It really is just Linux. Given the scope of work, it might be OK to call it RedHat/Linux since RedHat produces almost all of the big packages and programs that everyone else modifies, renames, and repackages.
But It's definitely NOT GNU/Linux since GNU is only a tiny portion of a modern Linux OS. FSF doesn't even fund programmers and just pays their executives huge salaries from all the donations.
Anyway, it's LINUX you fucking autists.
how the fuck do you boot your linux?
whit grub. and how's that relevant? are you shitposting to Sup Forums right now using a FSF-made & funded browser?
yeah, didn't think so.
Grub is a GNU project, that's probably what that guy was implying.
I just call it Linux, which is just shorthand for Linux-based systems.
it's true
while i agree with the rms message i think the gnu/linux meme is just that
there are plenty of equally integral components and choosing just one is silly and choosing all would be unwieldy, unless perhaps an encompassing acronym was adopted a la lgbtqa+ to describe linux systems in an all-inclusive manner
captcha: girls wood
who gives a shit? if grub were gone tomorrow, RedHat would write a replacement for it in a week and it would be better too.
ur a disgrace to the gnu/linux community
systemd-boot already exists
>efi
Enjoy your botnet.
GNU + RedHat + Linux
Hm... Without hardware this wouldn't work...
Add AMD/intel/other supported CPU + all hardware names to THE name
h-how would that be botnet?
...
Linux is only the kernel, why should I call my OS Linux when Linux is actually yet another program?
It's like calling my OS a bash distribution.
Who cares? Everybody's on KolibriOS now.
>cherrypicking a distribution that specifically has a low amount of gnu in it and calling it "the modern"
I'd just like to interject for moment. What you're refering 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!
>Ubuntu botnet has low percentage of gnu software.
>therefore this is true for non-terrible GNU/Linux distributions too.
Yea and it's a heaping pile of shit
It's FLOS for Freedesktop Linux OS
GNU is the operating system though, it would be like calling windows "NTkernel" or macOS "Darwin".
Your machine would fall apart without gnu or linux, but it wouldn't really without x11 or apache
> Your machine would fall apart without gnu or linux
False, you can use busybox on top of the kernel just fine without any GNU bloatware.
(You)
Oh, and you can use musl instead of glibc. See Alpine Linux for GNU-free base system. You don't even need gcc anymore, now that llvm/clang toolchain is feature-complete and produces better code.
>Linux is mostly Linux
Linux/Linux
my router doesn't run any GNU software, it runs Busybox
Feel free to "interject" examples from other distributions to demonstrate Ubuntu is not representative.
So basically it's just gcc and shit that should have been replaced by now, like gettext.