Make Your Own Linux!

> There is now a very simple way to make your own GNU/Linux distribution, called a "linux appliance," at SUSE.

It's a pet peeve, but I prefer we not use "GNU/Linux" to refer to a generic Linux distro.

Richard Stallman (who I've met) certainly wants everyone to refer to a "Linux" distro as "GNU/Linux". He says this gives the GNU developers proper credit for their work. To be sure, there's a lot of code in a "Linux" distro that was created by the GNU/FSF folks. And they certainly deserve credit for that.

But a Linux distro is more than the GNU programs. I run Linux, and I hold an RHCE, but I rarely jump to the command line anymore. I spend most of my time in Mozilla's Firefox, checking email and surfing the web. So if the GNU/FSF folks want to get credit, the Firefox team should get credit too: it's GNU/Mozilla/Linux.

I also do a lot of "work" stuff under Linux, using OpenOffice (by Sun Microsystems.) OpenOffice is one of the most important programs to me under Linux, next to Firefox. So now we're GNU/Mozilla/Sun/Linux.

And that's just how I use Linux. I work with a lot of developers who write perl CGI's for their day job. These guys live and breathe perl - for them, perl is the most important thing to them in a Linux system. Larry Wall is the father of perl ... isn't it now GNU/Mozilla/Sun/Wall/Linux?

If we're going to give GNU/FSF a part in the "title" (to be "fair" to the GNU contributors) then shouldn't we give everyone who has made a significant contribution to Linux a place in the "title"? Wouldn't that be "fair"?

The problem quickly becomes: where do you draw the line?

IMO, "GNU/Linux" means gNewSense, which is actually put out by the GNU/FSF guys.

It's a pet peeve, but I prefer we not use "GNU/Linux" to refer to a generic Linux distro.

I've never used it before. I was interested to see who got madder, people who want to use is vs. people who don't want to use it.

I see the point you are making, but I don't think there is an arbitrary line between basic system functionality and applicatois . The GNU toolkit is essential to the operation of the computer, since it includes so many basic things. The computer would not turn on to the point of running an X server without GNU commands. Or at least, I think that is true.

Having said that, I find GNU/Linux to be cumbersome. Also, Stallman wanted a system but never wrote the kernel. Linus wrote the kernel. The kernel is the system. The kernel plus stuff is a system that works, but still...

Hi Greg!

> The GNU toolkit is essential to the operation of the computer, since it includes so many basic things. The computer would not turn on to the point of running an X server without GNU commands. Or at least, I think that is true.

Good point. Equally important is that pretty much all Windows applications are compiled using the Microsoft compiler. That includes third-party apps like Firefox. The compiler is essential to the operation of the application, since it provides the basis of functionality. Without the compiler, the application cannot do anything, couldn't even start up.

Using the "GNU/Linux" argument, what if Microsoft asked us to refer to "Firefox on Windows" as "Microsoft/Firefox"?

Does that make anyone else uncomfortable? :-)

Adding to this, so much of the Web's functionality depends on Adobe's Flash plugin. How many links from your site point to YouTube, or MSNBC, or some other Flash-enabled video player? It's clear that the Flash plugin, above other plugins, is the most essential.

I guess it's "Microsoft/Adobe/Firefox" now.

Except the average Windows user doesn't care about Microsoft's compiler contribution to their Firefox experience. And average users just "assume" that Flash is there - they don't think about Adobe at all.

So if we all had to start referring to "Firefox on Windows" as "Microsoft/Adobe/Firefox" instead, you'd really confuse a lot of average users.

So why "GNU/Linux"? Or why not "GNU/Mozilla/Sun/Wall/Linux"?

Using the "GNU/Linux" argument, what if Microsoft asked us to refer to "Firefox on Windows" as "Microsoft/Firefox"?

They would like to do this. The logic is roughly the same as insisting that IE is part of their operating system.

So why "GNU/Linux"? Or why not "GNU/Mozilla/Sun/Wall/Linux"?

How about gcc/bash/Linux, or Gblinux, pronounced "Gublinux"

> So, OK, folks,[...] Now, let's see who can come up with the coolest version of any of he following hypothetical distros:

I'd like to pitch my own idea, lifted from a post on my FreeDOS blog: a FreeDOS/Linux distro.

Create a very lightweight Linux system that boots, run DOSEmu on virtual console #1, which immediately starts up and runs FreeDOS. The other virtual consoles provide an ability to run DOSEmu, which also can boot FreeDOS.

There should be a simple method to direct the Linux host system to âshutdownâ or ârebootâ from within the DOSEmu â but it could be as simple as: when DOSEmu exits on virtual console #1, present a quick menu to do a âsoft rebootâ (restart DOSEmu) or âhard rebootâ or âshutdownâ (both affect the Linux host system.)

In this way, a certain level of abstraction or virtualization is realized. You can run separate instances of FreeDOS in the different virtual consoles, providing a kind of âDOS multitaskingâ (but really, itâs just instances.) An interesting step forward (and not too different from what some virtualization companies are proposing) but itâs missing the things necessary to bring DOS to the next level. (See my other posts.)

Still, itâs an interesting idea, and Iâd be very curious if anyone ever created such a thing. Any takers?

I tend to steer away from something that likes to call itself GNU/Linux and towards something that calls itself just Linux. A GNU/Linux to me suggests that it's unfinished, pretty much unusable and requires a lot of hassle and work getting it to a state where it can do what normal operating systems (such as OS X) can do with ease. A Linux that simply calls itself a Linux is more likely to have high quality apps that aren't encumbered with this open source nonsense ethos, and just allow itself to get on with providing what people actually want. The amount of times I've installed Ubuntu on my netbook only to have to remember that there's a mild bout of hoops to jump through to get Skype onto it (for example). I'd like it to be there in the first place. This sort of pick'n'mix approach is ideal, provided it isn't crippled by ideological noise.

The phrase "open source nonsense ethos" = ideological noise.

There are easier ways to make your own Linux Distribution than this. Remastersys takes 5 seconds to set up.

You mean to tell me there's not already an Emacs-centric Linux distro?

I'd be more impressed by a port of Emacs Lisp that would run on a "bare metal" machine. It should be doable, with the provisio that the lisp wrappers to system functions (filesystem, network stack, etc) would have to wrap custom implementations instead.

There are implementations of Forth environments that boot straight from bare metal, so it should be doable.