GNU and Linux give GNU parsers a history lesson

Article title: GNU and Linux give GNU split members a history lesson. Linux is a technology channel of the IT lab in China. Includes basic categories such as desktop applications, Linux system management, kernel research, embedded systems, and open source.

In forums such as Slashdot, people often attack GNU. in my opinion, they have a lack of historical knowledge and disrespect for history. When GNU advocates Linux as GNU/Linux, these people claim that GNU is attempting to steal honors from Linus Torvalds, or claim that what GNU does has a suspicious motive for anti-commercial use. I finally decided to write this article to avoid more questions.

The following are some simple facts that must be kept in mind by the few but shouting split elements:

Let's start with the relationship between GNU and Linux kernel:

The advent of GNU was much earlier than that of Linus Torvalds, which began to become a Linux kernel later. at that time, GNU had created a long-column tool necessary for operating systems, including development tools such as compilers and system function libraries, editors such as emacs, and so on. Many system tools and commands such as grep, ls, and find are also derived from GNU, at least in their current new version. One of the goals of the GNU project is to replace Common Unix tools. the commands mentioned here belong to these tools. All these tools constitute a much larger amount of code than the kernel itself, and the kernel reflects the importance of the GNU project for the Linux phenomenon that is well known. Another fact that the splitters should remember is that Linus is the one who actively adjusts the kernel to work with the GNU system. The close connection with GNU has always been very important for the development of this kernel in various aspects. Alan Cox, one of the most promising kernel hackers, said that one of the reasons he began to delve into the Linux kernel rather than other kernels was that Linux uses the GPL license, which he thinks is better than BSD-style licenses.

GNU was engaged in commercial activities almost from the very beginning by selling tape and CD-ROM as the GNU software medium as well as printed manuals based on self-developed software. They do not yet provide written support and encouragement for the creation of companies that support and/or develop free software for their livelihood, including VA Research, Cygnus and Redhat. (recently, RedHat and Cygnus announced mutual mergers .) Software issued in the form of a GNU license has changed the way software companies operate, but it has not made it impossible to do business. In many ways, a software market dominated by a free GPL license represents the spirit of capitalism because it benefits companies that are good at doing business and really interested in customers, rather than benefiting companies that are monopolized in technology's ivory tower. The latter is not so much a new child of modern capitalism as the legacy of the heavy merchant system.

The third criticism is based on the unremitting efforts of GNU to advocate the use of the GNU license. This may be the root cause of recent conflicts caused by new licenses launched under the "open source" umbrella, but we can see that, BSD advocates are overwhelmed by the lack of mass infrastructure in their systems due to strong opposition to GNU licenses.

One of the points of view of GNU's critics is that it emphasizes that the GNU license will introduce too many political factors to free software. For them, I can only say that if you have doubts about the ideal embodied in the GNU license, you should use another OS that is not Linux, because if these licenses are not used, Linux OS may not be born, or at least as widely used as she has been. Many companies are attempting to introduce new types of software whose licenses will give special privileges or priorities to today's GPL-compliant Linux systems. With so many attempts, I can confidently say that if Linux uses a more free license like a BSD license, commercial companies may not try to add their own exclusive features and succeed in Unix's competitive advantage. We all know how much harm Unix has caused in the market. On the other hand, if Linux systems use more stringent and non-copyleft licenses, such as QPL or the terrible Sun license, the restrictions on large software openers will be higher, because they will feel that they are not advocating a system for anyone to play the platform at a certain level. Instead, they are switching from one issue to another, the result is only the fate of another OS/2. In addition, this makes it almost impossible to share source code, another successful factor in Linux. Some people seem to have forgotten that, just as the GNU license makes Source code accessible, the copyleft principle embodied in these licenses is equally important. This is the same as trying to re-introduce copyright (copyright) as a major issue in Linux software development.

So I am actively advocating that this OS is GNU/Linux? No, actually I personally do not call her GNU/Linux. I simply call her Linux, just like Microsoft Windows. Therefore, when Stallman and others advocate the use of GNU/Linux, you should not attack them, instead, we should treat it as a warning-it reminds us that GNU plays an important role in bringing us into the realm that everyone is expecting today.

Clearly, I do not agree with Richard Stallman's idea that the ideal realm is that all software is released in accordance with the GPL principles. In my opinion, I don't expect everyone to agree with GNU and Stallman in any details. indeed, but I do expect people who are happy to use Linux to respect and acknowledge the irreplaceable roles that GNU has played in the Linux community and will continue to play.