Proposed Name change of the Unix forum

psicic

I agree 100% with the sentiments that have been expressed here about ILUG. It's hard to see what it's exactly about anymore in my opinion - they seem to be all-too-grandiose while at the same time fairly ineffectual (a virtually unchanged homepage with the same articles for three or more years???).

There's only two minor quibbles wit yer' masterplans that I have: (and I mean these to be constructive!!!!):D

1) I'm fairly new around these parts after a looong gap from the forums, but I can't see how it's constructive to hide away details of the LUG and Linux in a UNIX forum. Let me elaborate:
Farily savvy users - the type of people reading this thread probably - can make the leap from Unix to Linux in their head, but a newbie - who will be a large part of the target membership for the group from what's been said - quite simply won't.
I will admit to being thrown to find mostly(all???) Linux questions in a Unix forum without any mention of Linux in the title. I mean, there has been enough confusion by people in the know (including RedHat) over whether Linux was UNIX, that the case is decidely murky and most places I've seen either have a separate thread for Linux and UNIX or have a single merged thread called Linux/Unix. I actually almost thought there wasn't a Linux section here on boards until it dawned on me that it might be lumped in with UNIX still.
If you're aiming at newbies - myself included - why do you think they'll automatically associate Linux with UNIX? Linux is the buzz word everyone knows. (I feel like I'm setting myself up for a flame war:( )
If you hide away a community group catering for newbies(but not exclusively) in a thread associated with techies(as UNIX still is) you're going to miss out on a lot of casual browsers and potential members.

2) bieLUG??? How do you even pronounce it? 'bye-lugg'? 'be-lugg'? But, hey, it's your choice....

masteroftherealm

Linux, Unix

2)B.I.E Lug.:v:
and
1) Yup definitly agree but I think that the forum in in need of a name change anyways?
Mods are ya reading this?
Linux/UNIX fourm rename?

jaqian

Linux, Unix

<flame> <flame> only kidding.

Some good points there, thinking back i remember being surprised the forum wasn't call Unix & Linux or something similar. I also think that ILUG seems to be too quiet as regards blowing the Linux trumpet. I only found them because I went searching for references to Linux in Ireland. England have a very vibrant Linux/LUG culture with www.linux.co.uk and www.LUGradio.org along with their many magazines etc, unfortunately we seem to be starved of a Linux culture in Ireland.

So psicic are you gonna come along to our first meet-up?

Syth

Linux, Unix

I agree about the name of the forum. Although Unix does technically cover Linux, it could be made more clear. However do not forget about other Unicies. Perhaps this forum should be renamed 'Linux, BSD and Unix'?

Karoma

Re: the time - fair points. (Actually,both posts containt fair points.)

Hell, I hope to be out of Dublin again nearer the time.. so time of the event is key:p
I'd also keep in mind the volume of traffic. I was holding off on a specific time until about a week in advance for two reasons:
a) I want suggestions
b) holding until a bit nearer the event means we can better foresee any possible issues (protests, gigs,etc.) ...

re: forum name.
As above, there are too many flavours of *Nix.. And a lot of their fanatics and will take issue with the limited naming!:p
The alternative would be subforums, but for now, the volume of posts doesn't justify requesting it (?)

flamegrill

Linux, Unix

Hi All,

The forum has been called Unix for many many years. I concur that mostly the questions and topics that are discussed here are mostly linux. But if you go back over the years the odd freebsd, openbsd and solaris question has been asked and discussed.

A proposed name change from 'Unix' to 'Linux, BSD and Unix' I feel would be benificial.

Also I'd like to point out that Unix forum isn't for anyone group of people. While some might get more use out of it than others, it currently isn't for any particular LUG. I have no issue with it being used for such purposes as meets, events etc. I will even sticky such topics when asked to via PM.

Paul

niallb

Linux, Unix

flamegrill wrote:

A proposed name change from 'Unix' to 'Linux, BSD and Unix' I feel would be benificial.

Paul

I agree. I also think the name change will bring in new users, even if just for a look around.

I also recall Irix questions, and mention of HP-UX here.

Maybe the current Comp/OS list is a little dated,
although "Mac/Unix/Windows" is nice and simple.
How about OS X ? Technically, it's a *nix :-)

NiallB

P.S. Anyone else feel there's two conversations going on in this thread?

flamegrill

Linux, Unix

Niallb,

Aye - I've split out the posts about the proposed name change, that topic deserves its own thread. There are about 2 more discussions on going in the other thread, I'll read over it a bit and see if I can't split it out a bit more.

Paul

mr_angry

Linux, Unix

flamegrill wrote:

A proposed name change from 'Unix' to 'Linux, BSD and Unix' I feel would be benificial.

Definitely a good idea.

flamegrill

Linux, Unix

I've added a poll, put in some basic options. If anyone can suggest any changes I will make them.

Paul

declan_lgs

The forum is a sub-forum of "Operating Systems" so I'd call it "UNIX-like" if I had to change it. But it's not so bad the way it is IMO.

If you must mention "Linux" in the title, please, call it GNU/Linux...

niallb

Linux, Unix

declan_lgs wrote:

If you must mention "Linux" in the title, please, call it GNU/Linux...

Are those three dots meant to be a zip firelighter? :-)

We know it's " linux" with a silent GNU, but we're
trying to attract people here, so let's not put jihad
in the forum title.

GNU/Linux is the betamax of the naming world.
We know it's technically better, but...

NiallB

Syth

Linux, Unix

I voted for Linux, BSD and Unix. As for Mac OSX (which I'm using right now), in my view it's a hybrid OS. Half Unix, Half Mac. A simple heuristic is whether or not your using the terminal.

declan_lgs

niallb wrote:

We know it's " linux" with a silent GNU, but we're
trying to attract people here, so let's not put jihad
in the forum title.

Exactly, so don't leave GNU out.
What can be unfair/jihad-ish about mentioning both GNU and Linux?

For those of you who never heard of GNU (and there are too many "Linux" users who haven't (I wonder why)), http://www.gnu.org/ and http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html.

jaqian

Linux, Unix

Linux, BSD and Unix.

Btw declan_lgs you have to admit GNU/Linux is a bit of a mouthful and not exactly user friendly. Its hard enough for ppl to make the transition to Linux without having to deal with a big hairy horned beast.

declan_lgs

jaqian wrote:

Linux, BSD and Unix.

Btw declan_lgs you have to admit GNU/Linux is a bit of a mouthful and not exactly user friendly. Its hard enough for ppl to make the transition to Linux without having to deal with a big hairy horned beast.

If you think GNU/Linux is a mouthful you should call it GNU. I don't think it's much of a mouthful so I call it GNU/Linux.

If you call it "Linux", you'll piss off some people (and rightly so if you ask me). If you call it "GNU", for some ODD reason you'll piss off some other people. All that's nothing wrong with "GNU/Linux" is being a little bit longer, but you keep everyone happy.

dubhthach

declan_lgs wrote:

If you think GNU/Linux is a mouthful you should call it GNU. I don't think it's much of a mouthful so I call it GNU/Linux.

If you call it "Linux", you'll piss off some people (and rightly so if you ask me). If you call it "GNU", for some ODD reason you'll piss off some other people. All that's nothing wrong with "GNU/Linux" is being a little bit longer, but you keep everyone happy.

I don't see it written anywhere in the GPL that if you include "our" software in your collection of software that ye need to rename your project "GNU/projectname" :rolleyes: Seen that Linux kernel isn't part of the GNU project it's mislabeling to say GNU/Linux.

As for name change. I say leave it at "Unix". The linux kernel and GNU system are clones of the Unix kernel and Unix userland. The *BSD are historically Unix been derived from Unix Versions 6 + 7 (32/v) but had any of the code that was copyrighted AT&T pulled out in the early 1990's.

As for OSX it's a *nix. The presence or absence of X11 does not a *nix make, after all OpenVMS ships with X11 and it's mostly certainly not a Unix (though it does have a Posix subsystem). OSX is basically Nextstep updated repackaged and using a windowing system that uses PDF instead of Display Postscript as it's drawing model.

Anyways i think i'll go back to compling on my Irix box.

Syth

Linux, Unix

Might as well fan the flame a bit. Here is an article claiming that 'Linux is not GNU/Linux'. In summary: All the GNU tools in a Linux distribution run in userland (with the exception of ld). In computer science terms, these aren't really part of the OS. All the stuff that's part of an OS (file system, process manager, etc) are all kernel land, Linux stuff.

deRanged

I voted to leave it as it is.
I don't think it's broken and so doesn't need fixing.

Bringing in new people is all very well, but I don't think anything puts off new people more than a thread like the one this is turning into.
unix is a nice generic name, avoids any number of flame wars and doesn't (I don't think) exclude anyone. I think that as soon as you define the name of the forum more, you start excluding. The security forum is an extreme example of this, it's been moderated to death. This forum has been well moderated for years, it's friendly and people almost always get a helpful answer.

Maybe change it to 'anything unix'.

declan_lgs

dubhthach wrote:

I don't see it written anywhere in the GPL that if you include "our" software in your collection of software that ye need to rename your project "GNU/projectname" :rolleyes:

Neither did I.

I suggest you read this article that I posted a link to in a previous post.

Seen that Linux kernel isn't part of the GNU project it's mislabeling to say GNU/Linux.

I don't know what you mean.

This has nothing to do with the GPL, you should read about the history of GNU/Linux and that other link to understand it.

Syth wrote:

All the GNU tools in a Linux distribution run in userland (with the exception of ld). In computer science terms, these aren't really part of the OS. All the stuff that's part of an OS (file system, process manager, etc) are all kernel land, Linux stuff.

An OS in CS terms isn't the kind of S I'd like to O on.
(An Operating System in Computer Science terms isn't the kind of System I'd like to Operate on )

If you know of a distribution that ships without any/much GNU stuff, don't call it GNU. I always called iPod Linux exactly that, because at least when I was using it I didn't see any GNU programs. Really the distribution is the operating system (not in CS terms).

If we're going by this article should we call Windows"NT" and Mac OS X "Darwin"?

I only say GNU/Linux when I'm talking about general system stuff. If I'm talking about Linux stuff ofcourse I say Linux. If I'm talking about some package I say some package. If I'm talking about some distro I say some distro.

But for a forum title I wouldn't call it anything other than GNU/Linux, because GNU/Linux is an actually operable system (Note that I didn't say operating system - because it seems that operating systems are useless on their own) (Linux is the operating system (by the technical definition (where an OS is absolutely useless on it's own)) and GNU makes it operable). IMO RMS has/had the right definition of OS, because it's an operable system. And that's what he wanted to make so there'd be a free one, and he did.

I'd still rather this one be called "Unix-like".

IceHawk

Linux, Unix

Voted for the change. Recently installed SuSE Linux on my PC and was looking for help on the Comp/Technology board, before my thread was moved here. Also, as most guides will tell you, Linux stands for "Linux Is Not UniX", so specifying Linux in the title is likely to improve accessibility.

dubhthach

NT is the internal name for Windows. Thence 2003 -> NT5.2
However that's what purely is an internal microsoft name. whenever you hear any microsoft kernel developers talking in public they say Windows2003 kernel. Likewise Solaris11 internal codename is SunOS 5.11 however the sun kernel hackers on their blogs always call it the Solaris kernel.

OSX kernel is actually called XNU, Darwin is the name for the whole *nix system minus the Windowing System (Quartz).

The important difference between these three and Linux <--> GNu/Linux argument is this:

Windows/Sun/Apple actually own and write the code for their entire System. Therefore they got every right to call it whatever they like etc.

The GNU project has no ownership on Linux kernel. Likewise the GNU code is opensource, so people can do anything they want with it as long as they respect the terms of license (which have no clause demanding you advertise the GNU project).

If anything it's kinda hypocritical of RMS, given the hassle they cause Berkley and the BSD's over the original BSD license ("Advertising clause"). Their use of GNU/Linux as a term is just as equivalent as the "advertising clause" in original BSD license. Likewise they hit the roof over the XFree license change which brought in a clause that said you had to acknowledge the previous coders. After all isn't that what the whole "GNU/Linux" name thing is about? demanding acknowledgment, something which the GNU project seem to regard as a sin in others but kosher for themselves.

I don't see Sun demanding that the opensolaris distros (Nextenta, Schillix, belenix) be called SUN/Schillix etc.

dubhthach

IceHawk wrote:

Voted for the change. Recently installed SuSE Linux on my PC and was looking for help on the Comp/Technology board, before my thread was moved here. Also, as most guides will tell you, Linux stands for "Linux Is Not UniX", so specifying Linux in the title is likely to improve accessibility.

Linux actually derives from "Linus' Minix" here's a post Linus Torvalds dated April 23 1992 explaining the name:
[HTML]http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux/msg/53a76cbbbcb6e1c8?output=gplain[/HTML]

declan_lgs

dubhthach wrote:

NT is the internal name for Windows.

That strikes me as stupid because Windows is far more than NT (and it's far more than an operating system too, it seems).

OSX kernel is actually called XNU

So the operating system by the CS definition is called XNU.

The important difference between these three and Linux <--> GNu/Linux argument is this:

Windows/Sun/Apple actually own and write the code for their entire System. Therefore they got every right to call it whatever they like etc.

The GNU project has no ownership on Linux kernel.

That's why they don't say "GNU Linux", they say "GNU/Linux". A variation of the GNU system using the Linux kernel - because RMS' use of the term "operating system" is a kernel + basic tools (so it's actually operable), not kernel.

Likewise the GNU code is opensource, so people can do anything they want with it as long as they respect the terms of license

That has nothing to do with naming.

which have no clause demanding you advertise the GNU project

The reason for that is outlined in the GNU/Linux FAQ right here.

If anything it's kinda hypocritical of RMS, given the hassle they cause Berkley and the BSD's over the original BSD license ("Advertising clause").

What exactly did he do? As I understand he notified them and they released a modified BSD license. What am I missing?

Their use of GNU/Linux as a term is just as equivalent as the "advertising clause" in original BSD license.

The advertising clause was part of the license. Using copyright law to make sure people acknowledge your work is different to simply asking them.

Likewise they hit the roof over the XFree license change which brought in a clause that said you had to acknowledge the previous coders.

Never heard about that - links?

After all isn't that what the whole "GNU/Linux" name thing is about? demanding acknowledgment

Did someone ever acknowledge others for the work of the previous XFree coders? If so then it would be slightly similar.

I don't see Sun demanding that the opensolaris distros (Nextenta, Schillix, belenix) be called SUN/Schillix etc.

When did GNU demand Ubuntu be called GNU/Ubuntu?

IceHawk wrote:

Linux Is Not UniX

That's a first.
GNU stands for GNU's Not UNIX - sure you're not getting mixed up (wouldn't blame you if you were)?

Capt'n Midnight

BeOS :v:

declan_lgs

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

BeOS :v:

Ahh... There are many non-unix OSes that haven't quite taken off, like ReactOS and haiku (which is like BeOS)... I take it we're not dealing with them OSes here, so maybe, if someone wants, there could be a "Not quite mainstream" OSes forum made, or we could just call this forum "Other" and take them here...?

Syth

Linux, Unix

Where's the recognition to the KDE people? to the GNOME people? to the Xorg people? Shouldn't the OS be called (KDE|GNOME)/Xorg/GNU/Linux?

declan_lgs

Syth wrote:

Where's the recognition to the KDE people? to the GNOME people? to the Xorg people? Shouldn't the OS be called (KDE|GNOME)/Xorg/GNU/Linux?

I suggest you read the GNU/Linux FAQ.

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.

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).

I came accross this webpage before in which the writer called his system GNU/GRUB (and I know GRUB is a GNU project.. But this guy was GRUB-obsessed.).

BTW, GNOME is a GNU project - the GNU Network Object Model Enviornment.

declan_lgs

Syth wrote:

Might as well fan the flame a bit. Here is an article claiming that 'Linux is not GNU/Linux'. In summary: All the GNU tools in a Linux distribution run in userland (with the exception of ld). In computer science terms, these aren't really part of the OS. All the stuff that's part of an OS (file system, process manager, etc) are all kernel land, Linux stuff.

I emailed a link to that page to RMS and he had this to say:

Who wrote that page?  What is his email address?

At least according to: [url]http://www.topology.org/linux/lingl.html[/url]  [I said that]

GNU/Linux is different from Linux, for sure.

    The combination of gnu development tools with linux is a software bundle, not an
    operating system kernel.

GNU is much more than a set of "development tools".
See [url]http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#tools[/url].
However, aside from that detail, the statement is correct.

    linux/gnu software bundle<br>
    linux/gnu operating system bundle<br>
    linux/gnu development bundle<br>

I would put GNU first, because it is bigger, but
that's a detail.  Those names are not wrong.
I would add this one to the list:

    linux/gnu operating system<br>

The term "operating system" has, historically, two different meanings.
One is the same as "kernel"; the other is the same as his "operating
system bundle".  Thus, we always described GNU as an "operating
system", intending the second meaning.  In that we followed the
practice of describing Unix as an "operating system", also with the
second meaning.

However, if you prefer to write "operating system bundle" for the
second meaning, to avoid any possibility of confusion, there's nothing
wrong with that.

See [url]http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#osvskernel[/url].

Another term used nowadays for the same kind of software collection is
"distribution".

    <center><table rules=all border=1 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=4>
    <tr><td class=broad bgcolor="#e4f0a9"><center><font size="+1">
    <b>linux is an operating system</b><br>
    <b>linux/gnu&nbsp;is&nbsp;a&nbsp;development&nbsp;system</b><br>
    SuSE linux is a linux distribution<br>
    Redhat linux is a linux distribution<br>
    Mandrake&nbsp;linux&nbsp;is&nbsp;a&nbsp;linux&nbsp;distribution<br>
    </font></center></td></tr></table></center>

At this point he falls into inconsistency.  "SuSE Linux" is a
GNU/Linux operating system bundle, to use his terminology.  Replacing
"operating system bundle" with "distribution", it is a GNU/Linux
distribution--not a "Linux distribution".

    If you don't use Richard Stallman's re-definition of <q>operating system</q>,
    then he is completely wrong.

I did not originate this--I followed the Unix usage.
We developed GNU as a replacement for Unix.

    This kind of linguistic political manipulation has harmed Richard Stallman's
    reputation and has caused many linux programmers to hate him.

If they call this "linguistic political manipulation", it is probably
because they are looking for an excuse to hate me.

    He should take credit only for his own creations, which <i>are</i> laudable.
    <br>
    He did not write linux.

Of course we did not write Linux.  And we never say we did.
I bend over backwards to avoid claiming credit for the development of
Linux (the kernel).

The term "GNU/Linux" is one of the ways I do that.
See [url]http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#justgnu[/url].

    The tail is trying to wag the dog!

Linux is smaller than GNU, but I would not compare Linux to the tail
of a dog; it is more important in GNU/Linux than a tail is in a dog.

    RMS followers make this claim:
    <br>
    <q>Linux needs the gnu utilities. Therefore gnu is a part of linux.</q>

    <p>
    Or sometimes they make this claim:
    <br>
    <q>Linux needs the gnu utilities. Therefore linux is a part of gnu.</q>

Anyone who says that is certainly not following me.
GNU is not part of Linux, and Linux is not part of GNU.
Both are part of the GNU/Linux combination.


It looks like he has been misinformed about where I stand.  He
could see my real views in [url]http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html[/url].
Would you like to write to him and suggest that?  And/or forward this
message to him?

Syth

Linux, Unix

Oh a bit of fame.

This is getting a bit People's Front of Judea.

declan_lgs

Syth wrote:

This is getting a bit People's Front of Judea.

Yea, maybe you all should've just read the GNU/Linux FAQ when I linked to it before replying to me. Then the discussion would be long over, and we could talk about I dunno, a name change for the forum?

I'll repeat: if you must mention "Linux", please, call it GNU/Linux. You want a correct title, don't you? And one noone can have any problems with (no jihad crap)?

psicic

Linux, Unix

The title of the forum doesn’t tell the whole story of the forum – its’ posts and its’ charter does.

The point behind the suggestion for renaming was simple – it’s to make the forum more accessible and user-friendly.

Why is this desirable?

To attract more people to the forum.

The problem isn’t whether Linux==UNIX, or whether the GNU project made a huge contribution in both the origins of the kernel and the tools that run on it today. The problem is giving the forum a title that resonates with the target readership, a title that doesn’t scare people off, a title that’s broad enough to encompass all it needs to, not too vague so as to include everything and not too specific to start excluding people.

Let’s get down to it:

Unix is a decent enough name for the forum. As is ‘Unixen’, ‘Unixes’ and ‘Unix-like’. We all know this can cover IrIX, Solaris, NeXTstep, Linux distros, BSD flavours and so on.

However, will a casual user know this? Will the newbies, people who are casually considering about experimenting with BSD or Linux, who have done or are considering trying their first install know this? Personally, I don’t think so.

Similarly, the inclusion of BSD in the title opens up new possibilities for the forum. BSD is often overlooked by people who make a beeline for Linux, but it is a great and accessible OS for people looking to run a Unix OS.

So why vote for 'Linux, BSD, Unix'

Linux works in the title because:

1. The title need only inform people that the forum deals with distros with Linux at its core. We don’t need to break it down too much - I don’t see a reason to limit the forum to a particular distro – be it Redhat, Slackware or whatever. Likewise, including GNU in the title potentially limits the forum if, say, IBM were to come out with AIX/Linux (oooh….I wonder where I got that example???) or if somebody wanted to post about a busybox or embedded Linux.
2. Linux works because it’s short, is grammatically and visually more attractive to most English speakers than ‘GNU/Linux’ and is the type of familiar buzz word somebody unsure of what they’re looking for can latch on to and use as a mooring post to delve further.
3. The forum should be as aspirational as the GNU itself - if it's to get involved in a pointless 13 year old debate on an innocuous detail, then that should happen in a thread of its own, not in the title bar of the forum itself. It should be 'free' - as in 'free from 13 years of toing and froing from both sides for no particular reason other than ego and politics'

BSD works in the title because it reminds people that the option is there and the users are here! The forum isn’t going to suddenly become a Linux-only zone and the inclusion of BSD in the title will underline this. As with Linux, however, we don’t need to list specific distros (NetBSD, OpenBSD etc…) or call it ‘Berkeley Unixen’ or some such.


Unix works because there’ll always be other Unix flavours about. However, people using professional, specialist or minority distributions that are pure ‘Unix’ or ‘Unix-like’ will know that they are Unix. I, for one, am happy that this Unix forum exists because I’ve a SPARCStation here that I plan to fire up soon and I also have an I-Opener(QNX) and it’s good to know I can come here for help with whatever pitfalls I have.

In summation:

It’s in the casual browser that we have the greatest opportunity to make gains. The forum can do with more traffic as more traffic means more posts and also answers more quickly from a wider pool of knowledge(not every casual browser will be a newbie). For those interested in the idea of the LUG, remember that will have a greater chance to recruit new members if it gets a sticky post in a forum with Linux in the title. And for those wishing to spread BSD or other Unix-related OSes, remember that Linux can serve both as a bait and a stepping stone to your OS of choice.

Why seek limits when we can cross new frontiers? Come on people! Vote for me…errr…I mean vote for a name change!

Vote for 'Linux, BSD, Unix'

declan_lgs

psicic wrote:

Likewise, including GNU in the title potentially limits the forum if, say, IBM were to come out with AIX/Linux (oooh….I wonder where I got that example???) or if somebody wanted to post about a busybox or embedded Linux.

AIX/Linux? They might call it AIX2 or something new so long as Linus and friends don't insist on calling it Linux, then they might consider AIX2/Linux.
Noone will be excluded by including GNU, because everything (the embedded people) falls under UNIX (I think).

[*]Linux works because it’s short, is grammatically and visually more attractive to most English speakers than ‘GNU/Linux’ and is the type of familiar buzz word somebody unsure of what they’re looking for can latch on to and use as a mooring post to delve further.

I wouldn't worry about anybody missing "GNU/Linux" looking for "Linux". It's a sub-forum of "Operating Systems" and there's only two other choices, Mac and Windows.

[*]The forum should be as aspirational as the GNU itself - if it's to get involved in a pointless 13 year old debate on an innocuous detail, then that should happen in a thread of its own, not in the title bar of the forum itself. It should be 'free' - as in 'free from 13 years of toing and froing from both sides for no particular reason other than ego and politics'
[/LIST]

If you put everything else aside you'll find that the operating system should be called GNU. RMS "bends over backwards" to call it GNU/Linux. Calling it "Linux" is plain silly (unless you're talking about just the kernel), and understandably insulting to the GNU developers.

The GNU/Linux FAQ wrote:

Why is the name important?
Although the developers of Linux, the kernel, are contributing to the free software community, many of them do not care about freedom. People who think the whole system is Linux tend to get confused and assign to those developers a role in the history of our community which they did not actually play. Then they give inordinate weight to those developers' views.

Calling the system GNU/Linux recognizes the role that our idealism played in building our community, and helps the public recognize the practical importance of these ideals.

wider pool of knowledge(not every casual browser will be a newbie)

If they're not newbies, surely they'll most likely notice "UNIX" or "UNIX-like"?

psicic

Linux, Unix

declan_lgs, I admire the amount of work you've put into your posts, and the links to the pro-RMS stuff has been interesting to say the least.

I read it all last night again – hence that AIX quip which you seemed to miss the point of:

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#justlinux

My point is, and remains, that the title of the forum need not spell out whether the site is pro-RMS or pro-Linus (who seems less opposed the GNU naming convention than irritated by the debate) in this regard.

All the title needs to say is ‘Have a Linux kernel? Come here.’. Similarly with BSD. It’s not specifying OpenBSD or GNU/NetBSD :eek: – it’s saying ‘Have a BSD kernel? Come here.’


I think I should clarify again, I’m not arguing against the GNU’s GNU/Linux naming convention. I’m not entirely convinced by the Linux-only camp. If I were, I’d be firing back as many links to multiple sources to counter your arguments. For instance, I’d insert a quote or two by Linus:

”Linus, June ‘96&#8221 wrote:

Umm, this discussion has gone on quite long enough, thank you very much. It doesn't really matter what people call Linux, as long as credit is given where credit is due (on both sides). Personally, I'll very much continue to call it "Linux".

I’d refer disparagingly to GNU/HURD and the HURD project in general, talk about 22 years since inception of a GNU kernel programme, 16 years since active programming on HURD itself….and still you only have basic functionality since February 2005. And it’s so bug-ridden to be practically unusable. (This is according to internet sources – I personally don’t know – I’ve never met HURD myself )

I’d quote you:

RMS "bends over backwards" to call it GNU/Linux.

RMS of the GNU? Well, there’s a shock. If I were the founder of the GNU, I’d probably do the same.

Calling it "Linux" is plain silly (unless you're talking about just the kernel), and understandably insulting to the GNU developers.

Oh, wait - okay, getting serious again, maybe I didn’t eludicate on this before in sufficient detail. That’s my fault, but here it goes:

In the title of the forum, I’d regard Linux as referring to the kernel Linux, I’d regard BSD as referring to the BSD kernel, and Unix as referring to both ‘pure-Unix’ systems, i.e. those that are POSIX compliant and whatnot, and ‘Unix-like’ OSes. So, this would cover the various distributions of Linux, the GNU/Linux OS, the GNU/NetBSD OS, Irix, Solaris, OpenSolaris etc….

Is there an argument for calling it GNU/Linux? Yes, one I am strongly sympathetic with. However, I don’t think that it is the issue here at all.

I mean, how easy is it to decide between RMS’s free software crusade – i.e. having free(as in ‘freedom’) software – as opposed to the Open Source argument that higher-quality software should be the goal. Yeah, gun to your head time, which do you choose? declan_lgs, you’ve probably made your mind up on this, so it probably doesn’t pose a problem for you, but it's something myself and many others haven't decided on. It deserves a thread of its own.

---

On another note, you've already stated that your preference is for 'Unix' as the name

I'd still rather this one be called "Unix-like".

You made one point in this regard, then seem to get side-tracked on to the GNU/Linux thing. Since you put together such well-researched posts on this, and there seems to be little defence of the ‘Unix’-only option so far, I was wondering if you or anyone else in this camp could expound on that a bit more.
(no….I don’t think I’m a mod! I just want to hear a reasoned argument!)

declan_lgs

psicic wrote:

I read it all last night again – hence that AIX quip which you seemed to miss the point of:

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#justlinux

I knew where you got the AIX example from, but IBM don't use Linux in AIX. If they did release a new OS that was alot like AIX and used Linux, they probably wouldn't call it anything /Linux, it would just be AIX2 or whatever.

My point is, and remains, that the title of the forum need not spell out whether the site is pro-RMS or pro-Linus (who seems less opposed the GNU naming convention than irritated by the debate) in this regard.

Calling it GNU/Linux wouldn't do that, it would just give it a correct title that won't insult anyone.

EDIT: Calling a sub-forum of Operating Systems "Linux" without giving any indication that you mean Linux-based, how is that not pro-Linus?

All the title needs to say is ‘Have a Linux kernel? Come here.’.

If that's what you want, call it Linux. You never said that before, I thought this we were talking about the OS (being a sub-forum of Operating Systems), not the kernel, and I'm pretty sure that most others here thought the same (re: replies saying Linux isn't GNU/Linux, why would they be necessary?).

If I were, I’d be firing back as many links to multiple sources to counter your arguments. For instance, I’d insert a quote or two by Linus:

Linus isn't opposed to calling the system GNU/Linux, last I heard anyhow. RMS is, IMO understandably, opposed to calling the system Linux, unless you're just talking about the kernel.

I’d refer disparagingly to GNU/HURD and the HURD project in general, talk about 22 years since inception of a GNU kernel programme, 16 years since active programming on HURD itself….and still you only have basic functionality since February 2005. And it’s so bug-ridden to be practically unusable. (This is according to internet sources – I personally don’t know – I’ve never met HURD myself )

I've got the Hurd installed right here, they've got some pretty cool stuff (e.g. translaters). The design is God damn brilliant, and after a good few more years it could be the best thing out there. However, right now it sucks, there aren't many developers working on it since Linux, and it's not the easiest kinda thing to design. There isn't a single good, working design like it. But what has the Hurd got to do with GNU/Linux?

RMS of the GNU? Well, there’s a shock. If I were the founder of the GNU, I’d probably do the same.

Well, he would otherwise be calling it just GNU.

I mean, how easy is it to decide between RMS’s free software crusade – i.e. having free(as in ‘freedom’) software – as opposed to the Open Source argument that higher-quality software should be the goal. Yeah, gun to your head time, which do you choose? declan_lgs, you’ve probably made your mind up on this, so it probably doesn’t pose a problem for you, but it's something myself and many others haven't decided on. It deserves a thread of its own.

Who mentioned free software/open source software? This thread is about what, if anything, the name of this forum might be changed to. People were voting for putting Linux on in there without GNU, and I don't think that's fair (unless you're naming the forum after the kernel, which you just explained).

On another note, you've already stated that your preference is for 'Unix' as the name



You made one point in this regard, then seem to get side-tracked on to the GNU/Linux thing.

Yes, I got side tracked by others about putting Linux or GNU/Linux in the forum title.

Since you put together such well-researched posts on this, and there seems to be little defence of the ‘Unix’-only option so far, I was wondering if you or anyone else in this camp could expound on that a bit more.
(no….I don’t think I’m a mod! I just want to hear a reasoned argument!)

My first post in this thread, post #11 wrote:

The forum is a sub-forum of "Operating Systems" so I'd call it "UNIX-like" if I had to change it.

If it's not going to be "UNIX-like", and it is going to change, I'd go with "GNU/Linux, *BSD and UNIX-like".
"UNIX-like" covers everything in a nice compact title, which most people will recognise. Newbies interested in GNU/Linux mightn't know WTF UNIX is, but there aren't many choices under the operating system's forum, so we might not miss them.

declan_lgs

If you wanna list the kernels, you can say Linux all you want without GNU, because GNU has nothing to do with the kernel (Linux). However, being a sub-forum of "Operating Systems", wouldn't it make sense to list operating system names as opposed to kernel names?

"GNU/Linux, *BSD and UNIX-like" is spot on, nobody can complain. With "Linux, BSD and Unix" the "Linux" part is incorrect unless you're referring to operating systems based on these kernels, but one would have to guess that.

Might as well be correct, unless you can give me a good reason that "Linux, BSD and Unix" is better than "GNU/Linux, *BSD and UNIX-like".

dubhthach

declan_lgs wrote:

If you wanna list the kernels, you can say Linux all you want without GNU, because GNU has nothing to do with the kernel (Linux). However, being a sub-forum of "Operating Systems", wouldn't it make sense to list operating system names as opposed to kernel names?

"GNU/Linux, *BSD and UNIX-like" is spot on, nobody can complain. With "Linux, BSD and Unix" the "Linux" part is incorrect unless you're referring to operating systems based on these kernels, but one would have to guess that.

Might as well be correct, unless you can give me a good reason that "Linux, BSD and Unix" is better than "GNU/Linux, *BSD and UNIX-like".

Surely Unix-like, leaves out OS's that are actually Unix. in my opinon Unix-like are systems such as Linux, QNX, Minix etc. that do not have any code heritage with the Unix. As far as i'm concerned BSD is Unix, it has a code heritage going back to 1979, just AT&T code was ripped out for legal reasons in early 90's but you will find plenty of BSD code in commercial Unix (sysVR4 was a merge with BSD after all by AT&T)

Likewise GNU/Linux leaves out any systems used in embedded world, for example Linksys wireless routers running Linux do not use GNU for their userland/libc.

As for AIX 2, well they can say that seen that they released AIX 2 in 1986.
http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html

declan_lgs

dubhthach wrote:

Surely Unix-like, leaves out OS's that are actually Unix. in my opinon Unix-like are systems such as Linux, QNX, Minix etc. that do not have any code heritage with the Unix. As far as i'm concerned BSD is Unix, it has a code heritage going back to 1979, just AT&T code was ripped out for legal reasons in early 90's but you will find plenty of BSD code in commercial Unix (sysVR4 was a merge with BSD after all by AT&T)

Fine, "GNU/Linux, *BSD and UNIX" if you want.

Likewise GNU/Linux leaves out any systems used in embedded world, for example Linksys wireless routers running Linux do not use GNU for their userland/libc.

That won't matter unless they also don't fall under "*BSD" or "UNIX-like" (now "UNIX").

As for AIX 2, well they can say that seen that they released AIX 2 in 1986.
http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html

I was just saying "AIX2" as an example, they could call it "BTFDSAHG" if they wanted, but they probably wouldn't call it "BTFDSAHG/Linux" (although that wouldn't be incorrect if it uses Linux).

flamegrill

Linux, Unix

Declan_lgs,

I'm afraid that support for GNU/Linux isn't high enough to be considered for this poll. The poll as is has finished with a fairly good percentage going for "Linux, Bsd and Unix" - On a personal note, we wish to give as many users as possible a clear view of what is going on here. "Linux" is refered to by many as the distro and not just the kernel. Some business' refer to using linux (a lot of them using redhat 9) as "We use Linux 9" - stupid some might say. I would agree. But we need to cater for not just nerds/general users.

We need to cover all the bases and I feel that the above gives the greatest coverage without getting into the polititics of GNU etc

If the community at large wishes for this renaming to go ahead then I will contact the admins and see what they say.

thanks,

Paul

declan_lgs

flamegrill wrote:

We need to cover all the bases and I feel that the above gives the greatest coverage

What coverage does it have over "GNU/Linux, *BSD and UNIX"? They both have the same coverage from what I can see because the things listed are elements of UNIX (common to both) which houses basically everything.

flamegrill wrote:

without getting into the polititics of GNU etc

Mentioning "Linux" in the useful operating system context lands you right into GNU politics.

The 26 people that voted for "Linux, BSD and Unix", BTW, chose it over "Linux, Unix" and "Leave it as is", so it doesn't say a whole load about GNU.

scojones

Linux, *BSD and Unix is fine. Nevermind the GNU/Linux discussion. Granted RMS believes that when you mention Linux on it's own without the GNU/ you are talking about the kernel, and when you say GNU/Linux you are talking about the kernel + the gnu family of tools. But, IIRC, this is just an 'RMSism'. Linus himself calls it Linux, not GNU/Linux when he's mentioning the entire operating system, not just the kernel. It really doesn't matter, I know when I ask people if they use Linux, I say exactly that, not GNU/Linux.

Paul, when does the new name change come into effect?

declan_lgs

sjones wrote:

Linux, *BSD and Unix is fine. Nevermind the GNU/Linux discussion. Granted RMS believes that when you mention Linux on it's own without the GNU/ you are talking about the kernel, and when you say GNU/Linux you are talking about the kernel + the gnu family of tools. But, IIRC, this is just an 'RMSism'. Linus himself calls it Linux, not GNU/Linux when he's mentioning the entire operating system, not just the kernel. It really doesn't matter, I know when I ask people if they use Linux, I say exactly that, not GNU/Linux.

Linus is wrong, and so are you. It's not 'RMSism', it's 'correctism', whereas referring to GNU/Linux by 'Linux' is 'Linusism'.

scojones

declan_lgs wrote:

Linus is wrong, and so are you. It's not 'RMSism', it's 'correctism', whereas referring to GNU/Linux by 'Linux' is 'Linusism'.

Correctism is a point of view, and I think you are being way too anal about this entire thing. It's a web forum ffs.

declan_lgs

sjones wrote:

Correctism is a point of view, and I think you are being way too anal about this entire thing. It's a web forum ffs.

And you're not being anal?

Linux, *BSD and Unix is fine. Nevermind the GNU/Linux discussion. Granted RMS believes that when you mention Linux on it's own without the GNU/ you are talking about the kernel, and when you say GNU/Linux you are talking about the kernel + the gnu family of tools. But, IIRC, this is just an 'RMSism'. Linus himself calls it Linux, not GNU/Linux when he's mentioning the entire operating system, not just the kernel. It really doesn't matter, I know when I ask people if they use Linux, I say exactly that, not GNU/Linux.

That was totally ignorant of how many posts?

How many times have I linked to the GNU/Linux FAQ in this thread? At least twice I've informed people that Linux on it's own in the useful OS context is the one that's disrespectful and wrong, not GNU/Linux. Why do people think "GNU/Linux" is disrespectful/wrong/jihad, can anyone tell me?

sjones wrote:

I think you are being way too anal

Why do you think that?

Correctism is a point of view

So have you got anything against my point of view?

flamegrill

Linux, Unix

Guys this is going _way_ off topic. Consider the thread closed and the name _IS_ going to be changed to "Linux, *BSD and Unix"

Paul