It is called Linux, not GNU/Linux, get over it
22 November 2007
What is the operating system that I use called? I along with 99% of the human race, call it 'Linux' when speaking. However, when writing, I often use the term "GNU/Linux" the first time in an article to appease those who use this term. Today I decided to actually think about the issue.
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose. By any other name would smell as sweet."
Juliet, Romeo and Juliet, William Shakespeare.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident," they said, "that all men are created equal." Strange as it may seem, that was the first time in history that anyone had ever bothered to write that down. Decisions are made by those who show up.
President Jed Bartlet (2000), 'What Kind of Day Has It Been?', The West Wing.
In 1983-4, in Boston, a researcher called Richard Stallman made a plan for a free operating system and started work. He and a small number of people made an amazing start. They had almost no money and no support, yet they managed to make a fantastic text editor, a C library, a C compiler, a shell and many other bits and bobs.
Stallman called this system GNU, a hacker joke for 'GNU is Not Unix', a good joke in 1984 but a crap name. An in-joke among the creators does not make a good product name that users can pick up quickly. To start with two hard consonants in a row is very ugly, making it hard to pronounce; the golden rule of branding is that if you have to explain it then you have lost already. When reading GNU ('G'-'N'-'U'), it sounds like a trade union, not like a cool new operating system.
Meanwhile, in 1991, a student in Finland called Linus Torvolds decided to write an operating system kernel for the Intel processor found on his low-end desktop PC. The first version he wrote in three months, and he called the system 'Freax'. He asked the FTP admin at his university for some space to host Freax and was given the directory 'Linux', this was the least worst name and it stuck.
As outlined in the Cathedral and the Bazaar, the difference between Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds' projects was the Internet and the World Wide Web. While Stallman kept firm control of his project, making it very hard for outsiders to contribute, Linus accepted patches from anyone, if it worked, it went in.
The result was that Linux worked; it not only worked but went on to become the most portable operating system kernel in the world, working on everything from the vast majority of the world's 500 most powerful supercomputers, all the way down to mobile phones.
Meanwhile the GNU system went from kernel to kernel without success. The GNU project first tried to use the BSD kernel, then the Hurd, then L4, then Coyotos, who knows what else it will fiddle around with next.
At any point the GNU project could have just given up and put its weight behind the Linux kernel. However, the GNU project's "not invented here" approach meant it became marginalised in the rise and rise of Linux. It made a bet on its own ability to inspire the community to create another free kernel, but it lost. There are now three free software kernels in production use (Linux, BSD, Solaris), and there is really no appetite for any more, really, please do not bother.
So the GNU project spend at least a decade working against the Linux kernel, so it is not surprising that when GPL3 came out, the Linux kernel developers were not interested in adopting GPL3 (which on its own merits is a far better licence than GPL2). So given this lack of interest, trying to make everyone use the term GNU/Linux is more than cheeky, it is trying to revise history.
Don't get me wrong, Richard Stallman is a genius, he is one of my heroes. Even though his background was in text processing programs, he needed a C compiler, so he sat down and wrote one, a really good one; while copyleft and the GNU GPL is the constitution for the free software/open source movement.
However, its about time to stop arguing over names. Everyone calls the operating system Linux, get over it. Calling it Linux does not imply anything about software freedom or non-freedom, it is just a name.
Yes the Linux distributions contain GNU utilities, but they contain a lot of other things too. Gentoo is often used with the Xorg X server and the GNOME desktop, it is not called GNOME/X/Gentoo. Ubuntu contains a lot of Python code and utilities, yet it is not called Python/Ubuntu. C was invented by Dennis Ritchie and standardised by ANSI. The GNU's own GCC is not called Ritche/GCC or ANSI/GCC.
Let's get on with spreading software freedom, save our energy for sharing the software, not for fighting over terminology.
1 Raezel says...
Against the advice of the article, I'm going to argue over names. It's Torvalds not Torvolds. [FIXED - Linus' Law - Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow]
Posted at 6:56 a.m. on November 23, 2007
2 Phill says...
I agree with you, Zeth. I never call it 'GNU/Linux', not least because it's just cumbersome -- especially in conversation!
Posted at 8:56 a.m. on November 23, 2007
3 Bug says...
I don't really know anyone who does bother to call it GNU/Linux. Maybe 1 guy who post random Linux comments on some Israeli news site. But thats about it.
Posted at 10:51 a.m. on November 23, 2007
4 GNU says...
"Let's get on with spreading software freedom, save our energy for sharing the software, not for fighting over terminology." -Have to agree, so why the following
"To start with two hard consonants in a row is very ugly, making it hard to pronounce"
Err, no it isn't. Read GNU as in animal and system "The result was that Linux worked...Meanwhile the GNU system went from kernel to kernel without success"
You mean that when I use GNU I'm not because it isn't a success?
"So the GNU project spend at least a decade working against the Linux kernel"
Yes that familiar down with Linux campaign run by GNU users, on recollection it has a similar tone to the down with Microsoft campaign run by Linux fanboys.
Posted at 12:10 p.m. on November 23, 2007
5 GNU says...
"Let's get on with spreading software freedom, save our energy for sharing the software, not for fighting over terminology." -Have to agree, so why the following
"To start with two hard consonants in a row is very ugly, making it hard to pronounce"
Err, no it isn't. Read GNU as in animal and system "The result was that Linux worked...Meanwhile the GNU system went from kernel to kernel without success"
You mean that when I use GNU I'm not because it isn't a success?
"So the GNU project spend at least a decade working against the Linux kernel"
Yes that familiar down with Linux campaign run by GNU users, on recollection it has a similar tone to the down with Microsoft campaign run by Linux fanboys.
Posted at 12:10 p.m. on November 23, 2007
6 GNU says...
"Let's get on with spreading software freedom, save our energy for sharing the software, not for fighting over terminology." -Have to agree, so why the following
"To start with two hard consonants in a row is very ugly, making it hard to pronounce"
Err, no it isn't. Read GNU as in animal and system "The result was that Linux worked...Meanwhile the GNU system went from kernel to kernel without success"
You mean that when I use GNU I'm not because it isn't a success?
"So the GNU project spend at least a decade working against the Linux kernel"
Yes that familiar down with Linux campaign run by GNU users, on recollection it has a similar tone to the down with Microsoft campaign run by Linux fanboys.
Posted at 12:11 p.m. on November 23, 2007
7 gregf says...
Nah, it's GNU/Linux just like windows is DOS/Windows!
Posted at 3:10 p.m. on November 23, 2007
8 chep says...
"To start with two hard consonants in a row is very ugly"
While it's true for English language. In other languages it might sound pretty normal. For example in Russian GNU (гнÑ?) means "to bend" and sounds just right... =)
Posted at 2:38 a.m. on November 24, 2007
9 linux says...
Come on guys...
Posted at 5:41 p.m. on November 26, 2007
10 chep says...
"To start with two hard consonants in a row is very ugly"
While it's true for English language. In other languages it might sound pretty normal. For example in Russian GNU (гнÑ?) means "to bend" and sounds just right... =)
Posted at 8:30 p.m. on November 26, 2007
11 chep says...
oops... sorry for dup
Posted at 8:32 p.m. on November 26, 2007
12 Scott says...
Without the GNU you lose much of what is the Command Line. I never understand the Linux folks that seem to have a hatred of UNIX and claim it is inferior in some way. The proprietary Unices (Mac included) have much to offer, the LVM on AIX is a perfect example of amazing.
This website has some interesting posts, many pointing out GNU tools ( I do realize GNU is not UNIX ). I would suggest though focusing on the awesomeness that is UNIX and Unix-like operating systems. Someday you might even find you want to work with or mess around with one or more of the proprietary Unices.
Posted at 1:04 a.m. on January 15, 2008
13 chanux says...
Please reconsider your opinion. http://chanux.wordpress.com/2008/01/20/rms-cleared-doubts/
Posted at 1:11 p.m. on January 20, 2008
14 fstephens says...
I don't know about all the details of the story, all I know is that GNU/Linux is ugly, awkward and confusing to newcomers to Linux. With all due respect to RMS (and lots IS due), I refuse to use it. Stallman should be happy with his accomplishments and not focus on silly semantics out of jealousy.
Posted at 7:18 p.m. on May 28, 2008
15 Yaro says...
Damn straight. The GNU/Linux name is about jealousy. Of course RMS will glaze it over by saying BS like "It'll give credibility to the free software movement." But the problem is that Linux torvalds didn't use the GPL tto make Linux a GNU kernel. That alone should have been a strong enough argument against the stupid name
Throw in the fact that the GNU toolchain doesn't make THAT much of the average size of your typical distro, the fact that so many other NONG-GNU projects contribute just as much, and it just makes Richard Stallman look stupid.
Linux is not GNU. Yes, it can and usually does use GNU tools, but the only real gNU operating system will be a Hurd using distribution. That's the only actual GNU kernel.
Has anyone else noticed that there are actually more BSD tools in Linux distros now than GNU? does that mean if Richard Stallman is correct, we need to call it BSD/Linux now?
This is not to say RMS doesn't get credit for great things. The GNU toolchain is awesome. I think GCC is the best compiler collection in use today. But I don't believe that stallman gets the right to lay claim over Linux, neither the kernel nor distributions bilt off it, baucause Linux distributions are built off the KERNEL, not the GNU tools. If Linux were compiled using a BSD compiler, then most your Linux tools wouldn't use the GNU toolchain. That alone should demonstrate the GNU is not what actually defines a Linux distro. It's Linux and what the distributors put in.
So the REAL correct names are actually the distro names withotu GNU or Linux in them, actually. Ubuntu is not GNU/Linux Ubuntu, it's Ubuntu, an operating system that uses the Linux kernel and the GNU toolchain (Actually, more the BSD toolchain with some GNU offerings.)
Did the Stallmanists even consider things like uClinux when they started spouting the "GNU/Linux" name all over the place, taking credit from Linus Torvalds and distributors and giving it to Richard Stallman who just made some tools? I really didn't think so. They also like to argue that compiling it using GCC somehow magically makes Linux a GNU kernel. If that's so, does that mean everything compiled using Visual C++ make that software a Microsoft product? Logic never follows in a Stallmanist argument.
Posted at 9:40 a.m. on December 16, 2008