>It's ironic how that is the first impression uninformed people have >when they come across "Linux" distributions and consider their >relationship with the GNU project. After a while, informing >themselves, some come across the idea that those are in fact >"GNU+Linux" distributions, and a minor part of these accept and >internalize the concept that those are variants of the GNU operating >system. I was one of those. It turned out however that the truth is >halfway that conclusion. Of course, it's not legitimate to call an >operating system by "Linux", because a kernel is not an operating >system nor important enough to name one; on the other hand it's not >legitimate to call those systems "GNU", because they simply are not put >together nor dubbed that way by the GNU project; we could call those >"variants of the GNU operating system", if not for the fact that there >is no GNU operating system from which derivations can be built.
>To be honest with ourselves, others and the truth, we generally should >call them "operating systems using the kernel Linux and several >components developed by the GNU project". Further that point we need >to be more specific. Better to call them by the distribution name: >that's naturally the more precise definition. Unfortunately, we miss >the opportunity to point out to people the GNU project's philosophy. >To me that scenario is very sad. I wish it were different, but my >wishes don't make the reality. I can't help but to confess that I've >learned to think that "there is no system but GNU", but now, thinking >for myself in a informed position, I'm willing to reconsider and >conclude: "there are systems, but GNU". I feel your pain, but GuixSD is the closest thing we can get to that. I am sure RMS didn't want to just pass it off as just GNU for several reasons that seem very important for him. Such as the point that if we release GuixSD as just straight up GNU, that's going to alienate all free distros including Trisquel, gNewSense, Debian, etc. I don't think that would be a very good idea, unless of course they just decide to join us, but that will probably not happen. Another reason is that because the HURD, it's not very usable yet, though it's not as bad as most people think. But it's not stable enough for most people. And Linus chooses to add blobs in the kernel, which is completely unethical, and we really can't make it the GNU kernel, so that's why we still have to work on HURD, though I do beleive the design is so much better, it's still very very very young. And at the current rate, which is actually speeding up it seems, it might release another version next year, with stable at the end of the decade hopefully. But until that happens, we really just can't have GNU. On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro < [email protected]> wrote: > Em Sat, 24 Jan 2015 11:57:06 +0100 > [email protected] (Ludovic Courtès) escreveu: > > > Olaf, this discussion is over. With approval from RMS, the standalone > > distribution is now called the “Guix System Distribution”, a name that > > happens to be consensual among contributors. > > I feel sorry for the fact that a wonderful opportunity has been > missed, by the GNU project, of realizing the one true GNU operating > system. > > Unfortunately, GNU still stands as a concept of operating system but > is no operating system in particular. Usually we use the number of > components of the conceptual GNU operating system, used by an actual > operating system, to judge whether or not it's a variant of GNU. I > wonder, however, about the legitimacy of calling some concrete > operating system a variant of a non-concrete one. > > It seems to me that saying that an operating system is a variant of > the GNU operating system is actually implying that there is one true > and pure GNU operating system. Even so, people --- who say that --- > are afraid of dubbing an operating system that one GNU system, because > it could imply the others are not the GNU system. To me, it's a > simply fact of logic (and life) that that has to happen, for the sake > of our own argument of variance and for the total accomplishment of > our original goal. There is nothing wrong or strange about it. > > I think there is an artificial mechanism in place to call everything > GNU without calling anything GNU. Perhaps a hidden conflict of > interests... who knows? What I actually know is that there is no > tangible GNU system and therefore, by definition, there are no > variants of it. What actually exist are operating systems which use > several components developed by the GNU project; it's so simple as > that. > > It's ironic how that is the first impression uninformed people have > when they come across "Linux" distributions and consider their > relationship with the GNU project. After a while, informing > themselves, some come across the idea that those are in fact > "GNU+Linux" distributions, and a minor part of these accept and > internalize the concept that those are variants of the GNU operating > system. I was one of those. It turned out however that the truth is > halfway that conclusion. Of course, it's not legitimate to call an > operating system by "Linux", because a kernel is not an operating > system nor important enough to name one; on the other hand it's not > legitimate to call those systems "GNU", because they simply are not put > together nor dubbed that way by the GNU project; we could call those > "variants of the GNU operating system", if not for the fact that there > is no GNU operating system from which derivations can be built. > > To be honest with ourselves, others and the truth, we generally should > call them "operating systems using the kernel Linux and several > components developed by the GNU project". Further that point we need > to be more specific. Better to call them by the distribution name: > that's naturally the more precise definition. Unfortunately, we miss > the opportunity to point out to people the GNU project's philosophy. > > To me that scenario is very sad. I wish it were different, but my > wishes don't make the reality. I can't help but to confess that I've > learned to think that "there is no system but GNU", but now, thinking > for myself in a informed position, I'm willing to reconsider and > conclude: "there are systems, but GNU". > > > -- > ,= ,-_-. =. Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro (oitofelix) [0x28D618AF] > ((_/)o o(\_)) There is no system but GNU; > `-'(. .)`-' GNU Linux-libre is one of its official kernels; > \_/ All software should be free as in freedom; > > [GNU DISCLAIMER] I'm a GNU hacker, but my views don't necessarily > match those of the GNU project. Hereby I express my own opinion, > style and perception, in good faith, aiming the betterment of GNU. > >
