This is Rocky Linux. The download size for the whole thing is about nine and a quarter gigabytes;
but here's the thing... only something in the region of 100 megabytes of that is actually
Linux. So if only one percent of Rocky Linux is actually Linux, what the heck is the other 99 percent?
What is this thing? And why am I shouting?
Welcome back to The Pro Tech Show. I know what you're thinking: if Rocky Linux is only one percent
Linux, then it must be 99 Rocky, right? No, it isn't. Obviously. I'm just getting that in there before
the comment section fills up with it. I know what you lot are like! When I said Rocky was nine and
a quarter gigabytes I'm talking about the full DVD download. I could have downloaded the minimal
install which is only 1.8 gigabytes. The difference is that the minimal install is more like the core
operating system with only some essential software packages, and the full DVD version contains a lot
of extras. As a general rule the minimal install is a good starting point for a server whereas the DVD
is of more use if you're installing a full desktop environment. If you were thinking therefore that the
extra 99 percent was simply a bunch of web browsers and office software then you're partially correct;
but even if we strip everything back to the core operating system there's not as much Linux in
there as you might think. In fact Linux by itself is kind of useless. Let's take a step back. When you
install an operating system: whether that be Linux, Windows, Mac, or BSD; you're not just installing an
operating system. You're installing a whole bunch of applications alongside it. In the Linux world
this whole big bundle is called a distribution. Rocky Linux is a distribution. The same goes for
other "Linuxes" you may have heard of like SUSE, Red Hat, Alma, Ubuntu, Debian, Kali, Arch, Manjaro, Pop,
Mint, etc., etc. There are a few of them! The operating system itself provides the basic functions of your
computer and then a whole bunch of applications get added on top to add more functionality. Think
of the operating system as the interface between you and the computer. The operating
system is not a single program, though; it's a system made up of a lot of different components.
The most important component of this system is called the kernel. It's the core program that
controls everything else. Whereas you can think the operating system As the interface between
you and the computer, the kernel is the interface between the hardware and the rest of the software -
including the rest of the operating system. Windows is both a distribution and an operating system. The
operating system is called Windows but it includes a bunch of other applications as well. You can't
consider Candy Crush a part of the operating system no matter how hard they try to get you
to install it. You have a bunch of applications like maybe Chrome and Microsoft Office, then you
have the Windows operating system, and at the very centre of that you have the Windows NT Kernel. In
the Linux world you've got your distribution like Rocky Linux. That includes a bunch of applications
like maybe Firefox and Libre Office. Then you have the operating system, and at the very centre of
that you have the Linux Kernel. That is the part that is actually Linux - the kernel. If we're being
pedantic (and we clearly are) then only the kernel is actually Linux. The rest is something else,
and that's caused a bit of controversy over the years. The story of Linux as we know it today doesn't
start with Linux. It starts with a free operating system called GNU. I mean you could argue it starts
somewhere else, too, like with Unix; but we have to draw a line somewhere and I'm drawing it at GNU
and calling Unix "inspiration". GNU was envisaged as a completely free operating system that was
a compatible alternative to Unix. GNU development was started in 1984 by Richard Stallman - a man who
despite his many significant contributions to computing is today something of a controversial
figure. I don't really want to get into that here as it will distract from the point of the video
but he has said and done some things that are at best massively ignorant and at worst vile.
I do think some of this has been taken out of context, and maybe some is not completely true,
but other bits definitely happened and his defence seems to be that he didn't mean it or
think it through because he's... really weird. I mean nobody's arguing that the guy isn't weird... just
whether that's actually a valid justification. But I don't want to dwell on that because I don't want
the comments in this video to devolve into a war between accusers and defenders of Richard Stallman.
What is definitely a matter of historical record is that Stallman founded the Free
Software Foundation to develop GNU, and develop it they did. In fact they very nearly completed it.
Nearly... but not quite. By 1990 they had assembled (with help from others) most of the components of
an operating system but were rather crucially missing a kernel. Essentially they'd built a
car, but the car had no engine. Meanwhile in 1991 a certain person by the name of Linus...
no, the other one... had written a Unix-like kernel called Linux. Essentially he was doing the same
thing but started at the other end, tackling the complicated kernel bit first and leaving
all the other programs that make up the bulk of the operating system until later on. In 1992 (and
according to Stallman's version of events having been influenced by the free software foundation)
Linus Torvalds made Linux free. Now over here you have a car called GNU that's missing a working
engine, and over here you have an engine called Linux that doesn't have a car, and they're both
free for anyone to use or modify. You don't have to be a genius to figure out what happened next.
Massive oversimplification, there was a lot of work involved, but engine plus car equals working
vehicle. The controversy is over what to call the completed car. The car is the operating system.
It's mostly made of GNU, especially this early point in its development; but without Linux it
can't go anywhere. That works both ways of course. Linux might be the core of the operating system
but take the engine out of the car and the engine's going nowhere by itself, either.
The fact is that most people refer to the entire car as Linux and the Free Software Foundation
aren't particularly happy about that. They have proposed the name "GNU with Linux" and even said
that if you just want to call it by one word it would be fairer to call it "GNU" rather than Linux
given it's really GNU with a bit tacked on that happens to be called Linux. Now, I say "tacked on"
a bit flippantly there. Let's not underestimate the importance of that bit. A lot of people have contributed
a lot of work to the Linux kernel over the years. Meanwhile GNU which has been in development since
1984 and it's Hurd kernel since 1990... well it's 2021 now and GNU still doesn't have a
production-ready kernel of its own. So let's not underestimate how important that Linux kernel is;
but equally let's not underestimate just how much GNU is actually woven throughout many
modern Linux systems. If we turn Rocky back on the first thing you'll see is the GRUB bootloader.
That's GNU. Once it fires up we land on our Gnome desktop. Gnome used to be part of GNU, too.
Let's say we don't want a desktop environment and we're happy with just the command line.
You're probably using Bash and guess what? That's GNU as well. The GCC compiler used to build
so many applications including the Linux kernel itself? GNU. Glibc, the standard library that tons
of your applications rely on? Linux! No, I'm kidding. It's GNU. So when the Free Software Foundation
come along and say "Hey! Give us some credit and stop calling our work Linux. It's just the kernel."
they have a point. If we were to take their suggestion and rename Rocky Linux to "Rocky
GNU with Linux" that would be a more accurate description of what I've actually installed here.
It would be a more accurate description... but it's a pretty rubbish name!
Let's put it another way. You could describe me as a white British adult male who records
YouTube videos in his garage and likes whisk(e)y. That would be a better description of me than
simply saying "Andrew", but Andrew is a much better name. GNU with Linux is a better description but
it's a pretty bad name. It is at least better than "LiGNUx" which is something they also once suggested.
Even just saying the name GNU is a bit awkward and if you're wondering what it stands for
it's "GNU's Not Unix". Yes, the "G" in "GNU" stands for "GNU". So you could also call it "GNUNU" or "GNUNUNUNUNU".
I don't know why people come up with these recursive acronyms. I assume they think it's
funny or clever in some way, but it's just dumb if you ask me; and this is one of the biggest hurdles
that the Free Software Foundation are facing with this. Not the recursive acronyms. I mean I don't
like it but it doesn't really matter, does it? It's the fact that they're trying to force a name that
nobody actually wants to say. "Rocky Linux" rolls off the tongue. "Rocky GNU with Linux" not so much.
Debian notably does refer to itself as GNU with Linux rather than just Linux, but it generally
calls itself "Debian" because "Debian GNU with Linux" is still just awkward. The other, and
honestly the bigger reason systems like Rocky get called Linux rather than GNU with Linux is that
it's a name that people recognise. Even a lot of people with no interest in computers recognise the
name Linux as some kind of alternative operating system, even if they don't know exactly what it is.
Most people have never heard of GNU. It reaches a point where if everybody knows something by a
certain name that's now its name, even if it's not technically accurate. Linux might technically be
just the kernel but call the entire distribution "Linux" and people know what you're talking about.
Is it fair? No. I think the Free Software Foundation deserves more credit than they get for their
contribution of the GNU operating system; but I can't be bothered actually saying "GNU with Linux"
or "LiGNUx" and then having to explain to people what I'm talking about when I could just say
"Linux" in the first place. Even if it's unfair, is it fair to call the full system "GNU with Linux"?
A modern Linux system can have thousands of software packages. Most of them are neither
Linux nor GNU. If you want to give everyone fair credit then where on earth do we draw the line?
Rocky GNU with Linux with X Window with RPM with Dandified YUM with Firefox with Gnome... because Gnome's
not part of GNU anymore, remember. Look, you'd end up with hundreds of words in the title and that's
just silly. So if you have to draw a line somewhere and you can't give credit to everyone in the title...
at least make it something recognisable. Sorry Free Software Foundation.
I appreciate your contributions but at this point it seems fair to say the masses have spoken. To use
a very British analogy: if I ask you to picture the Elizabeth Tower, what comes to mind? Anything?
If I ask you to picture Big Ben you probably thought of this. It's Big Ben - a world famous
landmark and symbol of the United Kingdom. Except it's not. That's not Big Ben, that's the Elizabeth
Tower. Big Ben is the name of the bell inside it. The bit that goes "bong". It's not the tower.
It's not the clock. It's just the bell. We know the whole tower isn't actually called Big Ben
but we don't care. Big Ben is a catcher name and we all know what people mean when they say it.
Nobody's going to look at that picture and say that's "the Elizabeth Tower with Big Ben",
or that's "Elizabeth Tower with Big Ben with striking clock with partial Palace of Westminster"
because that's not how people actually speak. Is Rocky Linux 100 percent Linux?
No. Barely any of it is actually Linux. Will we continue to call it Linux? Yes,
because Gregory Kurtzer built a distribution and decided to call it Linux, because it's a name that
people actually recognise; and that's pretty much where the world is with it. Let me know
in the comments what you think. Did you learn something here or was this all old news to you?
Do you think we should say "GNU with Linux" instead of just "Linux" or do you take the stance that
whoever makes the distro gets to call it whatever they want? If you found this video interesting then
chuck a like my way and consider subscribing for the next one. If you want to check some of my back
catalogue out then YouTube has run its algorithm and stuck a couple of suggestions over here for you.
That's all I've got for you today. Thanks for watching. See you next time!