The Many Faces of Linux

Mozillaquest.com ^ | 28 August 2005 | Mike Angelo

[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.

[amigatec]

You still haven't replied to

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1471992/posts?page=#113

Come on troll answer me!!!

[amigatec]

Like when you claimed to be on FR in 1996??

Isn't this kind of a minor thing? It's more false bravado then "lying". Don't we all make questionable claims at times? Doesn't make him a liar if this is the only proof you can offer up.

The problem was after he was told and it was proven that FR didn't even exist in 1996, he STILL claimed to have been on FR using telnet.

He was hammered on this for days and he still claimed otherwise.

That is why he has NO creditability with me.

[amigatec]

Just in case you missed it I will repeat it for you



Which branch of the Service were you in?

My Grandfather was in the Navy in WWI.

My Father had 5 brothers, ALL 5 were in WWII, one of those brothers paid the ultimate price for freedom. He was killed June of 1944, on the beaches of Normandy.

Uncle Paul is still there today, he is still standing his post.

If you go there today you will see a cross with his name on it.

I have seen the pictures of his grave, and I have seen his medals, and I have read the telegram that tells of his death.

My Father served during Korea, and my Father-in-Law WAS IN Korea.

My Brother, my Brother-in-Law, and myself ALL served in the Army.

I work for the US Government, at a Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

I can't speak for there experiences, but I can speak for mine.

I served 3 years active duty and 17 years in the reserves. I retired in 1997 with 20 years of service.

During active duty I was stationed with the 42nd Engineer Company, in West Berlin. At that time the Wall was still standing.

You claim to fight against Communism, but I have been there, standing on that line and taking my turn. I can tell by your comments that you have absolutely no idea what Communism is all about. I lived with it for 27 months. I have seen what Communism does, I have seen how it works.

I was surrounded by 15 Russian Divisions, I have seen them parade there Missile Launchers down the street. All parades in East Berlin were Military, and ALL parades were mandatory!!

You talk a lot about Communism, but have you looked a Communist in the eye??

I have. I walked the streets of East Berlin and have looked Russian Officers in the face. I have seen the fear and hatred in his eyes. I have looked over the wall into the Russian Army base in East Berlin, I have been in their PX and Commissary.

The Russians were especially hard on the east Germans.

If an East German wanted a car, (a Trabant) he
1)had to be a member of the party,
2)had to pay cash upfront and be put on a waiting list, for up to 10 years.
3)Could be bumped from the list by the Government.

If he wanted to change jobs he had to ask the Government, rarely did they ever grant it. All Jobs were controlled by the Government.

If he wanted to move to a different apartment he had to ask the Government. All housing was Government Owned.

I have seen the Berlin Wall, I have touched it, I have seen the windows in the building bricked-up. I have seen were the building were cut off to make room for the Wall.

I have seen some of the 210 and crosses that hung on that Wall. Crosses placed to mark the death of some poor soul who died trying to escape Communism.

I have seen the anti-Communist writings on the Wall. I have seen the barbed wire, steel entanglements, guard towers, machine-gun bunkers, attack dogs, and armed gun boats.
The gun boats patrolled the waterways looking for escapees.

I have seen the mine fields, where the ground in front the Wall was tilled and raked, and everyday they would check for footprints.

I have visited the Museum at 'Checkpoint Charlie', the Museum dedicated to those who lost there lives trying to escape from Communism. I stood on the same platform JFK stood when he was there.

You talk about Karl Marx. I have stood on Karl Marx Street, (yes that's right KARL MARX STREET) and seen the look on the faces of the little east German kids, as they looked at the American Soldiers. The American Soldier represented something to them that they could only hope for.

FREEDOM!!

Freedom is something my family has stood for, fought for, and died for, for at least 3 generations.

My Uncle Paul shed his last drop of Blood on Omaha Beach June 6th 1944. You can find his grave there today, he is still guarding that beach.

He died so the French could have Freedom.

Where was Linux when the Chinese invented Gunpowder?
Where was Linux when the Chinese invented Rockets?
Where was Linux when the Chinese tested their First A-Bomb in 1964?
Where was Linux when the Chinese tested their First H-Bomb in 1967

Now the Chinese have a little chance at freedom, and the only thing you care about is how much money they spend with the US.

Linux represents FREEDOM, Freedom from being locked into the Microsoft Monopoly.

Freedom from being told what they can and cannot do with their COMPUTER.

We have soldiers dying on the battlefield everyday to defend freedom, and all you want to do is take freedom away.

While I was standing Guard Duty in the rain, where were you??

And you want to call ME a Commie because I Use Linux!!!

So let me ask you again 'What branch of the service were you in?

If you can't answer any of these questions then why don't 'SHUT THE F--- UP!!!

[N3WBI3]

While gcc is the standard it is command line driven, but its what I learned on an its easy to create make files but....

If you really want a gui look at eclipse, its bundled with Fedora Core 4 so I have never done an install but I found some mandrake binaries here that might be a good place to start... BTW eclipse integrates beautifully into a cvs server if you don't already have something to version your code.

From the looks of it you're going to need the main installable and either the gdk or motif packages (all on the site) for the gui. here is a good place to start for doing c++ development with eclipse.

[velocityguy]

You know it is netter to use the command line based compiling. Speaking from experience, usually GUI's aka "Frameworks" offer limited usability and possibly unnecessary overhead. You will know what I mean since you seem to be an experienced programmer. Personally, I think command line based compilers/tools make us feel more relatively connected to a Unix/Linux based ENVs.

I understand you are trying to help a fellow FReeper. However, after all, isn't the goal of GNU Linux or simply Linux to provide a free working environment unlike MS products? :)

Thank you.
VG.

[velocityguy]

netter=better

[Salo]

The facts are: you mislead people about Groklaw's relationship to IBM by falsely implying IBM donated them servers to run on. You lied - flat out lied - about being on FR before it existed. Sofwarecreator seems to be willing to let you slide and make excuses for you, but those of us who know you for what you really are aren't going to bother.

BTW, you still haven't offered proof PJ is employed by IBM like you posted.

[MadIvan]

I arrived on the Linux threads before having built my first Linux system (I'm still awaiting the parts). I have worked in organisations that have used both Microsoft and Linux. In so far as technology is concerned, I am not a purist by any means.

Golden Eagle however is such a complete, total and utter tosser who behaves so arrogantly that he makes me want to break into his house and put Linux on all his computers with the message, "Take that, you jackass."

Either that or kick the living shite out of him till he screams for his mother. People that arrogant and stupid deserve to be destroyed.

Regards, Ivan

[MadIvan]

PS - there are methane emissions coming out of a pig's rectum that know more about technology and Open Source than GE does.

Regards, Ivan

[softwarecreator]

I did and it is working now.  I wrote a quick little application (console based) and it worked.  I like the fact that you can compile and link at the same time for the command line.  Thanks for the help!

[velocityguy]

No problem. I am glad everything is working for you :)

[softwarecreator]

As usual n3wbi3, thanks for the input.  I've bookmarked the link and hopefully will get to it in the next day or two.

I'll check out the binaries and see what happens.    At this moment I am okay with doing console apps, since I haven't done non-Microsoft based C/C++ programming in years.

[softwarecreator]

No problem. I am glad everything is working for you

Yeah, thanks for the tip about cygwin, too.

[AFreeBird]

I did a search on my system for both gcc AND g++ but they didn't come up.

Ummm, open a CYGWIN window and just type gcc. If it's thre you'll see a syntax/error message (lack of arguments - I'm sure you know). If it ain't there, then I can only assume your' CYGWIN install is lacking.

I'd check myslef, but I haven't booted my Winders partition in months.

[softwarecreator]

Sofwarecreator seems to be willing to let you slide and make excuses for you

It's not that, it's just I think these are minor points and are the types of things that we've all said and done at one time or another during a heated discussion.  I think GE has been pretty good at proving the points on important issues on other threads over the few months I've been on FR.  I've only been here a short time and so don't have the history with each other that you folks do.  I guess that makes it easier for me to overlook minor "missteps" and focus on the important stuff.  A few months from now I may feel different!  =)

[softwarecreator]

Thanks.  I re-installed the gcc package on my Linux last night and everything seems fine, the configuration went pretty easily.  I downloaded cygwin today and will install it on my WinXP system tomorrow.  Glad there are people here who can offer help!

[Prime Choice]

You may as well give up getting any answers from that Redmond shill. I've seen his act a thousand times, and it's all the same...

(I've rendered this as a graphical tale so even Brass Buzzard can understand it.)

First, ol' Brass Buzzy starts off with a .

Then he goes into a jag.

This is always followed by his pitching a .

And finally, he launches into a real frenzy and .

It's kinda obvious he's at the "lost it" phase...again.

[softwarecreator]

LOL!!!  Terrific!  Thanks for the laught this morning!!!

[Salo]

Please reconcile:

It's not that, it's just I think these are minor points and are the types of things that we've all said and done at one time or another during a heated discussion.

with:

Because I'm always right, unless a typo.

And please note he still has provided no proof Pamela Jones is an IBM employee.

I guess for some of us, it's like this: Eagle is sort of like Dan Rather. He's shot his credibility wad so thoroughly that if he told you the sun was out at noon in July in Phoenix, Arizona, you'd demand several alternate sources before you believed him, and even then, you'd have doubts.

[softwarecreator]

And please note he still has provided no proof Pamela Jones is an IBM employee.

Yeah, that's leaving yourself wide open to criticism, still waiting to see what he comes up with.

I guess for some of us, it's like this: Eagle is sort of like Dan Rather. He's shot his credibility wad so thoroughly

Now that's an analogy I understand.

Because I'm always right, unless a typo.

Just typical bragging on his part.  We all say things like that every once in a while.

I'm sure GE couldn't care less what I think, but ... I would imagine he went a bit over the top on this thread and there is no way to back up some of these claims.  I guess I do cut people too much slack, but to me the bragging is no big deal.  It probably would be a good idea for him to either admit that he had a few "missteps" or give definitive proof on the points you've mentioned.  I admit some of his points may be questionable but I take things more simpler in dealing with people.  I dunno, maybe I'm naive, but I think he made some real good points on other threads and I take most things people on this forum say with a grain of salt unless they can prove it.  If they can't, I just assume they are wrong and move on.

I can, however, understand why you, and others, don't respect his opinions, because of your histories in dealing with each other.  It's just that to me, if a person is wrong he should admit it and then everyone should just forget about it and move on.  We all make mistakes.  I think your frustration with him is that he simply won't admit it when he does.  This leaves a negative impression and there is no closure.