Talk:GNU Project

Second paragraph
I'm about to revert the second paragraph for the second time. An anonymous contributor 151.203.49.181 has been changing the second paragraph to say that the GNU project "unable to create a quality kernel useful for the masses", although this is true, it is also true that the GNU project cannot fly. The reason these two facts don't deserve a mention in the second paragraph are that neither was the goal of the GNU project. The goal was to make a free software operating system exist. By circumstance, this required writing a c compiler, and a standard c library, and a debugger, but, also by circumstance, it did not involve writing a kernel, or being able to fly.

My first revert of the anon's changes was referred to as "vandalism" in the anon's second edit summary, so I've explained myself here. Gronky 21:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read the definition for "Operating System" -- if it helps, here's a quote:


 * That is, the common understanding includes not only the low-level "kernel"[...]


 * Combine this with a quote from GNU:


 * The goal was to bring a wholly free software operating system into existence.


 * I'm not sure what to make of your "it cannot fly" comment, other than you want to confuse the issue further with a defensive remark.


 * Since you seem to have a personal vested intrest in maintaining this, and I have better things to do than smack around a geek with an agenda, I'll leave this to you to fix.


 * --Anon.


 * Ah yes, I think I see your confusion now, and the answer is actually in the quote that you have included in your comment. I think you think GNU's goal was to write an operating system, but this is not the case.  GNU's goal was to bring one into existence.  This doesn't mean writing every part yourself.  Most of the time this meant writing new software, but sometimes it only required integrating existing software (such as the X Window System, the Tex typesetting system, and the Linux kernel). Gronky 22:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Just because the work on Hurd has been slow and buggy doesn't mean the effort isn't underway. If it isn't the intention of GNU/FSF to create their own kernel, why does development of Hurd continue after all these years?

-.Probably 90% of all opensource projects are either in direct competition with another project, have no obvious use given other free software available, or are too ambitious to ever be finished; but this doesn't stop people working on them, 'for fun'. Hurd falls into the last catagory. Hurd aims to improve on unix-like kernels, by using a 'micro kernel', with drivers being written seperatly, and sitting in an abstraction layer above this, allowing for easier driver development and deployment, though the glacial pace of development means that it may well be a very long time before it is completed. 213.120.94.110 14:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge into GNU
I think this should be merged into GNU. This article doesn't have enough info on the technical side, and GNU is a bit thin on the politics (though to a lesser degree); with the FSF these two issues are inextricably linked. Superm401 - Talk 02:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I added a section in Talk:GNU pointing the discussion here. The templates encourage discussion in both places, which is disjoint and not helpful. Lentower 19:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's better for discussion to happen on the Talk page of the merge target - that way the discussion and outcome will still be visible after the merge. Gronky 13:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No Merge There is much discussion on Talk:GNU on why the articles should be separate. It is a very wise idea to review both Talk pages before adding the merge templates. Merges have often been proposed in the past.

This article GNU Project and GNU are both candidates for the 2006 WP CD. Be good to have the CD and Web versions the same here. See the box at the top of this Talk:GNU_Project page and the the box at the top of the Talk:GNU page.

Leave them separate. They are distinct topics. Beef both up. Lentower 19:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * weak support for merge -- What is the difference? One is the OS and the other one is the project to develop it. Do I get it right? So why not talk about project in GNU page since GNU Project doesn't have much material anyway... -- AdrianTM 19:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The amount of the material is not relevant. Both topics are notable, and stand by themselves.  Lentower 20:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No merge - the operating system is just one milestone in the GNU project. Gronky 13:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

See Articles_for_deletion/Staff_and_employees_of_the_Free_Software_Foundation
See Articles_for_deletion/Staff_and_employees_of_the_Free_Software_Foundation.

This new article started as a section in the FSF article, and was split off with no rationale, discussion, or consensus by User:Chealer (talk|contribs).

The editors of this GNU article could have good points to make on this AfD. Lentower 19:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Project goal and activity
The way the article is currently written, it is not clear to me if the GNU project is still active. The original goal is achieved. If the project is active, what are the goals today? Is the "GNU Project" really a project, in the usual sense? --HelgeStenstrom 12:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a good point. The answer is that the GNU project is an open-ended project to bring into existence a sufficient body of free software such that people will be able to use computers for their tasks without having to use proprietary software.  The first major milestone was to make an operating system exist, and that milestone has been reached.  I will try to find time to update the page, but I hope others can too/instead. Gronky 13:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to correspond to [be implemented by] a little snip of code that says: 



My browser is Mozilla Firefox 1.5.0.11. My comment is that, unless I use "Ctrl Minus" to lower the font sizes to be so microscopic that they are hard to read, some of the characters (e.g., the characters of the left-side phrase ,which I think is supposed to say "Portal: Free Software"), do not show up. (and then, as for the stuff that is supposed to go on the Right-Hand Side - that does show up correctly - and it says, admittedly sorta redundantly, "Free Software Portal"); There seems to be some kind of overlapping phenomenon going on, that I do not understand. I don't know a lot about this stuff. In this case I suspect that it might be mainly a matter of how this wiki, implements some of the "double braces" stuff, like the snip shown above. I am not saying that this is a big deal, just that someone might want to look in to it. It might even be due to something that is occurring on my end, - if so you can let me know (reply here, I guess). Thanks for listening, Mike Schwartz 03:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What is 'FSF"
Search in the body of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.59.108.89 (talk) 13:56, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Logo
Is the GNU image an official logo of the GNU project? If so, is there any reason it doesn't appear in the article (other than hidden inside a collapsible template at the bottom?) —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 06:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What makes a software project part of the GNU-Project?
I just read that "bazaar" became part of the GNU-Project but without being published under the GPL. I was suprized, because I thought that the GPL is what makes Software "GNU-Software". I consulted this Wikipedia-Page but didn't find my question clearly answered. Perhaps, a paragraph answering it should be added. -- 91.3.70.6

91.3.70.6 (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What makes software part of the GNU Project is the Project (i.e., Stallman) and the developers saying so. Canonical says that happened, and there's no particular reason to doubt them.  Anyway, Bazaar has been under the GPL for a long time, possibly from its start.  RossPatterson (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

So, it probably makes sense asking WHO the Gnu Project is. (Is it the members of the FSF?) That's a concept quite different from what I had. (Excuse me: I don't want my questions answered her. I could find out myself.  I'm just trying to give an idea, why I found the definition, appart from "mass collaboration", insufficient.) -- 91.3.70.6

91.3.117.200 (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to record this article
Hello, I'm very new to editing for Wikipedia, and want to record this page. Any tips, advice, words of caution?

EDIT: I'm only going to make a recording once I get feedback to make sure my recording is accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan 9001 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Influence on FreeBSD
GNU has also played a big role in setting an example for other projects.

The Qt toolkit being released as free software was clearly due to pressure from GNU. FreeBSD was also influenced, according to Keith Bostic:

"I think it's highly unlikely that we ever would have gone as strongly as we did without the GNU influence," says Bostic, looking back. "It was clearly something where they were pushing hard and we liked the idea."


 * http://oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch09.html

Not yet sure how and where to mention this, but I wanted to note it here. Gronky (talk) 23:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

GNU Manifesto
Two things: The text of the manifesto does use the term software "development", but only peripherally. (It doesn't use "developers" at all; it talks about "programmers".) Beyond seemingly-superficial word choice, though, it doesn't claim that "freedoms [are] essential to software" development: if they were truly "essential", there would be no need for a manifesto. In fact, the manifesto discusses some potential difficulties these freedoms may pose for software "development" (e.g. in respect to money). In contrast, the manifesto summarizes its own raison d'être thus: "I consider that the Golden Rule requires that if I like a program I must share it with other people who like it." It's important not to phrase this imprecisely because the focus on philosophical/ethical arguments rather than pragmatic ones is one of the key distinctions between the "Free Software" and "Open Source" camps. (I might also point to the lack of distinction between "users" and "developers" in GNU land.) Note: I realize this is not a strongly-defended argument in WP:NOR/WP:PRIMARY, especially since I don't have ready access to the (print) book cited (without a page number) as the source. If someone has an argument for "development", feel free to revert and discuss. However, I think the weight of the sources that exist would come out against "developers", which I think is ground for changing a Wikipedian-written word that I've probably already spent too much time talking about. LiberalArtist (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) As promised in my edit summary, here is a slightly-longer rationale for my having changed "software development" to "software users" in this sentence: "In the GNU Manifesto, Stallman listed four freedoms essential to software users … "
 * 1) Upon coming to the Talk page, I saw the note below. I'm a native English speaker, and I didn't understand the sentence either; it made me stop in confusion when I read the article. Since no one has explained in over a year, I'll remove that now, as well.

Last sentence of the part GNU Manifesto reads:

Some complications arose, however, when certain software was grandfathered in the law of GPL because of code from which it derived.

I am translating this article to Turkish and I did not understand the sentence above. I think it is vague. I could not understand and elaborate looking at the reference because it is a book which I do not have access to. Nor I could find any information about the complications in the main article GNU Manifesto.

Can anyone provide information please? Thanks.

Ali Polatel (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No idea. Google and similar methods resulted in no hits, so I think the source is the only thing that might explain what it supposed to describe. Belorn (talk) 08:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I will check the local library if I can get ahold of the source. Ali Polatel 19:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kawdjer (talk • contribs)

The G man, where is the G? History request
GNU, GNU Image Manipulation Program, Gnome, ...

Stallman has no G in his name neither does MIT or Berkley.

I'd previously thought "George Washington university project" or something.

What is the G from? GNU is Not Unix is not recursive without G.
 * Just a non-encyclopedic guess (aka OR), but as far as I can tell, "gnu" is the only three-letter English word that ends with "nu". 135.180.216.189 (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.gnu.org/gnu/about-gnu.html
 * https://www.gnu.org/gnu/pronunciation.html
 * Other Cody (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

GNU Enterprise
GNUe is not a high priority project for GNU, just a GNU package which is currently not maintained. I suggest to change the redirected page to List_of_GNU_packages. genium   ⟨✉⟩   08:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

"Erroneously called Linux?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy

By citing the name Linux as erroneous you are bringing controversy into this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.180.46.247 (talk) 05:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

GNU/Linux
It feels kinda strange to me that a sentence "Combined with the operating system utilities already developed by the GNU project, it allowed for the first operating system that was free software, commonly known as Linux" has two footnotes and both actually refer to the operating system as "GNU/Linux" (with the kernel FAQ one even explicitely stating that Linux is a kernel, while GNU/Linux is a OS) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.254.1.82 (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Recent history GNU vs FSF
None of the recent history between Free Software Foundation and GNU is mentioned in this article. Why not? Erxnmedia (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=GNU-FSF-Relationship-Ideas

Consider removing 9965 GNU reference
It's just an honor for the GNU Project, not a direct relevant part of it. Alternative to removal: move to Recognition. Thoughts? In particular, @Daveout? Amyipdev (talk) 02:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * i don't mind if it gets removed. it's basically trivia. – (talk) 02:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll wait for a while for potential opposition, then I'll move forward with removal. Amyipdev (talk) 05:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Is there a new GNU firmware policy?
https://web.archive.org/web/20240518205540/https://www.gnu.org/education/edu-cases-italy-south-tyrol.html

shows information about

"All Italian-Language Schools in South Tyrol Migrated to Free Software"

and

"Every line of code developed as part of the FUSS Project is distributed under a GPLv3 or AGPLv3 license, and all documentation is available under a CC BY-SA license."

but

https://web.archive.org/web/20240522193437/https://iso.fuss.bz.it/fuss12/client/fuss-12-amd64-live-education-20240330.iso

or

https://iso.fuss.bz.it/fuss12/client/fuss-12-amd64-live-education-20240330.iso

as I can not get the archive.org one,

has a non-free firmware code folder in it.

Does this mean GNU is now accepting non-free/proprietary firmware in microcode or is this folder just named non-free-firmware, or was this just a text about schools in South Tyrol using mostly but not completely libre software?

You can get these files with the program wget or with a browser.

The folder is at /pool/non-free-firmware/

in the iso image.

You can see it in the ios file with a program like Engrampa.

Other Cody (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)