Comment by zohebv | Hacker News Reader

Comment by zohebv | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I looked at the article and it seems to strengthen the argument for calling it a GNU/Linux distribution. The top contributors as per the chart.

1. kernel 9% 2. gnu 8% 3. kde 8% 4,5 java, mozilla 6% 6. gnome 3%

If you combine gnu with gnome, we have 1. gnu 13% 2. kernel 9%

Also considering that java/mozilla are platform agnostic, the candidate names we have are

linux-gnu-kde OR gnu-linux(-kde)

If you are not running KDE, then gnu-linux seems like a very strong candidate for the name. The argument for calling it linux would revolve around the availability of GNU software on other non-linux distributions in some form or the other, thus making GNU a not very distinctive moniker. But MacOS/BSD doesn't really carry as much GNU as Linux distros do.

But the kernel is running all the time when booted up. A better argument would be that only a fraction of GNU software is active at any moment, so by percentage of GNU v/s kernel code executed in any given time interval, the kernel should win handily. This pie chart, as it stands, actually makes a case for calling it GNU\Linux.

It's all irrelevant because operating systems in general are NOT named after their prominent components. It does often happen that the kernel and the OS have the same name, but that is not because the OS is named after the kernel but rather the other way around--that is, the creators of the OS name the OS, and then the kernel is known as the X-kernel, where X is the name of the OS.

If I choose to take the Linux kernel, GNU utilities, and assorted other free software and put them together to form a complete OS, I can call it whatever I want, and BY DEFINITION that is the correct name for my operating system, since I'm the one who put it together.

Well yes. Debian, Ubuntu, SuSE, etc are the names of the OS distributions.

When I'm generalizing based on the stack people expect, I usually say Linux when I mean the common Glibc, GCC (maybe CLang), and GNU utils with a Linux kernel setup people expect to find normally (and I'm usually excluding Android saying that), or I say that it's UNIX variant when I want to include Mac and BSD or any other generic POSIX complaint OS.

It's like Pop vs Soda vs Coke. I prefer to call everything Coke. http://www.popvssoda.com/

Coke?

Warning: angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin argument ahead.

It's true that the kernel is loaded all the time (though not usually running more than a small fraction of the time), but so is glibc. It's far from obvious that more cycles are spent in the kernel than are spent in glibc (though of course in both cases the goal is to run as little as possible, allowing more application code to run).

It's also worth considering that only a fraction of the kernel's LOC are even compiled in the average distribution's kernel (are the LOC dedicated to Itanium, Alpha and PA-RISC support really useful to Ubuntu?).

It's also worth considering that only a fraction of the kernel's LOC are even compiled in the average distribution's kernel (are the LOC dedicated to Itanium, Alpha and PA-RISC support really useful to Ubuntu?).

Does the kernel spend more lines of code on platform support or on drivers? I was under the impression that drivers made up the vast majority of the kernel, most of which are enabled in distribution kernels.

Sloccount seems to confirm this on kernel 2.6.35:

  4796735 drivers           ansic=4791978,yacc=1688,asm=1428,perl=792,lex=779,
                          sh=57,awk=13
  1677610 arch              ansic=1449312,asm=226905,sh=674,awk=470,pascal=116,
                          perl=58,python=45,sed=30

glibc isn't the only C runtime out there.

    A better argument would be that only a fraction of GNU software is active at any moment, so by percentage of GNU v/s kernel code executed in any given time interval.

A lot of programs link to glibc.

The gnu tools are a very small part of the overall system, and they are probably some of the most replaceable (and replaced). The kernel is a lot less so, and while it's comparable in size it's also the common thread that people want to refer to when they say "linux systems."

Besides, neither the kernel nor the gnu tools are used all that much by a regular user. The desktop environment, the browser, office tools, etc. are much, much more visible to the end user.

In any case, it makes a lot more sense to say just "linux" than to arbitrarily "gnu/" in front just to placate some pedants. Say "gnu" when you're talking about gnu, not when you're talking about linux.

But does calling it GNU\Linux add any specificity over calling it Linux? I can't think of a major distro that doesn't use the GNU components. Therefore calling it GNU\Linux is rather like calling it Cocoa\Mac OS X. The GNU adds no additional information.

You're only using a fraction of the kernel as well at any given time... (As they count by LOC in the article...)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com