Talk:GNU variants

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software. This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance).

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Archives

GNU/kFreeBSD Debian_GNU/kFreeBSD Ging

From

I don't think this article is going to become large any time soon. It will probably never grow large, but if that does happen, I'm certain enough that it will not be in the near future. There is a page about a similar topic: GNU/FreeBSD, and that page isn't much bigger than this one. I would like to suggest merging these two articles, but to what name? The unified article should remain open ended so that if a GNU system with the OpenBSD kernel comes into existance, it will also fit on the unified page. "GNU Operating Systems with BSD kernels"? "GNU Operating System variants" or "GNU Operating Systems with alternative kernels" and then in the opening line say "for linux-based variants, see

Normal GNU (with the Hurd) and GNU/Linux are very common and deserver their own page. Let's just make this an article about any minor GNU/$kernel. These would be GNU/kFreeBSD and GNU/kNetBSD and maybe

GNU/OpenSolaris aswell, though that one might be large enough to justify its own article. (Nexenta is quite active, from what I understand, but I'm not sure about that.) Geronimooo 15:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

So I made this merge -- mms 13:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you have to support your assertion that GNU with the hurd is common? debian popcon reports just 11 systems using hurd compared to nearly 100 using kfreebsd and over 100K using linux. Further kfreebsd has actually made it into a debian stable release (and is on-target for continued inclusion) while hurd is looking like it's going to get kicked out of the official archive (having never made it into a stable release) unless the porters SERIOUSLY pick up their game in the near future. Granted debian isn't the only hurd distro but even so things look far more rosy for kfrebsd than for hurd to me. Plugwash (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry didn't spot how old these posts were, Kfreebsd was less common back then. Still I haven't seen any evidence that hurd was EVER common. Plugwash (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a remark on how usable it is to be added --anon.

Binary drivers

»This makes it far simpler for hardware manufacturers to develop device drivers for it while protecting their IP rights.«

This statment is a bit unbalanced. It presents binary drivers as an unalloyed benefit, and offers a surious justification: hardware manufacturers don't want binary drivers because there're easier to write, it's purely to avoid releasing code. Could there be a link to, say

I changed it to »This makes it legal for hardware manufacturers to release device drivers without the source.« -- mms 13:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

revert

Hey, Xaero Vincent, as I can see you solely contributed to Nexenta OS till now. You didn't recover the article there yet and I don't want an edit war here but I think your revert and the new text about GNU/OpenSolaris is wrong. AFAIK Nexenta OS is a new name for GNU/Solaris which is sometimes also named GNU/OpenSolaris. On http://www.gnusolaris.org you have all 3 names. Now we have two questions:

1. Is Nexenta OS GNU/Solaris and GNU/OpenSolaris and therefore a GNU variant?
2. Is the section about Nexenta OS worth to be an article?

The first question I would answer clearly yes. For the second question I don't have a strong opinion but I would say not yet. -- mms 17:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Nexenta OS deserves its own page; in fact, until recently it did have its own page. I think there's enough info to warrant its own article.

I actually don't know if this article is really warranted. These operating systems are only really related in a very loose sense, that being that they are all built around GNU software in some way, but that's a loose association, and the grouping here doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. – Mipadi 18:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you can read in the archives there has been discussions to merge all those *GNU/*BSD articles. But under which name? I think »GNU variants« fits it well. At this time the article is not much more than the product of a merge. Read GNU to get an idea why GNU is such an unique operating system. Without it there would be no "Linux" and there would be no free BSDs -- except there would have come another person like RMS around. And I think it's no accident that all other variants than GNU/Linux described in this article are a Debian project or Debian-based projects. Debian generally values freedom still much more than all "Linux distributions" which one can see in naming theirs GNU/Linux. And even so I oppose calling GNU/Linux Linux I accept that the developers of GNU/Solaris or GNU/OpenSolaris have chosen to call their operating system Nexenta OS. At least it isn't named after its kernel. As long as they don't claim it is "Linux-based" (but GNU-based) it's okay for me. It is legal to do so. And the history is totally different. There were GNU users before Linux came out. Then Linus Torvalds developed the first versions of Linux and changed it license so it could be combined with GNU. The early GNU/Linux users knew they are running a GNU variant. That is why they demand the name GNU/Linux for the thing which currently is in the article Linux. Also GNU/Linux is by far more important than Nexenta OS and so I'm more relaxed here. See also GNU Users Who Have Never Heard of GNU -- mms 19:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure what or who you are responding to. You indented underneath my comment, but you don't seem to really be addressing my statement. You gave an interesting, if unnecessary, history of GNU (and, I might add, seemed to assume I know nothing of the GNU project or the development of the Linux kernel, and how they relate), but I'm not sure what you are addressing, or who it is directed at. – Mipadi 20:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to your comment but drifted away a bit. I also addressed your last edit to the article. -- mms 21:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My last edit was this, which is just a bit of cleanup, aside from changing the wording of the line about GNU/Linux a bit. But it's not cut-and-dried that it's wrong to refer to such a system as Linux—that's why there's a controversy, after all. – Mipadi 22:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ging redirects here. This is useless until someone can add what "Ging" actually means to the article. (And no, "ging is not ging" is not enough on its own!) 86.136.255.69 (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add something to this article to say what Ging is? If not, I hope someone else will - but if you know something, please help. --Gronky (talk) 09:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Debian/kFreeBSD LiveCD, apparently: http://glibc-bsd.alioth.debian.org/ging/ EdC (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next time you need info on Linux etc., try [1] --

sockpuppet alternate account 19:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I believe this is currently bootstrapping itself in the main archive. This would mean it can release with Squeeze. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2009/04/msg00001.html Not an official release yet, but almost there. kgoetz (talk) 07:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the "Main Article" for Debian GNU/kFreeBSD is looping back to this article. Where should it lead to? Debian's article, maybe? -- Zeratul2k. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.182.80.178 (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Gentoo/Alt is a project to provide an operating system based on a GNU userland managed by Portage to with different kernels including FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD.

This section is incorrect. Gentoo/FreeBSD (not sure about the rest of Gentoo/Alt) uses the FreeBSD user-land. See The official page. It does use the GNU tool-chain, though. --Theriddle (talk) 00:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Theriddle about the Gentoo/Alt GNU Issue. It's not GNU. It's still primarily a BSD Userland. Just because it contains a GNU toolchain shouldn't make it automatically a GNU variant. I would request to remove it from this article or atleast mention that it only has the GNU toolchain. --Fader05 (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section "FreeBSD variants" is followed by a link to the full article "Debian GNU/NetBSD." However this link leads right back to this article so I have deleted it. 86.41.80.64 (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nexenta_OS says, that

Nexenta OS is the first distribution that combines the GNU C library and userland with the OpenSolaris kernel

while GNU_variants article says, that

Nexenta OS is the first distribution that combines the GNU userland (with the exception of libc

One of them is wrong. --Norayr (talk) 10:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Just wondering if there is a standard or active development on wikipedia? What does the project have to show to be active?

kgoetz (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As expected, there can't be a clear-cut definition of "active development", and I don't think there is any policy/guideline on wikipedia, however, here is my take: if there are a lot of people working on it a a relative short timeframe (1 week/month), making lots of improvements, than that could be a "metric". An even more specific metric could look into the number of commits/changes to source-code repositories available on the internet. If a project makes very frequent releases, it might also be an indication of active development (but not necessarily). Inversely, if a project has not shown any release or any type of development in, for example, the last year, it might be hard to "prove" "active development". In concrete cases, I think projects like Firefox, Fedora or Ubuntu clearly meet this definition. Regarding Debian GNU/Hurd and my edit, since the last version was from 2009 and I saw no evidence of active development (in fact, no evidence of any recent development at all), I felt it was incorrect to call it under active development with such a lack of information. However, after reading your comment, I found out the news page which at least seems to indicate the project is not dead. Anyway, if you are familiar with the project and think it is actively developed, feel free to revert my edit, that will not be a problem, but if you do that, I ask you to use wording like "As of June, 2011, this project in under active development", so this way information remains accurate in the future. --SF007 (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delayed reply, I forgot i'd posted here. Hurd hasn't been released with Debian yet, but may be released as a technology preview with Wheezy. I feel it is under active development, as its development list receives regular posts with patches for/discussion of portability. I guess as its the low end of the 'active' spectrum (eg, active but not very active) i won't be too fussed with what happens wording wise. -- kgoetz (talk) 09:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Debian doesn't split out contributions by target architecture/OS so it's difficult to tell how much activity there is unless it happens to show up on a mailing list. Still the stats on buildd.debian.org paint a picture of sporadic imrovements though they also show that they are a long way from meeting the release critera Plugwash (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't anoyone here yet reflected about Arch Hurd and Debian GNU/Hurd not being GNU variants, but just actual ordinary GNU systems (besides me in September, but my edit was reverted as vandalism)? Or is the definition removed in this edit wrong? What does the term "GNU variants" actually mean, and is it actually used at all? Or is this just a convenient way of collecting different systems into one topic (in that case, what should the boundaries of that topic be)?

So, to be really clear: if a GNU variant is a GNU system not using the Hurd kernel, then Arch Hurd and Debian GNU/Hurd does not belong here, since they do use the Hurd (and therefore are just ordinary GNU systems). But what do we actually mean with GNU variants? Do we have any sources supporting that the term is used in the broader or narrower sense, or even in any sense at all? I can't see that the current footnotes supports this statement. Kindly, 78.82.251.51 (talk) 10:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC) (user:flinga on the Swedish language Wikipedia)[reply]

The statement that it's a term used by the FSF was added here. This was given sources in this edit, but those sources does not support that it is an established term, since the sources does not seem to contain the term. If it isn't established as a term, we should not state that it is. And if we want an article about Non-Hurd GNU systems, maybe we could call it something else (for example, "Non-Hurd GNU systems")? Or do we want an article about all possible GNU variants, both Hurd and Non-Hurd variants? Kindly, 78.82.251.51 (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Afaict despite being a project to create a unix-like operating system the GNU project has never actually officially released one (though it looks like there may have released a "demo image" for hurd which our GNU article appears to be dubiously clamining as a "release of GNU"). They have released many of the components for an operating system but they have left it up to others to perform the actual task of combine those components with other free software to create the operating system. Plugwash (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, hence, all releases of GNU are GNU variants, is that the argument? It's like it would be parallell to the expression "Linux distribution" (although "system-centered", not "kernel-centered")? Well, we would still need sources for claiming that this is a term.

My argument is that today we state that GNU variants is a term used by FSF, mening any system using the core userland from GNU, but we do not have any source that supports this statement.

We could avoid saying that it is a term used by the FSF (since it hardly seems to be), and instead just have an article about variants of the GNU system (regardless of kernel as today). We could as well, if we wish, call the article "GNU systems", or any other fitting term. We could also narrow the scope and just include alternate versions of GNU, not running the GNU-kernel (Hurd) (which I thought was the original intent with this article). Or we could merge it (perhaps not neccessary) in the GNU article. That would all be correct. But we should not say that this is a term used by FSF if that's untrue, and we should be clear about what's in the scope of the article. Kindly, 78.82.197.237 (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC) (user:flinga@svwp)[reply]

The two problems are: 1) is this an article about "variants of GNU" (where variation to me sounds like some sort of alternation; with an alternative kernel), or about "versions of GNU" (regardless of the kernel)? 2) there are no source supporting the claim that this is a term at all. 78.82.197.237 (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about variants. Versions of GNU are documented in GNU. The "Hurd variants" section should be removed or merged into the GNU article. Gronky (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not putting this in the article right now because it would have to be worded very carefully to avoid stepping on OR and/or SYNTH but the bottom line is that at this point it would take a miracle for hurd to released with debian wheezy. Their build percentages are still far from acceptable, they haven't been in dialog with the release team, they haven't been included in testing even as a "broken and fucked arch"*.

* New architectures generally get added to testing as a "broken and fucked arch" (debian terminology not mine but it basically means they don't impact testing transitions for other architectures) and then later get switched to being a release architecture when their state in testing is considered good enough.

-- Plugwash (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do share your expectation, especially because the Hurd developers are essentially 5-10 part timers. To even complete java implementation, their DDE driver project and maybe get only one simple GUI running without major bugs until the end of 2012 seems excessively ambitious to me (I wrote the factual part of this in the article, btw). However, the ambition is there. The developers publish snapshot dvd images every quarter year, they keep porting packages and they still work on the hurd. So even though probably almost everyone expects this to be just another instance of "almost critical mass" which the hurd seems to see every 5-6 years in its life cycle, this is not something that can be written into the article unless someone FOSS- or Debian-notable says it out loud. -- 178.25.83.219 (talk) 09:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original system is GNU, which uses Hurd. GNU/Linux is a variant because it's not exactly GNU.

GNU systems using Hurd are already documented in the GNU article. Can I merge the "Hurd variants" sections from here to some part of the GNU article? Gronky (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current definition of GNU variant at the beginning of the article doesn't allow for a hypothetical combination of GNU Hurd and a non-GNU core userland to be considered a GNU variant. --isacdaavid 02:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe that combination would not be GNU, and easily found sources would back that up. The kernel (Hurd) was the "last" part of GNU. The compiler and C library one of the first. The C library would be a system library that would be "core userland", that is GNU. The compiler "application" software. comp.arch (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should

I have just modified 2 external links on GNU variants. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070711071736/http://www.gnusolaris.org/gswiki to http://www.gnusolaris.org/gswiki
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725012919/http://www.archhurd.org/ to http://www.archhurd.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on GNU variants. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120014944/http://www.superunprivileged.org/hurd/live-cd/ to http://www.superunprivileged.org/hurd/live-cd/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to irc://irc.oftc.org/debian-kbsd

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]