|
|
|
|
|
|
To be or not to be: GNU / Linux?
By Trevor Warren <trevor@freeos.com>
Recently I happened to read an article in Linux Journal, which brought into focus the age-old debate of Linux v/s GNU/Linux. And guess who seems to be more vociferous about this? It was good old RMS. Fortunately or unfortunately, this issue got the better of me and led me to think about facts I would otherwise have neglected. This topic is open for debate and I think it's something that the community should participate in with a healthy spirit. Please don't flame me, but if you think you have something to add to this ongoing debate, do mail me. So, does it really matter whether we call our Open Source OS of choice "Linux" or "GNU / Linux"? That I can't answer, but one thing I can say with conviction is that stimulating this discussion is akin to walking a tight rope and not having to take sides makes things even worse. To be or not to be is the question. Three cheers to RMS, but all said and done, I wouldn't mind calling my Linux box a GNU/Linux box. It's just that all along we have been so accustomed to calling our friendly OS of choice "Linux” that re-christening the OS isn't something the people around me are open to. I have been an avid user of Open Source and have seen its fan following grow ten fold over the last three years. Apart from working on projects, I also did a stint teaching the Open Source philosophy to many of the industry veterans and the fact that Linux is actually GNU/Linux has always been an important part of the whole discussion. This being for the simple reason that explaining the origins of the Open Source movement, right from the its infancy at the hand of John Maddog Hall, to the FSF foundation would force me to explain the relevance of the Open source movement and the foundation that it laid much prior to time when Linux began making its appearance felt on the international scene. Though in my discussion I would make it a point to stress the importance of the Open Source movement and the impact it has had on the traditional software model, I dare say our industry veterans could care a little more about the real relevance of the term Open Source. Let's be frank. What really matters to most of the top level management is getting the job done. Now, whether the job is executed using the traditional closed source platform or an Open Source platform is a matter of corporate policy as laid down by the management. Most of the time, I have noticed that people who are technology implementers in most organizations have almost no say in the products and platforms they implement. Some of the factors that really drives most of these management decisions is the cost of the solution, cost of implementation, cost of licenses, cost of upgrades, cost of bug-fixes and updates, cost of manpower and last but certainly not the least, how the product is able to help increase productivity and keep the greenbacks flowing in. Whatever be the Open Source platform most companies use to implement their projects on, most of them don't really bother about GNU or GNU/ Linux. What matters to them is the fact that the such an open standard makes life so much easier as well as less expensive for them to deploy their solutions. They know that they are not compelled to make any compulsory returns to the Open Source community. These are facts, and facts are difficult to live with. But, at the same time, it would not be fair on my part to label all of them as being part of the same bandwagon. It's a fact that the Open Source community has to live with. These are facts that are reiterated time and again when I meet up with the top brass of various organizations who want to be in the same league as others either trying to implement their own so called corporate Open Source strategy or some of them building their own product and services on freely available and GPL licensed Open Source software. I am not trying to discourage corporates basing their products and services on GNU/Linux. I want them to understand the underlying phenomenon that has led to the development of the Open Source movement and the appearance of various Open Source OS' like Free BSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, GNU/Linux, etc. This process will help them be more responsible to the movement, which is giving them so much. As an implementer of Open Source technology, who is constantly on the lookout for cutting edge solutions on the Open Source platform, I feel that pushing Linux is a win - win situation for the GNU movement out there. After all, at the heart of the Linux box are GNU tools and utilities. Yes, but die hard GNU fans will still object to calling Linux the true GNU OS because most of them feel that Linux has hijacked their efforts and now takes precedence over all the hard work done by the GNU movement in the form of a wonderful suite of GNU tools, compilers, libraries and various other utilities. Signing off for now, I would like to deliver this message to the community at large. Call your OS of choice whatever you would like, but when you go about evangelizing the Open Source movement, take some time out to thank those who toiled to get the wonderful suite of GNU tools, compilers, libraries and various other utilities ready for us Linux guys to make use of.
Stallman on Linux vs. GNU/Linux
Other articles by Trevor Warren
Current Rating: [ 6.33 / 10 ]
Number of Times Rated: [ 6 ]
|
|
|
© 1998-2004 FreeOS Technologies (I) Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved.
[Privacy Policy]
 |
