Is it GNU/Linux or Linux?

Linux: From Freedom to Fascism

It is Debian GNU/Linux, but it is Linux Mint and just plain old Ubuntu. But Canonical says Ubuntu is a Linux-based distro, not a GNU/Linux based distro. It is also PCLinuxOS and not PCGNU/LinuxOS. Redhat calls it Redhat Linux and the list goes on. So what is it GNU/Linux or Linux?

I have been criticised for using Linux by itself and have seen others being chastised for it elsewhere. You write a long article and the only comment from some people is that you failed to call it GNU/Linux. They are showing disdain for you and are telling you that they will not read what you write until you follow their terminology. I get it, but don’t like the bad attitude. Their cause suffers as a result of their rudeness and quite frankly I don’t care that they choose not to read what I write. I actually believe in freedom.

To be fair some people do call it GNU/Linux in preference to Linux, but is this accurate or even desirable? There is a GNU operating system and some of their work is used in today’s Linux-based operating systems. However, they did not complete their kernel. In fairness they deserve credit, but this does not automatically mean that they deserve to have it as part of the name. The name GNU/Linux assumes that they deserve equal billing and one would have to make a case for that before doing so. Once that was done we would have decide whether it was a desirable name. I will skip to this last point and deal with the other one later.

My first problem with GNU/Linux is that it is a dumb name, at least the GNU part. A name should have meaning that is recognisable and does not require explanation. It is like a joke. If you have to explain its meaning, then it is not a good joke. GNU means something to some people, but like all acronyms it is jargon and it means nothing to most people. By the way, it means GNU’s Not Unix. Get it? It is recursive. It is like an inside joke and not even a good one at that. It is a geek’s idea of what is a good name. It is not marketable. It is not memorable and it needs explanation. Many people wouldn’t even know how to pronounce it.

So to me, it can’t be GNU/Linux. It is not out of disrespect for the GNU folks or anyone else who has contributed to what we all use. It is out of common sense. GNU is a name for a loser of an operating system. Linux is hard enough to pronounce for people unfamiliar with it, without adding GNU to it. If the folks at GNU had come up with a better name then they might have won the name derby. They didn’t and in my mind they lost.

It is plain Linux to most people. It can be GNU/Linux to those who are determined to use it, but don’t expect it to catch on. It is your idea of a good name, not mine. Don’t believe me? Google “Linux” and count the number of times that you find GNU used before it and the number of times that you find Linux alone. Check out the over 300 distributions and see how many of them use GNU in the name. Face it. GNU/Linux is in the vast minority. Misguided though we may be, to the rest of the world it is Linux, not GNU/Linux. There is a reason for that. Linux is catchy and shows its Unix roots, without being wordy. I could find four or five distributions that use GNU in the name and the other roughly three hundred use just Linux.  If that is not convincing enough, remember that most developers are geeks. So it seems that even geeks recognise that GNU is an impediment to the adoption of their distribution.

Linux, strictly speaking, is the kernel. There is the Linux Foundation which is developing the kernel on an ongoing basis. There is also a GNU organisation who gave us the GPL and a Free Software Foundation. Check the GNU.org website and it says that GNU OS started in 1983 and “GNU’s kernel isn’t finished, so GNU is used with the kernel Linux.” You can check their site and get a full list of their contributions and they are substantial.

Most these contributions, the average person will never use themselves, but the coders use them and the coders give us Linux and the open source programmes that we like. Most of their programmes run from the terminal. I checked my installation and some are installed, but the vast majority are not and I have many more programmes installed than the average user. Everybody has the kernel installed. It is central to any operating system and even the GNU operating system claims to use the Linux kernel.

So what is the GNU operating system? Go to their site and find out. I guarantee that almost none would want to use it. Try to download it and there is no ISO, just a bunch of files that most of you have never heard of. If they produce something that we wouldn’t use why would we want to name it after GNU? This addresses the equal billing argument.

For me it is a no brainer. GNU lost the race for the kernel. Their work is rolled in with the Linux kernel, so they want some respect. I say give it to them, but because they chose a dumb name then they don’t deserve to have that as part of the name for the operating system. End of story for me.

This debate will continue because there is some bad blood. Richard Stallman has urged people not to follow Linus Torvalds and Torvalds has fired a few salvos in Stallman’s direction. People take sides and it gets emotional. I get that. It does not mean that Stallman or Torvalds is automatically correct. The truth can be somewhere in between. They are only people and fallible at that. I refuse to vilify or lionise anyone, even iconic figures like these, on the opinion of someone else.

Emotion can be an impediment to common sense. We should not base the name on something that is irrational or arbitrary. A name should be chosen carefully and with intent. It should not be the accidental result of merging two projects with dissimilar names. And why stop there? We should use the names of everybody who has ever contributed to produce Linux, if your goal is pay homage. However, if you want the name to catch on, then you need to have different mindset.

I have been told that because I believe in the right of someone to produce software and impose restrictions on the user, that I don’t believe in freedom. I don’t buy that either. People can produce what they like. It is a free world. People produce many products that I don’t use or even agree with.

I believe in free software as in free speech. That does not mean that there is no place for proprietary software. If I believe that others have the right to develop software that is proprietary, it does not mean that I believe less in software freedom. If you give rights to yourself, but exclude others from using those rights in their own way, then you do not believe in freedom. You believe in restriction.

Freedom of choice is also the freedom to choose wrongly or make decisions that we don’t agree with. If I can do it, then so should others be able to. That is the ethic that I live by in all things. A right is not a right unless it is universal. I believe in free speech. I do not agree with the way everyone uses that freedom, but recognise their right to say things that I disagree with. My freedom is also to not believe the things that people say. Similarly, you don’t have to use proprietary software, but can still extend them the freedom to produce it. That’s what choice is all about. Let the user decide.

That is where I disagree with the direction of some people in the GNU camp. They think that they should be able to act freely, but others should not. They want to dictate terms to others and that is precisely what people are doing when they insist that we all call it GNU/Linux. That is dictatorship. Any dictatorship, even a benevolent one, is contrary to the ideal of freedom. Imposing freedom just does not work. When you impose your will on another person, you don’t add to their choice, but you remove it.

So, now we come to my most important reason for my not calling it GNU/Linux. Some GNU people come across as fascists and I don’t think that this is what the free software movement is all about. The vision of these Linux fascists is narrow and their aspirations are wrong headed. They see things from top down. They have come up with the vision and they expect others to buy into it. I don’t accept that because of the way it is being presented.

The Debian social contract for example is fine in principle. However, social implies people and that implies democracy and the social contract is far from democratic. It is something dreamed up in isolation of the end users, on an organisational level. The principle is more important than the people for whom it supposedly exists. That is the essence of fascism. It is like saying, “We believe in freedom and to make sure that you are free we will force this document one you and if you don’t like it, then you can leave.”  Mussolini referred to fascism as Corporatism. It is where the corporate body or organisation takes precedence over individual rights.

If I am going to be part of anything, it has to be consensual. I have to feel a part of it. My voice has to count and that means that yours does as well. This is where I have a problem with GNU, the Free Software Foundation and  users who try to impose their views on others. Even if the things they espouse are desirable, it loses any value because it is being imposed.

I want people to think about what freedom means. Then if they say they believe in it then they should actually live by it. Allow people to act freely, exercising their freedom of choice, even if it is in ways that you don’t agree with. If you use the term GNU/Linux then don’t expect others to do so simply because you choose to. If you want to educate them then that is your business, but realise that in the end you may have to agree to disagree.

As for me, I will call it Linux or just plain Ubuntu, Fedora or whatever. I think that GNU/Linux will in the end be counter-productive and turn users off. Allow me this freedom and I will allow you to call it whatever you want.

By the way, the don’t like it when we call it open source. Their lexicon uses free software. Whatever. Ditto for that.

Note: Most people who call it Linux do not care and do not condemn people for calling it GNU/Linux. As such it is a one way street. Hence, my condemnation is directed one way.

I find that Ubuntu and most other distributions welcome diverse opinions and new users. They are accepting of others and do not make judgements based on words that we use. They could not care less what we call it, so long as we use it and it meets our needs. Does this mean that they believe less in software freedom? I think not. As such, these distributions are growing. It is not so much that they have something that is better, but that the community is more in tune with a multi-cultural world. Different is good and a difference in opinion is healthy.

In contrast some distributions are struggling and are losing users. They tend to be autocratic and the attitude seems to be, this it what we are, love it or leave it. Not surprisingly, that is a turn off and people are leaving. You can have a superior product, but if you don’t market it properly, then it will fold. I know; I once owned a Betamax. It is a tough lesson to learn, but history bears this out. Walk the walk and talk the talk.

I have tried to be fair, but opinions seldom are as they are value-laden in the end. Please remember, that this is not expressed as fact, but as one person’s opinion.