BBS水木清华站∶精华区
发信人: linuxrat (竹剑居士*打回原形), 信区: Linux
标 题: GNU和Linux:给GNU分裂分子上一堂历史课[原文]
发信站: BBS 水木清华站 (Tue Jan 18 09:35:50 2000)
原文啦. 反正对照着看吧.
URL: http://linuxpower.org/display.php?id=152
===============================================
linuxpower.org A History Lesson for GNU Detractors
A History Lesson for GNU Detractors
By Christian Schaller
In what to me appears to be a complete lack of knowledge and respect
for history, there are often those who attack GNU in forums like
Slashdot. These attacks range from people claiming that GNU is trying
to steal the glory from Linus Torvalds when they promote Linux being
called GNU/Linux, or that they have suspicious anti-business motives
behind what they do. As a result of this I decided to write this
article in order to avoid any further misgivings.
Here are the simple facts, these few, but vocal, detractors should
keep in mind: We start with the relationship between GNU and the Linux
kernel:
GNU was founded long before Linus Torvalds started working on what was
to become the Linux kernel, and they had already created a long list
of the tools necessary for making an OS, this includes developer tools
like the compiler, system libraries, editors like emacs and a host of
others. Most Linux system tools and commands, like grep, ls and find,
are GNU
reimplementations, and have almost universally been extended in some
way by the GNU people. [Ed: One of the goals of the GNU project was to
have replacements for the common Unix tools -- the commands mentioned
here are some of these tools.] All these tools and utilities comprise
a much larger body of code than the kernel itself, which if nothing
else, show the importance of the GNU project to the phenomenon that is
today known as Linux. Another valid point to remember here is that it
was Linus who adjusted his kernel to work with the GNU system not the
other way around. And the ties with GNU have been important for the
kernel in other ways as well. Alan Cox, one of the most prominent
kernel hackers, has stated that one of the reasons he started hacking
the Linux kernel instead of other alternatives was the fact that it
used the GPL license, which he preferred over a BSD style license.
Now over to the detractors who claim that GNU is communistic or
anti-business. This is also as wrong as it can be. GNU has been doing
business based on its software almost from the beginning, by selling
tapes and CD-ROMs with GNU software and printed manuals. They have
also verbally supported and encouraged the establishment of companies
that make a living of supporting and/or developing free software like
VA Research, Cygnus and Redhat. [Ed: A merger was recently announced
between RedHat and Cygnus] Software being released under the GNU
licenses changes the way software companies do business, but it
doesn't make it impossible to do business. In many ways a software
market dominated by free, GPL'd software is more in the spirit of
capitalism than anything else, because it rewards companies for being
good at running their businesses and taking care of their customers
rather than having a monopoly on the technology stack. The latter
being more a remnant of the old system of mercantilism than a child of
modern day capitalism
This criticism probably has much of its roots in the recent conflicts
caused by the new licenses released under the 'Open Source' umbrella,
but from time to time BSD advocates also take out their frustration at
their own systems lack of popularity by bashing the GNU licenses.
One of the angles used in the critique is that the strong focus on the
GNU licenses introduces too much politics into free software. To this
group I can only say that if you have a problem with the ideals the
GNU licenses embody, you should be using another OS than Linux,
because without these licenses there probably would be no Linux OS, or
at least it wouldn't have anywhere near the widespread use it
experiences today. Judging from the many attempts made by different
companies to introduce software with licenses which gives them special
rights or advantages into todays GPL'd Linux system, I think we can be
quite sure that had Linux used a more liberal license, like the BSD
license, companies would probably have tried and succeeded in the Unix
way of getting a competitive advantage; by adding their own
proprietary features. And we all know what damage that has caused Unix
in the marketplace.
On the other hand, had the Linux system used a more restrictive and
non-copyleft license like the QPL or the horrific Sun license, [Ed:
the Sun Community Source License] the resistance among the big
software developers would be even higher, because they would feel that
instead of helping promote a system that gives everybody a level
playing field, they would be replacing one master with another and
Linux would have ended up as another OS/2. Besides it would have
rendered another Linux success factor, the code sharing, next to
impossible. A few people seem to forget, that just as important as the
fact that the GNU licenses keep the source code available, is the
principle of copyleft that they embody. This in contrast to the new
'Open Source' licenses which try to reintroduce copyright as a big
problem in Linux software development.
So am I advocating the we always refer to the OS as GNU/Linux? No,
personally I don't call it GNU/Linux. I simply call it Linux, in the
same way as I call Microsoft Windows just Windows. So instead of
attacking Stallman and others when they advocate the use of the term
GNU/Linux, you should instead, as I do, take it as a reminder of the
significant part GNU has played in getting us where we are today and
the important part they play in getting us where we want to go.
To make things very clear, I don't even agree with Richard Stallman on
his opinion that the ideal would be that all software was released
under the GPL. Personally I support the use of the LGPL on libraries
due to the principal view that people should choose to release their
software under the GPL because it is the right thing to do, not
because the library license 'forces' them. (A logic with some
weaknesses, but still.)
My point here is that I don't expect everybody to agree with GNU and
Stallman on every detail, I don't, but I do expect that everybody who
enjoys using Linux, respect and acknowledge the irreplaceable role
that GNU has played and continues to play in the Linux community
(Author: This article has been slightly altered from its original
published format based on feedback recieved.)
Published November 25, 1999
[ Reply to this item ] [ Flat Mode ]
_________________________________________________________________
然后看看读后感....
-----------------------------
GNU/Linux
extrasolar Nov 25 at 04:21 PM
I have been getting to the point where it really doesn't matter which
you call the OS, GNU/Linux or Linux. I usually call it GNU/Linux,
mostly to recognize that an OS is more than its kernal. But it isn't
really important I don't think. I just hope people remember what GNU
is, a completely free operating system that makes Linux, free
software, and open source possible right now. GNU has earned a
significant amount of respect and it saddens me when people denounce
GNU's significance.
If people keep in mind what GNU is for and what it has done, then you
can call the operating system BananaOS if you want.
[ Reply to this ]
____________________________________________________
GNU+Linux, Communism, Open Source
Leon Brooks Nov 25 at 08:31 PM
> These attacks range from people claiming that GNU is trying
> to steal the glory from Linus Torvalds when they promote
> Linux being called GNU/Linux
I prefer GNU+Linux, as it's more descriptive (not implying that
FSF/GNU _wrote_ Linux, but underscoring how much Linux leans on GNU by
placing GNU first and Linux as an addition). This simple change would
mollify many of the whingers.
HERD could safely be described as GNU/HERD or just GNU HERD.
> Many system tools and commands like grep, ls and find are also
> of GNU origin, at least in their current incarnation.
That's a pretty weak qualifier. How about amending it to: "Most Linux
system tools and commands, like grep, ls and find, are GNU
reimplementations, and have almost universally been extended in some
way by the GNU people."
> Now over to the detractors who claim that GNU is communistic or
> anti-business. This is also as wrong as it can be.
Is it? Anti-business, no, but the core individual in GNU/FSF is
Richard Stallman, who is unashamedly Communist (not the Russian or
Chinese implementations, the core issue: "from each according to his
ability, to each according to their need") in his outlook.
I'm not a Communist (nor do I think that workable Communism will
happen in this world on any serious scale since it requires a special
kind of person to work - but practically any other system
(dictatorship, republic, anarchy) will work just as well with these
special kind of people), but I do think there is a useful place for
Communism and Communists in this world.
To respond by saying "hey, they do business too" is barking up the
wrong tree. IMHO (-: the correct response is: "They are very much pro
business, but very anti red-in-tooth-and-claw competition. Some people
have trouble making the distinction."
> A few people seem to forget, that just as important as the fact
> that the GNU licenses keep the source code available, is the
> principle of copyleft that they embody. This in contrast to the
> new 'Open Source' licenses which try to reintroduce copyright
> as a big problem in Linux software development.
An important core point, and well put!
[ Reply to this ]
* Re: GNU+Linux, Communism, Open Source by Marko Gr鰊roos on
1999-11-25 21:45:59
____________________________________________________
GNU/Linux
Levi Nov 25 at 10:38 PM
http://top.monad.net/~levi/
I've never liked the movement to call Linux GNU/Linux. sure, the FSF
wrote a lot of system utilities, but HURD is just barely crawling to a
start now. Now, don't get me wrong, I have tons of
respect for Richard Stallman and crew.I GPL any software I write that
I can (ie I didn't right it under contract) and use gcc to compile it
(if it's in c). I use GNU software every day and am quite
grateful, but Linux is Linus' Un*x and RMS should respect that and
back off. If anyone asks me what OS I run, I will usually just say
"Debian". If they ask what that is, I tell them that it's a Linux
distribution. The only reason I could think of to use the term
GNU/Linux is if a distro ever apperars that *dosn't* use the FSF's
tools (Mabey the fabeled Micro$oft disribution? :-P ). Besides, trying
to say (and this is the short version)
"GNU/BSD/XFree86/Perl/Netscape/Linux" is a real pain and dosn't really
help matters any.
-Levi
[ Reply to this ]
____________________________________________________
Please don't distort history
David Kastrup Nov 26 at 01:47 AM
You wrote: Another valid point to remember here is that it was Linus
who adjusted his kernel to work
with the GNU system not the other way around.
This is giving a false impression. Linus did *not* adjust the kernel
to work with the GNU system. He worked very hard to make Linux adhere
to standards, both explicit (like Posix and, what was it, X/Open or
so?) and implicit (a bit of BSD and AT&T, just as was convenient).
Consequently, GNU tools (which are written to be very portable and
standard-compliant, too) combined very nicely with Linux, with only
moderate modifications needed. The modification process was rather
helter-skelter at first and in part done in a way causing bad
feelings, but things have stabilized by now technically, and we
witness that the bad feelings and flame wars occasioned by the
alienations have more or less died down by now.
Both Linux and GNU aim to be superior standard-compliant components,
and they make a great combination.
[ Reply to this ]
* He didn't distort it by Piotr Mitros on 1999-12-15 15:38:41
____________________________________________________
RMS and the name of the OS
GusTheGhost Nov 26 at 09:53 PM
Just as we allow the discoverer of a biological species to name it,
and the discoverer of a comet to name it, why don't we allow Linus to
name his system Linux? Just as RMS calls his editor GNU/Emacs. He can
call it whatever he wants. He should NOT be allowed to demand the GNU
prefix on the name Linux. RMS would be very offended if Linus demanded
he change the name of GNU/Emacs to Spasibo/Emacs.
[ Reply to this ]
* Re: RMS and the name of the OS by Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho on
1999-11-27 05:00:35
____________________________________________________
The goal of GNU was to replace UNIX
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho Nov 27 at 04:52 AM
http://www.iki.fi/gaia/
[Ed: One of the goals of the GNU project was to have replacements for
the common Unix tools -- the
commands mentioned here are some of these tools.]
The original sole goal of GNU was to write a free superior version of
UNIX. Writing the common tools was a means to this end, not a goal in
itself.
[ Reply to this ]
____________________________________________________
GNU/Linux
Paul Emsley Nov 27 at 07:44 PM
Ive never liked the movement calling GNU/Linux simply
"Linux". sure, Linus Torvalds has written a fraction of the
Linux kernel, but work began on the HURD a long time before
Linus start and now the HURD has been up and running for years.
Now, dont get me wrong, I have tons of
respect for Linus Torvalds and crew. Any software I write
that I can (ie I didnt right it under contract) and use gcc to
compile it (if its in c). I use the Linux kernel every day and am
quite grateful, but GNU is GNU and Torvalds should respect
that and back off.
If anyone asks me what OS I run, I will usually just say
"Debian". If they ask what that is, I tell them that its a
GNU/Linux distribution. The only reason I could think of to use
the term Linux is if a distro ever apperars that *doesnt* use
GNU (Mabey the fabeled Micro$oft disribution? :-P). Besides,
trying to say (and this is the short version)
"GNU/BSD/XFree86/Perl/Netscape/Linux" is a real pain and doesnt
really help matters any - so lets just stick to GNU.
[ Reply to this ]
____________________________________________________
Why care how it is called?
Jochen Gruse Dec 16 at 04:26 AM
Did anyone else out there discover any similarities in the comments
leading up to here?
Fraction A says "Fraction B should back down, *we* did the most
important part. We have a lot of respect for B, but still."
Now you can set A=GNU and B=Linux or vice versa, it doesn't matter
which, and you have a boil-down version of a lot of comments here.
Frankly, I believe that both groups are off target. Both groups
benefitted equally from each other, GNU receiving a working kernel,
making a stand alone GNU system possible, and Linux receiving critical
development tools.
So why should *anybody* care how the resulting OS is called? Call it
GNU/Linux, if you think that the GNU part should be emphasized, or
call it Linux, if that's what you think is right. But please, don't
start any holy wars over a simple choice of words! After all, anyone
using Linux will see the abundance of GNU tools, and anyone wanting to
use a GNU system will probably end up with Linux (no, I didn't neglect
*BSD or HURD, I said *probably*).
Jochen Gruse
[ Reply to this ]
* You're right. Who cares? by Nathan matias on 2000-01-17 05:54:00
____________________________________________________
Copyright of all documents belonging to this site by
linuxpower.org and linuxpower.com C 1998-2000.
For more legal information please look at our disclaimer page.
====================End=========================
--
|======================+========================+====================|
| 以无法为有法 ， | 拳本无法，有法也空； | 我爱GNU/Linux, |
| 以无限为有限 | 一法不立，无法不容。| 因为我爱自由！ |
| | | |
| 截拳道宗师-李小龙 | 意拳宗师-王芗斋 | 土人 Linuxrat |
|======================+========================+====================|
※ 来源:·BBS 水木清华站 smth.org·[FROM: 202.112.168.253]
BBS水木清华站∶精华区