I dont use linux

I dont use linux
I use arch linux

Other urls found in this thread:

wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/GNU_Project
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

no one says this

arch linux users do

the voices inside my head do
i win arguments against them all the time

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.

No, they don't.

You actually use both since Arch Linux is the operating system and Linux is the kernel

no we don't

GNU is the operating system for which Linux is a kernel. Arch Linux is one of the GNU/Linux distros.

I don't, and I've never seen anyone doing this.

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.

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?

If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this:

Be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux' huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don't be a nag.

Thanks for listening.

samefagging this hard

With three hours of delay? I'm , you retard.

I don't post
I shotpost

I've never said that

ah yes that thing I always hear everything say

That's true desu

>use wm
>have folder name desktop
kys

all distros are the same.

It's always the same song
>everyone calls the whole thing Linux but GNU is the operating system and Linux is just a teeny tiny little kernel that doesn't do anything important but we haven't been able to replace it after decades of trying
>why even bother to share credit by saying GNU/Linux, let's call it GNU because coreutils are that important
If you want to force people to stop saying Linux, at least use the most logical route and say "Linux plus GNU" so they can just add it to whatever they are already saying. Then explain that most Linux systems are using GNU but not all, so when they do use it it's good to mention it.

You fail to understand the Linux operating system.

Then explain it better

No, they don't.

You know it's fake, right? Linus never said that it's some reddit thing afaik

>Being this cucked
You can have a LINUX OS with zero (or near zero) gahnoo utils or libraries.

Kernel is a linux.
ArchLinux is a GNU/Linux.

>folder
kys

folder is visual represntation
directory is file system implementation

Should be called Arch GNU/Linux since Arch isn't a kernel fork, but a distribution of the GNU system and the kernel Linux.

>being this illiterate
I'm not even going to bother explaining it

>kys
kys

Debian GNU/Linux does not have this problem.

Arch actually likes GNU: wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/GNU_Project