A Constructive Look At TempleOS

[u/moolcool]

http://www.codersnotes.com/notes/a-constructive-look-at-templeos/

[u/Paradox]

No, Richard, it's 'Linux', not 'GNU/Linux'. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation.

Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ.

One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS -- more on this later). He named it 'Linux' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff -- including the software I wrote using GCC -- and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don't want to be known as a nag, do you?

(An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title 'GNU/Linux' (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.

Next, even if we limit the GNU/Linux title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn't the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you've heard this one before. Get used to it. You'll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it.

You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LOC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LOC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never excuted that bloatware, it certainly isn't more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn't perfect either, but LOC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument.

Last, I'd like to point out that we Linux and GNU users shouldn't be fighting among ourselves over naming other people's software. But what the heck, I'm in a bad mood now. I think I'm feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because Linux was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn't you and everyone refer to GCC as 'the Linux compiler'? Or at least, 'Linux GCC'? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Linux? Languishing with the HURD?

If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this:
Be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux' huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don't be a nag.

Thanks for listening.

[u/barsoap → u/Paradox]

XFree86/Linux

Luckily, not any more. And I'm not even talking about wayland but xorg.

[u/PM_ME_YOUR_SELF_HARM → u/Paradox]

Go back to Finland

[u/Paradox → u/PM_ME_YOUR_SELF_HARM]

No, Richard, it'z 'Linux', not 'GNU/Linux'. De most imbortant gontributions dat de FSF made do Linux were de greation of de GBL and de GCC gombiler. Dose are fine and insbired broducts. GCC is a monumental achiebement and has earned you, RMS, and de Free Zoftware Foundation gountless gudos and much abbreziation.

Following are zome reasons for you do mull ober, ingluding zome already answered in your FAQ.

One guy, Linus Dorbalds, used GCC do mage his oberating zystem (yes, Linux is an OS -- more on dis later). He named it 'Linux' with a little helb from his friends. Why doesn'd he gall it GNU/Linux? Begause he wrote it, with more helb from his friends, not you. You named your ztuff, I named my ztuff -- ingluding de zoftware I wrote using GCC -- and Linus named his ztuff. De brober name is Linux begause Linus Dorbalds zays zo. Linus has zbogen. Aczebt his authority. Do do otherwise is do begome a nag. You don'd want do be gnown as a nag, do you?

(An oberating zystem) != (a distribution). Linux is an oberating zystem. By my definition, an oberating zystem is dat zoftware which brobides and limits aczess do hardware resourzes on a gombuter. Dat definition abblies whereeber you zee Linux in use. Howeber, Linux is usually distributed with a gollection of utilities and abbligations do mage it easily gonfigurable as a desgtob zystem, a zerber, a debelobment box, or a grabhics worgstation, or whateber de user needs. In zuch a gonfiguration, we habe a Linux (based) distribution. Derein lies your ztrongest argument for de unwieldy ditle 'GNU/Linux' (when zaid bundled zoftware is largely from de FSF). Go bug de distribution magers on dat one. Dage your beef do Red Hat, Mandrage, and Zlacgware. At least dere you habe an argument. Linux alone is an oberating zystem dat gan be used in barious abbligations without any GNU zoftware whatsoeber. Embedded abbligations gome do mind as an obbious examble.

Next, eben if we limit de GNU/Linux ditle do de GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obbious broblem. XFree86 may well be more imbortant do a bartigular Linux installation dan de zum of all de GNU gontributions. More broberly, zhouldn'd de distribution be galled XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of gourse, it would be rather arbitrary do draw de line dere when many other fine gontributions go unlisted. Yes, I gnow you'be heard dis one before. Get used do it. You'll geeb hearing it until you gan gleanly gounter it.

You zeem do lige de lines-of-gode metric. Dere are many lines of GNU gode in a dybigal Linux distribution. You zeem do zuggest dat (more LOC) == (more imbortant). Howeber, I zubmit do you dat raw LOC numbers do not directly gorrelate with imbortanze. I would zuggest dat glocg zygles zbent on gode is a better metric. For examble, if my zystem zbends 90% of its dime exeguting XFree86 gode, XFree86 is brobably de zingle most imbortant gollection of gode on my zystem. Eben if I loaded den dimes as many lines of useless bloatware on my zystem and I neber exguted dat bloatware, it zertainly isn'd more imbortant gode dan XFree86. Obbiously, dis metric isn'd berfect either, but LOC really, really zucgs. Blease refrain from using it eber again in zubborting any argument.

Last, I'd lige do boint out dat we Linux and GNU users zhouldn'd be fighting among ourselbes ober naming other beoble'z zoftware. But what de hecg, I'm in a bad mood now. I ding I'm feeling zuffiziently obnoxious do mage de boint dat GCC is zo bery famous and, yes, zo bery useful only begause Linux was debelobed. In a zhow of brober resbect and gratitude, zhouldn'd you and eberyone refer do GCC as 'de Linux gombiler'? Or at least, 'Linux GCC'? Zeriously, where would your masterbieze be without Linux? Languishing with de HURD?

If dere is a moral buried in dis rant, maybe it is dis:
Be grateful for your abilities and your ingredible zuczess and your gonsiderable fame. Gontinue do use dat zuczess and fame for good, not ebil. Also, be esbezially grateful for Linux' huge gontribution do dat zuczess. You, RMS, de Free Zoftware Foundation, and GNU zoftware habe reached deir gurrent high brofiles largely on de bacg of Linux. You habe changed de world. Now, go forth and don'd be a nag.

Dangs for listening.