nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Proposed Name change of the Unix forum

psicic

I agree 100% with the sentiments that have been expressed here about ILUG. It's hard to see what it's exactly about anymore in my opinion - they seem to be all-too-grandiose while at the same time fairly ineffectual (a virtually unchanged homepage with the same articles for three or more years???).

There's only two minor quibbles wit yer' masterplans that I have: (and I mean these to be constructive!!!!):D

1) I'm fairly new around these parts after a looong gap from the forums, but I can't see how it's constructive to hide away details of the LUG and Linux in a UNIX forum. Let me elaborate:
Farily savvy users - the type of people reading this thread probably - can make the leap from Unix to Linux in their head, but a newbie - who will be a large part of the target membership for the group from what's been said - quite simply won't.
I will admit to being thrown to find mostly(all???) Linux questions in a Unix forum without any mention of Linux in the title.

I mean, there has been enough confusion by people in the know (including RedHat) over whether Linux was UNIX, that the case is decidely murky and most places I've seen either have a separate thread for Linux and UNIX or have a single merged thread called Linux/Unix. I actually almost thought there wasn't a Linux section here on boards until it dawned on me that it might be lumped in with UNIX still.
If you're aiming at newbies - myself included - why do you think they'll automatically associate Linux with UNIX? Linux is the buzz word everyone knows. (I feel like I'm setting myself up for a flame war:( )
If you hide away a community group catering for newbies(but not exclusively) in a thread associated with techies(as UNIX still is) you're going to miss out on a lot of casual browsers and potential members.

2) bieLUG??? How do you even pronounce it? 'bye-lugg'? 'be-lugg'? But, hey, it's your choice....

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

masteroftherealm

2)B.I.E Lug.:v:
and
1) Yup definitly agree but I think that the forum in in need of a name change anyways?
Mods are ya reading this?
Linux/UNIX fourm rename?

jaqian

only kidding.

Some good points there, thinking back i remember being surprised the forum wasn't call Unix & Linux or something similar. I also think that ILUG seems to be too quiet as regards blowing the Linux trumpet. I only found them because I went searching for references to Linux in Ireland. England have a very vibrant Linux/LUG culture with www.linux.co.uk and www.LUGradio.org along with their many magazines etc, unfortunately we seem to be starved of a Linux culture in Ireland.

So psicic are you gonna come along to our first meet-up?

Syth

I agree about the name of the forum. Although Unix does technically cover Linux, it could be made more clear. However do not forget about other Unicies. Perhaps this forum should be renamed 'Linux, BSD and Unix'?

Karoma

Re: the time - fair points. (Actually,both posts containt fair points.)

Hell, I hope to be out of Dublin again nearer the time.. so time of the event is key:p
I'd also keep in mind the volume of traffic. I was holding off on a specific time until about a week in advance for two reasons:
a) I want suggestions
b) holding until a bit nearer the event means we can better foresee any possible issues (protests, gigs,etc.) ...

re: forum name.
As above, there are too many flavours of *Nix.. And a lot of their fanatics and will take issue with the limited naming!:p
The alternative would be subforums, but for now, the volume of posts doesn't justify requesting it (?)

flamegrill

Hi All,

The forum has been called Unix for many many years. I concur that mostly the questions and topics that are discussed here are mostly linux. But if you go back over the years the odd freebsd, openbsd and solaris question has been asked and discussed.

A proposed name change from 'Unix' to 'Linux, BSD and Unix' I feel would be benificial.

Also I'd like to point out that Unix forum isn't for anyone group of people. While some might get more use out of it than others, it currently isn't for any particular LUG. I have no issue with it being used for such purposes as meets, events etc. I will even sticky such topics when asked to via PM.

Paul

niallb

flamegrill wrote:

A proposed name change from 'Unix' to 'Linux, BSD and Unix' I feel would be benificial.

Paul

I agree. I also think the name change will bring in new users, even if just for a look around.

I also recall Irix questions, and mention of HP-UX here.

Maybe the current Comp/OS list is a little dated,
although "Mac/Unix/Windows" is nice and simple.
How about OS X ? Technically, it's a *nix :-)

NiallB

P.S. Anyone else feel there's two conversations going on in this thread?

flamegrill

Niallb,

Aye - I've split out the posts about the proposed name change, that topic deserves its own thread. There are about 2 more discussions on going in the other thread, I'll read over it a bit and see if I can't split it out a bit more.

Paul

mr_angry

flamegrill wrote:

A proposed name change from 'Unix' to 'Linux, BSD and Unix' I feel would be benificial.

Definitely a good idea.

flamegrill

I've added a poll, put in some basic options. If anyone can suggest any changes I will make them.

Paul

declan_lgs

The forum is a sub-forum of "Operating Systems" so I'd call it "UNIX-like" if I had to change it. But it's not so bad the way it is IMO.

If you must mention "Linux" in the title, please, call it GNU/Linux...

niallb

declan_lgs wrote:

If you must mention "Linux" in the title, please, call it GNU/Linux...

Are those three dots meant to be a zip firelighter? :-)

We know it's " linux" with a silent GNU, but we're
trying to attract people here, so let's not put jihad
in the forum title.

GNU/Linux is the betamax of the naming world.
We know it's technically better, but...

NiallB

Syth

I voted for Linux, BSD and Unix. As for Mac OSX (which I'm using right now), in my view it's a hybrid OS. Half Unix, Half Mac. A simple heuristic is whether or not your using the terminal.

declan_lgs

niallb wrote:

We know it's " linux" with a silent GNU, but we're
trying to attract people here, so let's not put jihad
in the forum title.

Exactly, so don't leave GNU out.
What can be unfair/jihad-ish about mentioning both GNU and Linux?

For those of you who never heard of GNU (and there are too many "Linux" users who haven't (I wonder why)), http://www.gnu.org/ and http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html.

jaqian

Linux, BSD and Unix.

Btw declan_lgs you have to admit GNU/Linux is a bit of a mouthful and not exactly user friendly. Its hard enough for ppl to make the transition to Linux without having to deal with a big hairy horned beast.

declan_lgs

jaqian wrote:

Linux, BSD and Unix.

Btw declan_lgs you have to admit GNU/Linux is a bit of a mouthful and not exactly user friendly. Its hard enough for ppl to make the transition to Linux without having to deal with a big hairy horned beast.

If you think GNU/Linux is a mouthful you should call it GNU. I don't think it's much of a mouthful so I call it GNU/Linux.

If you call it "Linux", you'll piss off some people (and rightly so if you ask me). If you call it "GNU", for some ODD reason you'll piss off some other people. All that's nothing wrong with "GNU/Linux" is being a little bit longer, but you keep everyone happy.

dubhthach

declan_lgs wrote:

If you think GNU/Linux is a mouthful you should call it GNU. I don't think it's much of a mouthful so I call it GNU/Linux.

If you call it "Linux", you'll piss off some people (and rightly so if you ask me). If you call it "GNU", for some ODD reason you'll piss off some other people. All that's nothing wrong with "GNU/Linux" is being a little bit longer, but you keep everyone happy.

I don't see it written anywhere in the GPL that if you include "our" software in your collection of software that ye need to rename your project "GNU/projectname" :rolleyes: Seen that Linux kernel isn't part of the GNU project it's mislabeling to say GNU/Linux.

As for name change. I say leave it at "Unix". The linux kernel and GNU system are clones of the Unix kernel and Unix userland. The *BSD are historically Unix been derived from Unix Versions 6 + 7 (32/v) but had any of the code that was copyrighted AT&T pulled out in the early 1990's.

As for OSX it's a *nix. The presence or absence of X11 does not a *nix make, after all OpenVMS ships with X11 and it's mostly certainly not a Unix (though it does have a Posix subsystem). OSX is basically Nextstep updated repackaged and using a windowing system that uses PDF instead of Display Postscript as it's drawing model.

Anyways i think i'll go back to compling on my Irix box.

Syth

Might as well fan the flame a bit. Here is an article claiming that 'Linux is not GNU/Linux'. In summary: All the GNU tools in a Linux distribution run in userland (with the exception of ld). In computer science terms, these aren't really part of the OS. All the stuff that's part of an OS (file system, process manager, etc) are all kernel land, Linux stuff.

deRanged

I voted to leave it as it is.
I don't think it's broken and so doesn't need fixing.

Bringing in new people is all very well, but I don't think anything puts off new people more than a thread like the one this is turning into.
unix is a nice generic name, avoids any number of flame wars and doesn't (I don't think) exclude anyone. I think that as soon as you define the name of the forum more, you start excluding. The security forum is an extreme example of this, it's been moderated to death. This forum has been well moderated for years, it's friendly and people almost always get a helpful answer.

Maybe change it to 'anything unix'.

declan_lgs

dubhthach wrote:

I don't see it written anywhere in the GPL that if you include "our" software in your collection of software that ye need to rename your project "GNU/projectname" :rolleyes:

Neither did I.

I suggest you read this article that I posted a link to in a previous post.

Seen that Linux kernel isn't part of the GNU project it's mislabeling to say GNU/Linux.

I don't know what you mean.

This has nothing to do with the GPL, you should read about the history of GNU/Linux and that other link to understand it.

Syth wrote:

All the GNU tools in a Linux distribution run in userland (with the exception of ld). In computer science terms, these aren't really part of the OS. All the stuff that's part of an OS (file system, process manager, etc) are all kernel land, Linux stuff.

An OS in CS terms isn't the kind of S I'd like to O on.
(An Operating System in Computer Science terms isn't the kind of System I'd like to Operate on

)

If you know of a distribution that ships without any/much GNU stuff, don't call it GNU. I always called iPod Linux exactly that, because at least when I was using it I didn't see any GNU programs. Really the distribution is the operating system (not in CS terms).

If we're going by this article should we call Windows"NT" and Mac OS X "Darwin"?

I only say GNU/Linux when I'm talking about general system stuff. If I'm talking about Linux stuff ofcourse I say Linux. If I'm talking about some package I say some package. If I'm talking about some distro I say some distro.

But for a forum title I wouldn't call it anything other than GNU/Linux, because GNU/Linux is an actually operable system (Note that I didn't say operating system - because it seems that operating systems are useless on their own) (Linux is the operating system (by the technical definition (where an OS is absolutely useless on it's own)) and GNU makes it operable). IMO RMS has/had the right definition of OS, because it's an operable system. And that's what he wanted to make so there'd be a free one, and he did.

I'd still rather this one be called "Unix-like".

IceHawk

Voted for the change. Recently installed SuSE Linux on my PC and was looking for help on the Comp/Technology board, before my thread was moved here. Also, as most guides will tell you, Linux stands for "Linux Is Not UniX", so specifying Linux in the title is likely to improve accessibility.

dubhthach

NT is the internal name for Windows. Thence 2003 -> NT5.2
However that's what purely is an internal microsoft name. whenever you hear any microsoft kernel developers talking in public they say Windows2003 kernel. Likewise Solaris11 internal codename is SunOS 5.11 however the sun kernel hackers on their blogs always call it the Solaris kernel.

OSX kernel is actually called XNU, Darwin is the name for the whole *nix system minus the Windowing System (Quartz).

The important difference between these three and Linux <--> GNu/Linux argument is this:

Windows/Sun/Apple actually own and write the code for their entire System. Therefore they got every right to call it whatever they like etc.

The GNU project has no ownership on Linux kernel. Likewise the GNU code is opensource, so people can do anything they want with it as long as they respect the terms of license (which have no clause demanding you advertise the GNU project).

If anything it's kinda hypocritical of RMS, given the hassle they cause Berkley and the BSD's over the original BSD license ("Advertising clause"). Their use of GNU/Linux as a term is just as equivalent as the "advertising clause" in original BSD license. Likewise they hit the roof over the XFree license change which brought in a clause that said you had to acknowledge the previous coders. After all isn't that what the whole "GNU/Linux" name thing is about? demanding acknowledgment, something which the GNU project seem to regard as a sin in others but kosher for themselves.

I don't see Sun demanding that the opensolaris distros (Nextenta, Schillix, belenix) be called SUN/Schillix etc.

dubhthach

IceHawk wrote:

Voted for the change. Recently installed SuSE Linux on my PC and was looking for help on the Comp/Technology board, before my thread was moved here. Also, as most guides will tell you, Linux stands for "Linux Is Not UniX", so specifying Linux in the title is likely to improve accessibility.

Linux actually derives from "Linus' Minix" here's a post Linus Torvalds dated April 23 1992 explaining the name:
[HTML]http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux/msg/53a76cbbbcb6e1c8?output=gplain[/HTML]

declan_lgs

dubhthach wrote:

NT is the internal name for Windows.

That strikes me as stupid because Windows is far more than NT (and it's far more than an operating system too, it seems).

OSX kernel is actually called XNU

So the operating system by the CS definition is called XNU.

The important difference between these three and Linux <--> GNu/Linux argument is this:

Windows/Sun/Apple actually own and write the code for their entire System. Therefore they got every right to call it whatever they like etc.

The GNU project has no ownership on Linux kernel.

That's why they don't say "GNU Linux", they say "GNU/Linux". A variation of the GNU system using the Linux kernel - because RMS' use of the term "operating system" is a kernel + basic tools (so it's actually operable), not kernel.

Likewise the GNU code is opensource, so people can do anything they want with it as long as they respect the terms of license

That has nothing to do with naming.

which have no clause demanding you advertise the GNU project

The reason for that is outlined in the GNU/Linux FAQ right here.

If anything it's kinda hypocritical of RMS, given the hassle they cause Berkley and the BSD's over the original BSD license ("Advertising clause").

What exactly did he do? As I understand he notified them and they released a modified BSD license. What am I missing?

Their use of GNU/Linux as a term is just as equivalent as the "advertising clause" in original BSD license.

The advertising clause was part of the license. Using copyright law to make sure people acknowledge your work is different to simply asking them.

Likewise they hit the roof over the XFree license change which brought in a clause that said you had to acknowledge the previous coders.

Never heard about that - links?

After all isn't that what the whole "GNU/Linux" name thing is about? demanding acknowledgment

Did someone ever acknowledge others for the work of the previous XFree coders? If so then it would be slightly similar.

I don't see Sun demanding that the opensolaris distros (Nextenta, Schillix, belenix) be called SUN/Schillix etc.

When did GNU demand Ubuntu be called GNU/Ubuntu?

IceHawk wrote:

Linux Is Not UniX

That's a first.
GNU stands for GNU's Not UNIX - sure you're not getting mixed up (wouldn't blame you if you were)?

Capt'n Midnight

BeOS :v:

declan_lgs

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

BeOS :v:

Ahh... There are many non-unix OSes that haven't quite taken off, like ReactOS and haiku (which is like BeOS)... I take it we're not dealing with them OSes here, so maybe, if someone wants, there could be a "Not quite mainstream" OSes forum made, or we could just call this forum "Other" and take them here...?

Syth

Where's the recognition to the KDE people? to the GNOME people? to the Xorg people? Shouldn't the OS be called (KDE|GNOME)/Xorg/GNU/Linux?

declan_lgs

Syth wrote:

Where's the recognition to the KDE people? to the GNOME people? to the Xorg people? Shouldn't the OS be called (KDE|GNOME)/Xorg/GNU/Linux?

I suggest you read the GNU/Linux FAQ.

Many other projects contributed to the system as it is today; it includes TeX, X11, Apache, Perl, and many more programs. Don't your arguments imply we have to give them credit too? (But that would lead to a name so long it is absurd.)

What we say is that you ought to give the system's principal developer a share of the credit. The principal developer is the GNU Project.

If you feel even more strongly about giving credit where it is due, you might feel that some secondary contributors also deserve credit in the system's name. If so, far be it from us to argue against it. If you feel that X11 deserves credit in the system's name, and you want to call the system GNU/X11/Linux, please do. If you feel that Perl simply cries out for mention, and you want to write GNU/Linux/Perl, go ahead.

Since a long name such as GNU/X11/Apache/Linux/TeX/Perl/Python/FreeCiv becomes absurd, at some point you will have to set a threshold and omit the names of the many other secondary contributions. There is no one obvious right place to set the threshold, so wherever you set it, we won't argue against it.

Different threshold levels would lead to different choices of name for the system. But one name that cannot result from concerns of fairness and giving credit, not for any possible threshold level, is "Linux". It can't be fair to give all the credit to one secondary contribution (Linux) while omitting the principal contribution (GNU).

I came accross this webpage before in which the writer called his system GNU/GRUB (and I know GRUB is a GNU project.. But this guy was GRUB-obsessed.).

BTW, GNOME is a GNU project - the GNU Network Object Model Enviornment.

declan_lgs

Syth wrote:

Might as well fan the flame a bit. Here is an article claiming that 'Linux is not GNU/Linux'. In summary: All the GNU tools in a Linux distribution run in userland (with the exception of ld). In computer science terms, these aren't really part of the OS. All the stuff that's part of an OS (file system, process manager, etc) are all kernel land, Linux stuff.

I emailed a link to that page to RMS and he had this to say:

Who wrote that page?  What is his email address?

At least according to: [url]http://www.topology.org/linux/lingl.html[/url]  [I said that]

GNU/Linux is different from Linux, for sure.

    The combination of gnu development tools with linux is a software bundle, not an
    operating system kernel.

GNU is much more than a set of "development tools".
See [url]http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#tools[/url].
However, aside from that detail, the statement is correct.

    linux/gnu software bundle<br>
    linux/gnu operating system bundle<br>
    linux/gnu development bundle<br>

I would put GNU first, because it is bigger, but
that's a detail.  Those names are not wrong.
I would add this one to the list:

    linux/gnu operating system<br>

The term "operating system" has, historically, two different meanings.
One is the same as "kernel"; the other is the same as his "operating
system bundle".  Thus, we always described GNU as an "operating
system", intending the second meaning.  In that we followed the
practice of describing Unix as an "operating system", also with the
second meaning.

However, if you prefer to write "operating system bundle" for the
second meaning, to avoid any possibility of confusion, there's nothing
wrong with that.

See [url]http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#osvskernel[/url].

Another term used nowadays for the same kind of software collection is
"distribution".

    <center><table rules=all border=1 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=4>
    <tr><td class=broad bgcolor="#e4f0a9"><center><font size="+1">
    <b>linux is an operating system</b><br>
    <b>linux/gnu&nbsp;is&nbsp;a&nbsp;development&nbsp;system</b><br>
    SuSE linux is a linux distribution<br>
    Redhat linux is a linux distribution<br>
    Mandrake&nbsp;linux&nbsp;is&nbsp;a&nbsp;linux&nbsp;distribution<br>
    </font></center></td></tr></table></center>

At this point he falls into inconsistency.  "SuSE Linux" is a
GNU/Linux operating system bundle, to use his terminology.  Replacing
"operating system bundle" with "distribution", it is a GNU/Linux
distribution--not a "Linux distribution".

    If you don't use Richard Stallman's re-definition of <q>operating system</q>,
    then he is completely wrong.

I did not originate this--I followed the Unix usage.
We developed GNU as a replacement for Unix.

    This kind of linguistic political manipulation has harmed Richard Stallman's
    reputation and has caused many linux programmers to hate him.

If they call this "linguistic political manipulation", it is probably
because they are looking for an excuse to hate me.

    He should take credit only for his own creations, which <i>are</i> laudable.
    <br>
    He did not write linux.

Of course we did not write Linux.  And we never say we did.
I bend over backwards to avoid claiming credit for the development of
Linux (the kernel).

The term "GNU/Linux" is one of the ways I do that.
See [url]http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#justgnu[/url].

    The tail is trying to wag the dog!

Linux is smaller than GNU, but I would not compare Linux to the tail
of a dog; it is more important in GNU/Linux than a tail is in a dog.

    RMS followers make this claim:
    <br>
    <q>Linux needs the gnu utilities. Therefore gnu is a part of linux.</q>

    <p>
    Or sometimes they make this claim:
    <br>
    <q>Linux needs the gnu utilities. Therefore linux is a part of gnu.</q>

Anyone who says that is certainly not following me.
GNU is not part of Linux, and Linux is not part of GNU.
Both are part of the GNU/Linux combination.


It looks like he has been misinformed about where I stand.  He
could see my real views in [url]http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html[/url].
Would you like to write to him and suggest that?  And/or forward this
message to him?

Syth

Oh a bit of fame.

This is getting a bit People's Front of Judea.

declan_lgs

Syth wrote:

This is getting a bit People's Front of Judea.

Yea, maybe you all should've just read the GNU/Linux FAQ when I linked to it before replying to me. Then the discussion would be long over, and we could talk about I dunno, a name change for the forum?

I'll repeat: if you must mention "Linux", please, call it GNU/Linux. You want a correct title, don't you? And one noone can have any problems with (no jihad crap)?