Fuck GNU/ thingy. It should be Linux/GNU

Fuck GNU/ thingy. It should be Linux/GNU.

Other urls found in this thread:

fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_isomers_of_hydrogen
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

It's just Linux.
No, Linux isn't just a kernel.
It's lkml, not lml

Learn to flip your images before posting you pleb.

>calling it GNU/ is politically correct
freetards blown the fuck out.

Learn to take a pic, you god damn neanderthal.

>phoneposting

wtf OP

Ok, NT/Windows
XNU/MacOS
/OpenBSD
It's just GNU, Linus is a faggot, i don't care
Also
>make one os component
>get all the credits

He made the most important os component.

People use Linux because of the kernel, and the vast amount of hardware it supports.
No one misses glibc, GNU coreutils, etc. when they switch to BSD.

It is right and proper to mention the principal contribution first. The GNU contribution to the system is not only bigger than Linux and prior to Linux, we actually started the whole activity.

In addition, “GNU/Linux” fits the fact that Linux is the lowest level of the system and GNU fills technically higher levels.

However, if you prefer to call the system “Linux/GNU”, that is a lot better than what people usually do, which is to omit GNU entirely and make it seem that the whole system is Linux.

I call all my programs OS/iDE/language/name

What we say is that you ought to give the system's principal developer a share of the credit. The principal developer is the GNU Project, and the system is basically GNU.

If you feel even more strongly about giving credit where it is due, you might feel that some secondary contributors also deserve credit in the system's name. If so, far be it from us to argue against it. If you feel that X11 deserves credit in the system's name, and you want to call the system GNU/X11/Linux, please do. If you feel that Perl simply cries out for mention, and you want to write GNU/Linux/Perl, go ahead.

Since a long name such as GNU/X11/Apache/Linux/TeX/Perl/Python/FreeCiv becomes absurd, at some point you will have to set a threshold and omit the names of the many other secondary contributions. There is no one obvious right place to set the threshold, so wherever you set it, we won't argue against it.

Different threshold levels would lead to different choices of name for the system. But one name that cannot result from concerns of fairness and giving credit, not for any possible threshold level, is “Linux”. It can't be fair to give all the credit to one secondary contribution (Linux) while omitting the principal contribution (GNU).

If you want people to call your system GNU then make your own kernel usable..

Also, GNU is a shitty name. You sound like an autistic retard when you say it.
Of course, GNUtards already sound like that anyway.

...

We would like credit for the GNU operating system no matter which kernel is used with it.

Making the GNU Hurd work well enough to compete with Linux would be a big job, and it's not clearly necessary. The only thing ethically wrong with Linux as a kernel is its inclusion of firmware “blobs”; the best fix for that problem is developing free replacement for the blobs. fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects

The problem to your logic is that assume people interested in Linux actually care about your shitty "movement". History happened the way it happened and somehow you managed to use Linux's momentum to get some popularity.
This was a mistake though, Linux itself was never about free software retardation. It always was about writing the best kernel that could be realistically written, in a cooperative environment where only quality matters. Bundling GNU with Linux is almost the same as trying to mix water and oil, GNU is all about politics and Linux just isn't.

>and it's not clearly necessary.
Insisting on your politically correct term for Linux is also clearly unnecessary.

Everything is about politics.

Linux is a kernel. Linux is the correct term for the kernel Linux. Nobody would argue about that. However, the combination of the GNU system and Linux is not Linux.

No, it is not.
See kernel.org, see lkml.org.

The kernel is called "Linux kernel" by everyone except autistic GNUtards that never contributed anything worthwhile to it.

I only use Alpine GNU/Linux

I only use Debian GNU/kFreeBSD.

"An operating system is the software that supports a computer's basic functions, such as scheduling tasks, executing applications, and controlling peripherals."

"An operating system (OS) is the program that, after being initially loaded into the computer by a boot program, manages all the other programs in a computer. The other programs are called applications or application programs."

"In a multitasking operating system where multiple programs can be running at the same time, the operating system determines which applications should run in what order and how much time should be allowed for each application before giving another application a turn.
It manages the sharing of internal memory among multiple applications.
It handles input and output to and from attached hardware devices, such as hard disks, printers, and dial-up ports.
It sends messages to each application or interactive user (or to a system operator) about the status of operation and any errors that may have occurred.
It can offload the management of what are called batch jobs (for example, printing) so that the initiating application is freed from this work.
On computers that can provide parallel processing, an operating system can manage how to divide the program so that it runs on more than one processor at a time."

Can you please enlighten us on how important GNU is in order to make Linux qualify as an operating system? It seems to me that you're just using a definition of OS that suits your narrative.

An operating system, as we use the term, means a collection of programs that are sufficient to use the computer to do a wide variety of jobs. A general purpose operating system, to be complete, ought to handle all the jobs that many users may want to do.

The kernel is one of the programs in an operating system—the program that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that are running. The kernel also takes care of starting and stopping other programs.

To confuse matters, some people use the term “operating system” to mean “kernel”. Both uses of the term go back many years. The use of “operating system” to mean “kernel” is found in a number of textbooks on system design, going back to the 80s. At the same time, in the 80s, the “Unix operating system” was understood to include all the system programs, and Berkeley's version of Unix included even games. Since we intended GNU to be a Unix-like operating system, we use the term “operating system” in the same way.

Most of the time when people speak of the “Linux operating system” they are using “operating system” in the same sense we use: they mean the whole collection of programs. If that's what you are referring to, please call it “GNU/Linux”. If you mean just the kernel, then “Linux” is the right name for it, but please say “kernel” also to avoid ambiguity about which body of software you mean.

If you prefer to use some other term such as “system distribution” for the entire collection of programs, instead of “operating system”, that's fine. Then you would talk about GNU/Linux system distributions.

ITS NOT WINDOWS ITS JUST NT
ITS NOT MACOS ITS JUST XNU
ITS NOT ANDROID ITS JUST LINUX

The virgin GNU and the Chad Linux

>being this new
Also
>RMS on google

...

People now use GNU/Linux unironically.
The meme went too far, it needs to stop

...

Why does that fat hairy gnoll need his shitty mind canon name in the spotlight so bad?
Just take solace in the fact that your work is what helped a huge movement.

See, you're just using a completely different definition. GNU isn't an operating system, it's a bunch of programs that compose an userland.

...

...

but it totally makes sense for any indo european language to call it gnu/linux even tho linux, the kernel, boots first. Like how the format of dates is dd/mm/yyyy. Indo european languages likes to think backwards

How about GRUB?

nuGRUB is a piece of shit

>GNU uname from GNU coreutils says it's GNU
big surprise

...

> OS says it's name
surprise!

Yeah, GNU without Linux is going pretty well. :^)

It should be just Linux because GNU is not mandatory.

>implying linux without an os goes well
Alpine: needs GNU replacements
Android/Linux: needs Android

*installs busybox instead of coreutils*
Wow, I just changed my OS!

The fact that there ARE drop-in replacements just further proves than GNU is not an OS.

Sadly people think Linux is a whole system and GNU wants to steal credit.

The GNU project started the GNU system. They called it 'GNU'. 'GNU/Linux' is a Linux-respecting request for equal mention, since Linux is used with the GNU system (just like Linux is used with Android). Why would a request for equal credit for a system you developed bad?

Realize that media teaches you to say 'Linux', to get you away from freedom. Think about who backs the Linux Foundation and the OSI. Protip: the companies don't develop free software.

> Parabola GNU/kFreeBSD
> Debian GNU/Hurd
Linux is just a kernel.
Parabola isn't Linux. Debian isn't Linux.

It's a fucking name.
Not the list of authors/founders.

It's not called Jobs OS or Gates OS.
Names are not about credit.

Well RMS isn't asking for Stallmanix.

It's not Linux or GNU/Linux, you absolute morons. It's just GNU, that's the name of the OS. Do you fags also say Android/Linux?

There is no system but GNU and Linux is one of it's kernels.

He pretty much is.

How many other important figures in GNU do you know?
None, because rms likes to take all the credit for himself even though he didn't touch any code for decades.

RMS is asking for GNU/Linux - equal credit. Unlike 'Linux' it's not an egoistic request.

...

It is.
"Linux" is a name that developed naturally for Linux kernel based systems. And is universally accepted.
To demand that everyone call it now in the awkward way that you like, with your project in the name, is very much an egoistical action.

If you want it to be just Linux, stop saying Android aswell. It contains the same amount of Linux: the kernel.

If GNU is called Linux, is Stallman the creator of Linux?

It's a distro.
I'm calling Debian GNU/Linux: Debian, I'm calling gentoo Linux: gentoo and I'm calling Android: Android.

This nigga gets it.

no, coreutils uname is correct

>make one os component

He made the most important and most irreplaceable os component.

Operating systems:
Android
Debian
Arch
etc
Not operating systems:
Linux
GNU
GNU/Linux
GNU/Linux/X
GNU/Linux/X/systemd/apt/GNOME
etc

Let's say you get an operating system from Microsoft, and they name it Windows, then it's called Windows.

But since you're using an open source, you can build your own software above other's software. Despite that, you may still name your software as your own creation, even if it includes their software. Now, let's say Canonical decided to add GNU and Linux on their own built system, and call it Ubuntu, then it's called Ubuntu.

Checked, but what it you have an OS called X and change one compinent? Is the new creation not X anymore?

Yes.

I'd prefer my stuff to compiled with llvm now, that significantly reduces the GNUness.

>be at normies
>Use linux because freedoms! No proprietary botnet!

>be at community
>Fuck gnu, linux isn't about freedom, proprietary software is fin

I feel trolled.

>what is HURD

HURD is garbage.

Because they never finished it because of shitnux

It's just people angry about interjections and forgetting what they actually support with their anti GNU shit. Don't bother.

IMHO the technical arguments should be secondary, since they don't change our lifes and the future of the system. The support does. When you say GNU/Linux you spread awareness about the origin of the system, our community and free software, while Linux spreads a differnt picture: Just for fun, proprietary software welcome, think less about freedom, privacy and free software.

When you don't protect what the community is about, you'll find the system just as jailed as Android.

yes and no...

As you can see with gcc and llvm, being first on something huge draws in lots of developer attention and creates the best product for a while. but as soon as someone really needs innovation, a unGNUed alternative quickly supasses it in many areas.

In the HURD case, Linux even reached a usable level before HURD.

>muh politics

>dare you to care about freedom

I like how you finally use "Linux" in the correct context.

I 100% agree with this stalman is just jealous that he doesn't get enough recognition to tries to push gnu into the name. I thought stalman was amazing and had a huge part in linux i watched the revolution os documentay and am under the impression he is just extremely entitled kek

>using the name of a kernel as or in the name of an OS

It's GNU, kids. Just plain GNU.

Short, simple, accurate, no BS. Just because it uses a separate kernel doesn't mean you have to shove its name into the OS name. Just refer to it if you need to specify that you do use the Linux kernel, otherwise it's very safe to assume that if you use GNU, that's what you fucking use.

GNU.

Use it.

Since X is just a branding of the "base" you are changing, you can freely modify X as you want, and it's still X. But if you release it, I think you can't name it as X since people might think its the same as original X and X's developers might get angry, so you can should name it as Y, Y/X, Y+X, or even Y plus X.
But let's say you make a distro called AB with software from C, but C's developers got upset and said "we want it to be called A B/C". I think that's bad, but not wrong. A's developers still must have a choice into whatever they call.

An easier way to explain is why is it "corn cereal", and not "corn milk/cereal". Corn is mentioned because it distinguishes it as if it is a corn, rice, or etc. And cereal because its a cereal, not oats or something else. But in the end, its still called by its brand.

I feel like you read what you want to read from my response.

Because Linux is monolithic, an easy (but outdated) kernel design, while Hurd/Mach follows the microkernel desigb, which is much more difficult to develop.
Now, since Linux was GPL'd and the goal of GNU was a free system, there was no reason anymore to develop it. GNU and Linux was combined and Hurd development stopped. That's why Hurd still isn't ready.

>watched revolution os
>still dumb
Oh boy

"Linux kernel" is the name of the kernel.

>get methane
>replace hydrogen with chlorine
>is it still methane?

>get methane
>change some electrons
>is it still methane? :^)

And?

You don't name an OS after a kernel.

The name of the OS is "GNU".

You can't argue this. It's fact.

>get windows
>install bonzy buddy
>is it still windows?

>You don't name an OS after a kernel.
Says who?

If you redistribute it, might as well call it bonzi buddy edition.

Windows/BonzyBuddy, out of respect to Bonzy Buddy.

Common sense and logic.

Oh wait, I'm on Sup Forums, there's none of that here.

Or just Windows.

/thread

There are a lot more reasons why not to develop a microkernel.

for example, if drivers don't have to be in-tree, there is no reason for hardware developers to make them open source.

another reasons is, that all the fine tuned interdependent permissions of features that are part of the linux kernel need to be done outside the kernel and that would effectively open up more security bugs, because project maintainers from different projects would not interact as careful as with the linux kernel.

microkernels are only interesting from a academic point of view, but developers and end users should never choose it.

Look up what common sense means please

Actually, yes you do.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_isomers_of_hydrogen

You need to stop!

Make me you fat useless fuck

Linux is house, with roof, with foundation, with walls.
GNU is electrical wiring and plumbing.
You don't call your home a toilet, right? So, don't call Linux GNU/Linux.

Linux is just a foundation.

Take your own advice. An OS (GNU) is not a kernel (Linux). This is indisputable. Period. End of fucking argument.

Fucking dumb children.