I think most of us are well aware of the fact that the core
user-mode software comes from GNU, even though we describe our systems
as "Linux".
In this discussion, we've seen people who definitely do know this
argue nonetheless that the "Linux users" should not be expected to put
effort into cooperation with the "GNU users".
I'm sure there are some people feel that way. I would consider it
shameful for someone in the Linux community to really not care about
the GNU community (which has provided a lot of essential base
software), and vice versa (Linux has provided the first production
platform that natively hosts an all-GNU environment). However,
different people are focused on different things, and the Linux
project does have a different goal from the GNU project (the first
aims to build a high quality kernel, and other people aim to produce
other high quality system software for it; the second is interested in
free software in its own right).
The naming issue is something else. It's simply easier to call the
overall product Linux. Most people on the lists that I'm on refer to
"Linux" whether they're using Slackware, Debian, Yggdrasil, or Red
Hat. The name "Linux kernel based on GNU" or whatnot is simply
unwieldly. It would be better to recognize that Linux probably
wouldn't exist without the GNU project in documentation, or the
appropriate press releases, or whatnot than to try to insist on a name
that nobody will use.
What that shows is that it isn't just a matter of whether people
know the historical facts. It's whether people think of themselves
as part of one larger community, or two smaller ones.
Well, there are two communities with significant crossover (I count
myself among the crossover people). However, at least some members of
each group DO have interests distinct from the other: the Hurd people
are primarily interested in their kernel, and there are various
companies (Caldera, MetroX, etc.) that are interested in hosting
commercial software on Linux. Is this bad? Well, if you're a heavy
Linux hacker who wants to see GNU produce new releases of a lot of
software, the Hurd looks like it's taking resources away from that.
Likewise, if you're a GNU partisan you may not be thrilled to see
people using Linux as yet another platform for commercial software.
Of course, it's possible that the best ideas from the Hurd will be
combined with those from Linux to produce a stronger OS, and the
commercial software available for Linux will convince people that it's
really a mainstream choice, thereby helping a free OS (and base
utilities) compete against proprietary OS's, and both groups will win.
Perhaps we should all cool the rhetoric and figure out what we can do
to materially help each other rather than focusing on perceived
slights.
-- Robert Krawitz <rlk@tiac.net> http://www.tiac.net/users/rlk/Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail lpf@uunet.uu.net Tall Clubs International -- tci-request@aptinc.com or 1-800-521-2512