Hi everyone, :-) Please forgive me for jumping into the thread, I've been reading it only for the last couple of days, although I can see that the discussion is going on for some time now. On Wednesday 23 July 2008 06:47, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > It makes little sense to deny the important of any of the two. GNU > folks don't try to make it seem like Linux is irrelevant. The > converse is unfortunately quite true. That's why you see GNU folks > unhappy about this, and Linux folks who don't care because they were > given the false impression that GNU was and is not relevant, as if all > the merit had been with Linux, or they don't even know what GNU is, > which is a very serious problem for the Free Software movement. Reading the (last few days of the) thread, I saw many aspects and different opinions on the subject of the name Linux vs GNU/Linux being raised. But all that aside, as a half-ignorant naive and young user of Linux (I've been in Linuxland starting with RH6.2 and onwards), I came to have an opinion on the subject that is completely independent of history of development of both GNU and Linux. Short version: Linux (the kernel) deserves more credit than GNU (utilities) in the name of the operating system, so I prefer Linux to GNU/Linux. Below I elaborate why. Long version. Let me describe a simplified analogy. Imagine an assembly line of a new car. The company that assembles the car is called Fedora Automotive Corp. The car is assembled of the following components. Under the hood there is the Linux engine, GNU transmission gears, GNU clutch, GNU oil pump, GNU steering mechanism and GNU wheels. In the cabin, there is the X instrument board, the Gnome steering wheel and pedals, Amarok radio receiver and Compiz air freshener. All this is held together by a modern slick blue chassis with the gold-plated Infinity and Penguin symbols in front and the mark "Fedora 9 Linux x86/64/PPC Turbo Injection" in chrome fancy letters on the back. It's by definition the latest technology sports-car model that gets new upgraded parts from the factory every few days. It accelerates from standstill to 300 mph in less than 5 seconds. :-) Now take a look at the car --- every piece of hardware installed there is vital and necessary for proper operation of the whole (possibly with the exception of the Compiz air freshener). But tell me, what is in principle The Single Most Important element of the car? There is only one answer --- the engine. That is why the Fedora factory included the name Linux in the full name of the model. It is the Fedora car, no doubt, because it is assembled at the Fedora factory. It's components are produced by various companies --- Linux, GNU, X, Fedora, Compiz etc., but the engine has its special place, because it is the most important piece of the car. That is why in general all models from the Fedora family are collectively labeled "Fedora Linux" cars, emphasizing the manufacturer of the chassis and the manufacturer of the engine. Btw, this is the usual and traditional way of naming in the automotive industry --- just look at the Formula 1 teams: McLaren - Mercedes, Williams - Toyota, Red Bull Racing - Ferrari, etc. What is emphasized is the name of the team that assembles the car and the engine manufacturer. Automotive industry is not the sole example for the analogy. This is general in lots of aspects of human society --- the analogy can be pushed all the way to religions: Christianity is a religion named after its founder, Jesus Christ. Of course, the religion itself could not exist without the dissemination done bu the 12 Apostoles, but it would be plain ridicolous to request a name change to Apost/Christianity in order to pay tribute to those 12 men. Their role, albeit extremely relevant, is not as crucial as the role of Christ himself. (I apologize for making analogies between Christ and Linux kernel, it's highly inappropriate, but serves the purpose of making a point.) So, to summarize, the operating system and all distributions built around it are named to pay tribute to the most essential piece of software contained --- the kernel. I fail to see the same for GNU. Quite contrary, FSF and GNU people are precisely the ones who have *failed* to create this essential component, although they have tried (Hurd), so it is appropriate that they *do not* deserve to be credited with "GNU" in the name of the OS. Asking people to change from Linux to GNU/Linux means asking for credit that is not deserved, and can thus be considered impolite and arrogant (at least). Of course, the GNU voices will disagree with my opinion, but I see no arguments in their favor, except the statements "GNU is important, GNU is an operating system that lacks a kernel" and the like. HTH, :-) Marko -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
