Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system.
These users often think that Linus Torvalds developed the whole operating system in , with a bit of help. Programmers generally know that Linux is a kernel. For example, many believe that once Linus Torvalds finished writing Linux, the kernel, its users looked around for other free software to go with it, and found that for no particular reason most everything necessary to make a Unix-like system was already available. What they found was no accident—it was the not-quite-complete GNU system.
The available free software added up to a complete system because the GNU Project had been working since to make one. By the time Linux was started, GNU was almost finished. Most free software projects have the goal of developing a particular program for a particular job.
It's natural to measure the contribution of this kind of project by specific programs that came from the project. If we tried to measure the GNU Project's contribution in this way, what would we conclude? For example, Linux users can choose from a dozen different command line shells and several graphical desktops.
This selection is often bewildering to users of other operating systems, who are not used to thinking of the command line or desktop as something that they can change. Linux is also less likely to crash, better able to run more than one program at the same time, and more secure than many operating systems.
With these advantages, Linux is the fastest growing operating system in the server market. More recently, Linux has begun to be popular among home and business users as well. Chapter 1. Welcome to Debian. What is Debian? For instance, many think it is a collection of "tools" , or a project to develop tools.
The wording of this question, which is typical, illustrates another common misconception. GNU is an operating system. Most everyone in developed countries really does know that the "Windows" system is made by Microsoft, so shortening "Microsoft Windows" to "Windows" does not mislead anyone as to that system's nature and origin.
The question is itself misleading because it compares "GNU" to a software development organization. The kernel is one of the programs in an operating system--the program that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that are running. The kernel also takes care of starting and stopping other programs. To confuse matters, some people use the term "operating system" to mean "kernel". Both uses of the term go back many years. The use of "operating system" to mean "kernel" is found in a number of textbooks on system design, going back to the 80s.
At the same time, in the 80s, the "Unix operating system" was understood to include all the system programs, and Berkeley's version of Unix included even games. Since we intended GNU to be a Unix-like operating system, we use the term "operating system" in the same way. Most of the time when people speak of the "Linux operating system" they are using "operating system" in the same sense we use: they mean the whole collection of programs.
If you mean just the kernel, then "Linux" is the right name for it, but please say "kernel" also to avoid ambiguity about which body of software you mean. If you prefer to use some other term such as "system distribution" for the entire collection of programs, instead of "operating system", that's fine. Because those two constructions are used synonymously, the expression "the Linux kernel" can easily be misunderstood as meaning "the kernel of Linux" and implying that Linux must be more than a kernel.
You can avoid the possibility of this misunderstanding by saying or writing "the kernel, Linux" or "Linux, the kernel. So if you want to refer to the system simply as "GNU", to avoid paying the fee for calling it "Linux", we won't criticize you. If you feel even more strongly about giving credit where it is due, you might feel that some secondary contributors also deserve credit in the system's name.
If so, far be it from us to argue against it. There is no one obvious right place to set the threshold, so wherever you set it, we won't argue against it. Different threshold levels would lead to different choices of name for the system.
But one name that cannot result from concerns of fairness and giving credit, not for any possible threshold level, is "Linux". It can't be fair to give all the credit to one secondary contribution Linux while omitting the principal contribution GNU.
GNU is different because it is more than just a contributed program, more than just a collection of contributed programs. GNU is the framework on which the system was made. GNU is not comparable to Red Hat or Novell; it is not a company, or an organization, or even an activity.
Linus Torvalds wrote Linux independently, as his own project. So the "Linux, which is a GNU package" meaning is not right. We're not talking about a distinct GNU version of Linux, the kernel. So "GNU's version of Linux" is not right either.
We're talking about a version of GNU, the operating system, distinguished by having Linux as the kernel. A slash fits the situation because it means "combination. There are other ways to express "combination".
If you think that a plus-sign is clearer, please use that. We can't make them change, but we're not the sort to give up just because the road isn't easy. Given that most of the community which uses GNU with Linux already does not realize that's what it is, for us to disown these adulterated versions, saying they are not really GNU, would not teach the users to value freedom more.
They would not get the intended message. They would only respond they never thought these systems were GNU in the first place. The way to lead these users to see a connection with freedom is exactly the opposite: to inform them that all these system versions are versions of GNU, that they all are based on a system that exists specifically for the sake of the users' freedom.
With this understanding, they can start to recognize the distributions that include non-free software as perverted, adulterated versions of GNU, instead of thinking they are proper and appropriate "versions of Linux". If the Linux User Group in your area has the problems describe above, we suggest you either campaign within the group to change its orientation and name or start a new group.
0コメント