text:
I'm sure everyone reading this has heard the debate over whether that top dog free operating system should be called "Linux" or "GNU/Linux", but how big a contribution is GNU or Linux to that operating system? As conventional wisdom has it, it's the availability of applications that make a system valuable, and this is where free software really shines. Linux contributes only about 6% to the cost value of a full operating system, but then again, GNU contributes only about 15%—who do we have to thank for the remaining 79%?! And why don't we hear them complaining about what it's called?
This isn't really about "GNU/Linux", it's really about asking "Where does free software come from?" In order to answer that question in any really definitive way, of course, you first have to collect all the relevant free software applications into one giant collection so you can do statistical analysis on them. Wouldn't it be nice if somebody would do that for us?
Oh, yeah...
Debian GNU/Linux represents the largest such collection in existence, and with something like 15,000 packages, it comes pretty close to representing the "universe" of free software (or at least, "working" free software, there's plenty more that isn't ready for prime time yet, as a quick look at Sourceforge will tell you). Debian will do nicely.
Meanwhile David Wheeler (who you may recall is an occasional contributor to Free Software Magazine), wrote a package called SLOCCount to count "physical source lines of code" (SLOC) in software projects, as well as evaluate them in terms of their "estimated replacement cost if they had to be redeveloped from scratch according to proprietary methods", represented by their "COnstructive COst MOdel" (COCOMO) costs (which was, of course, originally developed to help managers estimate the cost of proprietary software development projects). This model is convenient to use, because it only needs physical source lines of code as an input, and that's the easiest thing to collect. There are more sophisticated cost models out there (COCOMO II for a start), but they require more sophisticated input, and are therefore harder to use on a large automated estimation project. So COCOMO I it is.[1]
Observing these two wonderful facts, a group of researchers in Spain decided to have a go at Debian with SLOCCount, and published their results. Their interests are in things like what programming languages were used, but the complete data set can be used to answer some other questions, too. Including the question of who writes free software.
The dataset lists SLOC, package size, and COCOMO estimated cost for each package considered. The packages are meant to cover the entire bulk of Debian source packages, but without overly duplicating code (for example, if two closely related branches exist, pick only one of them). This makes sense, because presumeably the code was only developed once, and so copying didn't cost much (some would say that's the whole point of free software).
So, in the end, they have 8,560 packages listed for Sarge (not the entire set, but fairly close). Less for earlier distributions, of course.
Now where do they come from? One way to estimate affiliation is by looking for dashed package names: for example, it's probably fair to count, say,
mozilla-thunderbird and
mozilla-suite as both being products of the Mozilla project. Even if such a package is actually maintained by a third party, it's still part of the "Mozilla culture" surrounding the Mozilla project. Many large free software projects are like that: a well organized core with a halo of unaffiliated supporters.
For the GNU project, however, there is a simpler way: they have a list. Which is nice, because they have quite a few projects. Fortunately, Debian is pretty conservative with package names, so if they package, say, "gcc", there's a strong chance the package name will contain the string "gcc", so we can filter. Also, all Debian package names are strictly lowercase (this is policy), so we know exactly what to do to compare. This makes it a snap to cross-reference the GNU package list against the Debian collection.
Combining the two techniques, we can get a good picture of who's behind all those packages. Here it is:
This estimate is by total accumulated SLOC, so it doesn't draw any distinction between lots of small packages and one giant package. This means, for example, that it overestimates the value of GNU versus Linux. Both are underestimated against the field of smaller independent packages. However, SLOC are a nicely objective measure, so it's good to start with this.
To get a better picture of the division by value, however, we can use the COCOMO estimated replacement cost numbers. These are a kind of lower limit to the value: because presumeably, you would have to spend this much to create these packages in order to use them. If they were developed by a proprietary organization and then sold, they would have to be sold at prices that would raise at least this much (distribution costs and profits would probably at least double these costs).
In any case, here's what that valuation looks like:
You may be a little surprised by the total cost figure at the bottom of the chart. Yep. That's in adjusted Year 2000 US dollars, and is equivalent to approximately one half of the cost to develop the first Space Shuttle [2]. That's a lot of value. Note of course, this is not necessarily what it actually cost to develop: we assume that free software methods are considerably more cost-efficient, and most of the contributions were "in kind" donations of time, so actual cost is much harder to compute.
But this chart is really about the pie slices: GNU, while being the single largest contributor, still only accounts for 15.3%. Meanwhile, Linux isn't even number two—that honor goes to a set of desktop applications, OpenOffice.org. More to the point, more than half of the applications come from "the field"—thousands of individual applications created by individuals or companies for their own reasons, not backed by any of the high-profile, high-mindshare free software organizations.
I don't mean to diminish the importance of the flagship organizations in maintaining free software. But it's the fleet backing them up that makes the system into the powerful force that it is. The fairest term for what we like about "GNU/Linux" is probably neither "GNU" nor "Linux", but rather just the "Free Software Operating System". Free software operating systems are made valuable principally by the contribution of individual developers.
[1] I should probably mention that David originally used SLOCCount to analyze the Red Hat distribution, and while that's interesting, it's not as up to date or as comprehensive as the research I refer to here. Maybe I'll write about that on another day.
[2] I got this information from transcripts from the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, reviewing the program. The cost adjustment is my own, based on government tables for adjusting the cost of large scale projects (not the consumer price index, which is inaccurate for these kinds of figures). The actual cost in 1980 dollars, was actually less than the figure for Sarge, but that's just because of inflation. This is the cost to the first flight (of Columbia), and does not include program maintenance costs, which, over some 25+ years of flight is obviously much higher. That's the fairest comparison I can make because it compares development to development in adjusted dollars. Gives you pause, doesn't it?
Copyright ©2007 Terry Hancock / Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)
Originally published at www.FreeSoftwareMagazine.com.
You must retain this notice if you reprint this article.
Unless otherwise noted, the illustrations in this piece have the same attribution and licensing.
Why don't we call it "Other" then?
Well, the reason we don't is because "other" is not integral to the working of the operating system. The two things that make up the "operating system" (as opposed to a "distro") in our favorite case are the kernel (Linux) and the set of tools (GNU) that make it useful.
It doesn't seem appropriate to name an operating system after whatever word processor or web browser you use on it. I mean, these applications are easy to change and changing these parts doesn't affect the functioning of the operating system. However, if you remove the "GNU" or the "Linux" parts or swap either of them out for some other set of tools or a different kernel, then you would have a completely different operating system. So all of those non-essential, non-integral applications (like OOo or Mozilla) should not play a part in the naming.
So then, what remains is whether to name it after the kernel or the set of tools that make the kernel useful. Well, seeing as both parts are necessary to make the operating system work and it's possible to swap either of them out for a different kernel or a different set of tools, then we really should use both parts to name it.
Next, we need to decide whether we should call it GNU/Linux or Linux/GNU. Well, from the info in your blog entry it seems at 15.3% to 6.3% GNU provides a greater part of the total composition so why not put the "GNU" up front. And if you don't like that we could use alphabetic order. Or perhaps we should use the chronological order based on when the projects began.
Well, it looks like no matter what logical ordering system you use, it seems "GNU/Linux", as suggested by RMS, is the most reasonable name for the operating system we base our free software distros on. And this backs FSM's choice for using the term "GNU/Linux" over "Linux" when referring to the operating system as whole, not just the kernel.
I agree
I agree with Dave here. The "other" stuff is not part of an OS mostly because if you decided not to install it the OS still runs (I include X and DMs in this list).
As for the naming, well Linus didn't start developing an OS, he started developing the kernel. The kernel is, as Dave says, but a small part compared to the GNU tools. Sure you could use some other tools (or develop your own)and then I guess you're free to call it /Linux but in the end I think Debian GNU/Linux does it best for the distribution I use.
Terry, please don't take this as anything other than inquisitiveness but I really struggle to see why you (and many others) have a problem with calling it GNU/Linux. Perhaps you could enlighten the rest of us?
Quantity versus Quality
The reason why it's appropriate to refer to most of these Free Software distros as "Linux" is because the Linux kernel was the crucial missing piece that started the Free Software movement firing on all cylinders. Before that, the GNU project was a lonely voice in the wilderness; there was no KDE, no Gnome, no OpenOffice, just a few projects that were used by geeks but nobody else.
If Richard Stallman wants to claim special credit for GNU as being somehow crucial to the success of Linux, then it works both ways: Linux can also claim special credit for the success of GNU. If it makes sense to change "Linux" to "GNU/Linux", then it makes sense to change "GNU" to "Linux/GNU".
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
That doesn't make sense.
The reason why it's appropriate to refer to most of these Free Software distros as "Linux" is because the Linux kernel was the crucial missing piece that started the Free Software movement firing on all cylinders.
That's no good reason to confuse the kernel with the operating system.
Before that, the GNU project was a lonely voice in the wilderness; there was no KDE, no Gnome, no OpenOffice, just a few projects that were used by geeks but nobody else.
And what would Linux be without GNU? This point is moot. Furthermore, KDE, GNOME, etc., have nothing to do with this. They are add ons to the OS to make it, arguably, more functional.
If Richard Stallman wants to claim special credit for GNU as being somehow crucial to the success of Linux, then it works both ways: Linux can also claim special credit for the success of GNU.
RMS is not trying to get anyone to call Linux the kernel "GNU/Linux". He wants people to call GNU and Linux when used together GNU/Linux. If you want to use Linux on its own, he is more than happy for you to call it Linux. If you want to use Linux with some other set of tools then call it "some other set of tools/Linux" or just call it "Linux" I'm sure he won't care that much. It is together that they have been and are successful. It should be both names that get used to describe them when they are used together.
If it makes sense to change "Linux" to "GNU/Linux", then it makes sense to change "GNU" to "Linux/GNU".
It doesn't make sense only if you think people are trying to name the kernel GNU/Linux, which is not the case. Again, we are talking about the operating system not the kernel. The operating system = the kernel (Linux) + the set of tools that make it useful (GNU). Hence, GNU/Linux.
I'll make a simple analogy for you:
Tables and chairs. These are independent furniture items. It is possible to use them seperately but it is often far more useful to use them together. When you do, you don't collectively call them "chairs" or "a table". You call them "a table and chairs".
You might think RMS is egotistical and/or annoying, but that doesn't mean he isn't right in wanting the GNU project to be recognised. Look at those charts up there in Terry's blog entry. They clearly indicate how much of a major distro is made up by Linux and how much it is made up by the GNU set of tools. GNU is the bigger portion. Why should it not be part of the name for the OS as a whole? It's not like he wants you to rename the kernel. It's not like he wants to call it "RMS". He just wants GNU to get the recognition it deserves.
The operating system is not just Linux. It's GNU + Linux or GNU/Linux. Try using Linux without GNU. Not many people do.
Quantity is not Quality
Let me make another analogy: the distro is an arch, and the kernel is the keystone. It's not the biggest or most impressive stone in the arch, but without it, the arch is not an arch.
Another point is that Richard Stallman was not a fan of Linux. Look at one crucial piece of software used by most Linux distros: the C run-time library (glibc). For a long time, the GNU folks who looked after this couldn't even be bothered with bug reports or feature requests from the Linux folks--to the point where they eventually forked off their own version in frustration. This fork was not reconciled until about version 2 of glibc.
Look at Stallman's own attempt to write a kernel--Hurd. He's been working on that for getting close to 20 years now, and he still hasn't created a version fit for general use. Whereas look at the functionally that Linux has achieved, starting from nothing, in somewhat less time. If the kernel were such a minor piece of the puzzle, why has it been so hard for the GNU project to come up with one?
To reinforce my point: the GNU project owes at least as much to Linux as Linux does to GNU. If you want one to add the other's name, then it must work both ways.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
A bridge isn't called a keystone
Let me make another analogy: the distro is an arch, and the kernel is the keystone. It's not the biggest or most impressive stone in the arch, but without it, the arch is not an arch.
Great analogy... but I'll carry it into a functional arch - a bridge...
First of all, you don't call a bridge a keystone! Further you can't walk across a river on a keystone alone. The combination of a keystone and the rest of the bridge is called a "bridge". So, by this logic, the combination of the Linux kernel (equivalent to the keystone) and GNU (equivalent to the rest of the bridge) should be named after GNU (the rest of the OS). But no one is suggesting we ignore the kernel when naming the OS. On the contrary, those who wish to include GNU in the name want it known as "GNU/Linux".
No one is arguing that Linux is not a central and integral part of the OS. However, you can't ignore the rest of the OS which is made up mainly by GNU. The other parts like X, KDE, GNOME, etc., simply correlate, in my extension of your analogy, with the choice of surfacing material - wooden planks, cobble stones, bitumen, etc., and the useful add-ons like handrails, traffic lights, painted white lines, cat-eyes, etc. Without these add-ons, you still have a bridge.
The rest of your "points" have no weight in the argument of what to name the operating system. How much time RMS has spent on writing Hurd or what he likes and doesn't like is irrelevant. As is whether you like him or agree with his philosophies. Whether GNU owes Linux or vice-versa is also irrelevant and it seems these "points" are only raised to muddy the waters and add confusion to the very simple and straight forward argument.
You also continue to give the impression that you think we (I include myself in this group) want to call the Linux kernel GNU/Linux, which is not the case. We are trying to give the correct name to the operating system which is made up of GNU and Linux. I'll say it again: we do not want to change the name of the kernel.
GNU Hurd
I completely agree with Dave's response. Also, the goal of the GNU project is to develop a complete operating system which is free (as in freedom) software. This involves writing some software from scratch, and including some other free software written by other people. The reason the development of the GNU kernel, Hurd, has been so slow is that there's no real reason to develop it. The creation of Linux meant that the Hurd kernel isn't necessary, as Linux is a free software kernel which fits the requirements of the GNU project and can be used instead. At the moment, the main priorities of the GNU project and the free software movement are developing free software for jobs where none exists yet, for example a programme to play the latest Flash videos, and drivers to allow 3D acceleration for a lot of graphics cards. If all of those needs are satisfied in the future, and there's decent free software which can perform all the tasks that proprietary software can, the Hurd kernel will probably become a higher priority, and more work will go into making it better technically.
Also, the Hurd kernel isn't "Stallman's own attempt to write a kernel". As far as I know, Stallman has never worked on it. If he has, he's definitely not the only person who has. The GNU project and the Free Software Foundation aren't just made up of one person.
GNU - free as in freedom
The names they are a'changin'
I agree with Dave Guard. Gnu and Linux are the essential parts of "Linux"; they need each other and everything else depends on them.
But it's irrelevant, I think, because I believe the commonly used name, "Linux" has stuck and no single group is in the position to rename it. For that matter, "Free Software" is referred to as Open Source, even if that's a less accurate description.
Part of the cost of having a larger following is the loss of control over things like this. Gnu/Linux has been given the nic-name, "Linux". I don't think it exalts the kernel over everything else, I just think it's a convenient label slapped on by users who don't even know what an operating system is, much less a kernel. Just like "Kleenex" for paper tissue, or "Javex" for bleach, or "Xerox" for photocopy, etc...
I'm kind of curious about
I'm kind of curious about how projects like Debian GNU/NetBSD and Nexenta Operating System instances relates to "Linux". Are they instances of Linux? If they are, is any Free Unix a Linux?
"is any Free Unix a Linux?"
BSD Unix was a circa-1977 distribution of Unix (the "Berkeley Software Distribution") which was under a non-copyleft free license known as the "BSD license". The lack of copyleft is unsurprising, because the concept of copyleft was not invented until about 7 years later with the creation of the GPL in 1984, by Richard Stallman and the GNU project.
Linux has no direct lineage to Unix (this BTW, is what makes developers giggle at the SCO "case" against IBM), but is instead an independent implementation of the "POSIX" standard that was itself based on the de facto standard of Unix. (That is, "POSIX" is a standard, "Unix" is a particular implementation of it -- but POSIX was created after Unix. In fact, it was created as a response to fragmentation of Unix due to commercial forks).
HURD, by the way, is another independent implementation. Minix is an incomplete implementation of POSIX (IIRC), which exists primarily as an educational tool.
The modern FreeBSD and NetBSD distributions, by contrast, are Unix distributions that derive ultimately from the original 1977 BSD.
The BSD projects are a tighter collection of software, in general, than "Linux Distros". Those projects include a kernel, basic utilities, and "higher" level programs.
"Linux distros", on the other hand, are assembled from pieces created in multiple places.
FreeBSD doesn't use a lot of the GNU tools, but it does use some. Projects like the Debian/kFreeBSD project attempt to use these GNU tools combined with a FreeBSD kernel.
Nexenta is the same basic concept, except that rather than a FreeBSD kernel, it is built around the OpenSolaris kernel, and builds it up using Ubuntu sources.
The systems feel a lot like "Linux" which is why I've dropped the Linux entirely and begun saying I use GNU. GNU/Linux, GNU/kFreeBSD and GNU/OpenSolaris all feel pretty much the same.
People love a fight....
I should've known everyone would gravitate to the GNU/Linux debate instead of realizing it was just a segue to the more important issue.
Ah well, into the fray... ;-)
Actually, I personally don't feel strongly about the terms "GNU/Linux" versus "Linux". Either is entirely sensible, because both are equally nonsensical. What I have a problem with are self-appointed prescriptive grammarians who have decided that society has chosen wrongly to use the abbreviated term "Linux" and insist on trying to "correct" society (Society, BTW, is not confused -- it calls the operating system "Linux" and the Linux kernel, well, the "Linux Kernel", shockingly enough. So far this has resulted in little actual confusion).
You see I have this thing against people who want to tell other people how to act and talk, the way the FSF likes to do with all their GNU-speak "recommendations". I call my radical idea "Supporting Freedom"!
I'm not criticizing anyone for using the expression "GNU/Linux".* There's nothing wrong with it in principal, other than being a little harder to say and therefore an unnatural choice for casual speech. I am making fun of the pomposity of thinking that using it somehow makes you superior to other people. ;-P
GNU can only claim priority by being "central", not by being the "bulk". But of course, it isn't most central -- Linux is. Therefore by the "central" or "critical" argument, "Linux" (or "Linux/GNU") is as sensible as "GNU/Linux" and it is far easier to pronounce and remember. Moreover, people already use it. But of course, the FSF argument isn't based on "centrality" but on the theory that GNU represented more work than Linux (or specifically that it represents more programs -- though that's a transparently ineffective argument since a kernel is obviously harder to write than any shell or command line utility).
What's more, the GNU packages that are actually needed to run a Linux system are much fewer/smaller than the total I've accumulated under the heading "GNU" in the pie charts above. Much of GNU today is, just like most of Debian**, "application" software that isn't "necessary" for an operating system.
In fact, I was able just now to look this up: in Debian, these critical GNU packages are included in a single package, called "coreutils", which accounts for a whopping 110,916 SLOC. The Linux kernel is now 4.04 MILLION SLOC (both from Debian "Sarge"). So for this 2.7% of contributed SLOC (and even smaller amount of effort, because these are orthogonal packages, not one complex system), GNU wants priority?!
(I only just discovered this, or I would surely have mentioned it).
OR, they do want to be credited for all that other "non-essential" stuff (but somehow NOT count independent developers because their stuff isn't "essential"). Uh-huh. Pull the other one.
In fact, since membership in the GNU packages list is mainly just a matter of assigning copyright to FSF, it's more like a portfolio of acquired properties than an actual software project. In that sense, GNU is very like Debian -- an aggregator of software rather than a creator. That would suggest that comparing GNU as a collective project to other projects is unfair, since Linux, X, Mozilla, OpenOffice.org and so on are actually driven by single purposes: they can actually claim to be the reason that software gets written, not just a convenient place to store it.
Most end-users could care less about having massive packages like gcc or emacs, which are primarily of interest to developers (and even many developers don't use emacs -- I'm a vim user myself, for example).
And most would consider merely "GNU" + "Linux" utterly useless. If you're one of those people with commandline-phobia, then this means you. My Mom couldn't do a thing with it, for example. As far as she is concerned, X, KDE, and Mozilla are just as essential as parts of the operating system as anything in GNU. And of course, this is the standard we get if we look to "Windows" as the prototype of a "desktop operating system" (and like it or not, the world does see it this way).
From such a PoV, it may be reasonable to reject much of Debian, but not to reduce the system to just GNU and Linux. The result might be dubbed "Linux/GNU/X/KDE/Mozilla" in "onion-skin" order. Or we could use the attractive acronym LGXKM (feel free to rearrange that to improve pronounceability). Or not! Nevertheless, it is generally safe to assume that desktop users mean to include all of these programs (and/or alternatives such as Gnome or Konqueror) when they say either "Linux" or "GNU/Linux".
Clearly, it is ambiguous and inaccurate to call this system "GNU/Linux" just as much as it is to call it "Linux".
At the end of the day, there is ONE reason to say "GNU/Linux", and that's that GNU was around before Linux and created the GPL, which presumeably is the reason for Linux's success. OTOH, the X Window System is just as old as GNU (had to look this up -- they started in the same year, 1984). Without Linux (and to some degree, X), GNU would just be a little upstart tinkerer project (HURD would probably be even slower in coming than it has been!) instead of the big success that it is.
From the user's perspective, of course, a more meaningful expression would probably be "Linux/X" or "Linux/KDE" (or "Linux/Gnome"), since these are the programs that provide the most important definition or personality of the O/S they use (most wouldn't even notice if you substituted BusyBox for GNU, for example). Calling what I use "GNU/Linux" is not unlike calling Windows "MS-DOS", in fact! Note that in these situations, Linux developers have not refused to talk to people just because they opted to call the combination "Gnome" or "KDE" instead of using slash-abominations.
People are taking this issue way too seriously.
The important thing is not what we call it. It's what it IS. And what it IS is the result of the contribution of thousands of developers worldwide, working together to make a better free software system. That was the part that actually interested me enough to write this piece (had I actually wanted to attack the "GNU/Linux" position, this comment would've been the blog entry ;-) ).
The together part is important. So is the free part. So, let's get together and respect each others' freedoms.
Anyway, thanks for playing, it's been fun, but I think I'm going to go do something productive now. :-D
*In fact, I clearly said that both "Linux" and "GNU/Linux" were inaccurate, so how is it I am only criticized for not supporting "GNU/Linux" and not for not supporting "Linux"? I think you doth protest too much. ;-)
**You may notice that when referring to a specific distribution, most people commit the heinous crime of mentioning neither GNU nor Linux, but merely the name of the distribution, such as "Debian" or "Red Hat". Somehow, this is not regarded as offensive, even though it means that these mere packagers (clearly a lower form of life than the almighty developers) are taking credit for all that work that they didn't do.
"Han", "Cock" or neither...
Your surname is "Hancock" and I'm sure you would argue with anyone who wanted to call you just "Han" or just "Cock" because both parts are necessary to make up your surname. I wouldn't find it pompous of you to expect other people to use your correct surname.
Where is the point?
Linux is not known as Lin or ux, so the argument about Han vs cock instead of Hancock is entirely irrelevant.
What are you talking about?
The kernel is known as Linux. But the OS which uses GNU and Linux is also known as Linux when it should be known as GNU/Linux.
Saying "Linux" when you are talking about GNU/Linux is like saying "Cock" when you are talking about the author of this blog entry.
you don' have to be correct
you don' have to be correct you can be as wrng as you like.
you can also write dry, verbose and uselss blog entries that tak about how GNU/Linux isnt named properly and instead doing something useful you only suggest a name that is more vague and non-specific like "the free operating system", which could get confused with the multitude of other free software operating systems out there.
Just bcause others wantto be right when they name it doesnt mean they are pompous.
I must fairly concede that glibc should be added to the coreutils. That's a pretty big package -- about 980 K, which brings the total for "core GNU" to about 1.1 million SLOC. Still smaller, but now about 20%, not 2.7%.
So, it's probably a good thing I didn't mention this in my blog entry after all.
What else is "integral" "Core GNU" stuff?
Integral "core GNU"
Bash & Glibc?
Operating system != Distribution
Your article and the analysis conflates the operating system (GNU/Linux) with operating system + appplications (Distribution e.g Debian GNU/Linux).
Hilarity ensues.
Summed up perfectly...
If only I could find it funny.
GNU is a distribution, too
The problem with this objection is that most of GNU is also "non-essential" or "application" software.
If you strip all that away, you're left with the "core utilities", and as I have already posted, those are about 111 thousand SLOC, compared to 5.05 million SLOC for Linux. That is 2.7% by SLOC. Or evaluated in terms of effort (because it's easier to write lots of small programs than one large one) about 0.5%.
That's right: the actual essential part of GNU that is used to justify giving it priority over Linux in naming the operating system is a mere 1/200th of the work.
And that doesn't even take into account the intrinsic increase in difficulty because of reliability requirements, long runtime, or non-deterministic problems due to hardware interfacing. Writing a kernel is a far harder task. Which is the reason why GNU itself never got HURD off the ground. The innovation behind Linux was the "bazaar" development approach, which led to much faster development.
OR, we can be liberal and include all of GNU: but then we should be fair and include everybody else's "non-essential" "application" software as well. You can't have your cake and eat it too -- and either way, GNU is just icing.
The liberal approach (which amounts to what I described in my blog entry), is actually far more favorable to GNU (15% is much thicker icing than 0.5%!). So if you prefer "GNU/Linux", you really ought to be thanking me for not applying your definition of what is counted as "operating system". Because your version is much more hostile to the GNU claim!
The truth is, of course, that "operating system" does not have a rigid definition, so it's quite difficult to draw a sharp line around it, and usage varies quite a lot. When most people talk about doing things on "Linux" or "GNU/Linux", they really are talking about a much larger collection of software than just "GNU"+"Linux". Admittedly, it may not be the entire Debian distribution, but GNU+Linux still doesn't come close.
You guys don't understand
You don't understand. GNU isn't some tools that make it useful. It's the Compiler and the critical toolset required to prep and run the operating system. It's not just some apps like KDE or OpenOffice. You can't replace the GNU toolset. You'd find it easier to replace the kernel!
Therefore Distributions should call there system a GNU/Linux one.
There is more GNU software in your distro than Linux software. Just give these guys the credit they deserve. They don't want your money they just want a thank you for their efforts.
Actually, you can
It's rather easy to replace GNU, actually.
coreutils => busybox
glibc => uClibc
gcc => tcc
bash => oksh, dash
Those are probably GNU's three most important projects. I'm sure there are replacements for others. Sure, they might be suboptimal choices... but then, isn't Linux a suboptimal Hurd replacement?
In the end, Linux is a catchier name. It's easier to "sell" Linux than GNU/Linux. The average computer user would rather do something with his or her computer than discuss philosophy - not that I don't like philosophy, mind you, but when we try to convince people to sacrifice functionality for freedom, we end up losing them to MSFT.
When I first started using the operating system, I called it "Linux", as that was the only name I heard of for it, and I hadn't heard any arguments for calling it anything else. However, after reading the various different arguments for different names, I've decided that the most appropriate name for the system is 'GNU/Linux', or maybe that name plus mentions of other less important contributions, such as 'GNU/Linux/X' or 'GNU/Linux/X/KDE', depending on how long a name you're prepared to write, and which parts you're actually using. After reading the arguments on the GNU project website (such as at http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html), I definitely agree that the contribution of the GNU project to the system is the most important one. I think the main reason for that is that it's the only one of the contributing projects (as far as I know) which has the goal of creating an entire operating system. Therefore, without it, we would just have a collection of useful free (as in freedom) programmes, rather than a complete free operating system, and GNU is the "framework on which the system was made". That means that it's not surprising that the GNU project makes up the largest single contribution in terms of size, which I think is another reason why it's the most important one. As I think it's the most important contribution, I think it makes sense to include it in the name of the system, and to mention it first.
This debate is made harder by the fact that it's not completely clear what is needed to make an operating system, and what isn't. I seem to remember that this has even been questioned for a proprietary operating system, as it's not necessarily clear whether or not Internet Explorer is an integral part of Windows, which I think was questioned in the anti-trust legal case with Netscape. However, I would definitely say that desktop applications such as OpenOffice.org and Firefox aren't part of the operating system, and are just useful applications to use on top of it.
Whatever name you choose to call it, I don't think it matters a huge amount. It's helpful that people know how important the role of the ideals of software freedom were in creating their operating system, but whatever name people call it, it still gives us the same freedom, which is the most important thing. I often express my opinion to people that I think that a more appropriate name for it than 'Linux' is 'GNU/Linux', and I suggest that they call it that too, showing them evidence to back up my argument. But if people read all the arguments and still want to call it 'Linux', that doesn't bother me. I can see why people get annoyed when some people in the free software community seem to be constantly trying to aggressively "correct" them, to get them to use a name which they present as the only correct one.
On another note, a problem I've noticed with the pie chart is that GNOME has its own section, when actually it's part of the GNU project (see http://www.gnome.org/about/), though that doesn't make a big difference as it's quite a small contribution.
GNU - free as in freedom
Not all of the repository actually gets used!
It would be interesting to weight each project by popcon statistics, to see who makes what actually gets installed.
It always amazes me......
It always amazes me that:
1. Someone could write such a post and not think that this would not be flame bait.
2. That so many electrons are squandered debating it.
People need to understand that the only people that care about this subject are those that love RMS and those how hate RMS. Everyone else could care less and would rather do something productive with their favorite Linux distro.....
A GNU/Linux Essay
I believe the definition of the term 'Operating System' is the key to understanding the issue of the term 'GNU/Linux'. I was taught that an OS's purpose was to provide the basic platform for other software. I was taught that an OS should have the following functions:
- Manage and maintain hardware resources and the interfaces to the hardware
- Manage and maintain the processing of software applications (multitasking and memory management) as well as managing the communication between the software applications.
- Provide a rudimentary "generic computing platform" for software applications to build upon and work with
These functions are important for an OS because without all these functions:
- each program would be required to provide their own hardware manipulation routines
- only one program would be able to operate at a time (this is a general statement and there are exceptions)
- it would be really annoying to developers if each software application had to provide its own rudimentary general purpose functions (such as PRINT STATEMENT, OPEN FILE, QUICK SORT LIST).
Linux is a (POSIX compliant) operating system kernel that manages the end user applications. Together with hardware drivers, Linux also manages and maintains access to the hardware resources. GNU is an almost complete operating system - it is lacking a usable operating system kernel. The GNU libs together with a select number of GNU programs provide the generic computing platform that is required for end user software applications. I consider the rest of GNU to be end user software and not part of the definition of 'operating system'.
I consider software such as Open Office, KDE, Firefox, ls, top, less and tar to be end user software and not part of the operating system. I don't consider the X windowing system to be a part of the operating system. X is necessary as part of a usable computer system but I don't believe it is the same level as 'the operating system'. I believe that X is the next platform layer above the operating system if you disregard the video drivers (the drivers are part of the operating system).
Linux + drivers by itself does nothing particularly useful because end user programs aren't able to operate very well. The current GNU operating system implementation is not yet adequate enough to operate as a usable OS platform. GNU and Linux together provides the user with a OS; everything else can be considered as platforms that reside above the OS or end user software. Since Linux is vital part of the GNU/Linux operating system, it deserves a mention. Since GNU existed before Linux, I believe that it should be named first. This is why I prefer not to use "Linux" to refer to the GNU/Linux operating system platform.
There is one good point here...
There is one good point here, which is that I have neglected glibc -- I suspect that's a separate package. So it needs to be counted.
[...doing some grepping on the data set...]
Yeah, that's a much larger package -- about 980 K SLOC. So that makes the "GNU core" vs "Linux" balance a lot closer (about 20% of the size of Linux).
I've already commented about the other half of that, which is that quite a lot of GNU would also be ruled out if you rule out "applications" or anything else that's not "integral" to running programs.
Fair point, though.
However, regarding the "next platform layer" talk -- well basically the whole thing is an onion with many layers. That's part of the whole design concept for Unix and Unix-like systems. But where do you draw the line? There's no standard for that.
And it is important to realize that we aren't discuss the computer science jargon usage of the term "operating system" -- we're using "operating system" to define that vague locus of software that some people call "Linux" and some people call "GNU/Linux". Do you really think that in popular culture people are making the distinction you make above (and for example, rule out the GUI layer?). I personally doubt that.
Some people have objected that I'm talking about "distributions" -- but honestly, that's what a lot of people mean when they say "Linux". Is it really that much more accurate to insist upon "GNU/Linux" when describing a distribution?
Or to put it another way, if people are "wrong" for conflating the name "Linux" with an operating system, aren't people equally wrong to conflate "GNU/Linux" with a distribution?
Yet, the full name of Debian is "Debian GNU/Linux" -- somehow it's okay that that doesn't include the whole set of software that Debian represents. Somehow we are demanded to list the two most important pieces of software, and not the one most important piece (but why not three?). I'm saying that a lot of people are getting very hostile about this issue, and it isn't really worthy of that kind of attitude.
It's too late
I think it's already too late, the "general" population already know Linux, if you add GNU to it, it'll just be confusing. Sure they'll ask questions like, what's GNU? but who really wants to spend their time explaining the difference between a kernel and an OS.
I'm 100% for calling it GNU/Linux, but if the GNU camp and the Linux camp don't start playing together, then there will be no point in calling it anything.
my 2 cents.
Ginux sounds like a good name to me for the OS. Simply, it is easy to spell, easy to pronounce, easy to remember, credits both Linus and GNU.
Another attmept to bolster the argument?
Well, I am a newcomer to Linux and am still not in the flame-wars concerning the nomenclature of the OS as yet. Anyway from the stuff I've heard from the die-hard fanatics of GNU/Linux and Linux, I must say they are cribbing over such a mundane issue. Or maybe their life does revolve around such issues. If you'd ask me I prefer the name Linux to GNU/Linux because it's cumbersome to actually utter it every time someone asks you that. May I suggest something like 'Glinux' instead ? [that'll take care of GNU and Linux and it'd be a hell lot easier to pronounce it effortlessly]!
GPL is GNU and the formost for freedom.
In my understanding any project and every package licensed under the gpl are all GNU as it were. I do see a whole lot more gpl software than any other in the area of "Unix like systems". Clearly the kernel is one of those. Why is this case not closed? Why does it still rage? Are people afraid of freedom?
Call me a Stallmanite. I do not care. You know I am right. The software ideas pushed foreward by the FSF are the foundation of many open source projects that would not even exist if it were not for this most simple, most important, most forgotten, fact. Further more most of those licenses are watered down versions of the GPL. As for people not caring what the system is called I say that if you do not know the history of something then you do not know what it is.
The View from 50,000 Feet
The naming of things is an interesting topic. People who are more removed from the process will find names that are more functional and less correct. One might simplify this current argument as people who are more knowledgeable naming it GNU/Linux, and people less knowledgeable calling it Linux. Could this be because the less knowledgeable are not using the GNU compiler and GNU tools on a day-to-day basis? As GNU/Linux gets more and more popular, I think we will be surprised by the name(s) it ultimately called who are even less knowledgeable. The most popular name may be "Internet", "Word Processor", or "Communicator", matching more closely with Terry's pie charts percentages. People will develop a familiar name adopting the concept into their lexicon. When the it is finally renamed based on purpose, will this argument of GNU/Linux vs. Linux naming even be footnoted in history?
Let me clue you in.
It is called "OPEN SOFTWARE"!
Now, don't you feel better.
Live it, use it, be happy.
Please, PLEASE, stop with the long; hard to pronounce distribution names!
One word; that paints a nice positive image, that's easy to spell (memorable) and we're good to go.
Now, if we can only get Kubuntu named something less silly than Koo-boon-too.
http://www.kubuntu.com and never feel like you have the wrong distribution.
Free Software
I want freedom for my operating system. No just features. Microsoft Windows already has features. Freedom works!
Give it a catchy, non-partisan name
Howabout a competition to come up with a name that will market well?
Waste of time
Call it whatever you want, I don't care, why are even talking about this? Is it because there's someone out there not getting enough credit? I'm using Ubuntu (GNU/Linux, Linux/GNU, Free OS, whatever) and loving it, and I think this topic is really unnecessary. The more I come across article like this, the more I feel like GNU is a sore loser, which is bad coz it's not a loser at all but acting like one.
Both examples incorrect - should look at the licenses instead
Both your examples look at incorrect parameters to determine whether a typical, complete distribution should be called GNU/Linux or Linux or something else.
If you want to decide this, you MUST look at the LICENSE under which said software in a typical distribution is distributed. A typical distribution being a 100% unencumbered distribution like Fedora, Mandriva Free or the like.
I'm sure, if you did that, you'd come up with an outstanding majority of software will come up as GNU GPL.
There is no doubt in my mind that any distribution should be called the GNU-OS. Regardless of which kernel it uses.
The GNU General Public License is used for a huge number of software projects; but only a small number of those are actually "GNU Project" packages.
For example, Linux (the kernel, of course) is licensed under the GPL; but no-one thinks for a second that it is a GNU Project program.
It's not completely clear to me what *actually* consitiutes a "GNU Project" package, there's a directory published from their website http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/ that is probably the complete set.
Flawed analyses
Even if anyone were to go by your suggestion, since the single largest copyright holder is the FSF, it should undoubtedly be called the GNU-OS.
AFAIK, "Linux" is the only OS insistent on being named after it's kernel. All other OS's are named by the largest stake-holder in the software.
Going by that, the name "GNU-OS" seems a perfectly sane choice to me.
another methodology
I have the feeling that the wrong thing is being measured. I think that virtually no one has all of Debian installed or would like to... You can't hope to get interesting results if you don't take into account how often are the packages actually used.
I would be really interested if someone counted SLOC and COCOMO for a "standard" Debian installation... Of course, I have no idea about what really is a standard Debian install, but I guess Debian OUTB could be a good point to start :)
popularity contest
Debian's popularity-contest documents which packages actually get installed and used, so that would be a good place to start. It's also worth noting that there are many different versions of the kernel available, but you're only likely to actually use one, so that could inflate the sloc value for the kernel.
It's a shame this blog was framed as a GNU/Linux vs Linux fight. "Who's writing our software" is an interesting topic, but the presentation here was almost guaranteed to degrade into a flame-fest.
You're right, and I'm
You're right, and I'm regretting it...
I thought it would raise some interest in the topic to relate it to something that people already like talking about. I figured more people would read it that way. And of course, it does bear on the question.
But I was shocked at the violence and lack of civility of some people about this issue. I really thought it would just be a fun segue to the real point -- which is that most free software in a "GNU/Linux" distribution is neither "GNU" nor "Linux", nor even any of the other big name contributors. I think the important lesson is that free software is written by lots of different people.
I did, however, get some useful comments from this thread, and made some modifications to my scripts. I think I may've found some bugs though, which resulted in overcounting both "GNU" and "Other".
I'm still trying to sort out whether the "Other" bug was that I was overcounting them before or undercounting them now. It's not huge a difference, but irritating, nonetheless.
Anyway, the final numbers will be in my book (and without raising the "GNU/Linux" naming issue, which I really don't care that much about -- I'm going to be extra-careful about that now).
Politics are hell, what can I say?
The kernel is not multiply counted
The kernel is not multiply counted in this measurement.
Each source packages was counted just once, and substantial overlaps were eliminated (This isn't my work though, but the work of the "Libre Software Engineering" group that generated the original statistics on which my work is based -- they do make this claim, though, and I have personally verified it for the kernel).
The popularity contest would be an interesting statistic to collect, I may try that.
I was interested in the whole field of available software -- that is to say, the amount of effort expended on free software, however, so the numbers I've plotted are the ones I most wanted.
The popularity issue might be more closely related to "value-generated" though, since you can argue that a package used by 10 people has generated 10X the value of one used only by 1.
Gnu is hard to say. Period.
'Linux' is easy to say. 'Gnu' is confusing. Do I pronounce the G or not? So saying 'Gnu/Linux' is even more awkward, and harder to type.
If you want your name to catch on, make it easy, short, and non-confusing. Duh. IMO Gnu and RMS contributed much more to the free software movement both in philosophy and in sheer code, but Linus Torvalds came up with a catchier name. Gnu guys are programming gurus. Marketing geniuses - not so much.
Gnu is further confusing because of the meaning of the word. 'What's that stand for?' 'It stands for 'Gnu's Not Unix.' 'Okay . . . but where did the 'Gnu' come from.' etc. The strange wit of hackers and their 'recursive acronyms' pretty much falls flat outside the geek community.
Functional distributions?
As well as considering the complete universe of packages in Debian, how about looking at the default set of installed packages? That's difficult for a distro where you are offered multiple choices at install time, but you could do the equivalent with a live CD ... after all, a live CD represents a "full working operating system" branded by a distribution.
So, what is the package source split on the Ubuntu Live CD?
The (FOSS) world will still spin if GPL doesn't exist.
A lot of people argue that we should put the "GNU" back into GNU/Linux because most software packages are using GPL - written by the GNU Project.
Wow. It's amazing how naive people can get.
I mean, GPL is all great and stuff, but the point is, we will still live without it. Another person/project will still have written the same kind of license, and software projects will just go with that. It's not like GPL is irreplaceable. And it will probably be better because there probably won't a GPL groupie that insists on names, and appears as an eyesore in the FOSS community. *dodges flame*
Now go out and refresh yourself in a park or something instead of indulging yourself with this useless and pointless debate over a name.
I think you mean to say that
I think you mean to say that "copyleft" is essential but "GNU GPL" is not. This might be true in principle.
Of course, in practice, the nature of copyleft makes multiple copyleft licenses awkward, so there's a strong motivation to standardize on just one -- and as a practical matter, GNU GPL is it.
However, it's equally silly to suppose that GNU should get credit for everything licensed under the GPL.
Driving the "Facom/Beetle" and using "GNU/Linux"
My car was put together with "Facom" tools. Am I driving a "Facom-Beetle"?
I do understand the claim of GNU. They are right for what concerns the role and weight of GNU. But is it good or necessary to change the "common" use of "Linux" to "GNU/Linux"?
It might be a question of perspective. Most people involved in the discussion here are programmers or IT people. They should say it as "right" as possible. They use GNU tools to build their Linux (kernel) and work in this GNU/Linux system or add the X layer to be able to run free desktop software etc.
End users use ... their layer. They use "Ubuntu", "Suse", "Red Hat" or whatever. Because that's what they get, buy or download.
End users "use" KDE or Gnome (it starts with a "G"!), because that's the layer they use. They never use the kernel, let alone the GNU tools. But we can hope they use Free Software on the desktop (general name? - catchy would be usefull..)
But we wouldn't want them to start to use "GNU/" in front of all kinds of software that are NOT free. Which might be the result if they get used to add "GNU/" in front of all software names just to get rid of this irritating corrections of people like us.
Thank you for bringing this lively discussion up. I don't think it's useless, so I don't see why you should be regretting it. In fact, I consider this discussion on names quite worth while because it could reveal your attitude and true colors. Anyway, here's my share:
It was my understanding (and still is now) that the most acute argument from RMS et al. to use "GNU/Linux" (instead of just "Linux") was that he and his company were beginning to detect that many of the OS users and programmers were not completely aware of the GNU backbone role and, worse, the history of the making of the OS. Allow me to quote from http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html:
Combining this with the camp's insistence (or, perhaps strong persuasion?) on using the word "free" in all the software produced, I agreed with their argument, changed my attitude accordingly and started calling it "GNU/Linux".
If someone now asks me what OS I use, I answer "GNU/Linux" or, if I'm in a talkative mood, "Debian GNU/Linux". I am thoroughly aware that more than 70% of time (at least up until today and some foreseeable future) (and I'm using "70%" out of the blue; haven't made a good statistical compilation, sorry) I am bound to respond to an innocent raised-eyebrow such as "GNU/Linux? Is that the same as 'Linux'?". However, I am prepared to spend my two minutes nodding my head and uttering reassuring words that a thing called "GNU" is indeed inside the OS. By doing this, I am further prepared to lengthen my explanation about GNU project, RMS and his camp, should the inquirer gets interested. That is what I consider to be the least I can do to express my appreciation of using a FREE OS (and perhaps of getting a piece of my freedom back?). Now, I can go at length trying to describe my personal feelings of indescribable excitement of being able to tweak the very software that talks to my hardware like I could in the (g)olden days of DOS (although I haven't had the luxury to start writing anything), but I supppose it be sufficient to say that I highly appreciate what those guys have provided to me, sacrificing their opportunity costs (and perhaps family costs too) in the process. It is not an overstatement to say that I also feel a kind of debt to their efforts; that's why I'm finding ways so that I will be able to be a productive agent in this movement.
Did I say movement? (Since I'm writing this as quickly as possible due to other errands, Idon't know if this will make a good composition; I just want to blurt out a bit. :) ) Yes, so I think the essence of this OS naming polemic is the movement that is carrying it: the FREE software movement. From historical perspective, this was a BREAKTHROUGH. From philosophical perspective, this was an AWAKENING TO HUMANITY. From technical perspective, this was a LIBERATION. I'm glad I chose to be in it. It was the reason I stuck with Debian when Red Hat seemingly offered the same free-spirited, but more luminously attractive and user-friendly, OS (versions 7 and 8) to little guys like me: I preferred something called "Debian GNU/Linux" to "Red Hat Linux". (I use the word "seemingly" because we know what happened after RHL 9). And it was the reason I got in FSM because it chose to use the word "Free" (and, I hope, it was also this word that got you in). If now I have to explain about GNU, RMS and his camp, I am bound to talk about "free software" and its heavy philosophy, which may not be everyone's cup of tea. But it will be their choice not to take up this freedom movement; at the very least, I will have the satisfaction of telling them about it.
Now, I must admit that I haven't read and studied accounts of FSF guys stopping talking to people who would not go along their demand in calling it "GNU/Linux". Nor have I had the fortunate circumstances of talking any of them. But if those accounts are true, then it just shows us that they, too, are real humans, not gods. I would say that it was their human reaction of disappointment in the fact that many of the, to borrow Socrates' phrase, "beautiful young ones" were spiritedly contributing (writing) to the movement without realizing its instigators, and perhaps the heavy philosophy behind it and the ubiquitously restricting environment it had to break through. Why couldn't we find this reaction humanly acceptable when we have heard stories of even God's being disappointed?
So, what has the post's title got anything to do with the above?
It is now a widely accepted philosophical as well as practical paradigm that everything changes. In other words, as someone has put it, the only constant thing is change. When we happily and contently refer to this OS as Linux (the name of the kernel) and one day Linus (the name of the creator, chief maintainer and copyright holder) decides, for whatever reason, that the next version of the kernel will have a more restricted license (not to say commercial), will it not break the OS and create disappointments in many people, to put it in an understatement? Perhaps it will not create disappointments because, to most people, who are ignorant (or be made ignorant), it will most likely be considered as a natural path that the kernel must tread. But we can clearly see now that it will thrust a heavy blow to the movement and we (or perhaps more precisely, those guys) will have to go back to the square where we didn't have a kernel. What a premonition :( (I sincerely hope this won't happen, though, and stand corrected if it is not possible due to previous licenses of the kernel; but my point is that, in order to keep the freedom, we must keep reminding ourselves about earning it.)
In conclusion, by using "GNU/Linux", I keep reminding at least one lucky individual in this world (out of almost six billion): myself. I keep reminding him that, as a result of the movement, he is a little freer as a heavy computer user and has a brighter next day as someone who lives and makes his living out of using computers.


text:
Legends® Venice Sham
Overview & Details
- Pillow cover and sham.
- Luxuriously soft and silky in 400-thread count cotton sateen.
- Layers beautifully with our Legends® Venice Pillow Covers (sold separately).
- Machine wash.
- Imported.
- Exclusively ours.
Intricate medallions and chainlink motifs traverse this elegant duvet cover in soft, tranquil tones. A portrait of quiet opulence, our Legends® Venice Duvet Cover is made from 400-thread count cotton sateen that's silky soft to the touch. Layer on the luxury—and texture—with the coordinating 16" Square pillow cover, embellished with an embroidered medallion, and the Boudoir pillow cover, covered in sumptuous velvet ruching, each sold separately.
Available exclusively at The Company Store – proudly offering the ultimate in luxury bedding for more than 100 years.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
All money collected under this section shall be paid into a clinic fund, if one is provided, and if not then into the county or city treasury, as the case may be; and the local health officer having jurisdiction shall collect and account for such funds collected hereunder.
Note: WV Code updated with legislation passed through the 2015 Regular Session
The WV Code Online is an unofficial copy of the annotated WV Code, provided as a convenience. It has NOT been edited for publication, and is not in any way official or authoritative.


text:
Liverpool Message Board
How many of our current squad can you see in the Champions League?
There it is. The only question or way I can see that you can #$%$ the current squad, and where to make the improvements. Some players this year have improved their form or even broken through from the youth sides but arethey really CL material? Tome that's the only real way yo can #$%$ things and move forward in a positive manner. No place for loyalties I'm afriad.
So who are they? Spill the beans chaps.Sort: Newest | Oldest | Most Replied Expand all replies
dsteer_lfc_68 dsteer_lfc_68 May 9, 2013 16:50 Flag
I see where your going with this, and agree there is not much point wasting time on players we know are not up being top 4 or CL level players. However we can get caught up in then only wanting world class or near world class players throughout the squad.
Now I know we need to improve, and where we can we should be looking for the very best, however imo a CL side is not made up of great individual players, but a group that makes up a team that is better than the sum of its parts. A few world class players need to be in the mix along with a handful of very good players. But you do also need some grit and hard work, a squad with enough depth that can provide both quality, but also carry the water when needed.
Put this way, look at our CL squads from 2005 or 2007, and ask if we did not know all the players were CL players would be consider them of that level on a thread like this? Dukek, Baros, Cisse, Smicer all good players, all key to the European title, but are they all top draw? How about Gonzaliz, Aurelio, Crouch, Pennant, and Kuyt. Again some good player there (although some have done little to nothing since), but not sure again they would make many peoples short list of CL caliber players.
So my point is not that we should not look at the squad with a critical eye, and not be sentimental for players we like, but might not be good enough. However there are qualities in some players beyond star power that need to be taken into account, and at the end of the day successful teams are not made up of individuals, but a balanced squad that all pulls in the same direction, with the stars making the squad players better, and the squad players helping to make the stars shine.
- 1 Reply to dsteer_lfc_68
I agree DSteer. My point behind the thread is that many in the squad have either improved or broken through from the youth set up etc. BUT that's still only good enough for 7th as we stand. The ultimate prize is PL and CL titles and we're obviously miles off. So where do you go? As Hobs has highlighted there are some obvious outs such as Borini, Assaidi, and Coates but they've not contributed this year and are in reality a waste of space and money in the squad. Those that have played are only good enough for 7th so there needs to be changes and that's where it gets difficult. For me anyway.
Lets look at the derby starting 11. Carragher is not included as his future is deservedly set with a pipe and slippers.
They weren't good enough to beat Everton at home. Tough game fr sure but who are the weak links there? We need to see a step change in quality and that means some players need to make way. For me the weaker elements of that side are
Johnson, Henderson, Downing, Strurridge. I still have uncertainties about Lucas too if I'm honest. and I've questioned Gerrard at times this season. You compare the spine of that side above to the 2008 CL side and the difference stands out a mile.
It's so tough and I do not envy the job facing Rodgers at all.
What are the swear words?!
Easy peasy....
Reina, Agger, Skrtel, Johnson, Gerrard, Lucas, Suarez, Coutinho
There are others like Sturridge, Sterling, Kelly etc that might comfortably make that step up.
I guess that tells you we need 3 forward players and to pray for no injuries elsewhere! I guess that is why we need some squad depth too.
- 2 Replies to Hobitez
I'd bung Enrique in there as well Hobs! Looking at that line-up would suggest however that the first 11 are only lacking another class striker and right sided player, and we all know we need more than that.
A football team is gestalt, its not just how good the individuals are, its how they knit together, but also, you need a class bench which we just don't have.
Nowhere near enough detail there Hobs. It's the Etc's I'm interested in. I think many of us feel that we need to be relatively busy this Summer if we're to make up at least 3 places in the Premier League. That means some players have to leave.
Who are they?


text:
Published: Thursday, January 9, 2014 at 8:05 a.m.
Last Modified: Thursday, January 9, 2014 at 8:05 a.m.
A Houma man is charged with having sex with three girls, police said.
Christopher Songe, 20, 1469 Ellender St., was booked into the Terrebonne Parish jail Wednesday on two counts of simple rape and one count of aggravated rape, Houma Police said today.
Police said they received a complaint last Thursday alleging that Songe had sex with three girls, ages 11-15, in November. Detectives learned Songe was at a house in the 400 block of Levron Street, where he gave the girls alcohol and illegal drugs before having sex with them.
Houma Police tried to contact Songe at various locations Wednesday but were unsuccessful, the department said in a news release. Songe turned himself in at the Houma Police station about 3 p.m.
Reader comments posted to this article may be published in our print edition. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.


text:
Description:HP Pentium III P933 DL380 ML330 ML350 ML370(256KB/Single-core/933MHz/25.5W)Full Processor Option KitPart Number(s)Option Part# 161086-B21
HP Processor Kits:
Manufacturer Part# 196628-001
This is the full processor option kit. It includes the
Processor(s), Heat-Sink(s), Fan(s), Thermal paste
Overview:The Intel Pentium III processor integrates the P6 Dynamic Execution microarchitecture Dual Independent Bus (DIB) Architecture a multi-transaction system bus Intel MMX media enhancement technology. In addition the Intel Pentium III processor offers Internet Streaming SIMD Extensions 70 instructions enabling advanced imaging 3D streaming audio and video and speech recognition for an enhanced Internet experience. Versions also include an Advanced Transfer Cache and Advanced System Buffering to meet the higher data bandwidth requirements of today's environments. With great performance for the Internet the connected home and multitasking environments Intel Pentium III processors are targeted at the range of mainstream consumer and business users. The Intel Pentium III processor also meets the needs of entry-level workstations and servers.


text:
ECOVIEWS: List of snake-related questions longest in autumn
Published: Saturday, September 21, 2013 at 11:00 p.m.
Last Modified: Saturday, September 21, 2013 at 11:29 p.m.
It's that season again, when I get questions about snakes. The following addresses concerns about snakes in and around the house.
Q: We are overrun with snakes! I found one that had climbed up on my porch and was sitting beside the screen door to get in. My neighbor found one climbing on a brick chimney alongside her house. Are these likely to be poisonous species? Do store-bought snake repellents work? Are there other ways to keep them from coming into the yard and house? Why are so many snakes around now?
A: One reason people are more likely to see snakes in autumn is because most are born or hatch in late summer and early fall everywhere in the country. Hatchlings are crawling around looking for their first meal. Plus, some species, including canebrake and timber rattlesnakes, breed in the fall and are out seeking mates.
The majority of snakes that enter people's houses are harmless rat snakes, which are expert climbers. On rare occasions, other species may come into a house if the front door is flush with the ground with no steps. A ground-level garage is more likely to have a variety of snakes enter, including venomous ones. When cool weather sets in, newborn snakes as well as adults will be looking for a place to spend the winter. That means more snake movement. A carport or backyard tool shed would be the equivalent of a nice safe cave to a traveling snake.
Many people have asked about using chemicals to keep snakes away. Sulfur and naphthalene are ingredients in some so-called snake repellents, but I know of no scientific documentation that such repellents work outdoors at all. Any chemical-based product that will effectively repel all snakes from an outside area would smell so bad that it would also repel all people.
In addition, proponents of snake repellents, aside from those making a profit from their sale, do not always think through the process. I know of one man who surrounded his house trailer with a snake repellent only to find out a few minutes later that he already had a snake hiding under the trailer's siding. If the repellent had actually worked, the snake wouldn't have been able to get away, and the man would have had a permanent roommate. If it didn't work, why waste the money? I personally would neither use nor recommend that others use any snake repellent, commercial or homemade, to deter snakes that are outdoors.
When herpetologists want to contain or redirect snakes, they use a drift fence — a barrier of vertical aluminum siding (or silt fencing like that used by highway departments and at construction sites to prevent erosion). Such a fence is impractical for the entryway to a residence, but might be effective in a yard. Suggesting that anyone with a perceived snake problem release a large kingsnake in the yard might not be enthusiastically received by some (maybe many) people. Nonetheless, the kingsnake would eat pit vipers and be immune to their venom. But it would probably leave as soon as it had eaten all the snakes and rodents in the yard, and you'd have to get another one in the spring.
One suggestion is to remove any old boards or ground litter (pine straw, leaves) that could serve as snake hiding places.
East of the Mississippi River, seven of more than 50 native species of snakes are venomous. Four are rattlesnakes — pygmy, massasauga, eastern diamondback, and canebrake or timber rattler. Two more are the closely related copperhead and cottonmouth or water moccasin. The coral snake is the seventh. To learn which ones inhabit your region and what they look like, visit www.srelherp.uga.edu or consult a field guide.
If you do encounter a snake, use common sense. Observe it from a few feet away. Do not try to catch it or otherwise disturb it. And one technique that usually works well for keeping snakes out of the house is to keep the door closed.
Whit Gibbons grew up in Tuscaloosa. He received bachelor's and master's degrees from the University of Alabama and his Ph.D. from Michigan State University. Send environmental questions to firstname.lastname@example.com.
Reader comments posted to this article may be published in our print edition. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.


text:
STOCKTON - Police are searching for three men who robbed a north Stockton business Friday, including one who was wearing a hockey mask, authorities said.
The men entered the business in the 8000 block of North El Dorado Street about 12:40 p.m. and ordered everyone inside to the floor, police said. One of the men grabbed money from the register before the robbers fled with an undisclosed amount of cash, officers said.
The first robber was described as 5 feet 8 inches tall and 160 pounds with a medium build and a silver handgun, police said. The other two were 5 feet 8 inches to 6 feet tall with medium builds, officers said. One was wearing dark clothing and a hockey mask, authorities said. The other was wearing orange pants, a dark hooded sweatshirt and a mask, police said.
Location, ST | website.com


text:
Monday July 9, 2012
Hays Public Library Gallery
Fixes in the Works:
3.10 Release—allow items to be transferred back home when "IndependentBranches" and "canreservefromotherbranches" are both enabled. (As we had with LibLime—We will share materials, not patrons)
3.8 Release—add the Holds Notes on the Holds Queue display
3.8 Release—Patron Credit Errors
—that manual credits do not update the outstanding amount
—use the Pay tab and never use the manual credit tab again
—Overdue Report display error—cannot click on link to patron record
Long Overdue (Lost) Status
Click ^ (computer icon on bar) for FULL Screen
Generic Password for Patron Accounts—The System does not automatically assign a default password.
—You will see **** in the display for the password—this only indicates that the password is encrypted…there is NO PASSWORD automatically generated.
—MANUAL FIX—When creating a patron account, input a generic password for the account. Have the patron change the password once they log in.
—Password suggestion: library OR read OR books
Helpful Reports
#1352 *Patrons—Complete List


text:
The TTI, Inc. app for mobile devices enables on the go access to TTI's deep and broad inventory of electronic components. This application is designed to help visitors search for parts, view product datasheets, procure parts, submit quote requests and obtain order status information.
|Search TTI Inc's Inventory of products
|Obtain product specifications
|Order directly from your mobile device
|Request quotes for desired parts
|View descriptive pictures of parts
|Contact your TTI representative


text:
You may have read news stories last week warning that Ireland's airports could be shut down soon by a strike and the national airline Aer Lingus could be grounded. The unions have warned that this could happen around St. Patrick's Day, a time that is not just a great symbolic national holiday but a week long festival that is hugely important for tourism.
It's not that the unions are trying to damage the country, the economy or our international reputation, they say. Not at all. It's just a complete coincidence that the strike notice may take effect around then.
And if you believe that you probably believe in leprechauns as well.
Ireland, you will remember, is an island. Forget about St. Patrick's Day and the tourists for a moment, much as we would miss the American high school bands and cheerleaders who come here every year.
Yes, a strike around St. Patrick's Day would be embarrassing and extremely irritating. But that's only the start of it.
Because we're an island, air links are a vital part of life here and essential for the economy to function. A series of one day strikes, which is probably what the unions have in mind until they get their way, would play havoc with everyone here, and not just those who might be visiting for St. Patrick's Day.
Because we're an island, a threat to shut the airports amounts to national blackmail. It's outrageous that it is being threatened, whether it actually happens or not.
And what makes it even more outrageous is the reason behind the threat – pensions.
Readers of this column will be aware that the pensions issue in Ireland is one that we have been commenting on for some time. That's because it's an area of great unfairness, possibly the most divisive issue in the country at present, with people in the state and semi-state sector on one side of the argument and the rest of us in the private economy on the other. And the threat that is now hanging over the airports and Aer Lingus is a perfect example of what is going on.
As we have been pointing out in this column for a year or two now, Ireland after the bust has become a divided nation.
In the state sector – everyone who is paid by the state – where the unions are strong, the impact of the bust has not been felt nearly as much as in the private sector where companies have struggled to survive. The same applies to the semi-state sector, companies like the airports or Aer Lingus or Electric Ireland that were started by the state and are still largely state owned.
There have been some downward adjustments in state pay, but in comparison with what has happened in the private sector they have been very limited. This is particularly true in the semi-state sector where a virtual monopoly still exists in some areas.
In the private sector, thousands of people have lost their jobs and unemployment and emigration have soared, particularly among young adults. In the private sector there is endless pressure to increase output and hold down pay as companies struggle to keep their heads above water. No increases in pay are available to offset new taxes and charges and regular increases in family utility bills, health insurance and so on.
But pay is not the only issue. The pension situation in the private sector is even worse than the pay issue.
Many private companies have ended their defined benefit schemes, the kind of pensions which give workers a set proportion – usually half – of their salary as an annual pension when they get to 65.
In some cases, private sector workers who have paid into pension schemes all their working lives have been left with a fraction of what they were expecting. Around 80 percent of defined benefit pension schemes in private sector companies in Ireland are bust.
In the state sector, however, things are very different. Workers there, despite the fact that the state has to borrow billions to pay their pay and pensions, have seen little change in pensions. The same applies in the semi-state sector.
Even for mid-level state workers like teachers and police guaranteed pensions of well over half their salary is the norm, allowing them a level of comfort following early retirement that private sector workers whose pensions have gone bust can only envy.
The situation is deeply inequitable. But nothing is being done about it because most of those in a position to act – the politicians – are on the state payroll themselves and in line to benefit.
Let me give you an example which is close enough to home to be painful. Workers in Independent Newspapers, the biggest media group in Ireland formerly headed up by Tony O'Reilly, have been through a program which has radically changed the way they work and what they get paid. The staff has shrunk to a fraction of what it was; everybody works longer and harder for much less.
The defined benefit pension fund, into which Independent staff have been putting around 10 percent of their pay over the years, has been closed down. Because of the stock market collapse, like in other companies, the Independent pension fund now has a huge deficit. Staff will now get around half the pension they were expecting, if they are lucky.


text:
Rod "Rocket" Heuck was born on April 4, 1953. He was not born in Colorado, but like a lot of us he got here as fast as he could. His mother lives in Nebraska, and his brother and family live in Wyoming.
Anyone lucky enough to have been touched by this gentle, honorable, graceful man will know that you have been blessed. Rod's unbelievable love and spirit made all of us a little stronger. Winnie the Pooh said "If there is a tomorrow and we are not together - Remember that you are braver than you think - stronger than you seem and smarter than you know - but even when we are apart, I am still with you."
Rod was a man with a bigger-than-life heart and a man of few words. The ones he said were well thought out and genuine, meant for the one he was talking to. So remember your time with him and let those moments help you to live today to the fullest because tomorrow is not a promise. Rod taught us that there is love in the room he was in if we simply "listen." We are all in a better place because we knew Rod "Rocket." We can celebrate Rod with our loved ones anytime - just open the place in your heart that is his and he will simply be there.
Please Celebrate Rod by going for a walk and simply remembering his unbreakable spirit. There will always be an empty spot in the world without Rod, but we can fill it with everyday random acts of kindness. Life is not always fair but those of us that knew Rod can somehow know that ours is a little more "fair."
A rare autoimmune disease took this rare and beautiful man from us after a six-year war. But Rod won a lot of the battles that seemed like they were hopeless. He left this world on May 30, 2012. He was surrounded by his family and gave us one last "gift" with the honor of letting him go peacefully and with dignity in his own bed. The hole he left in our hearts was quickly filled with his kind smile and peaceful presence. We are a lucky family to say he was "one of us."
Since Rod always wanted to help anyone that needed it: his request to honor his life was to donate a few dollars to Rocky Mountain Rural Health, PO Box 1600, Fairplay, CO 80440-1600 The donation goes assist in the Community Medical Assistance Program, medical equipment, Families in Crisis Fund, and Community Health screenings. Katherine Fitting is the angel heading this organization.
No formal service will be held, but where a few people are gathered to remember Rod will be the biggest gift we can give to ourselves and Rod. Simply thanks for being a part of Rod's life and Always Believe.


text: This is part of a series. If you're just joining the conversation, begin with The Archbishop and the Community Theologian and then proceed to Why Contemplation is Revolutionary (Part One) and (Part Two).Today we're looking at the third of ten points drawn from what Archbishop Rowan Williams and Father Kenneth Leech have said about contemplation. Today's point, quoting the archbishop directly: contemplation is "the only ultimate answer to the unreal and insane world that our financial syst … [Read more...]


text:
You may pick up this item at the following location:
Fifth Ave. Store
Learn More
Please select in-store pickup during checkout.
Tiffany designer Paloma Picasso has captured the world's
attention with her bold, original style. Her visionary
designs are a unique blend of European sophistication and
exotic influences.
Tiffany sterling silver is part of a rich heritage of innovation
and design. Tiffany's silver studio won top awards
at the great world's fairs of the late 19th century. Tiffany also
originated the .925 sterling silver standard of purity
in the United States, later adopted by the nation.


text:
SAN JOSE -- Darrell Williams is out as San Jose High football coach, but the former Mercury News coach of the year is not going down without a fight, one of his assistant coaches said Monday.
Williams hopes to meet with district officials this week in an attempt to regain the position he held for three years, said Ryan Balli, who coached on Williams' staff since the coach came aboard.
The school's new administration dismissed Williams two weeks ago because it felt that it was time for a change, new assistant principal Herbert Espiritu said.
But according to Balli, the coach was let go because of a financial issue with the team's Gridiron Booster Club.
The club was behind in its bills largely because a $5,200 matching funds donation was mistakenly sent to another booster club at the school and held for months, Balli said.
"There is no reason coach Williams should have been fired," Balli said. "He is not on the hook for any of these bills. The last year I played was when coach Williams came on. He was hired after my last game. We completely did a 180 on the program -- all new Nike uniforms. Everything we do is first class. There is no reason why he should have been let go."
Williams declined to comment for this story.
Espiritu said he did not know about the financial issues, noting that the school is just focusing on hiring a new football coach and athletic director. Matthew Ojeda stepped down as A.D. at the end of the school year.
"For us, it was just for a chance to go in a different direction," Espiritu said. "That's really what we're focusing on is just turning the chapter. We're going to interview this week for the football job and the athletic director position.
"I couldn't confirm anything with you with what happened. We weren't there. None of the administration team was there when Coach Williams was there the last three years. I don't have any knowledge of that, and that's not the reason why we made the change."
Why make the change?
"We just felt that football is an important part of the school and coach Williams left San Jose High football at a better place than when he got it," Espiritu said. "I have been at a lot of different schools, and sometimes change is good. We're trying to hire the best athletic and football coach that we can at this point. We feel confident with the people that we're interviewing that we're going to find that."
An online petition started by Balli and another of Williams' assistants is circulating through the school community in hopes of building support for the coach.
Williams was the Mercury News coach of the year in 2012 after the team bounced back from a two-win season the previous year to win nine games.
But the team has gone through nothing but trying times since then, which have included a player being slain in daylight just off campus in February 2013. Last season, San Jose went 0-10, dropping Williams' record to 11-19.
"When you make changes like this, it's never going to be easy," Espiritu said. "I understand that. But at the same time, we have the complete support of the district office. They gave us a mission and a vision, and that's what we're following here."


text:
A 31-year-old man who reportedly claims he's Michael Jackson's son is going public Thursday with alleged DNA evidence.
(Cue opening of "Billie Jean").
According to TMZ, his name is Brandon Howard. He's the son of singer Miki Howard, who was represented by Michael's father Joe Jackson in the 1980s.
Sources close to Brandon told the site Miki and M.J. met in 1982 and Brandon was born soon after.
Well, that's it, then. That's all the proof I need.
Howard grew up in Cleveland and now lives in Miami. He apparently is a singer who goes by the moniker B Howard and, according to TMZ, contributed to a new Akon song.
The website said Howard somehow acquired DNA from an old orthodontic device worn by Jackson and was a match to Howard's.
Maybe the kid really is his son.
The results will be unveiled at noon Pacific time Thursday on FilmOn.com which, in no way, would be trying to exploit this.
Howard released a statement Thursday morning through his manager Scott Broomfield.
"To my fans, family, and friends, despite recent allegations, I did not authorize the testing of my DNA to be compared to that of the late Michael Jackson nor did I contact TMZ regarding the publication of the story," the statement read. "This spring, I agreed to be a part of a documentary with FilmOn.TV and was asked to give a sample of my DNA. Even though I agreed to this I never expected it to be used in this manner."
Of course not.
"To this day, I have never claimed to be Michael Jackson's son nor do I have any intention of pursuing the family's estate," the statement said.
Of course not.
But the publicity wouldn't hurt, would it?
Miki Howard has not commented on the matter.
TMZ reported that Howard actually is planning on going after the estate. The estate's lawyer, Howard Weitzman, told TMZ, "We've never even heard from him," adding, "Any deadline for claiming to be Michael's child has long since passed."
TMZ said Howard shot a video in 2011 in which he "blatantly" uses his alleged father's dance moves and vocals.
Contact Tony Hicks at Facebook.com/BayAreaNewsGroup.TonyHicks or Twitter.com/insertfoot.


text:
via Personal Recipe 1765125:
You'll be the cutest pope in history♥
I love you tre.
Sorry for my bad english. Kisses from Argentina ;)
I guess the job has been filled. He is a "Frank" though.
Still trying? How could anyone not want a pope like you? Don't let your dream die! XD I'd vote for you sweetheart <3 Kisses from Az
What a pity! The new pope's name isn't Tre Cool I ! I'm bitterly disappointed. :(
Oh my God Tré, I love you with this t-shirt..... Hurry up, because there isn't a lot of time to choose a new pope, so you have to go to Italy soon. Good luck, I'm sure you are going to be the next pope. Continue with your dream :)
the nun of my country drinks a cup of coffee with whisky every morning then she goes to teach at the nursery school.. I don't understand why you can't become pope
Good luck!
Uhmm......Probably not.
A Pope with a bent halo, dusty rosary beads and no clue how to say a hail mary. Novel thought, sweetie xox


text:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Catherine Lu, Public Information Officer (702) 486-6982 / 334-7953 email@example.com (Carson City, NV; September 3, 2013) – Breaking from a four-month trend of decreasing voter registration numbers, August 2013 saw voter registration increases for all registered parties, as shown by data released today by Secretary of State Ross Miller's Elections Division. The number of statewide registered active voters increased by 3,123 from the previous month. Of the 1,261,337 active registrants statewide, 42.02% (530,044) are Democrats, 34.36% (433,339) are Republicans, 17.59% (221,895) are nonpartisan, 4.70% (59,252) are members of the Independent American Party, and the remaining 1.32% (16,807) are members of the Libertarian or other minor parties. The latest voter registration breakdown by county, party, age, and district can be found under the Election Center at www.nvsos.gov or by clicking here.
# # #
Free viewers are required for some of the attached documents.
They can be downloaded by clicking on the icons below.
101 N Carson Street Suite 3 Carson City, NV 89701 | (775) 684-5708 © 2010 - 2015 All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy and Disclaimer | About This Site


text:
Sen. Apodaca says study of COPA will not happen in Senate
Published: Friday, December 7, 2012 at 12:00 p.m.
Last Modified: Friday, December 7, 2012 at 12:00 p.m.
A state House committee has released a recommendation that Mission Health's Certificate of Public Advantage be reviewed by the General Assembly, but one state legislator said it will not happen in the Senate.
"The Senate has no desire (to review the COPA) and will not visit the COPA," N.C. Sen. Tom Apodaca said Friday, the day after The House Select Committee on Certificate of Need Process and Related Hospital Issues released its final findings and recommendations.
The committee said in its findings that Mission's COPA is in compliance with state regulations.
"We need to put this behind us and move on," Apodaca said.
Both sides in the debate over Mission's COPA — Mission Health officials and the WNC Healthcare Initiative, which includes Park Ridge Health and 21st Century Oncology — are claiming victory in the House committee's findings and recommendations.
Mission's COPA was issued by the state in 1995 to allow the merger of Mission Hospital and St. Joseph's Hospital and is intended to offset anticompetitive practices onto the region's health care market.
The committee recommended area health care providers and interested parties in the region "make every effort to resolve their differences regarding the COPA (that is regulated by the state) prior to the end of the 2013 session of the General Assembly."
If there is no resolution, the committee recommended the General Assembly conduct a study of the economic impact of the COPA and the effectiveness of the agreement.
"We are pleased with the committee's final report and are grateful for their support during this very long process," Dr. Ronald A. Paulus, president and CEO of Mission Health, said in a news release. "The committee's work and related review has shown clearly that Mission has been fully compliant with the COPA. The process included a remarkable, 10-year review of all aspects of Mission's compliance with the COPA, and this affirmation should reassure any reasonable party — once and for all — that Mission has met not only the letter of the law, but the full spirit of the COPA by providing significant community benefit."
The committee's findings say "hospitals, health care providers and individuals continue to raise concerns about the increase in Mission's market power and whether the COPA agreement has been effective on balancing the anticompetitive effects of the merger (with St. Joseph's)."
WNC Community Healthcare opposes the COPA and sees it as outdated and poorly supervised by the state, giving Mission Health control of the region's health care.
WNC Community Healthcare also said it sees the committee's final recommendation to investigate the COPA as a victory for preserving access and choice for patients in Western North Carolina, spokesman Graham Fields said.
"The committee's decision to continue investigating Mission's activities under the COPA and consider appropriate changes to ensure a competitive health care landscape in the region will benefit patients, physicians and other providers in the area," he said.
In September, Mission's compliance with the COPA was confirmed when an independent accounting firm released a five-year assessment, according to Mission officials. Dixon Hughes Goodman LLP was retained by the state to assess and issue a report of findings on Mission's compliance with the COPA from 2007-2011.
Reach Schulman at 828-694-7890 or firstname.lastname@example.com.
Reader comments posted to this article may be published in our print edition. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.


text:
SANTA CLARA -- As they packed their belongings Monday, the 49ers weren't inclined to throw a flag on the officials.
Officiating was a hot-button issue among 49ers fans after a 23-17 loss to the Seattle Seahawks in the NFC Championship game Sunday at CenturyLink Field, but an afterthought in the day-after locker room.
"In games like that, you're always going to think about the what-ifs, especially on questionable calls," 49ers center Jonathan Goodwin said. "I could play it over in my head for the whole offseason but it's not going to change anything, unfortunately."
Three plays in particular went the way of the Seahawks:
On the Fox broadcast, analyst and former director of officiating Mike Pereira said since Maragos hit Lee's plant leg, it should have been roughing the kicker -- which carries with it a 15-yard penalty and a first down instead of a 5-yard penalty.
The 49ers declined the penalty, and the Seahawks' ensuing possessions resulted in the drive which ended in Russell Wilson's 35-yard fourth-and-7 touchdown strike to Jermaine Kearse.
One play later, a bad exchange between Wilson and Lynch resulted in a 49ers fumble recovery at the 15-yard line, rendering the play moot and giving the 49ers significantly better field position.
Lee, the victim of the call that had the most significant impact, said he wasn't sure if the play was a penalty or not and didn't know the interpretation of the rule.
When asked if it should have been a roughing penalty, with the additional 10 yards, Lee said, "From what I understand," but wasn't interested in elaborating, not wanting to use it as an excuse.
Tight end Vernon Davis has seen calls go both ways and considers it an unsolved mystery.
"A lot of people will say the officials were on their side," Davis said. "Maybe they were. Maybe they weren't. We will never know. Sometimes you have games where (you think) the officials are favoring the opposing team, sometimes they're on your side. You never know. It's a tight window to really figure it out."
Whitner said he made the same play he has made all season and "wasn't fined one dollar, so we've got to do something about this."
Outside linebacker Aldon Smith felt the responsibility for the end result rested with the 49ers.
"I played in the game so I saw some of the officiating, but I'm not going to blame anybody for how the game turned out," Smith said. "(The officials) couldn't play the game. We played the game, so we put on us and the coaches, no blame. Two good teams played and there was a winner."
Follow Jerry McDonald on Twitter at twitter.com/Jerrymcd.