[GNUz] O/S compare

[Richard Tindall]

Thanks Jim,

Jim Cheetham wrote:

>I must admit to not being sure what "GNU/Linux" was supposed to be, nor
>what you meant by "No/Yes" for "A brand?" ...
> =20
>
Yes, it's a grey/shady area - less so once I separated out the 'source'=20
categories tho. So they are 'Yes&No'-type answers (vague), as defined=20
over time - still settling on the final 'canonical' (scientific)=20
analysis, & glad of the pointers.

E.g. the GNU is a brand, but a public one. Yet RMS is criticised as very=20
proprietary over it. Proprietary is most of what I see around LINUX=AE -=20
in a project 'ownership' sense, rather than closed source. This is what=20
makes BSD so refreshing - the project sense is much more unified and=20
settled (on the surface). I know who I'd back if the "GNU/Linux" issue=20
ever went to court, yet there's some kind of 'moral majority' (actually=20
neither) that prevents you ever saying this.

There's so many "*What is Linux?*" versions=20
<http://www.infohelp.co.nz/lnxcontxt.html> that I've deduced my own:
"Linux=AE is the hardware i/o kernel most often distributed with the GNU=20
computer operating system."

- Any problems with that (other than common usage)?

>"Linux" (with or without the GNU prefix) is assuredly much more of a
>brand than BSD - and is getting a lot of commercial development.
>
> =20
>
Yes, that's agreed. But is it indicated clearly yet? The opposite could=20
still be argued, in that (Free)BSD(=AE) claims UNIX(=AE) provenance, and=20
O/SX is by far the most prominent nix-based brand. But I wouldn't argue=20
that, having sampled the way that BSD derivatives are made with what=20
feels like freer adaptation of the original (BSD-Unix). Against this,=20
LINUX=AE brands seem to be making the GNU quickly less relevant. I find=20
that worrying.

>"freedom to close" seems to have been introduced specifically to
>differentiate between BSD and Linux - both can suffer from the same
>fate, which is effectively where the current maintainers suddenly refuse
>to produce updates in a manner which you find useful. Neither of them
>can withdraw materials that have already been published.
> =20
>
Ok; but it's still a formal criteria to note.

>Yes, someone can take the current BSD and produce a closed version,
>which cannot be done with Linux, but frankly who cares? It won't make
>any difference to the world, who would just ignore the closed version.
>
> =20
>
How does O/SX stand then? Sorry, I should do more research.. but is it=20
closed source, as per BSD promise? Is there much interaction with *BSD=20
ongoing? - Healthy app code feed back? ..I imagine so. Is overall BSD=20
growth your predicted outcome from this?

Probably we should say that LNX & O/SX have different target markets=20
(servers vs grafix, corporate vs niche desktop, etc), and so are yet to=20
compete very much. In this LNX is growing as a brand, whereas BSD is not=20
(- directly, but in its following).

>Also, Windows cannot have the freedom to close if it's never been open
>:-)
> =20
>
Great! - Amended just so :)

>What does "freedom to legacy open" mean?
> =20
>
Reworded - freedom to open legacy - better?

Cheers, Rik


To meet the legal requirements:

LINUX=AE is the registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in several countri=
es

Or should that be, more recently <http://www.linuxmark.org>:

The registered trademark Linux=AE is used pursuant to a license from Linu=
s=20
Torvalds, owner of the mark in the U.S. and other countries.

? - BSD will _never_ say that; and nor would GNU.

Thanks again,

--=20
Richard Tindall, InfoHelp Services <http://www.infohelp.co.nz>, on:
Ubuntu GNU/Linux 5.04 free OS, 2.6.10-5-k7 kernel, GNOME 2.10.0 desktop
OpenOffice.org 1.1.3, Mozilla 1.7.12 email client & web browser
GIMP 2.2.2 graphics, gedit 2.10.2 web editor, gFTP 2.0.18 file transfer