Talk:GNU

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the GNU article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2

	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Additional information: ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Free Software (Rated B-Class) Free software Portal This article is part of WikiProject Free Software, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve free software-related articles. B rated as B-Class on the assessment scale Top rated as Top-importance on the assessment scale WikiProject Computing (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of Computing WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to computers and computing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale

Archives

1, 2

Contents 1 Incomplete 2 2007-02-21: No "citation needed" tags now 3 Terry Pratchett 4 WikiProject Free Software needs help 5 Operating System? 6 Intro wording changes 7 who are going to talk about GNU GPL v3? 8 Linux variant of GNU 9 Variants article merge 10 Development philosophy

[edit] Incomplete

I don't think it's appropriate to say that GNU is "incomplete". Only reason to say that, that I can think of, would be Hurd. Yes, Hurd is far from usable, but it works pretty good on a basic level. I've booted and messed around with Hurd Live CDs myself. I'll remove the statement. 80.233.255.7 21:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No, wait. I guess I was viewing a cached version. "Complete but unfinished" looks better. Oops. Ignore away.  :) 80.233.255.7 21:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ignored.  :) Chris Pickett 22:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007-02-21: No "citation needed" tags now

I've added refs for the statements that were tagged as needing citations, and I removed one statement that needed a cite but maybe one exists (a statement about FSF hiring 15 programmers at its peak). A good document for citing is this speech that Stallman gave: http://fsfeurope.org/documents/rms-fs-2006-03-09.en.html

It's good because it has links for each section, so the relevent part can be linked to instead of just linking to the document and leaving it to the reader to find the relevent part - this is important because, for example, the part in that talk where he talks about GNU Hurd doesn't contain the word "Hurd" at all - he keeps calling it the GNU kernel. So linking to sections is useful there. Gronky 02:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terry Pratchett

I do believe the Terry Pratchett reference is a mistake. A Gnu is a type of animal. In Terry Pratchett's novels (notably Men At Arms and the Gnome trilogy) Gnu is used as a humorous misunderstanding of the word "gun" (In the Gnome trilogy, there is a small passage where the protagonists are trying to figure out how a character in a thriller novel could hijack a plane with an African grazer). "The Smoking Gnu" would be a reference to The Smoking Gun, a real life conspiracy theorist group. I honestly think its a stretch to declare that Pratchett was making reference to a Unix-like OS....... Patch86 13:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup, in the absence of a direct statement from Pratchett, this kind of kind is simply idle speculation, and should be vaporized on sight. Stan 15:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted it. Gronky 12:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess it is safe to say not one person above actually read "Going Postal". If you had you would see the parrallels being drawn and realise that the book is a clear statement from Pratchett himself. Semi-spoiler alert ... the "Gnu" in The Smoking Gnu is a reference within the book to the clacks code G.N.U. where the G doesn't stand for anything but signifies it is a service code, the N means the message is not logged and the U means the message should be returned from the end of a line (note the G is stuck on for no real reason). The use of the GNU code in the book is to carry no more and no less then a single persons name across the clacks forever as "a man will not die while his name is still spoken".

Note I have simply summarised the usage of the word GNU in the Pratchett context the original piece was refering to, the entire book is about the dot-com era and the distinction between those who did the work and those who played with the paper money. So to the 3 people above, please confirm you have not read the book or go read it and amend your comments! Whether or not a wikipedia article on an Operating System is really the place to discuss references to the OS in general culture is another question I won't even offer an opinion on though. Justnotmyip (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Free Software needs help

Someone has set up WikiProject Free Software. It has many people listing themselves as participants, but it seems to still need some leadership and some action to develop the project and to build momentum. Some people from here might be able to help. Suggestions can be found and made on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Free_Software. Gronky 16:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Operating System?

How many people consider it to be an 'operating system'? It is POV to simply assert that it is one. To many, it's just considered to be a series of userland programs. -Nathan J. Yoder 19:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you know what an Operating System is? -- AdrianTM 02:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Errr, what? The ultimate goal is a complete operating system. Don't let the FSF's insistence on conflating Linux and GNU distract you from the fact that their ostensible goal is to do the whole thing themselves. Your assertion is sort of like saying a lot of people think of BSD as a collection of userland programs because almost everyone uses bits of BSD code in other operating systems. Chris Cunningham 12:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Small correction: FSF and GNU never aimed to write the whole thing themself. They just wanted to do what was necessary to make a free OS exist. This included using X Window System and TeX and some other software they didn't write. Gronky 13:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt TeX can be considered as a part of an Operating System, it's only an application. -- AdrianTM 13:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Errr, please don't let's get into this again. Thanks :) Chris Cunningham 13:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what your personal view is, as this is about NPOV policy, which represents views as they are and it's not universally accepted that GNU is an operating system. Out of curiosity, who thinks of BSD as a collection of userland programs? -Nathan J. Yoder 23:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It was an analogy. Anyway, feel free to find some actual sources who don't, err, believe that GNU is an operating system and we can talk. This is a highly silly argument from where I'm sitting. Chris Cunningham 10:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I did a quick search and found this (as an example) right away. This is entrenched with the whole debate over Linux vs. GNU/Linux and whether Linux is an OS or not. I'm very surprised that you've never come across this. I don't find it at all silly to consider userland programs to not be an OS. It's actually rare that I hear anyone refer to GNU as an OS, which is why I was surprised to see it say that on the Wikipedia article.

I should add that if you look at that particular thread, there are several people agreeing with him as well. You can weed through the larger of that and other threads if you wish, but it's rather tedious--you have to read all the other stuff that comes with those arguments as well. If you're curious, I searched for gnu "is not" operating system. You can try varying searches. -Nathan J. Yoder 07:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You're confusing issues here. If you use Linux as a kernel then there's some dispute as to whether the whole thing is really "GNU" (Gronky thinks it is, I don't really care but I'm not willing to call it that, etc). But if you're using an officially-approved GNU kernel (like Hurd) from the FSF (and leaving out silly debates about X and tex for the sake of brevity) there's no question that the combined result is "an operating system called GNU". See the voluminous archives on talk:Linux for some discussion of the issue you're on about. Chris Cunningham 09:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not confusing issues. NPOV isn't about "who is right," it's about "what views people hold." As I've shown, it's not universally held that GNU is an OS and therefore, stating that it is one, is a violation of NPOV policy. What you're referring to is "GNU Hurd" not just "GNU" anyway, making it "an operating system called "GNU Hurd." I don't know anyone who refers to a Hurd system as just "GNU," nor "GNU OS." -Nathan J. Yoder 21:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That's probably because nobody actually runs Hurd. Regardless, the article text currently states that GNU is an ongoing and unfinished project, so it's no more sensible to nitpick whether the end result is defined correctly than it is to argue that SETI isn't about contacting aliens because no-one's answered yet. If you want to introduce a well-sourced section to the article disputing whether or not GNU is really an operating system or not then knock yourself out; existential arguments on free software talk pages aren't really my bag. Chris Cunningham 21:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Regardless of how sensible you think it is, it's still disputed and thus isn't NPOV. NPOV issues aren't resolved by championing the "right side" in the article and justifying on the basis of an added section for disputes. There would be a big revert war if I were to just modify the intro paragraphs so that it doesn't state outright that it's an OS, which is why I want to come up with an NPOV wording BEFORE making changes. That analogy doesn't work; SETI exists exclusively for that one purpose and couldn't possibly be confused as having another purpose, plus they're not making a product so there's no name confusion. -Nathan J. Yoder 01:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

How exactly isn't GNU an OS? Or you maybe make a confusion between GNU toolchain that is used by other OSes and the entire GNU that's an OS in construction, if you are curious you can run a GNU Live CD with Hurd kernel, yeah it's crappy (heck it might not even boot on your machine and it definitely wouldn't run your games, but that doesn't make it less of an OS) -- AdrianTM 02:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've already specified how it isn't and I'm not really going to repeat it at this point. Instead of arguing it anymore, I will simply stick to the point that the article is not WP:NPOV compliant. The question then becomes how to phrase it properly and what citations become necessary. If we are to provide citations for both views (aside from the official FSF/GNU pages), how should this be done? It's not a big enough issue that, AFAIK, there would be a newspaper article written on it. I'm thinking of perhaps a single reference with examples of threads from newsgroups and blogs--simple induction. -Nathan J. Yoder 20:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

So you want to push opinions from newsgroups and blogs into an Encyclopedia? -- AdrianTM 21:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "push" anything. As it stands now, the article is "pushing" a one sided view, I'm trying to correct that, to comply with NPOV standards. Newsgroups, blogs and other sources demonstrate the existence of this other view, do you have better sources for this? Wikipedia can and has used both of the sources in other articles and for good reasons too, so I don't see what your opposition here is, except to keep the article only showing your personal view. Even this very article uses a mailing list, newsgroup and blog as references. Please, remove those from the article right now if you don't think they're good sources. -Nathan J. Yoder 00:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"Newsgroups and blogs" are not reliable sources, please read what WP:NPOV says "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." (my emphasis) Bring other sources and we'll talk about that. -- AdrianTM 00:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

And I agree with you if this article uses newsgroups and blog as references there should be removed, but 1. don't ask me to do this because I don't owe you anything 2. some references might be valid in context, if RMS or Linus post on blogs or newsgroups those are their opinions and might be quoted as such, however if jerk3446777 says in his blog that he doesn't consider GNU an OS then that can be safely ignored by an Encyclopedia, as it should... again bring the quote and we'll discuss on it, I can't discuss theoretically about a quote I didn't see. -- AdrianTM 00:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quoting anyone, I'm simply demonstrating that the contrary view is common. I've already provided a link and search term to find more, please read back in the conversation before posting here asking me to repeat myself (you already did this once before). This isn't just one person, as I've already demonstrated. I'm not sure why you consider sources clearly demonstrating various different people disagreeing with the view unreliable, are you suggesting they were forged by a small group of people intending to look like many? Let's consider the opposite here: where are your sources demonstrating the commonality of the view that it IS an OS? You have the official website, but that's about it.

If you don't provide a quote what are we discussing about? -- AdrianTM 02:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I should also note that you seem to have contradicted yourself. You think that they aren't reliable sources, except...when they aren't. There's nothing inherently unreliable about blog, mailing list and newsgroup postings--or even search engine searches (which are usually used to demonstrate notability of something), and as such, having not even read the links I provided, I find your objection very odd. -Nathan J. Yoder 02:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please provide the links, do you want me to beg on the knees? I don't think I contradict myself, I said that in general they don't have a place in an Encyclopedia except of course if the persons that published the blogs are notable for the article and I gave example RMS and Linus, versus anonymous_jerk. If the quotes you provide (if you do provide) are from somebody like Linus and they are current and relevant then they should be used. -- AdrianTM 02:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you seriously not encountered many people with this view? I did provide a link to a thread above, along with my search, as I said. How about an MIT professor of applied mathematics or one of the Slash (Slashdot code) and MacPerl programmers? (this guy and this guy). I found threads from mailing lists and newsgroups with them discussing it (one even mentioning that it's a common view). I can find them again if you think they're 'qualified.' -Nathan J. Yoder 02:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It's irrelevant what opinions I've encountered, please bring the quote forth and we'll decide if we can use it otherwise we blow only hot air over here. I'll tell you from now what criteria _I_ will use to decide if the quote is good or not:

1. . is the opinion pertinent and relevant to the subject
2. . is the opinion current
3. . who expressed the opinion and in what context.
   

Maybe I forgot something, but that's the basic stuff when deciding to put something in Wikipedia. So think about these 3 issues and see if it's worth to trouble other people with the issue, if you think it is don't hesitate to bring up the quote... don't ask for premission from anybody. -- AdrianTM 03:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously this is relevant to the article...it's the article for GNU. They are current, but that's irrelevant anyway, because Wikipedia is not in the business of excluding historical information. I posted the people in question because the main question here is who expressed it, not the other things. I can look them up *again*, but I'd rather see what you and others think of the people first before I expend more effort. So, do you consider such people to be 'quotable' on this subject? -Nathan J. Yoder 05:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I will cease to discuss this until you provide the quote. -- AdrianTM 12:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The example give was here. I've addressed why it's invalid given the context already. There are few notable sources who agree with the user's declaration and few who dispute that "GNU" can be defined as "an operating system composed entirely of free software", so at any rate it's a minority position and disputing NPOV based on them is psychological projection. I wouldn't advise losing too much sleep over this. Chris Cunningham 13:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you haven't addressed why it's "invalid given the context." You stated your opinion on the matter, you didn't address why the quote isn't in this context, nor why it shouldn't be included beyond you simply disagreeing with it. I can't assume good faith with you Adrian, when you keep refusing to address the things I say and ignore the link I've already pasted. I'm not going to quote an entire conversation in here, so please click the inks instead of complaining. Thumperward's position that this is a 'minority position' is unsupported. I've asked for sources beyond the GNU/FSF websites themselves demonstrating the extent of people who DO consider it a "GNU OS" (which people rarely call it that--the only people I've seen do it are avid FSF/GNU supporters). You could, however, make more false analogies.

Here are three more threads (you need to scroll down to get to the GNU OS stuff): (1, 2, 3)

-Nathan J. Yoder 06:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the point's been adequately made. If the opinions of random people on Linux kernel discussions made eight years ago (when no GPL kernel other than Linux could actually boot and run programs) are the best source you can come up with, there's little point in continuing this conversation. I'm personally disinterested in spending 50% of my time on Wikipedia trying to tell the GNU and anti-GNU camps that they can't define each other's projects. Chris Cunningham 08:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

An MIT professor and Slash+MacPerl programmer aren't random people. It's as if you're deliberately ignoring what I've already said. I don't know why this being eight years ago matters. As I stated, at worst it's historical and that doesn't preclude its inclusion. One was also just 6 years ago, but ignoring that makes it go away. Your idea that their views have changed is pure speculation and your own opinion, which is not a valid reason for exclusion. You seem intent on making excuses to exclude it. You also seem to show no interest at all in verifying that this is, in fact, a minority view, despite you knowing that practically no one says "GNU OS" (what does that refer to anyway, Hurd? MULTIPLE OSes? [which would make 'GNU OS'--singular--invalid]). Nathan J. Yoder 08:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Just 6 years ago? You must be joking or you have no idea how computing field works, it's like bringing a 6 years old quote that Vista is not an OS. -- AdrianTM 13:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess I was right, you're not honestly interested in the quotes, now that I've provided them. Did you even bother to read them? So are you suggesting that it was valid to say 6 years ago? If not, you have no valid point. You're also contradicting yourself. First you said that if it's an OS "in construction" that it's still an OS. Now, apparently, if it's in construction, it's NOT an OS. How is this analogous to Vista when GNU Hurd was in the planning for decades and was in development since 1990? Your analogy makes no sense.

I seriously hope you're proud of wasting my time. My intuition was right--and I was right in the beginning to ask you to address the people I listed before I got the quotes again. *sigh* I did just so you couldn't say "but he didn't do it." -Nathan J. Yoder 00:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I explained pretty well why we need current info, not old info that doesn't apply anymore. I said that before that current info is important, you can accuse people around of whatever you want, but if you come up with 6 year old quote to prove that something is or isn't now you'll not going to very successful, besides I look at those quote most of the people talk about GNU tools not about whole GNU. -- AdrianTM 03:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It is current. And no, you never explained that. You're just looking for an excuse and the fact that you didn't address anything I just said, including your own contradiction, makes me wonder whether you'd accept any quote for inclusion regardless of who said it and when. So what's your reason for believing that everyone suddenly changed their minds, again? Also, what's your reason for excluding historical information, again? You never justified it, you just compared an OS that was in development for 17 years to an OS in development for only a few years. Besides, the fact that other people weren't talking about doesn't negate the fact that others DID talk about it. -Nathan J. Yoder 04:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"It is current.".... "just 6 years ago" Enough said. -- AdrianTM 04:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The article begins by saying "GNU" is an OS, and provides a link to the article "Operating Systems" which has a concise definition of the concept; unfortunately the description given there does not fit GNU in any way.

It is true that GNU began as an attempt to clone UNIX and that the project eventually released the Hurd, the GNU kernel; but the GNU applications work with any POSIX compliant kernel - why else is Stallman always insisting that Linux be called "GNU/Linux"?

That first paragraph should be rewritten.

Can't you read a little bit above? Why open a new discussion? -- AdrianTM 17:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of anyone's opinion here, the only definition of "operating system" that matters in this context is POSIX. GNU provides the kernel, C library, core utilities and shell required to call it's self a POSIX operating system. It's about as simple as that. Noahslater 12:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro wording changes

While this is an eternal struggle, it should be pointed out that the current lead is the most succinct version thus far and that changing it for the sake of "readability" would necessitate making it shorter, not by beating about the bush a little more. I've reverted the recent rewording because it didn't clarify anything; it merely aimed to continue to beat on about the "GNU/Linux" thing. Chris Cunningham 11:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh. I added "commonly called Linux" and you're still not happy. My change made it more readable because a recent edit made the intro talk about "Linux" before there was any information about what is meant by "Linux" in this context. Your definition of readability is for people who lack the endurance to read 100 words instead of 95 words. My definition is that the text should make sense to someone who isn't involved in this Talk page nitpicking sessions. Gronky 11:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I rolled back the other edit as well; I'm not singling you out. It shouldn't require "endurance" to read a Wikipedia article, especially not where said endurance comes in the form of having to wade through how venerable and production-tested things were before some upstart kernel came along. It's my view that as far as GNU is concerned the kernel is of sufficiently little importance right now that we should be mentioning it as little as possible. Chris Cunningham 11:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't realised you'd rolled back the other change too. I've reinstated the part I added about most components being completed a decade ago. As you say, the kernel is of little importance, proportionally, and so I've reduced the kernelcentricness of the 3rd para. Gronky 11:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What components do you consider to be of greater importance thant the kernel?! The only things i can think of that have similar importance are the C compiler and its supporting libraries and tools (since a system is of little use if you can't compile stuff for it). GNU downplays the significance of the kernel because its where they failed due to adopting a radical design but we are not thier propoganda team!

That seems like an interesting comment for a discussion forum, but I don't see what is to be responded to in terms of discussing how to improve the article. Gronky 09:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The GNU project regards the kernel as an very important component of an operating system. The difference to »Linux users« is that they don't think the kernel is the operating system. -- mms 09:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the difference from Linux users is the goal of reconsolidation under a cathedral of authority manifested in the attempt to enforce an unwritten licensing clause upon most of the world. But we're not here to bicker about that. The FSF lost that argument with most of the community about ten years ago. In the interest of cooperation, those who aren't unpaid members of the FSF's advertising squad would rather that this article concentrated to as great an extent as possible on what the FSF have actually accomplished, and thus mentioned the kernel by which the FSF's bread and butter is earned as infrequently as possible. By this means it is hoped that the FSF's unpaid advertising squad would concentrate on improving this article to FA status instead of randomly trolling other free software articles in pursuit of a more favourable revision of history. Chris Cunningham 22:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] who are going to talk about GNU GPL v3?

this is the new versionf of gnu, but I don't know where I can put this information and how. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html --208.104.151.215 15:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the GNU operating system. Please work on the article about the GNU General Public License if you can contribute to it. -- mms 15:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linux variant of GNU

I know that Linux or GNU/Linux (whatever you want to call it, don't want to discuss that here) uses some GNU tools, does that make it a "variant of GNU"? -- AdrianTM 23:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Depends who you ask. The FSF say yes. Most anyone who doesn't say "GNU/Linux" doesn't. Chris Cunningham (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I say "GNU" because I'm too lazy to say "GNU slash Linux". --mms (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is a variant of GNU, and the reason is that it does much more than "uses some GNU tools". The GNU contribution is larger than the Linux contribution, and GNU contributes parts that cannot be replaced (such as glibc) while Linux only contributes a kernel (which can be replaced by the kernels of FreeBSD, NetBSD, Solaris, or with reduced capacity, Hurd). Also, the GNU contribution is the contribution which made an operating system exist. The Linux contribution (a kernel) was only useful by chance. The GNU contribution was specifically worked on (for 8 years before Linux was even a twinkle in Linus's eye) with the goal of making an operating system. That's why GNU/Linux (or "the Linux operating system") is a variant of GNU. --Gronky (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Variants article merge

There's not much on the sub-page; we should merge it in here for now until it grows a bit. As-is, it serves little purpose other than to attract external links to people's pet variant projects. Chris Cunningham (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Contra The article GNU variants is important. If not we should merge Linux into GNU, too. It's just a variant of GNU, you know? --mms (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't important, I said it was too short to stand alone right now. I support a split when there's enough general information available about non-HURD GNUs to warrant shifting them out. Remember that most of them had their own articles merged into GNU variants for exactly the same reason. Chris Cunningham (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

comment - if it was to be merged somewhere, I don't think this is the right target. Although GNU and the GNU variants share a lot in terms of software, the former is specifically the product of one project (the GNU project). The software contained in the OS is only one defining characteristic. The ownership/control, history, design decisions, and other things are also important factors and they don't have so much in common with the GNU variants. --Gronky (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not correct. There's a distinct article for GNU project separate to GNU. Chris Cunningham (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Pro first of all if kept the GNU variants article should be renamed "Operating Systems that use GNU tools", few people call BSD or Solaris or Linux based OS a "GNU variant" it uses GNU tools it's not a GNU variant since it's not built by GNU project. In open source using source from one project or another is a very common thing, if a part of the code in your project comes from another project your project doesn't become automatically a variant of that project, that's ludicrous. I think that that info belongs to this article it should be put into a subsection called "OSes that use GNU tools", GNU variants is a very small article and this article is not too long either to need to be cut into sub-articles. -- AdrianTM (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

comment GNU variants is a term used by the folks of the GNU project. Also please consider that GNU was the first free operating system and all free kernels (or kernels who became free) are younger. --mms (talk) 08:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

comment GNU people promote code freedom, but they don't know how and when to let go, if I start a project that uses some of the GNU tools I want it to name it however I want and not with a name the GNU people choose. What kind of freedom is that when the upstream coder comes and say "no, no, you use my code, you must use the name that I choose"? But I thought the code was free... actually same mistake that Linus Torvalds have done, he thought the code was free, but now he sees that it comes with strings and religious trolls attached to it. -- AdrianTM (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The term GNU variant is not intended to be used for advertising. It is a scientific term to name a group of operating systems. It is not only permitted but also required to rename a fork of GNU GPL covered software. So there are no legal grounds to sue Torvalds for naming the operating system which he has not written Linux. But it is illegitimate not to give credit to the GNU project. The work began 1984 not 1991. Torvalds and the Open Source community are conducting historical revisionism. --mms (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

People give credit however they want, I think Torvalds gave enough credit for the code that he used from other projects. Sometimes when you say "thank you very much" and people are still not happy you start to think that there's something wrong with those people... -- AdrianTM (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not only permitted but also required to rename a fork of GNU GPL covered software

Much like your "scientific naming" thing, this is totally unsubstantiated. No such thing is required. But seriously, people, Linux is not the subject of this thread. Please stop arguing about an unrelated subject on a merge discussion. Chris Cunningham (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Development philosophy

Here's an interesting comment on RMS's style of project management for the GNU OS:

http://lwn.net/Articles/272957/

Might be worth referencing in the article. --Gronky (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting yes, but more of an anecdotal observation, not really an authoritative source that we can rely on. Stan (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)