Proposed Name change of the Unix forum

psicic · 08-01-2006 02:32AM

Linux, Unix

The title of the forum doesn’t tell the whole story of the forum – its’ posts and its’ charter does.

The point behind the suggestion for renaming was simple – it’s to make the forum more accessible and user-friendly.

Why is this desirable?

To attract more people to the forum.

The problem isn’t whether Linux==UNIX, or whether the GNU project made a huge contribution in both the origins of the kernel and the tools that run on it today. The problem is giving the forum a title that resonates with the target readership, a title that doesn’t scare people off, a title that’s broad enough to encompass all it needs to, not too vague so as to include everything and not too specific to start excluding people.

Let’s get down to it:

Unix is a decent enough name for the forum. As is ‘Unixen’, ‘Unixes’ and ‘Unix-like’. We all know this can cover IrIX, Solaris, NeXTstep, Linux distros, BSD flavours and so on.

However, will a casual user know this? Will the newbies, people who are casually considering about experimenting with BSD or Linux, who have done or are considering trying their first install know this? Personally, I don’t think so.

Similarly, the inclusion of BSD in the title opens up new possibilities for the forum. BSD is often overlooked by people who make a beeline for Linux, but it is a great and accessible OS for people looking to run a Unix OS.

So why vote for 'Linux, BSD, Unix'

Linux works in the title because:

The title need only inform people that the forum deals with distros with Linux at its core. We don’t need to break it down too much - I don’t see a reason to limit the forum to a particular distro – be it Redhat, Slackware or whatever. Likewise, including GNU in the title potentially limits the forum if, say, IBM were to come out with AIX/Linux (oooh….I wonder where I got that example???) or if somebody wanted to post about a busybox or embedded Linux.
Linux works because it’s short, is grammatically and visually more attractive to most English speakers than ‘GNU/Linux’ and is the type of familiar buzz word somebody unsure of what they’re looking for can latch on to and use as a mooring post to delve further.
The forum should be as aspirational as the GNU itself - if it's to get involved in a pointless 13 year old debate on an innocuous detail, then that should happen in a thread of its own, not in the title bar of the forum itself. It should be 'free' - as in 'free from 13 years of toing and froing from both sides for no particular reason other than ego and politics'

BSD works in the title because it reminds people that the option is there and the users are here! The forum isn’t going to suddenly become a Linux-only zone and the inclusion of BSD in the title will underline this. As with Linux, however, we don’t need to list specific distros (NetBSD, OpenBSD etc…) or call it ‘Berkeley Unixen’ or some such.

Unix works because there’ll always be other Unix flavours about. However, people using professional, specialist or minority distributions that are pure ‘Unix’ or ‘Unix-like’ will know that they are Unix. I, for one, am happy that this Unix forum exists because I’ve a SPARCStation here that I plan to fire up soon and I also have an I-Opener(QNX) and it’s good to know I can come here for help with whatever pitfalls I have.

In summation:

It’s in the casual browser that we have the greatest opportunity to make gains. The forum can do with more traffic as more traffic means more posts and also answers more quickly from a wider pool of knowledge(not every casual browser will be a newbie). For those interested in the idea of the LUG, remember that will have a greater chance to recruit new members if it gets a sticky post in a forum with Linux in the title. And for those wishing to spread BSD or other Unix-related OSes, remember that Linux can serve both as a bait and a stepping stone to your OS of choice.

Why seek limits when we can cross new frontiers? Come on people! Vote for me…errr…I mean vote for a name change!

Vote for 'Linux, BSD, Unix'

declan_lgs · 08-01-2006 09:07AM

psicic wrote:

Likewise, including GNU in the title potentially limits the forum if, say, IBM were to come out with AIX/Linux (oooh….I wonder where I got that example???) or if somebody wanted to post about a busybox or embedded Linux.

AIX/Linux? They might call it AIX2 or something new so long as Linus and friends don't insist on calling it Linux, then they might consider AIX2/Linux.
Noone will be excluded by including GNU, because everything (the embedded people) falls under UNIX (I think).

[*]Linux works because it’s short, is grammatically and visually more attractive to most English speakers than ‘GNU/Linux’ and is the type of familiar buzz word somebody unsure of what they’re looking for can latch on to and use as a mooring post to delve further.

I wouldn't worry about anybody missing "GNU/Linux" looking for "Linux". It's a sub-forum of "Operating Systems" and there's only two other choices, Mac and Windows.

[*]The forum should be as aspirational as the GNU itself - if it's to get involved in a pointless 13 year old debate on an innocuous detail, then that should happen in a thread of its own, not in the title bar of the forum itself. It should be 'free' - as in 'free from 13 years of toing and froing from both sides for no particular reason other than ego and politics'
[/LIST]

If you put everything else aside you'll find that the operating system should be called GNU. RMS "bends over backwards" to call it GNU/Linux. Calling it "Linux" is plain silly (unless you're talking about just the kernel), and understandably insulting to the GNU developers.

The GNU/Linux FAQ wrote:

Why is the name important?
Although the developers of Linux, the kernel, are contributing to the free software community, many of them do not care about freedom. People who think the whole system is Linux tend to get confused and assign to those developers a role in the history of our community which they did not actually play. Then they give inordinate weight to those developers' views.

Calling the system GNU/Linux recognizes the role that our idealism played in building our community, and helps the public recognize the practical importance of these ideals.

wider pool of knowledge(not every casual browser will be a newbie)

If they're not newbies, surely they'll most likely notice "UNIX" or "UNIX-like"?

psicic · 08-01-2006 07:38PM

Linux, Unix

declan_lgs, I admire the amount of work you've put into your posts, and the links to the pro-RMS stuff has been interesting to say the least.

I read it all last night again – hence that AIX quip which you seemed to miss the point of:

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#justlinux

My point is, and remains, that the title of the forum need not spell out whether the site is pro-RMS or pro-Linus (who seems less opposed the GNU naming convention than irritated by the debate) in this regard.

All the title needs to say is ‘Have a Linux kernel? Come here.’. Similarly with BSD. It’s not specifying OpenBSD or GNU/NetBSD :eek: – it’s saying ‘Have a BSD kernel? Come here.’

I think I should clarify again, I’m not arguing against the GNU’s GNU/Linux naming convention. I’m not entirely convinced by the Linux-only camp. If I were, I’d be firing back as many links to multiple sources to counter your arguments. For instance, I’d insert a quote or two by Linus:

”Linus, June ‘96&#8221 wrote:

Umm, this discussion has gone on quite long enough, thank you very much. It doesn't really matter what people call Linux, as long as credit is given where credit is due (on both sides). Personally, I'll very much continue to call it "Linux".

I’d refer disparagingly to GNU/HURD and the HURD project in general, talk about 22 years since inception of a GNU kernel programme, 16 years since active programming on HURD itself….and still you only have basic functionality since February 2005. And it’s so bug-ridden to be practically unusable. (This is according to internet sources – I personally don’t know – I’ve never met HURD myself

)

I’d quote you:

RMS "bends over backwards" to call it GNU/Linux.

RMS of the GNU? Well, there’s a shock. If I were the founder of the GNU, I’d probably do the same.

Calling it "Linux" is plain silly (unless you're talking about just the kernel), and understandably insulting to the GNU developers.

Oh, wait - okay, getting serious again, maybe I didn’t eludicate on this before in sufficient detail. That’s my fault, but here it goes:

In the title of the forum, I’d regard Linux as referring to the kernel Linux, I’d regard BSD as referring to the BSD kernel, and Unix as referring to both ‘pure-Unix’ systems, i.e. those that are POSIX compliant and whatnot, and ‘Unix-like’ OSes. So, this would cover the various distributions of Linux, the GNU/Linux OS, the GNU/NetBSD OS, Irix, Solaris, OpenSolaris etc….

Is there an argument for calling it GNU/Linux? Yes, one I am strongly sympathetic with. However, I don’t think that it is the issue here at all.

I mean, how easy is it to decide between RMS’s free software crusade – i.e. having free(as in ‘freedom’) software – as opposed to the Open Source argument that higher-quality software should be the goal. Yeah, gun to your head time, which do you choose? declan_lgs, you’ve probably made your mind up on this, so it probably doesn’t pose a problem for you, but it's something myself and many others haven't decided on. It deserves a thread of its own.

On another note, you've already stated that your preference is for 'Unix' as the name

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

You made one point in this regard, then seem to get side-tracked on to the GNU/Linux thing. Since you put together such well-researched posts on this, and there seems to be little defence of the ‘Unix’-only option so far, I was wondering if you or anyone else in this camp could expound on that a bit more.
(no….I don’t think I’m a mod!

I just want to hear a reasoned argument!)

declan_lgs · 08-01-2006 09:56PM

psicic wrote:

I read it all last night again – hence that AIX quip which you seemed to miss the point of:

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#justlinux

I knew where you got the AIX example from, but IBM don't use Linux in AIX. If they did release a new OS that was alot like AIX and used Linux, they probably wouldn't call it anything /Linux, it would just be AIX2 or whatever.

My point is, and remains, that the title of the forum need not spell out whether the site is pro-RMS or pro-Linus (who seems less opposed the GNU naming convention than irritated by the debate) in this regard.

Calling it GNU/Linux wouldn't do that, it would just give it a correct title that won't insult anyone.

EDIT: Calling a sub-forum of Operating Systems "Linux" without giving any indication that you mean Linux-based, how is that not pro-Linus?

All the title needs to say is ‘Have a Linux kernel? Come here.’.

If that's what you want, call it Linux. You never said that before, I thought this we were talking about the OS (being a sub-forum of Operating Systems), not the kernel, and I'm pretty sure that most others here thought the same (re: replies saying Linux isn't GNU/Linux, why would they be necessary?).

If I were, I’d be firing back as many links to multiple sources to counter your arguments. For instance, I’d insert a quote or two by Linus:

Linus isn't opposed to calling the system GNU/Linux, last I heard anyhow. RMS is, IMO understandably, opposed to calling the system Linux, unless you're just talking about the kernel.

I’d refer disparagingly to GNU/HURD and the HURD project in general, talk about 22 years since inception of a GNU kernel programme, 16 years since active programming on HURD itself….and still you only have basic functionality since February 2005. And it’s so bug-ridden to be practically unusable. (This is according to internet sources – I personally don’t know – I’ve never met HURD myself )

I've got the Hurd installed right here, they've got some pretty cool stuff (e.g. translaters). The design is God damn brilliant, and after a good few more years it could be the best thing out there. However, right now it sucks, there aren't many developers working on it since Linux, and it's not the easiest kinda thing to design. There isn't a single good, working design like it. But what has the Hurd got to do with GNU/Linux?

RMS of the GNU? Well, there’s a shock. If I were the founder of the GNU, I’d probably do the same.

Well, he would otherwise be calling it just GNU.

I mean, how easy is it to decide between RMS’s free software crusade – i.e. having free(as in ‘freedom’) software – as opposed to the Open Source argument that higher-quality software should be the goal. Yeah, gun to your head time, which do you choose? declan_lgs, you’ve probably made your mind up on this, so it probably doesn’t pose a problem for you, but it's something myself and many others haven't decided on. It deserves a thread of its own.

Who mentioned free software/open source software? This thread is about what, if anything, the name of this forum might be changed to. People were voting for putting Linux on in there without GNU, and I don't think that's fair (unless you're naming the forum after the kernel, which you just explained).

On another note, you've already stated that your preference is for 'Unix' as the name

You made one point in this regard, then seem to get side-tracked on to the GNU/Linux thing.

Yes, I got side tracked by others about putting Linux or GNU/Linux in the forum title.

Since you put together such well-researched posts on this, and there seems to be little defence of the ‘Unix’-only option so far, I was wondering if you or anyone else in this camp could expound on that a bit more.
(no….I don’t think I’m a mod! I just want to hear a reasoned argument!)

My first post in this thread, post #11 wrote:

The forum is a sub-forum of "Operating Systems" so I'd call it "UNIX-like" if I had to change it.

If it's not going to be "UNIX-like", and it is going to change, I'd go with "GNU/Linux, *BSD and UNIX-like".
"UNIX-like" covers everything in a nice compact title, which most people will recognise. Newbies interested in GNU/Linux mightn't know WTF UNIX is, but there aren't many choices under the operating system's forum, so we might not miss them.

declan_lgs · 09-01-2006 12:18AM

If you wanna list the kernels, you can say Linux all you want without GNU, because GNU has nothing to do with the kernel (Linux). However, being a sub-forum of "Operating Systems", wouldn't it make sense to list operating system names as opposed to kernel names?

"GNU/Linux, *BSD and UNIX-like" is spot on, nobody can complain. With "Linux, BSD and Unix" the "Linux" part is incorrect unless you're referring to operating systems based on these kernels, but one would have to guess that.

Might as well be correct, unless you can give me a good reason that "Linux, BSD and Unix" is better than "GNU/Linux, *BSD and UNIX-like".

dubhthach · 09-01-2006 11:57AM

declan_lgs wrote:

If you wanna list the kernels, you can say Linux all you want without GNU, because GNU has nothing to do with the kernel (Linux). However, being a sub-forum of "Operating Systems", wouldn't it make sense to list operating system names as opposed to kernel names?

"GNU/Linux, *BSD and UNIX-like" is spot on, nobody can complain. With "Linux, BSD and Unix" the "Linux" part is incorrect unless you're referring to operating systems based on these kernels, but one would have to guess that.

Might as well be correct, unless you can give me a good reason that "Linux, BSD and Unix" is better than "GNU/Linux, *BSD and UNIX-like".

Surely Unix-like, leaves out OS's that are actually Unix. in my opinon Unix-like are systems such as Linux, QNX, Minix etc. that do not have any code heritage with the Unix. As far as i'm concerned BSD is Unix, it has a code heritage going back to 1979, just AT&T code was ripped out for legal reasons in early 90's but you will find plenty of BSD code in commercial Unix (sysVR4 was a merge with BSD after all by AT&T)

Likewise GNU/Linux leaves out any systems used in embedded world, for example Linksys wireless routers running Linux do not use GNU for their userland/libc.

As for AIX 2, well they can say that seen that they released AIX 2 in 1986.
http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html

declan_lgs · 09-01-2006 06:10PM

dubhthach wrote:

Surely Unix-like, leaves out OS's that are actually Unix. in my opinon Unix-like are systems such as Linux, QNX, Minix etc. that do not have any code heritage with the Unix. As far as i'm concerned BSD is Unix, it has a code heritage going back to 1979, just AT&T code was ripped out for legal reasons in early 90's but you will find plenty of BSD code in commercial Unix (sysVR4 was a merge with BSD after all by AT&T)

Fine, "GNU/Linux, *BSD and UNIX" if you want.

Likewise GNU/Linux leaves out any systems used in embedded world, for example Linksys wireless routers running Linux do not use GNU for their userland/libc.

That won't matter unless they also don't fall under "*BSD" or "UNIX-like" (now "UNIX").

As for AIX 2, well they can say that seen that they released AIX 2 in 1986.
http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html

I was just saying "AIX2" as an example, they could call it "BTFDSAHG" if they wanted, but they probably wouldn't call it "BTFDSAHG/Linux" (although that wouldn't be incorrect if it uses Linux).

flamegrill · 10-01-2006 04:53PM

Linux, Unix

Declan_lgs,

I'm afraid that support for GNU/Linux isn't high enough to be considered for this poll. The poll as is has finished with a fairly good percentage going for "Linux, Bsd and Unix" - On a personal note, we wish to give as many users as possible a clear view of what is going on here. "Linux" is refered to by many as the distro and not just the kernel. Some business' refer to using linux (a lot of them using redhat 9) as "We use Linux 9" - stupid some might say. I would agree. But we need to cater for not just nerds/general users.

We need to cover all the bases and I feel that the above gives the greatest coverage without getting into the polititics of GNU etc

If the community at large wishes for this renaming to go ahead then I will contact the admins and see what they say.

thanks,

Paul

declan_lgs · 10-01-2006 08:05PM

flamegrill wrote:

We need to cover all the bases and I feel that the above gives the greatest coverage

What coverage does it have over "GNU/Linux, *BSD and UNIX"? They both have the same coverage from what I can see because the things listed are elements of UNIX (common to both) which houses basically everything.

flamegrill wrote:

without getting into the polititics of GNU etc

Mentioning "Linux" in the useful operating system context lands you right into GNU politics.

The 26 people that voted for "Linux, BSD and Unix", BTW, chose it over "Linux, Unix" and "Leave it as is", so it doesn't say a whole load about GNU.

scojones · 14-01-2006 12:33PM

Linux, *BSD and Unix is fine. Nevermind the GNU/Linux discussion. Granted RMS believes that when you mention Linux on it's own without the GNU/ you are talking about the kernel, and when you say GNU/Linux you are talking about the kernel + the gnu family of tools. But, IIRC, this is just an 'RMSism'. Linus himself calls it Linux, not GNU/Linux when he's mentioning the entire operating system, not just the kernel. It really doesn't matter, I know when I ask people if they use Linux, I say exactly that, not GNU/Linux.

Paul, when does the new name change come into effect?

declan_lgs · 14-01-2006 07:45PM

sjones wrote:

Linux, *BSD and Unix is fine. Nevermind the GNU/Linux discussion. Granted RMS believes that when you mention Linux on it's own without the GNU/ you are talking about the kernel, and when you say GNU/Linux you are talking about the kernel + the gnu family of tools. But, IIRC, this is just an 'RMSism'. Linus himself calls it Linux, not GNU/Linux when he's mentioning the entire operating system, not just the kernel. It really doesn't matter, I know when I ask people if they use Linux, I say exactly that, not GNU/Linux.

Linus is wrong, and so are you. It's not 'RMSism', it's 'correctism', whereas referring to GNU/Linux by 'Linux' is 'Linusism'.

scojones · 15-01-2006 05:22AM

declan_lgs wrote:

Linus is wrong, and so are you. It's not 'RMSism', it's 'correctism', whereas referring to GNU/Linux by 'Linux' is 'Linusism'.

Correctism is a point of view, and I think you are being way too anal about this entire thing. It's a web forum ffs.

declan_lgs · 15-01-2006 02:45PM

sjones wrote:

Correctism is a point of view, and I think you are being way too anal about this entire thing. It's a web forum ffs.

And you're not being anal?

Linux, *BSD and Unix is fine. Nevermind the GNU/Linux discussion. Granted RMS believes that when you mention Linux on it's own without the GNU/ you are talking about the kernel, and when you say GNU/Linux you are talking about the kernel + the gnu family of tools. But, IIRC, this is just an 'RMSism'. Linus himself calls it Linux, not GNU/Linux when he's mentioning the entire operating system, not just the kernel. It really doesn't matter, I know when I ask people if they use Linux, I say exactly that, not GNU/Linux.

That was totally ignorant of how many posts?

How many times have I linked to the GNU/Linux FAQ in this thread? At least twice I've informed people that Linux on it's own in the useful OS context is the one that's disrespectful and wrong, not GNU/Linux. Why do people think "GNU/Linux" is disrespectful/wrong/jihad, can anyone tell me?

sjones wrote:

I think you are being way too anal

Why do you think that?

Correctism is a point of view

So have you got anything against my point of view?

flamegrill · 15-01-2006 09:22PM

Linux, Unix

Guys this is going _way_ off topic. Consider the thread closed and the name _IS_ going to be changed to "Linux, *BSD and Unix"

Paul

Proposed Name change of the Unix forum

Comments