple transitioning to a Unix-based OS? They too have a little mini-monopoly in certain market segments.

How much would you bet that MS is not actively researching how to capture the GNU/Linux/Opensource technology for their own products? For them to issue a "Unix-like" OS in the next ten years would be totally plausible.
I think it has something to do with Steve Jobs getting fired from Apple in 1985. He started a new little company called NeXT, and I'm guessing he didn't have a lot of money, so building an operating system around FreeBSD was probably inexpensive, and turned out to be a brilliant idea.
The thugs at Microsoft are too stupid and greedy to understand the power that free software possesses, so they complain about "infringement of intellectual property" hoping to destroy it. Backwards compatibility is also an issue because they have so much marketshare. If they adopt the Linux kernel, their OS will be less backwards-compatible and people won't want to use their software (then again, they do have a strong monopoly).
But even if they built the Windows interface on top of a Unix system, it would still suck because they suck at writing software and have no sense of innovation whatsoever.
 
Old 01-03-2008, 09:42 AM   #41
jlliagre
Moderator
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: Outside Paris
Distribution: Solaris10, Solaris 11, Mint, OL
Posts: 9,523

Rep: Reputation: 365Reputation: 365Reputation: 365Reputation: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by proc View Post
But I don't believe that it would have died without the help of GNU.
I don't believe that it would have born (ie. complete a boot process) without the help of GNU, especially GCC and later GlibC.
 
Old 01-03-2008, 09:52 AM   #42
proc
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2007
Location: /dev/urandom
Posts: 70

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlliagre View Post
I don't believe that it would have born (ie. complete a boot process) without the help of GNU, especially GCC and later GlibC.
I donno, it may have taken longer to be non-minix dependent, but I think it would have happened. Not saying it is unappreciated, I think some of the finest work comes from GNU, but I don't believe is it the be all, end of all ways to do things. And definitely shouldn't have it's name slapped or ticked on everything that is under it's license or uses it's software. I don't call Windows 2000, Microsoft/Berkley Windows 2000 just because Windows has a BSD tcp/ip stack inside it.

Last edited by proc; 01-03-2008 at 09:56 AM.
 
Old 01-03-2008, 10:09 AM   #43
wraithe
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2006
Location: australia
Distribution: Linux... :-)
Posts: 216
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 30
gnu/linux, hmm that was adopted when released under the gnu license agreement by Stallamns free software foundation...

Linux got its name because the bbs administrator needed to use a file name for the os...(oh yeh, BBS is pre internet...goes to show how old i is)...

Linus used the minix code as his base and completely reworked it to come up with the linux code...

Linux's architecture is server based, ie the kernel is the base with server module linked in to use gui, devices etc, this way when one crashes it only takes you to reboot the server, ie when x crashes you just reboot x....

GNU is not dependant on linux, and vicaversa, as linux base is functional, albiet limited...
BSD has nought to do with linux, its another os all together...

GNU is a licensing agreement, or what ever the lawyers like to call it, its basically a document of legal terms to keep the money grabbers away and allow freedom of use for the average person...
 
Old 01-03-2008, 10:12 AM   #44
wraithe
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2006
Location: australia
Distribution: Linux... :-)
Posts: 216
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 30
PS, ohh yeh...Linus is one hell of a nice guy...
If he has such a big ego, then good on him, he deserves to...but then your probably jealous as he has given a functional os to the world for free...did you know he still teaches, cant be gettin rich teaching...Whats Bill Gates doing these days?...
 
Old 01-03-2008, 10:13 AM   #45
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 7,139
Blog Entries: 52

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
Isn't it a bit overdone to get angry about a name? :/
Who's getting angry? Not me, that's for sure. Here's a nice big smile to prove it.
 
  


Reply

Tags
gnu


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Where can i get a "call waiting" software for freespire linux? xsladex Linux - Software 1 02-19-2007 03:52 PM
list file system linux supports "please give the command or system call" varun_shrivastava Linux - General 4 01-09-2007 08:28 AM
Any way to get "Alice"; "Call of Duty" series and "Descent 3" to work? JBailey742 Linux - Games 13 06-23-2006 02:34 PM
"Function not implemented" error in call to "sem_open()" Krishnendu8 Linux - Newbie 1 06-07-2003 03:52 AM
"Function not imlemented" error in call to "sem_open()" Krishnendu8 Linux - Networking 0 06-07-2003 03:19 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:35 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration