Linux OS? Not GNU/Linux ? :)

[ekianjo]

Shouldn't it be technically called GNU /Linux ?


(those familiar with RMS will understand the joke )

 

[DaDaDaniel]

They can have the GNU-part when the Hurd is done.

 

[diligentcircle]

That would be GNU, not GNU/Linux. GNU/Linux is GNU with Linux, the kernel added to make it a complete operating system (since the Hurd is not ready).

 

[DaDaDaniel]

Yeah, yeah, we know the story. They can call their distro GNU/Linux if they want, but I see no reason to call 'Arch Linux' 'Arch GNU/Linux'. What about OSs like openSUSE, that don't even have Linux in their name? Should it be GNU openSUSE? We can repeat the whole argument what makes a complete OS here, and who should be credited in it's title if you want.


Btw, the Hurd will never be ready. On the other hand Duke Forever shipped, why shouldn't the Hurd.

 

[diligentcircle]

Yeah, yeah, we know the story. They can call their distro GNU/Linux if they want, but I see no reason to call 'Arch Linux' 'Arch GNU/Linux'. What about OSs like openSUSE, that don't even have Linux in their name? Should it be GNU openSUSE? We can repeat the whole argument what makes a complete OS here, and who should be credited in it's title if you want.


Btw, the Hurd will never be ready. On the other hand Duke Forever shipped, why shouldn't the Hurd.

That post tells me you don't understand the story at all. The FSF and RMS have never suggested calling OpenSUSE "GNU OpenSUSE", and "GNU/Linux" is not supposed to imply a distro.


The story is: the GNU project was and is a project to create a complete free OS, based on UNIX, which is called GNU ("GNU's Not Unix"). The project was started in 1984, I think, backed by FSF. At around 1991, GNU was almost complete, but it was missing the kernel.


At this time, Linus Torvalds developed a kernel, Linux, which for various reasons was finished before the GNU kernel. Linus released Linux as free software, and people wanting a complete OS based on Linux went looking for the other parts. Wouldn't you know it, all that stuff was done! So, they took the incomplete GNU system and bundled it with Linux. They called this system "Linux", after the kernel, since they really didn't know any better.


Unfortunately, this undermines the years of work done by the Free Software Foundation and instead attributes it to Linus Torvalds, who only made the kernel. This is unfair, but it also makes it much more difficult for the FSF to get people to take them and their values seriously, which is a problem, because the FSF and their values are the only reasons GNU/Linux exists.


That's the problem the FSF and GNU project have with calling the system "Linux", and that's also why I call the system "GNU/Linux" (usually said as "GNU plus Linux" when I say it).

 

[moxie]

We all know the story. Half of us agree with you, half of us are tired to the death of Stallman. We've been through all this before, and we don't reply in any kind of seriousness, because we know it will lead nowhere.

 

[gotwake424]

What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

​

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

​

There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

​

 

[slaeshjag]

This GNU/Linux complaining makes me suggest we throw away GNU and replace it with the netBSD userland just to end this. Any supporters?

 

[diligentcircle]

We all know the story. [...] we don't reply in any kind of seriousness, because we know it will lead nowhere.

Not true. DaDaDaniel sure wasn't showing a proper understanding off what the name "GNU/Linux" means, because he was talking about calling OpenSUSE "GNU OpenSUSE", when OpenSUSE has nothing to do with GNU, and "[GNU's] distro", which makes no sense (GNU is an OS, not an organization). This of course is not DaDaDaniel's fault, but it's still wrong and needs to be corrected.

 

[DaDaDaniel]

We all know the story. [...] we don't reply in any kind of seriousness, because we know it will lead nowhere.

Not true. DaDaDaniel sure wasn't showing a proper understanding off what the name "GNU/Linux" means, because he was talking about calling OpenSUSE "GNU OpenSUSE", when OpenSUSE has nothing to do with GNU, and "[GNU's] distro", which makes no sense (GNU is an OS, not an organization). This of course is not DaDaDaniel's fault, but it's still wrong and needs to be corrected.

True. I know the story. Heck, I even read their whole FAQ and RMS's rants on this once. It was giving a rather sarcastic response because I somehow find it ridiculous to make "demands" how other people talk about stuff. It's somehow understandable that the FSF people are butthurt about not getting much mainstream credit, I even call it GNU/Linux once in a while. But I really can't stand all the whining.


Let's just agree that this subforum is for any OS running the Linux kernel, that is not Android. Problem solved. So can someone please build a small system based on Linux, uClibc, and BusyBox to prove my point?

 

[moxie]

Anyone who believes this is in any way important enough to require soapboxing about "not showing proper understanding" and something being "wrong and needs to be corrected" is wrong and needs to be corrected. Anyone who feels the need to prefix "Linux" with "So-called" needs to get some so-called "perspective".


This constant, low level self-servient holier-than-thou preaching of the holy GNU gospel is the single most irritating aspect of being a Linux user, bar none. I can live with crappy video drivers, Network Manager and not-quite-flash-plugins the rest of my life if I can get an effin mute button for the whine choir. Really. It was old already back in -96, and it hasn't gotten better.


Slaeshjag, I'm with you in principle, although not in practice. Yet.


DaDaDaniel: Exactly.

 

[diligentcircle]

True. I know the story.

Oh really?


Well, then, let me refute "everyone gets it" with a simple idea: I didn't understand this until very recently, maybe 1 or 2 months ago, my dad didn't understand this until less than a month ago, and my mom currently doesn't understand this.


There are people who believe that GNU/Linux was done entirely by Linus Torvalds, and as a result, these people look at Linus's beliefs and values seriously, but completely ignore the beliefs and values that actually created it, i.e. the ones of the GNU project and the FSF. This is a real problem.

 

[_wb_]

I prefer calling the whole thing (because I am not interested in the kernel only, I like to be able to, say, compile that kernel) GNU/Linux. In daily speech that can become a bit pedantic, so I will not typically correct people talking about Linux when they actually mean the OS, but at least in written conversation, I try to get things right.


The combination of words in the subforum thread title "Linux OS" is very strange, since Linux is not an OS (unless you use a very narrow definition of OS). A car engine is not the same thing as a car. A cpu is not the same thing as a computer. And a kernel is not the same thing as an OS.


Especially when contrasting this subforum to the android one, the phrase "Linux OS" is quite confusing since the only common ingredient of android and all the GNU/Linux distributions out there, is that they both use Linux or something derived from it as a kernel. The difference is in the (rest of the) OS.


So either you insist that the kernel is the only relevant thing in an OS (which I think is not a correct position), and then the terminology "Linux OS" can be considered to be correct, but it should include Android. The more sensible position is to consider the full OS to be relevant (including "userland" things like bash, gcc, coreutils, etc), in which case you can perfectly well make a distinction between the different flavors of the GNU/Linux OS on the one hand, and the Android OS on the other hand.


I suggest we give credit where credit is due, and call the OS "GNU/Linux". We could have a poll to decide how to call it, but it is not really a matter of opinion or taste, but a matter of correctness.

 

[DaDaDaniel]

Well, then, let me refute "everyone gets it" with a simple idea: I didn't understand this until very recently, maybe 1 or 2 months ago, my dad didn't understand this until less than a month ago, and my mom currently doesn't understand this.

Well, my parents certainly don't know anything about software licences or philosophy. And why should they? The computer is just a tool for them, and that's perfectly okay. And please explain what you mean by you "didn't understand this until recently". Do you mean that you didn't know about the differences between the ideas of the free software and open source camp? I honestly thought that anybody using a free OS for some time could not possibly have missed that. Or do you mean you did not "understand" in a born again kind of way?

There are people who believe that GNU/Linux was done entirely by Linus Torvalds, ...

And like the people who think Windows was entirely done by Bill Gates, they are idiots, or at least very uninformed.

and as a result, these people look at Linus's beliefs and values seriously, but completely ignore the beliefs and values that actually created it, i.e. the ones of the GNU project and the FSF. This is a real problem.

These people do neither care about Linus' nor RMS' beliefs and values. Also I think "that actually created it" is a bit derogatory on your part. If they kernel is just that small missing part, why wasn't the FSF able to make their own in decades?


Oh, and thanks for completely ignoring my, and others', point why people don't always react to kindly to this topic. It's the preaching! Honestly, there is nothing wrong with having different opinions on free/open/closed software. These are opinions, there is no moral right or wrong here. Unfortunately the FSF people, who have some good ideas, and some weird ones, quite often come across like vegans shouting "meat is murder" at the dinner table.


_wb_: Damn, I think I really have to build a GNUless mini-distribution.

 

[_wb_]

DaDaDaniel: feel free to do so, but if you're going to use a substantial part of BSD, I will insist that you call it BSD/Linux (assuming you're going to use that kernel)

 

[Gerix]

I just don't like the sound of GNU/Linux, especially now I know it's pronounced "Guhnoo plus Linux." Maybe it should be called GLinuxnu (with a silent 'g') since Linux forms the core of the operating system, or maybe G/LnL (pronounced "Glennel"), for "Gnu/Linux is not Linux."


I call it Linux and don't believe Linus "created it all." It's just too big.

 

[moxie]

Well, my parents certainly don't know anything about software licences or philosophy. And why should they? The computer is just a tool for them, and that's perfectly okay.

There are people who believe that GNU/Linux was done entirely by Linus Torvalds, ...

And like the people who think Windows was entirely done by Bill Gates, they are idiots, or at least very uninformed.


These people do neither care about Linus' nor RMS' beliefs and values.

Exactly. This is something that is not important for the great majority of people. As in who gives a sh*t, really? And for those of us for whom it is important - we already know. Really. Or we will learn all too soon.

 

[moxie]

DaDaDaniel: feel free to do so, but if you're going to use a substantial part of BSD, I will insist that you call it BSD/Linux (assuming you're going to use that kernel)

And this is the problem. Yes, I see the smiley, but I do not take kindly to the idea that random people on the net feel entitled to the right to insist what I'm going to call most anything at all. Just don't. It makes me want to break stuff. Or even worse, give up on Linux and start running VMS or something.

 

[_wb_]

Oh and I see the point about preaching being annoying, but then again, the ones that insist on talking about the "Linux OS" don't have to preach since the vast majority of people is already misguided or uninformed enough to think of Linux as actually being an OS.

 

[moxie]

...and that same "vast majority" won't give a rats ass about yours or mine or any other persons opinion about what they really, properly, ought to call their OS. Because the personal squabbles and internal politics of a few groups of computer geeks simply don't matter to them. Language adapts to how people use it, and people use language in whatever way is the simplest to convey the intended meaning. It is not properly correct to call a vacuum cleaner a "hoover", but in some countries a vast majority does. Because it is easy, and nobody cares about correctness anyway. It is a non issue. And, quite obviously, "GNU/Linux" is an unpronounceable mess. Thus, it will never get used. Get over it.


And by that, I by no means mean to say that you're not allowed to call it GNU/Linux, if you feel that is correct. Or GnuOS. Or Margaret-the-third-with-a-prune-on-top, if that rocks your boat. Just stop trying to tell other what they ought to be saying.