Talk:Guide to Unix/Linux

Purpose
Can someone explain to me what direction they think this book is intended to take? I'd be happy to help out, but I'd don't think the goal is clear. Is this intended to be a history of, introduction to, user guide for, or something else altogether? I think making real progress on a useful book would go better is a direction were to be given. --Ahc 04:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Author
Why does it say that the Linux "Operating System" was written by Linux Torvalds? No disrespect to the man, but he did not write the operating system. That was started by Richard Stallman 5 years before Linus started working on his kernel.

Linux is a kernel of an operating system.

Unless someone has any objections, I would like to modify this article.
 * Since early November of this year the opening line has been:
 * Linux is a Unix-like open source kernel written by Linus Torvalds...
 * So I'm not clear on what your concern is. --Ahc 16:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * From a Linux developer who's been following Linux for over a decade... NO.


 * The GNU project was indeed started first, and Linux (the whole thing) does indeed use some tools from the GNU project. The X and BSD projects are even older, and the GNU project uses parts of them. Heck, the GNU kernel uses large chunks of Linux kernel code for hardware drivers, filesystem support, and networking. If we are to believe that it is somehow right to give credit in the name of an OS, then why is GNU not crediting Linux for providing Hurd with life support? Why is GNU not crediting X or BSD?


 * GNU/Linux is a very obvious attempt to latch onto success. This is being done very rudely and forcefully, without getting concensus from the actual developers. This goes on at many levels, including the OS names used to configure projects that use the auto* tools. In no way did the GNU project write the Linux OS. Parts of the GNU OS were found suitable for Linux, just as parts of BSD were found suitable for GNU.


 * BTW, OS kernels do not traditionally have distinct names. They are "the kernel" or "the exec".


 * Finally, we have the simple facts of marketing. At least in English, "GNU" is a very ugly sounding word. The "/" looks complicated and hostile. Humans have emotional responses to sounds, like it or not.


 * AlbertCahalan 21:43, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Reading the GNU philosophies when talking about them is as important as reading the manual for a program.
 * A thing 05:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The filename of the kernel is linux-version.tar.bz2. The simlink to the source is /usr/src/linux. The kernel image is usually stored, or the simlink is /boot/vmlinuz. Besides, calling it only Linux makes it seem as if it is made as one giant product. Unlike Windows, a distribution is actually a zillion independent projects being either pressed, or burned onto a series of CDs.


 * Well, as I said: "OS kernels do not traditionally have distinct names." As for the zillion independent projects, I'd say that's a good argument against the "GNU/" crud. My own independent project, procps, does not support the GNU kernel (Hurd) at all. Some of the old and important projects, like X, predate the whole GNU idea. Lots of recent (and not-so-recent) code is coming from BSD. Even the so-called "GNU" projects, like gcc and glibc, are mainly supported by Linux vendors and embedded systems companies. The true history of Linux is that the kernel was written, and then people like Theodore T'so and H. J. Lu went around to various places (BSD, GNU, alt.sources usenet archives, etc.) grabbing what was needed to have a userspace. In general, the early core developers of Linux have never accepted "GNU/Linux" as a legit term. Many have objected. Today the term is even an abuse of the Linux trademark registered to Linus Torvalds. AlbertCahalan 00:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, uname --kernel-name prints "Linux", while uname --operating-system, prints "GNU/Linux". Tools that are estential to GNU/Linux, like coreutils, gcc, glibc, bash, where all originaly created by the GNU project. Also, the whole philosphy came from the GNU project. Reub2000 03:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Guess why the "--operating-system" option was invented. As I said above, this recent political power grab is "being done very rudely and forcefully". By this I mean things like the uname command. Some tools, essential to Linux&reg;, were created by the BSD project, yet we do not call the OS BSD/Linux. All of the "GNU" tools you mention have been primarily developed by Linux distributers. If you go back prior to the Linux effort, these tools were trivial junk. It would have been nearly as easy to use BSD code, but by chance, FSF "GNU" tools were chosen. Only a small part of the philosophy comes from the GNU project; BSD is older and wasn't even the first. AlbertCahalan 05:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * So? How much of the kernel do you think was written by Linux Torvalds? Not much. But he's givin credit because he started it. Besides, RMS can do what you said, because the FSF distributes the coreutils package that contains uname. And yes, GNU/Linux uses part of BSD, just like every other opearting system does. Waddya mean only a little bit of the philosphy comes from GNU? The kernel uses the GNU GPL. Reub2000 14:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter how much of Linux&reg; was written by Linus. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that an operating system name is an appropriate place to be giving anyone credit. Linus didn't name his own OS, and even if he had, so what? The name is a good-sounding marketable name in most (all?) languages. "GNU/Linux" is an abomination, purely political, created because RMS was sore about his Hurd project being upstaged by Linux. RMS is jealous and whiny, and should be treated as such. The GNU GPL is only a codification of prior existing philosophy. RMS didn't invent the idea. Sure, we can give him credit for getting a lawyer to write things up, but not in the operating system name. AlbertCahalan 17:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Note that Windows is not called Bill/Windows, and MacOS is not called SteveOS. AlbertCahalan 17:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Suppose you wrote an OS, and your friend named it Reubal. Then a few other friends help you port some BSD code to run on your system, along with whatever else they can find. Years later, when Reubal is having major success, Marshall Kirk McKusick rudely and jealously demands that you call your OS "Reubsdal" to give himself credit. Your friends ridicule this offensive idea. Marshall Kirk McKusick then starts telling everyone that your OS is really named BSD/Reubal. Soon, many outsiders start to believe this tale. After all, if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. AlbertCahalan 17:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * P.S. The X Windows System isn't really part of the operating system, it's a program that's run on it, similar to how one might run WinRAR on Windows. Sure, it's estential for every user, but it's not part ot the core of the operating system. Reub2000 03:43, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Even Richard Stallman considers X to be part of a GNU operating system. Part of his claim to owning the right to rename Linux&reg; is that he himself had the idea to cobble together a complete system from X, BSD, and more. When a crowd of Linux hackers (H. J. Lu and Theodore T'so in particular) did this, Richard Stallman felt that his idea had been stolen. Well, the idea was obvious, and Richard Stallman didn't patent it. Even AT&amp;T and Sun were doing this with commercial UNIX&reg;. AlbertCahalan 05:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Naming issues aside, just count the times someone says that the Linux Operating System was firstly written by Linus Torvalds and you will know what is unfair in this discussion. ManuelGR 19:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Joining Guide to UNIX?
I added Linux to the table of contents for Guide to UNIX. Kernigh 01:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I had wanted a Guide to UNIX/BSD page. I found and expanded a BSD stub.
 * I noticed that the Linux module was mostly links. My idea is that this page is not the Wikipedia article, nor Linux For Newbies, nor Linux software howtos, nor BSD bookshelf. I made this module analogous with BSD module.
 * Thus I decided to use this page instead of making a Guide to UNIX/Linux page.
 * I propose renaming Linux to Guide to UNIX/Linux and GNU. Comment here. Kernigh 22:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Moved, minus the political nonsense. AlbertCahalan 03:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Good. Call it Guide to UNIX/Linux because it is not about GNU. Kernigh 03:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

After the move, Linux still redirected to here. I tried to make Linux point to Computing bookshelf instead so people who type "Linux" and click Go would see the list of Wikibooks for Linux. However, automatic redirect drops the part after #... So now I am expecting that readers going to Linux will see Computing bookshelf and be able to find the Linux section. --Kernigh 01:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)