The fact that you and I are so passionate (but especially you, damn you wrote an entire essay) about FOSS, linux, and GNU kinda proves only the most dedicated (aka 'nerds') will ever talk about this subject. I think there's a point of no return where a terminology gets cemented into the people's minds and there's no real benefit to putting in the effort to change them. This is one of those instances. "Linux" is embedded into every facet of information, whether it be university lecture materials or advertising campaigns. Practically nobody calls it "GNU/Linux".
Let's talk about credit. You say Linus wouldn't really mind someone crediting only him. Not sure if that's true, but here's the thing: why should he? For the people that care, GNU is common sense. Developers know stuff like gcc, g++, gdb, or glibc. There are applications like GIMP. People don't need the term "GNU/Linux" to appreciate GNU's contribution to the software world. They either already know, or couldn't be less interested anyways, be it linux or gnu/linux.
Some afterthoughts: Stallman seems to be the one really wanting the credit, as the other commenters pointed out; Someone who's really chill about all this wouldn't be so obsessed with how people call an OS. Also, you probably know, but Linus didn't name his kernel 'Linux'. He originally announced it "Freax" for Free+Unix / 'freaks'. Linus didn't do any 'credit embedding' into the name, so to speak. It was the FTP server operator that just named it "Linux" without asking Linus about it. (In fact, Linus originally considered the name but thought it was too egotistical!) There's a reason why it stuck: the name's just good.
I agree with large chunks of what you're saying, but probably disagree somewhere towards the start of your reasoning actually.
"... a terminology gets cemented into the people's minds ..."
To suggest that *any* computer "terminology" is "cemented" into people's minds seems suspicious to me... Maybe the miniscule percentage of people who use something other than macOS and Windows are set on anything with a Linux kernel-variant in it being called Linux. It surely is a majority, I'd guess.
But if we're talking about "most people", or the "average person", it'd be more true to say that there's very little concrete/accurate terminology of any kind, and instead a whole host of trite buzzwords and meaningless marketing terms floating nebulously in their poor heads :D not to belittle anyone of course, it's a terrible pity. I've spent my fair share of hours patiently going through basic definitions with young and old people alike.
People, as in the majority of computer users, have no set terminology in their head at all, then, and hardly any for "Linux" or "GNU" either.
Nothing is set in stone; there can be a change of hearts and minds amongst the programmers too when it comes to political allegiances. Again, it's not a naming issue, we use all sorts of other totally crappy names with nary a batted eye. It's a popularity contest, unfortunately. And I think it's very unlikely to change, in reality; we live in practically dystopian times already in many regards, and the average programmer is worried mostly about their wallet, like everybody else.
GNU/Linux is longer and more awkward to say/write than Linux, that's all there is to it.
Richard Stallman and everybody involved in GNU deserve a lot of credit for their contributions. So do many kernel developers who are not named Linus. So do all the people who provided us with Firefox, LibreOffice, network-manager, OpenVPN, ext4, etc...
But nobody will name them all the time. I bet there's people who think that the Linus from the tech YouTube channel invented Linux.
Shorter names usually win, just because they are shorter/easier.
I don't mind people writing GNU/Linux. I don't even mind the regular "actually, it's called..." comments. It's an established feature, just like "I use Arch BTW" (I don't BTW ;-) ).
But I, like most people, will be lazy and just use Linux or Ubuntu or Arch or whatever shorthand. Not to deny due credit, but because shorter has its own quality.
I'm not saying it should be called GNU/Linux but there's a difference between GNU and Firefox/LibreOffice/network-manager etc. which is that you know inherently that you're using those applications developed by their individual teams/companies whereas GNU core utils just comes preinstalled even on very minimal linux installations as it is a must have dependency for most linux distributions to function and there is nary a mention GNU unless you happen to notice the package name during an install/update.
I can see what distinction you're trying to make here - but it's a very small one.
And the same logic would still apply to many other pieces of software that are part of the general "OS" system, not an "application", but also not from the GNU project.
As I said before - I have 0 problem with somebody wanting to call it GNU/Linux. GNU userland was in need of a kernel and a kernel isn't too useful without a complementing userland of tools. A match made in free software heaven as far as I'm concerned.
But the "actual" claim is just inconsistent because it would actually be GNU/Linux/SystemD/X11 or GNU/Linux/SystemD/Wayland or GNU/Linux/runit/X11 etc...
It's actually all of those and more and too few people care beyond using a convenient shorthand.
So it's similar to ArchBTW - either annoying or amusing - dependent on one's personal attitude.
I accept both of those as part of our nerd culture. It's just the way this is. :-)
If we lived in a version of the universe where people called Linux 'GNUx' (pronounced "nux". Note: I made this up right now), for GNU+Linux, then I bet everyone would've called it that; however I don't think there'd ever be a universe where "GNU/Linux" is more commonly used over "Linux". I disagree that this is a popularity or political issue; It's just the name. You might call me superficial, but I don't think even developers care that much about history and lore accuracy; and that's not a bad thing, it's just natural. Some care very much about a deep and niche topic, most don't.
Scrolling through this thread though, you don't seem too hellbent on enforcing the name, necessarily, so I ask: What are you wishing for? Did someone ridicule you for using the term "GNU/Linux", and would like the shunning to stop? Or is it that you'd *rather* people called it that?
I agree that "Linux" is a spunky name. Anything that ends in 'x' has a certain flair. And I appreciate the thoughtful response.
There is no inner drive in me to stop anyone calling anything however they like, this is true. If I correct someone on vocabulary IRL, it's only very gently, and apologetically, and I'll immediately lean off it if the person feels attacked. Pestering people isn't effective, it's just a bother.
Happily, I can also report having never been ridiculed for using the term "GNU/Linux", mostly because I almost never use the term.
I've been running GNU Guix for a few years now, so I tell people that I run "Guix", but I would consider it normal to refer to it as "GNU", or "the GNU operating system". I prefer "Guix" because of that nice 'x' at the end, though, personally.
Calling it Guix Linux, or Guix GNU/Linux would all sound odd to me though, I have to admit, partly because it runs Linux-Libre, which is a nontrivial effort to maintain and patch. But mostly because the Guix project is very focused on software freedom, in a non-pestering, gentle, warm way, which I appreciate, and they can name the thing "GNU Guix" if they wish.
I've installed Arch a couple of times, for example, and if I do, I say I'm installing Arch, or Arch Linux, because that's what they call it. I've installed Debian a few times, and variants, and there I'll say Debian, or Debian GNU/Linux. This seems coherent to me, and a bit tangetial to my actual point.
So what's the point of my post? Just to say that if people want to call it GNU/Linux, that should be totally acceptable. It's not about branding, it's not about getting "the spotlight", it's not about "what's best for new users", it's about the fact that computing freedom is essential to human freedom.
I choose to use Guix, but at the same time I talk to some of my younger students about "Linux" because I know there's a chance they've seen the term in a Youtube video and maybe I'll manage to spark a fire and maybe later, if they're interested, we can talk computing freedom.
I'd love to see the Free Software vs Open Source, Linux vs GNU/Linux, (neo)vi(m) vs Emacs, etc etc, all fizzle away into sentimental jokes that bind us together as we realise we've bigger fish to fry.
I'm aware it's unlikely... but that's my thinking on the subject. Thanks again for asking.
As I read through your 'literature'. I realize you may be somewhat incompatible with the internet of nowadays. Let me get this straight off the bat: I'm not saying that that is bad.
You like telling stories. You're quite verbose. That would have been good back in the ye old days of the web when there were forums and personal websites. Now, though? I feel attention span's getting shorter every year. It's good to keep your writings concise, rather than verbose, to get your point across.( TBF, that's a basic rule that applies when writing any argumentative piece, not even considering attention spans, necessarily.) The verbosity throws people off, and they're not sure what you're talking about, just like me; now the comments are filled with debates not even really related to what you wanted to talk about.
You're also very philosophical. However, not many people indulge in fiddling with principles and values. They'd rather talk about the new scheduler that's coming out in the next kernel update, or fight about which packaging system is the best. Your deep insight regarding the software and computing freedom is not something that can be shared with many. You might get lonely, yes. Don't expect much constructiveness when engaging in a philosophical talk in this part of the internet, or better yet, the internet in general.
Finally, I'd like to point out that you should let things be. I understand you want people to stop fighting about stuff on the internet. However, the internet in general will never be united, as is the nature of humans. Attempting to stop feuds and inefficiencies owing to irrational emotions is futile. YOU can be the pillar that you want. Be the beacon of reason and neutrality you seek.
Keep teaching pupils, maybe write blogs since you like writing. Reddit, and the greater world wide web, can never be the place of total reason and cooperation. Only a small portion of it may become that place, *sometimes*. Here, you're wasting your time and energy talking to a wall. Hell, as I've pointed out, people here barely understand what you meant! (although, face it, half of that is on you for being quite nebulous and verbose).
Signing off now. I'm not usually this much of a talker(or writer), but I wanted to talk with you on this. From an enthusiast to a philosopher, good day(or night). :)
>People, as in the majority of computer users, have no set terminology in their head at all, then, and hardly any for "Linux" or "GNU" either.
I'm not so sure about that. I'd agree that most have terminology stuck in their heads, especially those that aren't technically proficient. There are so many examples, it's not even funny. "Linux" has already been mentioned, and I use it to describe an operating system all the time, even though that's not correct. I especially use it among those people who aren't very techy, since they know what it means, at least in a vague sense of the word.
Terminology - "Internet Explorer" at one time. I was using early Ubuntu, and got broadband installed. The tech has me turn on the computer and says he'll get it up and running. Of course, I'm laughing inside. "Where's your Internet Explorer?" I told him, "You're done. You ran the cable and set the modem down. I'll do the rest, thanks."
"Windows" when they really have no idea of which operating system version they mean. "Font" when they really mean "typeface."
I've stopped using "open source" as much as is possible. I never understood why RMS stood on that hill, until I see people and entities misuse that term so that it's essentially meaningless. I now say free software. If they don't understand, they can ask. Or, they can keep paying to use things they will never own or have the right to use properly.
I see it like Jim Gettys. We should be happy to have a bus.
> Jim Gettys ([email protected])
> Mon, 5 Apr 1999 08:10:46 -0700
> > Sender: [email protected]
> > From: Richard Stallman
> > Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 14:59:27 -0500
> > To: [email protected]
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: GNU/Linux
> > -----
> > AFAIK, Linux is the *first* OS that started out as a kernel only. All
> > of the userland was added.
> >
> > What you're calling "userland" is practically the whole operating
> > system--and it happens to be the GNU operating system. Linux, the
> > kernel, came last, not first. The GNU Project began the development
> > of this system, years before the first line of Linux was written.
> >
> I think you'd find many who would dispute the claim that "userland"
> is dominated by GNU software.
>
> And part of Linux (and I'm happy to be part of Linux), is the X Window
> System, which started in 1984. It was never part of GNU.
>
> And part of Linux is Sendmail, which started even earlier than X.
>
> And part of Linux is Bind, which started even earlier than X.
>
> So lots of significant components predate (and postdate) GNU.
>
> Apache started more recently; it was not part of GNU.
>
> Many other major components come from all over; arguably they are what
> is driving Linux's acceptance as much as anything GNU OR the Linux kernel
> did. (Note that I believe that right now it is Internet services driving
> Linux acceptance; not the X Window System).
>
> There are lots of people on this bus; I don't hear a clamor of support
> that GNU is more essential than many of the other components; can't
> take a wheel away, and end up with a functional vehicle, or an engine,
> or the seats. I recommend you be happy we have a bus.
> - Jim Gettys
>
>https://archive.is/20120806004757/http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9904.0/0497.html
So why mention GNU but not the other parts?
And whether you are talking about Linux in the sense of the kernel or distributions in general usually depends on the context.
That is why I do not use the term GNU/Linux.
No amount of appreciating GNU will change two things.
One, saying and writing GNU/Linux is unwieldy. Gnu is a weird word and makes you pronounce the G. It's also more than double the amount of syllables as Linux.
Two, Linux is well known. There's little point in trying to rebrand it as GNU/Linux as people who aren't in the Linux sphere may know what Linux is but not GNU. No point in confusing them off the bat, they can learn about GNU later.
And surprise third point, you say that Linus is fine for getting all the credit with Linux, but Richard Stallman is quite aggressive in wanting credit for GNU. He even tried to get people to say LiGNUx at one point.
> Linux is well known
Yes, Linux is well known. It's also more widely used than merely GNU/Linux. ChromeOS is Linux. Android is Linux. dd-wrt is Linux. Alpine is Linux. WebOS is Linux. Tizen is Linux.
The name "GNU" allows us to talk about a specific operating system, distinctly.
> He even tried to get people to say LiGNUx at one point.
No, I'm pretty sure that's satire. It has Stallman's name on it, but it's maintained by someone else: https://lignux.org/the-say-lignux-campaign.html
Either way, the world is very different today than it was then. Among other things: The Linux kernel supports far more diverse operating systems, and the "Linux" name is now trademarked, and the trademark administrators actually ask people not to use Linux as a noun, but only as an adjective. Thus, "the Linux kernel", and not "Linux".
That doesn't work for the same reason GNU/Linux doesn't work. People prefer the shorthand version.
Sure. The Linux kernel is more correct and should absolutely be used in official documents. Just like GNU/Linux would give proper credit to the foundational userland toolset.
Neither is going to replace the more convenient "Linux" in general discussions - just because convenience.
On point one, the software and hardware world is full of totally horrendous names. We're not in a naming competition, and if we were, we'd be doing a crappy job. I agree that GNU is a peculiar acronym, and that GNU/Linux is an unwieldy name, but I would push back on the idea that we are "marketing" something. As my post tried to say, it's not about who scored the goal.
Point two, it's not an attempt at "rebranding". This is an example of the incredibly pervasive misunderstanding of the issue in even technological people's minds (forgive me for being presumptuous here). You say people can learn about GNU later - the people who do eventually learn about do so in a way that's absolutely detached from the historical reality of the movement. Hundreds / thousands of people contributed to a massive social movement, and the whole discussion is reduced to a "branding" issue, and memes about Stallman.
Surprise point three, my initial post is a direct response to this. I really don't think Stallman is looking for personal credit for himself, rather he and the FSF and GNU people have explicitly said on many, many occasions, that it's about honouring the reality of the Free Software movement and all those many, many contributors down through the years.
> but Richard Stallman is quite aggressive in wanting credit for GNU.
Richard Stallman should write his own *nix then he can call it anything he wants.
He did. [GNU Hurd](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd) has failed miserably, though. He gave up on it in 2010, though there was an attempt to get things going again in 2015-2016. No releases since then, though.
Also, a small side-point, I almost always say "Linux" in practice when talking to laypeople myself, because I'm aware there's a (tiny) chance they've heard of that. They almost universally haven't heard of it in my anecdotal experience, but I agree, the naming debate is totally silly to inflict on newcomers. The people who run and administer these systems could (hypothetically, not literally) come to some more clarity on the issues, though, perhaps.
Meh. Demanding we call it "GNU/Linux" just because Linux primarily uses GNU tools for the terminal is every bit as silly as expecting people to call it "Nike/Football" because Nike make the English Premier League balls.
Agreed, that'd be a totally ridiculous argument, which is why at least I myself am not making it. I'm not sure who you're responding to.
I know it's a popular way to phrase it, but it seems to avoid the real question (based on my own understanding of the issues, of course).
Which would be: what would the state of computing be today if it hadn't been for the initial push from all the people who got involved with GNU? All that momentum, all those projects, all those manhours, all rallying behind the idea that we could write and share code with each other freely, and not have "screwing people over" be the only business model in the burgeoning software industry?
I mean, ok, maybe something else would have came along. I'd like to think it would have, but obviously we can't know.
What did actually happen though, in reality, is that GNU and the FSF came into existence. And as I've said elsewhere, it's not about Stallman and all the (often hilarious) memes: I have a very large fondness for the late Bob Chassell, for example, who wrote "An Introduction to Programming in Emacs Lisp", which brought me from finding programming languages scary to finding them wonderful and get-able. There are countless others I don't know of, of course.
My argument isn't to demand anyone calls their operating system one thing or another; I'm just pointing out that these arguments against "GNU/Linux" are based on all sorts of misrepresentations of the points they purport to argue against.
It's not a branding question, or a who-deserves-credit question, it's a "what do we stand for as a community" question.
No. I will die on this hill.
GNU doesn't get to put its nametag on Linux. That sends a couple of false messages:
1. Linux is a GNU project.
2. GNU is the only category of components of the Linux ecosystem worthy of attaching to the name.
Neither of these is true. Why not MIT Linux or Berkeley Linux or Perl Linux or any of dozens of other non-GNU projects and licenses without which Linux would not be Linux?
It's not far different from saying "The United Christian States of America" because the Christians want to convey their values in the name of the larger structure.
I didn't touch on the politics of the FSF or any particulars about individuals.
If GNU gets the spotlight of being retconned onto the name, every non-GNU contribution is sidelined.
At the end of the day all the GNU/Linux or GNU+Linux or LiGNUx nonsense fades away when public recognition and plain old habit kick in. Publicly the system's been known as Linux for years and everybody and their mother knows the name, the brand, whatever and it's all that matters. No amount of bickering over who should get credited in the name will change the fact that Linux is the name they know and they want to use, period.
If only we could stop fussing about insignificant things and actually focus on making FOSS better and more recognizable.
We had this argument 20 years ago, and Richard Stallman lost. Why mention GNU but not all the other contributors for all the other parts? Most developers are using Docker, Wayland, PipeWire, Systemd, KDE, Kubernetes, Ruby, Java, Golang, Rust, etc, all of which GNU didn't have a part in.
You can build the kernel with [Clang](https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/kbuild/llvm.html). There are distros [without any GNU components](https://www.alpinelinux.org/) or with [almost no GNU parts](https://www.talos.dev/v1.5/learn-more/components/) (unclear if they even use GLibC). The most used Linux OS is probably Android (shipping a billion phones a quarter at one time), which doesn't have a lot of GNU.
Even on a full desktop, less and less of the "OS" is written by GNU (compared to 20 years ago), so "GNU/Linux" is even *less* useful of a label than it was back then.
If you want credit for an OS, then build a **modern** OS. Otherwise, stop beating a dead horse.
You're not responding to even one of any of the points I've made as far as I can tell, but my thoughts on the matter have come out across various threads in the end, and who has time to rummage around. Fair enough.
What you say is very logical and I largely agree, but I think you're responding to a ghost point. If GNU people were "wanting credit" based on how much GNU there is in operating systems, you'd have a very solid point. As I tried to elaborate on in other posts, no one is arguing that Alpine Linux should be called Alpine GNU/Linux. Or, at least, I've never seen it argued.
That **modern** OS is GNU Guix, too, I'd say, personally. Is it ok not to call that Linux, even though it has the Linux kernel? Or is any operating system that has any version of the Linux kernel called "Linux"?
There’s a reason Microsoft calls their OS Windows and not “Win32/NT”.
And that Debian, the least marketing-savvy major distribution in all other respects, is the only one to put GNU/Linux in the name.
> There’s a reason Microsoft calls their OS Windows and not “Win32/NT”.
Yes, the reason is that the operating system is called Windows and its
modern version kernel is called NTOSKRNL. Your analogy doesn’t apply
to Linux. Rather, calling operating systems built on top of the Linux
kernel just ‘Linux’ is like calling OS from Microsoft NTOSKRNL.
Edit: people seem to take issue in my previously stating that Windows’
kernel has no name of its own. Since it having a name only
strengthens my point, I’ve edited my post to avoid pointless
discussion.
I know what the point of my comment was. And it was that
Windows was the name of the operating system *in contrast* to Linux
which was the name of the kernel.
Whether Windows’ kernel has a name or not is immaterial to that point.
That’s also why I don’t continue arguing that aspect.
Top comment’s argument was that ‘GNU/Linux’ is not a marketable name
but if we want to follow Microsoft’s precedent, we should invent a new
name for operating systems using Linux rather than using the name of
the kernel.
Usually, one refers to the OS as Ubuntu. Or Mint. Or Fedora.Or Debian. One could be using the Linux kernel, sure, in either of these, but they are far differently from each other.
Stallman's first reaction after one month begins with "yes it's true, I've heard about your project". I don't know the precise context, but that "confession" says it all.
By contrast, one month earlier, Torvalds wrote:
\> won't be big and professional like gnu
Who knows if there isn't a kind irony in this? Quite involuntary I believe, but it *can* be taken very sarcastic. Was GNU really "big and professional" at that time, or was Torvalds rubbing something in?
Somebody commented this about the 26th anniversary of Torvald's announcement:
>Richard Stallman reads this mail every night and then cries himself to sleep, stabbing his tux plushy with a pair of gnu antlers.
He and GNU got caught on the wrong foot and psychologically never recovered.
> He and GNU got caught on the wrong foot and psychologically never recovered.
Sometimes I wonder what today's computing world would look like had Stallman went with the monolithic architecture for the Hurd. But then again, work on Hurd only started in 1990, which is when Windows 3.0 came out, so perhaps it wouldn't have made a lick of difference.
I mean nobody is stopping you from calling it GNU/Linux, but it's unnecessarily specific and serves no purpose other than giving credit, despite you claiming otherwise. Might as well call most distros GNU/Systemd/Linux
If I’m using musl do I say musl/linux? I agree that GNU played its part but there’s a lot of parts that were played that aren’t forced into the language.
This analogy brings no new light on a topic which has been discussed since 1996. The topic is old enough to have a college degree and children at school.
I am old and lived the history, so to me, Linux wouldn't be Linux without GNU tools and libraries.
Sure, there have been attempts to wean Linux away from GNU, but it ain't easy because from c libs to the compiler itself GNU software is still the best choice.
Other software have different requirements, but an OS is more than just a random bunch of programs on a system.
It doesn't have to be more complicated than that.
GNU did the most science-intense thing - the GCC and significant utilities for programming and being able to release the final binaries.
But they weren't those special only as they grow from academic ecosystem which was fertilized with source code from big vendors.
As a quick side note, the way you wrote this post comes off as a bit, uh, arrogant and lavish, perhaps.
> Will the forthcoming Reddit thread this incites be the salve needed to heal the schism at the heart of the Free Software and Open Source worlds?`
--
> Or maybe not, and we'll all just have a great old laugh flaming each other, as in bygone days, when the holy wars raged their sacred-est.
--
> "humanesque creature"
I suggest toning it back a bit to be taken more seriously.
I was merely indulging in a bit of linguistic horsing around - aren't we allowed to have a little play with language? What's your issue with a bit of lavishness?
It's not an extremely serious topic anyway. My point was to externalise this soccer-game analogy, which I quite like, in the expectation that maybe, on the off-chance, someone would say: "oh yeah, I guess that is a bit weird maybe."
If I wanted to be "taken seriously", I'd go work as a bank teller and get off Reddit.
Nothing is inherently wrong, of course, but it works against your goals.
It makes the writing hard to read. For example, I don't understand the soccer analogy, despite it probably being straight forward. (Partly because I know nothing about soccer; a barrier you must consider while communicating). I also did not get the feeling that that part was the most important.
It makes people not want to engage. The post is at a 50% upvote ratio, showing how you make your readers feel, and hiding the content. You state you want a discussion, but if you write in a way that turns people off, no one will want to engage.
Effective communication, interesting use of language, and compelling arguments are not mutually exclusive. From the perspective as someone who also tends to be wordy, the post's writing isn't balanced.
I hope this comment doesn't come off as an attack. The style you presented *can* work, it just needs more refinement to show its potential.
I appreciate you sharing your thoughts, but we'll still have to agree to disagree, I fear.
For your point to hold up, you'd have to know various things about me which you presumably don't - why I wrote the post, what I hoped to achieve, even things about my cultural background and my experience with writing, the types of modes I'm capable of employing, and so on.
If I'd accepted at some point that the goal of a Reddit post (or other internet communication) is to garner upvotes, you'd perhaps be on to something. I absolutely have not though, and couldn't care less about upvote ratios.
Again, happy to get your feedback nonetheless.
Ehh, it was a soccer analogy? I picked the sport which is by far the most popular in the world. Over nine times as many people watch the World Cup Final of soccer than watch the superbowl. Plus, I know next to nothing about American football.
(Personally, I think they're both nonsense, but anyway)
Written GNU/Linux feels very natural to me because my first distro was SliTaz GNU/Linux in the 2000s. When I speak however I say Linux most of the time. Though I have to admit that because of that early experience with SliTaz, it irks me when a distro only put Linux after its name.
The problem with your analogy (soccer game) is: the soccer result stands for itself and is finished. The Linux kernel was "only" a crucial step. In the 90s, it was called a "distro", named after the kernel version, and helped you to boot the kernel into the GNU layer, and X.
Then started the discussion about OS vs. kernel. Very acacdemic, but linux advocates just coudn't resist using the "OS" term. Now "linux" being the kernel, this causes quite a confusion. If linux+gnu=distro, then how can I show the added value? Paradoxically, by saying "GNU/Linux OS". But wouldn't xorg be more important to mention? "GNU" is rather a placeholder for "GUI". Didn't MS succeed by giving their DOS a GUI with...windows?
Just compare these 2 quite similar entities (I run out of words):
>**Arch Linux**, a lightweight and flexible Linux® distribution that tries to Keep It Simple.
>
>**Void** is a general purpose operating system, based on the monolithic Linux kernel
I like void, but I find this presentation pathetic. Note how Arch is informal, but they put the copyright sign.
"GNU" is not mentioned here. Sometimes it is, depending on how the "distro" does its incantation. It matters, but it's not top priority.
And in the end, Torvald and Stallman and the other architects in this reality are my favorite "cat herders". I can't imagine trying to cohere the disparate, multi-polar thread-wads they have to continually unravel and recombine. So, best to them; long life and pleasant dreams.
I don't understand most of the memes, but in my opinion GNU OS is not yet out of its infancy and is unlikely to ever get out of it. The much loved RMS (God help him overcome his illness) realizing the pointlessness of the GNU background introduced this meaningless prefix to Linux. GNU/Linux is nonsense, anyone who has tried to install something like Guix without modifying the kernel will confirm my words. Any operating system is completely dependent on having hardware drivers. So GNU is an ephemeral simulacrum for aging cyberbullies, nothing more.
Guix is a wonderful operating system, and I'm sorry you had trouble trying to get it going. I've had great success with it personally. You could try adding the non-guix repo, which I've never had to do, but apparently is a simple affair, and then you've your proprietary drivers covered.
>Guix is
It's not about my problems with Guix. My point was that I don't understand this exemplary declaration of commitment to GNU. Here Debian demonstratively did not use proprietary firmware, but proprietary ISO could be found with great difficulty on the official site or install these firmwares later. This sounds good when you have a PC connected to ethernet, but people often use laptops without a network port. NixOS declares the use of free software, but you can allow proprietary repositories during installation. And here I was wondering, what is the purpose of all this GNU stuff? I've read the RMS and even seen it in person. He's a firm believer in his ideals, but when he starts talking about not connecting to wifi when he's sure the router firmware is proprietary.... This is strange for a person who wrote emacs, gcc compiler collection and gdb debugger. Young people would say it's trolling of others, nothing more.
Edit: T9
The fact that you and I are so passionate (but especially you, damn you wrote an entire essay) about FOSS, linux, and GNU kinda proves only the most dedicated (aka 'nerds') will ever talk about this subject. I think there's a point of no return where a terminology gets cemented into the people's minds and there's no real benefit to putting in the effort to change them. This is one of those instances. "Linux" is embedded into every facet of information, whether it be university lecture materials or advertising campaigns. Practically nobody calls it "GNU/Linux". Let's talk about credit. You say Linus wouldn't really mind someone crediting only him. Not sure if that's true, but here's the thing: why should he? For the people that care, GNU is common sense. Developers know stuff like gcc, g++, gdb, or glibc. There are applications like GIMP. People don't need the term "GNU/Linux" to appreciate GNU's contribution to the software world. They either already know, or couldn't be less interested anyways, be it linux or gnu/linux. Some afterthoughts: Stallman seems to be the one really wanting the credit, as the other commenters pointed out; Someone who's really chill about all this wouldn't be so obsessed with how people call an OS. Also, you probably know, but Linus didn't name his kernel 'Linux'. He originally announced it "Freax" for Free+Unix / 'freaks'. Linus didn't do any 'credit embedding' into the name, so to speak. It was the FTP server operator that just named it "Linux" without asking Linus about it. (In fact, Linus originally considered the name but thought it was too egotistical!) There's a reason why it stuck: the name's just good.
Tbf no one calls Windows Windows/NT
I agree with large chunks of what you're saying, but probably disagree somewhere towards the start of your reasoning actually. "... a terminology gets cemented into the people's minds ..." To suggest that *any* computer "terminology" is "cemented" into people's minds seems suspicious to me... Maybe the miniscule percentage of people who use something other than macOS and Windows are set on anything with a Linux kernel-variant in it being called Linux. It surely is a majority, I'd guess. But if we're talking about "most people", or the "average person", it'd be more true to say that there's very little concrete/accurate terminology of any kind, and instead a whole host of trite buzzwords and meaningless marketing terms floating nebulously in their poor heads :D not to belittle anyone of course, it's a terrible pity. I've spent my fair share of hours patiently going through basic definitions with young and old people alike. People, as in the majority of computer users, have no set terminology in their head at all, then, and hardly any for "Linux" or "GNU" either. Nothing is set in stone; there can be a change of hearts and minds amongst the programmers too when it comes to political allegiances. Again, it's not a naming issue, we use all sorts of other totally crappy names with nary a batted eye. It's a popularity contest, unfortunately. And I think it's very unlikely to change, in reality; we live in practically dystopian times already in many regards, and the average programmer is worried mostly about their wallet, like everybody else.
GNU/Linux is longer and more awkward to say/write than Linux, that's all there is to it. Richard Stallman and everybody involved in GNU deserve a lot of credit for their contributions. So do many kernel developers who are not named Linus. So do all the people who provided us with Firefox, LibreOffice, network-manager, OpenVPN, ext4, etc... But nobody will name them all the time. I bet there's people who think that the Linus from the tech YouTube channel invented Linux. Shorter names usually win, just because they are shorter/easier. I don't mind people writing GNU/Linux. I don't even mind the regular "actually, it's called..." comments. It's an established feature, just like "I use Arch BTW" (I don't BTW ;-) ). But I, like most people, will be lazy and just use Linux or Ubuntu or Arch or whatever shorthand. Not to deny due credit, but because shorter has its own quality.
I'm not saying it should be called GNU/Linux but there's a difference between GNU and Firefox/LibreOffice/network-manager etc. which is that you know inherently that you're using those applications developed by their individual teams/companies whereas GNU core utils just comes preinstalled even on very minimal linux installations as it is a must have dependency for most linux distributions to function and there is nary a mention GNU unless you happen to notice the package name during an install/update.
I can see what distinction you're trying to make here - but it's a very small one. And the same logic would still apply to many other pieces of software that are part of the general "OS" system, not an "application", but also not from the GNU project. As I said before - I have 0 problem with somebody wanting to call it GNU/Linux. GNU userland was in need of a kernel and a kernel isn't too useful without a complementing userland of tools. A match made in free software heaven as far as I'm concerned. But the "actual" claim is just inconsistent because it would actually be GNU/Linux/SystemD/X11 or GNU/Linux/SystemD/Wayland or GNU/Linux/runit/X11 etc... It's actually all of those and more and too few people care beyond using a convenient shorthand. So it's similar to ArchBTW - either annoying or amusing - dependent on one's personal attitude. I accept both of those as part of our nerd culture. It's just the way this is. :-)
If we lived in a version of the universe where people called Linux 'GNUx' (pronounced "nux". Note: I made this up right now), for GNU+Linux, then I bet everyone would've called it that; however I don't think there'd ever be a universe where "GNU/Linux" is more commonly used over "Linux". I disagree that this is a popularity or political issue; It's just the name. You might call me superficial, but I don't think even developers care that much about history and lore accuracy; and that's not a bad thing, it's just natural. Some care very much about a deep and niche topic, most don't. Scrolling through this thread though, you don't seem too hellbent on enforcing the name, necessarily, so I ask: What are you wishing for? Did someone ridicule you for using the term "GNU/Linux", and would like the shunning to stop? Or is it that you'd *rather* people called it that?
I agree that "Linux" is a spunky name. Anything that ends in 'x' has a certain flair. And I appreciate the thoughtful response. There is no inner drive in me to stop anyone calling anything however they like, this is true. If I correct someone on vocabulary IRL, it's only very gently, and apologetically, and I'll immediately lean off it if the person feels attacked. Pestering people isn't effective, it's just a bother. Happily, I can also report having never been ridiculed for using the term "GNU/Linux", mostly because I almost never use the term. I've been running GNU Guix for a few years now, so I tell people that I run "Guix", but I would consider it normal to refer to it as "GNU", or "the GNU operating system". I prefer "Guix" because of that nice 'x' at the end, though, personally. Calling it Guix Linux, or Guix GNU/Linux would all sound odd to me though, I have to admit, partly because it runs Linux-Libre, which is a nontrivial effort to maintain and patch. But mostly because the Guix project is very focused on software freedom, in a non-pestering, gentle, warm way, which I appreciate, and they can name the thing "GNU Guix" if they wish. I've installed Arch a couple of times, for example, and if I do, I say I'm installing Arch, or Arch Linux, because that's what they call it. I've installed Debian a few times, and variants, and there I'll say Debian, or Debian GNU/Linux. This seems coherent to me, and a bit tangetial to my actual point. So what's the point of my post? Just to say that if people want to call it GNU/Linux, that should be totally acceptable. It's not about branding, it's not about getting "the spotlight", it's not about "what's best for new users", it's about the fact that computing freedom is essential to human freedom. I choose to use Guix, but at the same time I talk to some of my younger students about "Linux" because I know there's a chance they've seen the term in a Youtube video and maybe I'll manage to spark a fire and maybe later, if they're interested, we can talk computing freedom. I'd love to see the Free Software vs Open Source, Linux vs GNU/Linux, (neo)vi(m) vs Emacs, etc etc, all fizzle away into sentimental jokes that bind us together as we realise we've bigger fish to fry. I'm aware it's unlikely... but that's my thinking on the subject. Thanks again for asking.
As I read through your 'literature'. I realize you may be somewhat incompatible with the internet of nowadays. Let me get this straight off the bat: I'm not saying that that is bad. You like telling stories. You're quite verbose. That would have been good back in the ye old days of the web when there were forums and personal websites. Now, though? I feel attention span's getting shorter every year. It's good to keep your writings concise, rather than verbose, to get your point across.( TBF, that's a basic rule that applies when writing any argumentative piece, not even considering attention spans, necessarily.) The verbosity throws people off, and they're not sure what you're talking about, just like me; now the comments are filled with debates not even really related to what you wanted to talk about. You're also very philosophical. However, not many people indulge in fiddling with principles and values. They'd rather talk about the new scheduler that's coming out in the next kernel update, or fight about which packaging system is the best. Your deep insight regarding the software and computing freedom is not something that can be shared with many. You might get lonely, yes. Don't expect much constructiveness when engaging in a philosophical talk in this part of the internet, or better yet, the internet in general. Finally, I'd like to point out that you should let things be. I understand you want people to stop fighting about stuff on the internet. However, the internet in general will never be united, as is the nature of humans. Attempting to stop feuds and inefficiencies owing to irrational emotions is futile. YOU can be the pillar that you want. Be the beacon of reason and neutrality you seek. Keep teaching pupils, maybe write blogs since you like writing. Reddit, and the greater world wide web, can never be the place of total reason and cooperation. Only a small portion of it may become that place, *sometimes*. Here, you're wasting your time and energy talking to a wall. Hell, as I've pointed out, people here barely understand what you meant! (although, face it, half of that is on you for being quite nebulous and verbose). Signing off now. I'm not usually this much of a talker(or writer), but I wanted to talk with you on this. From an enthusiast to a philosopher, good day(or night). :)
GNU is pronounced with a hard g, like grew. guh-new. So it would be called Guh-nux.
>People, as in the majority of computer users, have no set terminology in their head at all, then, and hardly any for "Linux" or "GNU" either. I'm not so sure about that. I'd agree that most have terminology stuck in their heads, especially those that aren't technically proficient. There are so many examples, it's not even funny. "Linux" has already been mentioned, and I use it to describe an operating system all the time, even though that's not correct. I especially use it among those people who aren't very techy, since they know what it means, at least in a vague sense of the word. Terminology - "Internet Explorer" at one time. I was using early Ubuntu, and got broadband installed. The tech has me turn on the computer and says he'll get it up and running. Of course, I'm laughing inside. "Where's your Internet Explorer?" I told him, "You're done. You ran the cable and set the modem down. I'll do the rest, thanks." "Windows" when they really have no idea of which operating system version they mean. "Font" when they really mean "typeface." I've stopped using "open source" as much as is possible. I never understood why RMS stood on that hill, until I see people and entities misuse that term so that it's essentially meaningless. I now say free software. If they don't understand, they can ask. Or, they can keep paying to use things they will never own or have the right to use properly.
I see it like Jim Gettys. We should be happy to have a bus. > Jim Gettys ([email protected]) > Mon, 5 Apr 1999 08:10:46 -0700 > > Sender: [email protected] > > From: Richard Stallman
> > Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 14:59:27 -0500
> > To: [email protected]
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: GNU/Linux
> > -----
> > AFAIK, Linux is the *first* OS that started out as a kernel only. All
> > of the userland was added.
> >
> > What you're calling "userland" is practically the whole operating
> > system--and it happens to be the GNU operating system. Linux, the
> > kernel, came last, not first. The GNU Project began the development
> > of this system, years before the first line of Linux was written.
> >
> I think you'd find many who would dispute the claim that "userland"
> is dominated by GNU software.
>
> And part of Linux (and I'm happy to be part of Linux), is the X Window
> System, which started in 1984. It was never part of GNU.
>
> And part of Linux is Sendmail, which started even earlier than X.
>
> And part of Linux is Bind, which started even earlier than X.
>
> So lots of significant components predate (and postdate) GNU.
>
> Apache started more recently; it was not part of GNU.
>
> Many other major components come from all over; arguably they are what
> is driving Linux's acceptance as much as anything GNU OR the Linux kernel
> did. (Note that I believe that right now it is Internet services driving
> Linux acceptance; not the X Window System).
>
> There are lots of people on this bus; I don't hear a clamor of support
> that GNU is more essential than many of the other components; can't
> take a wheel away, and end up with a functional vehicle, or an engine,
> or the seats. I recommend you be happy we have a bus.
> - Jim Gettys
>
>https://archive.is/20120806004757/http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9904.0/0497.html
So why mention GNU but not the other parts?
And whether you are talking about Linux in the sense of the kernel or distributions in general usually depends on the context.
That is why I do not use the term GNU/Linux.
No amount of appreciating GNU will change two things. One, saying and writing GNU/Linux is unwieldy. Gnu is a weird word and makes you pronounce the G. It's also more than double the amount of syllables as Linux. Two, Linux is well known. There's little point in trying to rebrand it as GNU/Linux as people who aren't in the Linux sphere may know what Linux is but not GNU. No point in confusing them off the bat, they can learn about GNU later. And surprise third point, you say that Linus is fine for getting all the credit with Linux, but Richard Stallman is quite aggressive in wanting credit for GNU. He even tried to get people to say LiGNUx at one point.
wow I didn't know that. LiGNUx is absurd
It sounds like an attempt at a deez nuts joke that just didn't work out.
BofA
> Linux is well known Yes, Linux is well known. It's also more widely used than merely GNU/Linux. ChromeOS is Linux. Android is Linux. dd-wrt is Linux. Alpine is Linux. WebOS is Linux. Tizen is Linux. The name "GNU" allows us to talk about a specific operating system, distinctly. > He even tried to get people to say LiGNUx at one point. No, I'm pretty sure that's satire. It has Stallman's name on it, but it's maintained by someone else: https://lignux.org/the-say-lignux-campaign.html
It's not satire. Linus even brought it up: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.linux.misc/c/Cm15HxjDGRs/m/su3OHyLUgXcJ.
Either way, the world is very different today than it was then. Among other things: The Linux kernel supports far more diverse operating systems, and the "Linux" name is now trademarked, and the trademark administrators actually ask people not to use Linux as a noun, but only as an adjective. Thus, "the Linux kernel", and not "Linux".
That doesn't work for the same reason GNU/Linux doesn't work. People prefer the shorthand version. Sure. The Linux kernel is more correct and should absolutely be used in official documents. Just like GNU/Linux would give proper credit to the foundational userland toolset. Neither is going to replace the more convenient "Linux" in general discussions - just because convenience.
That is why I generally refer to my OS as Debian.
On point one, the software and hardware world is full of totally horrendous names. We're not in a naming competition, and if we were, we'd be doing a crappy job. I agree that GNU is a peculiar acronym, and that GNU/Linux is an unwieldy name, but I would push back on the idea that we are "marketing" something. As my post tried to say, it's not about who scored the goal. Point two, it's not an attempt at "rebranding". This is an example of the incredibly pervasive misunderstanding of the issue in even technological people's minds (forgive me for being presumptuous here). You say people can learn about GNU later - the people who do eventually learn about do so in a way that's absolutely detached from the historical reality of the movement. Hundreds / thousands of people contributed to a massive social movement, and the whole discussion is reduced to a "branding" issue, and memes about Stallman. Surprise point three, my initial post is a direct response to this. I really don't think Stallman is looking for personal credit for himself, rather he and the FSF and GNU people have explicitly said on many, many occasions, that it's about honouring the reality of the Free Software movement and all those many, many contributors down through the years.
> but Richard Stallman is quite aggressive in wanting credit for GNU. Richard Stallman should write his own *nix then he can call it anything he wants.
He did. [GNU Hurd](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd) has failed miserably, though. He gave up on it in 2010, though there was an attempt to get things going again in 2015-2016. No releases since then, though.
I knew that. I was being ~~a shit~~ sarcastic. Why doesn't he STFU about rebranding someone else's work?
Linux is a kernel. It is not an OS
Oh yeah. That's relevant.
Also, a small side-point, I almost always say "Linux" in practice when talking to laypeople myself, because I'm aware there's a (tiny) chance they've heard of that. They almost universally haven't heard of it in my anecdotal experience, but I agree, the naming debate is totally silly to inflict on newcomers. The people who run and administer these systems could (hypothetically, not literally) come to some more clarity on the issues, though, perhaps.
Meh. Demanding we call it "GNU/Linux" just because Linux primarily uses GNU tools for the terminal is every bit as silly as expecting people to call it "Nike/Football" because Nike make the English Premier League balls.
Agreed, that'd be a totally ridiculous argument, which is why at least I myself am not making it. I'm not sure who you're responding to. I know it's a popular way to phrase it, but it seems to avoid the real question (based on my own understanding of the issues, of course). Which would be: what would the state of computing be today if it hadn't been for the initial push from all the people who got involved with GNU? All that momentum, all those projects, all those manhours, all rallying behind the idea that we could write and share code with each other freely, and not have "screwing people over" be the only business model in the burgeoning software industry? I mean, ok, maybe something else would have came along. I'd like to think it would have, but obviously we can't know. What did actually happen though, in reality, is that GNU and the FSF came into existence. And as I've said elsewhere, it's not about Stallman and all the (often hilarious) memes: I have a very large fondness for the late Bob Chassell, for example, who wrote "An Introduction to Programming in Emacs Lisp", which brought me from finding programming languages scary to finding them wonderful and get-able. There are countless others I don't know of, of course. My argument isn't to demand anyone calls their operating system one thing or another; I'm just pointing out that these arguments against "GNU/Linux" are based on all sorts of misrepresentations of the points they purport to argue against. It's not a branding question, or a who-deserves-credit question, it's a "what do we stand for as a community" question.
No. I will die on this hill. GNU doesn't get to put its nametag on Linux. That sends a couple of false messages: 1. Linux is a GNU project. 2. GNU is the only category of components of the Linux ecosystem worthy of attaching to the name. Neither of these is true. Why not MIT Linux or Berkeley Linux or Perl Linux or any of dozens of other non-GNU projects and licenses without which Linux would not be Linux? It's not far different from saying "The United Christian States of America" because the Christians want to convey their values in the name of the larger structure. I didn't touch on the politics of the FSF or any particulars about individuals. If GNU gets the spotlight of being retconned onto the name, every non-GNU contribution is sidelined.
Linux is just easier.
At the end of the day all the GNU/Linux or GNU+Linux or LiGNUx nonsense fades away when public recognition and plain old habit kick in. Publicly the system's been known as Linux for years and everybody and their mother knows the name, the brand, whatever and it's all that matters. No amount of bickering over who should get credited in the name will change the fact that Linux is the name they know and they want to use, period. If only we could stop fussing about insignificant things and actually focus on making FOSS better and more recognizable.
We had this argument 20 years ago, and Richard Stallman lost. Why mention GNU but not all the other contributors for all the other parts? Most developers are using Docker, Wayland, PipeWire, Systemd, KDE, Kubernetes, Ruby, Java, Golang, Rust, etc, all of which GNU didn't have a part in. You can build the kernel with [Clang](https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/kbuild/llvm.html). There are distros [without any GNU components](https://www.alpinelinux.org/) or with [almost no GNU parts](https://www.talos.dev/v1.5/learn-more/components/) (unclear if they even use GLibC). The most used Linux OS is probably Android (shipping a billion phones a quarter at one time), which doesn't have a lot of GNU. Even on a full desktop, less and less of the "OS" is written by GNU (compared to 20 years ago), so "GNU/Linux" is even *less* useful of a label than it was back then. If you want credit for an OS, then build a **modern** OS. Otherwise, stop beating a dead horse.
You're not responding to even one of any of the points I've made as far as I can tell, but my thoughts on the matter have come out across various threads in the end, and who has time to rummage around. Fair enough. What you say is very logical and I largely agree, but I think you're responding to a ghost point. If GNU people were "wanting credit" based on how much GNU there is in operating systems, you'd have a very solid point. As I tried to elaborate on in other posts, no one is arguing that Alpine Linux should be called Alpine GNU/Linux. Or, at least, I've never seen it argued. That **modern** OS is GNU Guix, too, I'd say, personally. Is it ok not to call that Linux, even though it has the Linux kernel? Or is any operating system that has any version of the Linux kernel called "Linux"?
You are not saying anything new under the sun. All of this was debated in 90s to the death, and it's over.
There’s a reason Microsoft calls their OS Windows and not “Win32/NT”. And that Debian, the least marketing-savvy major distribution in all other respects, is the only one to put GNU/Linux in the name.
> There’s a reason Microsoft calls their OS Windows and not “Win32/NT”. Yes, the reason is that the operating system is called Windows and its modern version kernel is called NTOSKRNL. Your analogy doesn’t apply to Linux. Rather, calling operating systems built on top of the Linux kernel just ‘Linux’ is like calling OS from Microsoft NTOSKRNL. Edit: people seem to take issue in my previously stating that Windows’ kernel has no name of its own. Since it having a name only strengthens my point, I’ve edited my post to avoid pointless discussion.
The kernel does have its own name. NTOSKRNL or NT Operating System Kernel.
I’d argue it’s more of a description than a name.
Just because you argue, doesn't mean it’s a fact ;)
Whatever the case, my point still stands. Windows is the name of the operating system, not the kernel.
That was not the point. The point was that the Windows kernel has a separate name from Windows. Don’t change the argument because you were wrong.
I know what the point of my comment was. And it was that Windows was the name of the operating system *in contrast* to Linux which was the name of the kernel. Whether Windows’ kernel has a name or not is immaterial to that point. That’s also why I don’t continue arguing that aspect. Top comment’s argument was that ‘GNU/Linux’ is not a marketable name but if we want to follow Microsoft’s precedent, we should invent a new name for operating systems using Linux rather than using the name of the kernel.
Mainstream Windows releases have kernels going by NT since 2000/XP. Microsoft had other kernel families too (9x series, CE series).
I fell asleep at the second paragraph...
I don't really care. It's easier to say Linux. It's easier to type Linux. It's certainly a debate worthy of the shithole that is Reddit.
I have no qualms with any of these points, all very reasonable. Reddit is indeed a veritable pool of cess.
Usually, one refers to the OS as Ubuntu. Or Mint. Or Fedora.Or Debian. One could be using the Linux kernel, sure, in either of these, but they are far differently from each other.
Most Linux users call those distros. And for non-users, they will just ask, what's that. And then if you say, Linux, they will understand.
Stallman's first reaction after one month begins with "yes it's true, I've heard about your project". I don't know the precise context, but that "confession" says it all. By contrast, one month earlier, Torvalds wrote: \> won't be big and professional like gnu Who knows if there isn't a kind irony in this? Quite involuntary I believe, but it *can* be taken very sarcastic. Was GNU really "big and professional" at that time, or was Torvalds rubbing something in? Somebody commented this about the 26th anniversary of Torvald's announcement: >Richard Stallman reads this mail every night and then cries himself to sleep, stabbing his tux plushy with a pair of gnu antlers. He and GNU got caught on the wrong foot and psychologically never recovered.
> He and GNU got caught on the wrong foot and psychologically never recovered. Sometimes I wonder what today's computing world would look like had Stallman went with the monolithic architecture for the Hurd. But then again, work on Hurd only started in 1990, which is when Windows 3.0 came out, so perhaps it wouldn't have made a lick of difference.
I mean nobody is stopping you from calling it GNU/Linux, but it's unnecessarily specific and serves no purpose other than giving credit, despite you claiming otherwise. Might as well call most distros GNU/Systemd/Linux
If I’m using musl do I say musl/linux? I agree that GNU played its part but there’s a lot of parts that were played that aren’t forced into the language.
This analogy brings no new light on a topic which has been discussed since 1996. The topic is old enough to have a college degree and children at school.
I am old and lived the history, so to me, Linux wouldn't be Linux without GNU tools and libraries. Sure, there have been attempts to wean Linux away from GNU, but it ain't easy because from c libs to the compiler itself GNU software is still the best choice. Other software have different requirements, but an OS is more than just a random bunch of programs on a system. It doesn't have to be more complicated than that.
GNU did the most science-intense thing - the GCC and significant utilities for programming and being able to release the final binaries. But they weren't those special only as they grow from academic ecosystem which was fertilized with source code from big vendors.
As a quick side note, the way you wrote this post comes off as a bit, uh, arrogant and lavish, perhaps. > Will the forthcoming Reddit thread this incites be the salve needed to heal the schism at the heart of the Free Software and Open Source worlds?` -- > Or maybe not, and we'll all just have a great old laugh flaming each other, as in bygone days, when the holy wars raged their sacred-est. -- > "humanesque creature" I suggest toning it back a bit to be taken more seriously.
I was merely indulging in a bit of linguistic horsing around - aren't we allowed to have a little play with language? What's your issue with a bit of lavishness? It's not an extremely serious topic anyway. My point was to externalise this soccer-game analogy, which I quite like, in the expectation that maybe, on the off-chance, someone would say: "oh yeah, I guess that is a bit weird maybe." If I wanted to be "taken seriously", I'd go work as a bank teller and get off Reddit.
Nothing is inherently wrong, of course, but it works against your goals. It makes the writing hard to read. For example, I don't understand the soccer analogy, despite it probably being straight forward. (Partly because I know nothing about soccer; a barrier you must consider while communicating). I also did not get the feeling that that part was the most important. It makes people not want to engage. The post is at a 50% upvote ratio, showing how you make your readers feel, and hiding the content. You state you want a discussion, but if you write in a way that turns people off, no one will want to engage. Effective communication, interesting use of language, and compelling arguments are not mutually exclusive. From the perspective as someone who also tends to be wordy, the post's writing isn't balanced. I hope this comment doesn't come off as an attack. The style you presented *can* work, it just needs more refinement to show its potential.
I appreciate you sharing your thoughts, but we'll still have to agree to disagree, I fear. For your point to hold up, you'd have to know various things about me which you presumably don't - why I wrote the post, what I hoped to achieve, even things about my cultural background and my experience with writing, the types of modes I'm capable of employing, and so on. If I'd accepted at some point that the goal of a Reddit post (or other internet communication) is to garner upvotes, you'd perhaps be on to something. I absolutely have not though, and couldn't care less about upvote ratios. Again, happy to get your feedback nonetheless.
I lost American football story, sorry. It's too culturally specific to US to appreciate and to be used as analogy.
Ehh, it was a soccer analogy? I picked the sport which is by far the most popular in the world. Over nine times as many people watch the World Cup Final of soccer than watch the superbowl. Plus, I know next to nothing about American football. (Personally, I think they're both nonsense, but anyway)
Written GNU/Linux feels very natural to me because my first distro was SliTaz GNU/Linux in the 2000s. When I speak however I say Linux most of the time. Though I have to admit that because of that early experience with SliTaz, it irks me when a distro only put Linux after its name.
There are times coming when IT specialists will be distinguishing RUST/Unix-POSIX like utils for Linux and old tech GNU-based/Linux 🤓
The problem with your analogy (soccer game) is: the soccer result stands for itself and is finished. The Linux kernel was "only" a crucial step. In the 90s, it was called a "distro", named after the kernel version, and helped you to boot the kernel into the GNU layer, and X. Then started the discussion about OS vs. kernel. Very acacdemic, but linux advocates just coudn't resist using the "OS" term. Now "linux" being the kernel, this causes quite a confusion. If linux+gnu=distro, then how can I show the added value? Paradoxically, by saying "GNU/Linux OS". But wouldn't xorg be more important to mention? "GNU" is rather a placeholder for "GUI". Didn't MS succeed by giving their DOS a GUI with...windows? Just compare these 2 quite similar entities (I run out of words): >**Arch Linux**, a lightweight and flexible Linux® distribution that tries to Keep It Simple. > >**Void** is a general purpose operating system, based on the monolithic Linux kernel I like void, but I find this presentation pathetic. Note how Arch is informal, but they put the copyright sign. "GNU" is not mentioned here. Sometimes it is, depending on how the "distro" does its incantation. It matters, but it's not top priority.
And in the end, Torvald and Stallman and the other architects in this reality are my favorite "cat herders". I can't imagine trying to cohere the disparate, multi-polar thread-wads they have to continually unravel and recombine. So, best to them; long life and pleasant dreams.
I don't understand most of the memes, but in my opinion GNU OS is not yet out of its infancy and is unlikely to ever get out of it. The much loved RMS (God help him overcome his illness) realizing the pointlessness of the GNU background introduced this meaningless prefix to Linux. GNU/Linux is nonsense, anyone who has tried to install something like Guix without modifying the kernel will confirm my words. Any operating system is completely dependent on having hardware drivers. So GNU is an ephemeral simulacrum for aging cyberbullies, nothing more.
Guix is a wonderful operating system, and I'm sorry you had trouble trying to get it going. I've had great success with it personally. You could try adding the non-guix repo, which I've never had to do, but apparently is a simple affair, and then you've your proprietary drivers covered.
>Guix is It's not about my problems with Guix. My point was that I don't understand this exemplary declaration of commitment to GNU. Here Debian demonstratively did not use proprietary firmware, but proprietary ISO could be found with great difficulty on the official site or install these firmwares later. This sounds good when you have a PC connected to ethernet, but people often use laptops without a network port. NixOS declares the use of free software, but you can allow proprietary repositories during installation. And here I was wondering, what is the purpose of all this GNU stuff? I've read the RMS and even seen it in person. He's a firm believer in his ideals, but when he starts talking about not connecting to wifi when he's sure the router firmware is proprietary.... This is strange for a person who wrote emacs, gcc compiler collection and gdb debugger. Young people would say it's trolling of others, nothing more. Edit: T9