GNU bug report logs -
#9210
Documentation: misleading wording
Previous Next
To reply to this bug, email your comments to 9210 AT debbugs.gnu.org.
Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.
Report forwarded
to
owner <at> debbugs.gnu.org, bug-libtool <at> gnu.org:
bug#9210; Package
libtool.
(Sun, 31 Jul 2011 14:04:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Acknowledgement sent
to
Christophe Jarry <christophe.jarry <at> ouvaton.org>:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to
bug-libtool <at> gnu.org.
(Sun, 31 Jul 2011 14:04:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Dear maintainers,
Today I browsed
http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Configure-notes.html#Configure-notes
and read this:
When building on some linux systems [...]
I am surprised you use the name "linux" to designate the entire system. I think
you should use "GNU/Linux" instead. For more information, please read
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html.
Christophe
Information forwarded
to
owner <at> debbugs.gnu.org, bug-libtool <at> gnu.org:
bug#9210; Package
libtool.
(Wed, 03 Aug 2011 16:24:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #8 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On Sun, 31 Jul 2011, Christophe Jarry wrote:
> Dear maintainers,
>
> Today I browsed
> http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Configure-notes.html#Configure-notes
> and read this:
>
> When building on some linux systems [...]
>
> I am surprised you use the name "linux" to designate the entire system. I think
> you should use "GNU/Linux" instead. For more information, please read
> http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html.
While libtool is a GNU project, I think that this effort by the FSF to
independently re-entitle Linux to "GNU/Linux" subsequent to the
effective failure of their Hurd OS is foolish and it ignores that most
software in a typical "Linux" system is not the Linux kernel or
FSF/GNU software. I think that it is better to stick with the names
that the developers of the Linux kernel and the users prefer to use.
The same logic could be used to create the names GNU/FreeBSD,
GNU/NetBSD, GNU/Solaris, GNU/Darwin, etc., because most of these OSs
include some GNU components.
Bob
--
Bob Friesenhahn
bfriesen <at> simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
Information forwarded
to
owner <at> debbugs.gnu.org, bug-libtool <at> gnu.org:
bug#9210; Package
libtool.
(Thu, 04 Aug 2011 04:15:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #11 received at 9210 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On 8/2/2011 2:29 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> While libtool is a GNU project, I think that this effort by the FSF to
> independently re-entitle Linux to "GNU/Linux" subsequent to the
> effective failure of their Hurd OS is foolish and it ignores that most
> software in a typical "Linux" system is not the Linux kernel or FSF/GNU
> software. I think that it is better to stick with the names that the
> developers of the Linux kernel and the users prefer to use.
>
> The same logic could be used to create the names GNU/FreeBSD,
> GNU/NetBSD, GNU/Solaris, GNU/Darwin, etc., because most of these OSs
> include some GNU components.
"How much GNU is there in GNU/Linux?"
http://lwn.net/Articles/445454/
Answer: between 8 and 13%, depending on whether you count the (now
practically independent) Gnome stuff.
By LOCC, the kernel alone is as big as all the GNU stuff put together.
--
Chuck
Information forwarded
to
owner <at> debbugs.gnu.org, bug-libtool <at> gnu.org:
bug#9210; Package
libtool.
(Thu, 04 Aug 2011 18:58:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #14 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
> While libtool is a GNU project, I think that this effort by the FSF to
> independently re-entitle Linux to "GNU/Linux" subsequent to the
> effective failure of their Hurd OS is foolish
Why is it foolish? During the first years I used GNU/Linux, I believed Linus
Torvalds did write the entire operating system, just because I only knew the
name "Linux" for the entire system! So I think it is fair to say GNU/Linux.
From http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#why:
Many other projects contributed to the system as it is today; it includes
TeX, X11, Apache, Perl, and many more programs. Don't your arguments imply
we have to give them credit too? (But that would lead to a name so long it
is absurd.)
What we say is that you ought to give the system's principal developer a
share of the credit. The principal developer is the GNU Project, and the
system is basically GNU.
If you feel even more strongly about giving credit where it is due, you
might feel that some secondary contributors also deserve credit in the
system's name. If so, far be it from us to argue against it. If you feel
that X11 deserves credit in the system's name, and you want to call the
system GNU/X11/Linux, please do. If you feel that Perl simply cries out for
mention, and you want to write GNU/Linux/Perl, go ahead.
Since a long name such as GNU/X11/Apache/Linux/TeX/Perl/Python/FreeCiv
becomes absurd, at some point you will have to set a threshold and omit the
names of the many other secondary contributions. There is no one obvious
right place to set the threshold, so wherever you set it, we won't argue
against it.
Different threshold levels would lead to different choices of name for the
system. But one name that cannot result from concerns of fairness and giving
credit, not for any possible threshold level, is “Linux”. It can't be fair
to give all the credit to one secondary contribution (Linux) while omitting
the principal contribution (GNU).
> and it ignores that most software in a typical "Linux" system is not the
> Linux kernel or FSF/GNU software.
What is a typical GNU/Linux system?
From http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#allsmall:
GNU is a small fraction of the system nowadays, so why should we mention
it?
In 2008, we found that GNU packages made up 15% of the “main” repository of
the gNewSense GNU/Linux distribution. Linux made up 1.5%. So the same
argument would apply even more strongly to calling it “Linux”.
GNU is a small fraction of the system nowadays, and Linux is an even
smaller fraction. But they are the system's core; the system was made by
combining them. Thus, the name “GNU/Linux” remains appropriate.
As far as I know, all GNU/Linux distributions use:
- the kernel Linux (or its deblobbed version called Linux-Libre - see
http://www.fsfla.org/svnwiki/anuncio/2010-03-Linux-2.6.33-libre.en),
- GNU Compiler Collection, GNU Binutils, GLIBC (or EGLIBC, which is heavily
based on GLIBC) and other build tools (GNU make, automake, autoconf and co).
On that base, the user or developer builds a set of tools to suit her needs.
These tools can come from outside of the GNU project and outside from Linux.
So technically speaking, GNU tools are required to run a GNU/Linux system.
But what distinguishes GNU/Linux from most of the other operating systems? It
gives her user the 4 freedoms of using, modifying, sharing the entire operating
system and sharing modifications of it.
Basically, people that call the operating system "Linux" consider that free
software tools have to be widespread whatever the price, so they often
distribute GNU/Linux with proprietary programs to make it more appealing for
GNU/Linux new comers. But this has the effect to support proprietary software
instead of free software. It makes GNU/Linux become more and more a proprietary
operating system like Windows.
For most of them, the only advantage taken from GNU/Linux is that it is "free
of charge".
> I think that it is better to stick with the names that the developers of the
> Linux kernel and the users prefer to use.
In what way is that better?
> The same logic could be used to create the names GNU/FreeBSD,
> GNU/NetBSD, GNU/Solaris, GNU/Darwin, etc., because most of these OSs
> include some GNU components.
From http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#bsd:
Should we say “GNU/BSD” too?
We don't call the BSD systems (FreeBSD, etc.) “GNU/BSD” systems, because
that term does not fit the history of the BSD systems.
The BSD system was developed by UC Berkeley as non-free software in the
80s, and became free in the early 90s. A free operating system that exists
today is almost certainly either a variant of the GNU system, or a kind of
BSD system.
People sometimes ask whether BSD too is a variant of GNU, as GNU/Linux is.
It is not. The BSD developers were inspired to make their code free software
by the example of the GNU Project, and explicit appeals from GNU activists
helped convince them to start, but the code had little overlap with
GNU.
BSD systems today use some GNU packages, just as the GNU system and its
variants use some BSD programs; however, taken as wholes, they are two
different systems that evolved separately. The BSD developers did not write
a kernel and add it to the GNU system, so a name like GNU/BSD would not fit
the situation.
The connection between GNU/Linux and GNU is much closer, and that's why the
name “GNU/Linux” is appropriate for it.
There is a version of GNU which uses the kernel from NetBSD. Its developers
call it “Debian GNU/NetBSD”, but “GNU/kernelofNetBSD” would be more
accurate, since NetBSD is an entire system, not just the kernel. This is not
a BSD system, since most of the system is the same as the GNU/Linux system.
Christophe
Information forwarded
to
owner <at> debbugs.gnu.org, bug-libtool <at> gnu.org:
bug#9210; Package
libtool.
(Thu, 04 Aug 2011 19:36:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #17 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On Thu, 4 Aug 2011, Christophe Jarry wrote:
>> While libtool is a GNU project, I think that this effort by the FSF to
>> independently re-entitle Linux to "GNU/Linux" subsequent to the
>> effective failure of their Hurd OS is foolish
>
> Why is it foolish? During the first years I used GNU/Linux, I believed Linus
> Torvalds did write the entire operating system, just because I only knew the
> name "Linux" for the entire system! So I think it is fair to say GNU/Linux.
I agree with you that all major contributors should be recognized.
However, it is not necessary/useful to change the name to suit each
major contributor.
The reason why I call it "foolish" is that it serves no useful
purpose.
> What is a typical GNU/Linux system?
Ubtuntu desktop with GNOME and KDE.
> So technically speaking, GNU tools are required to run a GNU/Linux system.
At the moment, only the GNU C library is required to run a GNU/Linux
system. If this is replaced with a non-GNU C library, then Linux can
run without the GNU.
>> I think that it is better to stick with the names that the developers of the
>> Linux kernel and the users prefer to use.
>
> In what way is that better?
Because it is what they prefer to use.
If GNU developers cared about this issue then all instances of "Linux"
in package documentation would have been substituted to "GNU/Linux"
quite some time ago. Instead they silently ignore it similar to the
way they previously ignored the RMS directive to use only Scheme and
Guile for scripting.
Bob
--
Bob Friesenhahn
bfriesen <at> simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
Information forwarded
to
owner <at> debbugs.gnu.org, bug-libtool <at> gnu.org:
bug#9210; Package
libtool.
(Fri, 05 Aug 2011 20:50:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #20 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On Thu, 4 Aug 2011 14:35:03 -0500 (CDT)
Bob Friesenhahn <bfriesen <at> simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote:
> The reason why I call it "foolish" is that it serves no useful
> purpose.
Naming the entire system "GNU/Linux" serves at least one purpose: it makes the
reader aware of the GNU project's existence and the Free Software philosophy
behind it.
So I think this is useful.
Christophe
Information forwarded
to
owner <at> debbugs.gnu.org, bug-libtool <at> gnu.org:
bug#9210; Package
libtool.
(Sun, 28 Aug 2011 14:39:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #23 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Bob,
As a GNU maintainer, you have to comply with the document named "Information
for Maintainers of GNU Software":
From http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Preface:
If you are or would like to be a GNU maintainer, then it is essential to
follow these guidelines.
From http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#GNU-and-Linux:
The GNU Project was formed to develop a free Unix-like operating system,
GNU. The existence of this system is our major accomplishment. However, the
widely used version of the GNU system, in which Linux is used as the kernel,
is often called simply “Linux”. As a result, most users don’t know about the
GNU Project’s major accomplishment—or more precisely, they know about it,
but don’t realize it is the GNU Project’s accomplishment and reason for
existence. Even people who believe they know the real history often believe
that the goal of GNU was to develop “tools” or “utilities.”
To correct this confusion, we have made a years-long effort to distinguish
between Linux, the kernel that Linus Torvalds wrote, and GNU/Linux, the
operating system that is the combination of GNU and Linux. The resulting
increased awareness of what the GNU Project has already done helps every
activity of the GNU Project recruit more support and contributors.
Please make this distinction consistently in GNU software releases, GNU
documentation, and announcements and articles that you publish in your role
as the maintainer of a GNU package. If you want to explain the terminology
and its reasons, you can refer to the URL
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html.
To contrast the GNU system properly with respect to GNU/Linux, you can call
it “GNU/Hurd” or “the GNU/Hurd system.” However, when that contrast is not
specifically the focus, please call it just “GNU” or “the GNU system.”
When referring to the collection of servers that is the higher level of the
GNU kernel, please call it “the Hurd” or “the GNU Hurd.” Note that this uses
a space, not a slash.
Please fix section "Platform-specific configuration notes" of Libtool's manual
accordingly.
Christophe
Information forwarded
to
owner <at> debbugs.gnu.org, bug-libtool <at> gnu.org:
bug#9210; Package
libtool.
(Sun, 28 Aug 2011 16:04:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #26 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On Sun, 28 Aug 2011, Christophe Jarry wrote:
> Bob,
>
> As a GNU maintainer, you have to comply with the document named "Information
> for Maintainers of GNU Software":
The contract I signed with the FSF does not support anyone ordering me
to do anything. Of course any contributions I may make will follow
the FSF maintainer rules (existing at the time) as much as is
reasonable.
Currently there are 8 instances of bare 'Linux' in the Libtool manual
and 26 in the Libtool ChangeLogs. If one searches through all files
in a configured libtool source tree, there are 290 instances.
Other FSF packages have similar issues.
Bob
--
Bob Friesenhahn
bfriesen <at> simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
This bug report was last modified 13 years and 300 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.