Is This "Puppy Linux" or "Puppy GNU/Linux?"
Posted: Tue 28 Jul 2015, 06:26
I've read in several articles our beloved Puppy Linux described as "GNU/Linux". Now, I am an advocate of free software--and open source software, i.e., free and open source software, both of which are described, depending on who you're talking to, as a "movement," and some of this stuff really confuses me. I'd like to get some clarification from Puppy users and developers here, if I may.
If one goes over to Free Software Foundation and reads up, one will find the several operating systems they advocate and describe as "free software -- free as in freedom, not free as in free beer," as "GNU/Linux." They claim there is a big difference between "GNU/Linux" distributions and "Linux" distributions, a big difference between "free software" distributions and "open source" distributions. Therefore, "Trisquel" and "Dragora", just to throw in a couple of examples, are not "Trisquel Linux" and "Dragora Linux" but "Trisquel GNU/Linux" and "Dragora GNU/Linux" respectively. They claim a huge difference between the two names. They claim only the software they advocate and provide mirrors for, for example, are truly free software, while all the others, allegedly the "Linux" distributions and/or "open source" distributions, are using proprietary programs and other proprietary software within their systems, and therefore cannot be described as "free software -- free as in freedom, not free as in free beer." The argument, to be sure, is complicated and never-ending, but just to clarify, for my own intents and purposes, and probably some of yours, too, Dear Reader, what, exactly, is Puppy and Quirky? Is this "Puppy Linux" we're using, or is this "Puppy GNU/Linux" and "Quirky GNU/Linux," and is this "free software -- free as in freedom, not free as in free beer" (even though, coincidentally, it is in fact free as in free beer... Well, it is for the users anyway)? So, if "Puppy Linux" is actually "Puppy GNU/Linux", then why do we call it "Puppy Linux?" And if it isn't "GNU/Linux," why do we call it both? What makes Puppy Puppy GNU/Linux in the first place? What makes Puppy Puppy Linux? Why are both terms used to describe the same thing? Is there a mistake or confusion on someone's part somewhere, or what?
I understand the terminology, but other authors shed different lights on the same thing and it does get nuts from time to time. What's the official Puppy stand on this argument? Or is there no argument at all? I haven't been able to find anything officially from Puppy.org or anywhere else to answer my questions. Thank you!
If one goes over to Free Software Foundation and reads up, one will find the several operating systems they advocate and describe as "free software -- free as in freedom, not free as in free beer," as "GNU/Linux." They claim there is a big difference between "GNU/Linux" distributions and "Linux" distributions, a big difference between "free software" distributions and "open source" distributions. Therefore, "Trisquel" and "Dragora", just to throw in a couple of examples, are not "Trisquel Linux" and "Dragora Linux" but "Trisquel GNU/Linux" and "Dragora GNU/Linux" respectively. They claim a huge difference between the two names. They claim only the software they advocate and provide mirrors for, for example, are truly free software, while all the others, allegedly the "Linux" distributions and/or "open source" distributions, are using proprietary programs and other proprietary software within their systems, and therefore cannot be described as "free software -- free as in freedom, not free as in free beer." The argument, to be sure, is complicated and never-ending, but just to clarify, for my own intents and purposes, and probably some of yours, too, Dear Reader, what, exactly, is Puppy and Quirky? Is this "Puppy Linux" we're using, or is this "Puppy GNU/Linux" and "Quirky GNU/Linux," and is this "free software -- free as in freedom, not free as in free beer" (even though, coincidentally, it is in fact free as in free beer... Well, it is for the users anyway)? So, if "Puppy Linux" is actually "Puppy GNU/Linux", then why do we call it "Puppy Linux?" And if it isn't "GNU/Linux," why do we call it both? What makes Puppy Puppy GNU/Linux in the first place? What makes Puppy Puppy Linux? Why are both terms used to describe the same thing? Is there a mistake or confusion on someone's part somewhere, or what?
I understand the terminology, but other authors shed different lights on the same thing and it does get nuts from time to time. What's the official Puppy stand on this argument? Or is there no argument at all? I haven't been able to find anything officially from Puppy.org or anywhere else to answer my questions. Thank you!