Talk:GNU/Linux naming controversy

Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date

Old text from Talk:GNU/Linux

A work in progress: needs loads of work, such as:

I haven't actually read the Slashdot debate, so I don't know if it's helpful or not

I am missing the counterpoints to the arguments for "Linux". Some came to my mind while reading, but these are my counterarguments (not the community-at-large's), so wouldn't that be editorializing? --Robbe

(I'm sorry, but the fundamental structure of this whole article is advocacy. People were calling the combinanation of Linux, GNU, X, et al as Linux for years before Stallman decided GNU/Linux should be the name. The justification should thus be why "GNU/Linux", not why "Linux". Someone -- not me, definitely -- should rewrite the whole thing.)

Since this is the "talk" section thank--ErikStewart 13:26, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)s to subpage limitiations, I'll plunk my opinion here. Stallman seems to have decided on GNU/Linux for political reasons, as Linus et al are reasonably cosy and comfortable with proprietary software and its creators. Using the Linux kernel for the GNU project was thus not working towards the GNU Project's ultimate goal, the elimination of proprietary software. The push for the name change was not, as is often wrongly assumed, credit for the FSF -- otherwise it would be FSF/Linux -- but to tie it to the political goal. Instead, it's just inflamed the whole Free Software/Open Source infighting, and even incited calls for replacement of GNU components.--Belltower

However, the term is growing rapidly in acceptance by the community of users.

Is this true? I don't really believe it. There are some die-hard nomenclature revisionists out there, but I think they are few and far-between, although loud. --Pinkunicorn

"Rapidly" seemed an overstatement, so I removed the adjective. "Growing in acceptance" is more supportable, I think.

I dissagree with the idea that GNU/Linux as the OS name is equivalent to X/GNU/Linux. You do not need X to run a useful OS, in fact it is more useful for some to remove X. You say yourself that one would have to "replace" GNU, so you obviously recognise the practical need for GNU. Remove either GNU or Linux and you no longer have a fully funcional OS. Therefore there is an argument to be made either for "Linux" or "GNU/Linux" (or even "GNU" but this is rarely recognised). This is what this page is about: presenting peoples opinions. I dont belive it needs a complete rewrite at all. I think it is basicly OK. If anyone thinks it presents one of the arguments too much over the others then please amend as needed. But don't try and deny the validity of the argument for "GNU/Linux" simply because in your opinion it is a mainly political one (I dissagree, but political or not it is still many people's view and should be fairly represented by Wikipedia). -- Asa

I made the X/GNU/Linux remark with respect to KDE, which *does* require X. The required X code is larger than the required GNU code in that situation. The article itself should start out with the historical timeline, should include something about the originally proposed "Lignux" name, should make it clear that Linux was the accepted name for several years, etc.--Belltower

I'm moving some discussion about this over from Asa to keep it all in one place. --Pinkunicorn

The OS was called Linux for years before GNU/Linux ever crossed Stallman's mind. Stop writing stuff as if it was the other way around. The whole GNU/Linux idea is political, as Linus and his friends are (to Stallman) annoyingly supportive of/tolerant towards proprietary software. The key GNU component for an OS is glibc, and have you read what Ulrich Drepper, the glibc maintainer, has to say about Stallman? http://news.linuxprogramming.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-08-16-002-06-LT

Drepper calls the OS Linux, by the way.--Belltower

sigh* I see you just changed all "Linux" to "GNU/Linux". This is not more correct. This is expression of a personal opinion, and one that is more recent than "Linux". I have no doubt that "Linux" will migrate back in, but I hope that we won't have to see constant page updates because of a ridiculous terminnology dispute. If everything about Linux had been done the way Stallman wants, I'm sure Linux would be far behind where it is now. --Pinkunicorn

The OS was also called simply "GNU" long before Linux. Of course, before Linux GNU was only an OS in theory, not in practical terms. However, the fact remains that Linux would not exisist if it were not for the GNU project. In any given distrubution, the GNU project is the largest single contributer. The view that an OS *is* the kernel is minority held by some programmers. Ask any semi-computer literate non-programmer what an OS is and they will give an answer to the effect of "the software that runs the computer". A kernel on its own is useless. Calling the OS simply "Linux" means that those new to Linux start to get the false impression that (as many jounalists imply) it was Linus and his group (Cox etc) who wrote the whole OS.

For these reasons, i thought it better that references to the OS are directed to the GNU/Linux page where an intelegent discussion on "Linux" vs. "GNU/Linux" can be found. -- Asa

Uhm, perhaps I didn't check closely enough. I thought you had changed "Linux" to "GNU/Linux", thus introducing some ugly (but livable) warts into the articles. If you changed the link as well, then I think it's plain stupid and should be changed back immediately. If I click a link about something I want information about it, not obscure hairsplitting about terminology. Please revert your changes, at least for the links.

Also, I can't agree that GNU/Linux is a page of "intelegent" discussion. As far as I can see it's advocacy, especially since the reference "See GNU for more on the system" is there and that page is about Hurd, not Linux. The Linux page, on the other hand, has information about both the kernel and the OS, in spite of the information on the GNU/Linux page.

the fact remains that Linux would not exisist if it were not for the GNU project

This is your opinion, not a fact. There's no way to prove such a thing.

In any given distrubution, the GNU project is the largest single contributer.

I assume that you have numbers to prove this. Note that "GNU project" is not the same as "GPL:ed code". X/MIT is a large chunk of code. So is Gnome and KDE and perhaps *BSD. Should we go for X/GNU/BSD/MIT/TeX/Linux, perhaps? ;-)

OK, how about this change i made to the references. Simply refering readers to the Linux page for the info it contains on both kernel and OS. I reagard this as a healthy compromise, the Linux page clarifies some of the reasons people call is GNU/Linux (using "Linux" itself, but at least it presents the other argument). -- Asa

We seem to be moving towards a good compromise situation. I aprove of the dropping of "rapidly" from "growing in acceptance". I didn't write that bit in the first place anyway :) I see someone has annonymously reverted all my changes back to "Linux". Sometime soon, I'm going to go through each again and change each instance back in the manner segested above by (i think) Pinkunicorn - i.e GNU/Linux instead of GNU/Linux or just Linux -- Asa

I changed this part:

Some consider the term "operating system" to refer to only the kernel, while the rest are simply utilities (regardless of the practical necessity of such utilities). In this sense, the operating system is called Linux, and a Linux distribution is based on Linux with the addition of the GNU tools. It is perhaps telling, however, that the "Linux" operating system contains more GNU code than Linux code.

The last sentence does not make sense: if "operating system" refers only to the kernel, then the Linux operating system does not contain more GNU code than Linux code. First explaining a different meaning of the term "operating system", and then continuing to use the old meaning in the same paragraph is not very helpful. AxelBoldt

arguments for + minimal systems

It would be good to have some actual comparison of the number of lines of code involved and perhaps spell out that one argument for the name GNU/Linux is that there is more GNU code than Linux code in a functional GNU/Linux operating system distribution.

It might also be good to point out that the primary reason Stallman (and his supporters) want the operating system called GNU/Linux is to keep the public eye focused on the issue of free software.

Might also mention that with tools like busybox is it possible to have a Linux-based operating system distribution that is not GNU at all. Jdavidb 14:30, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's possible, but does it happen? That would go in last para.

Yes it does; in several embedded systems, at least. Jdavidb 15:52, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But I see you've already addressed that. Jdavidb 15:53, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The points presented herein need severe tightening and reorganisation. The idea is to get an encyclopaedic overview for non-geeks as well, not list every possible partisan geek view in full unabridged detail. This is always a tricky one. Perhaps we should edit something much less controversial, like Israel-Palestine ... - David Gerard 14:45, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

"with the addition of the GNU tools". I would change that to "with the addition of GNU framework, including compilers, libraries and system tools". You know, almost everything in the basic userland is GNU.

naming convention

Yikes; recognize that because of the slash in the article name, this article is a "subarticle" of the GNU article. That doesn't seem appropriate. Might consider renaming. Jdavidb 14:31, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The way MediaWiki does things now, that doesn't make a damn bit of difference to the article presentation either in what used to be the "parent", what used to be the "child" or in any of the lists of articles or their talk pages. So it's a distinction that no longer makes a difference at all. Plus, it's what it's called, and GNU/Linux existed as an article for years without that being sufficient reason to rename it - David Gerard 14:45, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

uclibc, busybox

I've mentioned uclibc and Busybox (both of which need articles) as alternatives to the GNU tools as they're the most common solution. I've said "almost all" for desktops because I remembered some tiny Linuxes I used to play with :-) - David Gerard 09:45, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

What you fail to mention, though, is that Busybox is GNU software. Most of the code is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation.

Another alternative to GNU software that is sometimes used in embedded systems is newlib, originally from Cygnus (which is now part of Red Hat).

I just checked, and as far as I can tell Busybox is not an official GNU project, and only 10 out of its 379 .c files carry an FSF copyright notice (in busybox-1.00). —Steven G. Johnson 20:25, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Biased forwarding link to a marginal issue

2004-06-01 00:49 GMT Why the removal of the page and replacing with the impartial forwarding link to "GNU/Linux_naming_controversy". I have never heard anyone referring to "GNU/Linux_naming_controversy" online or at conferences, during business or at University. I have often heard people referring to "GNU/Linux". If anything the "GNU/Linux_naming_controversy" should be a link on the page of the OS it refers to.

In light of the present bias link the page should be reverted back from this nonsensical idea to the reversion pre-removal by "13:25, 3 Mar 2004 David Gerard".

I will await a couple of days for response before taking any steps. Cheers, now3d

The forwarding was on the basis of its original status as a subsection of Linux taken out and made into an article - the previous redirect was to Linux. Check the history of GNU/Linux and you'll see how it happened.

I've done what I didn't do at the time and checked "What links here" - eek! I've changed it back - David Gerard 14:04, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"GNU/Linux" is the accurate name for a Linux-based distribution, so I've redirected "GNU/Linux" to the Linux distribution article. Finding the linux kernel and naming controversy articles should be made easy from the distro article. You'll notice that ~~most~~ all articles that link to "GNU/Linux" are speaking about the larger operating system and not the operating system kernel. --65.19.77.253 18:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably all links to GNU/Linux are intentioned for the entire OS, and not the kernel. There are very likely links to Linux elsewhere on Wikipedia that are meant for GNU/Linux, but not vice versa.

"Some people argue" is pointless — Cite sources!

It is not appropriate to have an encyclopedia article about an issue saying things like "some people argue foo" and "some people argue bar". Who argued it, and when and where? If the answer is, "random Wikipedian X", then it should be deleted — Wikipedia is not Slashdot, nor is it for original research.

Please don't include arguments without giving a reference, and preferably a direct quotation, to a published source, preferably a quote by a knowledgable/encyclopedic person like Linus Torvalds, Marc Ewing, Richard Stallman, etcetera. Please clean up the present arguments to follow this guideline.

(No, quoting some random Slashdot discussion is not helpful — imagine yourself as a future historian, asking, "Who is Anonymous Coward and why do I care what s/he thought about this issue?" And no, doing your own survey of what comments are "typical" is original research and does not belong in Wikipedia.)

—Steven G. Johnson 23:26, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Use of the word "Linux" to mean "freedom software" in the mainstream

"it is not true that "Linux" is used exclusively for free/open-source software; there have been and are many distros that include proprietary software" - no, I'm talking about the connotations of the word in mainstream discourse.

e.g. the Economist, which uses the word "Linux" as the example to explain it to the people whose password is their initials three times but they seem to have all the money: "They have suggested borrowing the “open-source” approach that has proven so successful in another area of technology, namely software development. This is a decentralised form of production in which the underlying programming instructions, or “source code”, for a given piece of software are made freely available. Anyone can look at it, modify it, or improve it, provided they agree to share their modifications under the same terms. Volunteers collaborating in this way over the internet have produced some impressive software: the best-known example is the Linux operating system." e.g. the Washington Post: "Working largely on their own time, Linux devotees apply their collaborative model for creating software, known as open source, to attack SCO and its case." These are just examples from today. But it's mentioned somewhere in the 1999 Slashdot thread that's already in "External links" - this is not a novel observation.

I think it's a point worth noting. If you want to rephrase it, feel free - David Gerard 23:27, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've just added "the concept of" to make the sentence clearer. - David Gerard 23:44, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

(a) These are usages of "Linux" as an example of "open-source" software, which hardly answers the argument of the FSF about not crediting GNU or "free software". (b) Your citations are not arguments at all about the terminology. Who thinks that this is an argument for "Linux" vs. "GNU/Linux"? (c) Random Slashdotters are not encyclopedic, and a survey of Slashdot discussions is original research (this criticism applies both to pro and con "arguments" in this article). —Steven G. Johnson 00:24, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

The FSF's objection that just saying "Linux" does not address free software. The thing is that "Linux" is the mainstream use, so it doesn't have advocates to quote from; "GNU/Linux" isn't, so it does. If examples or references are needed, all they need show is that it is in fact mainstream use. Furthermore, "Linux" is the example generally used by mainstream press to explain the idea of open content (as opposed to merely gratis) in general.

This isn't quite on the level of demanding a reference for stating the sky is blue ("what about that grey bit over there?!") but it's getting there - David Gerard 09:19, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The fact that Linux is mainstream usage is undisputed; please don't misrepresent my objection. Can't you see that an "encyclopedia" article saying "some people argue foo" is of exceedingly poor quality, since "some people" might just be a random Wikipedian — it's a cheap way of inserting your own arguments in a superficially NPOV way. —Steven G. Johnson 16:08, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you really believe the Linux term "doesn't have advocates", then why are we listing "arguments against?" Whose arguments? If you believe what you just wrote, then we should say that people use Linux because that is historically the mainstream term and leave it at that. (I personally think that we should be able to find a few print references to the debate, or quotes by well-known people, that we can reference in "arguments against", however.) —Steven G. Johnson 16:08, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

Your expansion of the section is excellent! - David Gerard 17:39, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

And another, from the technology press today: ZDNet. On whether "Linux" is free: "But what about the old adage that it's not free as in free lunch but more free as in freedom of speech?" - David Gerard 10:45, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

==

basis of determining compatibility

"Identifying the userland provides a stronger definition of the operating system. This can be important, for example, for the basis of determining compatibility. As explained below, Linux need not have a GNU library and userland, and a non-GNU Linux-based operating system can be very different from a GNU one. A piece of software advertised as being "compatible with Linux" will most likely work with Linux plus the GNU tools (the most popular configuration), but will not necessarily work with Linux plus uClibc."

It's an interesting argument, but it's also the first time I've seen it - David Gerard 23:49, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see how you (or anybody else) can remove an argument from an article simply because you (or they) haven't seen it before. I wrote that paragraph, and I have seen and heard that same point mentioned from time to time in different places. it is IMHO a very valid argument, and it should be included. - Yama 18:45, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I just noticed "Some people argue" is pointless — Cite sources!", above. I'll try to find some writings on this and report back. - Yama 19:01, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Tweakage

Hi, David.

Thanks for your tweaks, and thanks for excavating the point I inadvertently managed to bury in the 3rd paragraph.

I made a few more adjustments which I'm happy to discuss, defend and possibly discard.

I noticed you restored "free-software". The GNU site always uses "free software" so I reinstated that usage.

chocolateboy 18:24, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Common English style encourages the hyphenation of compound adjectives (e.g. "free software" or "open source" used as an adjective) for clarity. —Steven G. Johnson 19:37, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC) (Please note that "free-software philosophy" and "free software philosophy" are not different terms, any more than "open-source software" and "open source software" are — they're just different ways of punctuating the same term. I'm not going to fight too hard about this — I realize that bad hyphenation style is rampant, and at some point it becomes too difficult to fight with the hordes of people who don't understand the difference between a noun and an adjective.)

Hiya.

Common English style encourages the hyphenation of compound adjectives (e.g. "free software" or "open source" used as an adjective) for clarity.

Only if there is some ambiguity. There's no ambiguity here because "free software" is semantically isolated by the link (nor is there any such thing as "software philosophy" - if this were "foreign car dealer" then at least we'd have something to debate (well, not really, because you'd be right :-))

There arguably are "software philosophies", in the sense of philosophies of software design. ("Object oriented," "functional", etcetera are often described as philosophies.)

They're usually described as "paradigms":

"object-oriented paradigm" (27,200) v "object-oriented philosophy" (649)
"functional programming paradigm" (1640) v "functional programming philosophy" (18)

Would you "argue" the same case for "source software" and "software movement"? Unlike "free software" (8,850,000), the term "software philosophy" (2,380) is not "commonly considered as a unit".

chocolateboy 02:47, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The de facto standard for "free software philosophy" is the same as that for "open source software": dehyphenated.

It's also the de jure standard. The first link God finds is our own Compound noun and adjective article:

The hyphen is unneeded when capitalization or italicization makes grouping clear:

"old English scholar": an old person who is English and a scholar, or an old scholar who studies English
"Old English scholar": a scholar of Old English.
"de facto proceedings" (not de-facto proceedings)

If, however, there is no risk of ambiguities, it may be written without a hyphen: "Sunday morning walk".

Similarly (another Google chart-topper):

Leave out hyphens in compound modifiers only when no reader confusion would result from their omission - or if the modifying words are commonly considered as a unit: post office box, high school classes. [1]

chocolateboy 21:59, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't claim the hyphen is needed in all compound adjectives, simply that it is better style. Just because they are optional in some cases doesn't mean they aren't a good idea, and all of your links only point to it being optional. Anyway, as I said, I'm not going to fight over this. —Steven G. Johnson 18:25, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not going to fight over this. [2]

I realize that bad hyphenation style is rampant, and at some point it becomes too difficult to fight with the hordes of people who don't understand the difference between a noun and an adjective. [3]

I don't claim the hyphen is needed ... [4]

chocolateboy 02:47, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

point in intro

The main argument for GNU/Linux is that the Linux kernel was only the final piece of the GNU project, which had worked for many years before the kernel was released to create a free operating system. Thus the kernel was but a small part of an otherwise complete system that had been painstakingly written and assembled by a large number of (often unsung) contributors.

There's something excessively wordy and redundant about the expression of this point - David Gerard 15:30, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi, David.

I agree, but I thought you were the one lobbying for the inclusion of both parts. To my mind, it's unreadable as one long sentence. The bit beginning "the kernel was but ... " simply duplicates the beginning of the paragraph. Why not just snip one of the sentences e.g.

The main argument for GNU/Linux is that the Linux kernel was only the final piece of the GNU project, which had worked for many years before the kernel was released to create a free operating system. Moreover, ...

or:

The main argument for GNU/Linux is that the kernel was but a small part of an otherwise complete operating system that had been painstakingly written and assembled by a large number of (often unsung) contributors over a period of many years. Moreover, ...

chocolateboy 16:18, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How's "The main argument for GNU/Linux is that the kernel was only a small part of an otherwise complete and integrated operating system that had been painstakingly brought together by many contributors over several years. Moreover, ..." ? I like "only" better there than "but" (but can live with it) and I don't think the "often unsung" is necessary. Stevenj? - David Gerard 16:55, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the sentences have problematic structure. There are a two points, and one subsidiary point, that need to be made here: (i) the Linux kernel formed only the final piece of the longstanding GNU project to create a free operating system; (i-a) the kernel is only a small piece of what is typically called "Linux"; and (ii) the FSF argues that calling it Linux also effaces their idealism and philosophy. I don't think the "unsung" bit is necessary here (nor do I think "and integrated" is needed). —Steven G. Johnson 18:25, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

Your version's fine with me for now.

The thing about the intro is that it's got to be sharp and to the point. Geek topics, particularly contentious geek topics, have a nasty tendency to sprout subclauses and modifiers to acknowledge every possible viewpoint major and minor. Linux had a near-terminal case of this. That's absolutely the wrong approach for an article lead, which must be as simple and comprehensible as possible. (Though no simpler.) Simple, muscular sentences. - David Gerard 18:47, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't find that. The Richard Stallman article doesn't suffer from that. Neither does the Eric Raymond article or the Perl article. I'm not wild about the difficult 3rd ~~album~~ paragraph as it stands (the GNU apposition doesn't work for me), but I'm not annoyed by it either. To be honest, I think a lot of this debate is down to featured-article-candidate-itis, which, I suspect, tends to bring out an eschatological streak in editors (myself included) i.e. an urge to create a definitive version of the article instead of simply acquiescing to the habitual Wikipedian flux.

Either way, I think the article's great. And the expression "Simple, muscular sentences" is a keeper too :-)

chocolateboy 23:05, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Then try to explain the edit history of Linux ;-) (Could be a featured article, never will because it's a perpetual edit war between gangs of almost but not quite indistiguishable geek partisans.) And the Eric S. Raymond article has suffered it. As has The Cathedral and the Bazaar ...

In any case, I'm sure we'll survive this. Probably. - David Gerard 23:29, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Some of my favourite articles have been erected on the desecrated corpses of edit warriors: Sealand and London Congestion Charge spring to mind. Some of them are even featured articles. I can't see any battle scars on the countenance of the ESR article (which is all that matters ultimately). On the contrary, it's recently had its neutrality warning removed, and these days is considerably less belligerent than its subject :-)

chocolateboy 00:06, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

post scriptum

many things in this section are not arguments, but are simply explanations of the current state of affairs [5]

And thus are arguments. If not, what are they doing in the article? The current headings suggest an asymmetry between the "GNU/Linux" case and the "Linux" case.

"components" is more neutral than "tools", since the latter connotes a secondary importance [6]

God and GNU disagree:

Google: "gnu tools" (64,900) v "gnu components" (798)
GNU: "gnu tools" (134) v "gnu components" (5)

The only objections to the term "GNU tools" seem to come from RMS and Eben Moglen (but not from the majority of FSF contributors). So - in this context - I'd question the intrinsic "neutrality" of that nomenclature.

Nevertheless, it's currently "GNU components" (2) v "GNU tools" (2), so in that sense I agree with you that it is neutral in the context of the article.

chocolateboy 00:06, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, there is an asymmetry: it's between common mainstream usage ("Linux") and a later term with minority but notable support ("GNU/Linux") - not two views on equal footing. - David Gerard 13:01, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I know there's an asymmetry. I'm just surprised to hear you say that the article endorses it ("not two views on equal footing").

The GNU/Linux name is endorsed by a minority. The page describes this viewpoint; that's not the same thing as "endorsing" it. —Steven G. Johnson 15:55, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

I can't see what would be lost by the excision of "explanations" ("GNU/Linux" is "explained" as well, surely?), and I think it would make the heading snappier ("strong, muscular sentences") and enhance the article's otherwise impeccable even-handedness.

chocolateboy 15:35, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You can't use Google to determine whether "GNU tools" is more neutral than "GNU components", because this is a question that depends on context (besides the obvious fact that "GNU/Linux" is a minority viewpoint that is not likely to be treated neutrally in the majority of citations). No one, not even GNU, disputes that they make some things that can be described as "tools". However, in the context of describing Linux-based operating systems, calling all of the GNU-derived parts of the operating system "tools" connotes a secondary importance. This takes a particular side in the argument described by the article, and there is no reason to do that as long as there is a alternative, "components," that is clearly neutral. —Steven G. Johnson 15:55, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

I must say I disagree with this, but, as I mentioned above, the fact that both expressions are used in the article makes it a moot point. Google can be used to demonstrate that "GNU tools" is the dominant usage (even on the GNU site). "GNU components" is not neutral in the same way that "GNU/Linux" is not neutral. There is an argument for it (expounded by RMS in the link above) and an argument against it (mainstream usage). I'm quite happy to agree that we're both taking sides on this subcontroversy, which is why I conceded that the article's balance of the two expressions is appropriate.

chocolateboy 16:59, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"GNU tools" is the almost universal usage as far as I know for "the libs and the shell and the utilities" - they are not commonly referred to as "the GNU components" - David Gerard 17:12, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sigh... It's hard to argue with you when you completely ignore what I wrote. The question is not whether GNU tools exist, but whether describing all GNU-derived parts of the OS as "tools" is neutral in this context. —Steven G. Johnson 17:08, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

I thought the term was used for libs/shell/utilities. That's certainly the usage I'm familiar with. (No, no reference to hand off the top of my head) - David Gerard 17:12, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it needs a reference. Pick a random program (e.g. grep, sed, man, less), run ldd against it (libraries), then figure out how you'd run it without a shell...

chocolateboy 19:50, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

--

The question is not whether GNU tools exist, but whether describing all GNU-derived parts of the OS as "tools" is neutral in this context.'

Yes, I know what the question is. That's why I made an analogy between your argument (that it isn't) and the argument against "Linux" (or, conversely, your argument for "GNU components" and the argument for "GNU/Linux"). In both cases the proponents (yourself, RMS, Eben Moglen) make a good case for the accuracy and "neutrality" of their usage. Unfortunately, pesky common usage gets in the way. If you don't believe "common usage" v "accuracy" (AKA "descriptive grammar" v "prescriptive grammar") is a controversy in and of itself, then why does this article exist?

chocolateboy 22:56, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

RMS et al. don't argue that "GNU/Linux" is neutral — they argue that GNU is the primary component, and that GNU should therefore come first in the name. Calling the GNU-derived parts of the operating system "components" on the other hand, is neutral with regard to the question of their primary-ness. Moreover, it's unlike "GNU/Linux" vs. "Linux" in another critical way — both "GNU/Linux" and "Linux" have people who vehemently object to them. I don't think that anyone would object to calling th GNU parts of the OS "GNU components", on the other hand, because the term "components" is neutral and factual in its connotations. You argue that "GNU tools" is more common, and even if this were true (it's not clear that it's more common in describing *all* GNU-derived parts of the OS, as opposed to just the shellutils, etc.), it is a term that some people object to in this context. So, the choice is

I said "accuracy and neutrality", and it's an analogy, not an equivalence. Please read the comments by RMS I linked above if you haven't had a chance to cast your eye over them. I could invert your defence and say that unlike "GNU components", which common usage eschews, "GNU tools" is objected to by RMS (in similar terms to his "correction" of "Linux"), and thus its suppression, under these circumstances, smacks of partisanship.

Also, please give some examples of these satellite "GNU components" that are neither libraries, nor programs, nor shells. That will make your argument clearer (see the dependencies point above [7]).

even if this were true (it's not clear that it's more common in describing *all* GNU-derived parts of the OS, as opposed to just the shellutils, etc.)

Again, please back up this point. As far as I can see, the only adherents of the term "GNU components" as a "correction" of "GNU tools" are yourself, Eben Moglen, and RMS (illustrious company, I'll be the first to admit, but I think there's a difference between 3 people and "some people" when it comes to the article).

I don't think that anyone would object to calling the GNU parts of the OS "GNU components"

I certainly don't object to it in the (balanced) context of the article, as I've said numerous times, which is why I'm surprised we're still discussing it. The question is: why do you object to the most commonly used term, "GNU tools"? What "components" do you have in mind that are demonstrably not "tools" according to common parlance?

chocolateboy 22:56, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Both positions are partisan.

chocolateboy 22:56, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, there is a stark difference that breaks your analogy. The choice between "Linux" and "GNU/Linux" for the OS is a choice between two terms, one majority and one minority, where both terms have some people that vehemently object to it. The choice between "GNU tools" and "GNU components" in this context (to describe all GNU-derived parts of the OS), is the choice between two terms, one of which might be more common in this context (and your Google searches don't answer that context-dependent question), but more importantly only one of those terms ("GNU tools") is objected to by partisans in this question as being inaccurate in its connotations. If, in a contentious issue, there is a term like "components" that no one could object to as misleading, that seems obviously preferable to me even if it is less common. (You could try to argue that "GNU components" is inaccurate in its connotations from some POV, although I think that would be hard, but you haven't done so...that's why I didn't feel like you responded to what I was saying.) —Steven G. Johnson 20:02, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

I don't argue that it's inaccurate. I argue that it's infelicitous (to the casual observer it looks like the editor is unfamiliar with the customary term), and (given the circumstances under which it has been advocated) partisan. Again, please provide some evidence of this expanded context in which the default term "GNU tools" is inadequate. The first link Google finds is Cygwin. I've used it a number of times, and by default it has installed pretty much every GNU program, library and shell one would expect to find on a "Unix". The only things I've had to add are ssh, screen, Perl, and, occasionally, Apache. Only one of those (screen) is GNU, and I'd be surprised if anyone preferred to describe it as a "component" rather than a "tool".

chocolateboy 22:56, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's hard to argue with you when you completely ignore what I wrote. [8]

Nevertheless, it's currently "GNU components" (2) v "GNU tools" (2), so in that sense I agree with you that it is neutral in the context of the article. [9]

You may also find it hard to argue with someone who agrees with you.

chocolateboy 22:56, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You don't agree with me in your reasoning, since you think both terms are partisan and it's simply a question of numerical balancing. And even your conclusions I am inclined to disagree with, since I'm inclined to replace the second instance of "GNU tools" as well in the article for the same reason (because, in the second usage, it is clearly intended to indicate all GNU-derived components of the OS). —Steven G. Johnson 20:02, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

I know, but I thought that we both agreed that the article is fine as it stands (as far as this issue is concerned). I'd prefer the term "GNU tools" to be used because it is the default, and looks less like an uninformed lapsus. You'd prefer "GNU components" because you believe (though you haven't provided any evidence for it) that there are some (what exactly? libraries? applications? shells?) undefined pieces of software that are demoted ("secondary") by being referred to as "tools", contrary to the dictionary definition of the word. I assumed that we'd both made reasonable cases for the two terms and that the status quo should prevail.

I'm inclined to replace the second instance of "GNU tools" as well in the article for the same reason (because, in the second usage, it is clearly intended to indicate all GNU-derived components of the OS).

Again, that would be a legitimate choice, but one you haven't defended.

In both cases, common usage overwhelmingly prefers to refer to these so-called "components" as "tools":

"busybox 'gnu tools'" (437) v "busybox 'gnu components'" (6)

"uclibc 'gnu tools'" (256) v "uclibc 'gnu components'" (1)

chocolateboy 18:46, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the heading, I'm not completely happy with it either, but I think that calling it simply "Arguments for Linux" is misleading. Very few people "argue" for the "Linux" term — because it is the majority term, most people simply use it without debate. Correspondingly, much of that section consists of not arguments per se, but simply descriptions of why, in fact, that term is more common. In this sense, there is a qualitative difference between the two "for" sections. —Steven G. Johnson 15:55, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

I can't say I'm in love with the heading either. I created the headings [10] as "Arguments for" and "Arguments against". Those weren't ideal either IMO. If anyone comes up with something truly compelling ... - David Gerard 16:31, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I must say I like the structure of the intro sentences in that version a lot more, though - David Gerard 16:32, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Which one is "that version"? —Steven G. Johnson

The early version I linked: [11] - I think the intro has suffered from the geek complication procedure I described before David Gerard 17:12, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

--

Very few people "argue" for the "Linux" term — because it is the majority term

Quite a few people argue for "Linux" when the topic comes up on Slashdot or Usenet. Given the asymmetry you referred to above, I would think it would be more accurate to say that very few people argue for "GNU/Linux".

Correspondingly, much of that section consists of not arguments per se, but simply descriptions of why, in fact, that term is more common. In this sense, there is a qualitative difference between the two "for" sections.

One argument for "Linux" is that the term is "more common" than "GNU/Linux". Descriptions of why that is so serve to flesh out that argument. I see no qualitative difference. In fact, there's probably more off-band "explanation" in the (longer) "GNU/Linux" section; the last five paragraphs abandon the "GNU/Linux" defence entirely, and could just as easily be given their own section. Just don't ask me what it should be called :-)

chocolateboy 18:46, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Article is bogus

The article is bogus and the idea that there's a big "controversy" or especially that "the vast majority" believe the OS should be called Linux is silly. The "vast majority" is non-partisan on the issue, though most say "Linux" because it's what they're used to hearing and they're not aware of the distinction, or just because it's easier (shorter) or find "GNU/Linux" to be a bit pedantic. There are "GNU/Linux" proponents but they have an uphill battle because their term is clumsy. I don't think there are that many "Linux" proponents in the sense of people who would try to convince someone else that "GNU/Linux" is somehow incorrect (as opposed to just using "Linux" themselves and not being concerned much about what terms other people use.

So I think the article should be corrected, I'd even call it non-NPOV in the current incarnation. Phr 04:36, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)phr

I moved your text to the bottom. It is customary to add new comments to the bottom of talk pages.

If there's some text in the article that bothers you, please quote it. I can't find any that implies "the vast majority" believe the OS should be called Linux. Also, I think the issue does qualify as a controversy, even though there isn't any controversy except when Stallman and friends are stirring it up. After all, he says, "call it this!" and people say "um, no" and we have (as the dictionary defines controversy) an expression of opposing views. --Yath 04:49, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I disagree that there is no controversy. Although it is true that the vast majority of people use "Linux" (and personally, I don't expect "GNU/Linux" to ever catch on), the FSF as well as the Debian project officially advocate "GNU/Linux". These organizations are major forces in the free software movement; their viewpoint can't be dismissed. Moreover, this debate is interesting because it's really a proxy for the debate between pure Free Software vs. pragmatic Open Source factions.--Shibboleth 06:23, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Interesting picture

Anybody else notice that Tux appears to be the sidekick to the GNU in the FSF made picture? crazyeddie 09:59, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Which I assume is the FSF's point ;-) That's why it's labeled an FSF production - David Gerard 13:38, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Something interesting

There appears to be something called Debian GNU/KFreeBSD, which is a special version of FreeBSD but with GNU tools rather than BSD ones. While its not Linux based, it shows that the argument dosen't just apply to it. Also see GNU/HURD, the kernel that was originally intended to be the GNU kernel. Many people think that RMS targeted Linux because of the failure of his own kernel. 195.188.152.16 09:44, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'll add a mention - David Gerard 13:38, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean by "failure of his own kernel?" HURD hasn't failed; it isn't even completely finished, and is still being actively worked on. Until the project is abandoned, I would not be so quick to call it a failure! Shawn K. Quinn 12:13, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

Featured controversies

I do not think any controversy should qualify for a feature on the main page since controversies are usually only secondary articles. Plus, this particular example is certainly completely irrelevant in the eyes of most people. Get-back-world-respect 13:21, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:Raul654 appears to be picking Main Page articles at present. I suspect he's running low on suitable candidates. We need more excellent articles on WP:FAC, really - David Gerard 13:38, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Open Source

Hi, Shibboleth.

I removed the following paragraph:

The naming controversy reflects a split between two factions of developers working on the system. The idealistic Free software movement, led by the FSF, emphasizes the "free" (as in freedom) aspect of the system, and describes the free use and modifiability of software as an important right akin to freedom of speech. On the other hand, the dominant, pragmatic Open Source movement believes that freely available source code is valuable mainly because it results in higher-quality software. Emphasizing the role of the GNU project through the "GNU/Linux" name is a way for the FSF's ideas to gain more exposure.

Excellent though it is, it's not actually pertinent to the intro, or, given the history of the use and advocacy of "GNU/Linux", the article as a whole. The GNU/Linux naming controversy predates the Open Source movement by several years, and the "Linux" and "GNU/Linux" camps are as likely to base their decision on unrelated factors such as what name they already use, or the name adopted by their favourite distribution, as they are on which side of the philosophical/pragmatic fence they sit on.

To suggest that "GNU/Linux" advocacy is a response to the Open Source movement in some way is, I think, to do it something of an accidental disservice. The essay in which RMS addresses this topic directly makes no such case for "GNU/Linux". It does, however, make the case for "free software" over "open source software", but that's not the topic of this article.

The free software article makes the point you make above and would seem a more appropriate context for the paragraph.

chocolateboy 13:06, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I might add that since RMS started advocating "GNU/Linux" years before the Open Source movement began, the former simply cannot be a response to the latter. Eric119 17:59, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

The reason I added the paragraph is because I saw it was a featured article, and reading through it it seemed to be about a technicality that honestly not even most Linux programmers care about. I wanted to add some context of wider interest for visitors.

You are right that the naming difficulties appeared prior to the open source movement, but I would say it was not a "controversy" in those years: it was just that the naming conventions had not yet been decided. It became a "controversy", that people actually have strong feelings about, when the open source movement appeared and the free software people wanted to prevent people from forgetting them. Why do you think RMS continues to insist on this name so much? Whenever he is asked "is it just your ego?" he makes it clear that it's not that he wants to get personal credit for Linux, but that he wants the free software movement to get credit for Linux --- to help perpetuate the free software philosophy. We would not be writing this article on Wikipedia today if it wasn't for the Free software/OSS split. No one would care.

Look at the arguments by free software advocates over this: particularly "What's in a name?" by RMS, and "Why I don't use 'Linux'" by someone else, linked at the bottom of the article. Admittedly, these articles never attack "open source" by name --- I think probably because they don't want to be negative against a group which is after all basically their allies --- but it is clear to me that the central thrust of the articles is the idealistic/pragmatic distinction. Look at this sentence from "What's in a name?":

The GNU Project is idealistic, and anyone encouraging idealism today faces a great obstacle: the prevailing ideology encourages people to dismiss idealism as "impractical."

This is a argument against the "prevaling ideology", namely OSS.

So I think mentioning this split is actually very relevant, because it's the whole reason why the controversy is continuing today. Otherwise, everybody would've settled on one name a long time ago. That said, you made some good objections, so I'm modifying the paragraph to take them into account and re-adding it. Take a look. I think adding this extra context to the beginning of the article suddenly makes it a lot more interesting. --Shibboleth 18:03, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Replying to myself: come to think of it, you have a point, though, that the "pragmatic" attitude is not restricted to the Open Source movement, and indeed existed before it appeared. I am perhaps mischaracterizing the debate by describing it entirely as as FSF vs. OSI thing. To address this, I just modified the article to say the pragmatic attitude more prevalent today, exemplified by the Open Source movement, which more accurately places the OSI as only a representative of the wider pragmatic forces. That would also be a good reason why RMS doesn't attack OSS directly --- he is more interested in the ideas. --Shibboleth 18:14, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I put it back to OSI to keep the paragraph as tight as possible. It still feels bloated. Also, the list of GNU software is redundant with GNU, which is also the place it obviously belongs - if the list there is wrong or incomplete, please fix it there - David Gerard 23:31, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

These days, the portion of the software the GNU collective created that is used in the OS is rapidly decreasing. And I don't think you can really call it a controversy since almost noone cares. If I wanted I could distribute all the GNU and Linux packages myself and call it MyOwnOS and not feel bad because the GNU GPL explicity gives me the right to do that. Eric B. and Rakim 01:29, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

These days, the portion of the software the GNU collective created that is used in the OS is rapidly decreasing.

I disagree. The OS is GNU+Linux. Those two parts are needed for a functional system. Everything else is just additional programs.

Components of the GNU system

This section needs to be merged with GNU. We should never have two completely redundant lists like this. That said, I understand the relevance of it for the argument, but surely it can be summed up in a brief paragraph like "The GNU project built a great deal of software, such as X, Y, and Z. See GNU for a more complete list." --Shibboleth 14:34, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"The Main Argument"

This article desperately needs to be re-written. There has been so much cutting and pasting that an outsider would be thoroughly confused by what is written. It does not explain clearly what the controversy *is*. It fully evidences each side of the argument, but doesn't really explain why or how the controversy developed in the first place. I am not qualified to write on this topic, but some advice for someone who is:

1. Rewrite the first paragraph: "The GNU/Linux Naming Controversy is a disagreement within Community X about Y..."
2. Complete a brief history of when, where, why and how the two schools of thought diverged.
3. Restate the position of the 'pro' side, and elucidate on their arguments.
4. Restate the position of the 'con' side, and elucidate on their arguments.
5. Explain the balance of mainstream thought at present day.

Thanks!

Random comment

From anon IP User:203.173.168.159, that was pasted in into the article -

As an example...The custom Linux implementation which is on my system I'm calling Petrusmods/LFS GNU/Linux. The first half is short for Petrus's modifications (my own work) of a base install consisting of the Linux From Scratch implementation of the Linux operating system with GNU utilities. My own position is that, although I understand brevity is sometimes needed, most of the critical work done on the Linux operating system is unpaid, and that recognition is likely the only reward contributors will ever get. Although Linux has made it possible for me to feel like I actually own my computer (which Microsoft never did) the result has also been that I feel that in using Linux I am a part of something much greater than myself. Rather than simply taking from those who have gone before me, I feel that a better position is to use it for my own needs, but also to attempt to contribute to it in whatever way my own talents allow, and then to pass the system with my own modifications onto others so that they can then do the same...to me it's like the childhood game of pass the parcel, except with each person an extra layer is added to the parcel, rather than one being taken away. For this reason, my own position is that if I do not (as the most prominent example) want to give Richard Stallman *any* credit, then I should not use software produced by him or his organisation. He does not deserve *sole* credit for the allied system that we call Linux...no single person does...but I believe that each and every individual who contributes to GNU/Linux deserves recognition for their work. After all, don't you generally want credit for yours?

Something that needs to be added

Some at least ( the well known magazine Linux Format by futurenet ) use Linux when they mean GNU/Linux, then claim that they abbrivate GNU/Linux to Linux throughout for brewety, i think this point needs to be made in the article as well, some people who wholly agree with the GNU/Linux name still use Linux simply because it takes a shorter time to say Lee-nuks than guh-NOO slash Lee-nuks. I've been looking to put that in myself but didnt find the right place to do it nor the right wording. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:37, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)

The right place to put it, I think, would be under "Arguments for Linux", since they are still arguing for the "Linux" moniker, but are interpreting it differently. This section already mentions the common point that "Linux" is shorter and easier to say, however. If there is a more detailed argument to be made (e.g. saying that the "GNU/" is "understood"), however, it is best done by quoting a properly cited source. I tried searching Linux Format for the policy that you mention, but couldn't find anything; please post a quotation if you have one. If you're not sure how to word it, try pasting it here first. —Steven G. Johnson 19:16, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

How about working it into the intro:

For historical and other reasons, most people simply use the term "Linux" for the whole system, one notable exception being Debian GNU/Linux, Others use it for brewety though they agree with the GNU/Linux argument...

I will quote the source sometime next week when i get to my Linux Format, it is in small print somewhere, near the back if i recall correctly. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:12, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)

That's already covered by "other reasons". It should go as an example of "it is easier to say" in "Arguments for 'Linux'" - David Gerard 21:51, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's more than just that, a major magazine which most people think would agree with the "Linux" argument is actually just abbrivating it. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:53, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)

I dunno, it sounds like them trying to be clever about it. This is an English magazine we're talking about - David Gerard 23:00, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Elaborate, why do you think that they're trying to be clever and how is it relevant that they're english? --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 12:45, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)

It seems fairly obvious to me that they just want to say "Linux Format" (to fit in with the "xxx Format" line of magazines) and the small note tucked away somewhere in small print somewhere near the back is only there for the purpose of assuaging the advocates of "GNU/Linux". (And it strikes me as fitting English humour.) Was the note there from the first issue? - David Gerard 13:55, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Repeated removal of material

User:Stevenj has repeatedly removed a good paragraph under the false pretense that it must be attributed to be valid. While the attribution could make it more powerful, the lack of it does not invalidate the point being made. Removing a good paragraph is simply innapropriate especially re-removing it without comment on the talk page. In order to avoid an edit war, I will not re-add it unless there is no consensus objection here to doing so. If there is not roughly consensus objection after a few days I will re-add the material. Here is the removed paragraph:

Many users and vendors who prefer the name "Linux" point to the inclusion of non-GNU, non-kernel tools such as the Apache HTTP Server, the X Window System or the K Desktop Environment in end-user operating systems based on the Linux kernel. No single name can comprehensively acknowledge the thousands of developers and projects that have contributed to a complete distribution — GNU is only one of those, albeit a pivotal one. Linux thus serves as a convenient synecdoche for a complete OS distribution.

Thanks, Taxman 23:37, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

Whether it's valid or not is not the issue - the issue is that Wikipedia is not Slashdot, but a secondary source not composed of original research or random opinionation. This article has in its history suffered considerable quantities of random crap being put in because someone wanted to make a point themselves, rather than survey referable points by others; referability helps protect against future waves of random crap.

Put it this way: if it's so very valid a point, you will surely be able to find a good reference or two for it. If you can't, it probably isn't so very valid a point - David Gerard 01:00, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

One of the comments in the history is that the disputed paragraph is simply "explanation", i.e. a statement of fact. It's not, because the undisputed fact that "Linux" systems have many authors is not, by itself, an argument per se for whether the system should be called "Linux" or "GNU" or what have you, so positing as an argument is POV. It may still be true, of course, that some people consider this to somehow be an argument for "Linux", but if so you should be able to find these people (assuming they are encyclopedic). If you feel it essential to include the undisputed factual information, let me suggest that it should go under the background somewhere, perhaps in the "History" section. How about:

Today, the "Linux" name refers to operating systems and even to whole Linux distributions that combine hundreds or thousands of software components by many thousands of authors. In addition to the kernel and the GNU components, there are the graphical X Window System and K Desktop environment, server programs such as Apache, and scripting languages such as Perl. A short name is needed for common use, but no single name can fully credit all of these contributions — the debate over whether to call it "Linux" or "GNU" or "GNU/Linux" is, in some sense, over the question of which developers should be given primary mention.

—Steven G. Johnson 17:00, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

Even on that I'd like something noting this precise point had been made before, which the FSF reference does. I'll look and maybe shuffle it - David Gerard 18:00, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I think we should add a sentance or two to the intro saying something on pronuncation, such as,

Stallman considers the correct proununcation to be "GNU slash Linux"; however many people instead say "GNU Linux".

--ErikStewart 13:26, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I added this, but as a postscriptum, not to the introduction. It seems a minor matter, compared to the larger controversy that is the article's focus. —Steven G. Johnson 03:51, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Removal of material without explanation

It seems User:Stevenj is more concerned with "winning" some argument about whether "Linux" is mainstream/common/majority use, rather than developing the neutral point of view. I tried a minor edit to the intro of Linux (since improved by User:Ryanaxp) after someone used it to fan a flamewar.

I ask everyone to avoid using the words "mainstream" or "majority" for your favourite view, unless you can support it with numbers. There's precious little evidence presented so far, just a lot of "google says ..." and "wikipedia must conform to mass media use" hand-waving.

The word "common" probably can't be used until there's real agreement in the wider world and flamewars about this stop happening. Clearly, "Linux" is not a name for the OS that's common to everyone, else this page wouldn't even exist.

If you make material on a controversial topic *less* neutral, please explain in the edit comments. "Reverting to ..." isn't good style. - 81.86.163.141

I think someone would have to be a drooling idiot not to notice the common usage, such as in the mass media, of "Linux" to refer to the whole operating systems. See the commented-out link to The Economist in the source of Linux - David Gerard 04:18, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ding ding ding. You are correct, sir. →Raul654 04:53, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, it's much easier than that, David Gerard. Simply look to the difference in the popular press between the uses of Linux and GNU/Linux. The "mainstream" usage is quite obvious (about an 8:600 ratio at last count), and I won't even spoil the result by telling you which one that is. -Harmil 20:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, to be fair, you should eliminate the GNU/Linux answers from the Linux search. When you do this, the results are still massively skewed in favor of one of the results by a couple of orders of magnitude (log 10). That says nothing about correctness, just common, mainstream usage. -Harmil 20:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that GNU was a complete, but kernel-less system

One of the core claims has always been that GNU was a complete system for which the HURD was the final piece, and Linux (the kernel) used the GNU framework to rush to completion.

While I agree that GNU deserved massive kudos for their compiler toolchain (GCC, GAS, binutils, GLibc, gdb, flex, bison, autoconf, make) and for the development of one of the two most commonly used editors (EMACS), I do not understand this assertion that GNU was in any way a complete system. I contributed to GNU in small ways in the early 90s. I spoke with Stallman on a number of occasions, and GNU was in no way a complete system pre-Linux. It lacked a boot loader, system initialization framework (e.g. UNIX "init"), and many other tools which the GNU/HURD project intended on using BSD components for in the first revision. It also lacked any high-level user-interface software (X11 had been developed by MIT in the 1980s, and so they planned to use that).

To be encyclopedic and to represent a neutral point of view, I think it is important to note that GNU/Hurd was not a complete system awaiting a kernel, but rather a build framework capable of supporting kernel development, which is just what Linus used it for. The fact that it then became the heart of a build framework for the rest of the operating system commonly called "Linux" today is actually entirely beside the point. -Harmil 20:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation again

I've added explication that Stallman's advocated pronunciation of "GNU/Linux" would in fact be "guh-NOO-slash-Linux" or "guh-NOO-plus-Linux" (and no, I'm not going to render that in IPA). But I can't find a solid reference for it. I can find lots of pages saying he favours "guh-NOO" as the pronunciation of "GNU", but none where he or the FSF actually do so. Not that I disbelieve it, I'd just like to be able to put a reference in. Anyone? - David Gerard 14:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest starting another holy war while the opportunity's still there!

Ahem. But jocularity aside, how about http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html:

"To avoid horrible confusion, please pronounce the `G' in the word `GNU' when it is the name of this project." (True, this only indirectly gives you "guh-NOO", but it was written by Stallman.)

And looking a bit further, I struck gold. This is from a speech Stallman made at NYU: "But, when it's the name of our system, the correct pronunciation is "guh-NEW" -- pronounce the hard "G". If you talk about the "new" operating system, you'll get people very confused, because we've been working on it for 17 years now, so it is not new any more. [Laughter] But it still is, and always will be GNU -- no matter how many people call it Linux by mistake. [Laughter]" It includes a bit on the naming controversy to boot, how about that? :-) 131.155.69.249 14:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one! Added - David Gerard 20:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A new name: Algae

Has anyone suggested simply ending the controversy by introducing a new name for Linux and GNU's naming controversy?

Why not call it "LG" as in Linux/GNU - which sounds a lot like "Algae". Simple. Effective. Descriptive.

"Algae" would be an appropriate name for the operating system, as it continues to evolve and grow into related, independent children. It also ends the controversy altogether, by acknowledging a dispute exists by those who know about it. LG, Algae - what do you think?

If you like it, spread the word.

inigmatus 18:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History

This section states:

"...which began the development of a complete Unix-like operating system composed entirely of free software in January 1984."

However, the article I was reading that linked to this particular article (GNU) notes:

"The GNU project was announced in September 1983 by Richard Stallman..."

Perhaps the author(s) of one or the other articles were percieving the original date in different ways (announcement vs. beginnin of work, etc), but it would be good to have these dates nicely in agreement accross the pages. I am placing this comment here with the Linux Naming Controversy page, as it links off of the primary GNU article. Dxco 07:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct as worded, but somewhat confusing I agree. According to here and here the GNU project was announced in 1983 but work was not begun on it until 1984. This should be clarified at GNU. —Steven G. Johnson 19:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

article name: "controversy" or "debate"

I've realised that when I link to this article, it's to show the two sides of the naming debate. Then I looked at the article, and I see that the content is about the two sides of the debate. The name of the article says it's about "controvery" related to the debate, but it is not. Controversial is one of many words that could be used to describe the debate, but the defining character of this article is that it is about a debate.

Can I have comments on moving this article to GNU/Linux naming debate? (remember that the current name will become a redirect, so nothing will break and nothing will have to be changed, it's just matching the name to the content. Gronky 19:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After going through a large sample of articles that link here, I've found that they are indeed pointing at what they hope is both sides of the debate and not the controversy related to the debate. In light of this, and in light of nobody objecting or correcting my comment, and in light of this article containing information about both sides of the debate and not the controversy related to the debate, I propose moving this article to GNU/Linux naming debate. Any objections?

Again I'd like to note that the only thing that will change is the name at the top of the page - GNU/Linux naming controversy will become a redirect, and nothing will be lost. History, and the Talk: page, and all that stuff will be retained and will move along with the article page. Appologies if I'm being too cautious about an uncontroversial action. Gronky 10:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I've gotten two night's sleep since I first posted the suggestion. So, since the article discusses a debate, and since the pages that link here do so to explain a debate, I will now move the page to GNU/Linux naming debate. One additional factor I just noticed is that the word "controversy" only appears twice in the article, and it doesn't feature at all in the first 4 paragraphs, so I'm pretty sure this is uncontroversial. Gronky 13:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Gronky 13:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much point in talking about it if you're only going to wait two days for a response.

I think this was rather unnecessary and might even give people the notion that this is an acceptable place to have an actual active debate. ¦ Reisio 18:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Having the notion that any article page is "an acceptable place to have an actual active debate" indicates that the person has not yet grasped even the most fundamental concepts of Wikipedia. I have yet to encounter such a person, but I think only a person who has never edited Wikipedia could be so misinformed - and I'm certain that any such theorectical person would learn this fundamental concept very shortly after their first edit. Gronky 01:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted unrename

The page was moved back to "controversy" without discussion or comment etc. etc. etc. So I've renamed the page back to "debate". Again, the reasons for calling the page "debate" are that the page contains information about a debate and the two sides of the debate, and articles that point to this page do so to point people toward the reasons on each side of the debate. Gronky 22:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Debate" implies a particular style of reasoned argument, of back and forth between two sides where they answer one another's points, that may or may not be a good description for this issue depending upon your point of view. "Controversy" is a much more general and, in this context, neutral term that encompasses, for example, cases where one side actively campaigns on an issue and the other side simply accepts the status quo. (I really fail to understand your argument against "controversy". Any article on a controversy should surely give the various sides, as well as the history, etcetera.) "Controversy" also seems to be more standard in Wikipedia articles on this sort of thing; e.g. Native American name controversy, Element naming controversy, and Hacker definition controversy. —Steven G. Johnson 23:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that "GNU/Linux naming controversy" was the name under which this article was reviewed and accepted for featured-article status. And, from the discussion above, you seem to be completely alone in pushing for this inexplicable name change. —Steven G. Johnson 23:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"inexplicable" does a bad job of describing the above 7 or so paragraphs I spent explaining the change, but anyway...

Rather than stating what implications we each take from words, lets use dictionaries. www.dict.org says "debate" means "To contend for in words or arguments; to strive to maintain by reasoning; to dispute; to contest; to discuss; to argue for and against.", and it says that "controversy" means "Contention; dispute; debate; discussion; agitation of contrary opinions. Quarrel; strife; cause of variance; difference.".

Factoring out the similarities, the differences are that controversy focuses on the agitation, the strife, teh contention - and this articles doesn't focus on those things. It focuses on the arguments on either side, not the heat caused by the friction of the sides meeting.

Also, those other three articles you reference do not constitute a Wikipedia guide. If they are mistaken, then propagating that mistake so is the wrong course of action (that's "if", I don't know about them).

Articles on controversial topics should indeed give the various sides, history, etc. but that doesn't mean that all articles on controversial topics should be named "_controversy". Richard Stallman is controversial, but the article about his is called "Richard Stallman", not "Richard Stallman controversy". (you said "any article on a controversy", but I've explained already that this article isn't on the controversy, it's on the two sides of the thing/debate/argument/issue)

Lastly, yes, the article was started and featured under the name controversy. That name might have been correct at those times, but I'm commenting on the present, and presently it is not correct.

Now, all that said, one thing that occurred to me while writing this is that the article is about "naming". So actually there is no need for a further description. "GNU/Linux naming" would be correct, IMO. (as would "GNU+Linux operating system naming", although that might be a mouthful for some). What do you think about that? Gronky 13:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Name fixing again

(a continuation of a debate which is also the topic of the two-previous sections on this talk page)

It seems getting consensus on this will be difficult since few people are paying attention to this article nowadays. I do think it is important that the article carries a correct title, so I will summarise again the debate (sparse and drawn-out as it has been):

The name "GNU/Linux naming controversy" is incorrect, today, because:

it does not describe the content of the article (the article is about the two sides of the debate, not the controversy caused by those sides meeting)
it does not describe what is expected by those linking to this article (from observation of a large sample, I see that articles linking here do so to show the sides of the debate, not to show the controversy caused)

These have been my two points all-along, and nobody has disagreed with either. "GNU/Linux naming controversy" may have been correct in the very beginning. It also may have been correct when it was a featured article, although I doubt it (I will not delve into that point since the issue is what the correct name is today, not what the correct name would have been back then). Today, it is incorrect.

I disagree. You are misrepresenting the meaning and connotation of the words "controversy" and "debate" as explained above. No one is paying attention here as long as the status quo is maintained, because everyone but you agrees with the current title. —Steven G. Johnson 19:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, and I disagree with you, and I think you are misrepresenting those words. It seems you and I won't agree that "debate" is more accurate than "controversy". Note that the title you like is as un-cared for as mine. After I changed the title, it stayed changed for 17 days before you came along. This article is un-cared for in general.

What about "GNU/Linux naming"? Gronky 20:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since most of the page is about the arguments and commentary on the issue, i.e. the controversy, that title doesn't seem as appropriate. (By the way, it achieved FA status in essentially its present form [12].) —Steven G. Johnson 01:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We have a problem. I agree with you that the page is about arguments (for and against), plus commentary - but I don't think "controversy" describes that in any way. Since I think this is important, and since we are getting nowhere, and since the chances of a consensus are near-zero, I'll put it on WP:RM and we'll see what others there think. Gronky 12:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The name I have proposed is "GNU/Linux naming debate". One person objected because one meaning of "debate" implies a certain formal argument competition, but that is only one meaning. Another reason is that some other articles have "controversy" in the title, but maybe they are actually about controversies (which would make them unlike this article) in which case those names would be right for those articles, but their names have no implications for this article. Another possibility is that those articles also have incorrect titles, in which case the correct thing to do is fix them rather than spreading the mistake. But these things are irrelevent.

For this article, at this current point in time, the current name is wrong and bad.

So, again, I propose improving it by changing it to "GNU/Linux naming debate". An alternative is "GNU/Linux naming".

The reason that I haven't forgotten about this is that I would like to contribute to the article, but each time I come to look at it I see that my contributions would be about the debate, but the current title says that this is not the correct place to add information about a debate, this is the place for adding information about controversy. The obvious option then is to start an article for the debate, but if I did that I would have to start by moving everything from this article into my new article ...and that would surely annoy people (and it would be stupid since we can just fix the title, which is cleaner for MediaWiki). So the right thing to do is fix the title. Comments and suggestions very welcome. Gronky 15:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

GNU/Linux naming controversy → GNU/Linux naming debate – The content of the page is about the debate, not the controversy, and pages that link there do so when discussing the debate, not the controversy (another suggested name is "GNU/Linux naming") — Gronky 12:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Support, as per own nomination and above discussions, Gronky 13:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The page covers the disagreement over the naming, its history and context, and the motivations/arguments behind both naming usages: the controversy. "Debate" is less apt, especially because no prominent figure on the side of the "Linux" status quo seems to have been more than marginally involved in a "debate" over the naming in the usual argument-and-rebuttal sense (with good reason: they haven't needed to). (Your POV may vary, but "controversy" is more neutral.) ——Steven G. Johnson 10:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Given the definition above which notes the difference between debate and controversy I agree that Debate may be a better word than controversy, however if there are any other synonyms avaliable which portray the subject more accurately I would support that as well. The word controversy has a negative connotation that should be avoided under the doctrine of NPOV. Kode 01:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Moved from WP:RM

There seems to be no consensus on the article talk page, the only "vote" there is by User:Gronky. I strongly suggest we hold off on this until there is consensus on the articles talk page. ALKIVAR™

13:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a misunderstanding. The vote only opened 5 minutes ago. Have I botched the procedure somewhere? Gronky 13:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not AFAICT but you should include the pages in the Requested moved section (I have done it for you) otherwise when the template is removed there is no archive record of what the WP:RM was. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not moved. No consensus. —Nightstallion (?) 13:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find: "six" "abdomen" "stomach" nor "muscle" anywhere in the article.

Anyone else find it noteworthy that you can't find any of the words "six" "abdomen" "stomach" nor "muscle" in the article?

Me, I notice that shit, and it make me laf sometimes.

No? Despite the fact that the article is basically about two groups, both of which are at least indicative of (if not predominantly "about") brains over brawn, struggling with each other about who has the rights to claim biggest dick (or at least over who has the rights to name the bloodline, which is pretty much the same arguement) who have chosen as their iconic representation something chubby-but-winning and/vs something chiseled-but-frightful?

It seems like the article ought to acknowledge in some way the rotund vs. angular comparisons that the icons would seem to call for.

There maybe also oughta be, though perhaps nowhere else but here, some reference to the comparing the GNU creature's abs & Tux's belly with profile pics of anyone who's ever contributed a line of code to GNU\Linux. That'd prolly be some funny shit, ozz bless'it.

Perhaps Poorly Put here, but oh well. -:)Ozzyslovechild 02:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]