Off the Beat: Bruce Byfield's Blog

The older I get, the more certain I am that most discussions consist of arguing over half-truths. In fact, the more strongly everyone argues, the more likely that nobody has the complete truth. And nowhere does these hard-won truisms seem more accurate than in the age-old argument over whether the operating system we all live by should be called Linux or GNU/Linux. Yet that does not mean that you should necessarily avoid taking a position, and, in my case, I have come down -- with some reservations -- on the side of using GNU/Linux.

This argument recently flared up again on the GNOME Foundation mailing list. If you've been around the community awhile, you know the arguments: Free software supporters say that the operating system should be called GNU/Linux to honor the two projects that produced it. On the other side, people say that the name is awkward, and, since everyone has been calling the operating system Linux for ages anyway, a change in name is impossible.

For good measure, proponents of using simply "Linux" add that, if the GNU Project and the Linux kernel are to be singled out, then the X Window System and other key pieces of software should also be included in the name. Usually, this claim is followed by an attack on Richard Stallman, the Free Software Foundation and their supporters, in which they are described as obstinate, out-dated, and irrelevant. Often, these attacks are distinctly heated, and seem the real point of the discussion for those who favor using "Linux."

These are the ways that this issue are always debated. Very few add even a dusting of anything new on either side.

Choosing a Side

I have argued on both sides of this debate in my time. When I was new to the community and working in marketing (for my sins), I argued in favor of Linux. Like everyone keeps saying, it's shorter, snappier, and better known. In short, it made better copy for me.

However, as I moved away from marketing and my concerns shifted, using GNU/Linux made more sense to me. Since then, I have used the term whenever I write, although editors frequently change my usage without consulting me.

What made me change? Mainly the fact that good copy no longer matters to me as much as getting at the truth does.

Not that the side I've abandoned is lacking a few points. Yes, Stallman frequently dwells on the language he considers correct -- to the extent that he sometimes seems to neglect other issues. In fact, when I heard him speak last year, he seemed to focus on correct language whenever he was at a loss about how to respond.

But that does not mean that his emphasis is always misplaced. Framing the terms of a discussion influences how people think about it. And if you don't believe that, tell me: is a person who breaks into computers a hacker or a cracker? I've met very few people who are willing to concede to popular usage in that case.

In the same way, how many in the community would object to the Free Software Foundation's renaming of Digital Rights Management to the more accurate Digital Restrictions Management? The ire seems reserved for "GNU/Linux" alone, which suggests to me that the real issue for some of the people in this endless debate is their dislike of the free software position. Fair enough, but don't try to hide your motivations -- especially not from yourself.

Moreover, the more you delve, the more the double-barrelled term seems a reflection of what really happened in the early 1990s, when the operating system was cobbled together.

Sure, countless projects contributed to the operating system we know today. But it was the decision to merge Linux and the GNU Project that was pivotal in its creation. You used to be able to see that in configuration files and man pages attributed to Free Software Foundation employees like Ian Murdock in 1993-4, although those attributions no longer seem to be present for some reason. The GNU Project contributed not only applications, but considerable development time as well -- to say nothing of the licensing that played such a large role in its success.

The argument that other projects also deserve credit is really nothing except a reduction to absurdity -- a classical logical fallacy. And we all know that attacking the person instead of the argument is equally invalid, right? Stallman can be a prickly person (and, the last time we interacted, he demanded an apology that I do not believe I owe), but that in no way disproves his argument, any more than the increasing nastiness of some of his opponents completely discredits their position.

Anarchist's Choice

If I have settled on "GNU/Linux", the reason is not that I agree completely with all that the usage implies and reject all the arguments on the other side. Rather, it indicates that I consider it more accurate than plain "Linux."

But there is also another reason that I use "GNU/Linux." That hyphen, as awkward as it is, signals to those in the know exactly where I stand in the discussion of free and open source software. As a bit of shorthand, the term is both convenient and honest, and allows me to get to the substance more quickly.

Not that the term completely satisfies me. When I can, I try to avoid it, talking instead about free and open source software (FOSS), which is usually more accurate anyway. But I'm not writing poetry here -- I'm writing about computers and software, both of which are fields so riddled with ugly acronyms and unhelpful bits of jargon that I hardly think one more is going to do any damage.

However, I don't go about urging people to follow my usage. I've made my decision, and I've got enough of an anarchist streak to be content to have other people make choices that I consider wrong (which is precisely why I'm so hopeless at selling anybody anything). I just wish that others on both sides would grant everyone the same privilege.

Comments