Talk:GNU/Linux naming controversy/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

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 functional 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

Thought I may disagree with Asa, I agree with her statement that the article doesn't need a rewrite. It is about opinions, though it should include all of the differing opinions. -Samirat

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

Did GNU/Linux even come with Gnome at that time? And even if it did, since there was no controversy, and the article is about controversy, the arguement about "X" is irrelevant. The Lignux reference both emphasizes the Linux side of it and supports the connection with GNU, as the "g" in Lignux was a compromise between GNU and Linux. While it doesn't completely support your point, Belltower, it should still be added in as an interesting and exceedingly relevant piece of information. -Samirat

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

Since the subject is what the entire article is about, I would say that they are both relevant, and no chan

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

This is incorrect, and I would like to know what someone who spells "intelegent" wrong has to tell us about intelligent discussion, my friend. -Samirat

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 think that saying all of the instance of "GNU/Linux" or "Linux" one way violates the spirit of the article, which is that of an open debate. - Samirat

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

(to Asa Winstanley) Your statement that GNU/Linux was once called simply GNU is incorrect, and I would like to know what someone who spells "intelegent" wrong has to tell us about intelligent discussion, my friend . -Samirat

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)
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":
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:

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)