Is it GNU/Linux or just Linux?
is it windows or NT/windows? macOS or XNU/macos?
its just fucking linux.
>Distro makers should be allowed to call their individual distros Linux distros because it's their creation, but to call GNU Linux as a whole Linux is ridiculious.
~Linus Torvalds
At least the quote was something like that
Was there an NT project for making a whole OS before the kernel named windows even existed? Was there a XNU project for making a whole OS before the kernel named macos kernel existed? Oh wait, what you said isn't even equivalent! Look at how fucking stupid and ignorant you are!
In some quarters, it’s politically correct to call the Linux operating system the
“GNU/Linux operating system.” The problem with “Linux” is that there is no
completely correct way to name it because it was written by many different people
in a vast, distributed development effort. Technically speaking, Linux is the name
of the operating system’s kernel, nothing more. The kernel is very important, of
course, since it makes the operating system go, but it’s not enough to form a
complete operating system.
Enter Richard Stallman, the genius-philosopher who founded the Free
Software movement, started the Free Software Foundation, formed the GNU
Project, wrote the first version of the GNU C Compiler (GCC), created the GNU
General Public License (the GPL), etc., etc. He insists that you call it “GNU/Linux”
to properly reflect the contributions of the GNU Project. While the GNU Pro-
ject predates the Linux kernel and the project’s contributions are extremely
deserving of recognition, placing them in the name is unfair to everyone else
who made significant contributions. Besides, I think “Linux/GNU” would be
more technically accurate since the kernel boots first and everything else runs
on top of it.
In popular usage, “Linux” refers to the kernel and all the other free and
open source software found in the typical Linux distribution—that is, the
entire Linux ecosystem, not just the GNU components. The operating system
marketplace seems to prefer one-word names such as DOS, Windows, Solaris,
Irix, AIX. I have chosen to use the popular format. If, however, you prefer to
use “GNU/Linux” instead, please perform a mental search and replace it. I won't mind.
The FSF began working on the GNU operating system long before Linux was created. Their problem was the lack of a functioning kernel. That is where Linux came along.
By your logic, it should just be GNU.
The difference between Linus and Stallman is that Linus only credits his own creation in conversation while Stallman credits both
GNU is a shit name. Linux is much snappier and cuter. And, Stallman reasons that GNU doesn't need Linux but Linux needs GNU. That's crappy reasoning.
commie jews B T F O
Is there a whole GNU os?
LiGnux
The GNU project was started in the 1980s with the goal to create a fully functioning, 100% free operating system. They accomplished a lot. But, one of the problems was, they never quite created a working kernel. There is the HURD kernel yes, but it still isn't stable today. That is where Linus Torvald's creation Linux came into use, acting as a kernel for the system made by the FSF. GNU and Linux are both independent projects, with no relation to the other. So giving credit to them both makes perfect sense, because without either one of them, there would be no operating system.
People saying it's not "NT/Windows" or "XNU/macOS" as a comparison don't realize how that doesn't make sense. By that very logic, GNU/Linux should only be called GNU, giving Linux no credit for it.
I'd like to interject for a moment
How the fuck did the FSF fail so hard at creating a kernel
Probmel sloved.
haha upvoted
>giving Linux no credit for it.
I dont use gnushit
I use:
busybox
malloc
qlibc
Gnu has no place on my system.I use Linux
i agree with the first part
the second part is semi true, are there really any GNU free Linux distros? Android maybe. But without GNU, Linux would be used significantly less.
No, Richard, it's 'Linux', not 'GNU/Linux'. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation.
Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ.
One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS -- more on this later). He named it 'Linux' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff -- including the software I wrote using GCC -- and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don't want to be known as a nag, do you?
(An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title 'GNU/Linux' (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.
So it's just NT, and just XNU? Fine, I'll call windows "NT" from now on.
Next, even if we limit the GNU/Linux title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn't the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you've heard this one before. Get used to it. You'll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it.
You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LOC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LOC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never excuted that bloatware, it certainly isn't more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn't perfect either, but LOC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument.
Last, I'd like to point out that we Linux and GNU users shouldn't be fighting among ourselves over naming other people's software. But what the heck, I'm in a bad mood now. I think I'm feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because Linux was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn't you and everyone refer to GCC as 'the Linux compiler'? Or at least, 'Linux GCC'? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Linux? Languishing with the HURD?
I'd just like to interject for a moment. 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.
By that logic, we should call it just GNU, or maybe "Debian/Fedora/Arch" or whatever. Because "Windows" and "MacOS" don't mention the kernel at all, and Android, which uses just as much "Linux" as your typical GNU/Linux distribution, isn't called "Android/Linux", it's called "Android". The one fundamental difference between GNU/Linux and the other operating systems is that it has a three-level architecture, while the other operating systems have a two-level architecture.
For example, Windows is Windows+NT. It's not entirely clear where NT ends and Windows begins, some of the Windows "coreutils" are NT-specific, so "NT" would be equivalent to "GNU+Linux" rather than merely "Linux". So in that regard "Windows" could be considered to refer to nothing more than the DE and a few applications packaged with it.
In any case though, referring to Linux-based operating systems simply as "Linux" doesn't really make sense, since the other OSes aren't primarily known by the name of their kernels. The only reason calling it Linux has become so popular is that there are numerous distributions that have Linux in common, and even though most share GNU as well, "Linux" was found easier to say than "GNU/Linux".
If Debian was the only mainstream Linux distro, it would just be called "Debian" or "the Debian operating system". But because we have Debian, Fedora, Arch, Ubuntu, Gentoo, and so on, it became popular to refer to them as "Linux distros", a term without a corollary in proprietary software.
Does anyone have a clear answer on how much GNU is doing for the OS and how much Linux is? The pasta says GNU is a set of utilites and scripts, but what all is it?
>the same thread
>every reply word for word copied from the last
Someone please ban me from this hell hole, I don't like it any more.
The type of operating system is GNU. If you'd like to refer to a specific OS, you call it by its name.
Example: I run Debian 8 on my PC.
Linux is the kernel. XNU(or Darwin) is the kernel. NT is the kernel. If you're going by that logic, then you'd call it GNU. GNU is the OS, you mouth breathing bastard.
Fun fact: Linux used to be non-free software.
User interaction with the OS, which is very important for desktop operating systems. Linux kernel is mostly hardware interaction with the OS, like drivers.
Have you ever written a kernel?
Are X and the various DE/WMs actually part of GNU? Because for most desktop users, those are the main interface, not the coreutils and shell.
>just Linux 22 votes
>GNU/Linux 13 votes
Linux shills are cucking us so hard we believe in lies
An operating system is defined as a software that performs certain functions, not "sorta POSIX compatible". POSIX doesn't define what an OS is, it defines what functions an OS and a userland together must have to be POSIX complaint.
Linux and linux alone has checked literally all of the boxes for "operating system" for a while now, especially since you can boot it without a bootloader
GNU was, in the past, just the core userland, and actually handled the specifics of a lot of device management functions like ACPI and hot plugging because the daemons that handled them ultimately shelled everything out, so calling it a GNU OS made sense as it dipped its toes in OS territory, but now everything is done between the kernel and systemd daemons with logic-less config files. GNU is just a build dependency and a bunch of neat tools.
GNOME and gtk are technically GNU, but they suck shit and aren't mandatory for a running linux OS, even one with a GUI. You can definitely use X without gtk, a wm, or anything.
X is freedesktop.org's
Wayland is also freedesktop.org's
The TTY driver is pure linux
And your choice of getty is most likely independent of any organization
GNU has no role on a typical linux desktop outside of getting the ball rolling (GRUB) and making the ball in the first place (gcc+glibc)
itt: Sup Forums misses the point
you're supposed to say GNU/Linux to pay respects to our lord and saviour, dennis m. rossum
saying "linux" is pledging your allegiance to the devils at oracle
Did GNU seriously just write a shell, compiler and a C library? Is that all they did? Looks like it is just Linux.
Linux is just a kernel and drivers. GNU + Linux is basically the minimum you need to have a useable OS.
They also wrote a whole bunch of shit nobody fucking cares about that isn't essential to doing anything at all, or is surpassed by nongnu alternatives
Like emacs and gnutls
GNU is overkill for "the minimum". Busybox is the minimum, GNU is a step down from installing X.
If I wanted to run */Linux 100% GNU free, what would I havae to do?
Is it Autism/Aspergers or just Autism?
Run BSD with the Linux kernel.
...
Shouldn't you have said
>Is it Autism/Aspergers or just Aspergers
?
Anyone who has read Modern Operating Systems by Tanenbaum, who, unlike Stallman, is an actual fucking computer scientist knows the Operating System is called Linux.
>GNU is the OS, you mouth breathing bastard.
xfce is the OS
systemd is the OS
Whatever component is the OS
>But without GNU, Linux would be used significantly less.
No, without Linux, GNU would still be rotting away with the Hurd. Not only that but THE most used Linux variant is GNU-free. Stallman is just angry because his ego got hurt.
You fucking niggers GNU and Linux both depend on each other. The fact that you take a side on this is ridiculous.
I personally think Stallman shouldn't of abandoned the name Lignux
>GNU and Linux both depend on each other
No, they don't. You can run them independently and most of the people who use Linux actually do. It's called Android and is infinitely more successful than whatever Stallman has ever done.
should have*
It doesn't really matter what you call it unless you've created a distro and then needed to give it an official name.
And even then people wouldn't give a shit.
Without Linux, GNU would have been paired with a BSD kernel. They actually existed in 1991.
It is a strawman argument if you believe that Stallman's intent for GNU is for a big adoption rate. GNU exists for one reason and that reason is outlined in his GNU manifesto.
You're right about Android. Although OPs question was about GNU/Linux operating systems-- the hundreds of "Linux distros", not NSA/Android.
How you guys got to this point I am not going to check.
>infinitely more successful than whatever Stallman has ever done
But without Stallman, Linux may have still been under a less free license. And the fact that the GNU project existed in the early days gave Linus a reason to continue developing what was a hobby OS. Without the GNU project, Linux definitely wouldn't exist in the way it does today.
>hobby OS
I meant to say hobby kernel
STALLMAN autists just got BTFO!
GNU/Linux
next time you create a poll about " is a penis is male or female ? ", right? and we will all vote female
Are busybox based distro gun/linux?
>Nu-Sup Forums has no respect for Stallman
wow, I am shocked
>GNU/g/ sucking Stallman cock
Go die in a fire
Nope, it wasn't. It was about the operating system called Linux. Where did you get that it only included those who have GNU user land?
And without Linux, GNU would still be rotting away with the Hurd. And the fact that the Linux OS was created in the late days gave Stallman a reason to continue developing what was a dead project. Without Linux, GNU definitely wouldn't exist in the way it does today.
If we're just gonna go about making speculations and passing them as facts, we should really stop replying to each other.
I can't believe I got so many angry stallmanites just for saying Linux and GNU can work totally independent from each other. You guys seriously need to grow a thicker skin.
>That pic
Every fucking time
I don't have a reaction pic to this but it fucking gets me so mad yet so sad.
Without Linux, GNU would have been paired with BSD. BSD was actually there and ready to go in 1991.
What's so special about this?
It's Linux.
Sperging over GNU/Linux is exactly why this OS has a 2% desktop share and no one wants to be associated with it's sperg userbase.
Wrong. GNU is not a component, it's the whole set of application software and the system software needed to support it. GNU is the OS.
It's my literal kryptonite man, as a /fit/izen and /adv/isor, it's the only fucking thing that triggers me the fuck out.
>inb4 normalfag
Too bad I can't spoiler this shit, but at your own risk.
Well, this is a debate thread about it.
>Go die in a fire
The things you said would of actually convinced me more without that line
>totally could have happened to me
>left home at 20 (to another country)
might have dodged a bullet there
It's actually just Gentoo. Or whatever other distro you're using.
YES. RIP in peace Stallman, you autistic attention whore