It is currently Wed, 22 May 2019 08:42:04 GMT

Author Message
 Why does GNU exist in the shadow of Linux?
Look at this page: http://www.**-**.com/

On it is this quote: "Linux is a free Unix-type operating system
originally created by Linus Torvalds with the assistance of developers
around the world."

It's A REAL TRUE FACT!  Back in 1984 Linus travled to Boston and
hypnotized RMS into creating the GNU Project.  After seven years Linus
went into his second phase where he wrote the Linux kernel and
attached GNU to it to make a complete system.  RMS has no recollection
of this due to post-hypnotic suggestion.

But the saddest part of this revisionist history is that RMS is really
convinced that Linus did not publicize Linux and there is a {*filter*}
by the distributors of the Linux Operating System against the GNU

    But don't you think that Linus had better communication skills
    when it came to presenting information for non-programmers,
    specifically end users?

RMS> Not that I know of.  As far as I know, he generally only tries to
RMS> talk to programmers.  He is not the one who publicized "Linux".
RMS> That was done by others--especially by companies.

RMS> That these companies called the system "Linux" was partly just
RMS> bad luck for us--they magnified the initial mistake.  However, in
RMS> some cases it derives from their dislike for our idealism.
RMS> Linus's ideas don't rock any ethical boats; ours do.  Especially
RMS> once they started including lots of non-free software, it was in
RMS> their interest to hide us from the public.

 Sun, 06 Feb 2005 23:52:27 GMT   
 Why does GNU exist in the shadow of Linux?

Oh brother.  It's gotta be cfswestern.  Linux is popular enough without
Linus having to "publicize" his OS.

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

 Mon, 07 Feb 2005 05:00:51 GMT   
 Why does GNU exist in the shadow of Linux?
In article <>,

RMS is totally correct, of course...


drift wave turbulence:

 Mon, 07 Feb 2005 14:18:01 GMT   
 Why does GNU exist in the shadow of Linux?
I recently read

FREE AS IN FREEDOM ( the RMS and GNU story )


JUST FOR FURN ( the Linus Torvalds and Linux story )

We ( and I, I love, use their software ) owe both of these men a lot
of gratitude.
I also believe that the FSF, Open Source would not be where it is
today without both of these men and not just for their technical
contributions.  Both men have {*filter*} aspects of their personality
that complements the other and that has helped open source.

Linus Torvald's wrote the kernal for  the os known as "linux".  The
Free Software Foundation, GNU, a whole big, big group of programmers
made everything else for the OS.

Linus Torvald's didn't want and did not christen the OS "linux".

He does not have a confrontational personality ( judging from his book
), but there are times in life where you have to step up to the plate
and I don't think he has done enough about the nomenclature.

I'm not saying he should go do anything active, just use the influence
he has.

For example in public appearances he could use the term "GNU OS" when

Journalists will ask him about it and as "linux" becomes more popular
those explanations will spread.

Just my opinion.

No disrespect to Linus.

From reading his book I have a LOT of respect for him, I am very
greatful for his contributions, I *use* them, and I think  if we knew
each other in real life we would probably be good friends.


 Tue, 08 Feb 2005 03:02:57 GMT   
 Why does GNU exist in the shadow of Linux?

The FSF made -everything else-? That will be suprising to the KDE team,
the Open Office team, the abiword developers, the xmms developers, the
guys that maintain tkscan... and all ther rest of the people that aren't
FSF and contributed apps and "OS parts". Is GNU important? Yes. Did they
do everything except the kernel? No.

Why? IIRC, GNU has a HURD. They could publish an OS and distribution based
on HURD and call it anything they want.


 Tue, 08 Feb 2005 03:15:08 GMT   
 Why does GNU exist in the shadow of Linux?
Rick <rhat...@e{*filter*}.com> wrote

I meant that the FSF/GNU made it possible to hook up the linux
terminal and get a functioning operating system when Linus built the

The parts were there waiting for him.  Without GNU he would have had
just a kernal.  He would have had to build the rest.  He might have
even been delayed or put off building the kernal itself if it wasn't
for the existence of the GNU gcc compiler.

Additionally, these other orgs were/are in a similar position to Linus
when he built his kernal.  That would not have been able to make their
contributions witout the technical, legal, and organizational
contributions the FSF/GNU had established beforehand.

As for the other software/orgs you mention, more power to the original
spirit of my argument.  Linus didn't build any of those things which
many new users get as default in their distro and they call "Linux".

Linus __did not__ ask to have credit falsely assigned to him, but I
think he has an obligation to at least take the passive approach and
make a quick, short point out of this issue when it comes up.

I can't really answer that.  Its a basic right from wrong deal your
parents give to you.   You don't take credit, ...passively accept it,
or let others mistakenly believe you did something when you did not.

I'd like to see that.

 Tue, 08 Feb 2005 14:09:23 GMT   
 Why does GNU exist in the shadow of Linux?
On 23 Aug 2002 06:09:23 -0700, Steve <> wrote:

Actually, there was at least one other body of code out there that Linus
could have used: the BSD codebase. Why he chose the GNU codebase is
something I've never quite understood, as it's doomed Linux to perpetual
code bloat.

Wrong. Again, he could as easily have selected BSD's tools.

Wrong. Linus didn't build them...but, by your argument, they should be
mentioned in the system name, too.

He did. "The midwife doesn't get to name the baby." -- Linus Torvalds

So would a lot of other people. We've been waiting 18 years.

 Tue, 08 Feb 2005 16:56:22 GMT   
 Why does GNU exist in the shadow of Linux?
Hash: SHA1

On 23 Aug 2002 06:09:23 -0700,

He has, repeatedly. He often states that even in the Kernel, (now) most
of the code wasn't written by him.

The impact of the GNU tools can't be ignored, it's huge, but GNU,
despite spending a lot of time on it, hasn't come up with an OS yet that
anyone short of the real die hard hackers can install. HURD has promise,
maybe it's the next great thing, but it's not at the state where it's
useable enough to replace Linux or *BSD.
 Stallman is right to expect kudos for the GNU tools, and he gets it, he
doesn't get to decide what I call Linux, or anything else for that

Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)


Jim Richardson
        Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
http://www.**-**.com/ ~warlock
Linux, from watches to supercomputers, for grandmas and geeks.

 Tue, 08 Feb 2005 15:07:55 GMT   
 Why does GNU exist in the shadow of Linux?
On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 15:56:22 -0000, Jay Maynard <>

At the time Linux was being written wasn't there a cloud of legal problems
{*filter*} over the BSD code base?  


 Wed, 09 Feb 2005 02:34:14 GMT   
 Why does GNU exist in the shadow of Linux?

Why?  Wouldn't he have just found another compiler?

 Wed, 09 Feb 2005 03:00:26 GMT   
 Why does GNU exist in the shadow of Linux?

You say that as if it was the only choice available.
The whole BSD userland is not from the FSF, and just as functional.

The only piece of software provided by the FSF that has no good free
replacement is gcc.

But gcc has not been developed by the FSF for years, AFAIK.

And X, and TeX, and the BSD userland. He would have lacked a compiler,
though. So he would probably have had to cross-compile, or maybe lcc
would have gained more traction.

Roberto Alsina

 Wed, 09 Feb 2005 07:20:59 GMT   
 Why does GNU exist in the shadow of Linux?
On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 15:56:22 -0000

Linux the kernel doesn't use the GNU codebase. It uses the
GNU tools, and they do not affect the kernel at all.
Linus the programmer chose the GPL, and has defended that
choice eloquently, proving he knew full well what it

Last time I checked, the BSDs used gcc. When Linus started
coding somewhere around 1991, gcc was the only decent free
'C' compiler.

The m{*filter*}fabric of society unravels if there is no trust.  With trust,
you gain respect, loyalty, and common purpose. Without trust, you need
detailed orders to run things.  All centralized  command  and  control
systems are based on mistrust.  The way to maintain m{*filter*}authority is
by deed, not word alone.                       -- Col. John Boyd (1993)

 Tue, 08 Feb 2005 23:48:14 GMT   
 Why does GNU exist in the shadow of Linux?

Why did the create linux for the specific purpose of having a free
UNIX clone on which the GNU tools could be run (the original stated
purpose of Linux, IIRC).


 Wed, 09 Feb 2005 16:46:25 GMT   
 Why does GNU exist in the shadow of Linux?

This is technically true.  Linus created the original 10,000 line
kernel which became the framework of the Linux operating sysetm.  
Ironically, Linus originally posted it as his contribution to the
HURD project.  Richard Stallman wanted to create a kernel that
would be similar to UNIX, but would be entirely licensed under the
GNU Public License.

Unfortunately, Richard Stallman was going to be hard to sell to the
"suits" of most corporations.  One of the Hurd promoters, I'm not
sure, which, suggested that this new kernel be called Linux, which
was "Linux Is Not UniX".  It was a play on Minux.  The allusion
back to Linus was just icing on the cake.

Not exactly.  However, many of those who were involved in drafting
the first GPL, then known as the General Public License, back in
1984, were also involved in some of the revisions which became the
GNU public license, and the discussions of Linux.

Linux was an important "Chink in the Armor" of a serious problem we
had in getting UNIX, or any UNIX variant based on the AT&T licensed
code, configured to run on PCs and be marketable on a system that
could be purchased for less than $1000 including hardware.

At the time, in 1991-1992, AT&T still controlled the licensing of
not only UNIX, but a number of key patents and copyrights to
critical elements.  AT&T consider the primary market of UNIX to be
the Minicomputer market, and the SuperComputer market.  They had at
one time tried to market an Intel based machine, the 6300, which
was based on the PC-AT, and decided to skip that market entirely.

AT&T had set a price "floor", a minimum price which which could be
charged for UNIX.  This floor covered both System V, and all
versions of BSD, as well as all of the commercial variants such as
SunOS, Ultrix, AIX, and HP_UX.  Even SCO had to obey the floor,
which was actually a bit rediculous, since the PC hardware to run
SCO could be purchased for about $2000, and the cost of the
Operating system, including UNIX Kernel, Utilities, Documentation,
X11, TCP/IP, NFS, and development tools, could total nearly $5,000.

It took about 18 months to make the transition from that original
10,000 line kernel, which barely supported display through BIOS
calls, IDE drive, and basic serial I/O.  By the end of the 18
months, Linux had grown to nearly 100 megabytes of "distribution,
including a 1/2 meg kernel, X11, a full suite of UNIX applications,
The SunOS OpenLook environment.  Most of the contributors were
those who had already contributed to the GNU environment, and
simply sought to offer under GPL what had been taken from them by
other economic and political forces.

In November of 1993, within two years of that original 10,000 line
posting, Linux was being offered commercially by 3 vendors, and
offered features comparable to the Sun Sparc20 workstation, or the
HP/9000 workstation, or the RISC/6000 workstation, or even severs
which had sold for as much as $50,000.

Microsoft did everything they could to keep a lid on UNIX, Linux,
and OS/2.  They did everything they could to keep coverage of Linux
and UNIX to an absolute minimum, pulling ads of publications who
gave positive coverage, and purchasing extra ads worth $millions in
publications which asserted that Windows NT 3.1 (which hadn't even
been released yet), was far superior to SunOS and Solaris.

Unfortunately, the campaign worked.  But then Novell, led by Ray
Noorda, managed to break the AT&T control, by purchasing the rights
to UNIX.  AT&T knew that Linux had removed their control of the
floor, and Novell offered a good price.  Novell was preparing two
versions of UNIX, which they called UNIXWare.  One was designed for
workstations, the other was designed for servers, to provide both
the capabilities of UNIX and the capabilities of Netware.

While Ray Noorda was out of the country, Microsoft gave the Novell
board of directors an ultimatum.  Either they signed an agreement
promising end development of a workstation, or Microsoft would
announce it's intention to offer a Windows NT based server.  The
wording let Novell assume that Microsoft had not already decided to
release an NT Server, but in fact Microsoft was working with a
number of companies including Dow Jones, Rueters, and Bloomberg, to
develop and release a Windows NT based server.

Novell fired the workstation team immediately, and when Ray Noorda
returned, he not only resigned, he left in a manner that triggered
a "crash" in the price of Novell stock from $45/share to $12/share
in less than 60 days.  Noorda quickly reorganized the Workstation
team into a new company called Caldera, and used the gains from his
sales of Novell Stock to form a venture capital company that
financed not only Caldera, but also TrollTech, the folks who
created the QT library, and the KDE environment.

This made it clear to the developers within the UNIX community that
the only way their efforts could be protected from Microsoft was to
publish it under some variant of the GPL.  By 1994, the Web and a
huge body of intellectual property related to it was being
distributed to the NCSA under a license that was almost identical
to the GNU public license.  Two key pieces of this software
included Mosaic, which was based on Lynx, which had been released
under GPL, and Opera, which had also been released under both GPL
and under the NCSA public license.

The Linux kernel was also getting jazzed up, including some intense
changes to the library formats (ELF), a modular kernel that allowed
the installation of proprietary Modules without violating the GPL
restrictions on the kernel itself.  More importantly, Linux
developers helped to develop the ability to detect the hardware on
the system, and to configure the system automatically.  Not only
could Linux detect ISA devices, but also VESA, VLB, EISA, and
Microchannel devices.

RMS was the guardian of intellectual property rights worth
$billions.  On numerous occaisions, various interests, including
Microsoft, tried to "buy him out", "buy him off", or shut him down.
Microsoft even tried donating money to MIT in exchange for forcing
Stallman to move off-campus.  He eventually moved to a studio
apartment, but was able to continue to keep Free Software
Foundation archives secured at MIT.

Just as the Open Source community was thinking that Richard
Stallman was a bit "too extreme", Microsoft managed to not only get
intellectual property rights to Mosaic, but managed to get the
rights to create proprietary derivative products, which became
Microsoft's Internet Explorer.  The NCSA "covered itself" by
revising the NCSA License agreement, giving the NCSA the right to
all rights, including the right to permit derivative works.  
Needless to say, Netscape, who had hired, or offered jobs to anyone
involved with Mosiac and who wanted to write a new original Web
Browser, wasn't particularly thrilled at having Microsoft using
their intellectual property to put them out of business.

At this point, many developers retaliated by only offering their
"patches" to Mosaic and the NSCA HTTP server, under the GNU public
license.  Eventually all of these patches were collected and
published under a slightly modified "Artistic" license and was
called "A Patchy Server".  The Madison Avenue guys decided that was
a hard sell and changed the spelling to "Apache", the most widely
used server in the Web Server industry.

Not only was RMS vindicated, but there was a whole movement which
eventually became trademarked as the Open Source (tm) movement,
which eventually expanded to nearly 10 billion lines of code into
variations of the original General Public License, and the GNU
Public License.

Ironically, the greatest threat to Microsoft has turned out to by
Richard Stallman, a man whose integrity is astonishing.  He has
managed to stand for the principles of the GNU Manefesto, and even
though considered a bit too extreme for most (Until 1996, he had
literally lived in a small office - an incredibly spartan
lifestyle.  Eventually, at the insistance of MIT, he moved into an
off-campus apartment about the size of a small dorm room.  Although
he controls one of the most valuable collections of intellectual
property on earth, his personal expenses amount to only a few
hundred dollars per month.  This is because he understands that his
role is as trustee.  He holds intellectual property created by
millions of people over almost 20 years.  Most of the contributors
were professionals, consultants, administrators, and systems
programmers, as well as many others, who often developed on their
own time, on their own equipment.

In addition to providing a secure archive, he also archived the
notes, designs, bug reports, and new uses.  In a corporate
environment, with today's patent laws, this archive would hold
nearly 2 million patents.  Since much of this software predates the
ability to patent software, and the rest was published under the
terms of GPL, it can only be used to challenge many of the patents
now being filed by less ethical people.

Richard has recently refused to attend Linux events because he
believes that Linux should be acknowledged as GNU Linux, since the
Kernel itself is still published under the GNU public License.  In
addition, the GLIBC API into the kernel is also published and
copyrighted by GNU/FSF.

It ...

read more »

 Fri, 11 Feb 2005 04:27:18 GMT   
 Why does GNU exist in the shadow of Linux?

You like it or not, you have to face it:

Linux, the kernel, is GPL software.  That is Linux, the kernel is
licensed under the GNU General Public License.


Thus the name GNU/Linux is entirely appropriate.

If you do not like GNU & GPL, how do you feel about Linus & other Linux
kernel hackers' decision to license the Linux kernel under GPL?

If you do not like GNU & GPL, probably you should not use GNU/Linux.

 Sun, 13 Feb 2005 23:59:48 GMT   
   [ 25 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2]

Similar Threads

1. Outlook to GNU/Linux mailbox conversion is possible with existing tools

2. Doing fair comparision of GNU/Linux and MSWIN security

3. Why ECGS, why not the one from GNU

4. migrating existing shadow file to nis

5. Does shadow-3.3.2 exist?

6. Never forget *why* there is GNU+Linux

7. GNU/Linux -- why not?

8. Why did GNU choose Linux, instead of BSD ?

9. Does an GNU version of LSF exist?

10. Does GNU Java Web Server exist ?

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by ST Software