Posted on 08/29/2005 3:08:41 PM PDT by N3WBI3
There are many faces of Linux, a term which has come to mean many things. Underneath all the things that Linux is, it is an operating system kernel. Under the Linux Faces
The term Linux also is applied to the popular GNU operating system (OS) built on top of the Linux kernel, often simply called the Linux OS. Then on top of that are the Linux-based distributions that usually and simply are called Linux distributions, such as Mandriva Linux, Red Hat Linux, or SUSE Linux. Please see Figure 1 in the right sidebar
There are lots of Linux-based, operating system, distributions and they wear many faces too.
* Some are command-line only Linux-based OS distributions.
* Some are developed specially for server platforms.
* Some are designed for GUI desktop use.
* Yet others combine command-line, server, desktop, and enterprise functionality into a single Linux-based OS distribution package.
One problem with all this nomenclature is that it is very confusing. How do you know when someone says Linux if they are talking about:
* the kernel, * the operating system, * the desktop, * a distribution, * or whatever?
Of course the context in which Linux is used helps to let you know which of these many faces of Linux is the one to which reference is made. The GNU and Linux Controversy
Don't forget all the controversy about calling the Linux-based operating system GNU/Linux. The Free Software Foundation people, that's Richard Stallman and the GNU people, say that the Linux-based operating system in use today should be called GNU/Linux.
That's because much of the software that surrounds the Linux kernel to make it an operating system is GNU software, which it is by the way. Please see Figure 1 in the right sidebar.
However, Richard Stallman (rms) disagreed with our characterization of FSF's position in an e-mail discussion:
Richard M. Stallman: Actually no, that is not what we say. What we say is that this system is basically the GNU operating system, with Linux added.
Please see the GNU Note in the right sidebar on page 2 for more about this. Is Linux More than Merely a Kernel?
On the other hand, the people at Linux International say that Linux is an operating system, not just the Linux kernel:
Linux is an Operating System, which acts as a communication service between the hardware (or physical equipment of a computer) and the software (or applications which use the hardware) of a computer system. (What is Linux?, Linux International Website. Link in the Resources section at the end of the article on page 3.)
The people at kernel.org seem to go even further into using Linux to mean more than just the kernel, using the term Linux system:
the kernel . . . is just a component in a working Linux system. (New to Linux?, The Linux Kernel Archives. Link in the Resources section at the end of the article on page 3.)
Jon "maddog" Hall is a well-known Linux advocate, speaker, author, and also the Executive Director of Linux International (LI). We discussed that LI definition of Linux and other issues covered in this article with Jon while preparing this article. He noted:
Jon "maddog" Hall: When I first got involved with "Linux", people just called the whole OS (or for that matter the whole distribution) "Linux". "Give me that Linux CD", was the phrase, whether the CD included MySQL(TM), Postgres(TM), or the X Window System(TM). It was not "Linux International" who started calling the whole distribution "Linux". That was happening before LI was even created in 1994. The community was calling it that.
Linux Trademark Issues
Add to all this the recent endeavors of Linus Torvalds to enforce his Linux trademark. These trademark enforcement endeavors appear to be directed to applying the term Linux to all that stuff that is built on top of the Linux kernel, not to the kernel itself. Please see the Linux Trademark Note in the right sidebar.
During our discussions about the issues covered in this article with Jon "maddog" Hall, he further clarified the Linux trademark issues:
The trademark enforcement is not "directed" at anything other than the use of the term "Linux" in a name. However the creator of the name in question used the word "Linux" in a product name, then they should at least have given proper attribution to the "Linux" part, and they may have to sublicense it.
If you called your database the "Linux Relational Database", then we would ask you to give proper attribution to the word "Linux" and sublicense the use of the Linux name. So the trademark endeavors have nothing to do with the actual code or what the name really refers to .... it is just that someone decided to use the name, and they should properly attribute the owner. If they make money off the name, they should help to defend the Mark by sub-licensing it.
Using Linux and Linux-Based to Name Things
So, maybe it is about time for everyone to start being lots more careful about how we use the term Linux. That would make it clear when one is referring to:
* the Linux kernel, * the GNU/Linux operating system, * any other Linux-based operating system, * a Linux-based desktop, * a Linux-based distribution, * or whatever.
Here is some food for thought about that. How about the term Linux, when used by itself, be used to refer to the Linux kernel? That's the operating system kernel developed and maintained by Linus Torvalds and the kernel.org people.
That's not a new idea. It's just that over time most, if not all, of us have gotten very sloppy about the way we label lots more than just the Linux kernel as Linux.
When the term Linux is used in conjunction with Linux-based OSs, Linux-based distributions, or whatever, then they should be called Linux-based. For example the Linux-based GNU operating system would be called more or less what Richard Stallman and the FSF people have been saying all along, the Linux-based, GNU operating system.
Richard Stallman is the founder of the GNU Project, President of the Free Software Foundation (FSF), and a well-known author. We discussed this article during its preparation with Richard M. Stallman (rms). He noted in respect to the above paragraph that the name should include more than just Linux-based.
That seems to mean that GNU should be part of the name when one refers to an item that includes or is built on top of the Linux kernel and the GNU operating system based upon the Linux kernel.
Richard M. Stallman: Distinguishing "Linux-based" from "Linux" would be a step forward in clarity, but using that as the only term used to describe what a system or distribution is would still be misleading . . .
Please see the GNU Note in the right sidebar for more about this.
Incidentally, there also is another GNU operating system that is not based on the Linux kernel. It's based on GNU's Hurd kernel and called the GNU/Hurd operating system.
The same idea for naming operating systems goes for naming Linux-based distributions, too. Perhaps they could have names such as SUSE OS, a Linux-based GNU operating system, or The Mandriva Linux-based GNU OS. Those of course would be the more formal names.
In short, they still would simply be called Mandriva or SUSE, or perhaps Mandriva OS and SUSE OS -- but not merely Mandriva Linux or SUSE Linux. Likewise, perhaps Fedora and Red Hat ought to be referred to as Fedora OS and Red Hat OS rather than Fedora Linux and Red Hat Linux.
Some variations here perhaps could be product names such as SUSE Professional Desktop or SUSE Enterprise OS, a Linux-based GNU operating system. How about Mandriva Desktop OS or Mandriva Enterprise OS?
Interestingly, Xandros already does this sort of thing. Its consumer Linux-based distribution is called the Xandros Desktop OS. The business version is called Xandros Business Desktop OS
One thing this sort of naming schema could do is to remove Linux trademark issues from the naming and branding of many Linux-based products. Linux-Based Product Branding and Identity
This naming thing is more than an exercise in nomenclature and taxonomy. For several months now, we have been comparing and reviewing five important Linux-based GNU operating system distributions, Fedora, Mandriva, Novell, SUSE, and Xandros. So far, we have published two articles based on these comparisons and reviews. And if you have read those two articles, you have seen there are lots of differences among the discussed Linux-based OS distributions.
(In Pursuit of Good Desktop Linux: Part 1, Network Neighborhood and MS Windows Partitions, and Part 2, Ease of Use and Ease of Migration Overview -- KDE, GNOME, and MS Windows Desktops)
All these Linux-based distributions have their own personalities. Simply calling these different Linux-based products Debian Linux, Fedora Linux, Mandriva Linux, Novell Linux, SUSE Linux, and so forth does not do justice to the individual characteristics and personalities of each of these Linux-based products. To the uninitiated, they sound too much like the same product with merely a different brand label on them
Interestingly, this is not all that new an idea. The original Caldera (now SCO) Linux product that was introduced in 1994 was Caldera Network Desktop -- not Caldera Linux or Caldera OpenLinux. In its Network Desktop product, Caldera had built a multi-user, network-ready, desktop, GNU-based operating system built around the Linux kernel. And that is just what the Caldera people called it ten years ago, Caldera Network Desktop. Please see the Caldera Note in the right sidebar.
Of course it is up to the distributors of Linux-based products to select and to promote the names for their products. And hopefully they will do that using the guidelines suggested here. However, in the meantime we will start using the guidelines suggested here as much as we can when referring to Linux-based products.
Why People Call It All Linux
On the other hand, in our e-mail discussion of the issues in this article with Jon "maddog" Hall, he presented a different point of view and made some very good points:
Jon "maddog" Hall: . . . as a marketing person, I understand that people like to use the name they like to use, whether it is correct or not. "Linux" rolls off the tongue. It is cute, people know who stands behind it, and it is what they got used to seeing. People have invested money, time, effort and "ownership" in having "Linux" in their name, and we understand and appreciate that. Linus [Torvalds] would like people to use the term "Linux" for any legitimate purpose.
Jon "maddog" Hall: Also as a marketing person, I see the danger of having the recognizable name too fragmented. As a "Unix(R)" person for a long time, I watched while "SunOS" and "Solaris" (Sun Microsystems), "Ultrix", "Digital Unix", "Tru64" (Digital Equipment Corporation), "HP/UX" (HP), "AIX" (IBM), "Xinux" and "SCO Unix" (SCO), and a variety of other deviations divided up and confused the market. All of them were "Unix" (more or less), but only two bore the name.
So when people read about "Unix" systems, there was this amazingly complex set of names that have very little to do with each other, even though the underlying system was much (if not almost exactly) the same. . . . (All registered trademarks are the property of their respective owners.)
Jon "maddog" Hall: I like the term "Linux", and I like cute penguins, and I hope that everyone continues to use them.
Jon "maddog" Hall: Richard [Stallman] calls it "GNU/Linux". Linus calls it "Linux". I call it "Linux" . . . it is what I (and a lot of other people) have always called it. But in my talks and presentations I make sure to give lots of credit to lots of people who have contributed free software.
Wrap-Up
Initially in this article, we sought to address the problems with all the very confusing Linux nomenclature. How do you know when someone says Linux if they are talking about:
* the kernel, * the operating system, * the desktop, * a distribution, * or whatever?
It is time to be more careful about how we use the term Linux. Time to make it clear when one is referring to the Linux kernel, the GNU/Linux operating system, a Linux-based desktop, a Linux-based distribution, or whatever.
To do that, we suggest in today's article that:
* Linux, when used by itself, be used to refer to the Linux kernel,
* when the term Linux is used in conjunction with Linux-based OSs, Linux-based distributions, or whatever, then they should be called Linux-based, such as SUSE OS, a Linux-based operating system, or The Mandriva Linux-based OS -- rather than Mandriva Linux or SUSE Linux,
* when a product is built on top of the Linux-based, GNU operating system, then the identifying phrase, Linux-based, GNU operating system, should be included in the name of the product -- such as SUSE OS, a Linux-based GNU operating system, or The Mandriva Linux-based GNU OS.
In part in this story we also are trying to come up with some nomenclature schema:
(a) where the right people and groups get the right credit for their efforts in developing, maintaining, and promoting all that which popularly is called Linux,
(b) where different Linux-based, GNU OS distros have more of an identity of their own, and
(c) where yet everything stays together as a unified Linux community.
After discussing the issues with Jon "maddog" Hall and Richard Stallman (rms), we are not sure if that is what the story actually does. But at least it might stimulate some good discussion of the issue(s). And it might help to clarify some confusions about the anatomy, construction, and components of modern-day Linux-based, GNU OS distributions.
It's difficult to address Linux nomenclature without getting into the fray of whether the operating system built around the Linux kernel should be called the GNU/Linux OS or simply Linux. We tried to keep the GNU/Linux OS verses Linux OS issues to a minimum here in order to try to maintain focus on the issues this story is meant to address, being more careful about how we use the term Linux.
However, if we did not lose focus in this article, we came close to losing focus due to the GNU/Linux OS verses Linux OS controversy. Additionally, we likely will get flamed by both camps in the GNU/Linux OS verses Linux OS controversy. But if that happens it might mean that this article is right-about where it ought to be.
What are your thoughts about these Linux-based product naming guidelines and issues. Please feel free to let us know your thoughts about them by sending an e-mail to us at LinuxNaming_AT_mozillaquest.com. Please replace the "_AT_ " with the "@" character. Unless you note otherwise, we will feel free to publish all or part of the e-mail that you send to us.
Arrogant, snotty, ignorant people are my pet peeve. I believe they should be ruthlessly exterminated.
Which is why I love Ann Coulter, despise Socialists, and think the bacteria floating in the depths of the Paris Sewer are a higher life form than you are.
Ivan
I've presented countless links and can provide more of socialists publicly endorsing open source to the point of passing laws requiring it. You on the other hand have nothing showing them actually endorsing Microsoft or any commercial software products for anything.
We also have this today, the open source crowd planning on creating a new license that attempts to make open source incompatible with existing intellectual property law, namely patents and anti-piracy products. Shouldn't surprise anyone, they've been trying to get these laws overturned for years since these products infringe on so many.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1855846,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03119TX1K0000594
http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/linux/story/0,10801,94986,00.html?f=x10
I just posted over a dozen links showing major left wing organisations using Microsoft products; if actual use isn't an endorsement in your world...well that indicates that you're simply not going to listen to anything that contradicts your point of view. Again, if Open Source is indeed left wing, these organisations would be obliged to follow their ideology - and there is no doubting their fanaticism - to use the supposed OS of choice for the Left.
By the same token, accusing those using Linux of supporting Communism is daft. I can go back and find loads of conservative organisations and sites using Open Source, including Free Republic. You stepped back from calling Jim Rob a Communist - but only by semi-acknowleding the point I was making: Operating Systems are tools. You can use a hammer to build a house, or to hit someone over the head. You can use Linux to build a wonderful conservative website (like this one) or a left wing one. You can use Microsoft to build conservative sites, or as you can see, loads of left wing ones. The tool itself is value neutral. You just don't like the Open Source tool because it offends your friend Bill Gates...and let's get this out in the open, you're a Microsoft hack ("Microsoft is easier to use"), and thus use hysterical excuses, repeatedly disproven (though you'll never, ever admit it) and hope being an arrogant piece of donkey crap will convince us otherwise.
As for your two articles - the first is actually about trying to prevent infringement of the Open Source model. The second has this clause which blows the rest of it out of the water -
Norman was skeptical about the effectiveness of such a study, given the vastness of the code in the Linux kernel and the large number of software patents that have been issued. "I don't think that you could identify all of the patents that were possibly relevant to the Linux kernel," he said. "The only way you could do it was if you were a kernel developer."
I know, I know, none of this means anything to you, and nothing anyone will say will convince you out of your position, and absolutely nothing in this world will prevent you from seeing Red(s) when Linux is mentioned. But it's fun proving you're a prat anyway.
Ivan
It's not a public endorsement, no. Netcraft doesn't guarantee anything, you have no proof they are actually using that particular sofware anyway as a typcial security mechanism is to spoof your host. If this concept is over your head ask someone else for lessons.
What I have provided is postive proof that communist countries are passing laws requiring open source, and liberal political parties the world over are attempting to follow that lead in non communist countries. You've never once admitted this obvious fact, preferring instead to sling insults at me for making this public knowledge.
Open source fanatics like yourself will continue to endorse products that violate intellectual property laws, while passing other laws requiring we use it. You'll claim you want all software to be free but then sue anyone that uses your code to create something new if they don't give that back your "community". We're not as dumb as you think, and slinging insults and bolding your fonts in no way wins anyone other than more fools to your cause.
Must be talking about yourself, since we're still waiting for you to admit you were wrong, despite your bolded fonts, on the fact that China is required to adhere to US intellectual property laws per membership in the WTO. Been how many days now?
Let me answer for you.
am: Which branch of the Service were you in?
GE: My mommy wouldn't let me join, besides they have a 'Don't ask, don't tell policy
am: You talk a lot about Communism, but have you looked a Communist in the eye??
GE: I have never seen a real Communist. I am scared of them.
am: Where was Linux when the Chinese invented Gunpowder?
GE: Linux wasn't around yet?
am: Where was Linux when the Chinese invented Rockets?
GE: Linux wasn't around yet?
am: Where was Linux when the Chinese tested their First A-Bomb in 1964?
GE: Linux wasn't around yet?
am: Where was Linux when the Chinese tested their First H-Bomb in 1967
GE: Linux wasn't around yet?
am: While I was standing Guard Duty in the rain, where were you??
GE: I was in the closet playing with myself.
Deal with the facts on the issues we're discussing.
EVERY time a Linux thread is posted instead of discussing Linux, you change it into a Thread about Communists.
So why don't you 'SHUT THE F--- UP!!!
LOL, you guys must be having nightmares about my expose's. You didn't really think nobody else knew did you? There have been countless news reports about it, where do you think I get my endless supply of links? There are lots of other places besides communism.org that tie the two together.
Yes, just I expected. Nothing anyone says or proves makes any difference to you - if the facts don't fit your point of view, merely change the goalposts of proof. And you wonder why people think you're a complete tosser.
I am not an Open Source fanatic. I came to these threads with an open mind. I was polite when I first spoke to you. You might want to spend a period of reflection considering why it is that your attitude might make someone like me think you're an utter, complete a**hole who deserves a good kicking. Here's a clue - your attitude, arrogance and inability to consider anyone's facts besides your own make people want to hit you with large sticks.
Ivan
You haven't disproven anything, when the accusation is every major communist government and every liberal political party in the world is working to pass laws, if they haven't already, mandating open source software. They are trying to destroy existing intellectual property laws, as well as some of the most profitable companies on the planet. You've not disproven any of that at all, all you've really done, with every single post you've made, is attempt to attack me personally for pointing it out.
Bulls***. If that were the case, then Communist dictatorships like Vietnam would not be running Windows as their server platform for the central committee. George Galloway would not be kitted out with Windows Server 2003.
hey are trying to destroy existing intellectual property laws, as well as some of the most profitable companies on the planet.
Microsoft propaganda. Steve Ballmer, is that you? The truth be told, Open Source has allowed creations such as online travel booking engines which have created some of the most profitable companies on the planet. Oh, and check out what the recent darling of Wall Street is running - Google runs Linux.
You've not disproven any of that at all, all you've really done, with every single post you've made, is attempt to attack me personally for pointing it out.
Reread your statement. This is why people want to hurt you - people patiently disprove you and you totally ignore everything they say because you just don't want to acknowledge anything that contradicts you. At a certain point argument is pointless because the process of rational argument implies you are going to actually digest what the other person says, not spew blather whenever you get replied to. As you show no capacity for rational argument and you continue to insist on being a troll - insulting you is the only way to get through to you on any level whatsoever. Actually, it's not insulting - it's merely telling you the truth to say that you are a total piece of worm ridden dog excrement who ought to be punched so hard in the face that it actually improves your undoubtedly hideous looks.
I despise you, your attitude and the way you discuss things. In my opinion, you add nothing to this board, you are totally lacking in any intellectual value or worth whatsoever, and all you do is add conflict and derision to threads which do not merit it. You're the worst sort of poster on boards like these - only able to draw attention to yourself by being as annoying and loud as possible.
You can either shut up or continue to earn more derision. Your choice.
Ivan
Yet more evidence of your reading comprehension skills, eh?
If you'd actually bother to examine the articles, you'd find that the most recent one was posted in March 2004. The other three are from 2 years ago.
Since you claim that Vietnam is passing laws requiring OSS in all desktop machines, and these areticles are at least 1.5 years old, and Vietnam is a dictatorship, I am assuming that you are now claiming that all PCs in Vietnam are now running OSS, correct?
Dictatorships merely have to issue edicts and it happens, dude. There is no lobbying in Congress, making deals, etc that slow down the process like we have.
Prove all PCs in Vietnam are running OSS or this is another example of you lying about governments outlawing Microsoft.
Keep in mind that merely "trying to eliminate Microsoft" is not proof, nor is it "making laws requiring OSS."
No, your assumptions are just as bogus as your supposed realizations. Open source is often difficult to deploy, and to keep working. Ask the engineers in Munich Germany, who just announced yet ANOTHER delay in their implementation. And engineers in Germany are certainly more advanced than those in Vietnam.
http://www.cpv.org.vn was running Microsoft-IIS on Windows Server 2003 when last queried at 6-Sep-2005 02:54:07 GMT
If they're trying to outlaw Open Source in Vietnam, they're obviously not doing it down at Vietnam Posts and Telecommunications (VNPT) and down at the Communist Party HQ.
Regards, Ivan
The carter center is using ASP, and Liberal party of Canada uses ASPX (Microsoft NET technology). The others are not using anything that shows up in the URL's and I'm not doing your homework for you but with these two they *are* using MS technology..
LOL!! Yeah, you just keep on believing that. That must be why MS went back to BSD to run Hotmail after they bought it, right? In case you've (conveniently) forgotten, Hotmail was running BSD when it was bought by MS. MS then converted it over to Windows with tragic results, so they went back to BSD for several months while they figured out how to get the site to run on Windows.
Netcraft doesn't guarantee anything. It's a remote query that can easily be spoofed and often is for security reasons. Besides, even the engineers in Germany are running behind on their Lunix plans, so no surprise the idiots in vietnam are too.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1473011/posts?page=133#133
WHen you cannot argue, and cannot win
Spin little troll, spin spin spin!
Ivan
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.