"Supports Android and Linux" is redundant

Good point, John.

I think they were trying to differentiate between boards that can run a slim Linux distro (like Arch) vs a full Android version with graphic UI.

I'll share your feedback with the RIoTBoard team.

Speaking of redundancies in the RIoTboard description, I just noticed that the list of Interfaces includes:

LVDS, HDMI and Parallel RGB Interface interface

I'd recommend changing it to something like:

LVDS, HDMI and Parallel RGB video outputs

I see the top-level description now reads "GNU/Linux".  Thanks!

Thanks for the good suggestion, John.

I'll ask the obvious question.. Are there any Linux image downloads ?  Only obvious downloads I can find today are Android.

I can't find any upstream support for the RIoT board (or MarS) in either u-Boot or the linux kernel, so saying it supports linux while technically correct is a bit misleading. Since the only way to get Debian/Arch/Fedora onto one of these currently would be to write the u-Boot & kernel support yourself.

I think it's fairly obvious that basic problem will effectively put non-Android Linux out of most peoples reach.

John Beetem wrote:

I realize that the user manual makes the common error of using "Linux" to mean "GNU/Linux"

I don't wish to start another quasi-religious debate, but I find the whole "GNU/Linux" tag somewhat disturbing.  These days it's quite possible to build a 'Linux' system using CLang and musl libc and therefore not have any GNU stuff at all.

The Arm version of LFS goes halfway by using GCC with musl libc for example.  At some point you're going to need to call the amalgamation Musl/Linux/Xorg/freedesktop/KDESC/'not very much GNU' which I feel just adds to the confusion that the GNU/Linux thing started.

I do agree that most people don't understand that Linux is just the kernel, I just don't think GNU/Linux actually helps anyone understand it if they don't already.

selsinork wrote:

 

I don't wish to start another quasi-religious debate, but I find the whole "GNU/Linux" tag somewhat disturbing.  These days it's quite possible to build a 'Linux' system using CLang and musl libc and therefore not have any GNU stuff at all...

 

I do agree that most people don't understand that Linux is just the kernel, I just don't think GNU/Linux actually helps anyone understand it if they don't already.

Well, in the case of Debian and Ubuntu, they are IMO clearly GNU user-visible OS tools running on top of the Linux kernel, so IMO the name GNU/Linux is appropriate.  I also think "GNU/Linux" helps people notice that there is a question, instead of propagating a misconception.

In the general case, there is a need to distinguish between different OSes that run on top of Linux.  That was the whole point of my opening a discussion on the topic, since the original description of RIoTboard said "Supports Android and Linux", which is redundant since Android includes Linux as its kernel layer.

People who create things have the right to name them as long as the name doesn't infringe on trademarks.  So if RMS wants to refer to an OS based on GNU tools as GNU/Linux, I think we should respect that.  Here's his essay on the topic: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html

People who write things that run on top of Linux that don't include the GNU tools should be able to call their products anything they want.  Android is an interesting case, since it would be more appropriate to call it "Android/Linux".  However, adding "/Linux" is likely to scare off potential consumers, so it's probably the best thing for Google and Linux.  I haven't heard of Linus Torvalds objecting to it.

Interesting point, John. I looked for anything Torvalds may have said about the relationship between Linux and Android and found this piece. While his comments are pretty tame, another part of the article jumped out at me:

Over the last several years, some people have been seeing Android as not being Linux at all. Google didn't help matters at all when in the fall of 2010, "Google engineer Patrick Brady stated unambiguously that Android is not Linux” That was never true. Android has always been Linux.

What's also true though is that Google took Android in its own direction, a direction that wasn't compatible with the mainstream Linux kernel.

The rest of the article goes into detail explaining the differences between Android and Linux, which supports the point that Android is more than your standard forked version.

Sagar Jethani wrote:

 

The rest of the article goes into detail explaining the differences between Android and Linux, which supports the point that Android is more than your standard forked version.

Tangled history will always make things interesting, but I'd suggest that the Android version really is just a standard fork, and a very successful one. Perhaps it's even the only real fork. While the likes of RedHat will produce what could be called a fork in their RHEL kernels, they're usually much more closely entertwined with Linus version with the goal of getting the RHEL features into mainline quickly.

As the article says, Android really is going in it's own direction with significant enough differences that while John's point that Android=Linux stands, the devil is in the details and today you couldn't run the Android userspace on mainline linux. The other way around may be slightly easier, but I believe it's still going to be hard to run a more normal distro on top of an android kernel.

John Beetem wrote:

Well, in the case of Debian and Ubuntu, they are IMO clearly GNU user-visible OS tools running on top of the Linux kernel, so IMO the name GNU/Linux is appropriate.  I also think "GNU/Linux" helps people notice that there is a question, instead of propagating a misconception.

I agree that calling anything other than the kernel itself Linux is a misconception. I've spent far too much time trying to explain the difference to people over the years.

I'd much prefer that Debian was just called Debian and was regarded as a distribution that brings together lots of different pieces from many different authors and philosophies. Ubuntu with unity just muddies the water further, it's not clear what user visible tools are in use for an average user. 

Don't get me wrong, I think the world needs idealistic people like RMS to push the boundaries, however I also think that like the rest of us he's capable of being just plain wrong. It's clear he doesn't see the world that way though.

People who create things have the right to name them as long as the name doesn't infringe on trademarks.  So if RMS wants to refer to an OS based on GNU tools as GNU/Linux, I think we should respect that. 

Unfortunately RMS didn't create Debian or Fedora or <insert distro name here>. He didn't create the linux kernel either. Why then does he get to set the name ?  Yes the GNU tools are important, but a distro is a sum of it's parts, not beholden to a few replaceable pieces.  I respect his right to have his opinion, I hope he'd respect my right to disagree. I'll hereby start referring to it as Perl/Linux

Android is indeed an interesting case and your reasoning is pretty close to why I think it's much better to just call the distro Debian or Fedora and leave out both GNU and Linux.